A new fusion approach

[sunspot]

This topic is an extension to support the theory that there is a fusion core in the center of the earth. The goal is to discuss a fusion approach than can take advantage of the potential created by the earth's fusion core.

 

If look at the earth the most abundant element is oxygen. It is not only a very stable nuclei but it is also the backbone of earth chemistry. The minerals of the crust are oxides and if free oxygen is present, it will react with almost everything on the surface that does not already have oxygen. This very special place in chemistry implies that oxygen should be the goal of fusion, to take advantage of oxygen's stability and its central position within earth chemistry.

 

The way I would do it, is with deuterium radicals and nitrogen nuclei. By deuterium radicals, I visualize a semi-stable state of deuterium that can be pulled into the nuclear force of nitrogen to form oxygen.

 

To perform this experiment we need two protons, an electron and a nitrogen target. What we do is accelarate the protons and electron at the target, maybe as x,y,z. The trick is, at the last instant, we put on the brakes so we have only a slight fender bender. The idea is to almost stop the protons and electron at the target, while using the brake heat, so the three particles kiss close to the nitrogen nuclei. The hope is a semi-stable deuterium radical will form that will be sucked into nitrogen's nuclear force to form oxygen.

 

Before such an experiment can occur we need some revolutionary engineering that can make the magnetic brakes. Not just any magnetic brakes, but a design that is sort of like synergy, where the original kinetic energy of the particles become heat around the target area. This would not be a laboratory setting experiment. It is essentially three particle beams creating a fusion bomb.

[insane_alien]

Have you ever studied chemistry or physics at all? because you obviously don't know that you get more energy out of D-D fusion than D-N fusion.

 

BTW the earth does not have a fusion core or we would be able to detect lots and lots of neutrinos and gamma ray.

[Bluenoise]

If look at the earth the most abundant element is oxygen. It is not only a very stable nuclei but it is also the backbone of earth chemistry. The minerals of the crust are oxides and if free oxygen is present' date=' it will react with almost everything on the surface that does not already have oxygen. This very special place in chemistry implies that oxygen should be the goal of fusion, to take advantage of oxygen's stability and its central position within earth chemistry. [/quote']

 

No the most abundant element on the earts crust is silicon. The most abundant in the air is nitrogen. The most abundant beneath the crust is thought to be iron.

 

Oxygen is only the most abundant in the oceans, and then only by mass since there is about twice as much hydrogen.

[Klaynos]

No the most abundant element on the earts crust is silicon. The most abundant in the air is nitrogen. The most abundant beneath the crust is thought to be iron.

 

Oxygen is only the most abundant in the oceans' date=' and then only by mass since there is about twice as much hydrogen.[/quote']

 

 

*sigh* facts in one of sunspots posts whatever's going to happen next?

[sunspot]

Here is a link that gives the calculated composition of the earth. http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/earth.html. They have iron first and oxygen second. The only one that I disagree with is iron. This assumes an iron core. Nobody ever reached the core to know for sure.

 

The way I look at it, the most abundant material should be one of the primary ingredients of everywhere including the surface. If the earth was originally a ball of fluffy dust/gas and things like lead and gold can reach the surface, and with iron being so dominant, there should be more iron on the surface, at least in the same ballpark as number two, oxygen.

 

That aside, I was actually trying to start a fun conceptual modelling thread; a new approach to fusion. It is wide open for speculation because it has not yet been done. Everyone contemplates blackholes, the edge of the universe, etc. This is something fresh for speculation.

 

Fusion currently revolves around the neutron. The fusion bombs use deuterium and tritium to take advantage of the extra neutrons. This has been demonstrated and it does work. The current contained fusion extends this demonstratable fusion and is trying to improve something that is test proven.The only problem with this approach is that neutrons are not very stable. Unless a neutron remains within a nucleus, a neutron is very hot and makes a lot of nuclear smoke (by-products). For a bomb this is fine because the goal is damage.

 

What I suggest is using the much more stable electrons and protons as the foundation particles. These will not make as much smoke because they have been shown to be stable in all type of extreme environments. Opposite charges attract. That is old time physics. If they were to neutralize each other, there is a lot of energy. It also removes the EM force from the picture. The unified force will conserve that force into somewhere else maybe as nuclear force. This combination makes a neutron, which is why we need a second proton. If gives the new neutron a proton for stability.

 

The second conceptual constraint is the nature of the nuclear force and fusion. Nuclear force only works in close quarter, so things need to get close. Getting close can occur with both fast and slow particles. But is easier to get things to stick is they are going slower. If anyone plays pool, if you hit one ball with another, there is a transfer of momentum making it harder to stick. If one wants to block an opponent, you hit the ball lightly and try to make it stop as close as possible, so there is no easy way around.

 

A good point that was made is that this is not the most exothermic reaction for fusion. This is true, but less exothemic is easier to contain.

 

One may ask, why not just make deuterium instead of deuterium radicals? The answer is that the first protypes will not be so accurate and radicals or almost deuterium will happen more often than deuterium. So why not run with it, and use the practical limitations to our advantage.

 

I chose nitrogen to make oxygen because both are extremely stable and should not make much smoke for that reason. Oxygen is the king of earth chemistry. There may be a debate with respect to abundance, but oxygen plays a much more central role in earth chemistry than iron. Even iron will bow down to oxygen. The nuclear structure of oxygen must have something special about it to be places so high in chemistry, So what I figured, lets go from N to O to creates that something special. The deuterium radicals should cooperate, when nitrogen is heated by brake heat and its protons are place in an excited state.

