ForumGarden

Let me throw some utter speculation into a thread, for once, and see whether it gets anywhere.

Here's some uncontroversial background definitions to begin with.

There are around a hundred stable elements which can exist indefinitely without breaking down into smaller components.

Each atom of an element differs from others by having a fixed number of charged "particles". Lightweight loosely-bound ones, electrons, can be added or subtracted to electrically charge the element without permanently changing it. The positive proton balancing charge is carried in a tight package, the nucleus. The number of these protons can't change except in a nuclear reaction, and if they do then the element left afterwards is different.

Too many protons packed together into a nucleus is unstable unless padded out with electrically neutral "particles" called neutrons. For a given number of protons there is a small range of neutrons which will stabilize the nucleus and allow it to exist indefinitely. Each proton-neutron count that's indefinitely stable is called a stable isotope. A stable element can have one or more stable isotopes. An element with no stable isotopes is radioactive.

As a side note, I've put "particles" in quotemarks because there are two major mathematic schemes for describing their behaviour, each with entirely different equations. One treats them as point-masses and the other as stable standing waves which have no final limit to their extent, merely a description of the probability distribution relating to their average centre. Each description is a powerful tool in predicting their properties.

Two other words - weight and mass. If you take a two-kilo bag of sugar at sea-level on Earth it weighs two kilos. Put it on the Space Station and it weighs nothing to an astronaut next to it. It still has a mass of two kilos. Weight is an arbitrary consequence of speed, acceleration and gravity. Mass is a fixed quantity.

Finally, mass and energy. This is the most famous relationship of modern scientific insight. Einstein's "e equals em cee squared" says that a given cold mass can be exchanged for a given hot energy. Energy is always hot, being either speed or light.

The speed or acceleration of anything is relative to any other thing, nothing is definitively still and unmoving. All of this discussion of mass relates to particles moving and accelerating compared to the experimenter. Something which isn't moving or accelerating in that context is cold.

The mass of a cold atom can be measured. That's the isotopic mass. The mass of a cold proton, neutron and electron can also be measured. That's the particle mass.

Adding all of the particle masses in an isotope doesn't come to the same as the isotope mass. The difference is the binding mass of the isotope nucleus. Some nuclear configurations are less stressed than others and need less energy to hold them together, and since it's not hot the energy is described as a mass instead.

So, enough with the definitions, here's my speculation. If you look at binding masses for all stable isotopes you find that there's a minimum when the proton count is around 26. Those are the isotopes of Iron. Lighter and heavier elements have progressively higher binding masses the further the proton count gets from that of Iron. Where it reaches very high values for very large isotopes, none of the isotopes are stable any longer and the nucleus spontaneously breaks down (a process called atomic fission) to form lighter fragments with lower binding energies, giving off hot energy in the process. That's the basis of nuclear fission reactors which provide commercial electricity. At the lightest end of the scale, combining nuclei to form a stable heavier isotope also gives off hot energy and is the source of sunlight (and, eventually, all of the elements which make up the world, with the exception of the Hydrogen and Helium which were formed in the earliest history of the universe).

Two elements of particular interest are Sodium and Chlorine. They combine together to make common salt, the stuff you might grind over a meal if you're that way inclined. Each is interesting in that they have a higher-than-average binding mass for their proton count, and that together their constituent particles are the same as those in a two stable isotopes of Nickel (which is close in mass to Iron) each of which has a lower total binding mass.

I speculate that if there were a means whereby atoms of Sodium and Chlorine could be fused into becoming an atom of Nickel, the excess binding energy might be emitted as light. If more energy were emitted than were needed to power the process then a cheap portable power source might result which would replace the current processes which feed the global warming greenhouse effect.

Particle accelerators have been banging atomic nuclei, which are just atoms from which the electrons have been stripped, together for many years and these collisions are high-energy and destructive. The nuclei collide with so much energy that they immediately fracture. With too little collision force they merely bounce off each other without change. The energy required to push two electrically charged nuclei entirely together is significant but measurable. If it's just enough energy and no more, then the resultant combination might remain stable for long enough to dump the excess binding energy as light and stay together afterwards as a new stable cold isotope.

