Jump to content

Argon plasma energy calculation to satisfy E=mc^2


Recommended Posts

This is the calculation Swansnot was asking for. If I made any newbie mistake feel free to point it out instead of yelling at me about it, thanks.

So Argon gas has a atomic number of 18, which means it has 18 electrons. When an electric field or enough energy is applied to the Argon gas it would strip an electron off call the ionization energy. The result is if enough electron is stripped off it would turn the Argon gas into Argon plasma like the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZxUdJcxNk

Now I want to produce enough energy to satisfy the formula for E=mc^2. I would use a mass of 1kg and that would get me an energy of 9*10^16 joules. I would attempt to generate this amount of energy with Argon gas. I would have the Argon gas placed in a Tomakak reactor and heat it up through ohmic heating that it would generate enough energy to strip away all 18 electrons theoretically(please verify this for me). Below is a video of the Tomakak reactor running plasma.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8hXBrEhxKU

Now I want to strip all 18 electrons off the Argon gas, and the mol ionization energy is listed below. This is the amount of energy required in KJ to strip 1 mol of Argon gas of 1 electron, 2 electrons, and so on.

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

Since I want to strip all 18 electrons I sum up all 18 mol ionization energy(please verify this for me).

1520.6 +2665.8 +3931 +5771 +7238 +8781 +11995 +13842 +40760 +46186 +52002 +59653 +66199 +72918 +82473 +88576 +397605 +427066 = 1389182.4KJ

This is the amount of energy it takes to strip all 18 electrons from 1 mol of Argon gas. So now we calculate how many mols of Argon gas we need. We take the energy from E=mc^2 and divide by the mol ionization energy.

9*10^16/1389182400 = 64786308.8389 mols

In standard temperature and pressure(STP) 1 mol of gas takes up a volume of 22.4L. So we multiply the mols of Argon gas by the volume to see how much space it takes up. Also 1L = 1000cm^3

64786308.8389*22.4*1000=1.4512133*10^12cm^3
convert cm^3 to m^3 1cm^3 = 1*10^-6m^3
1.4512133*10^12*1*10^-6=1451213.3m^3
convert m^3 to km^3 for 1m^3 = 1*10^-9km^3
1451213.3*1*10^-9=0.0014512133km^3

 

What does this mean?
This means the amount of Argon gas it takes to satisfy E=mc^2 for 1kg of mass is around 0.00145 kilo cubic meter or I estimate around 113.22 meters for width, length, and height(could be wrong some rough estimate). This however, is without gas compression. If you are running this at 1000atm you could crunch the gas down to 1451m^3 which is roughly 11.32 meters for width length and height.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you asking people to check your math, or your idea ?

E=mc^2  is the equivalent energy of an amount of mass, m, as measured in its rest frame.

What does this non-sensical calculation of ionization energies have to do with mass-energy equivalence ???
At best it is a measure of the binding energy of electrons to their nucleus.
That is, assuming the math is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are you asking people to check your math, or your idea ?

E=mc^2  is the equivalent energy of an amount of mass, m, as measured in its rest frame.

What does this non-sensical calculation of ionization energies have to do with mass-energy equivalence ???
At best it is a measure of the binding energy of electrons to their nucleus.
That is, assuming the math is correct.

Well, two things I have in mind.

1. Would a fusion reactor strip all 18 electrons off the Argon gas.

2. Would the pressure reach 1000atm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Well, two things I have in mind.

1. Would a fusion reactor strip all 18 electrons off the Argon gas.

2. Would the pressure reach 1000atm.

1.  Yes, the temperature would be high enough for complete ionization.

2.  No

What does any of this have to do with E=mc^2?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

1.  Yes, the temperature would be high enough for complete ionization.

2.  No

What does any of this have to do with E=mc^2?

I want to reach that amount of energy with Argon plasma, it is a long story. I will explain my reasoning if you guys would be entertained.

2. Magnetic field can pressurize plasma you know as shown in video below. You sure it won’t reach 1000atm?

 

Edited by fredreload
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, fredreload said:

I want to reach that amount of energy with Argon plasma, it is a long story.

You can't just state what the point is?

39 minutes ago, fredreload said:

2. Magnetic field can pressurize plasma you know as shown in video below. You sure it won’t reach 1000atm?

You can increase the pressure but not in the Tomakak which you were asking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You can't just state what the point is?

You can increase the pressure but not in the Tomakak which you were asking about.

