Page 1 of 2
#1
in chem class we were learning about the pros and cons of nuclear fission [splitting uranium with a neutron etc etc] and fusion [combing hydrogen to make helium], and one of the pros to fusion is that it makes a lot more energy, and in the end result it produces less toxic waste materials then that of fission reactions[barium and krypton].

so there fore, i figure the same properties of nuclear fusion and fission should be the same in their bomb-form, that the fusion bomb will be ALOT more explosive and alot less toxic to the environment.

So basically, the H bomb should be better then the fission nuclear bomb.

am i on the right track?

i figure theres someone in the pit who knows more about this then i do. is there anything about the H bomb that makes it less efficient or appealing to use in a situation where its needed?

last of all, how do the H bomb and fission bombs differ in their explosions?

thanks in advance
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#3
Quote by boreamor
They both go boom.



naw
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#4
So basically, the H bomb should be better then the fission nuclear bomb.

You don't work for any teen-terrorist groups, do you?

I should sig this.
GTFO my sig
#5
I used to know so much about this If I remember correctly, you're on the right track.
Quote by Ez0ph
That was a different Feb08er that threatened to suck you off
I remember that


Sadly, I was the threatened.
Quote by Firenze


Let it be known that I concur with everything this gentleman says, ever.



www.myspace.com/tarsusmusic
#6
that sounds like an argument i had in 3rd grade...

"I just shot you with a fission bomb"

"Oh Yeah, I jsut shot you with a fusion bomb!"


-fusion is much mor expensive and hard to contain as far as power generation, and more destructive in bombs. Both are detrimental to the environment in bomb and power plant forms.
#7
Quote by outerlimit501
that sounds like an argument i had in 3rd grade...

"I just shot you with a fission bomb"

"Oh Yeah, I jsut shot you with a fusion bomb!"


-fusion is much mor expensive and hard to contain as far as power generation, and more destructive in bombs. Both are detrimental to the environment in bomb and power plant forms.



do you live in iraq or something? because i know of no third graders who know what fusion and fission bombs are.


how is fusion detrimental to the environment?
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#8
how is fusion detrimental to the environment?

Damn, of all the words in the world, I should at least remember what Detrimental means.

To the wiktionary!

But fill me in as well, please?
GTFO my sig
#9
Quote by Th6r6a6sH
Damn, of all the words in the world, I should at least remember what Detrimental means.


it means bad.

lulz
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#10
I should have paid for attention in Nucleonics class.
Quote by Ez0ph
That was a different Feb08er that threatened to suck you off
I remember that


Sadly, I was the threatened.
Quote by Firenze


Let it be known that I concur with everything this gentleman says, ever.



www.myspace.com/tarsusmusic
#11
Fusion has yet to be harnessed in a power plant, despite the vast quantities of time and capital expended to try and attain such a goal. Fission already has and is used worldwide as a source of relatively clean power.

The attraction for fusion is that it produces much more power and much less waste. Not only that, but fusion's radioactive waste is much less potent than fission's. It could be argued that Fusion power would be less environmentally detrimental than conventional power plants.

As far as bombs, fusion bombs are many times more powerful than fission bombs and also have shorter radioactive effects. For example, a fission bomb could destroy all of Hiroshima but the first fusion bomb test destroyed an entire island. The USSR designed a fusion bomb so powerful that if they had detonated it at ground level it would've caused earthquakes and tsunamis worldwide.

So there you go.
#12
Quote by TooFast
I should have paid for attention in Nucleonics class.

Damn again!


wtf is Nucleonics?
GTFO my sig
#13
Quote by Th6r6a6sH
Damn, of all the words in the world, I should at least remember what Detrimental means.

To the wiktionary!

But fill me in as well, please?

#14
we have no fusion energy plants because there´s no material that can support that grade of heat, maybe i'm wrong?
If i wanted to destroy the world i would use fusion bomb or godzilla
#15
Quote by Th6r6a6sH
Damn again!


wtf is Nucleonics?


It seems as though you have a peculiar incapacity to comprehend the use of extravagant and excessive verbiage, in other words you have a rather bereft lexicon, if you will.
#16
Quote by its irrelevant
Fusion has yet to be harnessed in a power plant, despite the vast quantities of time and capital expended to try and attain such a goal. Fission already has and is used worldwide as a source of relatively clean power.

The attraction for fusion is that it produces much more power and much less waste. Not only that, but fusion's radioactive waste is much less potent than fission's. It could be argued that Fusion power would be less environmentally detrimental than conventional power plants.

As far as bombs, fusion bombs are many times more powerful than fission bombs and also have shorter radioactive effects. For example, a fission bomb could destroy all of Hiroshima but the first fusion bomb test destroyed an entire island. The USSR designed a fusion bomb so powerful that if they had detonated it at ground level it would've caused earthquakes and tsunamis worldwide.

