10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

D Tibbets wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Dan,
Please read the first chapter of:
The Physics of Inertial Fusion.........



I think this will be my final argument on the nuclear binding energy, the mass defect, excess or deficit. Mostly because it is extremely complex the more you look at it and it is making my head hurt.

First- I argue that fusion of light elements releases energy (is exothermic), while fission of heavy elements releases energy. For both processes to work there has to be a balancing point between the competing processes ........................



My headache is better, so I will try again...

I cannot describe well the dead end for exothermic fusion reactions (Fe) , but if you are interested look at the information on page 4 of this presentation. The binding energy curve is displayed like I suggested earlier. The iron nucleus has the least energy per nucleon. LEAST ENERGY PER NUCLEON- think about that. If a nucleon (like a proton or neutron) has more energy outside the iron nucleus, compared to any other nucleus (lighter or heavier) then energy is released as the nucleus approaches the iron end point. Iron is the minimal energy state for any nucleus (again remember we are talking about +/_ energy associated with fusion or fission reaction, not matter- antimatter annihilation). This is obvious from the inverted Binding energy graphs- like the one in the referenced link. Any reaction that approaches this state can release excess energy, and any reaction going away from this minimum energy condition must absorb externally supplied energy. Any nucleon added to iron will contain more energy. Any nucleon removed from Fe will contain more energy. This is extreamly important, If this is not the case, then stars would be completely different.
If you are interested pursue stellar evolution

Just like in chemistry, once a certain threshold of energy is reached a reaction will tend to proceed to the least energetic product. In chemistry this is Gibbs free energy. In fusion it is the energy needed to overcome the Coulomb repulsion. It is not the product that has the most energy that is the end product, but the product that has the least energy (exothermic). The reverse can happen, but only if you add external energy (endothermic). Also, a product with more energy can the reactant(s) can be produced, provided that the final energy state of the product is less than the Gibbs free energy (keeping things simple and avoiding tunneling, etc). In some ways this has corollaries with nuclear reactions. Isomers, etc. can be considered as intermediaries. Note that catalysts, by definition does not change the reactant and product energy states. It does change the threshold that needs to be reached for the reaction to proceed. In chemistry this changing the Gibbs free energy. Also, by definition a catalyst is not consumed in a reaction, but only promotes the reaction. So, at least from a definition point of view- the nickel is not a pure catalyst, but a reactant. This is picky, but that nickel is apparently a reactant in the Rossi device, as I understand it, the situation is completely different from LENR claims where the nickel (or other metal) is a presumed catalyst, that permits light element fusion (like D-D) at remarkably low energy conditions (like lowering the Gibbs free energy- Coulomb repulsion). This does not challenge the Fe lowest energy position in the binding energy model. But, the Rossi claims do!

A nucleus with more energy (more mass deficit in this discussion- eg Cu63) yields Ni62 + proton +energy. This is fission
Nucleus with more energy - eg Fe 55 + neutron yields Fe56 + energy. This is fusion. These two reactions both produce exothermic energy. That would be impossible if there was not some less energetic product between these two isotopes. There CANNOT be a continuous process of excess energy release from fusion as nuclear mass (higher elements) are formed, unless you assume that fission is always endothermic, or fusion is always endothermic, etc. You cannot have both!
Despite looking I have not found any authoritative statements that are more clear than those I have already presented.
The Stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis is stars and supernova often are less obtuse than the physics discussions. Read some of this and ask yourself how can two opposing processes (fusion and fission) produce exothermic energy if your assumption is correct- that adding nucleons to a nucleus always releases energy. IE- that fusion always releases energy, irregardless of the final nuclear size. If that was the case several things are unavoidable. Stars would continue to burn well past iron (or even uranium) , and nuclear fission reactors could not work. There absolutely has to be this intermediate minimal energy point. And this is apparent in both physics and astronomy reasoning. The description of this may be obtuse but the experimental and theoretical consequences are not. If you anticipate this energy balance minimum point to occur at some more massive nucleus- like lead, that would be a work around for the Rossi claims, but it is completely contrary to the understanding of stars, if not other physics experiments and theory.

Again there has to be a low energy point between exothermic fusion and exothermic fission. Note that this low energy point is the change in the nuclear energy, not the total energy. Of course a Uranium atom has much more energy than a helium atom (E=MC^2), but that is not the issue. It is the nuclear binding energy, or packing density that determines the energy that can be implanted or removed from the nucleus as it grows or shrinks.
Again, the astronomy discussions are more obvious. It is not my confusion that impedes my arguments so much, as the vocabulary and my presentation skills that impedes my ability to communicate the absolutely necessary and accepted view on this topic.

Look at page 4:
http://www.ucolick.org/~rab/Ay2-Fall09/ ... /wk7_1.pdf

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Nik
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:14 pm
Location: UK

Binding energy...

