 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2006Is Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges (fission)??
Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? If so how logically can binding energy be used to produce energy, meaning you have a proton and an electron(or a pair of attracted magnets) attracted to each other, then simply by distancing them (seperating them) produces external energy ouput? > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > magnets) attracted to each other, then simply by distancing them > (seperating them) produces external energy ouput? Magnetic fields do no work. Eric Gisse: >> Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges >> (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Magnetic fields do no work. Neither does, guskz. > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > magnets) attracted to each other, then simply by distancing them > (seperating them) produces external energy ouput? The type of binding energy you are referring to is essentially chemical energy. When chemical reactions occur, binding energy the electrons and the nucleus is either lost or gained, corresponding to an exo- or endothermic result. This is basically an overall change in electrostatic energy. Binding energy in the nucleus is a similar thing, but at a much higher energy scale. Nucleons are bound by the residual effects of the strong interaction between their constituent quarks. Same concept, different force, and much higher energies are involved. > > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and the nucleus is either lost or gained, corresponding to an exo- or > endothermic result. Does "endo" mean internal and therefore internal heat > This is basically an overall change in > electrostatic energy. Doesn't electrostatic mean static charge therefore still within the context of my question. (Back to your endothermic....could this in some farfetched or direct way mean photon absorption/emission, same as when an electron moves closer or further to a nucleus but in this case when an electron (charge) moves closer or farther from a proton (example: lightning during thunderstorms)? > Binding energy in the nucleus is a similar thing, but at a much higher > energy scale. Nucleons are bound by the residual effects of the strong > interaction between their constituent quarks. Same concept, different > force, and much higher energies are involved. > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > magnets) attracted to each other, then simply by distancing them > (seperating them) produces external energy ouput? Nuclear fission consists of splitting a nucleus (protons and neutrons) into smaller nuclei. In radioactive isotopes, the energy of the final smaller nuclei is lower than the original large nucleus. So energy is released. In other isotopes, it would take energy to split them, so you don't see that spontaneously happening, and you don't get energy out when it does happen. Just like with chemical reactions. Some are endothermic, some are exothermic. Some make the test tube colder, some make it hotter. - Randy > > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nuclear fission consists of splitting a nucleus (protons > and neutrons) into smaller nuclei. In radioactive I believe I read somewhere that a neutron may simply be an electron and proton combined together to from a neutron? > isotopes, the energy of the final smaller nuclei is lower than > the original large nucleus. So energy is released. Ok but what is the only energy involved between a single proton and electron? Isn't it magnetic and electric force, and if so why would the similar formation of a nucleus suddenly involve a different force which we call binding energy? I forgot if a single hydrogen atom also has a neutron or simply one electron and one proton (if it's only one electron and proton does it also have a similiar endo or exothermic binding energy....I would find it strange that a single charge pair suddendly evolves into another form of binding energy ofther than the electro and magnetic forces)? > In other isotopes, it would take energy to split them, > so you don't see that spontaneously happening, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Randy guskz@hotmail.com: >> > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges >> > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I believe I read somewhere that a neutron may simply be an electron and >proton combined together to from a neutron? They hold them together with 00000000000000000-5600000000000 grade 10 socket head cap screws with a little loktite on the threads and a locknut. >> isotopes, the energy of the final smaller nuclei is lower than >> the original large nucleus. So energy is released. > >Ok but what is the only energy involved between a single proton and >electron? Check the specs in you particle manual for the proper torque on the bolt mentioned above in units of hbar c/fm. >Isn't it magnetic and electric force, and if so why would the similar >formation of a nucleus suddenly involve a different force which we call >binding energy? It's hard to take the nut back off once the loktite sets. >I forgot if a single hydrogen atom also has a neutron or simply one >electron and one proton There is a solution that is so simple that you should be able to answer your own question given this hint: googl Now, once you guess the last letter, you can solve your problem. (starting with Z and working backwards will be fastest.) >(if it's only one electron and proton does it >also have a similiar endo or exothermic binding energy....I would find >it strange that a single charge pair suddendly evolves into another >form of binding energy ofther than the electro and magnetic forces)? Have you ever considered that what you find strange, _really_ is strange? The strangest question of all is where you do you get this stuff? > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? No. Many times larger. Because in nuclear fission the strong force is involved, not just the electromagnetic force. Indeed, after things settle down after a nuclear explosion, there is no net