Hg needed for fusion?
The Moron
in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?
Many thanks,
--
TM
Uncle Al
>
> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere must have
> in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?
Tell us to what element mercury nuclei can fuse whose nucleus has
greater binding energy than mercury's. Use mercury and Enviro-whiners
will whack your pee-pee.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
The Moron
> The Moron wrote:
>>
>> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
>> must have in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own
>> gravity?
>
> Tell us to what element mercury nuclei can fuse whose nucleus has
> greater binding energy than mercury's.
I don't know. Hg is heavier than Fe, so if one keeps dumping Hg onto the sphere,
it will either undergo total gravitational collapse or a very violent supernova
runaway explosion.
All I want to know is at what mass either case will start manifesting (and which
one).
> Use mercury and Enviro-whiners
> will whack your pee-pee.
Nah. I have the equivalent Hg of 1000 CFLs on my teeth. If I bite them, the'll
die of mercury poisoning :-)
--
TM
Eric Gisse
Which side of the periodic table is Hg with respect to Fe?
Sam Wormley
>
> I don't know. Hg is heavier than Fe, so if one keeps dumping Hg onto the sphere,
> it will either undergo total gravitational collapse or a very violent supernova
> runaway explosion.
No... not a supernova explosion.... but 3 solar mass sphere of Hg
should collapse into a black hole. But don't stick your finger in
there, because you ain't getting it back.
Eric Gisse
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > The Moron wrote:
>
> >> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
> >> must have in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own
> >> gravity?
>
> > Tell us to what element mercury nuclei can fuse whose nucleus has
> > greater binding energy than mercury's.
>
> I don't know. Hg is heavier than Fe, so if one keeps dumping Hg onto the sphere,
> it will either undergo total gravitational collapse or a very violent supernova
> runaway explosion.
By what mechanism would it explode?
OG
"The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote in message news:g2f7u6$ns1$1...@aioe.org...
What the others haven't explicitly stated is that the binding energy per
nucleon for elements is the least for iron. This means that if you try to
fuse elements heavier than iron they will absorb energy rather than emit
energy.
As I was taught it 30 odd years ago, the collapse phase of a supernova
begins when the endothermic fusion of elements > Fe removes thermal and EM
energy from the core of a star and the loss of radiation pressure collapses
the star. Mind you, it was a long time ago and I may have mis-remembered.
Agent Smith
news:6b1m6qF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> "The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:g2f7u6$ns1$1...@aioe.org...
>> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
>> must have
>> in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> --
>
> What the others haven't explicitly stated is that the binding energy
> per nucleon for elements is the least for iron. This means that if
> you try to fuse elements heavier than iron they will absorb energy
> rather than emit energy.
If the gravitational potential energy has a large enough negative value,
could he still be able to fuse them endothermically, with energy input
from the further decrease in gravitational potential?
> As I was taught it 30 odd years ago, the collapse phase of a supernova
> begins when the endothermic fusion of elements > Fe removes thermal
> and EM energy from the core of a star and the loss of radiation
> pressure collapses the star. Mind you, it was a long time ago and I
> may have mis-remembered.
Of course that's correct, but, to me, the question is what causes the
"rebound," which changes the implosion into an explosion?
Agent Smith
news:8b32ccb9-87d3-4a3c...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 7, 4:08 pm, "The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
>> must have in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own
>> gravity?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>
> Which side of the periodic table is Hg with respect to Fe?
The "right" side, har har. :]
Eric Gisse
left.com> wrote:
> "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote innews:6b1m6qF...@mid.individual.net:
The core of the star stops emitting energy and starts absorbing energy
to fuse heavy elements. Radiation pressure mysteriously goes away, and
the outer parts of the star falls inward and bounces. Or punches a
hole in the universe.