Post by Nik »

Uh, harking back to the arguments over binding energy, the paradox is explained by a simple graph. The binding energy per nucleon is at a maximum around iron. Both fusion of lighter nuclei and fission of heavier nuclei may be energetically favourable, depending on process and products...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... /bcurv.gif

Nik-note: That graph is simplified, does not cover the many isotopes...

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Giorgio wrote: Dunno... even if possible these are a little bit too wild speculations for me.
Hey, guys just want to have fun, yeah! Oh, guys just want to have fun.
Giorgio wrote:I am still trying to find a plausible way on how they could get the formation of polaritons with an electric heater.
I am not convinced at all of this polaritons route.
I am under the impression that plasmons form, or at least CAN form, by photonic excitation of certain surfaces (Ni?). At which point, couldn't the photons exciting the plasmon interact and create the polariton? Perhaps the central heater is a VHT quartz IR emitter and the IR is the photon.

We are getting WAYYYYY out of my depth! :roll:

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Giorgio
I rephrase his words: "This research is very promising if it is proven to be real".
Which is also my opinion, no more no less.
Sounds like you have backed off your earlier position that Rossi and the E-Cat are just a scam. In which case, I wonder why you wasted so much time running him down. (I recall you saying it was to warn off the innocent lurkers)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D Tibbets wrote:My headache is better, so I will try again...

I cannot describe well the dead end for exothermic fusion reactions (Fe) , but if you are interested look at the information on page 4 of this presentation. The binding energy curve is displayed like I suggested earlier. The iron nucleus has the least energy per nucleon. LEAST ENERGY PER NUCLEON- think about that.
I am not arguing that you cannot fuse Fe atom with another without adding a bunch of energy. That much is obvious. Using gravity and hills as our analog, Fe is at the bottom of the valley. You can't "roll iron down the hill" to push another iron up the other side. It is at the bottom. Can't roll down.
But, if you look at the energy position of the H you will see that there is a LOT of mass there that can be converted to energy (VERY high on the hill) if you combine one WITH iron. Iron is a dead end. HYDROGEN is NOT!!! you can "roll H down the hill" and push the Fe one step to the right.
All the mass change, all the binding energy comes from the H (or n), not the iron (or Ni). Page 4 of the document you provided simply shows what I have been saying to you since day one.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

D Tibbets wrote:I cannot describe well the dead end for exothermic fusion reactions (Fe) , but if you are interested look at the information on page 4 of this presentation. The binding energy curve is displayed like I suggested earlier. The iron nucleus has the least energy per nucleon.
Actually, it doesn't. 62-Ni has the maximum binding energy per nucleon.

But, Dan, you are wrong in your specific claims. p+62Ni is DEFINITELY heavier than 63Cu. This SHOULD mean that p+62Ni->63Cu is exothermic. The mass difference is most definitely true.

But I struggled with this also, and the answer lies in thermodynamics. Where does thermodynamics say a nucleus should head? Towards minimum mass per nucleon, towards maximum binding energy per nucleon, or is it always dependent on what else is around.

You, Dan, are forgetting that the proton starts off with 0 binding energy. Kite has pointed this out to you, but you've brushed it aside from reading too many 'iron is the end-point' kinda comments [which isn't even true, because it is 62-Ni].

Let me put it another way, let me draw an analogy. You have a bowl and you drop a 62g ball into it. It works its way to the bottom of the bowl. Lowest energy, maximum entropy. Now you add another ball right there, next to the first one, at the bottom. Well, of course they don't jump up the sides together, they are already at the bottom. Their CoG is also at the bottom. Now think of a 1 g ball sitting on the edge of the bowl. Where is their CoG? Their CoG is an analogy of entropy[well, the inverse - lower is more entropy]. Now, the CoG of both the balls is not at the bottom, it is up a little bit. Stick the small ball on to the side of the big one and they don't quite sit at the bottom any more, but their CoG is still lower than it was when they were separate balls, one at the top and one at the bottom.

OK, it's a bit of a crap analogy, but the point is that something with the maximum entropy can still actively undergo a thermodynamic transition to a lower entropy state if it does so with a thing with substantially lower entropy. The net entropy of two parts can still increase, even if the one at a maximum experiences a decrease in its entropy [because of how low the other one is].

This should address, and render in error, your observations. However, we still have not addressed the question I posed at the start:

Is the thermodynamically preferred end-point for a nuclear reaction;
i) minimum mass,
ii) maximum binding energy, or
iii) maximum [whole-system] entropy?

If it is iii, you are wrong.
If it is ii, you are right.
If it is i, then we're all bloomin' wrong about everything anyway, so might as well give up discussing it!!!

