Let's put things in proportion!

Remove all ads!

that sounds about right clixby. the water is heated, by the heat generated from does elecktrons that moves away from the radioactive matter (to join with other atoms which will get ionified).

So as you can see blackthorne (hopefully anyhows) no elecktrons or any other matter sieze to excist in this process.

on a sidenote, the process to get electrons back on the waste materials while still gaining energy is a process that many scientist hope to solve, because if that was possible, we would have a near unlimited powersource in fusion/fission.

 

May the translation isn´t accurate at all, but from what I know about the fission nuclear reaction, the particle that start the whole chain reaction is not the elektron(tiny little negative charge one orbitating the core particle,around 1:10000 smaller) but the proton(one of the bigs liying in the center, possitive electric charge).
The core is "bombed" with "low speed neutrons" wich is the other (non-electrical charged) particle involved in the reaction.
The procces boils the heavy water and that water boils regular water that turns into steam and moves the vapor turbines.
The "waste" of all this reaction are in fact, the elements that "fission" breaks into smaller pieces, such as Cs or Ba (radioactive ones) and the "depleted" uranium.
The waste is still radioactive(loosing core particles) for a period of time known as "average live" wich, in the case of the avobe elements, exeeds the 800 years or more.

 

This is off-topic, but I'm with Blackthorn here. Equester, you should look up fission, fusion and particle physics on the web to get a better handle on the scientific issues. Wikipedea is a good place to start, although there are several better sites out there on these topics.

First of all, radioactive materials do not lack electrons -- it is not charged and radioacivity is not about electron movement. Movement of electrons occurs over time, but the mass remains uncharged. The process of fission or fusion does not eliminate electrons from substances. There is no research to 'get electrons back on waste materials' because the electrons are already there.

The movement of electrons occurs in electricity and chemical reactions. Nuclear energy involves the movement of photons and neutrons. Different decay types give off charged particles (beta minus decay, alpha decay), but these types of decay are related and radioactive piles that decay give off both over time (and the charge is thus maintained at neutral).

Fission basics: A neutron is absorbed by an atom (Uranium-235 is most common). If the neutron has sufficient energy, the atom splits into two main fragments and two or three neutrons. The resultant particles have less mass than the original neutron and atom -- this loss of mass follows relativistic physics and an incredible amount of energy is generated. Note, the amount of protons and electrons stays the same.

Fusion: Basically the opposite. Two smaller particles come together, but the final product has less mass than the original particles -- once again, that change in mass results in a lot of energy. The primary fusion reaction we can produce comes from combining tritium and deuterium (hydrogen with neutrons) to form helium and expelling a neutron. The overall charge of the reaction is again zero.

 

My head threatens to explode whenever you guys start talking about deep physics like this. All of that neutron stuff just boggles the mind. I'm sure it's right, but none of it makes any sort of sense.

 

Harbourboy@: You were sleeping is science class in secondry school were you? This is easy to understand once you get past the formula.

 

It might be easy to remember the formula but it still doesn't make any logical sense to me that:
a) you can somehow shoot a neutron at something. It's unbelievably small. You can't even see it. How can you shoot it?
b) when the atom gets hit, it blows up in a mind boggling spectacular way. If I stick some balls together with glue and then shoot them, they don't blow up and wreck half the city - why should an atom do so then?

Again, I know these things must be right, but that doesn't make it any easier for my head to understand.

And, yes, I did read A Brief History of Time all the way through but I still didn't understand any of it.

 

If the Universe is infinately large, does that meen we are infinately small?

 

The protons are all positively charged. For an element such as uranium, there are 92 protons, all repelling one another with immense force, confined to the volume of the nucleus. It is a massively compressed spring.

 

You're telling me!

 

Making things even more complicated, some mass is lost or gained during standard chemical reactions as well; it is a very minute amount (relative to nuclear reactions), but it is there.

I had a chemistry professor who insisted that we were probably largely wrong in our mathematical models of nature, because, as he put it, "Nature is actually very simple, we just aren't looking at it the right way."



Did I mention he was a minister for a church which he himself founded? Cool guy actually, great sense of humor.

