Fusion poisons; why fission has none

"[Only registered users see links. ] (formerly)" wrote:


Instead of wasting material in a fusion bomb explosion, I am confident
that muon catalyzed fusion can do the same experimental probing for the
answer than a
hot-fusion bomb to find out any answers. That we should be able to
configure a
muon catalyzed fusion test experiment with added iodine and fluorine to
see if and whether and how much of a "fusion poison" it has. We should
be able
to make all fusion experiments translatable into its Equivalent muon
catalyzed
fusion apparatus so that we do not waste resources on a fusion hot bomb
everytime we seek answers to fusion related questions.

Under the Fusion Barrier Law, all forms of fusion are Equivalent to one
another
because all of them have the same barrier of 2/3 breakeven when seeking
control.

And _if_ and because the Fusion Barrier Principle (FBP) is true would
entail that a Poison for fusion reactions exists but that no poison for
Fission exists.

In other words, in Nature, the truth of a Fusion Barrier Principle would
imply that Fission has no Upper limits but that fusion has the upper
limit at the FBP.
That implies by theoretical physics that fission since it has no upper
limit would also have *no poison*. There is no material in the entire
Universe that is going
to alter whether an atom fissions or when it fissions. But the FBP would
imply that at least one poison exists that will alter if and when fusion
will occurr.

We already know that fusion has at least one poison because iron is a
fusion
poison. IF you add iron to any star in the universe, as some point, it
will put that
fusion fire out or deliver the star into a nova/supernova.

Interesting. Because I should be able to derive the FBP simply from
knowing that fusion poison of iron exists.

But, is iron the only fusion poison? In answer to David Smith's reply.
It depends on how a star treats its electrons in the plasma state? In
our Sun, as we approach the core is it stripped of electrons and the
core a ocean of nuclei? Does the Sun
act like a centrifuge and have all the electrons swirling in its outer
layers? Or are the electrons and positive nuclei pretty much mixed
together rather uniformily throughout the Sun. David seems to believe
the nuclei are highly separated from
the electrons throughout the Sun. I believe otherwise that although
iodine and
fluorine are ionized that they are ionized for brief moments and that
the other moments they are their normal iodine atom.

I believe iodine is a second poison to fusion for a star such as our Sun
in that in the brief moments when the iodine atom is typically normal
then in that moment
it can bond with a hydrogen atom that was meant to fuse.

As far as I know, the Sun is not an ocean of electrons for its outer
layers while its
inner layers are an ocean of nuclei. As far as I know, there is active
Chemistry going on in the Sun because the time in which heavy elements
such as iodine are not ionized is a large amount of time.

Experiment with Iodine in muoncatalyzed fusion and also inject some
iodine
into a running tokamak and determine whether it is a veritable fusion
poison.

Archimedes Plutonium, [Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

In article <[Only registered users see links. ]>,
Archimedes Plutonium <NOdtgEMAIL> wrote:


Uh... what? Boron is a standard poison used to control a fission
reaction, either in control rods or boric acid in the coolant. Cadmium is
a good one. Lithium. Shut down a reactor and you need to start it up
again before a xenon isotope builds up from decay products, otherwise you
may have to wait days for the xenon to decay and the reactor can be
restarted. And nuclear fuel runs out not just because it runs out of
fissile stuff, but because of the buildup of poisons that don't decay.

--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton

In article <[Only registered users see links. ]>,
Archimedes Plutonium <NOdtgEMAIL> wrote:

Boron is a neutron poison, it's used to control fission reactions, it's
standard terminology that you'll find in any nuclear engineering text.


Boron, cadmium, and lithium can decrease the rate of fissions in a reactor
by decreasing the number of available neutrons. Put boron in the reactor
and the reaction stops, what more could you ask for? Half-lives aren't
controlled fission, so even if a material could do what you've suggested,
it wouldn't be a fission poison.


Fusion has a Coulomb barrier.


Nickel and iron are the last things you can create by fusion and release
energy. I don't know how that makes it a poison. It's just not fuel.
Split a U235 nucleus and what you're left with isn't fuel, either. The
presence of iron does not lower the Coulomb barrier for other fusions.




--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton

Archimedes Plutonium <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

Nope. The usual form you see them is a statement of geometry that's
independent of coordinate systems. Whatever coordinate system you
want them in, find the appropriate del operator and do the math.


Why stick with just spherical or cylindrical? Cartesian works fine,
too. Ellipsoidal, parabolic, or hyperbolic coordinates may be
appropriate for some problems, too.


I'll tell you exactly what the Coulomb barrier is all about -- similar
electrical charges repel. It's hard to smash two nuclei together
because they both have positive electrical charges.



Yer nutz.

In article <[Only registered users see links. ] >, Gregory
L. Hansen <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


But similar electrical charges don't always repel. For instance
multiple protons in the nuclei of atoms which are not isotopes of
Hydrogen manage to have proximity on the order of 5e-13 cm and not
repel each other at all. Please don't try to insist on a nuclear
'strong force' which is merely an intellectual fabrication that arose
because physicists are devoid of the logic which could account for
attractive interactions between protons.

Electrons in a superconductor are busy cuddling up to one another in a
union process called Cooper Pairing. The BCS theory which attempted to
explain this behavior is completely discredited by experimental data.
Indeed, Philip Anderson, the Nobel prize winning physicist from
Princeton has stated: "What is clear is that the two decades or more of
efforts to fit all these phenomena into a Fermi liquid description are
a catalogue of failure, and it is time we opened our minds to new ways
of thinking."