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

PS:
You speak of the Cu63 having more mass deficit then nickel. This is not the issue. The issue is that portion of the mass (or energy equivalent) of a reactant(s) and product(s) that is involved with the nuclear binding energy or packing density. There is a conversion that involves the mass defect, but also the number and types of nucleons as is presented in one of the previous links. This strong force mediated process is counterbalanced by the electromagnetic force that becomes more pronounced as the nucleus size increases. There are two components to this, one is the size of the nucleus, the further apart the protons and neutrons are from all others in the nucleus, the less tightly bound they are by the strong force. This is due to the extremely short range of the strong force. The electromagnetic repulsion that is trying to tear the protons away from each other has a much greater range, so the growing dimensions of the nucleus impedes it much less. And, as the nucleus grows with more protons, the electromagnetic repulsion grows rapidly.

If you recall some old threads where Coulomb repulsion was described as becoming ridiculously strong as you tried to increase the excess of electrons in a plasma, and that the excess ratio that can be achieved is very limited without ridiculous voltages, the exponential effects of the electromagnetic force in a confined volume becomes obvious. At some point a densely packed collection of like charged particles could even exceed the strong force Once it was understood that the Polywell imbalance was only ~ 1 ppm, the augments were muted. But this illustrates that while the electromagnetic effect is generally considered to be much less (by a factor of ~ 1,000,000) the effect grows as you concentrate and increase the number of unbalanced charged particles within a confined space. As the one link emphasized, when the nucleus is wider than ~ 4 nucleons (depending on the proportions of neutrons and protons) the electromagnetic repulsion counteracts any further compressive effect of the strong force. Once considered this competition is obviously required for the universe's existence. If the electromagnetic force was not involved, the strong force would compact a nucleus indefinitely, just as gravity will compact a collection of particles, if unopposed by electromagnetic effects (repulsion and heat). As the diameter of the nucleus increases the electromagnetic repulsion / strong force attraction becomes greater. Once beyond 6 nucleon diameters the nucleus tends to fly apart. That is why heavier elements beyond atomic weights of ~ 200 are unstable.
Apparently, the magnitude of this electromagnetic effect becomes significant as you approach the proton density within an iron nucleus. As you pass iron, this density actually starts to become less because the repulsion between all of the protons is starting to dominate over the strong force trying to increase the density. Without knowing the details, I suspect this is why isotopes with more neutrons are often more stable in the heavier elements. The neutrons contribute to the the strong force attraction, but are not effected by the electromagnetic repulsion that the protons are subject to.

The strong force attraction continues to grow as more protons and neutrons are added, but as protons are added the electromagnetic repulsion also grows. The result is that the nucleus size/ volume grows more rapidly than the number of nucleons. Thus the nucleus is less dense- less packing fraction. A loose comparison might be made with a balloon or gravity. There may be more particles, but they are in a larger volume. If the balloon pops it does not make as big of a bang. If the particles are concentrated to a very small volume, the Local gravity effects are increased- up to black hole characteristics. IE: The volume/ density of the nucleus is important, perhaps dominantly so, compared to the actual mass.

Another way of looking at it is that the strong force AND electromagnetism oppose each other. Both energies are represented by the missing mass, again because of E=MC^2. But, because they are opposing each other, a percentage of the net effect on nuclear cohesiveness and resultant harvestable energy from nuclear process are cancelled out. Through experiment and astronomical measurements, this has been shown to have a tipping or turn around point where the greatest nuclear density occurs at iron.

Another impression if my reasoning is right.
Excess exothermic energy from fusion cones from increasing the binding energy/ packing fraction.
At iron the packing fraction, nuclear binding energy= the electromagnetic repulsion. Increasing the binding energy is opposed to a greater extent by the electromagnetic repulsion. - Net energy balance is less in terms of the harvestable energy . Net output = Binding energy - electromagnetic repulsion energy. In fusion there is a proportionately greater amount of binding energy. While above iron there is proportionately greater electromagnetic repulsion energy. In this regard at iron the two balance out so the net harvestable energy is zero. Light element fusion produces energy from the excess binding energy, while heavy element fission produces energy from the excess electromagnetic repulsion energy. It would be like a coulomb explosion.

How these systems can exist without quickly decaying to the lowest energy state (iron) is a mystery, much like the situation with chemistry. Like Gibbs free energy in chemistry, the various energy states have lower energy that the intermediates required for the reactions to proceed. That this condition exists may be one of the most curious characteristics of the universe.

If adding more neutrons stabilizes a nucleus , why don't you continue adding neutrons while keeping the proton numbers constant? Presumably this would increase the packing fraction, and thus the 'fusion' energy gain? If the universe worked that way, again we would not exist. Confounding factors must limit this, such as weak force interactions, quantum effects, and of course the short range of the strong force* needs to be considered. These nuclear effects impedes and finally opposes this neutron adding process such that at some point the nucleii fall apart as fast (or faster) than they can be produced. The process is a wash from an energy perspective.

