1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fissioning "star"

  1. Nov 10, 2014 #1
    Just curious if uranium could gather in enough quantities so that it's gravity will keep it from blowing apart or will critical mass start a chain reaction and prevent this configuration into a "fissioning" star
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 10, 2014 #2

    jfizzix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I would think the laws of physics don't forbid this, but considering you need a critical concentration of Uranium 235 to allow a chain reaction to take place, there is probably no gas cloud in the universe pure enough to condense into a weapons-grade uranium star.
     
  4. Nov 11, 2014 #3

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Uranium is by no mere coincidence considered a "transuranic element". The natural fusion process in a star stops at the point where iron is the end product, because there's nothing that you can do to make iron fuse. (It "refuses to fuse", it you'll pardon the term.) The only way for the process to proceed is through neutron-capture transmuting the iron into heavier elements, but even then they pretty much have to then break into smaller components which can then resume fusing.
    I'm not expert in this area, but that's my general take on it.
    (I'm deliberately ignoring the term "fissioning star" because that is self-contradictory and can't exist.)
     
  5. Nov 11, 2014 #4

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I guess we'd have to redefine what a "star" was, or come up with a new name for such a thing.
    We did have a naturally occurring nuclear reactor in Gabon a while back.
    And I've just read a couple of articles claiming there might be a multi-terawatt sized natural reactor at the core of the earth. (ref. below)
    Didn't someone named Dyson talk about an inhabitable sphere surrounding a star?
    Perhaps we live on one, only, it's inside-out, and the star is operating backwards.
    I nominate "rats" (star backwards), as the new name of our new type of reverse star.
    It shall stand for RAdiative Terrestrial Source.

    :)


    Deep-Earth reactor: Nuclear fission, helium, and the geomagnetic field
    Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth’s Heat
     
  6. Nov 11, 2014 #5
    Im talking about uranium created during supernovae events (your post suggests this happens during the normal fusion process in stars which im not aware of) and while the concentrations might not ever get to a point that it condenses i am just curious if there is anything that would prevent this configuration other than the resources needed
     
  7. Nov 11, 2014 #6

    jfizzix

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It may also be, that even if you had a cloud of weapons grade uranium vapor, it might never condense into a star since the density and temperature where fission takes place is much lower than what's needed to make the star undergo fusion. The energy released during fission at these low densities would probably blow the cloud apart before it could condense enough to overcome that force. I have no calculations to back this up though, so take it for what it's worth.
     
  8. Nov 11, 2014 #7

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I guess that I was too focused upon the term "star", which is defined as a fusion structure. Sorry. As for a massive fissioning body, I agree that the violence of the reactions would scatter the condensing cloud as quickly as it accumulates. It could end up being something of a "bungee bomb". In a normal star, the density needed to initiate fusion isn't reached until gravity is already firmly in charge.

    edit: It isn't something that I would want my planet to be orbiting. oo)
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2014
  9. Nov 11, 2014 #8

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    "Bungee bomb"!? Did you just make that up? It does seem like an appropriate name though.
    I also think this would make a great math/physics/computer science simulation homework problem.

    But, I agree with you. I can't imagine a fission type star having a Goldilocks zone. It would just be, um, a bungee bomb.

    ps. I'm now "following" you too, in case you haven't noticed.
     
  10. Nov 11, 2014 #9

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah.
    Should I copyright it?
     
  11. Nov 11, 2014 #10

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Yes, you should.

    Though I don't think you'll live long enough to see any royalties from it.
    They're still pissing and moaning about the "physics" of Interstellar.
    Idiots.... It was a movie...... Where's that "1st world problems" thread........
     
  12. Nov 11, 2014 #11

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  13. Nov 11, 2014 #12
    I figured that would be the case thanks for the input
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Fissioning "star"
  1. Star ? (Replies: 7)

Loading...