February 3rd, 2013, 06:03 AM
Hello all, in my recent quest to study science and understand the Universe I have come across the Atom, and after looking at the Atom have thought of a few questions.
Is the Atom static, or doe's the Atom move about?.
Different amount of Protons, the electron always rotates?.
To split an Atom we simply break the link of the electron and Proton?
Can we see an Atom?
It depends. In a gas, the atoms are free to move about. In a liquid, they can move but are more closely bound to each other. In a solid they are fixed in place, often in a regular crystal structure (but they can still vibrate)Originally Posted by theorist
Note that most materials consist of molecules, which are compounds of two or more atoms. For example, a water molecule is 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. In this case, these three atoms are fixed together fairly rigidly by the bonds between them.
Every different atom (different element) has a different number of protons. They always have the same number of electrons around them. They also contain (in the nucleus with the protons) a number of neutrons - this is normally about the same number as the protons, but it can vary. The exception is hydrogen which is just a proton and an electron.Different amount of Protons, the electron always rotates?.
Splitting an atom means breaking the nucleus up to produce two separate atoms, each with a smaller number of protons than the original atom.To split an Atom we simply break the link of the electron and Proton?
Not directly. They can be imaged by things like the scanning electron microscopeCan we see an Atom?
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/atoms.htm
http://trueslant.com/justingardner/2...of-a-molecule/
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex...506VV1003.html
It vibrates. Once you learn its frequency at which it vibrates you can destroy it .Is the Atom static, or doe's the Atom move about?.
If I was to say chop an apple in half and did a surface scan, I would see Atoms or Molecules?It depends. In a gas, the atoms are free to move about. In a liquid, they can move but are more closely bound to each other. In a solid they are fixed in place, often in a regular crystal structure (but they can still vibrate)
How in a gas do you perceive Atoms to move free, you can not see them, unless with a surface scan, is it Molecules that move around, is that what you mean, or individual Atoms?
Note that most materials consist of molecules, which are compounds of two or more atoms. For example, a water molecule is 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. In this case, these three atoms are fixed together fairly rigidly by the bonds between them.
Every different atom (different element) has a different number of protons. They always have the same number of electrons around them. They also contain (in the nucleus with the protons) a number of neutrons - this is normally about the same number as the protons, but it can vary. The exception is hydrogen which is just a proton and an electron.Different amount of Protons, the electron always rotates?.
The Neutron ,is this what keeps the Atom stable, so that is why Hydrogen easily ignites as it as no neutron?, if I am thinking of the right gas.
Splitting an atom means breaking the nucleus up to produce two separate atoms, each with a smaller number of protons than the original atom.To split an Atom we simply break the link of the electron and Proton?
When you spit an Atom, for example you have 2 Protons, 2 Neutrons, and X amount of electrons. So you split, 1 Proton,1 Neutron, do you split the electrons also, or does the electron automatically attach itself?Can we see an Atom?
Not directly. They can be imaged by things like the scanning electron microscope
Atoms in a Crystal ...
Behold! The First Photo Of A Molecule! - Justin Gardner - Political Pulse - True/Slant
IBM Archives: "IBM" atoms
Atoms have an Unknown frequency?
There many different lines of evidence from physics and chemistry which tell us how atoms behave in solids, liquids and gases.
It is true that the balance of protons and neutrons determines whether an atom is stable or not.The Neutron ,is this what keeps the Atom stable, so that is why Hydrogen easily ignites as it as no neutron?, if I am thinking of the right gas.
But this has nothing to do with hydrogen burning or other chemical reactions. All chemical reactions involve just the electrons - the electrons form bonds between atoms to make molecules.
All nuclear reactions (splitting atoms (fission), joining atoms (fusion), radiation, etc) involve changes to the nucleus (the number of protons and nesutrons).
An atom always has the same number of electrons and protons (because the electric charges must cancel out). For example, uranium (92 protons, 92 electrons and 144 neutrons) can split into a krypton atom (36 protons, 36 electrons and 56 neutrons) and a barium atom (56 protons, 56 electrons and 85 neutrons).When you spit an Atom, for example you have 2 Protons, 2 Neutrons, and X amount of electrons. So you split, 1 Proton,1 Neutron, do you split the electrons also, or does the electron automatically attach itself?
You would see complex molecules made up of atoms.If I was to say chop an apple in half and did a surface scan, I would see Atoms or Molecules?
Atoms have many different frequencies. The electrons can absorb and emit photons; usually of several different frequencies. The nucleus can also absorb and emit photons of very high frequencies. The bonds between atoms can stretch, bend and rotate at different frequencies (depend on the molecule). All these things can be used to identify atoms and molecules: Spectroscopy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAtoms have an Unknown frequency?
Good grief. The closest I can come to this is that atoms can be part of a molecule, and if you know the frequency of vibration you can stimulate the vibration and destroy the molecule.
There many different lines of evidence from physics and chemistry which tell us how atoms behave in solids, liquids and gases.
The Neutron ,is this what keeps the Atom stable, so that is why Hydrogen easily ignites as it as no neutron?, if I am thinking of the right gas.
It is true that the balance of protons and neutrons determines whether an atom is stable or not.
But this has nothing to do with hydrogen burning or other chemical reactions. All chemical reactions involve just the electrons - the electrons form bonds between atoms to make molecules.
