Cold fusion is supposed to be demonstrated this Friday with Rossi's e-cat. Cold fusion is an interesting story. I am 100% certain cold fusion of some kind exists. In fact, it has already been proven with muon-catalyzed fusion. I am not sold on Rossi's e-cat yet. He is going about it in a way that may look like it is a scam. I would say there is probably less than a 50% chance this e-cat device actually works. I do think it is very stupid to cast cold fusion aside without checking it out. Just because other groups couldn't replicate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The navy even has a working cold fusion device. http://www.computerworlduk.com/in-depth/infrastructure/3311342/cheap-power-via-cold-fusion--an-overnight-revolution/
Rossi is old news. The LENR community has yet to produce anything truly intriguing yet, but I still hold out hope.
define hot define cold then worry about the fusion/fission ie... an element at BEC plus "x" makes it hot. What is 'x'?
All cold fusion devices to date have this in common that their energy input exceeds the output. The ones I'm aware of are those that compress the fusable material (deuterium and tritium) into much smaller space and at the same time target it with lasers, both methods intended to raise the temperature. Hot fusion devices like the toiroid reactors are still plagued by instabilities in their shielding magnetic fields.
For all hot fusion devices, the energy input exceeds the output, yet no one is denying their existence. The ones you are aware of are called generally cold, locally hot fusion where the temperature near the reaction is very hot but the surrounding temperature isn't very hot. Actual cold fusion devices are electrolytic cell with the use of palladium, and muon-catalyzed where fusion occurs at room temperature.
So does fission. Wow! it must be magic! You should see that black stuff called oil............. it practically comes out of the earth, free.... den dey put it thru pipes and stuff, then into cars and i tern da key and it goes dooooood i guess dat cold foosion must maic beleeve da laws R braik'n Id-n't da ewes of eerl, kinda like law braik'n? so eye figr'd tit out; wen it thwas proov'n that the laws aint da laws, pirhaps dat is wen da price went up, so no mo free energy. mA bee dat o'pric twas making shur no law braik'n............ so dey rAse'd the prIss of gaswoleen no mO freeee energeee
There is absolutely no such thing as free energy. The laws of thermodynamics still apply, especially the one concerning increasing entropy. Energy freed up in fission is not free as it comes by means of converting mass into this energy. The fission products represent a more highly disordered state as the nucleon arrangement is more stable and hence the nuclei are more difficult to subsequently break apart and release energy (look up binding energy per nucleon). You would need to pump way more energy into the process initially to destabilize the nucleus.
But how would you produce these muons which are afterall heavy, 200 times the mass of electrons, and come only from high energy particle collisions rather than radioactive decay? Seems it may be highly costly in terms of energy required to generate these collisions.
E=mc2 shares that is incorrect. ie... if you take a weee little neutron (per se), you can split an atom (U-235 for example) and have more energy come from dat weeee little division than when it is cold is it magic? that is the focal crap you have your feet in. the 2LoT is the single most ignorant law on the globe. And the scope to comprehend is that there is no such thing as a property of nature called 'heat' it is a measurement of a system in relation to an environment ie.... hot is not a stuff so a cold atom is not capturing 'hot' to resonate I asked a clear question; if you have an element at BEC (coldest of the cold) and add "x" to make it hot, what is 'x'? what conversion? Fission: One minute the atom is a single unit element, the next it is 2 different elements and 'x' is released. What is 'x'? i know the math and i know the strong force as represented, i am asking you direct questions; what is released? it aint 'heat' it aint speed what is 'x'? how is that? are you telling us all, that in order to begin a fissionable chain reaction, more energy is pumped into the system than released? fusion is quite similar: once begun, the release of the first releases enough 'x' to enable the next and there is left over 'x' to convert to resonate water into the state called 'steam' what is that 'x' to make an an h2o molecule into a gas? Read this post over a few times and go back into your text books and tell us all what 'x' is as a force of nature. Remember 'speed' aint a 'force' of nature, either.
