Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:23:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Plenty of fission takes place in radioactive elements outside
reactors. Go to Dartmoor with a geiger counter. By a factor
of several thousand to one at least.

You need to take note of the distinction between radioactive decay when
a nucleus spontaneously breaks down into something smaller, and fission
which occurs when a nucleus is hit by a particle which then results in it
breaking down into other elements.

As to whether fission, rather than just spontaneous decay, occurs in nature
there is evidence

From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.EDU/HBASE/nucene/fiscon.html

QUOTE
Nature's Nuclear Fission Reactor

In what is now Gabon in west Africa in 1972, French researchers found a
deposit of uranium which had only 0.44% U-235 compared to the normal 0.72%.
This indicated that some of the U-235 had undergone spontaneous nuclear
fission at some point in the past.
UNQUOTE

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:49:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:
I believe that we should try everything once except
incest and morris dancing.

Suicide?

The thing about suicide though, is that if you try it properly,
you only get to try it once.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:37:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is ACTUALLY happening is anybodies guess.

How then, are they ever going to plot a course for the mission to Mars?

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't involve
quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

Because it's springy, stupid.

Bill

Switch off at the socket?
 

[email protected] wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
[email protected] wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever
you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.


unless it becomes the same element. If it becomes the same element
you could grow rare elements. Star trek eat your heart out TNP has
invented the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

I have describe energy storage systems where that is plainly untrue.

No, you have not.

You have failed to show how these work despite your claim that all
energy storage increases mass.

That is a fundamental DEFINITION of what energy and mass are, in
Einsteins worldview.

It cannot be explained in a Newtonian worldview.

Any more than light being bent by gravity can.

This is why Einstein developed his view.


Here is another that you won't be able to explain...

dinorwic pumps a mass of water up to the top of the hill, then it lets
it down again.
The water at the top isn't hotter, in fact its probably colder after its
been stored for a day in winter.
Now tell me where this extra relativistic mass is.

In the mass of the water.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
[email protected] wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

Radon is a decay product of radium. Radon is the most common source of
radioactivity on the planet's surface.

Switch off at the socket?
 

[email protected] wrote:


"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
[email protected] wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or
helium nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops
the atomic number by one.

With fission the neutron makes the nucleus unstable and it splits into
smaller fragments, each usually much larger than alpha. It also releases
some high speed neutrons.

Only people like TNP would claim them to be the same.


They are both nuclear fission, and both release energy.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Fleetie wrote:
[email protected] wrote:

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
[email protected] wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission, the
majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of
free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is radioactive decay.
With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.
With decay there are only two particles emitted, electrons (beta) or
helium nuclei (alpha), beta ups the atomic number by one, alpha drops
the atomic number by one.

Surely alpha decay decreases Z by 2?


Don't expect Dennis to have correctly remembered what he just read on wiki.


Martin

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever
you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of Science
and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value of
the inertia of the object.

How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?


That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it
follows that, however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly the
same mass as it always had, because it always contains the same number
of atoms.

Whose mass varies slightly with temperature.

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating,

I never said that.

you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..


unless it becomes the same
element. If it becomes the same element you could grow rare elements.
Star trek eat your heart out TNP has invented the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass

Not if you use the Einstein worldview, there isn't. Its merely how they
appear to you.

namely that
mass, ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is converted
into mass, it must be converted into atoms or at least sub-atomic
particles. What atoms? What sub-atomic particles?


The confusion arises from your insistence that atoms and particles have
fixed masses. They don't.

Switch off at the socket?
 

J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:37:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What is ACTUALLY happening is anybodies guess.

How then, are they ever going to plot a course for the mission to Mars?

Best guess. Same as humanity has always done.

WE don't KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it always has, so we
expect it will, this time. On time as usual..in fact our concept of time
probably arises from noting this fact.