All nuclear reactions (splitting atoms (fission), joining atoms (fusion), radiation, etc) involve changes to the nucleus (the number of protons and nesutrons).
An atom always has the same number of electrons and protons (because the electric charges must cancel out). For example, uranium (92 protons, 92 electrons and 144 neutrons) can split into a krypton atom (36 protons, 36 electrons and 56 neutrons) and a barium atom (56 protons, 56 electrons and 85 neutrons).When you spit an Atom, for example you have 2 Protons, 2 Neutrons, and X amount of electrons. So you split, 1 Proton,1 Neutron, do you split the electrons also, or does the electron automatically attach itself?
You would see complex molecules made up of atoms.If I was to say chop an apple in half and did a surface scan, I would see Atoms or Molecules?
Atoms have many different frequencies. The electrons can absorb and emit photons; usually of several different frequencies. The nucleus can also absorb and emit photons of very high frequencies. The bonds between atoms can stretch, bend and rotate at different frequencies (depend on the molecule). All these things can be used to identify atoms and molecules: Spectroscopy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAtoms have an Unknown frequency?
So in space the Atom could move really fast and loose like Photons for example?, as there is zero mass or atmosphere?
I looked up gases e.t.c and how Atoms move in the different environments.
I can see that mass makes Atoms move slow and the now obvious gas is lighter than water and so on, less density.
The scanning test of Atoms, when you slice the apple doe's it just do the calculation using the electrons as they jump ,as they orbit?
Or can you see a visual Molecule?
Good grief. The closest I can come to this is that atoms can be part of a molecule, and if you know the frequency of vibration you can stimulate the vibration and destroy the molecule.
Yes, I was thinking maybe building 7 in the trash can, may of found the frequency.
The frequencies are random, so to pin point a frequency would be difficult.
Maybe there is a Neutral frequency, that controls all?
An atom could move further in space before hitting something because, as you say, there is no atmosphere (but there is mass). An atom cannot travel as fast as a photon.
You can see atoms, molecules including the bonds between atoms: Researchers Capture the First-Ever Image of a Single Molecule : 80beatsOr can you see a visual Molecule?
Within a given molecule, each atom can vibrate at any of several frequencies, and the frequencies are calculable at least in principle. The frequencies are also observable, as they determine the frequencies of light absorbed by the molecule. There is no single, overall controlling frequency for any molecule, much less for all of them.Good grief. The closest I can come to this is that atoms can be part of a molecule, and if you know the frequency of vibration you can stimulate the vibration and destroy the molecule.
Yes, I was thinking maybe building 7 in the trash can, may of found the frequency.
The frequencies are random, so to pin point a frequency would be difficult.
Maybe there is a Neutral frequency, that controls all?
The surrounding mass on a Molecule, that makes the Molecule, any explanation for that? is is possibly Photons?
Within a given molecule, each atom can vibrate at any of several frequencies, and the frequencies are calculable at least in principle. The frequencies are also observable, as they determine the frequencies of light absorbed by the molecule. There is no single, overall controlling frequency for any molecule, much less for all of them.Good grief. The closest I can come to this is that atoms can be part of a molecule, and if you know the frequency of vibration you can stimulate the vibration and destroy the molecule.
Yes, I was thinking maybe building 7 in the trash can, may of found the frequency.
The frequencies are random, so to pin point a frequency would be difficult.
Maybe there is a Neutral frequency, that controls all?
I see it though, if we tuned in a frequency for Atoms, we could send off a chain reaction. Maybe unexplained events could be a outcome of frequencies been tuned like a tuning fork. |I.e maybe the twin towers sent off two waves of tuning, and building 7 happened to be in the way of the overlap frequency..
So I think sometimes, things are best off left alone as we do not the outcome.
What does "surrounding mass on a Molecule" mean?
No.
Maybe a career in science fiction is more your thing.
Although fictitious, this is not even science fiction. It is just wrong.
So if you look ar a virus it is made of atoms, knowing what frequency they vibrate at will destroy them. Put a person with a viral infection into a dialysis machine and as their blood circulates through it , hit the blood with the frequency that destroys the virus only then put the blood back into the body. That way only the virus will be affected and the rest of the blood won't be curing the patient of whatever viral infection the might have. This can work on bacteria and germs as well.Good grief. The closest I can come to this is that atoms can be part of a molecule, and if you know the frequency of vibration you can stimulate the vibration and destroy the molecule.
The frequency can be radio, light or harmonic or others too. The research to be done would to be to isolate each virus and see which frequency destroys them.
Last edited by cosmictraveler; February 4th, 2013 at 08:08 AM.
ARRR, yes I see now, I was thinking weapons of mass destruction and not healthy living.So if you look ar a virus it is made of atoms, knowing what frequency they vibrate at will destroy them. Put a person with a viral infection into a dialysis machine and as their blood circulates through it , hit the blood with the frequency that destroys the virus only then put the blood back into the body. That way only the virus will be affected and the rest of the blood won't be curing the patient of whatever viral infection the might have. This can work on bacteria and germs as well.Good grief. The closest I can come to this is that atoms can be part of a molecule, and if you know the frequency of vibration you can stimulate the vibration and destroy the molecule.
The frequency can be radio, light or harmonic or others too. The research to be done would to be to isolate each virus and see which frequency destroys them.
OK rewording question, what is the surrounding white opaque looking area that surrounds the Atoms on a molecule?
