Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 24 Feb '10 20:32
    Do any of you think it would be possible to make a machine that fuses atoms to create denser atoms, collects the neutrons, shoots electrons into the denser atoms and collects the leftover power?
    This would, essentially, be a powerful machine, and it would fuse atoms to make the radioactive material, split the atoms, collecting ALL the power. Did I mention that it would fuse the waste till it wasn't radioactive?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    24 Feb '10 21:03
    Originally posted by Evillittleweirdguy
    Do any of you think it would be possible to make a machine that fuses atoms to create denser atoms, collects the neutrons, shoots electrons into the denser atoms and collects the leftover power?
    This would, essentially, be a powerful machine, and it would fuse atoms to make the radioactive material, split the atoms, collecting ALL the power. Did I mention that it would fuse the waste till it wasn't radioactive?
    Probably not. The most stable elements are iron and those similar to it. Fusion reactions will not make small atoms into atoms larger than iron so the fission can take place.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    24 Feb '10 23:54
    Originally posted by Evillittleweirdguy
    Do any of you think it would be possible to make a machine that fuses atoms to create denser atoms, collects the neutrons, shoots electrons into the denser atoms and collects the leftover power?
    This would, essentially, be a powerful machine, and it would fuse atoms to make the radioactive material, split the atoms, collecting ALL the power. Did I mention that it would fuse the waste till it wasn't radioactive?
    The only bad part of that design is you need to get to about 1 trillion degrees to force fusion up to iron, of course at that point iron would not be radioactive. Except for Iron 55 which radiates like a bitch. I know about that isotope, we use it to deduce the thickness of a titanium layer in an optical component we used to build.
  4. 25 Feb '10 09:02
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Probably not. The most stable elements are iron and those similar to it. Fusion reactions will not make small atoms into atoms larger than iron so the fission can take place.
    I believe that all elements in existence today come from stars in which such fusion and fission reactions do take place - atoms larger than Iron can be created by fusion but at an energy cost.

    From wikipedia:
    If two light nuclei fuse, they will generally form a single nucleus with a slightly smaller mass than the sum of their original masses. The difference in mass is released as energy according to Albert Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2. If the input atoms are sufficiently massive, the resulting fusion product will be heavier than the reactants, in which case the reaction requires an external source of energy. The dividing line between "light" and "heavy" is iron-56. Above this atomic mass, energy will generally be released by nuclear fission reactions; below it, by fusion.

    What I don't know much about is the conversion of Protons to Neutrons and vice versa.
  5. 25 Feb '10 18:07
    Well, a machine that fuses atoms is a fusion reactor - it's easiest to fuse the lighest atoms because they give the biggest energy gain and we can't even do that properly yet.
  6. 25 Feb '10 20:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, a machine that fuses atoms is a fusion reactor - it's easiest to fuse the lightest atoms because they give the biggest energy gain and we can't even do that properly yet.
    Oh, but it's 'easy' to fuse atoms. It's just not economicly possible yet.
    It simply cost more to do it than the energy gained is worth.
  7. 26 Feb '10 15:14
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Oh, but it's 'easy' to fuse atoms. It's just not economicly possible yet.
    It simply cost more to do it than the energy gained is worth.
    Hence "properly".
  8. 26 Feb '10 18:24
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Hence "properly".
    You mean properly as economicly properly?
    I thought you meant technologicly properly.
    Hence my posting.

    Technologically we can create gold. Economicly we cannot.
    Same goes for diamonds.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Feb '10 18:16
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    You mean properly as economicly properly?
    I thought you meant technologicly properly.
    Hence my posting.

    Technologically we can create gold. Economicly we cannot.
    Same goes for diamonds.
    Actually not true for diamonds, they are now manufacturable in large sizes way cheaper than natural ones. That said, you cannot pass them off as natural, they can be detected as man-made.
  10. 27 Feb '10 20:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Actually not true for diamonds, they are now manufacturable in large sizes way cheaper than natural ones. That said, you cannot pass them off as natural, they can be detected as man-made.
    Does that mean that industrial diamonds are now mostly man made?
    If man made diamonds could be passed off as real ones, would anyone tell us?
  11. 28 Feb '10 12:48
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    You mean properly as economicly properly?
    I thought you meant technologicly properly.
    Hence my posting.

    Technologically we can create gold. Economicly we cannot.
    Same goes for diamonds.
    Yes, I mean "properly" as in economically viable, I thought that was obvious.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 Mar '10 15:52
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Does that mean that industrial diamonds are now mostly man made?
    If man made diamonds could be passed off as real ones, would anyone tell us?
    There are a lot of man made industrial diamonds, for diamond paste on drills and such, it is pretty easy to make sub millimeter sized diamonds on an industrial scale.
    If large diamonds could be made cheaply enough, someone would try to get away with selling them as natural, you can take that to the bank, detectable or not. If they sold some of those diamonds to a diamond merchant for cash, how long do you think they would hang around town?
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    02 Mar '10 16:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Does that mean that industrial diamonds are now mostly man made?
    If man made diamonds could be passed off as real ones, would anyone tell us?
    The DeBeers company is very powerful and has managed to politically shut down the artificial decorative diamond trade by forcing diamond manufacturers to put impurities in them to make them ugly I think.

    EDIT - I am unable to find any sources that support this statement though DeBeers has gotten in trouble for monopolistic practices. If you bought a diamond in the last two decades you might be able to get some money back.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    02 Mar '10 16:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Does that mean that industrial diamonds are now mostly man made?
    If man made diamonds could be passed off as real ones, would anyone tell us?
    DeBeers would. The dude trying to make that sale might not live long (j/k...sorta).
  15. 05 Mar '10 06:14
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The DeBeers company is very powerful and has managed to politically shut down the artificial decorative diamond trade by forcing diamond manufacturers to put impurities in them to make them ugly I think.

    EDIT - I am unable to find any sources that support this statement though DeBeers has gotten in trouble for monopolistic practices. If you bought a diamond in the last two decades you might be able to get some money back.
    i read an article about a father/son diamond manufacturer.

    one time someone came up behind one of them, stuck a gun to the back of his head, and warned him not to pursue the business.