1. I am trying to use the energy to achieve length contraction, but as to how I derive this result is speculative, I can write out the story in which how I got this result if you are interested.

2. Really? I thought Tomakak got the toroidal and parietal magnetic field capable of pressurizing the gas, if it does not then which fusion reactor or what type of design is capable of pressurizing the plasma?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before you say this is wrong or non-scientific, bear with me since I derive the ideas from physics.

It all started when I came across this craft on Youtube from the clip 11 scariest things caught by drones posted below.

I set the time on clip #9 because that is the craft I am observing. The craft goes by many names. In America they call it the Protoss, and in Japan they call it May-Be Soft because of its soft metal like feature.

The craft disappeared in a spherical flash of light and I must have replayed the video 100 times to figure out how it does it. So I went with the idea that spherical flash of light or photons must have been the way to its teleportation. Now the craft did not open a portal or crashed, those are the two ideas I rule out.

So I searched online, could photon bend space time. And I got a Quora result.

https://www.quora.com/Do-photons-bend-spacetime

The important reply is from Eric Pepke here:

"It's a very tiny effect, practically negligible for any purposes.

Theoretically, yes they do, but it's in a very strange way.

The thing that distorts space-time isn't mass or energy. It's energy/momentum, energy and momentum taken together. This is usually represented as a funny kind of vector, though quaternions work as well. The rest mass is a scalar, which is the absolute value of this energy/momentum construct. When the momentum is zero, a lot of terms in the calculation become zero, which is where we get E=mc². For something like a star or planet, a bunch of mass in a ball just sitting there, just using the mass and the Schwarzschild solution is good enough. You can ignore all those other terms based on how things are moving.

However, with a photon, since the rest mass is zero, all those nice scalar terms drop to zero. The only thing that's left are all those terms you normally neglect.

To say that two photons will experience a gravitational attraction (to each other) is an oversimplification. However, let's say that you have two photons in opposite directions passing each other. That will be equivalent (for a very short time) to a particle with a rest mass the same as the sum of their energies. A photon going nearby will follow a geodesic just as if it had passed some mass."

Now I know that energy bends space time, but what is a good clip showing what the craft is observing as it gained enough energy? Now I know the craft did fusion because of the static that is created on the drone's screen, those only comes from gamma rays. I came to a cartoon known as Dragon Ball Z and its depiction when a super being gained enough energy to bend the space time.

Right after I see this clip I know the craft uses lorentz length contraction and the effect is relativistic. So I thought about the equation from Einstein E=mc^2 and its correlation with the lorentz contraction formula. Apparently with enough energy. the c^2 carries over to lorentz length contraction and the length of the entire universe becomes 0.

 

What does this mean?

So if you can provide enough energy, which I went with Argon plasma, if you can create the same amount of energy in joules that satisfies E=mc^2 equation, you would obtain a relativistic effect such as length contraction with this energy(by plugging the c^2 into lorentz) and arrive at the place you want to go to instantly.

Edited by fredreload
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, fredreload said:

I am trying to use the energy to achieve length contraction,

That makes no sense.

30 minutes ago, fredreload said:

I thought Tomakak got the toroidal and parietal magnetic field capable of pressurizing the gas,

Not that I know of.

 

31 minutes ago, fredreload said:

It all started when I came across this craft on Youtube from the clip 11 scariest things caught by drones posted below.

You are trying to use physics to explain a silly YouTube video?  I am pretty sure your physics will be as real as the YouTube video

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Not that I know of.

You are trying to use physics to explain a silly YouTube video?  I am pretty sure your physics will be as real as the YouTube video

1. Well then which fusion reactor or what design is capable of it?

2. How can it be silly when it got the craft of a super intelligent specie? Well, if you think it is a silly video then I guess I cannot convince you otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Well, if you think it is a silly video then I guess I cannot convince you otherwise.

Correct.  Do you think the clown wasn't an actor in the video?

7 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Well then which fusion reactor or what design is capable of it?

None.  You do realize there are no self-sustaining fusion reactors, right?  AFAIK the only manmade device that uses heat AND pressure for a fusion reaction is a hydrogen bomb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Correct.  Do you think the clown wasn't an actor in the video?

None.  You do realize there are no self-sustaining fusion reactors, right?  AFAIK the only manmade device that uses heat AND pressure for a fusion reaction is a hydrogen bomb.

