The nuclear fission does not work

In summary, nuclear fission involves the rearrangement of neutrons and protons into smaller nuclei, releasing energy and resulting in a decrease in mass due to the conversion of binding energy. This process has been well understood for decades and is the basis for current nuclear power plants. Iron is the most stable element and cannot be fused or split to release energy.
  • #1
esbo
86
0
The nuclear fission does not work!

No infraction please!

I was perhaps mistakenly under the impression that matter was destroyed in nuclear
fission, but a careful look at this diagram (top right) appears to show all the
protons, neutrons and electrons are balanced in the equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
So our current nuclear power stations would appear to be running on 'hot air' or
scientific bullsh*t?

Can someone please explain what I am missing? (other than a brain).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
esbo said:
Can someone please explain what I am missing? (other than a brain).
:rofl:
The re-arragement of neutrons and protons into smaller nuclei does release energy as our plants do work. Some mass do disappear indeed. The thing that you miss is that the mass of the nucleus is not the sum of the mass of the protons and neutrons composing it. The binding energy accounts for the difference.

This is elementary nuclear physics and is well understood for decades now.
 
  • #3
humanino said:
:rofl:
The re-arragement of neutrons and protons into smaller nuclei does release energy as our plants do work. Some mass do disappear indeed. The thing that you miss is that the mass of the nucleus is not the sum of the mass of the protons and neutrons composing it. The binding energy accounts for the difference.

This is elementary nuclear physics and is well understood for decades now.

But the mass of the nucleus *is* the sum of the mass of the protons and neutrons (and electrons) composing it, surely?? Energy does not have a mass, because well it is
energy, not mass.

I can accept that the binding energy, releases the energy in a nuclear reaction, however
no destruction of mass would be involved, just binding energy converted into other
forms of energy as ain a chemical reaction where similarly no mass is lost.

Yes I can accept binding energy is released, but there is mo 'missing' mass, all the
electrons protons and neutrons are still there, I have counted them :O)

And as far as I am aware, all electrons weigh the same, same goes for protons and neutrons.

So where is the mass which disappears? There is no disappearing mass, just 'disappearing'
binding energy.
 
  • #4
humanino said:
:rofl:
The re-arragement of neutrons and protons into smaller nuclei does release energy as our plants do work. Some mass do disappear indeed. The thing that you miss is that the mass of the nucleus is not the sum of the mass of the protons and neutrons composing it. The binding energy accounts for the difference.

This is elementary nuclear physics and is well understood for decades now.

OK going back on your explanation now that I have read more:-
"the mass of the nucleus is not the sum of the mass of the protons and neutrons composing it" is a little unclear, it seems the 'mass' of a particle depends on it's
relationship with other particles.Also to say for example a Uranium atom contains 92 protons depends to certain extent
what you mean my a proton. Might be more accuracte to say it contains 91.9934 (or whatever) protons, and some binding energy?I am not a nuclear physicist by the way (I am sure your will be relieved to hear that!)
 
Last edited:
  • #5
esbo, have you ever heard of the forumula: [itex] E = mc^2 [/itex]

?.. :)

Probably the most famous physics formula out there.

So yes, the mass of a particle depends on several things, one of them is in bound systems its mass decreases. And when it is moving in very high speeds - it mass increases (just as einstein has predicted aswell).

I mean it is so easy, you have 92 building blocks which bare masses are 1mass unit, then the composite system has a mass of 91.5 mass units, then what the heck happened to the missing 0.5mass unit?! Well it was converted into bidning energy, which holds all the 92 particles together.

In a nuclear fission plant, one releases a lot of binding energy, which is converted into kinetic energy of the fission fragments. The fission fragments will bounch of on the water in the reactor -> heating it up (since Temperature is equal to the mean kinetic energy of a substance)

Nuclear fission in a nutshell
 
Last edited:
  • #6
An additional factoid esbo might be interested to know if he comes back here: Iron has the lowest binding energy of all elements. Thus, it is the most stable. Smaller nuclei release energy if fused to make heavier nuclei; heavier nuclei release energy when split - until you get to iron. Cannot fuse or fracture iron to release energy.
 
  • #7
and by lowest you mean 'most negative'

also i think it is Ni-58 who has most BE/nucleon ...
 
  • #8
malawi_glenn said:
esbo, have you ever heard of the forumula: [itex] E = mc^2 [/itex]

?.. :)

Probably the most famous physics formula out there.

