The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

higis

On Feb 25, 12:08 pm, higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

higis

Note that fusion of ordinary hydrogen p + p is not what is going on in
an H bomb. p + p is a weak interaction which would useless for
generating any yield in a feasible bomb. The typical reactants in an H
bomb I would guess are deuterium and tritium. The latter being
produced at the time of detonation via neutron capture.

higis wrote:

The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.

Are you an amphibian? Organic chemists have no problem with it - and
they can barely do algebra.

When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

Education: that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding.

Google Images
"binding energy" 12,200 hits

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/binding_energy/binding_energy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reaction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy

Ignorance is not pretty, but it is educable. Stupidity is forever.
Choose.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

http://t2.lanl.gov/data/astro/molnix96/massd.html

Balance your equations

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Feb 25, 8:20*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

higis

* *Have a read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes. And I have trouble understand the details. For instance.
Wikipedia says:

"In general, binding energy represents the mechanical work
which must be done in acting against the forces which hold
an object together, while disassembling the object into
component parts separated by sufficient distance that further
separation requires negligible additional work."

Supposed I use mechanical work to pull the protons apart
in the helium to turn them into hydrogen. Well. After
the separations, the mass of the separated 2 hydrogens
is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's
just focus on the hydrogens). Now where do the extra
mass of the separated hydrogens come from? From
the mechanical work to pull the protons apart themselves?
Or does it conjure the energy or mass from the surrounding
(where) to reconstitute the separated hydrogens increased
mass?

hgis

On Feb 25, 8:53*am, Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
On Feb 25, 12:08 pm, higis wrote:





The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

higis

Note that fusion of ordinary hydrogen p + p is not what is going on in
an H bomb. p + p is a weak interaction which would useless for
generating any yield in a feasible bomb. The typical reactants in an H
bomb I would guess are deuterium and tritium. The latter being
produced at the time of detonation via neutron capture.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Let's not complicate it with hydrogen bomb. But just
the concept of mass defect. For example.

Alpha particle individual parts masses:

proton 1.00728 x 2 + neutron 1.00866 x 2 = 4.03188 u

mass of alpha 4.0153 u

The mass of the alpha particle combined is less than
the constituent protons and neutrons. The different
is said to be the mass defect.

Now if you introduce 28,300,000 eV of energy to
the alpha particle, it would breakup to their
constituent protons and neutrons. At this point.
This is what I'd like to know. Does this mean if
you apply mechnical work to the alpha particle
to pull it apart, the mere act of apply mechanical
work can introduce the 28,300,000 eV of energy
(direct from the mechanical work itself) that
can make the protons and neutrons separate?

A more intuitive example is a couple having
intercourse, does the mechanical work to
pull them apart is the same energy that can
make their mass back to the original or after
pulling them apart, do you have to supply
another energy for the mass to be back? In
the case of the alpha particle, if after you
mechanically pull apart the neutrons and
protons, do you need to supply another
energy of 28,300,000 eV to reform the masses?
This means that if you don't have 28,300,000 eV
on standby, the alpha particle can't be separated
even if you apply very powerful mechanical work.
Or is the mechanical work itself the source of
the 28,300,000 eV of energy or the binding energy
of the alpha particle? If so, this means that so
long as there is that energy nearby, it can be
made to separate??

Geez. I hope my question is understood. If not. I'll
find of another way to convey my question, thanks.

higis

On 24 fév, 20:03, higis wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley wrote:



higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

higis

Have a read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes. And I have trouble understand the details. For instance.
Wikipedia says:

"In general, binding energy represents the mechanical work
which must be done in acting against the forces which hold
an object together, while disassembling the object into
component parts separated by sufficient distance that further
separation requires negligible additional work."

Supposed I use mechanical work to pull the protons apart
in the helium to turn them into hydrogen. Well. After
the separations, the mass of the separated 2 hydrogens
is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's
just focus on the hydrogens). Now where do the extra
mass of the separated hydrogens come from? From
the mechanical work to pull the protons apart themselves?
Or does it conjure the energy or mass from the surrounding
(where) to reconstitute the separated hydrogens increased
mass?

hgis

You won't get a straight answer from orthodox physics.

All these explanations date back to before the internal
structure of nucleons was known, and no requestioning
of outdated explanations nor any update was ever
carried out.

André Michaud

On 24 fév, 22:54, Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote:
On 24 fév, 20:03, higis wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.
To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?
higis
Have a read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy-Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes. And I have trouble understand the details. For instance.
Wikipedia says:

"In general, binding energy represents the mechanical work
which must be done in acting against the forces which hold
an object together, while disassembling the object into
component parts separated by sufficient distance that further
separation requires negligible additional work."