So there you go.


you are god



an entire island?!!!?!?
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#17
Quote by outerlimit501
that sounds like an argument i had in 3rd grade...

"I just shot you with a fission bomb"

"Oh Yeah, I jsut shot you with a fusion bomb!"

Yet another sig worthy comment.


Quote by Jackintehbox


I know, I know!
GTFO my sig
#18
Quote by loginer
we have no fusion energy plants because there´s no material that can support that grade of heat, maybe i'm wrong?
If i wanted to destroy the world i would use fusion bomb or godzilla


we have ways of containing the heat (using magnetic fields) the biggest problem is sustaining the reaction long enough for it to be practical.

In terms of bombs, fusion bombs are much more powerful, for a bomb of the same size and weight, but also much more expensive and more difficult to make and maintain.
make Industrial and/or experimental electronic music? Join my group!

Last.fm
#19
Quote by loginer
we have no fusion energy plants because there´s no material that can support that grade of heat, maybe i'm wrong?


the kept in really thick steal and lead mixture furnaces.

why they dont melt? they have massive electromagnets that keep the gases and heat from touching the sides.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#21
Quote by loginer
we have no fusion energy plants because there´s no material that can support that grade of heat, maybe i'm wrong?
If i wanted to destroy the world i would use fusion bomb or godzilla


The problems isnt containing fusion reactions, which we can certainly do, its getting them to produce a net gain of energy. Using our current methods of generating fusion reactions, we have to use more energy to keep the thing stable than is actually produced in the reaction itself.

The goal is to find simpler ways of starting and maintaining the reaction while creating more efficient ways of harnessing the energy. Once we can create a fusion reaction that creates more energy that it needs, we have ourselves a nice little powerplant.
#22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=460hOoqiINc

Public Enemy is louder than both of them
The Mitch Clem formula
1)make jokes about rancid and NOFX (as if they dont already make fun of themselves)
2)make obvious punk puns, possibly related to food
3)make fun of Rancid and NOFX again
4)??????
5)PROFIT (and an army of internet fanboys)
#23
Quote by sadistic_monkey


They'd both kill a horrendous amount of, probably innocent, people.


but the explosion would be so pretty
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#24
Quote by its irrelevant
It seems as though you have a peculiar incapacity to comprehend the use of extravagant and excessive verbiage, in other words you have a rather bereft lexicon, if you will.

It has been said that verbosity is the plague of the intellectual, condemning and enlightening as it may seem.

Or today I could have just taken one too many pills and can't seem to think clearly.

Otherwise, I would have a valid statement as to the destructive and consequential effects foreknown to befall a fission/fusion bomb.
GTFO my sig
#25
Quote by its irrelevant
The problems isnt containing fusion reactions, which we can certainly do, its getting them to produce a net gain of energy. Using our current methods of generating fusion reactions, we have to use more energy to keep the thing stable than is actually produced in the reaction itself.

The goal is to find simpler ways of starting and maintaining the reaction while creating more efficient ways of harnessing the energy. Once we can create a fusion reaction that creates more energy that it needs, we have ourselves a nice little powerplant.


so basically, we're using more energy to keep the gases hot/stable then then the fusion reactions are producing energy in result?
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#26
Well fusion has several problems as of now, for one thing it produces too much energy even when fuel rods used in fission are used up they still undergo radioactive decay for hundreds of years, with fusion you have much more energy released in a shorter period so its extremely difficult to get it controlled, you cant just harness that much energy in a controlled manner with cadmium and heavy water; it will pretty much destroy everything.

Another problem is you need to get the hydrogen super compressed to have fission occur, currently the only way to do that efficiently believe it or not is to use a fission bomb so you still need fission.

I hope that helps

Edit: I meant a fission bomb not fusion.
Mr. Butlertron are you A handsome B smart C scrap metal or D all of the above
Scangrade thats easy I'm A and B but not C, so it can't be all of the above, but you can't fill in two ovals Nooo!
Mr. Butlertron the answer is C... you fuckwad
Last edited by greatone_12 at Dec 19, 2008,
#27
Quote by greatone_12
occur, currently the only way to do that believe it or not is to use a fusion bomb so you still need fission.

I hope that helps


what do you mean? fusion bombs require fission?
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#29
Quote by greatone_12

Another problem is you need to get the hydrogen super compressed to have fusion occur, currently the only way to do that efficiently believe it or not is to use a fusion bomb so you still need fission.

I hope that helps

So, in order to fuse the atoms of hydrogen together, you need to split at least on apart first?
GTFO my sig
#31
Quote by koalabacon
so basically, we're using more energy to keep the gases hot/stable then then the fusion reactions are producing energy in result?


