Bufofrog
-
Posts
1859 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bufofrog
-
-
3 minutes ago, chenbeier said:
If so then would be radiation no problem. Why the people afraid of nuclear power then.
Radiation can kill you or give you cancer even though that radiation (depending on the type)will not make your body radioactive. So high doses of radiation are dangerous.
Nuclear power produces radioactive sources. Those radioactive sources are dangerous. The neutron radiation from fission causes the metals in the reactor and the supporting components to become radioactive. The spent nuclear fuel is full of fission products that are also highly radioactive.
0 -
7 hours ago, chenbeier said:
I referred to the initial question, if material is exposed to alpha, beta or gamma rays . Nothing more, if it was unclear then I say sorry.
In general alpha, beta or gamma rays will not cause a material to become radioactive.
0 -
38 minutes ago, chenbeier said:
Did I said something different.
Yes, you said, "All material itself get radioactive, if exposed longer time to any of radiation."
Moontanman said, "it takes particles like neutrons or protons to actually make another atom radioactive."
1 -
1 hour ago, ALine said:
No, I am turning alpha particles into a proton pair and then waiting for them to fuse by applying energy.
The protons are already fused, at least for an instant or so.
I have a question for you, if 2 protons fuse together what is the resulting product?
1 hour ago, ALine said:If you have a naturally decaying radioactive source such as C-60 which emits gamma radiation then you would not need to worry about input energy.
That's true, but it has nothing to do with what we are discussing in this thread as far as I can see.
1 -
5 minutes ago, jajrussel said:
I read that Earth would have to spin at 28,437 km per hour to cause us to lift off the surface. I’m assuming at that point we would effectively be weightless. Seemingly throwing a wrench into F=GM1M2/R2 ,
Why do you think it would "throw a wrench into into F=GM1M2/R2 ?
0 -
4 hours ago, ALine said:
It shows that the resultant of fusion is not beta(-) decay but instead beta(+) decay.
First of all I was not talking about beta decay from fusion because that was not the scenario you brought up, however I did incorrectly say beta- decay instead of beta+ decay.
Addressing your OP you said:
On 2/13/2024 at 7:04 AM, ALine said:Could you take alpha radiation and then strip the neutrons from it using gamma radiation and then apply radiation to heat the proton pair to lead to fusion?
Alpha radiation consists of a He nucleus, so the neutrons and protons are 'fused' together. Let's assume we can somehow remove the neutrons from the nucleus. Your question then is could the 2 protons undergo fusion. The 2 protons are already fused together, so I'm not sure what your asking.
In reality if the 2 neutrons were removed from the nucleus the resulting helium isotope would be extremely unstable and one of the protons would immediately beta+ decay to a neutron forming deuterium. No fusion would occur.
1 -
That graphic does not show what you described in the OP.
1 -
1 hour ago, ALine said:
isn't He-2 isotope decaying into H-2(deuterium) just fusion?
If that could occur that would be a beta- decay which is not fusion.
0 -
37 minutes ago, Moontanman said:
The data we have obtained from police body cams is enough to show the police are in great need of oversight
Right, that's what the cameras are for.
0 -
28 minutes ago, ALine said:
Wouldn't the proton pair be past the coulomb barrier between the two? So would it be feasible?
How would gamma radiation strip neutrons from the alpha particle? Removing the neutrons from an alpha particle is not fusion anyway.
0 -
10 minutes ago, ahmet said:
Do not please tease with the people you do not know!
it might negatively affect you.
How could it negatively affect me?
Do you realize that nobody could possibly give you any 'ideas' since you did not give enough information to know what you are talking about?
2 -
6 hours ago, ahmet said:
I am investigating the reason why for the case.
have an idea?
Probably your ex-wife's uncle suggested you should review it.
0 -
7 hours ago, Elmore said:
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
I pretty sure that saying a quark and a soul are the same thing means your idea is not part of theoretical physics.
0 -
The reaction requires heat, so the reaction cannot be used to run a turbine. The reaction cools down the the solution.
0 -
This is definitely something you need to discuss with your doctor, I am sure he can help you.
Good luck and taker care.
0 -
2 hours ago, kacenty said:
I'll paste below a conclusion from single session so it might maybe add some clarity.
QuoteQ: answer shortly: assume GPS timekeeper is also a timer for signal generator, its drift is the only source of differences in both received clock's value and frequency shift of carrying wave, yes?
A: Yes, that's correct.
Q: answer shortly: and there is no additional gravitational blue shift?
A: No, there is no additional gravitational blueshift to account for.
You do realize that GPT-4 doesn't give accurate answers to questions don't you? The GPT-4 was designed to sound like a person. It doesn't matter if it is telling you something completely wrong as long as it sounds like a person.
1 -
3 hours ago, wp43545 said:
Think bigger!
No thanks, I'll stick with thinking logically.
1 -
Looking at the Moon and Mars I see lots of circular craters, what I don't see are 'slides', which leads me to believe that what you are looking at is not a meteorite slide.
0 -
8 minutes ago, wp43545 said:
The northern path is from Cuba to the tip of the country.
What country?
0 -
I noticed that this is a cut and paste from physics stack exchange. I also see that you have posed the same question in other sites but you have no follow up, just the single post and no further replies. Do plan on replying to comments on your post?
0 -
1 hour ago, swansont said:
“hardly” is a matter of the precision of the clocks. The value given here is 3 x 10^-10, which is pretty big in atomic clock terms. A millisecond per year (3.15 x 10^7 sec)
True, but compared to a stopped clock it isn't much.
1 -
33 minutes ago, kacenty said:
If one inverts these calculations relative to the center of the Earth, it turns out that the clock at the center of the Earth stands still (is infinitely retarded relative to the Earth's surface).
No, that is not true, there would be hardly any difference in the 2 clocks rates.
36 minutes ago, kacenty said:My question then is: why all the fuss about time dilation?
What fuss are you referring too?
1 -
39 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:
In my opinion is a problem like in my example with a human observer from a New York street where he "observes" now a mixture of past times .He can can make predictions but they are wrong
No his predictions are correct to the accuracy he needs.
0 -
10 hours ago, Time Traveler said:
In my opinion it is a big problem because the observations who the observer makes is like he observes a cloud who has now form of a mountain and his conclusion is , there is a mountain in the cloud
If you have visual/mental problems such as this, then I think you may have health problems, it is definitely nothing to do with the speed of light.
0
How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?
in Speculations
Posted
What is that supposed to mean? Since you used e.g. which means 'for example', you are saying, "As far as I know water_waves travel [for example] at c."
No water waves don't travel at c.
EM radiation and water waves are very different things. A water wave is a disturbance in a medium. EM waves are not a disturbance in a medium, they are a disturbance in a field.