Complimentary Atoms??

[MolecularMan14]

Ok, I just had a thought run through my head, and my foot, but that's besides the point...Are there such things as complimentary elements? By complimentary I mean, if you were to get their atoms to react together, would they form a different atom? If so, how could that be done??

 

My thought was to have the 2 complimentary elements in a gas form, and spin them at ridiculous speeds in opposite directions in 2 different cyclotrons...then open a gateway bewtween the cyclotrons so that the atoms would collide, forcing them to come in contact. Would this work? Would I also have to add a few neutrons, protons, and electrons into the mix before the collision? Im sorry if this makes me sound like a stupid lunatic, but it was just a thought.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Actually, I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but yes.

Think about it a second. You may have two elements that, if they are added together, will become another, but the typical fashion is for them to decay and become smaller, not larger. Fusion is the only process where two small atoms combine to be larger, but that requires another fission bomb (in the case of an h-bomb) to set it off. But if you gave these atoms enough energy, it might just be a fusion reaction: they turn into helium (in the case of two hydrogen atoms). Currently scientists are trying to create a reaction which is sustainable so that we don't have to put in more energy than it creates.

So, sort of, a fusion reaction is like that.

[MolecularMan14]

That makes sense, but I was thinking of it as a means of disposing of hazardous material...and making it into something that nature, and humans, can handle (preferably something useful)

 

Is there any way of forcing a reaction without a massive explosion? I was thinking along the lines of being contained in a cyclotron, or lab?

[LucidDreamer]

Most hazardous materials are molecules (atoms that are bonded together), not single elements. Radioactive atoms are hazardous material, but they are already extremely heavy elements with lots of protons and neutrons-so I don't think you could get rid of them by combining them with other atoms. In fact, you want them to break down to lead. The molecular hazardous material can be disposed of by various methods including combustion or by combining them with other substances to create less toxic material. This is often done in what are essentially large labs, such as water treatment plants. I'm not sure a cyclotron would be useful for getting rid of hazardous material.

[swansont]

Actually' date=' I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but yes.

Think about it a second. You may have two elements that, if they are added together, will become another, but the typical fashion is for them to decay and become smaller, not larger. Fusion is the only process where two small atoms combine to be larger, but that requires another fission bomb (in the case of an h-bomb) to set it off. But if you gave these atoms enough energy, it might just be a fusion reaction: they turn into helium (in the case of two hydrogen atoms). Currently scientists are trying to create a reaction which is sustainable so that we don't have to put in more energy than it creates.

So, sort of, a fusion reaction is like that.[/quote']

 

You can do fusion with an accelerator, and you can do it with lighter elements. No bomb required.

[Thales]

They are just beginning planing for a fusion reactor to be built in either Japan or Europe. It uses superconducting magnets to control the flow of plasma (a teneous mix of superheated charge particles) and force hydrogens heavy cousin deutrium to bind and form helium. Because Helium atoms weigh less than their constituant protons and neutrons weighed seperately the mass lost is converted into energy. Very 'smart' physics thats been keeping earth warm since its inception.

 

As for adding or subtracting subatomic particles at will without complex combinations of enormous pressures and temperatures (needed to overcome the electrostatic repulsion in the nucleus), that technology is still well beyond our grasp.

 

It is an interesting thought though, using the excess heat in the fusion generator to 'destroy' dangerous chemicals. They only problem is it would have to be regulated in such a way the the energy lost in breaking down the elements/molecules didn't bring the temperature down below the level needed to maintain fusion. Assuming that you could do it though, I would imagine the superheated plasma would be a good place to break atoms down to their consituant particles which could maybe be regathered and recombined to create more energy. In a round about way turning junk into power.

[budullewraagh]

well, "dangerous chemicals" can be "destroyed" in much easier ways...

