"The Moron" wrote in message ...
Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" wrote:
Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
must have in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own
gravity?

Many thanks,
--
TM

The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
the peak of the binding energy curve.
So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.

So what will happen if I keep pumping mercury into a sphere increasing its
mass
in space?

Your answer implies that there can be no fusion, so no explosion.
Sam says it will undergo gravitational collapse.
Al says the degenerate Fermi pressure will keep it inflated.

Can't have both. Which is it?

It would end up sucking you in and killing you from pressure
and gravity long before you would know what would happen.
Hows that?
Unless of course you have a big starship and fly away before it sucks you
in.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

On Jun 9, 12:06 am, Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" wrote:

Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere must have
in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?

Many thanks,
--
TM

The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
the peak of the binding energy curve.
So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.

----------------
WRONG!!

even according to your information
above
you can get energy from mercury
first b fishioning it
(even a minor fishion !!)
and the next step fuse it--

with something else
so that the BOTTOM LINE OF ENERGY of all those proceces
will be ----- gaining energy !!

it is all a problem of know how
and better knowledge of inner structure of the nuc. !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

On Jun 8, 5:57 pm, "The Moron" wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" wrote:
Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere
must have in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own
gravity?

Many thanks,
--
TM

The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
the peak of the binding energy curve.
So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.

So what will happen if I keep pumping mercury into a sphere increasing its mass
in space?

Your answer implies that there can be no fusion, so no explosion.
No, it can explode for reasons other than nuclear fusion.
Gravitational collapse at some point will generate lots of energy.
When sufficient mass is accumulated, a black hole will form. The
energy exerted will have nothing to do with energy. However, nuclear
reactions won't contribute to the energy.
Sam says it will undergo gravitational collapse.
Al says the degenerate Fermi pressure will keep it inflated.
I think the sequence goes like this. Assume the tempature of the
mercury is 3 Kelvin degrees. Mercury is deposited in a ball, initially
with the same density as frozen mercury. We keep adding more and more
mercury.
At some point, a degenerate electron sea forms. There is a
collapse, energy is given off. The mercury loses its chemical
identity. We have a white dwarf made of mercury nucleii and electrons.
Keep adding mercury.
At some point, a degenerate nucleon sea forms. There is more
collapse, energy is given off, and we have a neutron star. The mercury
no longer has a distinct nuclear identity. There is no more mercury at
this point in the mass.
Keep adding mercury.
At some point, the Schwartzfield radius condition is met. The
neutron star undergoes irreversible collapse. Energy is given off. A
black hole forms. The nucleons have lost their distinct identity.

The trouble with Uncle Al's scenario is that the pressure at the
center increases the density near the center. Even with a Fermi sea
pushing back. A black hole is bound to form near the center. It will
then swallow the rest of the mass.

Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 8, 5:57 pm, "The Moron" wrote:
Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" wrote:
Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg
sphere must have in space in order to start fusion at its core by
its own gravity?

Many thanks,
--
TM

The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
the peak of the binding energy curve.
So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic
fission.

So what will happen if I keep pumping mercury into a sphere
increasing its mass in space?

Your answer implies that there can be no fusion, so no explosion.
No, it can explode for reasons other than nuclear fusion.
Gravitational collapse at some point will generate lots of energy.
When sufficient mass is accumulated, a black hole will form. The
energy exerted will have nothing to do with energy. However, nuclear
reactions won't contribute to the energy.
Sam says it will undergo gravitational collapse.
Al says the degenerate Fermi pressure will keep it inflated.
I think the sequence goes like this. Assume the tempature of the
mercury is 3 Kelvin degrees. Mercury is deposited in a ball, initially
with the same density as frozen mercury. We keep adding more and more
mercury.
At some point, a degenerate electron sea forms. There is a
collapse, energy is given off. The mercury loses its chemical
identity. We have a white dwarf made of mercury nucleii and electrons.
Keep adding mercury.
At some point, a degenerate nucleon sea forms. There is more
collapse, energy is given off, and we have a neutron star. The mercury
no longer has a distinct nuclear identity. There is no more mercury at
this point in the mass.
Keep adding mercury.
At some point, the Schwartzfield radius condition is met. The
neutron star undergoes irreversible collapse. Energy is given off. A
black hole forms. The nucleons have lost their distinct identity.

The trouble with Uncle Al's scenario is that the pressure at the
center increases the density near the center. Even with a Fermi sea
pushing back. A black hole is bound to form near the center. It will
then swallow the rest of the mass.

Excellent! Many thanks for a fascinating explanation.
--
TM

On Jun 9, 4:43 am, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:06 am, Darwin123 wrote:

On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" wrote:

Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere must have
in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?

Many thanks,
--
TM

The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
the peak of the binding energy curve.
So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.

----------------
WRONG!!

even according to your information
above
you can get energy from mercury
first b fishioning it
(even a minor fishion !!)
I was using L'Chatier's principle. If a system at equilibrium is
perturbed a small amount, the changes it undergoes has to be in a
direction that will bring it closer to the equilibrium it started
with. This can be derived from thermodynamic principles. Therefore, if
the mercury is compressed slightly the reaction has to be something
that reduces volume. Fusion reduces volume. Fission would increase the
volume.
As you add mercury in small amounts, the pressure at the center
is going up. Therefore, the volume has to go down. If a mercury
nucleus fissions, it will take up more volume than if it remains a
mercury nucleus. So it is not going fission if I add a small amount of
material.
If two mercury nucleii fuse, that takes up less volume. However,
energy would be absorbed. So energy could not be released by fusion.
and the next step fuse it--
This violates conservation of energy. If one fuses the products of
a fission back into a mercury nucleus, one would reabsorb the energy
one produced by fissioning the mercury nucleus. One would merely get
back to the point one started.
Of course, I am talking about the main mass of mercury. Sure, when
one of these phase transitions happens there may be a detonation. That
would blast some of the nuclei into space, where they may fission.
However, the majority of material would have to compress into a
smaller volume.