Y.Porat
left.com> wrote:
> "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote innews:6b1m6qF...@mid.individual.net:
-----------------
our mission now while a barrel of oil climbes up
to 140 $
is not to deal with fucken balack holes!!
we have to deal with fusion on earth !!
and that will not be done by little pompous fuskers
like Gisse Nore Uncle Al:
the problem is not only to get fusion just by any element
heavy or light one
(it can be donr byheavy elements counter light oned as well)!!!
bu tthe problem is to get CLEAN energy
ie without contaminating the envirinment:
the heavisr elements you deal with the more
lital contamination you get
so we ahve to do it with the lightest elements
AND THE CHEAPEST ONES !!
hydrogen is cheaper than Iron and mercury ways away
and ways less polutive
so that is the element to deal with
but it has do be done even more effective than
it is done on the sun but
that is not to deal with crook physicsits
that know and understand and teach anything! you name
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
The Moron
So, based on Sam's response, let's see what we get:
3*M_0 ~ 2*10^30 kg
d_{Hg} ~ 13.5 g/cm^3, hence, we can solve the following for r in cm:
13.5 g/cm^3 = 3*M_0*10^3 g/(4/3*Pi*r^3)/cm^3. Solving with Maple, I get:
r ~ 473,416 km.
So unless I made a typo somewhere, a pure mercury sphere would undergo
gravitational collapse when it reaches a radius of 1.578 light seconds.
Thanks everyone.
--
TM
OG
"Agent Smith" <agent...@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB739FC8AEB7ag...@207.115.17.102...
> "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in
> news:6b1m6qF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:g2f7u6$ns1$1...@aioe.org...
>>> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
>>> must have
>>> in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> --
>>
>> What the others haven't explicitly stated is that the binding energy
>> per nucleon for elements is the least for iron. This means that if
>> you try to fuse elements heavier than iron they will absorb energy
>> rather than emit energy.
>
> If the gravitational potential energy has a large enough negative value,
> could he still be able to fuse them endothermically, with energy input
> from the further decrease in gravitational potential?
It could do that, leading to a neutron star
>> As I was taught it 30 odd years ago, the collapse phase of a supernova
>> begins when the endothermic fusion of elements > Fe removes thermal
>> and EM energy from the core of a star and the loss of radiation
>> pressure collapses the star. Mind you, it was a long time ago and I
>> may have mis-remembered.
>
> Of course that's correct, but, to me, the question is what causes the
> "rebound," which changes the implosion into an explosion?
In a supernova, the rebound is caused because most of the star is still low
mass nucleii, so when the core collapses, and the rest of the star hits
'rock bottom', the momentary compression causes an immense burst of
exothermic fusion (of low mass nucleii) which blows the rest of star apart.
John Schutkeker
news:6b2ha2F...@mid.individual.net:
>
> "Agent Smith" <agent...@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns9AB739FC8AEB7ag...@207.115.17.102...
>> "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in
>> news:6b1m6qF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g2f7u6$ns1$1...@aioe.org...
>>>> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg
>>>> sphere must have
>>>> in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks,
>>>> --
>>>
>>> What the others haven't explicitly stated is that the binding energy
>>> per nucleon for elements is the least for iron. This means that if
>>> you try to fuse elements heavier than iron they will absorb energy
>>> rather than emit energy.
>>
>> If the gravitational potential energy has a large enough negative
>> value, could he still be able to fuse them endothermically, with
>> energy input from the further decrease in gravitational potential?
>
> It could do that, leading to a neutron star
White dwarves are easier to form, and less a extreme state of matter.
:b
>>> As I was taught it 30 odd years ago, the collapse phase of a
>>> supernova begins when the endothermic fusion of elements > Fe
>>> removes thermal and EM energy from the core of a star and the loss
>>> of radiation pressure collapses the star. Mind you, it was a long
>>> time ago and I may have mis-remembered.
>>
>> Of course that's correct, but, to me, the question is what causes the
>> "rebound," which changes the implosion into an explosion?
>
> In a supernova, the rebound is caused because most of the star is
> still low mass nucleii, so when the core collapses, and the rest of
> the star hits 'rock bottom', the momentary compression causes an
> immense burst of exothermic fusion (of low mass nucleii) which blows
> the rest of star apart.
You're clueless, but you don't even know it. ?;( Electron degeneracy
pressure causes the rebound, because an electron degeneracy threshhold
exists in all possible cases for the final state of the star - white
dwarf, neutron star or black hole. In the former case, the boundary is
not crossed, while in the latter two cases, even though the boundary is
crossed, there is still a enormous resistence impulse, sufficient to
trigger the rebound required for trans-ferric nuceleosynthesis. Think
of it an a gigantic, inelastic collision. :b
Greg Neill
news:Xns9AB79295BABDAlk...@207.115.33.102
> You're clueless, but you don't even know it. ?;( Electron degeneracy
> pressure causes the rebound, because an electron degeneracy threshhold
> exists in all possible cases for the final state of the star - white
> dwarf, neutron star or black hole. In the former case, the boundary
> is not crossed, while in the latter two cases, even though the
> boundary is crossed, there is still a enormous resistence impulse,
> sufficient to trigger the rebound required for trans-ferric
> nuceleosynthesis. Think of it an a gigantic, inelastic collision. :b
Nice word salad. "...enormous resistance impulse,..." Hah!
