Doesn't nuclear bombs prove that its possible to get free energy?

[xxxdutchiexxx]

When we detonate a nuke, it releases way more energy then what it took to detonate it, after the initial energy we apply the particles we split causes a chain reaction, this chain reaction ends up releasing massives amounts of energy. it seems we literally get free energy in a sense, I think that if we could find a way to control and maintain this chain reaction then we could probably harness some of  that extra energy thats being generated by the chain reaction. I must be missing something because to me, nukes clearly demonstrate that it is indeed possible to get more energy out then what we put in. 

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, xxxdutchiexxx said:

 it seems we literally get free energy in a sense, I think that if we could find a way to control and maintain this chain reaction then we could probably harness some of  that extra energy that's being generated by the chain reaction. 

I think you are a few decades late with your revelation... 

[Sensei]

₉₂Uranium-235 when it's bombarded by free neutrons it's decaying to f.e. ₅₆Barium-141, ₃₆Krypton and couple new free neutrons.

These free neutrons are hitting new Uranium-235 atom, and process is repeated.

Uranium-235 has slightly higher rest-mass than sum of rest-masses of Barium, Krypton and couple neutrons.

Energy released by reaction is calculated in similar way as I showed in thread from my signature.

It's not energy from nothing. It's energy that has been stored billions years ago during supernova explosion.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Sensei

[Janus]

Nuclear energy is no more "free energy" than  throwing a match into a pool of gasoline is.   It takes less energy to strike the match than is released by the burning gasoline.   Burning gasoline releases energy that is stored in the chemical bonds of the gasoline, when the gasoline runs out, so does the energy.   Nuclear fission releases energy that is stored in the nuclear bonds of the fissionable material.  When the fissionable material is used up, the energy release stops.

The admonition against "free" energy, doesn't mean that you can not release energy already stored and get more energy out than it took to release it, it means that it is not possible to get more energy out than in by using a method that does not rely on using up an energy store.   In this context a free energy device is one that would run forever without consuming any resources.

[J.C.MacSwell]

All energy is "free", by your (OP's) implied definition.

Let's not pretend any of us came up with any of it from "scratch".

Edited November 15, 2017 by J.C.MacSwell

[xxxdutchiexxx]

I think we have different understandings about what "free energy" means.

when I say free energy i am not talking about getting energy from nothing, I am talking about getting more energy out then what we put in. for instance, imagine you have a device that outputs more energy then what you put in, say you put in 12 volts of electricity and then the device uses those 12 volts to output 24 volts, those extra 12 volts you get out is what I call "free energy". we dont literally get energy form nothing, how ever, you are still getting free energy, see what I mean? you do not have to get energy from nothing in order for it to be considered "free energy"

................and the whole thing about energy being free since we dont pay for it with money is obviously not what im talking about, I cant believe anyone would actually mentioned that  

[pzkpfw]

4 minutes ago, xxxdutchiexxx said:

I think we have different understandings about what "free energy" means.

when I say free energy i am not talking about getting energy from nothing, I am talking about getting more energy out then what we put in. for instance, imagine you have a device that outputs more energy then what you put in, say you put in 12 volts of electricity and then the device uses those 12 volts to output 24 volts, those extra 12 volts you get out is what I call "free energy". we dont literally get energy form nothing, how ever, you are still getting free energy, see what I mean? you do not have to get energy from nothing in order for it to be considered "free energy"

................and the whole thing about energy being free since we dont pay for it with money is obviously not what im talking about, I cant believe anyone would actually mentioned that  

The answer is still "no".

A nuclear bomb is no more "free energy" than a block of wood you burn by lighting it with a match.

[Endy0816]

Nuclear power is the same thing stretched over a hopefully longer period of time.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Endy0816

[Vmedvil]

Well, it is not actually "Free Energy" it is from the Strong Nuclear Force and then Electromagnetism after coupling is broken, but it is commonly used in something called Nuclear Reactors and Fusion Reactors ever heard of those?

Edited November 15, 2017 by Vmedvil

[mistermack]

Isn't it a fact that the energy generated is not "free" because there is an increase in entropy?

Free energy in this sense would be useful energy that came at no increase in entropy, which can't happen. You can't keep producing useful energy in the process indefinitely. So as others have said, you are just extracting energy from a store.