Current fusion reactors use electromagnets to steer nuclei of very light particles in a confined space. The energy required to steer the very much larger nuclei of Sodium and Chlorine is smaller.

So, enough speculation. Can anyone find experimental results in this area, or start a discussion about an aspect of atomic theory which prevents this from working? It's silly of me to bring it up without sufficient knowledge but not knowing niggles at me and I don't know where to go to find out why it's a fruitless avenue.

Not being a scientist by nature I found myself thinking of the closest thing from my own studies: Alchemy.

You've managed, for me, to convey some of the excitement of considering the world from a scientific perspective and that is no small accomplishment. I'm not of any particular use in the discussion you are looking for but this one thought occurred to me while reading through your ideas. In the search for the elixir of life gunpowder was invented.

That doesn't mean that we should fear what side products may result from our meanderings but that quite often the thing we seek turns out to not be what we discover. It would be interesting to see what resulted from experimenting with what you've discussed.

spot;490951 wrote:

So, enough speculation. Can anyone find experimental results in this area, or start a discussion about an aspect of atomic theory which prevents this from working? It's silly of me to bring it up without sufficient knowledge but not knowing niggles at me and I don't know where to go to find out why it's a fruitless avenue.


To observe high energy collisions between target particles is relatively easy - up the energy enough and you will get sufficient collisions close enough to head on that sufficient energy will be transferred to cause the desired splitting. You could even have secondary collisions which still have enough energy to work.

When you are trying to transfer precise amounts of energy to cause fusion you are far more restricted. Increase the energy of the beam and you will be overwhelmed with fision products. Have the energy level spot on the value and you are reliant on exact, head on, collisions. I don't know how closely the equasions, either particle or wave, mimic the collision of balls on a pool table for example, but I would expect that the number of collisions close enough to head on would be too small to provide a workable solution.

The effect should certainly be detectable, if they can detect one neutrino every other year at the bottom of a gold mine then they could certainly prove your theory one way or the other, but I would be surprised if it formed the basis of a power plant.

I'd assumed a stationary sodium target and a tuned chlorine source excited by something vibrational rather than linear. Yes the collisions need to be head-on and the excitation needs to be pitched exactly to the energy required for a total approach with nothing left over.

spot;490964 wrote: I'd assumed a stationary sodium target and a tuned chlorine source excited by something vibrational rather than linear. Yes the collisions need to be head-on and the excitation needs to be pitched exactly to the energy required for a total approach with nothing left over.


Even with a stationary sodium target the distance between the sodium neuclii is far greater than the effective diameter of the neuclii themselves. The number of collisions sufficiently close to head on would be, I think, minimal.

There's a comment in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fu ... _reactions which gives a further desirable (or necessary) requirement - two reaction products. The proposed reactants can do that if, instead of resulting in a single Nickel atom, a product pair of Iron and Helium result. Both are still stable isotopes. With Sodium 23 and Chlorine 35 the result is Iron 54 and Helium 4, with Sodium 23 and Chlorine 37 the result is Iron 56 and Helium 4. That allows the energy release to be kinetic rather than an immense photon of unlikely proportions.

For the energy required to achieve nuclear collision there's a small page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier

For fusion observations on stationary targets using an electric field generated by pyroelectric crystals as an accelerator, there's a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion

For comparison with the other energy outputs on the table in the first hyperlink, the two reactions are:

23Na + 35Cl → 54Fe + 4He + 15.3 MeV

23Na + 37Cl → 56Fe + 4He + 16.9 MeV

What's missing is any indication of the likelihood of collision, which the article refers to as the reaction cross-section and is discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_sect ... physics%29

spot;490951 wrote: Let me throw some utter speculation into a thread, for once, and see whether it gets anywhere.

Here's some uncontroversial background definitions to begin with.

