Hopefully this will help
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
The point was that Einstein’s work did not particularly make nuclear weapons possible any more than it made conventional weapons possible
Pookie:
Where the hell did that come from? Put that back in your ass right this minute. We never discussed whether Einstein’s work had made nuclear weapons possible. Sheesh, man, I’ve seen dunderheads in my life, but you’re a special breed.
[/quote]
That came from the fact that before my post, I had recently had a conversation with one of my mentoring professors (as we approached the anniversary of the A-bomb) that the general public was under the false impression that Einstein made the Atom bomb possible, while in reality, E=mc^2 applies to conventional weapons as well as nuclear weapons.
That would have been very constructive
advice for your first post. Anyway, I had also just recently read an article that specifically stated that the A-bomb saved more lives than were lost in the war. I wanted to know if people thought that was reasonable or unreasonable.
I already admitted that there is short term radioactive waste produced from fusion reactions. Again, my point was that most people’s commonly held idea that they leave a radioactive hot-spot on the earth for years is erroneous.
-
A fusion bomb does work like a dirty bomb! The fission trigger gets spread out over the blast area and causes “fallout.” This, I knew. (and you apparently didn’t).
-
I thought that the fusion reaction only produced gamma radiation which is not radioactive waste because it is over in an instant. This, I knew also.
-
I did not realize that fusion bombs produced high energy neutrons. It makes sense, and I knew that neutrons were potential decay particles, just not fusion produced particles. I had attended a presentation on fusion where the speaker emphasized that it didn’t produce long lasting radioactive waste and honestly I had no clue that you got short term radioactivity in the soil from neutron bombardment because I didn’t know that fusion releases neutrons.
In practical scientific applications it would be stupid to track them. In theoretical physics, it leads to new discoveries and yes, even in chemical reactions.
We also teach reading comprehension. Many nuclear reactions are on the order of 1 in a million and high yield chemical reactions are on the order of a few parts per billion (as I stated) which is 2-3 orders of magnitude. You may want to get in the habit of reading things twice, or taking notes along the way.
MD
Not like they can get rid of the crappy teachers anyway, but in my chemistry classes, the average score on the ACS national chemistry test was in the 84th percentile, and 62 out of 65 kids scored above the national average. You’d let me teach too. I also don’t bitch slap kids when they are obstinent like you are.
I should have said that they are more alike than many people realize.
What is the real difference between nuclear and conventional weapons in your view?
[quote]pookie wrote:
As for the Blacklight power, it doesn’t look good. [/quote]
Maybe its “Lightpower’s” African American twin from Compton. I’ll PM him and ask.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Ever seen those little chemical diagrams? Those with letters and numbers on both sides? I sure you did. Next time, notice how the letters and numbers all even out. That’s why their’s a little “=” between them.
Somehow, physicists and chemists don’t find it necessary to track your little subatomic particles during run of the mill chemical reactions. I suggest you follow their lead and stop looking like an idiot.
[/quote]
Actually, with new, more accurate massing devices, we can potentially use the mass defect of a compound with a complicated structure to help determine the structral formula because you get different predicted mass defects for different structures (like resonances versus straight bonding for example). I find that interesting.
[quote]stlwarrior21 wrote:
Hopefully this will help
Thanks! I’m gonna post that right under Pookie’s chicken footprints.
[quote]Joe Daley wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
…
occult international banking cartel
That wouldn’t be code for the illuminati (Bwu-ha-ha-ha!) would it?
Jeez, give it a break, the Japs started the war, so they can’t moan when they got their asses handed to them; the stuff they got up to with allied and chinese prisoners was far more sinister than the atomic bomb ever was.
[/quote]
666…The number of the beast…
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
In other words, you are misapplying the appeal to authority fallacy in this case.[/quote]
It says “This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.”
You suddenly started claiming you were a physics teacher (at K12 level, presumably) and that you knew physicists, had a couple of mentors, etc. All in the goal of lending credence to your previous posts…?
In other words, you tried to show you were an authority on the subject when earlier in the thread you were clearly posting about stuff you understood close to nothing.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
No, chemical bond energy IS redefined as mass.
Mass change is responsible for ALL of the energy in chemical reactions.
[/quote]
The first statement is incorrect because nothing is redefined. It is more correct to say that the chemical energy has mass.
The second statement is incorrect, because it implies causation. Physical Chemistry tells us why the energy is released (or absorbed) in a reaction. It is more correct to say that, to the extent any energy is emitted or absorbed by a system in the process of a chemical reaction, there was also a very slight change in the mass of the system.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
That came from the fact that before my post, I had recently had a conversation with one of my mentoring professors (as we approached the anniversary of the A-bomb) that the general public was under the false impression that Einstein made the Atom bomb possible, while in reality, E=mc^2 applies to conventional weapons as well as nuclear weapons.[/quote]
From that you deduced that there were no differences between the two?