* This is similar to characteristics of the Debye length. There is a limited range over which effects are felt. But a charged particle at one end of a volume defined by the Debye length (or strong force) has it's own debye length extending 1/2 the original debye length further. It seems that these integrating interactions would result in effects far beyond a set limit. That these terms are useful as a limiting parameter confuses me.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

D Tibbets wrote:Another way of looking at it is that the strong force AND electromagnetism oppose each other. Both energies are represented by the missing mass, again because of E=MC^2. But, because they are opposing each other, a percentage of the net effect on nuclear cohesiveness and resultant harvestable energy from nuclear process are cancelled out.
Sorry, Dan, you've got some wrong thinking going on here.

p+62Ni is heavier than 63Cu.

E=mc^2 MEANS that energy has gone somewhere........ if the energy was still present in the nucleus, somehow, then it would be HEAVIER. It's as simple as that. You are confusing yourself if you don't receive and internalise this message.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

chrismb wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:I cannot describe well the dead end for exothermic fusion reactions (Fe) , but if you are interested look at the information on page 4 of this presentation. The binding energy curve is displayed like I suggested earlier. The iron nucleus has the least energy per nucleon.
Actually, it doesn't. 62-Ni has the maximum binding energy per nucleon.

But, Dan, you are wrong in your specific claims. p+62Ni is DEFINITELY heavier than 63Cu. This SHOULD mean that p+62Ni->63Cu is exothermic. The mass difference is most definitely true.

But I struggled with this also, and the answer lies in thermodynamics. Where does thermodynamics say a nucleus should head? Towards minimum mass per nucleon, towards maximum binding energy per nucleon, or is it always dependent on what else is around.

You, Dan, are forgetting that the proton starts off with 0 binding energy. Kite has pointed this out to you, but you've brushed it aside from reading too many 'iron is the end-point' kinda comments [which isn't even true, because it is 62-Ni].

Let me put it another way, let me draw an analogy. You have a bowl and you drop a 62g ball into it. It works its way to the bottom of the bowl. Lowest energy, maximum entropy. Now you add another ball right there, next to the first one, at the bottom. Well, of course they don't jump up the sides together, they are already at the bottom. Their CoG is also at the bottom. Now think of a 1 g ball sitting on the edge of the bowl. Where is their CoG? Their CoG is an analogy of entropy[well, the inverse - lower is more entropy]. Now, the CoG of both the balls is not at the bottom, it is up a little bit. Stick the small ball on to the side of the big one and they don't quite sit at the bottom any more, but their CoG is still lower than it was when they were separate balls, one at the top and one at the bottom.

OK, it's a bit of a crap analogy, but the point is that something with the maximum entropy can still actively undergo a thermodynamic transition to a lower entropy state if it does so with a thing with substantially lower entropy. The net entropy of two parts can still increase, even if the one at a maximum experiences a decrease in its entropy [because of how low the other one is].

This should address, and render in error, your observations. However, we still have not addressed the question I posed at the start:

Is the thermodynamically preferred end-point for a nuclear reaction;
i) minimum mass,
ii) maximum binding energy, or
iii) maximum [whole-system] entropy?

If it is iii, you are wrong.
If it is ii, you are right.
If it is i, then we're all bloomin' wrong about everything anyway, so might as well give up discussing it!!!
As far as the packing fraction or the maximum binding energy, Fe56, or Ni62 can be considered the end point. It is subtle. I'm settling on using Fe56 as the endpoint as it is less cumbersome than using both and specifying the difference, and iron also seems to be the most popularly used end point.

I do like you marbles in a bowl analogy, though the spacial separation of the marbles pushing some of them further up the sides of the bowl may not be precise, as I suspect that protons dimensions are far to small for a bowel of nuclear dimensions to only contain perhaps 30 protons before spilling over the side. Adding neutrons further complicates the picture.

But, using the bowel analogy with the separation between the protons being governed by electromagnetic repulsion rather than physical dimensions would fit better.
You can poor protons into the bowel till they start spilling out the sides. This represents the packing fraction of Fe56, or the binding energy of Ni61 if you prefer and I'm not reversing them.
The bowel dimensions represents the strong force, or more specifically the range over which it dominates over the electromagnetic repulsion for a given density of protons. The marble size represents how close you can push the protons together and is limited by the electromagnetic repulsion, or more specifically the point at which the electromagnetic repulsion matches the inter particle strong force attraction.

Two points: The bowel size has been defined by experiment and interacting theory about the strong force vs the electromagnetic force.

Secondly, if you consider neutrons as a glue or friction inducing element. Then more protons can be piled into the bowel till they pile up above the brim of the bowel. The friction prevents the protons/ nucleons from spilling out. This is why excess neutrons stabilize the heavier nuclei that have more protons than will fit beneath the brim of the bowel.

The nuclear binding energy is represented by the internal bowel volume (distance range where cumulative strong force dominates over cumulative electromagnetic repulsion)/ size of the repelling proton domains (marble size).