Exactly. Basically, to bypass the need for a material that can absorb the heat we suspend the reaction in a super powerful electromagnetic field. This keeps the superhot gasses away from the sides of the reactor. The downside is that the electromagnetic field requires a lot more energy than the reaction itself produces.
#32
Quote by Th6r6a6sH
So, in order to fuse the atoms of hydrogen together, you need to split at least on apart first?

in fission you split uranium apart, which creates enough heat to fuse hydrogen together.
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#33
Quote by koalabacon
what do you mean? fusion bombs require fission?


Yeah at least the bombs do, they might have other ways of doing it too but, the way they do it is they basically use a uranium bomb to "explode" the hydrogen to a super compressed state like it is in the sun which happens from gravity. Some uranium is naturally radioactive but hydrogen on its own isn't anything special so you need a great amount of force to smash two hydrogen atoms together and get an energy release from the lost mass of the newly created particle.
Mr. Butlertron are you A handsome B smart C scrap metal or D all of the above
Scangrade thats easy I'm A and B but not C, so it can't be all of the above, but you can't fill in two ovals Nooo!
Mr. Butlertron the answer is C... you fuckwad
#34
Quote by koalabacon
in fission you split uranium apart, which creates enough heat to fuse hydrogen together.

for clarification,
you don't need fission for fusion, fission just happens to be the most practical way to achieve the conversion of the hydrogen gas to the plasma state.
cuz fusion only occurs in a plasma :-P

the guy above me pretty much posted the third grade science version of it.....
Quote by tjhome28
It annoys me when kids sit there playing the sweet child o mine or smoke on the water intro riff repeatedly
and badly
and so loud the whole shop can't hear themselves think
and with the worst amp settings possible

[/rant]


+1
#35
Quote by Th6r6a6sH
It has been said that verbosity is the plague of the intellectual, condemning and enlightening as it may seem.

Or today I could have just taken one too many pills and can't seem to think clearly.

Otherwise, I would have a valid statement as to the destructive and consequential effects foreknown to befall a fission/fusion bomb.


Touche. I happen to be rather familiar with the unfortunate aftereffects of overmedication and am entirely sympathetic to your current predicament. Needless to say, your recent demonstration of skillful manipulation of linguistics has drastically changed my opinions towards your capacity as an intellectual.
#36
Quote by its irrelevant
Exactly. Basically, to bypass the need for a material that can absorb the heat we suspend the reaction in a super powerful electromagnetic field. This keeps the superhot gasses away from the sides of the reactor. The downside is that the electromagnetic field requires a lot more energy than the reaction itself produces.


understood. would it be more efficient for the fusion reactor to be bigger in size to create more energy to counter balance to energy being used being used in the magnet?
Quote by HeretiK538
Totally awesome, I love you.

Have my children.

#37
The Tsar Bumba was the most powerful bomb to ever detonate, and it was an H-Bomb.
funkyducky


Icing happen when de puck come down, BANG, you know,
before de oder guys, nobody dere, you know.
My arm go comme ça, den de game stop den start up.

Quote by daytripper75
Get To Da Choppa!
#38
Quote by koalabacon
understood. would it be more efficient for the fusion reactor to be bigger in size to create more energy to counter balance to energy being used being used in the magnet?

false
i don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but i'm pretty sure that to start a fusion reaction that has any sort of net gain of energy would require far more energy than we have the resources for on earth.
we need a new method for containing the reaction, or a massive source of energy to start the reaction amirite?
i'm going off of my high school physical science notes
Quote by tjhome28
It annoys me when kids sit there playing the sweet child o mine or smoke on the water intro riff repeatedly
and badly
and so loud the whole shop can't hear themselves think
and with the worst amp settings possible

[/rant]


+1
#39
Not really. The larger the reaction the more force is needed to contain it.

Many physicists believe that the current method of fusion using electromagnetic fields is viable, it just needs refinement, hence the ITER project in Europe (you might want to read more on that, as that is currently the best chance we have a self-sustaining Fusion power plant http://www.iter.org/).

Others believe that the electromagnetic field containment will never be efficient, so some believe that suspending tritium in the center of a molten led-lithium mixture which is then compressed rapidly can create a more efficient fusion reaction that could be self-sustaining.
Last edited by its irrelevant at Dec 19, 2008,
#40
Quote by koalabacon
in fission you split uranium apart, which creates enough heat to fuse hydrogen together.

ah yes and according to Xaveir's comment, fusion occurs only in the plasma state
Quote by Xaveir
cuz fusion only occurs in a plasma :-P

there you are.

So the heat fuses the atoms together and a hell of a lot of energy is released in the attempt, thus making the boom that the USSR has been looking for
GTFO my sig
Page 1 of 2