I don't believe that is the case. It is not like breaking a wine glass (which has a resonant frequency) by playing a pure tone.
It may be that sufficient energy could break some bonds (after all, that is all that heating does). But that would break bonds in the cells of the person being treated as well.
What those images show is the density of the electron "clouds" (orbitals) around the atoms. These are densest where they form bonds between the atoms.
Yes I see it now, those pics show the energy as such where the electrons rotate. Would the Electrons collide, and how do they stick together if they move about?What those images show is the density of the electron "clouds" (orbitals) around the atoms. These are densest where they form bonds between the atoms.
They are distributed around the atoms in various diffuse shapes. Where atoms bond to one another in a molecule, these shapes overlap so the atoms share those electrons.
Thank you. yes this is to easy to see where mass comes from and how it is formed.They are distributed around the atoms in various diffuse shapes. Where atoms bond to one another in a molecule, these shapes overlap so the atoms share those electrons.
How do you explain the different grouping of atoms such as uranium?
It is not easy to see where the mass comes from at all. There are theories, but I certainly don't understand them.
What do you mean by "grouping"? Do you mean the arrangement of atoms in the crystal structure of uranium metal? Or the arrangement of electrons in a uranium atom Or something else?How do you explain the different grouping of atoms such as uranium?
I admire your generosity and patience, Strange!They are distributed around the atoms in various diffuse shapes. Where atoms bond to one another in a molecule, these shapes overlap so the atoms share those electrons.
But I fear that this thread is heading to Trash at warp speed. Another gift from theorist.
It is running out as t shows himself unwilling to learn and engage in an intelligent discussion.
It is not easy to see where the mass comes from at all. There are theories, but I certainly don't understand them.
How do you explain the different grouping of atoms such as uranium?
What do you mean by "grouping"? Do you mean the arrangement of atoms in the crystal structure of uranium metal? Or the arrangement of electrons in a uranium atom Or something else?
Yes , I mean the different grouping of Atoms that make up the periodic table.Do they attract to each other because they are the same Atomic make up?
The atoms in each column of the periodic table have similar properties because they have a similar pattern of electrons. Specifically, they have the same number of electrons in their outermost "shell". So, for example, we have very reactive elements like sodium and potassium in the first column.
As you go across the table, there is one more proton and electron. This changes the properties of the atoms.
So as you go across, you have the other metals. Then the "semi-metals" (semiconductors). Then in the second to last column you have the "halogens"; very reactive elements like chlorine and bromine.
There is an "ideal" number of electrons for the out shell. The inert gases in the last column (xenon, neon, etc) all have this number of electrons and so do not react with anything (normally).
If an element has one less than the "ideal" number (chlorine, for example) then it will react with an element that has one more than the "ideal" number in its outer shell (sodium, for example). The sodium atom will "lend" its electron to chlorine so they both have the "ideal" number. This creates a string bond between them and you end up with sodium chloride (table salt).
There is a lot more to it than that, of course. You could study this for several years and still only have a basic understanding.
The atoms in each column of the periodic table have similar properties because they have a similar pattern of electrons. Specifically, they have the same number of electrons in their outermost "shell". So, for example, we have very reactive elements like sodium and potassium in the first column.
As you go across the table, there is one more proton and electron. This changes the properties of the atoms.
So as you go across, you have the other metals. Then the "semi-metals" (semiconductors). Then in the second to last column you have the "halogens"; very reactive elements like chlorine and bromine.
There is an "ideal" number of electrons for the out shell. The inert gases in the last column (xenon, neon, etc) all have this number of electrons and so do not react with anything (normally).
If an element has one less than the "ideal" number (chlorine, for example) then it will react with an element that has one more than the "ideal" number in its outer shell (sodium, for example). The sodium atom will "lend" its electron to chlorine so they both have the "ideal" number. This creates a string bond between them and you end up with sodium chloride (table salt).
There is a lot more to it than that, of course. You could study this for several years and still only have a basic understanding.
I am just looking at the periodic tale, and number of electrons, for example-
Potassium it says for electrons, 2,8,8,1
Electron shell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So what does that mean in order?
It means there are 2 electrons in the innermost shell (strictly speaking, sub-shell but never mind), 8 in the next, then 8 in the next and finally 1 in the last. The "ideal" number for that outer shell is 2 and therefore potassium (like sodium) has an electron it is willing to share with a suitable element.
These shells all have catchy names like 1s, 2p, etc. There are a set of rules (from quantum mechanics) that determine how many electrons are allowed in each shell.
Thank you, I understand I think, I will look up the Quantum Mechanics in a minute.It means there are 2 electrons in the innermost shell (strictly speaking, sub-shell but never mind), 8 in the next, then 8 in the next and finally 1 in the last. The "ideal" number for that outer shell is 2 and therefore potassium (like sodium) has an electron it is willing to share with a suitable element.
These shells all have catchy names like 1s, 2p, etc. There are a set of rules (from quantum mechanics) that determine how many electrons are allowed in each shell.
So the inner shell as X amount of Electrons, then there is another X amount in the next shell and this defines the element?
There is different number of electrons that produce different bands like a ball of elastic bands but moving constant at a fast speed?
Just need to check I understand this correctly.
And to add yes I know there is Proton differences as well.