[Outrider]

In case you missed it I'll repost Moontanman's link.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant

Like others have said this is not what most mean when they say "free energy".

But it is free for us somebody else  paid the bill. Well unless you take into account the waste thats not going away for generations and the occasional meltdown that makes large swathes of land unlivable.

[xxxdutchiexxx]

okay, maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of free energy. can anyone tell me what would you call the energy that releases from a atom when you split the force that holds it together? 

say we maintain this chain reaction for long periods of time, say we get out 1 million volts of electricity from every 300 thousand volts of electricity that we put in, what do we call all those extra volts we get out? I dont see why we cant say thats free energy, for instance, imagine i give you a device that can double your money, you put in 20 bucks and you get out 40 bucks...would you not call that "free money" ? you get your 20 back plus another 20, so to me, that sure sounds like free money.....this way of thinking should apply to energy as well, if you get back what you put in and also get out a bit extra then thats "free" in my book. 

and of course we need fuel to power the reaction, but the fuel is very common and can be found almost anywhere, the sun has been burning this fuel for billions of years and is still going strong, so even if we will have to add more fuel eventually thats fine, the fuel is commonly found and the amount of energy we get out in relation to the amount of fuel we put in is amazingly efficient, so if we dont call that free energy, then what do we call it??

[swansont]

You're releasing stored energy. The energy is stored in the mass, and released when you split the nucleus, which leaves you with more tightly-bound nuclei (same concept as in chemistry, but the forces are stronger so the energy is larger)

"Free energy" in physics nomenclature refers to a violation of conservation of energy. You're applying economic terminology to a science description. That's what people are objecting to.

 

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, xxxdutchiexxx said:

can anyone tell me what would you call the energy that releases from a atom when you split the force that holds it together? 

If you need to put energy to split molecule, atom or nucleus, and then decay releases even more energy, it's called activation energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activation_energy

 

But in the case of nuclear bomb, there is no needed to put any energy. It happens spontaneously.

If we would have to put energy to perform nuclear reaction, none nuclear plant would explode, as shutting it down, would require just shutting down external source of energy.

But to shut down nuclear plant, there is needed to get rid of neutron reflectors (if they are present) and replace them by neutron absorbers. Pipes with special metal (or material) are kept by electromagnets above pellets with Uranium, and when there is emergency situation, electromagnets stop working, and pipes with neutron absorbers are going down just because of gravitation, and spontaneous nuclear reaction is shut down.

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, xxxdutchiexxx said:

okay, maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of free energy. can anyone tell me what would you call the energy that releases from a atom when you split the force that holds it together? 

Nuclear power. We already use this (as others have said). 

All power generation systems (coal, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc) produce more energy than you put in. Otherwise there would be no point building them. So they are all “free” by your definition. But the costs come from extracting the fuel, building the power plant, distributing the electricity, maintenance and so on. 

2 hours ago, xxxdutchiexxx said:

the sun has been burning this fuel for billions of years

That is fusion, rather than nuclear fusion. The problems there are technical, engineering ones. We are at least 50 years from practical fun soon power. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

 That is fusion, rather than nuclear. 

I believe you mistyped: Fusion rather than fission. (They're both nuclear processes, and I'm confident you know this)

[Janus]

3 hours ago, xxxdutchiexxx said:

okay, maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of free energy. can anyone tell me what would you call the energy that releases from a atom when you split the force that holds it together? 

say we maintain this chain reaction for long periods of time, say we get out 1 million volts of electricity from every 300 thousand volts of electricity that we put in, what do we call all those extra volts we get out? I dont see why we cant say thats free energy, for instance, imagine i give you a device that can double your money, you put in 20 bucks and you get out 40 bucks...would you not call that "free money" ? you get your 20 back plus another 20, so to me, that sure sounds like free money.....this way of thinking should apply to energy as well, if you get back what you put in and also get out a bit extra then thats "free" in my book. 

and of course we need fuel to power the reaction, but the fuel is very common and can be found almost anywhere, the sun has been burning this fuel for billions of years and is still going strong, so even if we will have to add more fuel eventually thats fine, the fuel is commonly found and the amount of energy we get out in relation to the amount of fuel we put in is amazingly efficient, so if we dont call that free energy, then what do we call it??

