Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Possibly silly questions thread


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:
Possibly silly questions thread


Would it be theoretically possible for a super-heavy element to exist that emits muon radiation, instead of electron or alpha radiation?

Would negative mass be a storable matter like anti-matter or would it be an effect?

Besides fission, fusion and matter-antimatter annihilation, what other nuclear reactions are there?

EDIT:
Another one:
I often heard about "plutonium" batteries. I know there are RTG's, which gain their power from the heat generated by decaying radioactive fuels. However, Plutnoium is a alpha decayer, and alpha decay has charge. Wouldn't it be somehow possible to convert this charge directly to electrical power?

-- Edited by Andrew at 20:47, 2007-04-25

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

The muon has a mass of about 105 MeV.  U235 fission yield about 200 MeV per event.  So it seems possible if a transuranic atom is heavy enough.  I've never heard of it though.  It is so far beyond any radioactive decay mode that I really doubt it.

As far as other reactions you have the proton decay reaction that hasn't yet been detected.  That is of no practical use.  Then there is black hole radiation of the Hawking Effect.

-- Edited by John at 01:24, 2007-04-26

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

What is the Hawking Effect?

__________________


Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 4
Date:

Andrew wrote:


...
EDIT:
Another one:
I often heard about "plutonium" batteries. I know there are RTG's, which gain their power from the heat generated by decaying radioactive fuels. However, Plutnoium is a alpha decayer, and alpha decay has charge. Wouldn't it be somehow possible to convert this charge directly to electrical power?

-- Edited by Andrew at 20:47, 2007-04-25






Yes, and there are some researches at NASA on alphavoltaic conversion.
http://www.rit.edu/~smhsps/power_conversion.htm

There are also some concepts of nuclear reactors (not RTG, real fission reactor) in which the kinetic energy of charged fission fragments is recovered by induction in a magnetic field.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

Andrew wrote:

What is the Hawking Effect?







The Hawking effect is an attempt to apply Thermodynamics to microsopic Blackholes. Basically, because of entropy considerations, a blackhole can lose mass by a process similar to evaporation. Stephen Hawking showed that in this sense, a blackhole is a black body radiator with a specific temperature that is a function of the mass. As the mass decreases, the blackbody temperature increases exponentially. Becuause of this, it is expected that small black holes will emit particles and radiation, losing mass as they do, until it only masses a few million tons. At which point, the rest of the mass of the black hole will erupt in a cataclysmic explosion of radiation and elementary particles. This is the essence of the Hawking Effect.

Another way to look at the Hawking Effect is to visualize the quantum vacuum as a seething sea of interacting virtual particles and antiparticles. Most of the time these particles spontaneously come into being and flash out of existance without much more effect than making nearby electrons jitter in their orbits about atoms. But if one or the other is swallowed by the event horizon of a blackhole, and the other virtual particle or virtual antiparticle escapes, then the escapee can be promoted to 'real.' Quantum mechanically speaking, it appears as though a mass (the escapee particle) has spontaneously 'tunneled' through the barrier (the event horizon of the black hole) and the black hole has thus lost mass.

My little pet theory in regards to the Hawking radiation is that if its origins are buried in the nature of the quantum vacuum, then a neutrally charged micro blackhole undergoing Hawking evaporation ought to emit just as much matter as antimatter particles--if this is true, then a micro blackhole could be the fabled "mass converter" device that converts matter into energy. And that could have some pretty attractive consequences if we can make small blackholes!

Ty Moore


-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 02:28, 2007-04-27

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

And, it so happens that there is a version of string theory put forward by Lisa Randall at theoretical physicist at Havard that predicts that micro black holes may soon be created in particle accelerators.  She explains her theories in "Warped Passages" that attempt to explain this on a popular level.  Of course these object would only be detectable from the decay products.  But perhaps a micro blackhole could be eventually build an used a mass converter as Googlenaut suggests.  These very small objects could also be a chance to study quantum gravity.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

"I though, I was walking in the sky, yet my feet feel solid ground.
Though I'm pretty sure I am, I'd better not look down."
-Arthur Bandalo, Daydream

So I can put "blackhole power generator" up into my "make physicists angry by putting it into my sci-fi story" list? Cool. What are the implications and required technologies?