At Fe56, the bowel is filled with as many marbles as possible without cheating by building a pyrimid above the bowel rim. It is critically important that you recognize that these piled up nucleons are placed above the brim of the bowel that represents the starting energy of the nucleon (marble) that you added to the collection. You had to add energy to place the marble at its elevated position. If it falls off and descends to the level of the bowel brim it releases energy- that is exothermic fission, and it requires that the potential energy had to first be added- you had to lift the particle to that level in the first place - that is endothermic fusion beyond the bowel brim (represented by Fe56).

The marbles that are added at the bowel brim and roll down to a lower level within the bowel represents exothermic fusion.

The important point in all of this is that the minimum energy- the starting point for figuring the energy balance is the bowel brim, which is represented by the binding energy of the starting point (Fe56, or Ni62, depending on how you define it). The rest mass (or energy= rest mass plus missing mass) is not applicable. In fact, the missing mass is a result of this free vs bound state (position within the bowel), not the cause of it. This is the root of the confusion. The reference system is the brim of the bowel- the zero energy starting point. If the marble falls into the bowel it converts potential energy to kinetic energy (or unbound energy to bound energy). As the bowel fills up the potential energy- kinetic energy difference decreases. That is why adding a proton to an aluminum nucleus releases less energy that adding a proton to a lithium nucleus. The starting point is the same- the zero binding energy of protons or the delta of the neutrons (which are located at the bowel brim). Um... the preceding sentence needs more work.... What changes is how far it can fall into the bowel, or how high it can be piled above the rim of the bowel.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

chrismb wrote:
D Tibbets wrote:Another way of looking at it is that the strong force AND electromagnetism oppose each other. Both energies are represented by the missing mass, again because of E=MC^2. But, because they are opposing each other, a percentage of the net effect on nuclear cohesiveness and resultant harvestable energy from nuclear process are cancelled out.
Sorry, Dan, you've got some wrong thinking going on here.

p+62Ni is heavier than 63Cu.

E=mc^2 MEANS that energy has gone somewhere........ if the energy was still present in the nucleus, somehow, then it would be HEAVIER. It's as simple as that. You are confusing yourself if you don't receive and internalise this message.
Yes P+Ni62 is heavier than Cu63. That is not the point. What is important is what portion of the missing mass (which Ni62 has)is due to the strong force which is the energy yield from breaking apart the nucleus to individual nucleons) and is due to the electromagnetic repulsive force( the energy which is consumed by breaking down the nucleus to it's component nucleons). In Ni62 these two forces (one exothermic and one endothermic) are balanced, thus fusioning of fissioning it (or adding or subtracting nucleons) will build from this relatively zero energy base. When you add a nucleon, the portion of the missing mass will be predominately that energy needed to overcome electromagnetic repulsion, with proportionately less energy released by the increased attraction due to the strong force. Adding energy (missing mass) to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion is endothermic. . The opposite is the case for the strong force. But the net effect past Ni62 is a net negative energy balance. This translates into the total mass of the Ni62 being greater, once this energy of both the strong force and electromagnetic force balance is figured in.
There are two competing energies and they do not have one to one interactions. One is attractive, one is repulsive,ie one is positive, and one is negative. The energy balance is just that - a balance between two exponentially interactive processes. But, energy is energy. If you annialate the nuclei, the copper will yield more energy. But if you are limited to extracting energy by nuclear processes, the aviable energy will depend on the ration of these opposite energy effects.
This may sound strange, but it fits with S. Hawking's theory about black hole evaporation. If one of a pair of virtual particles is consumed bu a black hole, but the other escape, mass is added to the universe. The particle that entered the black hole is considered as negative energy and thus subtracts from the mass of the black hole. The opposite might be considered- the escaped particle adds to the mass of the universe. I'm not sure why both the mass of the black hole and the mass of the universe wouldn't both increase, but I will concede the point to Hawking :P

A similar comparison could be applied to fusion/ fission about Ni62 . What energy is retained, what is released, and what is your reference point.

Now my head hurts again!

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

D Tibbets wrote:Yes P+Ni62 is heavier than Cu63. That is not the point. What is important is what portion of the missing mass (which Ni62 has)is due to the strong force which is the energy yield from breaking apart the nucleus to individual nucleons) and is due to the electromagnetic repulsive force( the energy which is consumed by breaking down the nucleus to it's component nucleons). In Ni62 these two forces (one exothermic and one endothermic) are balanced, thus fusioning of fissioning it (or adding or subtracting nucleons) will build from this relatively zero energy base. When you add a nucleon, the portion of the missing mass will be predominately that energy needed to overcome electromagnetic repulsion, with proportionately less energy released by the increased attraction due to the strong force. Adding energy (missing mass) to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion is endothermic. . The opposite is the case for the strong force. But the net effect past Ni62 is a net negative energy balance. This translates into the total mass of the Ni62 being greater, once this energy of both the strong force and electromagnetic force balance is figured in.
Ya wot?!?!?