Added- I have just read some more, it basically means more Electrons the denser the Mass?Thank you, I understand I think, I will look up the Quantum Mechanics in a minute.It means there are 2 electrons in the innermost shell (strictly speaking, sub-shell but never mind), 8 in the next, then 8 in the next and finally 1 in the last. The "ideal" number for that outer shell is 2 and therefore potassium (like sodium) has an electron it is willing to share with a suitable element.
These shells all have catchy names like 1s, 2p, etc. There are a set of rules (from quantum mechanics) that determine how many electrons are allowed in each shell.
So the inner shell as X amount of Electrons, then there is another X amount in the next shell and this defines the element?
There is different number of electrons that produce different bands like a ball of elastic bands but moving constant at a fast speed?
Just need to check I understand this correctly.
And to add yes I know there is Proton differences as well.
That is correct.
Maybe one of those Russian dolls is a better analogy: spheres within spheres.There is different number of electrons that produce different bands like a ball of elastic bands but moving constant at a fast speed?
Basically, yes. The mass of an atom comes from the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The electrons weight almost nothing by comparison.
I Understand, so if mass lost it electrons would it start fall apart?Basically, yes. The mass of an atom comes from the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The electrons weight almost nothing by comparison.
I don't know what you mean. If what lost mass? (or lost electrons?) And why would it (what?) fall apart?
OK, if we were to Hypothesis that after the the fundamental layer of Electrons, our Earth would be surrounding by a mass of Electrons.I don't know what you mean. If what lost mass? (or lost electrons?) And why would it (what?) fall apart?
So if for example a huge EMP was to hit us, and we lost all our electrons, would we not just simply break apart.
Do the Electrons act as a shield holding the Protons, Neutrons in place?
The Earth is not surrounded by a mass of electrons.
No.Do the Electrons act as a shield holding the Protons, Neutrons in place?
Every thing is made of atoms ,all mass, so how can we not be surrounded by electrons, that is confusing?The Earth is not surrounded by a mass of electrons.
No.Do the Electrons act as a shield holding the Protons, Neutrons in place?
Because the electrons are tied up in those atoms - hence "surrounded by electrons" is as accurate (and meaninful) as "suurounded by neutrons" or "surrounded by protons".
Tied up in Molecules? do we not have loose singular Atoms in the Atmosphere?
Please read the words that I wrote, and then read the words you wrote.
Particularly the word immediately following "tied up in those" (from me) and "tied up in" from you.
Then think.
Ok, I see your point with my wording, I apologize , I was asking if those Atoms you mean, were as Molecule state, or is there singular Atoms in the atmosphere?
I'd assume there's both. After all nitrogen, ozone and others are elements - i.e. the atom is the gas, and other gases - [molecular] oxygen, CO2 are molecules.
So basically from the ground , up to orbit,stratosphere, it is all made from Molecules of Atoms, with some singulars as well?
I can't see what else there is. It's all gases of one type or another.
The part about Atoms I can not understand, is why do we not see them,, if they have energy and different energies why do they not glow?
Two questions for you:
1) How much energy does an atom have?
2) How much energy is required to make something glow enough for us to see?
Both questions I do not know the answers, I can take a guess at the Atom energy, I think an Atom as little energy, but as a Molecule or Molecules then it as potential.
But to the making something glow, no idea that is why I ask a seemingly dumb question that I should of just looked your 2 nd question up.
I have no idea what you're saying here.
It's a sort of trick question - there's no fixed answer because it depends on the material among other things. But the answer is"far more than an atom has" (unless you convert it via E=mc2). Think about a chunk of steel - how much heating does it require before it starts to glow?But to the making something glow, no idea that is why I ask a seemingly dumb question that I should of just looked your 2 nd question up.
Imagine a box of oranges. All the oranges are surrounded by peel. Is the box surrounded by peel?
The atmosphere is mainly nitrogen and oxygen. These both exist (mainly) as molecule of two nitrogen atoms (N2) or two oxygen atoms (O2). There are also gases like xenon or helium that exist as single atoms.
You can see them. Look around you. That table: atoms. That (locked, steel?) door: atoms. The glass in the window: atoms.
Some atoms do glow. Look at you computer screen. It is emitting light. That is atoms glowing. But they need an external source of energy to do that. That is why the screen stops glowing when you turn it off.
Thank you, great stuff, I do see the world different, I see the whole world as nothing but dots attached together.You can see them. Look around you. That table: atoms. That (locked, steel?) door: atoms. The glass in the window: atoms.
Some atoms do glow. Look at you computer screen. It is emitting light. That is atoms glowing. But they need an external source of energy to do that. That is why the screen stops glowing when you turn it off.
I see the matrix of the Universe if I can put it that way.
I will move on from Atoms as I have a good understanding of them, and find a new question now to understand.
This belongs in the trash.
Anything theorist posts should be in the trash.
I maintain that this is a deliberate troll. No one could get through any schooling at all and still be so totally ignorant.
AlexG, you have made your point. We get it. Those of us who continue to respond do so because we believe there is significant, finite possibility that Theorist is genuine and that even if he is a troll others may benefit from our answers. If he disturbs you that much place him on ignore.
Dear MR Alexg, I state again, I am not a troll, You think I have not learnt?, Do you think that logically I would not find a better forum than science to TROLL?,
Why would a troll think to himself/herself , I know I will go troll a science forum?, I am not ignorant as you think, My style of learning eliminates out all the crazy wacked out thoughts as I learn, so then when I have the full knowledge I need, I am not then wasting my time on crazy stuff, only the factual stuff.