Look, you rook. There is this thing called activation energy that you need to breach. You need to raise the total energy of the nucleus a notch, a big notch or a smaller notch in order to destabilize it i.e. so the electromagnetic repulsions between protons will overcome the binding energy between all necleons represented by the strong force. Go into your textbooks and look it up and then thrash. It's not the kinetic energy of the free neutron that destabilizes the target nucleus, but rather the free neutron has to be slow enough so the neutron can absorb it resulting in an unfavourable arrangement and causing it to destabilize.
You shouldn't view this whole process strictly in terms of particle rearrangement, so that if you have an equal number of nucleons before and after the reaction then no energy should be released. Since mass is equivalent to energy, there is this something called the binding energy that goes together with each necleon arrangement within nuclei. If the binding energy was smaller initially, but is greater in the product, then the nucleus is more stable, harder to break up, and hence energy was released. Good enough for you?
I reached into my old notes and here's what I found on binding energy: E=mc2 = u*931.49 MeV/u where delta u = mass defect 931.49 MeV/u = 1.6605*10-27 kg
And I guess I meant to say, electrostatic rather than electromagnetic repulsive forces between protons.
i aint the rook............. it be YOU. That is why i am pointing out these items in this thread. You are not UP to speed. You are still working on the antiquated version!
but there is and that barium/krypton aint the whole picture as meitner pointed out. since when does an equivolence have something to do with the arrangement. Just this month, a nobel was given to a guy who proved an arrangement previously thought to be impossible is in fact possible and the physics description was the error of the previous generation(s) So evidence supercedes YOUR beliefs. get over it I asked you specific questions and the reason you aint answering them is because they will test your education and if you are actually honest with yourself you will see something that will shock you.
that is for the equivalence of the missing mass but what is that energy? what form is it in? That is what i am getting at. What is that 'x'? (of the four forces) You cant say, it made itself into a blank ..... i want you to identify what that energy released from that reaction is ...... and that is what i want to read from you. For example; lavoisier shared the caloric as a 'x' that binds two elements together to make the AB molecule; what is that 'x'? hint: same 'stuff'
Which is basically my point with cold fusion. Many people consider cold fusion to be impossible, but there have been many things that were thought to be impossible that turned out true.
I thought you were making an argument that you don't see how mass can be converted into energy in fission or any nuclear reactions, because the mass of each nucleon in pre- and post-fission nucleus is set and doesn't change. So then no nucleon in a nucleus can split into two particles i.e. give off a radiation particle.
Depending on how baryons interact with each other by assuming different configurations in a nucleus, they can assume different energy states, slightly more "excited" or slightly less "excited" which affects their mass. Or are you asking me what is the strong force? That's a spring model of 3 quarks sitting together in a baryon, and the impossibility of pulling one apart since the energy required would have created a new quark before getting one out of the baryon. The strong force operates within nucleons and outside nucleons at a distance limit comparable to the diameter of a uranium nucleus. There is an optimal distance for two nucleons to be next to each other when the strong force between them is strongest. Just look up gluons.
Ok. Since you have them 4 protons combining into a helium nucleus, you start off with four protons and end up with 2 protons and 2 neutrons. So obviously you would need to give off 2 positrons plus gamma rays to convert 2 protons into 2 neutrons. These gamma rays or any other photons given off carries the potential to induce a rise in water's temperature.
'x' could be anything from gamma rays to X rays to infrared to electrons, positrons, neutrinos, muons, mesons. Fission may also occur via a radioactive decay where for instance: d quark --->>> u quark + W- W- --->>> e- + v(e)
that transition between mass/energy/time can be defined in with math but you dont know it ie... walking the planck may be relative to you and the majority of physicist on the globe...................... but it aint! what? You are suggesting because of the nucleus cannot split, it gives off a radiation 'particle'? which particle? what the 'f' is a "radiation particle"............... in a U235 split there aint no beta, alpha, ...............perhaps you talking about a neutron? what if i told you more news about that neutron?
