- #1
sid_galt
- 502
- 1
A plasma consists of both ions and uncharged particles of gases. Is it possible for the uncharged particles to fuse or only atoms whose protons have been stripped off can fuse?
sid_galt said:A plasma consists of both ions and uncharged particles of gases. Is it possible for the uncharged particles to fuse or only atoms whose protons have been stripped off can fuse?
so-crates said:Do you mean atoms whose electrons have been stripped off? I imagine the answer is yes, since fusion processes take place for heavier atoms, and I imagine ti would be next to impossible to strip off all the electrons before fusion takes place. This is just a guess and I am not a physicist though. I would ask over on one of the physics forums, like Nuclei and Particles.
Morbius said:A plasma consists of ions and electrons, and neutral particles.
The ions and electrons are charged - however the net charge on the
plasma is zero because the number of positive charges [ ions ] equals the
number of negative charges [ electrons ].
sid_galt said:A plasma consists of both ions and uncharged particles of gases. Is it possible for the uncharged particles to fuse or only atoms whose protons have been stripped off can fuse?
It was not an ionization phenomenon at all. Microwave radiation is non-ionizing.NEOclassic said:About a year ago, I was doing a study (in the microwave oven in my home kitchen) that was less an ionization phenomenonMorbius said:A plasma consists of ions and electrons, and neutral particles.
hitssquad said:It was not an ionization phenomenon at all. Microwave radiation is non-ionizing.
http://google.com/search?q=radiation+non-ionizing+microwave
What you made in your balloons was steam, not plasma.
Morbius said:hitssquad,
I agree - microwave radiation is non-ionizing.
You need to get to frequencies in the upper ultra-violet or X-rays and
above to be ionizing.
Neoclassic certainly did not make a plasma with his microwave.
Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
NEOclassic said:I didn't get around to anything but ordinary faucet water - except a very small amount of ammonium hydroxide in a small round balloon made such a fireworks (light flashes) display that I decided not to even mess with methanol because of retained oxygen in the ballon.
Is this why a metal spoon will spark in the microwave?Davorak said:The microwaves then pulled the ions away from each other. The sparking he observed happen when the solution(or vapor) reached the break down voltage, causing an arc.
Davorak said:I agree that NEOclassic did not ionize anything with the microwave. However he did create a plasma by adding ammonium hydroxide to water. The technical definition of a plasma does not require an atomic ionization to be occur. Salty water is consider to be a plasma.
A plasma is a type of gas. Water is a type of liquid.Davorak said:Salty water is consider to be a plasma.
Davorak said:I just took undergrad plasma physics last semster and batery acids as well as electons in plasma where considered a plasma.
Not to beat this horse too much more, but neither that link you provided, nor the PF thread referenced support your assertion.Davorak said:I just took undergrad plasma physics last semster and batery acids as well as electons in plasma where considered a plasma.
But I like the defintion:
electromagnetic (Maxwell-Boltzmann)** systems
http://www.plasmas.org/basics.htm
Davorak said:I just took undergrad plasma physics last semster and batery acids as well as electons in plasma where considered a plasma.
An ionized gas is certainly the most common definition on the web.
But I like the defintion:
electromagnetic (Maxwell-Boltzmann)** systems
http://www.plasmas.org/basics.htm
Also disscused before:
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-59693_How_is_cold_Plasma_possible?.html
Davorak said:How is debye shielding different an ionic liquid does one of these fail?
Davorak said:"Additionally, you don't get the separation in temperatures in an ionic
solution that you get with a plasma. That's why the Debye formula
for the plasma has [itex]T_e[\itex] and [itex]T_i[\itex]; whereas the
ionic solution has just T. You can't get separation of the electron and
ion temperatures in an ionic solution, because the electrons are still
bound."
Yes, but I did not think this separation was necessary for the definition of a plasma.
What does I stand for in the ionic equation? I is usally current but that does not make sence.
Davorak said:If the gas definition is absloute, does electricity flow(above break down voltage) through a liquid not count as plasma either? Is it given a different name?
CrazedMathematician said:Back on the topic of fusion...
Dr. Greenman,
I'm an undergrad in math, but one of my fascinations is with fusion, which I read as much as I can find on. I have a question regarding radiation losses in the plasma. From what I've read, one of the major losses is bremsstrahlung radiation caused by the braking of the ions by the electrons. Yet, every fusion device I've seen uses a neutral plasma. My question is, why isn't a nonneutral, pure ion plasma used for fusion? Without electrons, bremsstrahlung losses are eliminated. Sorry if the question is stupid or obvious, it's just been nagging me and I had to ask. :)
The resulting energy release is 17.6 MeV. This site says that that is an energy gain of 450 times, so perhaps the deuterium must be accelerated to .039 MeV. However, the Wiki article on fusion says the D-T ignition energy needed is 0.1 MeV:sid_galt said:Does anybody know to what energy (in eVs) must a deuterium nucleus must be accelerated to achieve fusion with [...] tritium [...]?
Given the context of the site, it would seem that the deuteron and triton each have an energy, e.g. 0.039 MeV (~40 keV) as hitssquad mentioned.The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction results in an energy gain of about 450:1!
Basically, both address the same question, i.e. what is the necessary energy for a deuteron to enable a fusion reaction with a stationary triton?Does anybody know to what energy (in eVs) must a deuterium nucleus must be accelerated to achieve fusion with
1 - a tritium pellet in a cyclotron?
2 - a tritium nucleus which is not enclosed in a pellet assuming that the deuterium always hits the tritium nucleus so there is no need for high density?
Astronuc said:I suspect that the equation may not be necessarily valid for light atoms, or due to QM, there is a probability that the reaction occurs at lower energies.