Fission And Fusion
http://www.facebook.com/ScienceReason ... Physics (Chapter 1): Fission And Fusion.
---
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
• http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceTV
• http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
---
Consider the earth and a rocket ship which are bound together by gravity. If it takes work or energy to pull them apart, then the binding energy is the amount of energy it takes to completely separate them. Similarly the binding energy in a nucleus is the amount of energy it takes to completely separate the protons and neutrons, (collectively called nucleons.)
There are two forces acting inside the nucleus of atoms. The nuclear force -- a residuum of the strong force that holds quarks together -- is pulling the neutrons and protons together -- and the electric charge on the protons is pushing them apart. The strong force is a lot stronger than the electric force at short ranges up to two and a half times the proton diameter, but at larger distances the electric force dominates.
This increase in binding energy continues until we get to iron and nickel where the nucleus has about 60 nucleons in it. At this point, the nucleus has a radius more than two and a half nucleons wide, which you remember is the range at which the repulsive ElectroMagnetic Force begins to dominate.. . So as we add nucleons past this point the electric force trying to tear the nucleus apart starts winning and each added nucleon is a little less-tightly bound.
---
The Cassiopeia Project is an effort to make high quality science videos available to everyone. If you can visualize it, then understanding is not far behind.
• http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com
.
---
Please SUBSCRIBE to Science & Reason:
• http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceTV
• http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
---
Consider the earth and a rocket ship which are bound together by gravity. If it takes work or energy to pull them apart, then the binding energy is the amount of energy it takes to completely separate them. Similarly the binding energy in a nucleus is the amount of energy it takes to completely separate the protons and neutrons, (collectively called nucleons.)
There are two forces acting inside the nucleus of atoms. The nuclear force -- a residuum of the strong force that holds quarks together -- is pulling the neutrons and protons together -- and the electric charge on the protons is pushing them apart. The strong force is a lot stronger than the electric force at short ranges up to two and a half times the proton diameter, but at larger distances the electric force dominates.
This increase in binding energy continues until we get to iron and nickel where the nucleus has about 60 nucleons in it. At this point, the nucleus has a radius more than two and a half nucleons wide, which you remember is the range at which the repulsive ElectroMagnetic Force begins to dominate.. . So as we add nucleons past this point the electric force trying to tear the nucleus apart starts winning and each added nucleon is a little less-tightly bound.
---
The Cassiopeia Project is an effort to make high quality science videos available to everyone. If you can visualize it, then understanding is not far behind.
• http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com
.
Uploaded by: Best0fScience
Tags for this video: Fission And Fusion Physics Binding Energy Protons Neutrons Nucleus Nucleons Atoms Quarks Strong Electric Electro Magnetic Force Charge Iron Nickel Strings Membrane Electrons Gravitons LHC Large Hadron Collider CERN The Cassiopeia Project Science Made Easy
Find more videos in the "Tech" category
Related Videos
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tags for this video: Fission And Fusion Physics Binding Energy Protons Neutrons Nucleus Nucleons Atoms Quarks Strong Electric Electro Magnetic Force Charge Iron Nickel Strings Membrane Electrons Gravitons LHC Large Hadron Collider CERN The Cassiopeia Project Science Made Easy
Find more videos in the "Tech" category
Related Videos
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
| Comments for this video on YouTube |
| @HollyCaHa Not ... ( 4 months ago by Newsandjy) |
| @HollyCaHa Not trying to sound cocky or anything... but do you -really- think the terrorists are going to stop if we withdraw from their territory? Best case scenario I see is them waiting a few years to get larger then attacking us again and another 9/11 occurring. Worst case? Them viewing our withdrawal as a victory and, with their new boosted confidence/morale, attacking us in our country with more roadside bombings as such. Maybe even attacking NASA. Don't turn your back on an enemy... |
| I wonder if you ... ( 4 months ago by thegreatgatsby1994) |
| I wonder if you were to go to someone who dose not take the time to learn this stuff, and he were to say their is no point in nasa, and then I were to say yes their is, to fix the energy crisis, what would his reaction be? |