So yes, the mass of a particle depends on several things, one of them is in bound systems its mass decreases. And when it is moving in very high speeds - it mass increases (just as einstein has predicted aswell).

I mean it is so easy, you have 92 building blocks which bare masses are 1mass unit, then the composite system has a mass of 91.5 mass units, then what the heck happened to the missing 0.5mass unit?! Well it was converted into bidning energy, which holds all the 92 particles together.

In a nuclear fission plant, one releases a lot of binding energy, which is converted into kinetic energy of the fission fragments. The fission fragments will bounch of on the water in the reactor -> heating it up (since Temperature is equal to the mean kinetic energy of a substance)

Nuclear fission in a nutshell

HarryWertM said:
An additional factoid esbo might be interested to know if he comes back here: Iron has the lowest binding energy of all elements. Thus, it is the most stable. Smaller nuclei release energy if fused to make heavier nuclei; heavier nuclei release energy when split - until you get to iron. Cannot fuse or fracture iron to release energy.

I did read (somewhere) not too long ago that iron was the most stable element(nucleus), actually.
You might expect by that that iron thus would be the most abundant on Earth (prehaps).
It's not apparently, it's oxygen, but I guess there are reasons for that? (by definition).

Anyway it seems I have, I have learned something, I did not realize that protons lost mass when they bound, however maybe that explains why you can stick the buggers
togeather, since they have repelling charges? (always puzzled me).

I presume they discovered E=MC2 when elements did not weigh as much as they should??
(compared to the masses of electrons and protons unbinded?).

I guess you might say the mass of a proton is 'variable'?

Also do neutron every vary in 'mass'?
 
  • #9
1) E = mc^2 is derived from theory...

2) You have in a nucleus a compeating force which is attractive but short range that compensates for the repulsive electro-force. This attrative force is between both neutrons and protons, neutrons and neutrons, & protons and protons. That is why only certain combinations of protons and neutrons form a stable nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability


3) Nope, most stable element is: Ni-62 (not 58 as i thought;) )
But why iron is quite more abundant than nickel has to do with the properties of stellar burning...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin2.html#c1

Now since you did not had any knowledge about nuclear physics, how can you call anything "scientific b***it" ??
 
  • #10
malawi_glenn said:
1) E = mc^2 is derived from theory...

2) You have in a nucleus a compeating force which is attractive but short range that compensates for the repulsive electro-force. This attrative force is between both neutrons and protons, neutrons and neutrons, & protons and protons. That is why only certain combinations of protons and neutrons form a stable nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability


3) Nope, most stable element is: Ni-62 (not 58 as i thought;) )
But why iron is quite more abundant than nickel has to do with the properties of stellar burning...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin2.html#c1

Now since you did not had any knowledge about nuclear physics, how can you call anything "scientific b***it" ??

Yes I think I was reading/watching something about the formation of elements in stars
where it said iron was the most abundant element in the universe (but not on Earth apparently as I assumed). I didn't say nuclear physics was bullsh*t, it just appeared that way because I had never had it fully expalined to me.
 
  • #11
Iron is not the most abundant element in the universe either.. hydrogen is, followed by helium.
 

1. What is nuclear fission and why does it not work?

Nuclear fission is a process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into two or more smaller nuclei, releasing a large amount of energy. It does not work when the conditions for sustaining a chain reaction are not met, such as when the fuel is not enriched enough or when the reactor is not properly designed.

2. What are the risks associated with nuclear fission not working?

If nuclear fission does not work as intended, there is a risk of a nuclear accident or meltdown, which can release harmful radiation into the environment and cause serious health and environmental consequences.

3. Can nuclear fission be controlled?

Yes, nuclear fission can be controlled by using materials called control rods to absorb excess neutrons and slow down the rate of the chain reaction. This allows the reaction to be sustained at a safe and manageable level.

4. Are there any alternatives to nuclear fission?

Yes, there are alternative sources of energy such as renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) that do not involve nuclear fission. These sources are considered safer and more sustainable in the long term.

5. How does nuclear fission impact the environment?

Nuclear fission can have a significant impact on the environment, especially if a nuclear accident occurs. It can contaminate air, water, and soil with radioactive materials, which can harm plants, animals, and humans. Additionally, nuclear waste from the process can remain radioactive for thousands of years and must be stored safely to avoid further environmental damage.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
4K
Back
Top