In chemistry, I suppose you could make the argument that atoms exist in multiple states at the same time. For instance, whem you consider the movement of electrons around a molecule, you have to consider resonance structures; structures which maintain the same number of electrons and do not break bonds, but have different electron configurations. Thus, it is considered that a molecule is the sum of all of its resonance structures at the same time.
I suppose you could apply that logic to, say, pure water. The hydrogen atom is constantly moving from H20 to H20 and temporarily creating H30 acid and OH base. You could say that during this transformation the H is monatomic. I guess. I honestly can't say for sure.
If you are asking if molecules are naturally monatomic in their lowest energy state, then yes. The noble gases are monatomic because they have a satisfied octet and are at their lowest energy level. Unless forced, they have no desire to change. The entirety of chemistry is driven by the 'desire' for molecules to achieve this low energy state.
Yes, but not though visible light. Even the smallest wavelength of light is much larger than an atom, so instead we use shorter wavelengths (xrays for example) to detect the structure of an atom then a computer converts it to visible light on a monitor.
I have read that on earth we do not have the energy to create the fusion of Atoms, where as the Sun as constant power for the fusion of Atoms?
When we excite the Electrons in Uranium for example, this is fision and not fusion?
Can the Hydrogen Atom be fused, for obvious reasons there is great big Hydrogen bomb, or is this also a fision and not a fusion?
I am sorry if i may have asked similar before, but I am just trying to confirm my understanding of what I am reading is correct.
The problem is not that we don't have the energy, it is controlling the reaction.
Fission. (Nothing to do with electrons, it is the nucleus that is split.)When we excite the Electrons in Uranium for example, this is fision and not fusion?
A hydrogen bomb is fusion. And there is work to build fusion power generation as well:Can the Hydrogen Atom be fused, for obvious reasons there is great big Hydrogen bomb, or is this also a fision and not a fusion?
Tokamak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thank you for the link Strange, Fusion is how I had perceived it to be.The problem is not that we don't have the energy, it is controlling the reaction.
Fission. (Nothing to do with electrons, it is the nucleus that is split.)When we excite the Electrons in Uranium for example, this is fision and not fusion?
A hydrogen bomb is fusion. And there is work to build fusion power generation as well:Can the Hydrogen Atom be fused, for obvious reasons there is great big Hydrogen bomb, or is this also a fision and not a fusion?
Tokamak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plasma cannons, cool concept.
The Tokamak, this basically puts a field around an electrical current, so it can be stabilized as if the current was suspended between two different gravity's , then could be released as a plasma beam because it as an equilibrium state?
A pole in a rubber ring as dumb.
Or am I way of track with what it says?
It traps a plasma (which consists of charged particles) inside a toroidal (donut-shaped) magnetic field. The problem is that the plasma is extremely hot and cannot be contained by any material, so a magnetic field has to be used. The plasma is also very unstable, constantly changing its shape, and so the magnetic field has to trya dn dynamically change to keep it trapped.
Thank you Strange, so the Plasma/charged particles, is this inside the donut shape<toroidal>, or does the toroidal surround the Plasma like a donut on a pole in the middle of the toroidal shape?It traps a plasma (which consists of charged particles) inside a toroidal (donut-shaped) magnetic field. The problem is that the plasma is extremely hot and cannot be contained by any material, so a magnetic field has to be used. The plasma is also very unstable, constantly changing its shape, and so the magnetic field has to trya dn dynamically change to keep it trapped.
It is inside the toroid. It is like the air in a tire. Except it is at millions of degrees and consists of electrically charged particles. The inner tube is a magnetic field.
Thank you Strange, that is the part I was not sure about, so at the moment it is useless?, as the energy can only be contained and not directed, or can we direct the energy?.It is inside the toroid. It is like the air in a tire. Except it is at millions of degrees and consists of electrically charged particles. The inner tube is a magnetic field.
We can extract the energy (it is just heat) but the problem is keeping the plasma stable for long enough to extract useful amounts of energy.
Arrr, I see, so the electromagnetic field breaks down? causing the plasma to become unstable?We can extract the energy (it is just heat) but the problem is keeping the plasma stable for long enough to extract useful amounts of energy.
It is more that the plasma is like an angry snake at 100 million degrees and the problem is keeping it within the magnetic field.
I can vision it now, can you not strengthen the magnetic field, or can you not simply extract the energy quicker to keep the snake calm, or is the fact that the snake is always angry?It is more that the plasma is like an angry snake at 100 million degrees and the problem is keeping it within the magnetic field.
I don't know a lot about this but, as I understand it, the problem is partly the scale. You need to maintain a very large fusion reaction to get more energy out than it takes to run it. The plasma is very unstable so it isn't a problem of the strength of the magnetic field, it is more that you nee to keep adjusting it to have the right strength at every point to keep the plasma contained as the plasma changes.
And you need to do this continuously (or at least, in continuous bursts); 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in order to generate useful power.
As far as I know, experimental systems have only ever run for seconds. Or maybe less.
The magnetic fields involved are already at the very limits of what we can achieve with present day technologies. The other problem is that, if you extract too much energy from the plasma at any given time, it will cool to a point where it undergoes a phase transition and becomes simply a hot gas, terminating the entire process.
