Author
|
Topic: Strange substances (Read 17056 times)
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 203
|
You don't make fiber optic computers with superfluids, is my point.
That couldn't have possibly been your point because I had never mentioned super-fluid actually used for any specific thing when you responded in that manner.
Cold Fusion has been worked on for a long time, and never been convincingly replicated. My poking around on the web turned up nothing to do with titanium alloys, but I did see something with hydrated nickel.
I don't think it was titanium specifically, but it was some kind of "ti" starting alloy that I can't remember the name of, titanium, tritium, tri-strontium. You were right about the nickle hydrogen reactor as NASA had some development with that recently, i'm thinking it was "tritium" since I found this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022072896049388 but I know it was something else, it was some kind of tri...oxide compound containing a metal which i thought was titanium, though there was a Thorium reactor that never got developed because Nixon preferred nuclear reactors, maybe that had something to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 203
|
You don't make fiber optic computers with superfluids, is my point.
I don't see how that could have been your point seeing has how I never mentioned super fluid was used in the making of any specific thing by the time you had made that post. My point is, we have no idea how the hell we use Tzo crystals or Degenerate Matter or even really Superfluids can be used to make things like star ships, but in terms of star control obviously there's some room to be creative and make different devices and creating a wonder in exotic materials.
Cold Fusion has been worked on for a long time, and never been convincingly replicated. My poking around on the web turned up nothing to do with titanium alloys, but I did see something with hydrated nickel.
I don't think it was titanium specifically, but it was some kind of "ti" starting alloy that I can't remember the name of, titanium, tritium, tri-strontium. You were right about the nickle hydrogen reactor as NASA had some development with that recently, i'm thinking it was "tritium" since I found this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022072896049388 but I know it was something else, it was some kind of tri...oxide compound containing a metal which i thought was titanium, though there was a Thorium reactor that never got developed because Nixon preferred nuclear reactors, maybe that had something to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 203
|
No there was one last material, an it wasn't tritium, it was tri-<transition or rare earth metal>-oxide. I'll have to find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 522
|
...no really, cold fusion isn't possible. Just deal with this fact and move on.
Incidentally, tritium is hydrogen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
A) Fusing tritium is uninteresting from a power generation point of view - it's far FAR too rare to be useful as a fuel. He-3 fusing into Lithium-6, maybe... but that's much MUCH harder to fuse since it has two protons in each atom repelling each other. Nearly four times the barrier (nearly because there is a second electron, but most of the barrier is close enough that the screening is negligible).
B) I still don't buy it. Where's the energy to cross the barrier coming from? Nuclei are utterly terrible at tunneling, so you do need to get over that barrier. I want independent labs measuring gamma rays -- not heat, not X-rays -- coming from non-radioactive materials. They're the cleanest proof, cleaner even than neutrons since you'd expect so many more gamma rays... and gamma rays indicate large energy release, while neutrons... well, neutrons could indicate a novel path of assisted neutron escape, which would be really really awesome, but it wouldn't be cold fusion. It could even be endothermic, at least until the neutron decays... but again, not useful for power generation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 203
|
A) Fusing tritium is uninteresting from a power generation point of view - it's far FAR too rare to be useful as a fuel. He-3 fusing into Lithium-6, maybe... but that's much MUCH harder to fuse since it has two protons in each atom repelling each other. Nearly four times the barrier (nearly because there is a second electron, but most of the barrier is close enough that the screening is negligible).
B) I still don't buy it. Where's the energy to cross the barrier coming from? Nuclei are utterly terrible at tunneling, so you do need to get over that barrier. I want independent labs measuring gamma rays -- not heat, not X-rays -- coming from non-radioactive materials. They're the cleanest proof, cleaner even than neutrons since you'd expect so many more gamma rays... and gamma rays indicate large energy release, while neutrons... well, neutrons could indicate a novel path of assisted neutron escape, which would be really really awesome, but it wouldn't be cold fusion. It could even be endothermic, at least until the neutron decays... but again, not useful for power generation.
Well, nuclei are terrible at tunneling because they are so localized, and at that small of a localization the repulsive forces which follow some sort of inverse law with distance become very powerful. Therefore if you can make those particles more delocalized like perhaps with the high energy, perhaps weakening the repulsive forces, maybe you can proceed with the room-temperature tunneling. I'm not saying it's been perfected or that it exists in an energy efficient manner yet but there's been a lot of research put into it and there's still people going at it. It's still completely possible and tunneling via evanescent waves tunneling through electro-magnetic barriers is still similar to what happens in places like the sun, it's just that they rely more in kinetic energy to get nuclei close together, but at most all we have like that are particle colliders and the interior of the Earth. But we do have very very powerful lasers which can single-handedly start a hydrogen fusion reaction, I just don't know about sustaining it or creating a chain reaction from it, I mean it must take at least a billion watts to do something like that with a laser which is why there is a problem with efficiency that I mentioned.