 

@Harby
"My head threatens to explode whenever you guys start talking about deep physics like this. All of that neutron stuff just boggles the mind. I'm sure it's right, but none of it makes any sort of sense"

Why not? Deep space effects and atomic forces are ruled by the same "laws"(or we can say how us poorly understand the universe)

"It might be easy to remember the formula but it still doesn't make any logical sense to me that:
a) you can somehow shoot a neutron at something. It's unbelievably small. You can't even see it. How can you shoot it?
b) when the atom gets hit, it blows up in a mind boggling spectacular way. If I stick some balls together with glue and then shoot them, they don't blow up and wreck half the city - why should an atom do so then?"

A) There´s no "shoot" effect, you just give the enough amount of energy(acceleration) and when it pass near by an atom core, it will be "absorbed" by atomic atraction.It will hit(luckily) the core and blast the "heavy" Uranium atom into 2 or 3 ligther elements and some protons (or neutrons) that escapes the atraction and will hit nearby atom cores,and so,and so...The exceed mass transforms it self in energy(in the heat fashion)...
Voilá! You have a chain reaction.Controlled (nuclear power plant) or uncontrolled(atomic bomb)

b) The catch is the amount of these "reactions" that occurs in a diminute period of time(around the milisecond)The total energy is the summatory of each given amount of energy,the mass of a proton(very smaller than a gram), mutiplied by the square of the ligth velocity(gives a important amount) multiplied by the total reactions in that period of time.
Once the reaction started, it will be more difficult to control the exact amount of chain reactions in the mass of uranium.This is why power plant have control bars (usually some Boro alloy)that stop or deflect the excesive amount of these "core-hit-addicts" super accelerated protons.

 

way to patronize me after you nade a statement about matter seizing to excist guess you havent laerned about that in school yet. but hey if it makes you feel big, be my guest

as for the nuclear fision/fusion yea i was totally of the track there, been almost 5 years since i passed A level physics in college, gee i forget stuff to...

 

Ummm... Equester... BTA is right.

There are three laws taught in the first week of chemistry courses:

The Law of Conservation of Matter: There is no observable change in the quantity of matter during an ordinary chemical reaction.

The Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it may only be converted from one form to another.

The Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter: The combined amount of matter and energy in the universe is fixed.

Looking at these three laws there may initially appear to be conflict -- but there really is none. Fission, fusion, and radioactive decay are excluded from the definition of 'ordinary chemical reaction.' The third law came about as a result of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Using the theory of relativity we can see that matter is, in essence, potential energy. Changing matter to energy in a nuclear reaction still falls within the realm of conservation of energy.

Matter CAN be converted to energy. It doesn't get destroyed, it just changes form.

Edit: typo.

[ January 18, 2007, 21:53: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Isn't matter and anti-matter supposed to annihilate each other (when coming into contact) in such a way that nothing is left? Obviously that would contradict "The Law of Conservation of Energy", but if the law holds true, what remains when matter and anti-matter meets each other (if the amounts of both are exactly the same)?

 

@ Bahir the Red

The matter and anti-matter do annihilate one another---into a blaze of energy. That energy, due to E=MC^2, is the amount of mass lost (all in this case) turned directly into 'BOOM!'. Make sure you're wearing safety goggles if you're nearby.

The conservation of energy law applies to systems. If you make an arbitrary boundary around any part of the universe and certify that no energy enters or leaves that system, any additional energy you would find inside the system after having opened it would equal the amount of mass lost within the system by E=MC^2. The opposite could be true as well, with the system gaining mass.

The law is kind of impossible to prove universally true though as you would need to put a boundary around the "universe"...but, I think 'put a boundary around the universe' might be a non-sensical statement if thought about enough. If anyone does think about that long enough, let me know, as I'd be interested.

[ January 18, 2007, 23:41: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

OK - antimatter. You can't tell me that the concept of antimatter (even if it is true) makes any sense at all. Is there an AntiChevalier or an AntiParisHilton or an Antiwater. Does everything have an antithing that will make the both blow up?

 

If I hadn't turned in my chemistry book today I would quote it, but as I don't have it...

Blackthorne is right, a slow moving neutron is shot into the nucleus of an atom with a heavy nucleus (for fission), then the nucleus splits and smaller atoms are formed with less total mass. The lost mass becomes energy in the process. In Fusion it is just the opposite. Smaller atoms band together to make a larger atom with less mass, once again energy filling up the rest.

The information is still fresh as I read it this morning.