OG
"John Schutkeker" <jschu...@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
I explained the reason for the immense energy release in the rebound, which
I think was what the OP was asking about. :-)
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > The Moron wrote:
> >>
> >> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
> >> must have in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own
> >> gravity?
> >
> > Tell us to what element mercury nuclei can fuse whose nucleus has
> > greater binding energy than mercury's.
>
> I don't know. Hg is heavier than Fe, so if one keeps dumping Hg onto the sphere,
> it will either undergo total gravitational collapse or a very violent supernova
> runaway explosion.
>
> All I want to know is at what mass either case will start manifesting (and which
> one).
"Moron" indeed.
Physics Today 61(6) 70 (2008)
Fermi degeneracy keeps it inflated.
Darwin123
The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
the peak of the binding energy curve.
So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.
The Moron
So what will happen if I keep pumping mercury into a sphere increasing its mass
in space?
Your answer implies that there can be no fusion, so no explosion.
Sam says it will undergo gravitational collapse.
Al says the degenerate Fermi pressure will keep it inflated.
Can't have both. Which is it?
--
TM
Sam Wormley
The Moron
I don't think so. The Schwarzschild radius is the radius of the object AFTER it
has completely collapsed into a black hole.
My calculation above gives the radius for 3*M_0 (for Hg), which is the radius
when gravitational collapse STARTS.
I think you are confusing two different things.
--
TM
Robert S
Nickel-62 is the peak of binding energy per nucleon.
Not any isotope of Iron.
Spaceman
"The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote in message news:g2hkk7$9ib$1...@aioe.org...
It would end up sucking you in and killing you from pressure
and gravity long before you would know what would happen.
Hows that?
Unless of course you have a big starship and fly away before it sucks you
in.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Y.y.Porat
----------------
WRONG!!
even according to your information
above
you can get energy from mercury
first b fishioning it
(even a minor fishion !!)
and the next step fuse it--
with something else
so that the BOTTOM LINE OF ENERGY of all those proceces
will be ----- gaining energy !!
it is all a problem of know how
and better knowledge of inner structure of the nuc. !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Darwin123
> Darwin123 wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
> >> must have in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own
> >> gravity?
>
> >> Many thanks,
> >> --
> >> TM
>
> > The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
> > the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
> > the peak of the binding energy curve.
> > So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
> > atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.
>
> So what will happen if I keep pumping mercury into a sphere increasing its mass
> in space?
>
> Your answer implies that there can be no fusion, so no explosion.
Gravitational collapse at some point will generate lots of energy.
When sufficient mass is accumulated, a black hole will form. The
energy exerted will have nothing to do with energy. However, nuclear
reactions won't contribute to the energy.
> Sam says it will undergo gravitational collapse.
> Al says the degenerate Fermi pressure will keep it inflated.
mercury is 3 Kelvin degrees. Mercury is deposited in a ball, initially
with the same density as frozen mercury. We keep adding more and more
mercury.
At some point, a degenerate electron sea forms. There is a
collapse, energy is given off. The mercury loses its chemical
identity. We have a white dwarf made of mercury nucleii and electrons.
Keep adding mercury.
At some point, a degenerate nucleon sea forms. There is more
collapse, energy is given off, and we have a neutron star. The mercury
no longer has a distinct nuclear identity. There is no more mercury at
this point in the mass.
Keep adding mercury.
At some point, the Schwartzfield radius condition is met. The
neutron star undergoes irreversible collapse. Energy is given off. A
black hole forms. The nucleons have lost their distinct identity.
The trouble with Uncle Al's scenario is that the pressure at the
center increases the density near the center. Even with a Fermi sea
pushing back. A black hole is bound to form near the center. It will
then swallow the rest of the mass.