So plutonium can be used to get power directly, however it requires the following:

1. Device designs capable of withstanding alpha particle irradiation without sever device degradation.
2. Power conversion efficiency such than sufficient power can be delivered to the microelectronic device.

I believe both can be solved with the right amount of handwavium using words "nanotechnology" and correctly choosing and storing the alpha decay emitter.
What should I use? Plutonium-283 sounds optimal, but is there anything that I can get that is easier to get yet still effective?

As for muon radiating super-heavy isotopes, would something created from the gravity and radiation of a black hole and the proton number higher then 120 sound "well, if you manage that, then yeah, it might work"?

-- Edited by Andrew at 22:44, 2007-04-27

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

I would imagine--I am no physicist, just a good imaginer--that the predominant particle radiated by blackholes undergoing Hawking evaporation should be electrons and positrons. Because of their relatively low rest energies, these should be the predominant particles emitted by the blackhole. Also fairly large quantities of pions, muons, with a lower percentage of protons and antiprotons should also be emitted.

I don't think it will emit anything really complicated--as this implies a very complex vacuum field event at the event horizon. A simple thermodynamic argument waving "Entropy" implies that you can get more disorder from 120 protons and neutrons free of each other than you can from one nucleus with a combined mass of 120 protons and neutrons. If that sounds like a vague argument--you're right. But in principle, my gut feeling is that a blackhole will evaporate more simple particles than complex ones.

Still, by placing a micro blackhole --or actually a whole series of them -- inside a reaction chamber lined with a good heat transfer medium like water, then almost all of those particles and antiparticles will eventually annhilate with their antipartners, and emit a lot of gamme-rays. If the water shell is thick enough, or if it filled with dense beads of tungsten or thorium oxide, then I see no reason why the evaporated mass of a black hole could not end up producing usable quantities of power by heating and boiling water with gamma rays, and spinning a turbine with the generated steam.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

I'm not a fan of water-steam-turbine-generator cycle, they are quite ineffective. Couldn't the electrons be tapped themselves, and somehow try to trap the positrons?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

Well, by placing a lot of mass in a shell around the black hole, it won't really matter where the particles come out , what energies they have, or what kind they are. They will eventually annhilate with their antipartners, or they will decay. Each anhilation and decay process will release atleast one or two gamma-photons. If the material is dense enough to attenuate the gamma-photons, it will eventually deposit this energy as heat. Dense beads of thorium oxide, or even tungsten surrounded by a layer of carbon and then SiC ought to do nicely. The you can have a Hawking Reactor equivalent of a nuclear pebble bed reactor. Pump helium or nitrogen through the bed, and run that through a gas turbine. At high pressure and temperatures with helium, you're going to get the thermodynamic equivalent of about 50% efficieny--which is pretty darn good. And such a power conversion system could be scaled up to the Gigawatt level quite easily.

As far as trapping the electrons and positrons--sure using a strong magentic field this will cause charge seperation--negatively charge particles will tend to bend one way, and the positively charged particles will tend to bend the otherway. Dump the electrons, and store the positrons.

However pleasent the storage of antimatter may seem, however, it is still likely to be dangerous stuff to handle. And if it can be trapped and stored effectively especially in tiny storage volumes, this may lead to a whole new array of miniaturized nuclear-like weapons: very small, fairly low yield, and mostly clean weapons. Even tiny antimatter triggered thermonuclear devices. Good for propulsion perhaps, bad for incipient political climate. I don't particulary want the Iranians to get their hands on something that is better than nuclear weapons!



-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 15:46, 2007-04-28

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Wait, propulsion? Blackhole propulsion? Now that's gonna be fun... Any ideas about numbers of thrust and Isp, and possible hazards?