Ah. It’s an article now. What happened to those estimates you saw? Why didn’t you post a reference to the article so that others could read and discuss it?
Your story keeps changing as you go along.
Now we know why U.S. high school seniors rank near the bottom in math and science in international comparisons…
Yeah, they both go poof.
I already answered that earlier today. You really shouldn’t make wisecracks about reading comprehension. Rocks, glass houses and all that.
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
In other words, you are misapplying the appeal to authority fallacy in this case.
It says “This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.”
You suddenly started claiming you were a physics teacher (at K12 level, presumably) and that you knew physicists, had a couple of mentors, etc. All in the goal of lending credence to your previous posts…?
In other words, you tried to show you were an authority on the subject when earlier in the thread you were clearly posting about stuff you understood close to nothing.
[/quote]
Close to nothing? You still don’t understand why a fusion bomb DOES work like a dirty bomb.
You still can’t say with a straight face that you knew energy mass equivalance can account for all of the energy in chemical reactions-and you said it couldn’t before I showed you that it does.
My physics claims are all true except for 1, and you demonstrated a clear zero understanding of E=MC^2 and relativity. So knowing that you made all of these errors, your judgement that I knew nothing about these is certainly a false appeal to authority. You wonder what E=MC^2 has to do with relativity! That about says it all.
I made one error as far as physics is concerned, I had never heard of SHORT TERM neutron capture induced radiation resulting from fusion. This is because physicists I have worked with teach as a practical fact that fusion does not produce nuclear waste, because as a practical fact it does not produce lasting waste or fallout-which you clearly thought it did a couple of days ago.
You have let people post erroneous physics “facts” in your support such as that chemical reactions do not derive their energy from mass, and never bothered to let them in on the fact that they are wrong. Or maybe you don’t know that they are wrong?
And as far as your misapplication of the logical fallacy, I never said I was an expert, I gave what in logic would be called SUPPORT for my confidence in what I know, and left it open for you to evaluate that SUPPORT. It is precisely not that fallacy when presented that way (oh my dad is a university professor, and teaches argument, and communications) so that is also SUPPORT.
Here’s a little physics quiz for you.
-
Does nuclear fusion PRODUCE radioactive FALLOUT?
-
Does a fusion bomb in fact spread out fallout that happened to make up the trigger of the bomb?
-
Does E=MC^2 account for all of the energy released in a chemical reaction?
-
Do legitimate scientists actually discuss the fact that chemical, electrical and mechanical processes derive all of their energy from E=MC^2, that is to say, a conversion of mass to energy.
-
Does the fact that atoms change their mass due to energy changes in chemical reactions have current practical applications.
the answers are
no, yes, yes, yes and yes and you have already answered:
yes, no, no, no and no.
You can take the test again if you want.
So you are 1-6 and I am 5-6 counting the neutron induced radiation.
And I know better now, so on retesting I would be 6-6
You would still be 1-6.
Talk about stupid shit.
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
-
A fusion bomb does work like a dirty bomb! The fission trigger gets spread out over the blast area and causes “fallout.” This, I knew. (and you apparently didn’t).
-
I thought that the fusion reaction only produced gamma radiation which is not radioactive waste because it is over in an instant. This, I knew also.
-
I did not realize that fusion bombs produced high energy neutrons. It makes sense, and I knew that neutrons were potential decay particles, just not fusion produced particles. I had attended a presentation on fusion where the speaker emphasized that it didn’t produce long lasting radioactive waste and honestly I had no clue that you got short term radioactivity in the soil from neutron bombardment because I didn’t know that fusion releases neutrons.
Pookie:
Hate to break it to you, but the Hiroshima bomb was a fission bomb (commonly called an atomic bomb), not a fusion bomb (often called Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb.)
[/quote]
I pointed that out a while back. I never said or intended to suggest that the Hiroshima bomb was a fusion bomb or didn’t produce fallout, but MANY of your errors come from you thinking I meant or said something that was never said and that I didn’t believe.
I gave you numbers that were between 3 and 6 orders of magnitude apart-so you can not make your general statement that nuclear reactions are 6 orders of magnitude more efficient than conventional reactions. In fact, the numbers that I put up show that NO nuclear reaction is 6 orders of magnitude more efficient than the most efficient chemical reactions, so you are wrong.
Well, those numbers are wrong, and they are largely due to the fact that most other countries pull out 1/3 of their kids before highschool.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Ah. It’s an article now. What happened to those estimates you saw? Why didn’t you post a reference to the article so that others could read and discuss it?