1. Well I have only mentioned clip #9 is important I did not say all of them are accurate = =.

2. A fusion bomb? Well I am just looking for a fusion reactor that pressurize the plasma. I mean if you want the fusion reaction to occur chance is you got to pressurize the gas. From the magnetic field confinement video it seems doable, I am just not sure how it would be operated in a fusion reactor(maybe the toroidal and parietal magnetic field helps the pressurization of the plasma).

P.S. I appreciate you telling me about the heat ionization idea, I just want something more constructive. And for Strange, the mol ionization energy idea.

Edited by fredreload
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Well I am just looking for a fusion reactor that pressurize the plasma.

Oh, is that all.😊 

Like I said before, there aren't any.

At any rate it looks like you trying to explain an alien space craft (which doesn't exist) with pseudoscience.  Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Oh, is that all.😊 

Like I said before, there aren't any.

At any rate it looks like you trying to explain an alien space craft (which doesn't exist) with pseudoscience.  Good luck.

Well, I was going with my Argon plasma fusion reactor idea before you start asking me what I would use it for, so I gave you my speculation. I would continue with my fusion reactor idea if you got nothing to provide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

I got nothin'.  Good luck.

You too buddy, they closed too many of my threads consider pseudoscience = =, sorry if I sound mean.

P.S. Japanese depiction is quite genius do you not think so?

Edited by fredreload
Link to post
Share on other sites

They close a lot of your threads for a reason.

Fusion reactors, if we had a working one, which we don't, need pressure to operate.
The only energy producing fusion reactions we have, are uncontrolled ( bombs ), and containment to generate pressure is impossibly hard.

You are trying to use a large amount of localized energy to 'bend' light.
The first time this was observed, as verification of GR, was by A Eddington in 1919.
GR predicts an approximate angular deflection

 dA = 4G*M/R*c^2

where R is the Sun's radius and M is the Sun's mass ( for the 1919 eclipse observations ) and, sure enough, the observations confirmed this ( twice that predicted by Newtonian gravity )

So, to find how much energy you need to localize in a given radius,R, to get a specific angular deviation in the path of tangential light, simply make the substitution for M = E/c^2 and make sure to mind your units.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fredreload said:

they closed too many of my threads consider pseudoscience

!

Moderator Note

Well, we’re a science site, and you have gone far afield of science discussion.  Limit your scope. You’re trying to run before learning to walk

 
10 hours ago, fredreload said:

 

 0.0014512133km^3

 

What does this mean?
This means the amount of Argon gas it takes to satisfy E=mc^2 for 1kg of mass is around 0.00145 kilo cubic meter

That’s 0.000145 cubic kilometers, not kilo cubic meters.

A cubic km is not 1000 cubic meters. Your own calculations show this

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Well, we’re a science site, and you have gone far afield of science discussion.  Limit your scope. You’re trying to run before learning to walk

 

That’s 0.000145 cubic kilometers, not kilo cubic meters.

A cubic km is not 1000 cubic meters. Your own calculations show this

My bad, must be the wording, the calculation is correct though. I am now thinking of a design for the fusion reactor, something like a coin shape comes up.

14 hours ago, MigL said:

They close a lot of your threads for a reason.

Fusion reactors, if we had a working one, which we don't, need pressure to operate.
The only energy producing fusion reactions we have, are uncontrolled ( bombs ), and containment to generate pressure is impossibly hard.

You are trying to use a large amount of localized energy to 'bend' light.
The first time this was observed, as verification of GR, was by A Eddington in 1919.
GR predicts an approximate angular deflection

 dA = 4G*M/R*c^2

where R is the Sun's radius and M is the Sun's mass ( for the 1919 eclipse observations ) and, sure enough, the observations confirmed this ( twice that predicted by Newtonian gravity )

So, to find how much energy you need to localize in a given radius,R, to get a specific angular deviation in the path of tangential light, simply make the substitution for M = E/c^2 and make sure to mind your units.

Ya, I also came to the conclusion that Mass = E/c^2, thanks for the background information. Although the sun would also have enough fusion energy to achieve the same feat, not by mass. If you are talking about my speculation, if you are within the energy zone, it would experience the same length contraction as if you are moving close to the speed of light.

Edited by fredreload
Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

It takes a certain amount of chutzpa to say you are going to design a fusion reactor without knowing much in the way of physics.

If you are going to post speculations, you must follow our speculations rules.

If you are asking physics questions, stick to asking questions, and not delving into speculations.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.