A cool picture showing the inside of a tokamak:
300px-JointEuropeanTorus_internal.jpg
Joint European Torus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaInternal view of the JET tokamak superimposed with an image of a plasma taken with a visible spectrum video camera.
Do all atoms exude a minimum temperature regardless of the environment they're in?
If there was only one atom in the universe then would it have a temperature....I think that's what I'm asking
When you extract the energy, and it turns into gas if you try to extract to quick, can you not replace the heat as it doing the extraction?, somehow reroute the Plasmas own energy, back through itself.The magnetic fields involved are already at the very limits of what we can achieve with present day technologies. The other problem is that, if you extract too much energy from the plasma at any given time, it will cool to a point where it undergoes a phase transition and becomes simply a hot gas, terminating the entire process.
With only small amounts extracted that take a different route, making it self substained energy once the process starts.
So Plasma is a random variable that as to be adjusted to, so can the magnetic field not be set up on a random algorythm? please forgive the spelling.I don't know a lot about this but, as I understand it, the problem is partly the scale. You need to maintain a very large fusion reaction to get more energy out than it takes to run it. The plasma is very unstable so it isn't a problem of the strength of the magnetic field, it is more that you nee to keep adjusting it to have the right strength at every point to keep the plasma contained as the plasma changes.
And you need to do this continuously (or at least, in continuous bursts); 24 hours a day, 365 days a year in order to generate useful power.
As far as I know, experimental systems have only ever run for seconds. Or maybe less.
Atoms don't "exude" temperature (that suggests they are constantly losing energy). And I don't think you can define temperature of a single atom. It a measure of the heat energy of a system; in other words, a measure of the range of velocities of the atoms in a material.
Please reread with care what Strange so painstakingly wrote with care. Nowhere do I see him make a statement even remotely suggesting that "plasma is a random variable."
Ok, so you're not a troll, but you are appallingly careless with reading and logic. Rather than trying to shotgun your way to knowledge, how about trying actual, careful, deliberative study?
Here's what Strange told you, in other words: For fusion, we want to bash light nuclei (from hydrogen, here) to make heavier nuclei (helium). We start with hydrogen at very high temperatures (this creates ionized hydrogen; the collection of high temperature ions is what we are calling plasma). We want temperatures so high, in fact, that the nuclei will bash into each other with sufficient violence to cause them to stick together.
To keep the temperatures high long enough to get the job done, we have to prevent the plasma from cooling by contact with surfaces. The solution? Get rid of surfaces. The "magnetic bottles" used to confine the plasma are not made of matter, so there are no walls that could cool the plasma.
The problem? The magnetic bottles are not stable. They develop the equivalent of aneurysms. Stabilizing these bottles has been the sticking point for fusion work for decades. Progress continues to be made, but very slowly. It is hard work replicating the sun on earth.
Thanks for that tk421. As I said, this is not something I know a huge amount about. I had just been reading that the problem is keeping the magnetic field stable to ensure the plasma doesn't leak through and destroy the walls of the container.
I did read what Strange wrote, but explained it different, he says the magnetic field as to be adjusted constantly, as the Plasma as different points. So if plasma as different points/stages, Plasma as variables, variance. So as a part of the process, Plasma is a variable, and different points ,random variables, presuming the points are random and unpredictable.Please reread with care what Strange so painstakingly wrote with care. Nowhere do I see him make a statement even remotely suggesting that "plasma is a random variable."
Ok, so you're not a troll, but you are appallingly careless with reading and logic. Rather than trying to shotgun your way to knowledge, how about trying actual, careful, deliberative study?
Here's what Strange told you, in other words: For fusion, we want to bash light nuclei (from hydrogen, here) to make heavier nuclei (helium). We start with hydrogen at very high temperatures (this creates ionized hydrogen; the collection of high temperature ions is what we are calling plasma). We want temperatures so high, in fact, that the nuclei will bash into each other with sufficient violence to cause them to stick together.
To keep the temperatures high long enough to get the job done, we have to prevent the plasma from cooling by contact with surfaces. The solution? Get rid of surfaces. The "magnetic bottles" used to confine the plasma are not made of matter, so there are no walls that could cool the plasma.
The problem? The magnetic bottles are not stable. They develop the equivalent of aneurysms. Stabilizing these bottles has been the sticking point for fusion work for decades. Progress continues to be made, but very slowly. It is hard work replicating the sun on earth.
I already can picture how it works, and I know there is no walls, although maybe a cold wall may create a gas around the outer layers of the plasma, why can cold walls not be used confining itself in itself?
A Plasma core surrounded by gas.
Any way, back to my thinking, If you had a random program to adjust the magnetic field, but this program made adjustments quicker than the plasma stability.
You could have the adjustment before it needed it, in simple terms the adjustment was predicted and shut the door where it was needed before it was needed.
As this happens at an X amount of velocity quicker than the Plasma velocity of stability.
You say the bottles are not stable that create the magnetic field, the bottles develop aneurysms, or the magnetic field develops aneurysms?
Please explain what is in the magnetic bottles? why a bottle and not just magnets in a reverse polarity state?
I can see this and how it works, it is not that hard to picture.
Is there only magnetism that can repel Plasma?
What is Plasma attracted too?
Is a plasma television the same thing? or completely different context.