I wonder just how much energy we can concentrate into a single point, if we can do something not even the sun can do. Does quark-gluon plasma exist in the sun? Maybe concentrating a high enough energy into a single point would emulate having an extremely high mass and disrupt something of the fabric of space at that point is the key to being able to manipulate space to create a warp drive, a billion watts is a lot. Although then why wouldn't we see phenomena like that in neutron stars? I wonder if we can concentrate enough energy even to overcome the effects of color-confinement.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 05:51:40 pm by FakeMccoy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 522
|
I can see that your ignorance is impenetrable, so I'm not going to bother trying to explain in any detail, but it's pretty much accepted by all scientific places that I know of that "cold fusion" was essentially a hoax. It's not possible with current technology, and, given how fusion works in general, it's highly unlikely it will ever become possible. I'd be surprised if there are any non-crackpot scientists still working on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 203
|
I can see that your ignorance is impenetrable, so I'm not going to bother trying to explain in any detail, but it's pretty much accepted by all scientific places that I know of that "cold fusion" was essentially a hoax. It's not possible with current technology, and, given how fusion works in general, it's highly unlikely it will ever become possible. I'd be surprised if there are any non-crackpot scientists still working on it.
I don't think you understand fusion actually is, we can use powerful lasers to ignite a hydrogen fusion reaction which happens via the tunneling process I explained, that's scientifically a fact. However, not only have we yet to develop a sustainable chain reaction where the energy released from fusion is enough in a particular environment to create other fusion reactions so that we don't keep using a billion watts of energy per second, but as you keep ignoring, the main issue isn't that it's impossible, it's that it takes a billion watts of energy in a laser beam to do it, making the process highly inefficient with virtually no use at this time.
The concept itself isn't a hoax and it's theoretically possible to create a sustainable reaction, the only hoax for now is when people say they've actually done it.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 16, 2013, 07:45:18 pm by FakeMccoy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 522
|
I know what fusion is, thank you, and while I know a sustainable reaction is possible, since we have the sun as proof, it's not going to happen at room temperature.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 203
|
I know what fusion is, thank you, and while I know a sustainable reaction is possible, since we have the sun as proof, it's not going to happen at room temperature.
Actually I was looking around and I saw this
http://www.territorioscuola.com/download/fusione-fredda/fusione-fredda-nuclear-matter-condensed.pdf
I completely forgot about Muons and Tao particles! If you can introduce Muons (but preferably tau electrons) into a proton nuclei, the Muon's higher mass will more greatly inhibit the uncertainty of it's position and thus make it more localized, and because it is more localized it will form a smaller coulomb barrier that would need to be overcome which explains why the fusion process would increase in efficiency which could in turn create a sustainable cold fusion chain reaction!!! The only problem will be finding matter that has this property, perhaps helium 3 on the moon will release enough energy to make a sustainable reaction but has alterations due to it's exposure to solar wind and has a decreased coulomb barrier from Muon production, though I don't know enough about the materials on the moon. Maybe one day we can find an exotic substance, like perhaps we can one day mine the metallic hydrogen on Jupiter which will have Muonic hydrogen atoms.
In the article I posted another generation of heavy fermions are referred to as "hypothetical quasi-particles". Because of the way they were described I merely extrapolated that they were Tau electrons. I think the "hypothetical quasi-particle" may have actually been a tau electron, they had Muons discovered, then hypothesized Tau electrons existed but this paper was written before their discovery. It's only natural that an electron even heavier than a Muon would increase the efficiency even more, but we'd have to somehow overcome the decay factor.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 07:51:38 am by FakeMccoy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Well, nuclei are terrible at tunneling because they are so localized
No, nuclei are terrible at tunneling because they have more mass. The tunneling rate follows an exponential decay proportional to several factors, but among them is the square root of the mass. So, a tunneling length for a nucleon - for the same barrier is 32 times greater than for an electron.
Therefore if you can make those particles more delocalized like perhaps with the high energy, perhaps weakening the repulsive forces, maybe you can proceed with the room-temperature tunneling.
Delocalizing by introducing high energy is also known as 'heating it up to millions of degrees' and no longer qualifies as room-temperature.
But we do have very very powerful lasers which can single-handedly start a hydrogen fusion reaction, I just don't know about sustaining it or creating a chain reaction from it, I mean it must take at least a billion watts to do something like that with a laser which is why there is a problem with efficiency that I mentioned.
Yes. It's quite simple to get hydrogen to fuse. A high-schooler built a fusion reactor in his basement. Just, it consumes way more energy than it releases. But that's all high-temperature stuff.
Does quark-gluon plasma exist in the sun? Maybe concentrating a high enough energy into a single point would emulate having an extremely high mass and disrupt something of the fabric of space at that point is the key to being able to manipulate space to create a warp drive, a billion watts is a lot. Although then why wouldn't we see phenomena like that in neutron stars? I wonder if we can concentrate enough energy even to overcome the effects of color-confinement.