We're not even at 200 pages [ :twisted: ], and you've lost it, Dan. What you've lost, I cannot say, but you have definitely lost it. Maybe its some of the 'missing mass' you're talking about, one moment it is extra mass, then next it is not mass, but still mass.

uh?

The mass of a thing is either bigger or smaller than another thing. One or t'other. Simples. End of.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

chrismb, how many times in this thread has the mass- energy equivalence been mentioned in this thread? ... Lots.
My point remains that not only the energy equivalence needs to be considered, but also, the nature of the energy equivalency and it's relative contribution to the balance.

We are not creating or destroying mass/ energy here. What we are changing is the interrelationships.
Do you deny that electromagnetism is a force?
Do you deny that the Strong force is a force?
Do you deny that both have effects in a nucleus?
Do you deny that these forces are opposed, at least in terms of the packing density within a nucleus?
Do you deny that any energy or force can be considered as a mass effect, or visa verse? Do you disagree with Einstein?
Do you deny that Ni62 is the most densely packed nucleus?
Do you deny that this condition is determined by the relative interactions of the two forces mentioned above?

Do you deny that fusion of nuclei past Ni62 does not release excess energy?

Do you deny Hawking's black hole evaporation theory?
Do you deny that this positive energy- negative energy viewpoint has any utility?
Do you deny that my linking this to fusion/ fission interactions around Ni62 has any relevance? Well, this last is definably a stretch, but it was an effort to demonstrate the relative importanace of how you address a problem. And a vague hope that doing such would nudge some out of their rut.

Finally, do you deny that excess energy from fusion of nucleons past a final atomic mass of Ni62 is impossible? And if so, can you explain the life cycle of stars?

Mass of a system = rest mass of componets+ the energy in the form of forces, velocity.
Strong force leads to the release of energy when nucleons are added together.
Electromagnetic force requires the consumption of energy to pack charged particles into a defined space.
The opposing forces scale at different rates.
This scaling difference results in a point where they equal each other (the graphs cross)
The AVAILABLE energy is dependent on the difference between the contributions of these two forces.
The available energy does not scale linearly with the total energy.
The total energy is represented by the rest mass plus any forces (the missing or excess mass in this thread). Antimatter annihilation converts all of this mass/energy into pure free energy.
Nuclear processes converts only a small portion of the mass into free energy. The rest may be reshuffled, but it is not released.
The scaling differences between strong and electromagnetic forces leads, at least in part, to this reshuffling, but not necessarily to linear free energy release or absorption (photons, or kinetic energy of components). The relationships are exponential and based on the lowest energy starting point (Ni62). The proton is not a starting point, it is an ending point in regards to nuclear binding energy.
The reason this did not lead to the entire universe being made up of Ni62 is because of time constraints. The hot Big Bang plasma was a collisional plasma where these exothermic processes occured, but because the plasma quickly became essentially collision-less (relatively speaking), there was time only for the first few elements to be made. This boring situation continued till stars started to form. They have had plenty of time to form the heavier elements towards nickel. This is the dead end, provided the star thn reach this stage. In the Sun, the obtainable heat will only support fusion to ~ carbon- oxygen, plus a few side reaction products.
Once a star runs out of exothermic fusion reactions, the thermodynamic resistance to further gravitational collapse is dampened, and the star will shrink, sometimes very fast, untill some other physical force stops it like the Pauli exclusion principle, etc. This gravitational collapse itself creates a whole bunch of kinwtic energy. In the presence of plenty of components, this can drive a considerable nucleosynthsis past nickel, but this is consuming energy. Sometimes this input energy can be recovered- a Nuclear Power Plant, through reversing this process.


Enough rambling...
My arguments may be to obtuse, and even in cases misleading. As such I again refer to these two links.

The best description I have found that discusses both the strong force and electromagnetic effects on a nucleus, and comparisons with other systems :

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/binding+energy/en-en/

And this one that states the obvious in no uncertain terms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
"The fusion of two nuclei with lower masses than iron (which, along with nickel, has the largest binding energy per nucleon) generally releases energy while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy. The opposite is true for the reverse process, nuclear fission.
...........

The net result of these opposing forces is that the binding energy per nucleon generally increases with increasing size, up to the elements iron and nickel, and then decreases for heavier nuclei. Eventually, the binding energy becomes negative and very heavy nuclei (all with more than 208 nucleons, corresponding to a diameter of about 6 nucleons) are not stable. The four most tightly bound nuclei, in decreasing order of binding energy, are 62 Ni, 58 Fe, 56 Fe, and 60 Ni.[6] Even though the nickel isotope, 62 Ni, is more stable, the iron isotope 56 Fe is an order of magnitude more common. This is due to a greater disintegration rate for 62 Ni in the interior of stars driven by photon absorption."