The problem is that you are using the term "free" in a manner in which it is not typically meant when using the term "free energy".   By your use of "free",  burning wood, coal, natural gas, etc. would all be instances of "free" energy.  This makes it a pretty useless term.  The term "free energy" is used to refer to energy that supposedly come from nowhere, neither from energy input or by expending some fuel resource.  

As already pointed out there are two nuclear energy processes, fission and fusion. 

With fission, you only need to bring enough fissionable material together to extract the energy. However, fissionable materials are rare, and only certain isotopes of various elements are fissionable.  Uranium 235 is fissionable for example, but only makes up a fraction of the naturally occurring Uranium (0.715%), and is always found combined with non-fissionable Uranium.  The Uranium must be mined, refined, and enriched (the ratio of the uranium 235 increased. 3-5% for reactor grade and much greater for weapons grade) to make it suitable to use for nuclear fuel.

Fusion, which is how the Sun gets its energy involve forcing nuclei together until they form a nucleus of a different element.   The problem is that the nuclei naturally repel each other, and it takes quite a bit to force them together close enough.   The Sun does this because of the extreme pressures at its core.   A thermonuclear bomb does it by using a fission bomb to provide the required energy to  trigger an uncontrolled fusion explosion.

Controlled fusion is a lot more difficult.  It is very hard to create the conditions to cause fusion in a manner that we can control.  The goal is to create a situation where the energy generated is more the the energy needed to initiate the process. This is something that we weren't even able to achieve until 2014.  And even then while the energy provided by the lasers to start the fusion was less than the energy produced, the total energy required to operate those lasers was many times more than the energy released.   While a step in the right direction, for practical fusion power generation, we need the energy output to exceed the energy requirements of the equipment maintaining the reaction, which is something we have yet to come close to.

And as far as the availability of the fuel goes, even this experiment required the use of rare isotopes of hydrogen which, combined, only make up 0.02% of naturally occurring hydrogen.

[xxxdutchiexxx]

3 hours ago, Janus said:

The problem is that you are using the term "free" in a manner in which it is not typically meant when using the term "free energy".   By your use of "free",  burning wood, coal, natural gas, etc. would all be instances of "free" energy.  This makes it a pretty useless term.  The term "free energy" is used to refer to energy that supposedly come from nowhere, neither from energy input or by expending some fuel resource.  

As already pointed out there are two nuclear energy processes, fission and fusion. 

With fission, you only need to bring enough fissionable material together to extract the energy. However, fissionable materials are rare, and only certain isotopes of various elements are fissionable.  Uranium 235 is fissionable for example, but only makes up a fraction of the naturally occurring Uranium (0.715%), and is always found combined with non-fissionable Uranium.  The Uranium must be mined, refined, and enriched (the ratio of the uranium 235 increased. 3-5% for reactor grade and much greater for weapons grade) to make it suitable to use for nuclear fuel.

Fusion, which is how the Sun gets its energy involve forcing nuclei together until they form a nucleus of a different element.   The problem is that the nuclei naturally repel each other, and it takes quite a bit to force them together close enough.   The Sun does this because of the extreme pressures at its core.   A thermonuclear bomb does it by using a fission bomb to provide the required energy to  trigger an uncontrolled fusion explosion.

Controlled fusion is a lot more difficult.  It is very hard to create the conditions to cause fusion in a manner that we can control.  The goal is to create a situation where the energy generated is more the the energy needed to initiate the process. This is something that we weren't even able to achieve until 2014.  And even then while the energy provided by the lasers to start the fusion was less than the energy produced, the total energy required to operate those lasers was many times more than the energy released.   While a step in the right direction, for practical fusion power generation, we need the energy output to exceed the energy requirements of the equipment maintaining the reaction, which is something we have yet to come close to.

And as far as the availability of the fuel goes, even this experiment required the use of rare isotopes of hydrogen which, combined, only make up 0.02% of naturally occurring hydrogen.

indeed, i have started looking into nuclear fusion machines, it seems the main issue is the heat, we simply do not have any type of material that can withstand those high temps....however, there should be something we can do to fix that issue. why cant we simply expand the machines size? i mean, if we hold the plasma in place by using strong magnetic fields then why can we not simply move the machines walls further away from the plasma?  the further away the wall is=the less heat that reaches it right? so just contain the plasma very far away from the machines chamber walls.