separations of electromagnetic charges, but the nuclei have been re-arranged such that a large amount of energy was released, in the form of gamma rays, neutrons, nuclear debris, and their kinetic energies. > If so how logically can binding energy be used to produce energy, > meaning you have a proton and an electron(or a pair of attracted > magnets) attracted to each other, then simply by distancing them > (seperating them) produces external energy ouput? You are confused. A U^235 nucleus has a certain total mass. To produce energy from the nucleus, you must arrange for the U^235 nucleus to fission, yielding a set of smaller nuclei the sum of whose masses total less than that of the initial U^235 nucleus. The difference M(U^235)-M(fission products) is the kinetic energy of those products, and that is "produced" by the fission. No energy is created here, it's just that the U^235 nucleus was used to store energy from some ancient star/supernova, and a portion of it gets released in this fission. Since binding energy is necessarily negative, those fission products are in toto more strongly bound than the original nucleus. This is true of all exothermic reactions, be they nuclear, chemical, or weak -- to release energy the products of the reaction must in toto be more tightly bound than the initial components. Tom Roberts > > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? > > No. Many times larger. Because in nuclear fission the strong force is > involved, not just the electromagnetic force. Ok but where does this strong force suddenly come from meaning: Does a hydrogen atom have this strong force since its only a proton and electron (no nucleus), isn't the force between an electron and proton pair only electro (electric charge)and magnetic? > Indeed, after things settle down after a nuclear explosion, there is no > net separations of electromagnetic charges, but the nuclei have been [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Since binding energy is necessarily negative, I'm not familiar of the "logic" of where binding energy comes from "IF" you are only dealing with protons and electrons (electro and magnetic forces) since even the nucleus (where this binding energy resides) I believe I once read they said that a neutron "may" simply be one electron and proton paired together? >those fission products are > in toto more strongly bound than the original nucleus. This is true of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tom Roberts > > > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > > > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > electron (no nucleus), isn't the force between an electron and proton > pair only electro (electric charge)and magnetic? That's right, a single hydrogen atom has no binding energy due to the strong force. (Except the binding energy between the quarks in the proton.) In a *fusion* bomb, however, there is binding energy recovered from the coalescence of protons and neutrons. > > Indeed, after things settle down after a nuclear explosion, there is no > > net separations of electromagnetic charges, but the nuclei have been [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > believe I once read they said that a neutron "may" simply be one > electron and proton paired together? That would be an incorrect statement. The neutron is *not* an electron and a proton paired together. If it were, the neutron would be the size of a hydrogen atom, and it would take very little energy (about 13.6 eV) to tear a neutron apart. PD > >those fission products are > > in toto more strongly bound than the original nucleus. This is true of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > > > > (fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > PD Thanks PD very good and concise reply > > >those fission products are > > > in toto more strongly bound than the original nucleus. This is true of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > > > Tom Roberts >> in nuclear fission the strong force is >> involved, not just the electromagnetic force. > > Ok but where does this strong force suddenly come from It's not "sudden", it has been known for most of a century. > Does a hydrogen atom have this strong force since its only a proton > and > electron (no nucleus), isn't the force between an electron and proton > pair only electro (electric charge)and magnetic? The strong force is restricted to the nucleus. The binding of the electron and proton into an atom is purely electromagnetic. [Ignoring incredibly small higher-order effects.] > I'm not familiar of the "logic" of where binding energy comes from When two components are assembeled into a single composite object, and that object remains itself (i.e. does not separate back into its components), then the components are said to be bound. In order for it to not separate into constituents, it must require energy to pull it apart -- the required energy is called "binding energy". > "IF" > you are only dealing with protons and electrons (electro and magnetic > forces) since even the nucleus (where this binding energy resides) Start with a proton and an electron far apart. Let them approach each other and form a hydrogen atom. In doing so they release EM radiation. That released energy is equal to the binding energy of the atom -- to pull the atom apart one must supply that same energy (or more). > I > believe I once read they said that a neutron "may" simply be one > electron and proton paired together? A neutron is not at all an electron and proton "paired together" -- that is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron. Tom Roberts > > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> in nuclear fission the strong force is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > to not separate into constituents, it must require energy to pull it > apart -- the required energy is called "binding energy". Ok sorry, asked me what I ate last week, with the quarks, gluons, meson, besons, muons, tau, neutrinos, leptons, hadrons, integer spins...I get lost. I forgot that quarks(and gluons) are part of protons & neutrons and not electrons. Are gluons the stronger force that is related to this "binding energy" of the nucleus or only internal to each individual proton or neutron? Since gluons have "some" similar characteristics to photons, would you know if there is a know logical reason why they aren't emitted into space in the same fashion as photons (between distant galaxies), is it they get absorbed very easily, or must exist between pairs of particles, or get annilated easily or something else.... > > "IF" > > you are only dealing with protons and electrons (electro and magnetic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That released energy is equal to the binding energy of the atom -- to > pull the atom apart one must supply that same energy (or more). Would you know why an electron releases a photon when approaching a nucleus and not when approachig a proton (releases EM waves instead which are photons but of a different frequency?)