DARK0717

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

To create plasma arc use Van de Graaff generator.

This is from my own:

Alternatively you can build Cockcroft Walton generator 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockcroft–Walton_generator

 

then apply a magnetic field cage... i wonder what happens, i also wonder how much power is required

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Nice explanation.

You can also use semiconductors etc to create a voltage with the photoelectric effect.

This is called photvoltaics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics

Yes this is how technologists are trying to build a fusion reactior.

Essentially a plasma arc is initiated and contained in a magnetic 'bottle' long enough for the fusion process to start and become self sustaining.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak

containing plasma that way takes tons of power and in a controlled lab. is there a way to diy such a process or use low powered devices/techniques to achieve plasma containment even just for a sec using comercially available supplies? also is there an electron battery thats achieved using coils or some configuration; one without the use of chemicals?

55 minutes ago, exchemist said:

A "jar of pure electrons" would mean an accumulation of -ve charge. You can do this to some degree with something like a Leyden Jar, in other words a capacitor. And you can use those to produce an electric discharge, which involves an arc.  

But you would not use the photoelectric effect for that, I don't think. You would need something that can "push" the electrons together, against their mutual repulsion, in other words a high voltage. You won't get that from the photoelectric effect.   

i see, so photoelectric aside, maybe capacitors... is it possible to make it arc through a magnetic field and possibly contain it as it arcs?

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Not hydrogen atoms. You want a conducting solid material, such as a metal plate, because the idea - at least as I recall it - is that with light above a certain frequency a current flows in a circuit, due to the emitted electrons, whereas below that frequency it doesn't. The experimental setup to "catch" the emitted electrons is shown in this diagram from the Wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#/media/File:Photoelectric_effect_measurement_apparatus_-_microscopic_picture.svg

You can certainly ionise hydrogen or other gases with light with energy above the ionisation energy for the gas, but this is not what people mean when they talk about the photoelectric effect.

As for capturing and containing them, you will struggle because they will repel one another and a bulk -ve charge will accumulate.

 

i was thinking of ripping anything off of electrons and have a jar of pure electrons, i mean surely there is plasma but thats a little over the top to do. How about an arcing electricity? is it possible to swing an electron jar to electrons jumping like in a tesla coil?

I just read that using ultraviolet knocks/strips off atoms of electrons like hydrogen atoms and this process is called the photoelectric effect.

I wish to know what knocked off electrons look like while/after the process
and how do I capture and contain them in a theoretical electron jar.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Yup a is correct.

Lewis structures have atoms with set valencies and sometimes also dot pairs for lone pairs.
Oxygen should be two-valent and the lone pairs also 2.

The chlorine in d has 3 lone pairs and is one-valent.

The lines represent covalent bonds with single electrons.

 

Honestly, the only thing that helped me somewhat get it is google by searching the number of bonds of oxygen, but when u said chlorine, I started doubting my knowledge... Hopefully when I ask another homework help, id get the answer already as I always tend to ask after as to why it is the answer... I like to know the reason behind why things are, tho a little frustrated already... Aight thanks all for the help, id better sleep now

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

You see? Studiot was right. You're learning from your mistakes.

"I did learn from my mistake, I completely know thats the outcome to every mistake, tho to what end? a lower grade, a non perfect score..."

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

That is why I prefer exams to continuous assessment.

The route is not as important as the destination so the learning process should not be marked so long as you get there in the end.

 

By the way did you understand what I said, and now know which is not Lewis and why?

I actually did not, it's 1 am and this home school program is torture, I just cant think anymore
The answer was A, I think its because the oxygen had more than 2 bonds
I havent mentioned that this quiz is rigged, there are times that two choices are exactly the same (and are correct) but picking the other is marked as wrong

1 minute ago, studiot said:

You learn more from your mistakes than from your successes !

well, u can tell that to schools who only grade students by their grades in numbers and not the things they learn from mistakes... sigh

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine.

One of these has the wrong number of bonds.

man, I answered D, it was wrong, it couldve been a perfect score, i was really hoping the reply was the answer

please help, I'm pretty confused...

34 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Heat the copper in air and it will oxidise.

Thank you

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Almost anything painted matte black will heat up faster than if left with a shiny/colored surface.
Black will absorb more of the incident radiation, while shiny or colored will reflect some.

However, copper is also very conductive, which means heat will be carried away to all exterior surfaces quickly, and re-radiate.
There is also the matter of the paint/copper interface, and how conductive it is.
( IIRC, copper needs a zinc based primer for paint adhesion, which further complicates matters )

So you asked a very vague question, to which no one can give an exact answer.
I suggest redefining the parameters of your question, or simply trying the experiment with those you have in mind.
Also keep in mind that the intended use comes into play; is it for heat storage, or removal ?

heat collection then heat transfer. I asked a mostly general question as I intend to just modify either values to reach a goal of which to absorb heat faster and transfer it somewhere, preferrably with copper heat pipes

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Depending on circumstances, the best bet might be to heat the copper so that it oxidises slightly.
Copper (II) oxide is black and, because it is formed on the surface of the metal it should carry heat to it well.