Your story keeps changing as you go along.
[/quote]
Where do you usually see estimates? In the stars?
Some interesting articles. Keep in mind that since 1995, many European countries have moved to a more U.S. like educational system, and they have dropped to below the level of the U.S. My wife went to school in Romania and they started separating kids into different levels for highschool. She went to a physics and chemistry highschool, and went to med school there at 18, so you basically knew you were going to be a doctor by the time you finished highschool.
And the first source, by the way, shows that the problem happens between 3rd and 8th which is consistent with the differences I mentioned.
http://nces.ed.gov/ssbr/pages/international.asp
http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/news/ASAscienceedu.html
Anyway, there are a lot of reasons behind some low scores. Thinking you have any clue about what kind of classroom teacher someone is from an online forum is just plain ignorant.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Here’s a little physics quiz for you.
- Does nuclear fusion PRODUCE radioactive FALLOUT?
[/quote]
As a practical matter, the answer here is YES. The reason being: we don’t yet know how to do fusion weapons without fission. Most of what the military keep in the cellar for an extra-sunny day are what they call fission-fusion-fission weapons. If these get used you can look forward to living with Cesium 137 (30 year half-life) Strontium 90 (28 year half-life), not to mention Carbon 14 (5700 year half-life). Since these especially tend to get concentrated in various biological systems, the resulting trouble can last a lot more than just a few half-lives.
Is this just a matter of spreading the radioactivity already inside the fission trigger? Hell no. That stuff is stable compared with the hellish brew created by the fission and subsequent irradiation of the environment.
Note in particular that Carbon 14 results from fusion reactions, not fission.
See Radioactive Fallout | Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War | Historical Documents | atomciarchive.com
quoted here:
The larger yield nuclear weapons derive a substantial part of their explosive force from the fusion of heavy forms of hydrogen–deuterium and tritium. Since there is virtually no limitation on the volume of fusion materials in a weapon, and the materials are less costly than fissionable materials, the fusion, “thermonuclear,” or “hydrogen” bomb brought a radical increase in the explosive power of weapons. However, the fission process is still necessary to achieve the high temperatures and pressures needed to trigger the hydrogen fusion reactions. Thus, all nuclear detonations produce radioactive fragments of heavy elements fission, with the larger bursts producing an additional radiation component from the fusion process.
The nuclear fragments of heavy-element fission which are of greatest concern are those radioactive atoms (also called radionuclides) which decay by emitting energetic electrons or gamma particles. (See “Radioactivity” note.) An important characteristic here is the rate of decay. This is measured in terms of “half-life”–the time required for one-half of the original substance to decay–which ranges from days to thousands of years for the bomb-produced radionuclides of principal interest. (See “Nuclear Half-Life” note.) Another factor which is critical in determining the hazard of radionuclides is the chemistry of the atoms. This determines whether they will be taken up by the body through respiration or the food cycle and incorporated into tissue. If this occurs, the risk of biological damage from the destructive ionizing radiation (see “Radioactivity” note) is multiplied.
Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. It is a major source of radiation in nuclear fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it is readily taken into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated into tissue. Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28 years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days. Strontium-90 follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from cows consuming contaminated forage. Iodine-131 is a similar threat to infants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland. In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives. A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs, where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage.
Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) and has a half-life of 24,000 years. To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken up through the food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
4) Do legitimate scientists actually discuss the fact that chemical, electrical and mechanical processes derive all of their energy from E=MC^2, that is to say, a conversion of mass to energy.[/quote]
You should have listened to me, mert. So now mechanical processes are analyzed using e=mc2?
Oh boy.
I’m sorry, it just sounds silly to discard the notion of potential energy so that we can substitute real mass for everything. When I lift a dumbbell from the floor, it’s not converting kinetic energy to potential energy, it’s actually gaining mass? And it gets more and more mass the further I lift it from the floor? Call me old-fashioned, but if I measure that dumbbell’s mass at sea level and then on Mt. Everest, something tells me that it’s going to measure out the same.
Just a hunch.
And I’m curious as to where e=mc2 comes into play in electrical processes. Last time I checked, Ohm’s law didn’t have a speed of light constant in there anywhere.
But then again, I’m not a physics teacher. Maybe I’m a retard like pookie.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Here’s a little physics quiz for you.
- Does nuclear fusion PRODUCE radioactive FALLOUT?