? > > I > > believe I once read they said that a neutron "may" simply be one > > electron and proton paired together? > > A neutron is not at all an electron and proton "paired together" -- that > is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron. Ok thanks, I could have sworn I read such a theory but very long ago. > Tom Roberts To All Strong force acts only at the nuclear level. This force binds protons and neutrons together in the atomic nuclei. Best to keep in mind the strong force is 10^39 times stronger than gravity. You can easily see where the energy comes from when a nuclear chain reaction takes place. TreBert > Since gluons have "some" similar characteristics to photons, would you > know if there is a know logical reason why they aren't emitted into > space in the same fashion as photons (between distant galaxies), Gluons have color charge, and it requires energy to pull such charged particles apart; pull them apart more than a few fm and you put in enough energy to pair produce quarks -- these will pair up with the ones you were pulling apart and arrange to turn them into color singlets (i.e. uncharged). This "arranging" is quite natural, as it is the minimum energy configuration. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > > A neutron is not at all an electron and proton "paired together" -- that > > is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron. > > Ok thanks, I could have sworn I read such a theory but very long ago. Perhaps you read about electron capture, where an electron combines with a proton in the nucleus, and a neutron + neutrino are formed. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/nuclear/radact2.html#c3 http://education.jlab.org/glossary/electroncapture.html - Randy > > > A neutron is not at all an electron and proton "paired together" -- that > > > is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Randy Nah. I bet he read it here, but didn't have a sufficient noise filter at the time to recognize that it was not really a theory but just a half-baked notion. PD > > > > A neutron is not at all an electron and proton "paired together" -- that > > > > is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Nah. I bet he read it here, Read what here? I'm the one who proposed having read it long ago, no one posted such information but Randy afterwards...unless you mean another post in this newsgroup.... Tom Roberts (and others) only wrote that it was incorrect and that a proton & electron form a hydrogen atom when combined. > but didn't have a sufficient noise filter > at the time to recognize that it was not really a theory but just a > half-baked notion. > > PD > > > A neutron is not at all an electron and proton "paired together" -- that > > > is a hydrogen atom, not a neutron. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Randy Ok thanks, so it wasn't my imagination ... as many replied. And "perhaps" that was exactly what I read back then, since maybe the actual existance of neutrinos was not validated at that time. Quote from http://education.jlab.org/glossary/neutrino.html : "During beta decay, an atom's nucleus sheds excess energy by converting a neutron into a proton and an electron and, as scientists ****now know***, an antineutrino." guskz@hotmail.com: >Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges >(fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? Why other asking? If you get the wrong answer, you'll assume that it's true and base your next post on it. If you get the right answer, You'll work really hard to misconstrue it and invent an argument against what you've misconstrued. >If so how logically can binding energy be used to produce energy, >meaning you have a proton and an electron(or a pair of attracted >magnets) attracted to each other, then simply by distancing them >(seperating them) produces external energy ouput? Keebler elves. > guskz@hotmail.com: > >Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges > >(fission) TIMES the number of paired charges (chain reaction)? > > Why other asking? If you get the wrong answer, you'll assume that > it's true and base your next post on it. If you get the right answer, Well someone is on a sudden hectic rampage with my posts. You must be my #1 fan. > You'll work really hard to misconstrue it and invent an argument > against what you've misconstrued. How is Gay Paris this time of year Frenchy? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Keebler elves. guskz@hotmail.com, proves there is life after brain death: >> guskz@hotmail.com: >> >Is a Nuclear Bomb's energy exactly = seperation of two charges [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Well someone is on a sudden hectic rampage with my posts. You must be >my #1 fan. Don't trust your powers of deduction. You don't have any. >> You'll work really hard to misconstrue it and invent an argument >> against what you've misconstrued. > >How is Gay Paris this time of year Frenchy? Try: http://www.google.com. If you learn how to use a search engine, you can get the answer to that question and perhaps save yourself the time, effort and ridicule involved in repeating the rest of same inane questions you struggle with without success. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.