[Strange]

The main challenge is creating magnetic fields that can confine the plasma. It is not (just) the temperature, but the rapidly changing electric and magnetic fields in the moving plasma. 

[mistermack]

From the smattering that I've read, the control of the plasma isn't the greatest problem for the future. It's finding materials that can withstand the neutrons long enough to enable a steady burn over a period that will make electrical generation a practical proposition.

The heat needs to be transferred to water to make steam for a turbine, and the water needs to be contained etc. So it's the materials problem that casts a shadow over the future, it is what is the big uncertainty. Will the problems be insurmountable? Will they cause too much cost? That's where I believe the future headaches lie.

You need the reactor to be up and running before you can really put the materials to the ultimate test.

[Vmedvil]

Okay, do you wanna know what the ultimate problem is for fusion reactors you can generate a strong enough magnetic field to fuse it in plasma state, but the energy released is less than the energy required to confine it even with superconductors.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Country Boy]

"When we detonate a nuke, it releases way more energy then what it took to detonate it"

 

That argument would apply to non-nuclear bombs and even gun powder!  An explosive device that took more energy to detonate it than you got out of it wouldn't be much use would it?

With gunpowder or "chemical bombs" it is the energy holding the molecules together that is released.  Nuclear bombs release the energy holding nuclei together.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Country Boy

[mistermack]

On 23/11/2017 at 9:51 PM, Vmedvil said:

Okay, do you wanna know what the ultimate problem is for fusion reactors you can generate a strong enough magnetic field to fuse it in plasma state, but the energy released is less than the energy required to confine it even with superconductors.

That's been true up to now, but it's not the whole story. The ITER reactor being built at the moment is designed to produce more than it uses by a large factor of about 10. And in any case, the energy that you put in doesn't have to go to waste. 

Say you put in X amount of energy, and it produces 0.5X of extra energy, then you finish up with 1.5X of energy, for each X of input. If you can make the most of that 1.5X of energy, then it's not so bad. The problem is, you put in expensive energy like electricity, and get out lower grade energy like heat. That's why you need a good ratio of power out to power in.

But if you could use nearly all of the heat produced for productive projects, after it has generated electrical power, then the economics would be far more favourable. Low grade heat could be used in greenhouses in cold countries, and to heat cities. Maybe they could use it in hot countries to purify water.

Anyway, it will come, it's just annoying that it's taking so long.

[Moontanman]

On 11/16/2017 at 8:04 PM, mistermack said:

From the smattering that I've read, the control of the plasma isn't the greatest problem for the future. It's finding materials that can withstand the neutrons long enough to enable a steady burn over a period that will make electrical generation a practical proposition.

The heat needs to be transferred to water to make steam for a turbine, and the water needs to be contained etc. So it's the materials problem that casts a shadow over the future, it is what is the big uncertainty. Will the problems be insurmountable? Will they cause too much cost? That's where I believe the future headaches lie.

You need the reactor to be up and running before you can really put the materials to the ultimate test.

There are reaction that release no neutrons, Helium three fusion comes to mind.

 

40 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's been true up to now, but it's not the whole story. The ITER reactor being built at the moment is designed to produce more than it uses by a large factor of about 10. And in any case, the energy that you put in doesn't have to go to waste. 

Say you put in X amount of energy, and it produces 0.5X of extra energy, then you finish up with 1.5X of energy, for each X of input. If you can make the most of that 1.5X of energy, then it's not so bad. The problem is, you put in expensive energy like electricity, and get out lower grade energy like heat. That's why you need a good ratio of power out to power in.

But if you could use nearly all of the heat produced for productive projects, after it has generated electrical power, then the economics would be far more favourable. Low grade heat could be used in greenhouses in cold countries, and to heat cities. Maybe they could use it in hot countries to purify water.

Anyway, it will come, it's just annoying that it's taking so long.

 So far all we do is capture heat, no difference in that respect between burning fossil fuels and fission.  A Helium three reactor could, hypothetically, capture photons and make electricity directly, bypassing the middle man but it still wouldn't be 100% efficient. 

 

Then there is the thorium molten salt reactor, much safer but more difficult to make fission bombs from the products...  

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

There are reaction that release no neutrons, Helium three fusion comes to mind.  

He-3 fusing with what?