But from science fiction applications, well, it has imaginative applications, although I'd rather use it as a power plant then for propulsion directly. My idea is to tap the electrons for power and use the positrons for later use, or possibly make them to cause anti-matter induced fusion (very powerful, possibly the most powerful rocket motor imaginable).

What I'm curious about, is what technologies would be required to store a black hole? I know you need high-temperature superconductors to get fusion, but what do you need for black holes? Gravity manipulation?

EDIT:
Would antiparticles have enough power to tear a black hole apart?

As for Iranians, if they could get something that could control a black hole, I think that nuclear weapons aren't the main cause of concern.

-- Edited by Andrew at 20:52, 2007-04-28

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

My though is that you would have to put some electric change into it so that you could handle it with eletromagnetic  forces.  If the theory (Lisa Randell's longer strings) is correct you would have to have a super particle accelerator to like the new one a CERN to make them.  I think the current expectation is that they will just be a short lived resonance.  But if we could find some way to capture it, hold it, and "feed" it then it just might be possible to do this.  This reall is more of a science fiction or far off thing. 

I think that Arthur C. Clarke used a micro-black hole drive in this book Imperial Earth if I recalling correctly.

No, anti-particles wouldn't tear black holes apart. The would just be absorbed into the black hole.  Present theory is that gravity is all that is left to the outside universe is mass, charge, and angular momentum. 

-- Edited by John at 21:47, 2007-04-28

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Something the size of CERN might not be ideal for a dramatic spaceship I'm afraid. Any other ideas?

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

You need the accelerator to make the mirco-black hole then you need to capture it and move it to the spacecraft. The accelerator wouldn't be on the spacecraft.  I think that putting charge on it would be the best way to handle it.  One would need to keep puting matter into it so that it will have a stable radiation level and not burn out.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

I see. That again leads to interesting possibilities. I can foresee this type of power plant on a military ship.

Would such a reactor be metastable? What happens when the hole burns out? Any ideas what matter should be fed into it? Also, if the positrons won't tear the thing apart, why not lead them back into the black hole?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

Micro blackholes that evaportate will convert a sizeable fraction of their mass into energy in the form of gamma-rays--given certain conditions. One of these conditions, is that they must be small. Now for blackholes, anything under a solar mass is small. What I am talking about, is a black hole with a mass of a few micrograms, or maybe up to a milligram. The thing will be unstable and will evaporate almost instantly.

Some mechanism for producing a whole series of blackholes must be found, either using an accelerator to produce them (which is interesting,) or some other means to cause a local collapse of spacetime. But these tiny blackholes must be force fed a matter stream before they evaporate, and that means that in order for them to grow (just alittle bit) they must temporarily recieve more matter input than they lose from Hawking evaporation. One hole cannot be used, because a black hole will of even a few miligrams will radiate with the power of the sun. Something like this can only be operated in pulse mode--so many holes per second must be made!

I was looking at an application of Miguel Alcubiere's "Warp Metric" and realized that if you can make something as fantastic as a space-time equivalent of a soliton wave, then it should also be possible to make spherically symmetric wave that propagates inward--in other words--an imploding shell that forces matter to 'gravitationally' collapse to a point, provided the shell is symmetric enough. This could be the mechanism to create a micro blackhole.

Careful scaling of the whole scheme should produce any power output desired. (From a few Megawatts up to Terawatt power levels, or even higher. How about a Petawatt 10^15 W! Now we're talking!)

O.K., for the hard part--anybody know how to create a spacetime metric?


-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 13:33, 2007-04-29

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

As a curiosity, how difficult would it be to get a black hole to attract itself to an enemy spaceship?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

Not enough to be useable as a weapon. The thing will evaporate long before that happens. And besides, a one milligram blackhole at 100 m distance will have exactly the same attraction as a one milligram mass at 100 m. If the black hole were massive enough, then it might attract a vessel towards it--but only if the blackhole's mass was more than the ship...


__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

What about as a warhead? It can temporary contain the hole until it hits the enemy ship.