Question 1: No, as should be clear given the natures of fusion and quark-gluon plasma
Question 2 (sentence 3): because it isn't happening there.
Quasi-question 3 (sentence 4): Color-confinement isn't a barrier to be broken. It's what happens when you break the barrier. it's like saying "I wonder if we can break a box into pieces small enough that none of them is the lowest one".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FakeMccoy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 203
|
Well, nuclei are terrible at tunneling because they are so localized No, nuclei are terrible at tunneling because they have more mass. The tunneling rate follows an exponential decay proportional to several factors, but among them is the square root of the mass. So, a tunneling length for a nucleon - for the same barrier is 32 times greater than for an electron.
Well it's kind of impossible to actually have a smooth curve that describes quantized particles across different types of fermions, that's like trying to have a smooth curve to describe factorials. In nucleons most of the mass is in the form of energy or in the nuclear bonds themselves in relativistic mass, not in the real mass, which would explain the results in the paper I showed because protons are non-lepton fermions while leptons themselves have no interaction with the strong force which is why muonic hydrogen atoms would increase the fusion rate. The extra mass that you pointed out is stored in the very bonds that hold a nucleons together as well as in the potential electro-magnetic fields and make it harder to tunnel. However in Leptons, the extra mass has no other "bonds" to store energy in, and the result is that you have a more localized lepton takes less energy to tunnel through while its mass is stored in the form of real mass rather than energy in the potential of the electro-magnetic field repelling other electrons.
Although now that I think about it, why not just have pure proton nuclei? Surely some kind of chemical is strong enough to create a chemical reaction that leaves us with enough pure protons that we can somehow trap. Although the process may be somewhat inefficient.
Something else that doesn't seem to have been physically observed is a multi-flavor lepton oscillation field for electrons just like with neutrinos, but I suppose that only happens because neutrinos do not repel each other and different flavors of electrons would interact with the energy states differently. But still in that sustainable oscillation the higher flavor neutrinos don't decay, so there must be some way to have sustainable muons and tau particles as well, unless tau neutrinos decay as well but it takes too long to notice.
Delocalizing by introducing high energy is also known as 'heating it up to millions of degrees' and no longer qualifies as room-temperature.
But if you have a small and concentrated laser along with some new mechanism or material to lower the Coulomb barrier or really any energy needed overcome the electro-static forces then you could probably have a house-hold cold fusion chain reactor.
Yes. It's quite simple to get hydrogen to fuse. A high-schooler built a fusion reactor in his basement. Just, it consumes way more energy than it releases. But that's all high-temperature stuff.
For now, it takes more energy and thus is not efficient enough.
Question 1: No, as should be clear given the natures of fusion and quark-gluon plasma
Question 2 (sentence 3): because it isn't happening there.
Quasi-question 3 (sentence 4): Color-confinement isn't a barrier to be broken. It's what happens when you break the barrier. it's like saying "I wonder if we can break a box into pieces small enough that none of them is the lowest one".
Response 1: There should at least be some stray gluon plasma that forms once in a while, there is definitely the capacity for random bursts of enough energy.
Response 2: You lacked such detail that saying "god did it" is literally a better explanation.
Response 3: My point was that it was the type of barrier to over-come as a challenge, once you have enough energy for the nuclear bonds in nucleons to be broken then all that's left is the energy used to break apart the nucleons just ends up making more quarks and you never get an isolated quark, but "what if there was such a high concentration of energy in a small point for a long enough duration of time that even the energy in forming more quarks could not hold bonds with other quarks just created and you can finally have an isolated quark" is what I was trying to say.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 07:45:05 pm by FakeMccoy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
In condensed matter, there are plenty of composite fermions with continuously varying energies, and this rule describes those. And yes, it's exactly as impossible as a smooth function for the factorial of n, which happens to be integral from 0 to infinity of x^n e^-x dx, also known as the gamma function of n+1. If you know integral calculus, you can see why this works for all whole numbers n and that it has a single real value for every real number down to but not including negative 1 (which is why the gamma function is shifted up 1).
But even if there were no composite fermions, your argument is nonsense. If you can derive something from underlying principles - which in this case you can - then the derivation indicates the functional dependence even if physical systems can only instantiate selected values.
In nucleons most of the mass is in the form of energy or in the nuclear bonds themselves in relativistic mass, not in the real mass Bonding energy is real mass. There's nothing fake about it. You can't wish it away, you can't cancel it out except by breaking the bonds. Of course, this sentence doesn't actually mean anything, which is worse than being wrong.
The rest of your paragraph is much better, in that it is simply wrong instead of going so far as to be meaningless. That is not how tunneling works, not even a little bit (I work with tunneling directly on a daily basis). Proton exchange is a thing, and free protons are not a solution to fusion, which you'd know if you applied quarter-way decent physical intuition for half a second.
In short, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to learn, I can explain, but if you're going to throw up a smokescreen of incompetently generated bullshit, there's no point in going on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