 

thank you, tho will I be able to use Copper (II) Oxide as paint or will it work (oxidize) on any copper plate?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Part of this depends on the state of the copper. If it's polished and the surface is flat, it is very reflective. But a rough, oxidized surface can have an emissivity that's quite large, meaning it acts more like a blackbody. It also depends on the properties at different wavelengths

https://www.flukeprocessinstruments.com/en-us/service-and-support/knowledge-center/infrared-technology/emissivity-metals

Assuming it's shiny copper, if you paint it, it should be a matte finish, since a glossy one would reflect more light. That will probably heat up faster than just the copper.

Maybe you do an experiment and see how it heats up before and after painting?

thank you very much

I was thinking of painting a copper plate with, maybe black spray paint and leave it under the sun, will the copper plate heat up faster than without black paint?
How efficient will the heat transfer of paint to the copper?
What is the best kind paint to be used?

Im looking for a simulation software the can simulate how liquids compresses when done this way instead of a linear compressor. Black is a solid wall, lets say the chamber is indestructible and we can apply as much compression as we want. I wish to know how much energy in kw is required to compress them so much in the center and how much pressure there is in the center.

What I want to achieve is fusion, tho I just want to compare how much more efficient this design would be compared to others that use linear methods.

I would like the chamber follow the golden ratio.

Even if everyone says this wont work or anything, I just wanna see what happens

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

Signals that are added out of phase tend to cancel. I would imagine a circuit designed to do this would have the ability to adjust this and maximize the signal (or you could do this by changing the locations of the antennas; a signal at e.g. 300 MHz has a wavelength of a meter) but it means you can’t just combine them as you want.

i see thanks

I know there are modems that can support up to 2 external antennas, but I was wondering if I use a combiner essentially having 2 antennas each port, which is 4.
Does this have any up or down sides?
Can I simply scale it to as much combining as I want?

also, i dunno what branch of science this is so I just put it in physics...
 

i wanna focus on the simple wind of coil vs a coil with primary and secondary windings.
Dont a normal wound coil already increase the voltage?
What is the principle of step up coils with primary and secondary windings?(this isnt much clear to me)

Why should I use the other over the other?
Easiest DIY step up coil? goal voltage is probably atleast enough volts to make a spark gap

Additional: since voltage is means pressure, meaning, can I increase voltage to discharge much faster or it still depends on the discharge rate of the source? (think of it like pouring tons of pebbles on a really fast conveyor belt)

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Thermal fission of U-235 produced an average of 2.43 neutrons. For the reactor to be critical, one of those neutrons must induce another fission. If you can get any of the other 1.43 neutrons to be absorbed in a nucleus that runs into fuel (e.g.U-238, forming U-239, which then undergoes two steps of beta decay to become Pu-239) then you have produced fuel. If you could arrange it so that more than one neutron per fission undergoes that reaction (not an easy task), you will have a net increase in the amount of fissile material.

i see

Soooooo, in essence, is it possible to make a NukePlant that makes its own fuel and using it, even doing removing the core or smth? disregard the energy it takes to build such a facility

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

The energy from a power plant is much more than the energy needed to produce usable uranium.  The same is true of coal.  

That doesn't mean overunity though.  We are simply utilizing the potential energy in the uranium or coal.

sooo, cant NukePlants make uranium and resupply itself or charge batteries to power equipment to gather uranium (i dunno how usable uranium is obtained)

also, why are the wiered magnet engines not considered as "utilizing potential energy in magnets" when that is actually the case?
I think its coz of the terms used in such devices, tho i cant agree that they break the laws of physics because energy from magnets cause motion and they basically act as (in the best conditions, long lasting batteries)

I was about to sleep last night, and i wondered, how much energy does it take to produce uranium needed vs the total energy production of nuclear power plants (regardless of energy used to construct the whole fascility ofc)

On 4/3/2020 at 6:11 PM, studiot said:

I knew there was a special term for this type of device.

I looked it up and they are called 'Electrode boilers'

Note

They are AC only, single or polyphase.

They are used for generating steam as well as just heating water and are usually operated well above atmospheric pressure 10bar being typical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrode_boiler

 

You would not use this method to heat a cup of water.

 

i see, thank you

10 hours ago, Strange said:

If you are isolating the water that is used to generate the heat from the water that is being heated, then I can't see any point in retaining the water used to generate the heat. Just use resistive wire (as used in old-fashioned electric heaters). Any advantage that comes from using the water as a heating element (whatever that might be - I struggle to imagine) is gone once you are no longer directly heating the water with the electric current. It sounds like you are trying to solve a non-existent problem.

Encase the electric heating elements in a metal surround and ensure that the element cannot come into contact with it. (And ground it for safety, obviously.) It is called an "immersion heater".

Can I use magnetic induction to accomplish what i wanna accomplish?
/\ I cant think of a proper design atm that is small and can simply be immersed in water