| my mind is full of ... ( 3 months ago by GUSRULZ445) |
| my mind is full of fuck |
| dam this is ... ( 3 months ago by ntckiwi) |
| dam this is intresting |
| "and now you know ... ( 3 months ago by samsonyay1) |
| "and now you know why where going back to the moon" lol we want to go tto the moon so we can mine it kinda sad really |
| great video. Love ... ( 3 months ago by ASKaPHYSICIST) |
| great video. Love the visuals. |
| Let's bomb China! ( 2 months ago by AlexBradleyPopovich) |
| Let's bomb China! |
| @samsonyay1 Not sad ... ( 2 months ago by Indrius) |
| @samsonyay1 Not sad really if you take into account that we wouldn't need millions of tons of the stuff like we do with coal and oil. Fusion power would also be a very clean power source. As well as inexhaustible, available for the whole world. Therefore no scarcity, no competing for the last drop of the precious resources and no global conflicts that we have nowadays. How sad is that? Living next to an oil refinery is what is truly sad. |
| @Indrius no no no ... ( 2 months ago by samsonyay1) |
| @Indrius no no no thats not what i meant i just mean thats its kinda funy taht one big reason that were going to the moon is to dig biger holes in it, anyway on this subject i tead in a science magazine i read that the worth of an asteriod(the ore minerals, metals &c) would be around 11 trillion. so yeah i just dont want us to stuff up the moon. anyway sorry you got the wrong message from my comment. kk |
| @samsonyay1 No ... ( 2 months ago by Indrius) |
| @samsonyay1 No problem! Hey I've read about the same stuff also. Not in a magazine but in a Wikipedia article about "post scarcity". The stuff you're referring to is called "asteroid mining". Late 21st century maybe? |
| @Indrius hope so ... ( 2 months ago by samsonyay1) |
| @Indrius hope so but it takes ages for poeple to adopt new technologies. |
| Yes excellent work. ... ( 2 months ago by WizzardWorrier) |
| Yes excellent work. What is the relationship with the formation of the elements and the compression space-time with electromagnetic energy structures. dose time get shorter when space is compressed? |
| why is this video ... ( 2 months ago by soopa123) |
| why is this video so scary_...?????????? |
| To the moon!!!!! ( 2 months ago by QuadroVF) |
| To the moon!!!!! |
| @ ... ( 2 months ago by 15nyonker) |
| @AlexBradleyPopovich I am just as upset about the exporting of American jobs as you are, but was that really necessary? Besides, if you know anything about modern ballistics, you would know that in the world of nuclear warfare, no one can win. |
| why use helium 3 ... ( 1 month ago by cheezecake2000) |
| why use helium 3 when tritium and deuterium can be found on earth. water can make deuterium and rocks can make tritium. or the other way around. :P |
| @mothurman just ... ( 1 month ago by Koroistro) |
| @mothurman just cool it down before it goes supernova , or just "suck" matter out of it so it can't become a supernova |
| @Koroistro Easier ... ( 1 month ago by CobaltX07) |
| @Koroistro Easier than that, just do nothing. No nuclear fusion power plant built by man (assuming we don't build full scale suns) would ever be able to go supernova. When a fusion power plant suffers a catastrophic failure, such as in Japan's Fukushima, the reactor simply turns off. |
| @CobaltX07The ... ( 1 month ago by QuantumDisciple7) |
| @CobaltX07The nuclear plant in Japan used nuclear fission, not fusion. Fusion is safer because there is no chance of decay through radiation. We haven't been able to hold a stable fusion reaction long enough to harness a sufficient amount of power. Many believe it isn't even possible. But a mini sun wouldn't go supernova simply due to its mass. Just like our sun won't go supernova, it would just simply burn out and become a brown dwarf and then a white dwarf. |
| actually it will ... ( 1 month ago by QuantumDisciple7) |
| actually it will become a white dawrf and then a brown/black dwarf. My mistake. |
| @QuantumDisciple7 ... ( 1 month ago by CobaltX07) |
| @QuantumDisciple7 Sorry, my wording was off. I know that Fukushima is a nuclear fission power plant. I meant to say that if a fusion power plant had been in Fukushima's place, the damaged reactor would have simply switched itself off for the reasons you iterated. Its hard enough to sustain a fusion reaction even when we're trying to, let alone when the reactor is damaged. |
| @QuantumDisciple7 I ... ( 1 month ago by CobaltX07) |
| @QuantumDisciple7 I was also inferring that we could, in the far future, build a fusion power plant that can go supernova, if humanity was advanced enough to build a supergiant star (such as a red giant or blue giant). Type 1a supernovas have also been known to occur when a white dwarf is present next to another star. |
| Im a bit confused, ... ( 1 week ago by SParenotEMO) |
| Im a bit confused, in fusion since there is 28meV of binding energy in a He3 atom and10meV in the Deuterium and Tritium wouldn't it take energy not create it? |