NationStates Jolt Archive

Catchy title, ain't it? :D

I'm about to start a major RP involving what the title says, plutonium fusion. Before I go ahead, however, I'd like some scientific advice regarding plutonium fusion.

For the record, plutonium fusion is just that: fusing 2 plutonium atoms to create one big atom. I'm thinking although it sounds like an idea, it will probably be impractical for power generation.

But what about bombs? Yes, it would require tremendous amounts of energy to even do so, but due to nature, the resulting atom (if we pull it off in the first place) will be quite unstable, and thus fall apart.

Would the collapse of the new atom, which I named Pisces Centaurium (don't ask) unleash much greater energy than what was used to create it?

Sounds like it would, but then I haven't studied the subject yet, so I really have no say in this.

I'm thinking the energy required to force plutonium to undergo fusion would be big enough of a bang. Quite a lot more powerful than the forces at the center of massive stars. I'd stick with the deuterium to helium thermonuclear solution.

Not even the sun can fuse plutonium.. If one cannot even fuse Hydrogen (wich is the easiest), they cannot fuse heavier elements, and certainly not elements (way) heavier then iron.
Only supernovea are known to create havier elements, and they stilll can't fuse 2 plutionium cores.
If you want a powerfull bomb using plutionium, I guess you should find a way to make fission more stable. If it's possible, I don't know, but it's way more likely to happen that fusion!

Not even the sun can fuse plutonium.. If one cannot even fuse Hydrogen (wich is the easiest), they cannot fuse heavier elements, and certainly not elements (way) heavier then iron.
Only supernovea are known to create havier elements, and they stilll can't fuse 2 plutionium cores.
If you want a powerfull bomb using plutionium, I guess you should find a way to make fission more stable. If it's possible, I don't know, but it's way more likely to happen that fusion!
If stars can't produce plutonium, then were did uranium come from?

If stars can't produce plutonium, then were did uranium come from?

He said they can't fuse plutonium. There's a difference.

I seem to recall, actually, reading that they managed to fuse...was it helium? (I can't remember) and it didn't produce as much energy as deuterium fusion. Maybe I'm wrong though.

As for the unstable product, it would probably simply break down by emitting radiation, giving a very dirty bomb.

Why have you jumped so far up the periodic table? And Iron-fusion bomb would be cool...but again, you'd need a hell of a lot of energy to pull it off.

As a physics student let me clear this one up. First of all, no stars can produce plutonium. Uranium is the heaviest naturally occuring element (ie its the heaviest one stars can produce). Plutonium is heavier than Uranium and is produced by the bombardment of Uranium nuclei with neutrons in nuclear reactors.

Secondly - fusing two Plutonium nuclei together (even if it were possible which it isnt!) would not release energy but consume it. The fusion of nuclei to make any element heavier than Iron (the most stable element) is endothermic (it consumes energy). Any product of the suggested plutonium fusion would be so unstable that it would disintegrate into smaller fragments and would release less energy that you had to put in in order to make the plutonium fuse in the process.

The fusion of two deuterium nuclei to form Helium releases more energy than any other possible fusion reaction. Only antimatter annihilation reactions can release more energy. If you want to understand more I suggest a book on nuclear and particle physics.

As a physics student let me clear this one up. First of all, no stars can produce plutonium. Uranium is the heaviest naturally occuring element (ie its the heaviest one stars can produce). Plutonium is heavier than Uranium and is produced by the bombardment of Uranium nuclei with neutrons in nuclear reactors.

Secondly - fusing two Plutonium nuclei together (even if it were possible which it isnt!) would not release energy but consume it. The fusion of nuclei to make any element heavier than Iron (the most stable element) is endothermic (it consumes energy). Any product of the suggested plutonium fusion would be so unstable that it would disintegrate into smaller fragments and would release less energy that you had to put in in order to make the plutonium fuse in the process.

The fusion of two deuterium nuclei to form Helium releases more energy than any other possible fusion reaction. Only antimatter annihilation reactions can release more energy. If you want to understand more I suggest a book on nuclear and particle physics.
So, even if we tried, there'd be no way to make the resulting product explode?

So, even if we tried, there'd be no way to make the resulting product explode?

Correct.

Ok, I guess what your asking is "If we could make plutonium fuse to make some other huge element could we make it explode?"