 

What is interesting about oxygen is it is highly electronegative, meaning it can hold more electrons than protons. In the crust it exists as oxide, where it holds two extra electrons that it has protons. This is also good, because oxygen should create less electron smoke.

 

There are two practical problems from an engineering point. First, how do you contain the nitrogen and how do we make the brakes energy effecient.

Nitrogen can be contained as solid or liquid nitrogen, but that will absorb some of the heat requiring faster particles and bigger brakes.

 

One possible brake solution that gets around this is to double up on the particles beams so there are two pairs of triplets (P,P,E). If the beam pairs oppose they should should repel each other at the target allowing weaking brakes to stop and stir. At the same time, like driving a car, one should not ride the brakes but only use them when needed. The magnnetic brakes should probably to be off, and turned on only at the last instant before impact.

 

If nitrogen works maybe we can then use a carbon target. This would allow our two triplet beams to use a diamond target. This gets us around the cold constraint of nitrogen, allowing weaker beams. This target would allow us to make nitrogen. The oxygen may be a by-product. A second pulse should convert the remaiing nitrogen into oxygen. If our process is not 100% effecient, our waste products would be C, N, O and H. But that is cool, these are the building blocks of the life.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's a calculation by mass, not quantity.

[Klaynos]

Here is a link that gives the calculated composition of the earth. http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/earth.html. They have iron first and oxygen second. The only one that I disagree with is iron. This assumes an iron core. Nobody ever reached the core to know for sure.

 

The way I look at it' date=' the most abundant material should be one of the primary ingredients of everywhere including the surface. If the earth was originally a ball of fluffy dust/gas and things like lead and gold can reach the surface, and with iron being so dominant, there should be more iron on the surface, at least in the same ballpark as number two, oxygen. [/quote']

 

 

So I take a box with all differnt density and sized balls in it, and I give it a shake for a few hours you don't think there will be any kind of probability that they wont be evenly distrobuted but in a patter bassed on density and size?

[sunspot]

If we start with a fluffy cloud of mostly iron, oxygen, and silicon and allow it to collapsed due to gravity, it will not take long for the compression heat to cause the oxygen to react with the silicon and iron. The silicon would end up as SiO2, which is what is observed. A lot of the iron should do the same and will end up as both Fe2O and FeO. Either way we lose much of the solid iron and the magnetic field since I do not believe oxides of iron are very magnetic. Much of this iron oxide should end up in the crust, which is not observed, at least at the levels consistent with its assumed proportion.

 

The spheres in the box analogy would work if all the materials were inert. But if we make sticky oxygen balls, the distribution will not end up the same. Meaning more iron should be observed on the surface. The surface of the red planet mars (iron oxide) is more what one would from the earth if the earth had as much iron as predicted.

[sunspot]

If we look at the magnetic field of the sun or earth. It only has two poles, most of the time. The particle beams had three. The difference is that the gravity pressure/density is able to hold one of the protons close. Or rather they diffuse slowly to the fusion. The other two beams are electrons and protons going in the opposite directions. Opposite charges going in opposite directions is the same as two similar charges going in the same directions. This cause the magnetic field to be directional. This technique also allows the sun to build up atoms without a lot of smoke. The smoke is not observed at a level proportional to the rate of fusion.

[Klaynos]

If we start with a fluffy cloud of mostly iron, oxygen, and silicon and allow it to collapsed due to gravity, it will not take long for the compression heat to cause the oxygen to react with the silicon and iron. The silicon would end up as SiO2, which is what is observed. A lot of the iron should do the same and will end up as both Fe2O and FeO. Either way we lose much of the solid iron and the magnetic field since I do not believe oxides of iron are very magnetic. Much of this iron oxide should end up in the crust, which is not observed, at least at the levels consistent with its assumed proportion.

 

Any chance of some numerical evidence of this instead of just "wont take long"

 

From what I recall the earths high iron content is due to a massive collision between two similar sized planets, one of which had alot of iron and became the core (or somehting liek that I'm not a cosmologist)

 

Are you proposeing a 3 poled magnet?

[bascule]

Have you ever studied chemistry or physics at all?

 

If you think that's bad you should've seen the last thread he started on this crap where he attributed the Coriolis force to the Earth's "fusion core"

 

(Ed: Oh wait, I guess you did see that)

[Klaynos]

Surely this should be in speculations at the very least?

[sunspot]

One may notice that the earth creation scenarios keep changing because many conceptual problems. The scenarios are becoming fanciful, to help force metallic iron in the core, without much interaction with oxygen. In other words, many want to keep the iron core, so they create a new scenario every time someone points out a problem. These are all easy to break apart, because they are all quick fixes.

 

The reason many need to keep the iron core theory, is that it is the cornerstone for how many believe the sun and galaxy came to be and currently work. If one refutes with the iron core, the rest of the stuff needs to be reworked. As it should be.

 

I presented a better method for fusion. The existing program is using 1950's understanding blended with magnetic containment. It is not working out. But this is a blessing in disguise, because those magnetic field specialist have the background needed to make the magnetic brakes. This can make the deuterium radical fusion a reality.

[Klaynos]

You present no evidence. Untill you do this is random speculation.

[insane_alien]

One may notice that the earth creation scenarios keep changing because many conceptual problems.

 

While you blindly stumble on inspite of them and all that evidence against it.

[[Tycho?]]

Why is sunspot still allowed to post in the real physics forums? Put him in speculations, or better yet, pseudoscience.