Supposed I use mechanical work to pull the protons apart
in the helium to turn them into hydrogen. Well. After
the separations, the mass of the separated 2 hydrogens
is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's
just focus on the hydrogens). Now where do the extra
mass of the separated hydrogens come from? From
the mechanical work to pull the protons apart themselves?
Or does it conjure the energy or mass from the surrounding
(where) to reconstitute the separated hydrogens increased
mass?

hgis

You won't get a straight answer from orthodox physics.

All these explanations date back to before the internal
structure of nucleons was known, and no requestioning
of outdated explanations nor any update was ever
carried out.

André Michaud

Let's hear your explanation André!

You read it many times over, but it apparently never
registered.

Try giving a shot at recalling and correlating.

André Michaud

On Feb 25, 11:44*am, wrote:
On 24 fév, 20:03, higis wrote:





On Feb 25, 8:20 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

higis wrote:
The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

higis

* *Have a read:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes. And I have trouble understand the details. For instance.
Wikipedia says:

"In general, binding energy represents the mechanical work
which must be done in acting against the forces which hold
an object together, while disassembling the object into
component parts separated by sufficient distance that further
separation requires negligible additional work."

Supposed I use mechanical work to pull the protons apart
in the helium to turn them into hydrogen. Well. After
the separations, the mass of the separated 2 hydrogens
is more than the 2 hydrogens fused in the helium (let's
just focus on the hydrogens). Now where do the extra
mass of the separated hydrogens come from? From
the mechanical work to pull the protons apart themselves?
Or does it conjure the energy or mass from the surrounding
(where) to reconstitute the separated hydrogens increased
mass?

hgis

You won't get a straight answer from orthodox physics.

All these explanations date back to before the internal
structure of nucleons was known, and no requestioning
of outdated explanations nor any update was ever
carried out.

André Michaud- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pls. summarize what is binding energy and mass
defect in the clearest terms possible. How does
your model differ to the standard physics?

It seems our physics is now so mathematically
oriented that physicists have finally did away
with any of the mental pictures of everything
like quantum mechanics and the vacuum but
what if the statistical and other dynamics are
energy fluxes of some sort. So I agree we must
not do away with the mental pictures but explore
them unless we want to hypnotize a whole new
generation to think that way in order perhaps to hide
some physics sectors that can only do more harm
than good in this level or stage of the moral,
mental and ethical development of humanity.
For example. Unlimited energy from the vacuum
can heat up the planet and destroy it in the long
run. So in the dying days of say 2300 A.D. when
global catasrophe occured because of what
happened in the early years of the 21th century
when secret physics were released upon the
world. I'd agree that should we be given another
chance of for comparatively speaking, say time
traveller in the dying days of 2300 A.D on a
mission in our time. We can give him the go
to sabotage any new vacuum principles that
might have been discovered that would put human
on the descent to extinction.

higis

"higis" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 8:53 am, Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
On Feb 25, 12:08 pm, higis wrote:





The term binding energy is not so intuitive, isn't it.
When you have hydrogen atoms and you fuse them
into helium. It would release energy as in hydrogen
bomb. So how can you say it is binding energy
when the energy is gone.

To decompose the helium back into hydrogen.
It is said that it need energy input. If you can
pull helium apart against the strong force turning
into hydrogen atoms (gets separated). Is the energy
to pull it apart consist the binding energy that
would reconstitute the parts? Or do you need to
supply another energy that would make up the
binding energy?

higis

Note that fusion of ordinary hydrogen p + p is not what is going on in
an H bomb. p + p is a weak interaction which would useless for
generating any yield in a feasible bomb. The typical reactants in an H
bomb I would guess are deuterium and tritium. The latter being
produced at the time of detonation via neutron capture


Notionally, look at it as potential energy released by compacting a
nucleus. The further apart the neutrons and protons, the more potential
energy they have (like satellites in orbit). The end of fusion energy is
reached with iron (most compacted).

All this is treated in the life cycle of a star. You should read up on
white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes especially with regards to
degenerate electron pressure, degenerate neutron pressure and
Chandrasekhar limit etc.

Phil H

wrote in message

On 24 fiv, 22:54, Sam Wormley wrote:

Let's hear your explanation Andri!

You read it many times over, but it apparently never
registered.

Try giving a shot at recalling and correlating.

Typical unhelpful and evasive Michaud behavior.
He knows that he hasn't an explanation that can't
be shot full of holes in short order. He also
fails to acknowledge (a kind way of saying that
he doesn't know) that standard physics has an
eminently practical model of the physics
involved, accurate to some 12 or 13 decimal
places empirically. Let's see if he can top it
with some calculation of his own.