[MolecularMan14]

Most hazardous materials are molecules (atoms that are bonded together), not single elements. Radioactive atoms are hazardous material, but they are already extremely heavy elements with lots of protons and neutrons-so I don't think you could get rid of them by combining them with other atoms. In fact, you want them to break down to lead. The molecular hazardous material can be disposed of by various methods including combustion or by combining them with other substances to create less toxic material. This is often done in what are essentially large labs, such as water treatment plants. I'm not sure a cyclotron would be useful for getting rid of hazardous material.

 

THANKS!! I had honestly never thought of that. How does one go about reducing, or breaking down substances? (Particularly ones of hazardous nature) Is there any way of making an unstable material by adding more particles, that would just have a half life of about .5 seconds, and start to breakdown into its basics?

[MolecularMan14]

well, "dangerous chemicals" can be "destroyed" in much easier ways...

How so? Do you mean by ways of explosions? lol

[Gilded]

By the way, how much energy does a single deuterium-deuterium fusion produce?

[swansont]

By the way, how much energy does a single deuterium-deuterium fusion produce?

 

If fusing into He-4, it would produce 23.8 MeV, but I don't think that reaction happens - too much excitation - a particle would be given off.

 

He-3 + n gives 3.27 MeV

H-3 + p gives 4.03 MeV

 

deuterium-tritium fusion is much better, resulting in He-4 + n, and yielding 18.3 MeV

[Gilded]

Another "by the way":

 

Did you know that in deuterium-tritium fusion bombs lithium deuterate is used (since lithium-6 + a neutron = tritium and helium-4; lithium-7 plus a neutron yields tritium, helium-4 and a neutron)? Fun fact... Or something. Source: science.howstuffworks.com

 

Edit: Oops, forgot to ask: How can you convert electron volts into other energy units?

[swansont]

Edit: Oops, forgot to ask: How can you convert electron volts into other energy units?

 

 

you can enter 'electron volt in joules' into Google and get that, and many other, conversions.

 

or go to onlineconversion.com

 

 

1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19J

[Gilded]

Nice conversion page indeed. I got a result like this: 1 trillion deuterium-tritium fusions = about 2,93 joules. Isn't it more than that?

[swansont]

Nice conversion page indeed. I got a result like this: 1 trillion deuterium-tritium fusions = about 2,93 joules. Isn't it more than that?

1 trillion fusions is about 8 picograms of material. I'd say 3 Joules is a lot, rather than a little.

[Gilded]

8 picograms?? Wow, I have once again overestimated the size of an atom. I always tend to do that. Well in that case, it's no wonder that 20 megaton (or more) fusion bombs have been made.

[swansont]

8 picograms?? Wow, I have once again overestimated the size of an atom. I always tend to do that. Well in that case, it's no wonder that 20 megaton (or more) fusion bombs have been made.

 

Avogadro's number is BIG! 6.02 x 10²³ atoms per mole, and a mole each of the reactant is 5 grams.

[Gilded]

Hmm... What other effects increase the hydrogen bomb's power than the fusion of tritium and deuterium? Since I get something like 300 gigajoules (71 tonnes of TNT) for the fusion of 1g deuterium and 1g tritium. Or then I have just miscalculated this.

[MolecularMan14]

Let us say that I had 2 radioactive (or otherwise harmful) substances and I forced them to react. Would I create a new substance with a minute half life, then have that decompose into a non-toxic substance? Would the reaction produce a crap load of energy? and would there be any way of harvesting that energy?

Wow, that was a lot of questions that I may have already asked, but asked anyway.

[swansont]

Let us say that I had 2 radioactive (or otherwise harmful) substances and I forced them to react. Would I create a new substance with a minute half life' date=' then have that decompose into a non-toxic substance? Would the reaction produce a crap load of energy? and would there be any way of harvesting that energy?

Wow, that was a lot of questions that I may have already asked, but asked anyway. [/quote']

 

It depends. If the reactants are both radioactive, that means they have energy they are trying to get rid of. Unless you were combining beta-plus and beta-minus decayers, the product would still very likely be radioactive, and have an even larger amount of energy it needed to shed in order to become stable.

 

Generally speaking, the larger the excess energy, the shorter the half-life.