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Do you deny that electromagnetism is a force?
actually, yes. Forces are emergent, from rate of change of entropy (wrt distance)
Do you deny that the Strong force is a force?
as above
Do you deny that both have effects in a nucleus?
no
Do you deny that these forces are opposed, at least in terms of the packing density within a nucleus?
yes. what stops a nucleus from compressing into nothingness is quantum exclusion {which is an emergent behaviour of the rate of change of entropy!!}
Do you deny that any energy or force can be considered as a mass effect, or visa verse?
energy and force are diffent things. one is a representation of system state, one is a rate of change of said state. question void.
Do you disagree with Einstein?
never met him
Do you deny that Ni62 is the most densely packed nucleus?
no idea. is density related to binding energy? I guess helium is the most densely packed nucleus - every one of its nucleons is in contact with every other one, and it's 'quite round' (as opposed to deuterium or 3H, 3He - which are linear or flat)
Do you deny that this condition is determined by the relative interactions of the two forces mentioned above?
not only these forces.
Do you deny that fusion of nuclei past Ni62 does not release excess energy?
p+62Ni->63Cu appears to be exothermic [for the nth time] because the LHS mass is more than the RHS mass.
Do you deny Hawking's black hole evaporation theory?
i don't really know what that is.
Do you deny that this positive energy- negative energy viewpoint has any utility?
yes. negative energy!?! wot?
Do you deny that my linking this to fusion/ fission interactions around Ni62 has any relevance?
any relevance to wot?
And a vague hope that doing such would nudge some out of their rut.
hey, fella - back up a bit. go take a look. *I* was the one who first spouted that p+62Ni would never be exothermic. But I realise I didn't have explicit evidence to explain that.
Finally, do you deny that excess energy from fusion of nucleons past a final atomic mass of Ni62 is impossible?
too many double negative questions for one day, eh? I think I answered that above.
And if so, can you explain the life cycle of stars?
they get born, their parents push them into stardom, then they generally burn out young though some go on successfully into old age.
Mass of a system = rest mass of componets+ the energy in the form of forces, velocity.
No. Mass of a system = all energy in the system. Period. This is your error. Energy IS mass.
Strong force leads to the release of energy when nucleons are added together.
which translates into a loss of mass
Electromagnetic force requires the consumption of energy to pack charged particles into a defined space.
which translates into an increase in mass IF that electromagnetic work is done from an external source. If it is an internal mechanism without any release of EM, there is NO change in mass.
The opposing forces scale at different rates.
i think I understand what you are getting at, [rhetorical]but so what? [/rhetorical]
The total energy is represented by the rest mass plus any forces (the missing or excess mass in this thread).
how can 'energy' be represented by 'forces'? huh?
Antimatter annihilation converts all of this mass/energy into pure free energy.
you're beginning to troll, here.
Nuclear processes converts only a small portion of the mass into free energy. The rest may be reshuffled, but it is not released.
So now we are on to the idea that no nuclear processes can liberate kinetically energetic nucleons?

OK, I've heard enough, Dan. You have DEFINITIELY lost something today.

Go take a sleep for a few days and reboot, will you?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

D Tibbets wrote: Do you deny that fusion of nuclei past Ni62 does not release excess energy?
I truly hate to do this to you, but I am wondering how you define "fusion".
I say this because many folks would not consider p+62Ni > 63Cu to be fusion. Such folks consider that reaction to be transmutation. Many folks define fusion as the combining of similar size nucleii. If that second meaning is what you mean, then combining similar size nucleii of about the Ni size would be endothermic, would NOT release energy.
However, if you consider p+Ni to be fusion, then I do indeed deny absolutely your assertion that fusion of particles such that the RESULT is past Ni does not realease energy. It does, if one of the two particles is a proton or neutron. It DOES NOT MATTER (except MAYBE in the special case of He) what the size of the other particle is. It can be a nucleon of mass ~1 or a nucleus of mass ~235. Joining a free nucleon with it WILL RELEASE ENERGY. Indeed, in the instance of 235U, it is that released energy that allows the nucleus to exceed the fission energy barrier to deform enough to fission! But the nucleon absorption FIRST releases energy.
D Tibbets wrote:Finally, do you deny that excess energy from fusion of nucleons past a final atomic mass of Ni62 is impossible? And if so, can you explain the life cycle of stars?
Nucleons cannot have an atomic mass beyond 62. Nucleons have an mass value of about 1. Combinations of nucleons/nucleii beyond the mass number of 62 MUST be possible or there would not be any. The question is simply, is a specific reaction endo or exo thermic. 62Ni+62Ni would be endothermic. p+62Ni would be exothermic.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Chrismb gave contrary answers. Force is only a manifestation. True by some definitions. The opposite can also be used. there cannot be any change without an applied force. It is a horse and cart situation. Pick your starting perspective and go . Both approaches have equal validity.