with something else
so that the BOTTOM LINE OF ENERGY of all those proceces
will be ----- gaining energy !!
I was answering the question of how much work, and by what
process, will potential energy be extracted as work from the pile of
mercury. Of course the addition of material can result in work, but
the process by which work is performed does not have to be nuclear
fusion. In fact, for mercury it can't be nuclear fusion.
You are adding energy merely by throwing mercury on the pile.
However, most of this energy will be in the form of potential energy.
As you add mercury, you are adding both nuclear potential energy and
gravitational potential energy.
The implication in the question is how much work energy can one
obtain from the pile, and by what process does one obtain work energy.
A sudden flash of radiation, or any sort of detonation, would be work
energy. My response was that there could not be any work performed by
nuclear fusion. I did point out that work could be performed by other
processes. Such processes include the formation of white dwarf matter,
neutron star matter, and black hole matter. However, nuclear fusion of
mercury nucleii can only turn gravitational potential energy to
nuclear potential energy.

On Jun 11, 1:06 am, Darwin123 wrote:
On Jun 9, 4:43 am, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:

On Jun 9, 12:06 am, Darwin123 wrote:

On Jun 7, 8:08 pm, "The Moron" wrote:

Can someone show me how can I calculate the minimum mass a Hg sphere must have
in space in order to start fusion at its core by its own gravity?

Many thanks,
--
TM

The stable isotope of mercury has a higher atomic weight than
the stable isotope of iron. The stable isotope of iron has the is at
the peak of the binding energy curve.
So the answer: One can NEVER get any energy from mercury by
atomic fusion. You can only get energy from mercury by atomic fission.

----------------
WRONG!!

even according to your information
above
you can get energy from mercury
first b fishioning it
(even a minor fishion !!)

I was using L'Chatier's principle. If a system at equilibrium is
perturbed a small amount, the changes it undergoes has to be in a
-------------------
you see
th e problem is as ususl in ther details
you saied 'a system'
are you sure you see all the system??
i was not meaning only the mecury element
i was intending that that mercury can be one ingrediant
or even the most relevant element in another bigger system!
ie put in some machine and use a s say basic raw material

so at first stage of the process indeed some
energy has to be invested
but at stage 2 another element might be added
actually to be more specific *another light element*
can be pumped in and that will cover back
not only the previous losses but leave more
energy than invested
thje base for that idea is that in mecury as an atom
there is a huge potential energy hiding in its
overall mass (E=mc^2)
it is much more than you imagined at the first place)
yet all of it depends on detailed advanced knowldge
that is still missing
2
as above we can add after 'pealing' some marginal particle
of it and adding a light element instead
so in that case
th excess energy will come form the added light element
etc etc
in short
technology is not only in the old abstract books
it is addition of a lot of creative imagination on top of it

now still
all that is wild ideas
and the more important problem is that the bottom line
will be *economic and SAFE AND NOT TOO POLLUTIVE***

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------


among



direction that will bring it closer to the equilibrium it started
with. This can be derived from thermodynamic principles. Therefore, if
the mercury is compressed slightly the reaction has to be something
that reduces volume. Fusion reduces volume. Fission would increase the
volume.
As you add mercury in small amounts, the pressure at the center
is going up. Therefore, the volume has to go down. If a mercury
nucleus fissions, it will take up more volume than if it remains a
mercury nucleus. So it is not going fission if I add a small amount of
material.
If two mercury nucleii fuse, that takes up less volume. However,
energy would be absorbed. So energy could not be released by fusion. and the next step fuse it--

This violates conservation of energy. If one fuses the products of
a fission back into a mercury nucleus, one would reabsorb the energy
one produced by fissioning the mercury nucleus. One would merely get
back to the point one started.
Of course, I am talking about the main mass of mercury. Sure, when
one of these phase transitions happens there may be a detonation. That
would blast some of the nuclei into space, where they may fission.
However, the majority of material would have to compress into a
smaller volume.

with something else
so that the BOTTOM LINE OF ENERGY of all those proceces
will be ----- gaining energy !!

I was answering the question of how much work, and by what
process, will potential energy be extracted as work from the pile of
mercury. Of course the addition of material can result in work, but
the process by which work is performed does not have to be nuclear
fusion. In fact, for mercury it can't be nuclear fusion.
You are adding energy merely by throwing mercury on the pile.
However, most of this energy will be in the form of potential energy.
As you add mercury, you are adding both nuclear potential energy and
gravitational potential energy.
The implication in the question is how much work energy can one
obtain from the pile, and by what process does one obtain work energy.
A sudden flash of radiation, or any sort of detonation, would be work
energy. My response was that there could not be any work performed by
nuclear fusion. I did point out that work could be performed by other
processes. Such processes include the formation of white dwarf matter,
neutron star matter, and black hole matter. However, nuclear fusion of
mercury nucleii can only turn gravitational potential energy to
nuclear potential energy.

On Jun 10, 11:36*pm, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:
[snip irrelevant ****]

I am staggered to see you are not dead yet and still continue to post
barely coherent diatribes that nobody reads.

On Jun 11, 11:52*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 10, 11:36*pm, "Y.y.Porat" wrote:
[snip irrelevant ****]

I am staggered to see you are not dead yet and still continue to post
barely coherent diatribes that nobody reads.

--------------
no boubt
the boy is a psychopath!!

Y.Porat
----------------------------------