Well first of all, you could never fuse two plutonium nuclei together, it would take more energy than even a Supernova can manage. Even using the most powerful Hydrogen bombs as a trigger we couldn't make it happen.

Secondly, (lets for the sake of argument say that you could make it happen) the product, which would have an atomic number of 188 and a mass of 488, would be so unstable that it would only exist for much less than a trillionth of a second. Any atoms produced would instantaneously decay back in plutonium or perhaps a mixture of other lighter elements. The energy released in this FISSION would be less or at best equal to the energy you put in. A bomb based on this process would never work.

Just for interest, the heaviest element that has been made artificially in particle accelerators is Uut (282,113). This element is much smaller than your proposed giant of a nuclei and even it only lasts for a tiny fraction of a second.

If you really want to make a big bang (which isnt really that useful in this day and age anyway) then the best option is still the Hydrogen fusion bomb. Perhaps in the future we may see bombs made of antimatter, one the size of a football would probably contain enough energy to destroy the entire planet. (e=mc^2 after all)

Ok, I guess what your asking is "If we could make plutonium fuse to make some other huge element could we make it explode?"

Well first of all, you could never fuse two plutonium nuclei together, it would take more energy than even a Supernova can manage. Even using the most powerful Hydrogen bombs as a trigger we couldn't make it happen.

Secondly, (lets for the sake of argument say that you could make it happen) the product, which would have an atomic number of 188 and a mass of 488, would be so unstable that it would only exist for much less than a trillionth of a second. Any atoms produced would instantaneously decay back in plutonium or perhaps a mixture of other lighter elements. The energy released in this FISSION would be less or at best equal to the energy you put in. A bomb based on this process would never work.

Just for interest, the heaviest element that has been made artificially in particle accelerators is Uut (282,113). This element is much smaller than your proposed giant of a nuclei and even it only lasts for a tiny fraction of a second.

If you really want to make a big bang (which isnt really that useful in this day and age anyway) then the best option is still the Hydrogen fusion bomb. Perhaps in the future we may see bombs made of antimatter, one the size of a football would probably contain enough energy to destroy the entire planet. (e=mc^2 after all)
Ahh, I see now.... Thanks :)

If you really want to make a big bang (which isnt really that useful in this day and age anyway) then the best option is still the Hydrogen fusion bomb. Perhaps in the future we may see bombs made of antimatter, one the size of a football would probably contain enough energy to destroy the entire planet. (e=mc^2 after all)
Well, I remember reading on badastronomy.com that the energy required to destroy Earth would be equal to the amount of energy Sol put out in 3 days...

I wonder how much energy would be needed to create a star....

forget Plutonium, thats old news pal......the wave is Hydrogen.....clean efficient and plentiful, the most plentiful element in the universe!....oh and goes well with oxygen too:)


and then i guess Light!....but lets do the Hydrogen thing first before getting around to the Photonic age in about a 1000 years time!:)

Nuclear energy is obsolete! :fluffle:

Nuclear Weapons aren't.

What exactly do you mean by the Photonic Age?

Okay.

What would happen if we managed (impossible, I know, but let's say we can) to create a 3 inch ball of the product (the one resulting from plutonium fusion)?

How long would it take for that amount of atomic number 188 to disintegrate?

Okay.

What would happen if we managed (impossible, I know, but let's say we can) to create a 3 inch ball of the product (the one resulting from plutonium fusion)?

How long would it take for that amount of atomic number 188 to disintegrate?
Exactly 2 seconds, 21 milliseconds, 14 microseconds, 33 nanoseconds.

Ein Deutscher']Exactly 2 seconds, 21 milliseconds, 14 microseconds, 33 nanoseconds.
How? Would it just get really small really fast? Or would it split into millions of smaller pieces?

What Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo said.
I never thought I would say that.

Why not just use Plutonium in fission? And hydrogen is the most efficent ka-boom for fusion.

Your 3inch cube would explode I think, but more like a waterballoon than a nuke.

Alright. Plutonium fusion's out of the way.

I was wondering, what would be needed to create a star?

Alright. Plutonium fusion's out of the way.

I was wondering, what would be needed to create a star?
A lot of hydrogen, not H2, but H...and one hell of a spark...

I mean, a hell of a lot of hydrogen...

Hmm....

This could be where plutonium fusion might come into play...

