## Recommended Posts

if this is the wrong forum let me know.

how to find how much energy is released in an alpha decay.

e=mc2 mass of uranium is 232.03714 when uranium decays into thorium adam its mass is
228.02873 and a helium atom  4.00260

so, e=mc2 for alpha decay of uranium
mass defect
e= 232.03714 u x c2
final e= 228.02873u+ 4.00260u

the initial mass - the final mass = 0.00581 u
since 1u= 1.66x10 raised to the -27th power of kilograms

plug and play

(0.00581 u)(1.66x10 to the -27th power kg/u)
=(9.6446x10 raised to the - 30th power)(3x10 raised to the 8th)2 (squared)
=8.68x10 raised to the -13th power J (joules 8.68 x 10 to the -13th power = 0.000000000000868 J = 5.4176301099498358482 MeV

One bolt of lighting contains roughly 1-5 billions joules of energy or 6.241509343e+21

so a statement a few questions. I need to generate a constant 12 MeV's

1:) can photo transmutation be done with energy other than nuclear? electromagnetic vibrations with a catalyst perhaps? Does photo transmutation absolutely have to have Gama radiation, bombardment, or inducted into a natural state of alpha or beta decay?

2:) what could i build or do to generate a constant minimum of 12 MeV's.

Edited by Xeno

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xeno said:

so a statement a few questions. I need to generate a constant 12 MeV's

1:) can photo transmutation be done with energy other than nuclear? electromagnetic vibrations with a catalyst perhaps? Does photo transmutation absolutely have to have Gama radiation, bombardment, or inducted into a natural state of alpha or beta decay?

2:) what could i build or do to generate a constant minimum of 12 MeV's.

You need to explain what you mean by "a constant 12 MeV" because that makes no sense. Over what interval do you need this? Is it 12 MeV per second?

##### Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 6:33 AM, swansont said:

You need to explain what you mean by "a constant 12 MeV" because that makes no sense. Over what interval do you need this? Is it 12 MeV per second?

constant as in non fluctuation, not sure speed is a factor. I simply need an energy source that produces at least 12 MeV and doesn't drop below that but i found that a microwave with electromagnetic heating  and a catalyst of oil will be more than capable of handling what i need.  12 Mev = 1.9226e-12 or  0.00000000000192261‬ joules

microwave 6000 Mev =  9.61306e-10 converted to 0.000000000961306. good to go on this one.

the way a microwave heats is by using friction so materials that wouldn't react well to this need a catalyst to assist in the process. for example if you take a piece of graphite and transmute it into a diamond by using a microwave you can't just throw it in the microwave and heat it. you would need to make a crucible with two coffee cups. however graphite isn't reactive enough to microwaves to be turned into a plasma. so you would use a catalyst of oil to be the reactor to turn the graphite to plasma and using vapor deposition you would be left with a tiny manufactured diamond (underneath the scale).

so theoretically I MIGHT be good to go, however I'm unsure as if my project will work because my goal is to make an element lose one proton. considering the properties of the element itself its going to be difficult. however turning mercury to gold has been done.  <- what i would like to recreate. but its been done with  bombardment of fast neutrons. I'm trying to create a simpler way of achieving this goal.

##### Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Xeno said:

constant as in non fluctuation, not sure speed is a factor.

You completely misunderstood Dr Swanson's comment.

On 12/10/2019 at 11:33 AM, swansont said:

You need to explain what you mean by "a constant 12 MeV" because that makes no sense. Over what interval do you need this? Is it 12 MeV per seco

I suggest you mug up on the difference between energy and power since MeV is a unit of energy, not power.

##### Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 12:33 PM, swansont said:

You need to explain what you mean by "a constant 12 MeV" because that makes no sense. Over what interval do you need this? Is it 12 MeV per second?

I am interpreting it as 12 MeV in single particle kinetic energy.

Quantity of such particles per second is a valid and important question though.

##### Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, studiot said:

You completely misunderstood Dr Swanson's comment.

I suggest you mug up on the difference between energy and power since MeV is a unit of energy, not power.

thank you! so i know how much energy i need but I'm not sure as of yet how much power i'll need for the transmutation. The only comparison i'll have to calculate from is either nuclear or bombardment. but you and Dr. Swanson have put me on a closer path to achieving my goal. options are via decay of unstable isotopes, by reaction of fissionable isotopes in a nuclear reactor, and by bombardment of nuclei in an accelerator with high-speed particles. I'll have to think on this one for a bit

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xeno said:

microwave 6000 Mev =  9.61306e-10 converted to 0.000000000961306. good to go on this one.

There is no 6 GeV microwave. Check Wikipedia what are energies of microwave photons! MW have less energy than IR which have less energy than visible photon (energies between  1.8 eV to 3.5 eV).

On 12/10/2019 at 10:29 AM, Xeno said:

2:) what could i build or do to generate a constant minimum of 12 MeV's.

Van de Graaff generator is capable to accelerate particles to such kinetic energies.

1 hour ago, Xeno said:

so theoretically I MIGHT be good to go, however I'm unsure as if my project will work because my goal is to make an element lose one proton. considering the properties of the element itself its going to be difficult. however turning mercury to gold has been done.  <- what i would like to recreate. but its been done with  bombardment of fast neutrons. I'm trying to create a simpler way of achieving this goal.

In nuclear reactors they made unstable radioactive isotopes of Gold, unable to be used or sold commercially.

Only 10% of isotopes of Mercury is Hg-198:

90% are Hg-199 .. Hg-204

Ejection of single proton from  >= Hg-199 to get Au, would lead to very unstable Gold isotope, which would decay anyway.