As a practical matter, the answer here is YES. The reason being: we don’t yet know how to do fusion weapons without fission. Most of what the military keep in the cellar for an extra-sunny day are what they call fission-fusion-fission weapons. If these get used you can look forward to living with Cesium 137 (30 year half-life) Strontium 90 (28 year half-life), not to mention Carbon 14 (5700 year half-life). Since these especially tend to get concentrated in various biological systems, the resulting trouble can last a lot more than just a few half-lives.
Is this just a matter of spreading the radioactivity already inside the fission trigger? Hell no. That stuff is stable compared with the hellish brew created by the fission and subsequent irradiation of the environment.
[/quote]
Thank you. Constructive and informative. And I’m not saying that fusion weapons don’t produce fallout, just that a) there is SOME “dirty bomb” effect in a pure fission-fusion process for one because the trigger has to work so fast that you get some original trigger material spread out, and also because if you could develop, for example, a laser trigger, you wouldn’t get any fallout and that b) the fusion process in and of itself does not produce fallout.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken up through the food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.[/quote]
This is also interesting, and I guess you could and should call it fusion produced fallout. How far up does fusion go in a bomb? Is this saying you get up to at least Carbon?
Also, is it true that cold fusion would in theory not produce any radio-isomers?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
4) Do legitimate scientists actually discuss the fact that chemical, electrical and mechanical processes derive all of their energy from E=MC^2, that is to say, a conversion of mass to energy.
You should have listened to me, mert. So now mechanical processes are analyzed using e=mc2?
Oh boy.
I’m sorry, it just sounds silly to discard the notion of potential energy so that we can substitute real mass for everything. When I lift a dumbbell from the floor, it’s not converting kinetic energy to potential energy, it’s actually gaining mass? And it gets more and more mass the further I lift it from the floor? Call me old-fashioned, but if I measure that dumbbell’s mass at sea level and then on Mt. Everest, something tells me that it’s going to measure out the same.
Just a hunch.
And I’m curious as to where e=mc2 comes into play in electrical processes. Last time I checked, Ohm’s law didn’t have a speed of light constant in there anywhere.
But then again, I’m not a physics teacher. Maybe I’m a retard like pookie. [/quote]
If your not interested in theory, stay out of it. I am interested by theory.
As for the speed of light being involved in Ohm’s law (well that’s theory so your probably not interested) the movement of a mass and a charge through many electric potential energy fields can sure as heck work the same way. “Resistance” though, is a derived quantity several steps away from the speed of light, but is basically based on the potential energy change on an electron as it passes from one electric potential well to another electric potential well.
And relativity can not explain charges (as we know it right now).
We know from General relativity where the planck length comes from. If you take a light wave, and imagine the wavelength getting shorter and shorter, the mass (or mass equivalent if you want) gets larger. At a planck length wavelength, the mass eq. of the light becomes equal to the mass of a black hole with a photon sphere with a size equal to the wavelength itself. In layman’s terms, the light becomes a black hole that traps itself. You need only G, c, and the equation for centripetal force (or for a photon sphere) to find the planck length. The one big gap that we have is we can’t tell from relativity why we get a certain magnitude for the fundamental unit of charge, or for the masses of fundamental particles.
Somehow, I’m afraid your not going to be able to understand this.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken up through the food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.
This is also interesting, and I guess you could and should call it fusion produced fallout. How far up does fusion go in a bomb? Is this saying you get up to at least Carbon?
Also, is it true that cold fusion would in theory not produce any radio-isomers?[/quote]
I think in the case of the bomb the Carbon 14 is just the result of neutron capture by environmental Carbon. In the Sun there is a Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen fusion reaction that starts at about 16*10**6 Kelvin, but it involves Carbon 12 as one of the endpoints (actually, as a sort of catalyst - you keep getting the Carbon back). At even higher temperatures you get a reaction that fuses three Helium into a single Carbon but again it is Carbon 12.
Don’t know about cold fusion (if it indeed exists) but I understand one expects any other sort of fusion reactor to itself become quite radioactive as a result of operation.
So, if anybody out there want’s to contribute to US science scores not sucking so much, I am trying to write a melting point lab for chemistry, and I am looking for some fairly safe compounds, maybe organics, that melt in the 30-135 deg. C range. Any ideas?
Some old books used dichlorobenzene and napthalene which are somewhat of a health hazard.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Don’t know about cold fusion (if it indeed exists) but I understand one expects any other sort of fusion reactor to itself become quite radioactive as a result of operation.[/quote]
From the fission products, right? I mean, you can recycle the tritium, and keep out any carbon.
Anyway, in fusion, where do the excess neutrons come from? Wouldn’t most of them , and theoretically all of them end up in fusion products? And in a big enough tank of water, wouldn’t many of the neutrons end up just going back into hydrogen atoms?