There are around a hundred stable elements which can exist indefinitely without breaking down into smaller components.

Each atom of an element differs from others by having a fixed number of charged "particles". Lightweight loosely-bound ones, electrons, can be added or subtracted to electrically charge the element without permanently changing it. The positive proton balancing charge is carried in a tight package, the nucleus. The number of these protons can't change except in a nuclear reaction, and if they do then the element left afterwards is different.

Too many protons packed together into a nucleus is unstable unless padded out with electrically neutral "particles" called neutrons. For a given number of protons there is a small range of neutrons which will stabilize the nucleus and allow it to exist indefinitely. Each proton-neutron count that's indefinitely stable is called a stable isotope. A stable element can have one or more stable isotopes. An element with no stable isotopes is radioactive.

As a side note, I've put "particles" in quotemarks because there are two major mathematic schemes for describing their behaviour, each with entirely different equations. One treats them as point-masses and the other as stable standing waves which have no final limit to their extent, merely a description of the probability distribution relating to their average centre. Each description is a powerful tool in predicting their properties.

Two other words - weight and mass. If you take a two-kilo bag of sugar at sea-level on Earth it weighs two kilos. Put it on the Space Station and it weighs nothing to an astronaut next to it. It still has a mass of two kilos. Weight is an arbitrary consequence of speed, acceleration and gravity. Mass is a fixed quantity.

Finally, mass and energy. This is the most famous relationship of modern scientific insight. Einstein's "e equals em cee squared" says that a given cold mass can be exchanged for a given hot energy. Energy is always hot, being either speed or light.

The speed or acceleration of anything is relative to any other thing, nothing is definitively still and unmoving. All of this discussion of mass relates to particles moving and accelerating compared to the experimenter. Something which isn't moving or accelerating in that context is cold.

The mass of a cold atom can be measured. That's the isotopic mass. The mass of a cold proton, neutron and electron can also be measured. That's the particle mass.

Adding all of the particle masses in an isotope doesn't come to the same as the isotope mass. The difference is the binding mass of the isotope nucleus. Some nuclear configurations are less stressed than others and need less energy to hold them together, and since it's not hot the energy is described as a mass instead.

So, enough with the definitions, here's my speculation. If you look at binding masses for all stable isotopes you find that there's a minimum when the proton count is around 26. Those are the isotopes of Iron. Lighter and heavier elements have progressively higher binding masses the further the proton count gets from that of Iron. Where it reaches very high values for very large isotopes, none of the isotopes are stable any longer and the nucleus spontaneously breaks down (a process called atomic fission) to form lighter fragments with lower binding energies, giving off hot energy in the process. That's the basis of nuclear fission reactors which provide commercial electricity. At the lightest end of the scale, combining nuclei to form a stable heavier isotope also gives off hot energy and is the source of sunlight (and, eventually, all of the elements which make up the world, with the exception of the Hydrogen and Helium which were formed in the earliest history of the universe).

Two elements of particular interest are Sodium and Chlorine. They combine together to make common salt, the stuff you might grind over a meal if you're that way inclined. Each is interesting in that they have a higher-than-average binding mass for their proton count, and that together their constituent particles are the same as those in a two stable isotopes of Nickel (which is close in mass to Iron) each of which has a lower total binding mass.

I speculate that if there were a means whereby atoms of Sodium and Chlorine could be fused into becoming an atom of Nickel, the excess binding energy might be emitted as light. If more energy were emitted than were needed to power the process then a cheap portable power source might result which would replace the current processes which feed the global warming greenhouse effect.

Particle accelerators have been banging atomic nuclei, which are just atoms from which the electrons have been stripped, together for many years and these collisions are high-energy and destructive. The nuclei collide with so much energy that they immediately fracture. With too little collision force they merely bounce off each other without change. The energy required to push two electrically charged nuclei entirely together is significant but measurable. If it's just enough energy and no more, then the resultant combination might remain stable for long enough to dump the excess binding energy as light and stay together afterwards as a new stable cold isotope.