The only relatively stable Gold isotope is Au-197.

If you have 200 grams of Mercury, it has ~20 grams of Hg-198.

And there is total 6.022141 * 10^23 atoms of Mercury any isotope.

If you would have device that is ejecting single proton from it taking 12 MeV per single atom,

you would need 6.022141* 10 ^23 * 12 MeV = 6.022141* 10 ^23 * 1.2e+7 * 1.6021766*10^-19 = 1.157e+12 Joules of energy.

That is 1157 GJ or 1.157 TJ

1 oz is 31.1 g. 200 grams of Hg-198 turned perfectly to Au-197 with 100% (unimaginable) efficiency would have retail cost 200g / 31.1g * 1500 usd/oz = 9646 usd.

What is price of 1157 GJ of energy?

Google: "According to the Energy Information Administration, the average cost of a kilowatt-hour of electricity in the residential sector in America is around 13.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. This means that the cost of 1 MWh of power for a homeowner is around \$137"

You would have the priciest piece of Gold ever made in the Universe.

Edited by Sensei

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xeno said:

constant as in non fluctuation, not sure speed is a factor. I simply need an energy source that produces at least 12 MeV and doesn't drop below that but i found that a microwave with electromagnetic heating  and a catalyst of oil will be more than capable of handling what i need.  12 Mev = 1.9226e-12 or  0.00000000000192261‬ joules

Let me give an analogy: This is like saying you need a constant dollar from someone. It doesn't mean anything. Is that a dollar every day? Every hour? Does it mean that you need this on multiple occasions, and the important thing is that you get a dollar every time? (Your subsequent posts imply that this might be the case)

2 hours ago, Xeno said:

the way a microwave heats is by using friction

That's not how microwave ovens heat things.

##### Share on other sites

One way to summarise the absurdity of making gold from mercury is to point out that people deliberately did it the other way round.

They wanted a single isotope of mercury (because they wanted to use it in a mercury vapour lamp with a very narrow emission line the other isotopes emit at very slightly different wavelengths.)

So they got some gold- which only has one stable isotope and irradiated it   to get a single mercury isotope

##### Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

One way to summarise the absurdity of making gold from mercury is to point out that people deliberately did it the other way round.

They wanted a single isotope of mercury (because they wanted to use it in a mercury vapour lamp with a very narrow emission line the other isotopes emit at very slightly different wavelengths.)

So they got some gold- which only has one stable isotope and irradiated it   to get a single mercury isotope

"Gold was synthesized from mercury by neutron bombardment in 1941, but the isotopes of gold produced were all radioactive.[12] In 1924, a Japanese physicist, Hantaro Nagaoka, accomplished the same feat.[13]

Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear reactor by the irradiation of either platinum or mercury.

Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by slow neutron capture, and following electron capture, decay into gold's only stable isotope, 197Au. When other mercury isotopes are irradiated with slow neutrons, they also undergo neutron capture, but either convert into each other or beta decay into the thallium isotopes 203Tl and 205Tl.

Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then decays into stable gold. This reaction, however, possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is feasible only with unmoderated reactors.

It is also possible to eject several neutrons with very high energy into the other mercury isotopes in order to form 197Hg. However such high-energy neutrons can be produced only by particle accelerators.[clarification needed].

In 1980, Glenn Seaborg transmuted several thousand atoms of bismuth into gold at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. His experimental technique, using nuclear physics, was able to remove protons and neutrons from the bismuth atoms. Seaborg's technique was far too expensive to enable the routine manufacture of gold but his work is the closest yet to emulating the mythical Philosopher's Stone.[14][15]"

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sensei said:

"Gold was synthesized from mercury by neutron bombardment in 1941, but the isotopes of gold produced were all radioactive.[12] In 1924, a Japanese physicist, Hantaro Nagaoka, accomplished the same feat.[13]

Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear reactor by the irradiation of either platinum or mercury.

Only the mercury isotope 196Hg, which occurs with a frequency of 0.15% in natural mercury, can be converted to gold by slow neutron capture, and following electron capture, decay into gold's only stable isotope, 197Au. When other mercury isotopes are irradiated with slow neutrons, they also undergo neutron capture, but either convert into each other or beta decay into the thallium isotopes 203Tl and 205Tl.

Using fast neutrons, the mercury isotope 198Hg, which composes 9.97% of natural mercury, can be converted by splitting off a neutron and becoming 197Hg, which then decays into stable gold. This reaction, however, possesses a smaller activation cross-section and is feasible only with unmoderated reactors.

It is also possible to eject several neutrons with very high energy into the other mercury isotopes in order to form 197Hg. However such high-energy neutrons can be produced only by particle accelerators.[clarification needed].

In 1980, Glenn Seaborg transmuted several thousand atoms of bismuth into gold at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. His experimental technique, using nuclear physics, was able to remove protons and neutrons from the bismuth atoms. Seaborg's technique was far too expensive to enable the routine manufacture of gold but his work is the closest yet to emulating the mythical Philosopher's Stone.[14][15]"

exactly right, which is why I'm wondering if there is a way to do this in a low cost way that doesn't involve dangerous radioactive gold as an end result. And that doesn't involve me building a nuclear reactor  lol. might have to study the periodic table and work with different elements on this one. I'm not equipped to maintain a reactor as a source of neutrons

##### Share on other sites

Better visit Klondike.. It will be cheaper and faster way to get some Gold scraps..

## Create an account

Register a new account