Because the fusion reactions takes place at 100 million degrees. There is no substance on earth that could withstand that.
I'm not going to comment on the complexity of maintaining the magnetic fields as it is beyond me...
100 million degrees that is hot, I can see why we have no sides as such. I take it ,this is looking for a perpetual Anatomic energy ?.Because the fusion reactions takes place at 100 million degrees. There is no substance on earth that could withstand that.
I'm not going to comment on the complexity of maintaining the magnetic fields as it is beyond me...
Any we basically compress Hydrogen Atoms together causing the fusion and the energy release, the magnetic field been the compressor.?
Hydrogen then becomes helium?
This is to harness or replicate the suns energy?
Synthesize a different shape in the magnetic field with some sort of multi-modal distribution of field.
Constantly shape shifting to compensate maybe...
I need to understand these bottles first, I have viewed some Tokamaks, but none explain bottles...
It is not compression, it is the temperature. This means that the hydrogen nuclei are stripped of their electrons and moving very fast. They therefore have enough energy to hit each other and fuse (releasing energy). The tokamak page has a section on "Plasma heating" which explains how it is heated.
Basically, yes.Hydrogen then becomes helium?
It is to use as a source of power (electricity generation). You can, in principle, get very large amounts of energy from a small amount of fuel and generate (relatively) small amounts of dangerous radioactive waste. However, people have been working on this for decades and it is still decades away...This is to harness or replicate the suns energy?
See the "Toroidal design" section of the wikipedia page. This is th "bottle" that tk421 referred to. Tokamak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI need to understand these bottles first, I have viewed some Tokamaks, but none explain bottles...
I think the meaning of bottles, must be the magnetic coils?, as I see nothing on bottles.It is not compression, it is the temperature. This means that the hydrogen nuclei are stripped of their electrons and moving very fast. They therefore have enough energy to hit each other and fuse (releasing energy). The tokamak page has a section on "Plasma heating" which explains how it is heated.
Basically, yes.Hydrogen then becomes helium?
It is to use as a source of power (electricity generation). You can, in principle, get very large amounts of energy from a small amount of fuel and generate (relatively) small amounts of dangerous radioactive waste. However, people have been working on this for decades and it is still decades away...This is to harness or replicate the suns energy?
See the "Toroidal design" section of the wikipedia page. This is th "bottle" that tk421 referred to. Tokamak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI need to understand these bottles first, I have viewed some Tokamaks, but none explain bottles...
Do you not compress the Plasma to make a tighter and quicker velocity to create more energy?,
I understand that the nucleus as the Electron stripped and this then allows them the force to collide, +ions and -ions been in the flow as I have read.
And they follow the stream of magnetism.
And you basically hit it with a lightning strike to get it started, is that correct?
and then it increases in velocity as there is more collisions or doe's more lightning strikes increase the velocity?
is the transient poloidal field the problem? causes the magnetic field rings to buckle or to fision?
The magnetic field. It is a metaphor.
I think it just the temperature. (Just read the tokamak page: compression is used to heat it.)Do you not compress the Plasma to make a tighter and quicker velocity to create more energy?,
Where did that come from? It is heated by: passing a current through it (ohmic heating); neutral-beam injection; Magnetic compression; or Radio-frequency heating. No lightning.And you basically hit it with a lightning strike to get it started, is that correct?
I just the visualized the current as like a beam of lightning, obvious not lightning itself, although I bet that would be like a jump start lol.The magnetic field. It is a metaphor.
I think it just the temperature. (Just read the tokamak page: compression is used to heat it.)Do you not compress the Plasma to make a tighter and quicker velocity to create more energy?,
Where did that come from? It is heated by: passing a current through it (ohmic heating); neutral-beam injection; Magnetic compression; or Radio-frequency heating. No lightning.And you basically hit it with a lightning strike to get it started, is that correct?
I have read on the different types of heating.
I have read the Tokamak page and have pictured it quite well.
What do you mean the magnetic field is a metaphor?.
As it or as it not got a magnetic field?
And currently, it's beyond everyone else, too. I gather from the conspicuous lack of success after these decades of concerted effort that stabilizing the field is an incredibly difficult problem. Understanding turbulent flow in water is already beyond us; understanding turbulent flow in 100-million degree plasma is really, really, really, really hard.Because the fusion reactions takes place at 100 million degrees. There is no substance on earth that could withstand that.
I'm not going to comment on the complexity of maintaining the magnetic fields as it is beyond me...
Turbulent flow in water, mash potato and soup.....And currently, it's beyond everyone else, too. I gather from the conspicuous lack of success after these decades of concerted effort that stabilizing the field is an incredibly difficult problem. Understanding turbulent flow in water is already beyond us; understanding turbulent flow in 100-million degree plasma is really, really, really, really hard.Because the fusion reactions takes place at 100 million degrees. There is no substance on earth that could withstand that.
I'm not going to comment on the complexity of maintaining the magnetic fields as it is beyond me...
By any chance doe's your Plasma at the center of your Tokanak nearest to your central magnetism, rotate quicker than the outer plasma as there is more magnetic mass?
Meaning you have less diameter nearest to the center, so it can gain quicker velocity than the outer diameter.
Last edited by theorist; February 16th, 2013 at 06:02 PM.
You mean like the old record spinning at two speeds even though they are the same object? The inner mechanisms of a tokamak are outside my area of expertise, but being that the plasma isn't a solid disk, would there be a reason it would carry two velocities?