Current fusion reactors use electromagnets to steer nuclei of very light particles in a confined space. The energy required to steer the very much larger nuclei of Sodium and Chlorine is smaller.

So, enough speculation. Can anyone find experimental results in this area, or start a discussion about an aspect of atomic theory which prevents this from working? It's silly of me to bring it up without sufficient knowledge but not knowing niggles at me and I don't know where to go to find out why it's a fruitless avenue.




The energy required to overcome the strong and weak nuclear forces in sodium and chlorine nucelei, which you would have to do in order for the protons and neutrons of these first 2 atoms to be "fused" into the nucleus of one nickel atom, would be far, far greater than any latent energy that you would gain from the differential in the binding masses, which is not the same thing at all, and I think you are mixing things up a bit, or maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but it can be confusing.

I have nothing profound or enlightening to add. I have always loved science.....just wish I could get my head around it more.

Galbally;491394 wrote: The energy required to overcome the strong and weak nuclear forces in sodium and chlorine nucelei, which you would have to do in order for the protons and neutrons of these first 2 atoms to be "fused" into the nucleus of one nickel atom, would be far, far greater than any latent energy that you would gain from the differential in the binding masses, which is not the same thing at all, and I think you are mixing things up a bit, or maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but it can be confusing. The only energy required to reach fusion is what's required to overcome the electrostatic force of separation of the nuclei, the article above on the Coulomb Barrier discusses it and http://pubs.acs.org/cen/80th/darmstadtium.html, which shows similar nuclear fusion being used to build superheavy elements, says the same. What I can't do is work out the sum and I agree with you, it might well be that the energy required exceeds that released by mass difference between starting atoms and reaction products in which case there's no net power-generation.

I'll dig further. What the sum asks for is the radius of the two nuclei, roughly. But since it works for the lighter elements I'm not sure why it ought not for these. The extra effort in getting something heavier up to speed, of course, that might be the bug in the works.

spot;491433 wrote: The only energy required to reach fusion is what's required to overcome the electrostatic force of separation of the nuclei, the article above on the Coulomb Barrier discusses it and http://pubs.acs.org/cen/80th/darmstadtium.html, which shows similar nuclear fusion being used to build superheavy elements, says the same. What I can't do is work out the sum and I agree with you, it might well be that the energy required exceeds that released by mass difference between starting atoms and reaction products in which case there's no net power-generation.

I'll dig further. What the sum asks for is the radius of the two nuclei, roughly. But since it works for the lighter elements I'm not sure why it ought not for these. The extra effort in getting something heavier up to speed, of course, that might be the bug in the works.


I will have a look at it later, I am thinking that what you are suggesting is not really possible for these lighter elements such as clorine (a halogen) and sodium (a metal) they are both very light elements, and the creation of those much heavier actinides involves the use of already heavy elements, I will have to look at it all again to get it clear in my head, nuclear chemistry wasn't my greatest subject. Its very interesting. I think in general, you would at best break even Spot, and its more likely there would be an energy deficit, it seems to simple to have been overlooked. (though you never know).

spot;490951 wrote: Let me throw some utter speculation into a thread, for once, and see whether it gets anywhere.

Here's some uncontroversial background definitions to begin with.

There are around a hundred stable elements which can exist indefinitely without breaking down into smaller components.

Each atom of an element differs from others by having a fixed number of charged "particles". Lightweight loosely-bound ones, electrons, can be added or subtracted to electrically charge the element without permanently changing it. The positive proton balancing charge is carried in a tight package, the nucleus. The number of these protons can't change except in a nuclear reaction, and if they do then the element left afterwards is different.

Too many protons packed together into a nucleus is unstable unless padded out with electrically neutral "particles" called neutrons. For a given number of protons there is a small range of neutrons which will stabilize the nucleus and allow it to exist indefinitely. Each proton-neutron count that's indefinitely stable is called a stable isotope. A stable element can have one or more stable isotopes. An element with no stable isotopes is radioactive.