Using the term negative energy is an attempt to represent the competing nature of electromagnatism and the strong force. One adds to the energy of a nucleus, while the other adds to the energy. The energy represented by the strong force decreases as a nucleus is torn apart. The energy represented electromagnetic force decreases as the nucleus is torn apart. But, the density of the nucleus is effected in opposite directions and at different rates. It is this density that drives or results from the energy input or output. Thus the crossover point. If this was not true there would not be any crossover point like Ni62. Using chrismb's argument, even if there was some other force or interaction that stopped the nucleons from compacting further-say the Pauli exclusion principle. this would be an absolute dead end (until you reached conditions where neutron stars could form- in other words gravity becomes dominate until some other barrier is reached. One step further and you are into black holes- enter into discussions about mini subatomic black holes to confuse the issue even more.).The nucleons would continue to clump together till the strong force was equally opposed by the other force. The kicker in this picture is that there is no reversal. Fission as a exothermic reaction is impossible in any nucleus that could exist. You absolutely need two opposing forces which have different distance effects, not just a force or condition that prevents further condensation. The binding energy graph would not reverse. It might reach a level where it levels off but the slope would not reverse.

The question about stellar realities was avoided by making a joke of it.

Mass is mass and energy is is energy and always the twain will meet.
The point that I am trying to make, is that both electromagnetic repulsion and strong force attraction, and weak force - whatever, and kinetic energy are forms of energy (or manifestations of energy if you prefer). So are glueons and other things that make up nucleons and irregardless of the form of energy, it adds to the equivalent mass of a particle or collection of particles bound together. This association says nothing about what the energy is doing or what percent of this energy you can extract from the system. The gluon energy make up most of what is considered mass in a nucleus, but it is irrelevant when talking about mundane nuclear reactions. For understanding the interactions and subsequent energy / mass state changes you have to make a set of measurements with supporting theory to describe the interactions. I am not arguing about which nucleus has the most or least mass or mass- energy equivalent, but which nucleus will release the greater portion of this energy(which is Ni62) and the difference of the comparative nucleus. Two deuteriums have much less mass- energy than say a carbon atom. But the portion of that mass- energy that is harvestable is greater. Using the bowel and marble analogy again , this is because the distance the deuterons can fall is greater- the bowel is deeper from this relative starting point.

KitmanSA, I also wondered if adding a proton or neutron to nickel could add energy, after all the binding energy for the neutron is very low and is zero for protons. But, thinking about it, it does not matter whether the nickel is built up from a bunch of small nucleons, or only a few larger nucleons (like alpha particles) the maximum energy differential is represented by the proton to Ni62 range. It matters not how it is divided up. If you start with Ni61, and add a neutron and a proton. The first would release energy, but only the energy difference between the Ni61 and Ni62. The second nucleon (a proton) would add energy (endothermic) to the system, but only that represented by the energy difference between Ni62 and Cu63. Again the bowel analogy. It is a far distance to the bottom of the empty bowel for a proton, but when the bowel is almost full the proton can only fall a short distance. Another consideration: radioactive decay of a heavy element may produce an alpha particle. This helium nucleus is much lighter than Ni so it would seemingly have a lot of energy. But the source of this energy is the harvestable amount between the original isotope and how close it ends up to Ni62. This would manifest as the kinetic energy added to the products. Add in excited states and other mechanisms and the results become more blurred, but the general trend would remain.

Take a chemical reaction for comparison. 2 H + 1 O yields H2O. The first hydrogen changes the compounds (OH) energy characteristics. But adding another hydrogen changes the compound's (H2O) energy characteristics by the amount between OH and H2O, not the original difference between hydrogen plus oxygen. It is an integral process, not a all or nothing process. Conversely if you are going from Ni62 to Cu63, you would have to push it up into the pile, if only for a small distance.

As far as fusion of fission, the definitions vary depending on what you are talking about. For this discussion my definition of fusion represents any addition of various nucleon combinations that add up to but does not exceed Ni62 atomic weight. While fission is the removal of nucleons from a heavy nuclei until the atomic weight = Ni62. Both will generally release energy. But you have to consider where the energy came from in the first place. For lighter elements it comes compliments of the Big Bang. and some progressive fusion in stars. For the heavier nuclei, the necessary energy came from cooking in hot stars through various nucleosynthesis reactions that borrows energy from the star.

Even if you can somehow catalyze the reactions so that they can proceed at useful rates at low temperatures, it does not directly effect the energy balance (except in possibly decreasing the Coulomb barrior so there is a greated differential in the kinetic energy of the fuel nuclei (or atoms) compared to the kinetic energy of the products. Actually in this regard, using made up numbers, if the conversion of Ni62 to Cu63 had some mechanics that caused a slight jog in the binding energy graph a small amount of excess energy might be possible. And if the input energy was only ~ 0.05 eV there might be a net positive balance. I would still like to see the theory and and experements that demonstrated this specifically.
And I doubt that this is possible considering the source that gave the 4 most binding energy isotopes as three nickels and one iron (meaning the Cu63 would be at least this far away from this shallow peak within this narrow range of the binding energy graph).

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Post Reply