The Moron
Excellent! Many thanks for a fascinating explanation.
--
TM
Darwin123
> On Jun 9, 12:06 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere must have
> > > in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?
>
> > > Many thanks,
> > > --
> > > TM
>
> > The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
> > the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
> > the peak of the binding energy curve.
> > So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
> > atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.
>
> ----------------
> WRONG!!
>
> even according to your information
> above
> you can get energy from mercury
> first b fishioning it
> (even a minor fishion !!)
perturbed a small amount, the changes it undergoes has to be in a
direction that will bring it closer to the equilibrium it started
with. This can be derived from thermodynamic principles. Therefore, if
the mercury is compressed slightly the reaction has to be something
that reduces volume. Fusion reduces volume. Fission would increase the
volume.
As you add mercury in small amounts, the pressure at the center
is going up. Therefore, the volume has to go down. If a mercury
nucleus fissions, it will take up more volume than if it remains a
mercury nucleus. So it is not going fission if I add a small amount of
material.
If two mercury nucleii fuse, that takes up less volume. However,
energy would be absorbed. So energy could not be released by fusion.
> and the next step fuse it--
a fission back into a mercury nucleus, one would reabsorb the energy
one produced by fissioning the mercury nucleus. One would merely get
back to the point one started.
Of course, I am talking about the main mass of mercury. Sure, when
one of these phase transitions happens there may be a detonation. That
would blast some of the nuclei into space, where they may fission.
However, the majority of material would have to compress into a
smaller volume.
>
> with something else
> so that the BOTTOM LINE OF ENERGY of all those proceces
> will be ----- gaining energy !!
process, will potential energy be extracted as work from the pile of
mercury. Of course the addition of material can result in work, but
the process by which work is performed does not have to be nuclear
fusion. In fact, for mercury it can't be nuclear fusion.
You are adding energy merely by throwing mercury on the pile.
However, most of this energy will be in the form of potential energy.
As you add mercury, you are adding both nuclear potential energy and
gravitational potential energy.
The implication in the question is how much work energy can one
obtain from the pile, and by what process does one obtain work energy.
A sudden flash of radiation, or any sort of detonation, would be work
energy. My response was that there could not be any work performed by
nuclear fusion. I did point out that work could be performed by other
processes. Such processes include the formation of white dwarf matter,
neutron star matter, and black hole matter. However, nuclear fusion of
mercury nucleii can only turn gravitational potential energy to
nuclear potential energy.
Y.y.Porat
> On Jun 9, 4:43 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 12:06 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" <mo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere must have
> > > > in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?
>
> > > > Many thanks,
> > > > --
> > > > TM
>
> > > The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
> > > the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
> > > the peak of the binding energy curve.
> > > So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
> > > atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.
>
> > ----------------
> > WRONG!!
>
> > even according to your information
> > above
> > you can get energy from mercury
> > first b fishioning it
> > (even a minor fishion !!)
>
> I was using L'Chatier's principle. If a system at equilibrium is
> perturbed a small amount, the changes it undergoes has to be in a
you see
th e problem is as ususl in ther details
you saied 'a system'
are you sure you see all the system??
i was not meaning only the mecury element
i was intending that that mercury can be one ingrediant
or even the most relevant element in another bigger system!
ie put in some machine and use a s say basic raw material
so at first stage of the process indeed some
energy has to be invested
but at stage 2 another element might be added
actually to be more specific *another light element*
can be pumped in and that will cover back
not only the previous losses but leave more
energy than invested
thje base for that idea is that in mecury as an atom
there is a huge potential energy hiding in its
overall mass (E=mc^2)
it is much more than you imagined at the first place)
yet all of it depends on detailed advanced knowldge
that is still missing
2
as above we can add after 'pealing' some marginal particle
of it and adding a light element instead
so in that case
th excess energy will come form the added light element
etc etc
in short
technology is not only in the old abstract books
it is addition of a lot of creative imagination on top of it
now still
all that is wild ideas
and the more important problem is that the bottom line
will be *economic and SAFE AND NOT TOO POLLUTIVE***
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
among
Eric Gisse
[snip irrelevant shit]
I am staggered to see you are not dead yet and still continue to post
barely coherent diatribes that nobody reads.
Y.Porat
--------------
no boubt
the boy is a psychopath!!
Y.Porat
----------------------------------