First off: Look at Sol, our sun. Think of all the hydrogen atoms, and assume that none has yet to fuse into helium or such. Now, imagine ALL those atoms fusing together to make plutonium. How big a ball of plutonium would the sun be?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

The fusion of nuclei to make any element heavier than Iron (the most stable element) is endothermic (it consumes energy).

Isn't there a theory that, discarding the possibility of a reverse big bang, the entropy in our universe would increase until all matter is transformed to iron and thus at its stablest possible state?

If stars can't produce plutonium, then were did uranium come from?

Uranium is lighter than plutonium. It is believed to be created only during supernova's.

Stars cannot create uranium normally. Hell, most stars can't create silicone and other relatively light elements, most max out at carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. Only very large hot stars can get up to iron before they die, where at this stage ALL fusion stops, because fusing elements heavier than iron CONSUMES more energy than is produced

Therefore, fusing plutonium would be a great waste of time and money, because it would consume more energy than it would produce.

Look at matter-antimatter reactions if you want something with ULTIMATE POWER! :p

Otherwise the most energy efficient and effective FUSION type reaction is most probably hydrogen to helium

EDIT - Sorry, didn't read the 2nd page fully, some people already semi-covered what's in my post

Hmm....

This could be where plutonium fusion might come into play...

First off: Look at Sol, our sun. Think of all the hydrogen atoms, and assume that none has yet to fuse into helium or such. Now, imagine ALL those atoms fusing together to make plutonium. How big a ball of plutonium would the sun be?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Following the conservation of energy, the plutonium you would get out of it would be sufficient to yield less power than the energy you used to produce it plus the energy that the hydrogen will yield by fusing.

In other words, any big explosion you want to cause requires a naturally occurring material that can release such energy, or you will need to use more power to produce the material than you will get through the explosion.

Uranium enrichment, incidentally, works not by 'energizing' uranium material, but by concentrating it.

Okay, how about Uranium? Then how big would the sun be? (using the same hypothesis I described in my previous post)

I know the whole plutonium bomb thing has already been discounted. But for the record, there's theoretically no real limit to how powerful you can make a hydrogen bomb; if you string together enough hydrogen fusions it'll explode however much you want it to. Unfortunately, the bigger the bang, the bigger the bomb, and it'll reach a point where it's not really impossible to make a bigger bang than the one you already have, but just impractical -- it'll eventually get so big that you won't have any means of transporting it to your enemy, making it pretty much useless. Unless you plan on knocking the Earth out of it's orbit, I suppose...

I know the whole plutonium bomb thing has already been discounted. But for the record, there's theoretically no real limit to how powerful you can make a hydrogen bomb; if you string together enough hydrogen fusions it'll explode however much you want it to. Unfortunately, the bigger the bang, the bigger the bomb, and it'll reach a point where it's not really impossible to make a bigger bang than the one you already have, but just impractical -- it'll eventually get so big that you won't have any means of transporting it to your enemy, making it pretty much useless. Unless you plan on knocking the Earth out of it's orbit, I suppose...
Or, we could put it 2 lightyears away and see waht happens... ;)

I'm currently looking for ways to use a bomb to create a new star... IF that's possible....

Catchy title, ain't it? :D

I'm about to start a major RP involving what the title says, plutonium fusion. Before I go ahead, however, I'd like some scientific advice regarding plutonium fusion.

For the record, plutonium fusion is just that: fusing 2 plutonium atoms to create one big atom. I'm thinking although it sounds like an idea, it will probably be impractical for power generation.

But what about bombs? Yes, it would require tremendous amounts of energy to even do so, but due to nature, the resulting atom (if we pull it off in the first place) will be quite unstable, and thus fall apart.

Would the collapse of the new atom, which I named Pisces Centaurium (don't ask) unleash much greater energy than what was used to create it?
Fusing any two nuclei heavier than Iron actually uses up more energy than it releases.

Or, we could put it 2 lightyears away and see waht happens... ;)

I'm currently looking for ways to use a bomb to create a new star... IF that's possible....

You don't technically need a bomb, I believe. You could get your crapload of Hydrogen, stick it out in space somewhere where other gravitational effects are negligible, and wait. The Hydrogen will slowly collapse into a point, and eventually you'll have a star.