Many complete answers have been given but I will add my two cents
Free atoms that are not attached in large molecules, are free to move about such as atmospheric atoms/ molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, argon, helium, etc. Molecules in gases and liquids are generally free to move around to some extent. Atoms that make up the Earth's solid matter are less free to move around
In atoms the electrons rotate around the atomic nucleus, but free electrons can sometimes move in any direction.Different amount of Protons, the electron always rotates?.
Breaking the link between nuclei and electrons within atoms, is called ionization. Splitting the atom means dividing the nucleus of the atom into two or more pieces. This process is called nuclear fission.To split an Atom we simply break the link of the electron and Proton?
We can see atomic forms with an electron microscope, but what we are really seeing is an electron beam bouncing off the spinning atoms and electrons, so no clear image is presently possible.Can we see an Atom?
No, "bottle" is a metaphor. As in, the magnetic field keeps the plasma bottled up.
Electrons do not rotate around the atomic nucleus, but instead occupy discrete, allowed energy states. For each energy state, the wavefunction can tell you the probability of finding that electron in a certain spot, but in QM the electron does not rotate around the nucleus.
Indeed. The "orbiting electrons" model is so grossly wrong, it is inappropriate, even for someone at theorist's basic level of learning.
This is one case where the over-simplified, "lying to kids", version should be forgotten.
If Plasma was a solid disk, you would not have a problem. I can vision the Inner particles accelerating quicker than the middle particles/outer particles of the diameter of it's shape.You mean like the old record spinning at two speeds even though they are the same object? The inner mechanisms of a tokamak are outside my area of expertise, but being that the plasma isn't a solid disk, would there be a reason it would carry two velocities?
I think maybe the fusion starts nearest to the core?.
So the particles start there velocity and have an head start as such.
With less diameter in the central magnetism, there is less distance, so like in athletics, they account for this by different starting position.
I can just see tighter lines of velocity, so the velocity would gain quicker in the central magnetism than the outer diameter layers.
Also the inner layer as I am picturing it, as less pressure, as less density on the inner sider of the central magnetism.
No mass on one side as such so less friction if i can say it that way.
And maybe a stronger electromagnetism so more torque as such.
I think that plasma rips its own layers apart?
You are looking to create the Sun on earth, think about the Sun.
A ball of Plasma surrounded by it's own gases that have been cooled by the surrounded of space itself.
There are no walls of confinement, the volume of space, and the cold of space, makes an imaginary wall of cold, the Sun as to much volume of space to heat up.
So looking at space, a cold vacuum holds the sun in place and together, or else surely the sun would turn to gas and discipate.
Gravity holds the sun in place. We don't really have room to build one of those.
Although we do exploit the sun's fusion power in other ways, such as solar power. And in fact wind power. And hydroelectric. And fossil fuels. In fact, pretty much all our energy comes from the sun (with the exception of nuclear power).
Can the principle not be scaled down, or would that lead to not enough energy produced, and be rather pointless? Can we not synthesis more cold with something, liquid nitrogen?
So then we could have a bigger scale of the modeling design.
To add- use the magnetism field as well , and then another wall and use cold to bottle the plasma, as well as magnetism.Can the principle not be scaled down, or would that lead to not enough energy produced, and be rather pointless? Can we not synthesis more cold with something, liquid nitrogen?
So then we could have a bigger scale of the modeling design.
Cold magnetism.
What, a smaller star? I don't know what the lower limit on the size of a star is. Jupiter is pretty big and mainly hydrogen, but not big enough to start a fusion reaction. There is no way we can build a fusion reactor that is held together by its own gravity.
That is why we use magnetic field much, much more powerful than gravity.
(And "cold" has nothing to do with it)
You say that cold as nothing to do with it, It was said to me that when plasma feels the cold, it turns to gas. So I considered the Sun and why the outer diameter was gas compared to a more denser Plasma core.What, a smaller star? I don't know what the lower limit on the size of a star is. Jupiter is pretty big and mainly hydrogen, but not big enough to start a fusion reaction. There is no way we can build a fusion reactor that is held together by its own gravity.
That is why we use magnetic field much, much more powerful than gravity.
(And "cold" has nothing to do with it)
The obvious answer to me would be it is in contact with the cold, the cold of space turning the outer layers of our plasma into gas.
Otherwise , the Sun would just be a huge increasing sphere of plasma as it gradually warms up its surrounding space, and would expand its mass by increasing the fusion of Hydrogen in space.
Yes I agree that it as its own gravity holding it together, but I see the cold as what stops the sun expanding.
You use a magnetic field to bottle the Plasma, the Sun uses volume of cold space.
I can not see how the sun would use a magnetic field to stop the expansion, and to keep control, and keep itself in a sphere like shape.
Where doe's the repelling magnetism come from, that could encase the sun to keep it stable?
I can not picture this, as there would have to be equal force from all diameter points.
Meaning we would have to be a universe inside of a sphere that had magnetic sides.
This is also how I can see your machine working. The central mass removed. An hollow sphere made of magnetic force. A second outer layer that was a cooling layer.
1000's of electrodes that shoot across to each other in sequence making a rotate effect.
Probably way off track but just some thoughts for you , you might see something in it.
| « Frequency and Wavelength | Question about frequency? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
12Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