As a side note, I've put "particles" in quotemarks because there are two major mathematic schemes for describing their behaviour, each with entirely different equations. One treats them as point-masses and the other as stable standing waves which have no final limit to their extent, merely a description of the probability distribution relating to their average centre. Each description is a powerful tool in predicting their properties.

Two other words - weight and mass. If you take a two-kilo bag of sugar at sea-level on Earth it weighs two kilos. Put it on the Space Station and it weighs nothing to an astronaut next to it. It still has a mass of two kilos. Weight is an arbitrary consequence of speed, acceleration and gravity. Mass is a fixed quantity.

Finally, mass and energy. This is the most famous relationship of modern scientific insight. Einstein's "e equals em cee squared" says that a given cold mass can be exchanged for a given hot energy. Energy is always hot, being either speed or light.

The speed or acceleration of anything is relative to any other thing, nothing is definitively still and unmoving. All of this discussion of mass relates to particles moving and accelerating compared to the experimenter. Something which isn't moving or accelerating in that context is cold.

The mass of a cold atom can be measured. That's the isotopic mass. The mass of a cold proton, neutron and electron can also be measured. That's the particle mass.

Adding all of the particle masses in an isotope doesn't come to the same as the isotope mass. The difference is the binding mass of the isotope nucleus. Some nuclear configurations are less stressed than others and need less energy to hold them together, and since it's not hot the energy is described as a mass instead.

So, enough with the definitions, here's my speculation. If you look at binding masses for all stable isotopes you find that there's a minimum when the proton count is around 26. Those are the isotopes of Iron. Lighter and heavier elements have progressively higher binding masses the further the proton count gets from that of Iron. Where it reaches very high values for very large isotopes, none of the isotopes are stable any longer and the nucleus spontaneously breaks down (a process called atomic fission) to form lighter fragments with lower binding energies, giving off hot energy in the process. That's the basis of nuclear fission reactors which provide commercial electricity. At the lightest end of the scale, combining nuclei to form a stable heavier isotope also gives off hot energy and is the source of sunlight (and, eventually, all of the elements which make up the world, with the exception of the Hydrogen and Helium which were formed in the earliest history of the universe).

Two elements of particular interest are Sodium and Chlorine. They combine together to make common salt, the stuff you might grind over a meal if you're that way inclined. Each is interesting in that they have a higher-than-average binding mass for their proton count, and that together their constituent particles are the same as those in a two stable isotopes of Nickel (which is close in mass to Iron) each of which has a lower total binding mass.

I speculate that if there were a means whereby atoms of Sodium and Chlorine could be fused into becoming an atom of Nickel, the excess binding energy might be emitted as light. If more energy were emitted than were needed to power the process then a cheap portable power source might result which would replace the current processes which feed the global warming greenhouse effect.

Particle accelerators have been banging atomic nuclei, which are just atoms from which the electrons have been stripped, together for many years and these collisions are high-energy and destructive. The nuclei collide with so much energy that they immediately fracture. With too little collision force they merely bounce off each other without change. The energy required to push two electrically charged nuclei entirely together is significant but measurable. If it's just enough energy and no more, then the resultant combination might remain stable for long enough to dump the excess binding energy as light and stay together afterwards as a new stable cold isotope.

Current fusion reactors use electromagnets to steer nuclei of very light particles in a confined space. The energy required to steer the very much larger nuclei of Sodium and Chlorine is smaller.

So, enough speculation. Can anyone find experimental results in this area, or start a discussion about an aspect of atomic theory which prevents this from working? It's silly of me to bring it up without sufficient knowledge but not knowing niggles at me and I don't know where to go to find out why it's a fruitless avenue.


This is a great question. I wish I had a great answer, but I don't. I simply lack the training. Have you cross posted this on a forum that's inhabited by physicists who would have the training to give proper attention?

There's a website for everything. There has to be a place where these guys congregate to bounce ideas off of each other.