Origin of Hydrogen

by Satanus 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Realist


    maybe you know this...why doesn't a fusion reactor with its 100 million degrees K produce gamma or other photonic radiation that melts the magnetic coils? shouldn't plasma at that temperature produce radiation like crazy?

  • Robdar


    Thank you for adding on to the explanation. I suspected that somehow, someway, neutrons would be the device used to wreck havoc.


  • Crazy151drinker


    Let me know when they get that Reactor working. When they develop fusion and feasible hyrdogen storage this country will enter a new era industrial revolution.

    Alan F,

    Are the materials needed to produce a Hydrogen bomb harder to produce then an 'A-bomb'?? It took us what, 10 years to develeop the H bomb. The reason I ask is regarding to N. Korea+ Iraq. I know that they have/are developing first generation A-bombs, how hard would it be for them to then use their A-bombs to trigger Fusion???

    The Bikini explosion in my opinion was quite beautiful. The effects were pretty nasty though.....

    And I really like Bikinis on women (proof that some positive things have come from the arms race..)

  • Hojon

    Fusion bombs are quite a bit harder to make. A country like Iraq probably doesn't have quite the technology to build one, but N Korea might. Fission bombs ("atom bombs") are easier to make as they are sort of a naturally occuring event. Just put enough material in one spot (or compact it together enough) and it just kind of happens.

    Fusion bombs take a little more engineering to put together and HOPEFULLY Iraq and NK aren't quite there yet.

  • peacefulpete

    hojon..I read somewhere years ago that they found large deposit of encapsulated exceptionally pure uranium in Africa and there was evidence of self catalysing or whatever the word is. In other words the large mass of very pure uranium 2?? had begun a fission cascade right in the ground many thousands of years earlier. This of course left tell tale evidence in the surrounding rock and the body itself. The odds against this happening are astronomical according to the article. What do you think did aliens bury it there to nuke us off the planet? (joking)

  • Realist


    fusion reactors should get online in around 40 to 50 years ! :-)

    that will solve all energy problems for all times! no more oil, no nuclear reactors, no pollution.

    fantastic research field!!!!

    the H bomb is not complicated for the material used (deuterium is ubiquitous) but for the construction. a normal A bomb is pretty simple once you have enough uranium or plutonium. the h bomb is far more sofisticated.

    PS: i 100% agree on the bikini statements!!! :))))

    Edited by - realist on 13 February 2003 17:35:23

  • Xander

    Fusion bombs are quite a bit harder to make

    Actually, really not that much harder at all. It's essentially the same principle as the less powerful fission bombs - compress a lot of matter together rather quickly. The most powerful atom bombs have the enriched material in a sphere, with not enough density to set off an uncontrollable chain reaction...at least, as large as the sphere is. You surround it with plastic explosive wired in such a way as to create a perfectly focused blast to the center of the sphere. This, obviously, compresses the enriched material to the point a fission explosion occurs. This is an 'atomic bomb'.

    (very simplified explanation) You pretty much just take this core of an atomic bomb and encase it in a much larger, very, very dense shell inside which you put your deuterium. The atomic explosion in the center superheats the deuterium in a fraction of a second to the millions of degrees that a stars core has - the temperature needed to start nuclear fusion. Essentially, you make a very short lived very small star over a city. As you can imagine, the effect in an atmosphere is....quite intense.(/very simplified explanation)

    Nuclear fusion - both as a weapon and a power source - creates many, MANY times more power than fission does. All 'nuclear power plants' today are fission plants. The first atomic bombs were fission bombs. We now have fusion bombs (the so-called 'hydrogen bomb'), and are working on fusion plants, as well. The potential for power from it is unparalleled. Plus, no nasty nuclear waste from fusion, either, so...bonus!

    why doesn't a fusion reactor with its 100 million degrees K produce gamma or other photonic radiation that melts the magnetic coils

    Well, what happens is these very powerful magnets keep the plasma suspended so that it never makes contact with the coil. In theory. Problem is, to date, this type of fusion just doesn't look like it will pan out. It takes more power to run the magnetic coils than the fusion reaction generates. Thus, the so-called holy grail of 'cold fusion' - fusion power that generates more energy than it uses.

    Not so much a problem, there are obviously a LOT of other ways to get fusion. But, so far, all attempts have failed.

    It is a problem that will be solved, and when it is....well, the world will change. Seriously. Think how much power a nuke plant generates now. Multiply that by a hundred. And the reactor uses water as fuel. And generates harmless helium as the sole by-product. Suddenly, every oil company everywhere goes out of business overnight. The middle east? Who cares!

    Just imagine....

    Edited by - Xander on 13 February 2003 17:34:55

  • Realist


    the magnetic field just keeps the plasma contained...but it cannot contain photons. so the question is why don't the photons melt the coils? (or are there no photons produced?)

    the problem with the fusion reactors is that you need a BIG one...otherwise you don't produce more energy than invested in igniting the fusion. but a big fusion reactor requires big magnetic fields which are so far unstable. they are trying to stabalize the magnetic fields...once thats done the reactor should work.

  • Xander

    Another point....the 'neat' thing, if you will, about fusion explosions is that they are scalable. With a fission bomb, you can control the yield a *little*. Not much, though, as the amount of matter to create a 'critical mass' (which is more of a function of density to matter) is fairly fixed depending on what material you use.

    Now, fusion bombs, on the other hand. Keep in mind what causes the massive explosion is the enriched hydrogen atoms (deuterium) fusing together into helium uncontrollably. The more hydrogen you have, the greater the energy released. And it scales fairly linearly. IE, you could fill a city block with deuterium, and set an atom bomb in the center of it, and the resulting energy released would flatten, oh, say, the eastern seaboard.

    Which is why hydrogen bombs would (theoretically) be VERY desirable for 'rogue states' to have. With the same weapon core that would be 'merely' an atomic bomb, they can add deuterium to it and as much as they have, they can build a bigger and bigger 'nuke' using the same, single, atomic bomb core.

  • Crazy151drinker

    I find Hydrogen Bombs facinating (well it goes boom!!).

    I wish they would invest more money in Fusion. They could build one less Crusier for all I care.

    Another area that facinates me is nanotechnology. Have you guys checked out the specs on Carbon Nanotubes?!! Give me a tank made out of nanotubes!! I would like to work for a nano company when I gradutate. Im thinking in 15-20 years we'll have 'Storm Trooper' armor for troops. My goodness! 100X stronger than steel and 1/6 the weight!! *drool*

Share this