You don't technically need a bomb, I believe. You could get your crapload of Hydrogen, stick it out in space somewhere where other gravitational effects are negligible, and wait. The Hydrogen will slowly collapse into a point, and eventually you'll have a star.
Maybe, but what if we WANT a bomb, since not very many people will want to wait their entire life and witness practically nothing in a span of 120 years ;)

Plutonium Fusion? ridiculous. who came up with that?

Plutonium Fusion? ridiculous. who came up with that?
I did :p

I did :p

Sorry mate, but I think the energy required is just a tad out of our range. Do ya reckon they'd be more powerful than a H-bomb? I'm not sure.

Sorry mate, but I think the energy required is just a tad out of our range. Do ya reckon they'd be more powerful than a H-bomb? I'm not sure.

I would recommend you read the rest of the thread...

Sorry mate, but I think the energy required is just a tad out of our range. Do ya reckon they'd be more powerful than a H-bomb? I'm not sure.
I was hopin' so, but the stuff posted in previous pages has pretty hard evidence against that.

I would recommend you read the rest of the thread...

Yeah, that might help... :D

Hmm, let me think back to when I did this at school. To release energy in fusion/fission, you need a net increase in nuclear binding energy (which is a negative potential energy). Thus fusion of light nuclei - upto iron, notably hydrogen to helium releases energy. Conversly, fusion of heavy nuclei requires more energy than is released - so is impractical in any 'bomb'.

Binding energy:
http://homepages.tesco.net/~v4uhn/4/untitled.JPG

You need to take a physics class.

On the periodic table, the elements from hydrogen all the way up to iron can undergo fusion, and in the process, will release energy.

For atoms that are higher up on the periodic table, you can fuse those atoms, but it will take more energy to fuse them than the fusion will produce.

So fusing plutonium is an unworkable, impractical idea.

You need to take a physics class.

On the periodic table, the elements from hydrogen all the way up to iron can undergo fusion, and in the process, will release energy.

For atoms that are higher up on the periodic table, you can fuse those atoms, but it will take more energy to fuse them than the fusion will produce.

So fusing plutonium is an unworkable, impractical idea.

Quite correct.

You just use more hydrogen to make a bigger thermonulcear bomb.

Quite correct.

You just use more hydrogen to make a bigger thermonulcear bomb.

There is a practical limit on the size of a thermonuclear bomb - even if using the autocatalytic detonation technique.

It's around 100 to 150 megatons - the Soviets tested just such a bomb at Novaya Zemlya.

Besides, over that amount, most of the blast is wasted - it goes straight up out of the atmosphere.

Since we allready know how much energy just on could do with just one plutonium atom, combining them would take a lot of energy, but I think that it would be to powerful for a bomb (at least in some amounts.) It would have to by I think three times as much energy to make it then to blow it up.

Anti-matter is the key!

Ah, Fusion energy. I've spent a good while of high school studying it. My original goal was to be able to find a way to sustain fusion but after taking a long absence from the project, I've abandoned it. I believe that if we do somehow find a way to use it then mankind's energy problem will be solved forever however the world may be in even more danger than it has ever been.

however the world may be in even more danger than it has ever been.

:confused:

Why exactly do you think that? It's pretty much as clean as you're going to get, it's a lot less likely to explode than a fission reactor, and we've already had nuclear fusion weapons for quite some time, if that's what you're worried about. Sure, fusion power generation brings its own problems that will need to be worked on (as with fission), but it's largely safe and clean, assuming you can get a reactor up and running in the first place.

Catchy title, ain't it? :D

I'm about to start a major RP involving what the title says, plutonium fusion. Before I go ahead, however, I'd like some scientific advice regarding plutonium fusion.

For the record, plutonium fusion is just that: fusing 2 plutonium atoms to create one big atom. I'm thinking although it sounds like an idea, it will probably be impractical for power generation.

But what about bombs? Yes, it would require tremendous amounts of energy to even do so, but due to nature, the resulting atom (if we pull it off in the first place) will be quite unstable, and thus fall apart.

Would the collapse of the new atom, which I named Pisces Centaurium (don't ask) unleash much greater energy than what was used to create it?
No, the resulting atom will not release more energy than was used to create it. In all likelihood, the reverse will be true.

You'd be better off trying to build a practical Penrose Trap on route to an antimatter bomb.