The nitwit approach to fusion has been to produce an environment where
nuclei will have kinetic energy sufficient to surmount the hypothetical
Coulomb barrier. This pseudoscientific approach hasn't worked in the
52 years that plasma physicists have been trying to build a working
fusion reactor by engineering them to that end. You want nuclei to
fuse? Then first get them to overlap in momentum space while they are
completely ionized. A proper interpretation of Maxwell equations
suggest that nuclei which are overlapping in momentum space will be
strongly attractively interactive. What? You don't believe it? If
you don't it is because you have never taken the time to sit down and
work out the details. I'm sure it would be useless to argue with you
since you have 52 years of failures to back up your position.

CC.

Charles Cagle <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

I also don't expect people to be impressed by phrases like
"overlapping in momentum space". You want to overlap them in momentum
space? Freeze them solid.
I guess "cold fusion" really was the way, huh? It just wasn't cold
enough.

I can only suppose the attractive force you're finding in Maxwell's
equations when you overlap ions in momentum space (i.e. they're going
in the same direction) is the magnetic field you get from an
electrical current. It opposes the outward Coulomb repulsion. Not
enough. It will slow the divergence of a beam, not stop it. And
you're only a coordinate transform away from particles at rest-- the
unification of the electric and magnetic forces means they really are
the same thing, the magnetic field in this case is the electric field
viewed from a different reference frame. If the ions are moving away
from each other in their center of mass frame, they're still going to
be moving away from each other when viewed from any other frame. But
you still have to get them close together if you want them to fuse,
and the Coulomb barrier is still going to kick your butt.

Hi Gregory L. Hansen , You say :
" Multiple protons in the nuclei of atoms are held
together by the nuclear strong force . "


Many people have wondered if the perceived differences between
Gravity , Electromagnetism , and the nuclear force
Aren't just due to what scale does to our perceptions .

Hawking has described gravity as a " Negative Energy " .
Where , on cosmological scales ,
the total energy of the universe appears to net to zero .

Could the cosmos be that simple ?

Dear Jeff Relf:

"Jeff Relf" <___Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news3g3mgx7tr65$.dlg@_Jeff.Relf...

If
I
say
yes,
will
you
stop
being
so
silly?

David A. Smith

Hi Pete , Always good to hear from you .

You asked : " What precisely did Hawking say ? "


Nasa ( Via WMAP etc. ) says the universe is observed to be :
Perfectly homogenous at large scales .

( More specifically , red shifts : [Only registered users see links. ] .
See also : [Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ] [Only registered users see links. ]
All the above links are from Nasa.GOV . )

In the quote below , Hawking says that :
- Gravity is negative energy .
- All other energy ( including mass ) is positive .
- And the net energy of our universe is zero .

( The quote below is from :
[Only registered users see links. ] )

" There are something like ten million million
million million million million million million
million million million million million million
( 1 with eighty zeroes after it ) particles
in the region of the universe that we can observe .

Where did they all come from ?

The answer is that , in quantum theory ,
particles can be created out of energy
in the form of particle / antiparticle parts .

But that just raises the question of
where the energy came from .

The answer is that
the total energy of the universe is exactly zero .

The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy .

However , the matter is all attracting itself by gravity .

Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have
less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart ,
because you have to expend energy
to separate them against the gravitational force
that is pulling them together .

Thus in a sense ,
the gravitational field has negative energy .

In the case of a universe that is
approximately uniform in space ,
one can show that this negative gravitational energy
exactly cancels the positive energy
represented by the matter .

So the total energy of the universe is zero .

Now twice zero is also zero .

Thus the universe can
double the amount of positive matter energy
and also double the negative gravitational energy
without violation of the conservation of energy .
...
It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch .
But the universe is the ultimate free lunch . "

In article <[Only registered users see links. ]> , Gregory L.
Hansen <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


You're being an idiot if you think I expect people to be impressed by
the phrase 'overlapping in momentum space'. It has a specific meaning
which isn't too hard to grasp for non-idiots. If two particles have a
common de Broglie wavelength [calculated from a center of momentum
frame] that is equal to or greater than their interparticle distance
then by definition they are 'overlapping in momentum space'.



Here's where you are confused like most of the rest of the physics
community. The 'Coulomb force' is entirely electromagnetic in nature
which is to say that when like charged particles have relative motion
and are not overlapping in momentum space then the magnetic fields
generated by their motions are equivalent to the magnetic fields
generated by antiparallel currents.


Virtually all accelerator beams are far from monoenergetic which is to
say that within the beam proper there is a broad spectrum of energies
indicating that they are not overlapping in momentum space.


You're almost bright enough to grasp the facts but it looks like you're
not quite there. I was hoping that you should be able to realize that
for as many other particles in the universe which have motion with
respect to any given charged particle that there are that many possible
coordinate transformations each of them which will yield for that
particle no magnetic field. This only means that the great
multiplicity of fields generated by the great multiplicity of motions
that any given charged particle possesses are all non-local to the
particle itself just as the particle cannot move with respect to
itself. And it turns out that they are all non-local to each other as
well. Thus when you have a pair of elementary charged particles which
are overlapping in momentum space then the motion of any particle in
the universe which has a component of its velocity normal to the plane
containing the two particles will generate a pair of vector fields
which will not be nonlocal to each other and which will produce either
a null motion gradient structure or its equivalent anti structure
(meaning a motion dense structure). Consequently, the expected
behavior will be exactly opposite to the expectations of 'Coulomb's
law'.


When you get over your confusion about what the so-called "Coulomb
barrier" really is then we can discuss this further.

Charles Cagle