Also, I wonder how would these work as some sort of canon equivalent for space warfare? Make the hole "explode" (if I understand correctly, that's something quite nasty) near the spacecraft or hit the enemy spacecraft itself?

EDIT:

I've also read that certain radioisotopes beta decay with positrons instead of electrons. Is this true?

-- Edited by Andrew at 21:25, 2007-05-04

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

it wouldn't do any good as some kind of projectile weapon because the hole will evaporate on a time scale approaching 10^-23 seconds or so. This is one hundred billionth of a trillionth of a second. Also, the amount of energy, while staggering from a single particle point of view, is probably not much more than a few tens of GigaJoules. A one milligram blackhole will not possess any more energy then half a milligram of antimatter for instance, and will liberate no more than 1/1000 of the energy release of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. So say no more than an 'explosive' yield of twenty tons.

Not to say however, that the radiations emitted by an evaporating black hole could not be used as a pump for something really nasty--like a 100MJ or 1 GJ X-ray laser--now we're talking powerful directed energy weaponry!



-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 00:08, 2007-05-05

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Shaped black hole firing missiles shooting x-rays within effective distance? Perhaps the hole can eat the missile to gain further distance before the ship's defence system are in range (you can't shoot down a black hole, now can't you?) ?

EDIT: Also, what would be the effect of such a hole trying to eat up the enemy ship?


-- Edited by Andrew at 17:47, 2007-05-05

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

Milligram blackholes will not leave the 'ship' they will evaporate in some containment structure. They don't last long enough to do anything else. You use the energetic eminations from an evaporating black hole to pump a set of helium cooled, single crystal lanthanum chloride rods which will lase in xrays. You point the rod bundle at whatever you don't want there anymore (making sure not to aim the recoil beam at anything important on your own ship!) and ZAP! It's flash fried!

A black hole big enough to physically gobble up a ship must have significant gravity some distance away from it--say hundreds of meters. Now we are talking the mass of a mountain or even a mountain range. How about a twenty kilometer asteroid. Trillions of tons of mass. You can't 'project' something like that--as the amount of mass needed to even control a black hole like that would be very substantial.

And if you could see the effects on a ship that got hit with something like that--well, I would imagine that you would see the ship physically implode in a fraction of a second, followed by a cataclysmic blue-white flash of volatilizing spacecraft structure evaporating from thermal x-ray emissions from the accretion disk surrounding the micro blackhole. If you didn't get instantly fried by that, then you'd see nothing, because not a shred of the ship would be left...


-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 18:41, 2007-05-05

-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 18:41, 2007-05-05

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Too bad, although such a thing would be more then a potent treat. Any guess on how effective this process would be?

What if we just "inject" the black hole into the ship, assuming that we can create the black hole near enough?

You always mention miligram black holes, would kilogram of ton massed holes be much different (beyond the problem of containment)?


What I was thinking of some kind of super-weapon that could destroy any kind of material (if the settings are so) and collapse warp-state or similar space/time-anomaly (silly story-telling purpose for strange aliens, the weapons was developed mainly againts them) of any kind except a solar-sized black hole, and can be scaled down to the level of a personal firearm (the prototype however is as large as a battleship however, so the firearm-sized one isn't the first try).
I originally thought of mini-black holes might do the trick, but in light of this thing, I have to think of something else.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

I'll see if I can either find or redo the derivation on the lifetime of classical microblackholes...

The trouble is that if memory serves, the minimum mass for a blackhole to survive one second is several million metric tons. What this means is that the last three quarters of a million tons will evaporate in a fraction of a second--which will appear as though it were a titanic nuclear explosion--a vast flash of energetic particles and gamma-rays is what you'll get. And the total energy liberated will be very close to the order of the entire solar output for the same 1 second duration--in otherwords, if you are anything nearer than atleast 100 million miles away, you're probably going to get more than just a suntan. And if you are only thousands of kilometers away--well forget it, your atoms will just be a minor contribution to an artificial 'solar wind,' a rather small smear of plasma where a ship and crew used to be. I definately don't recommend being near one that is massive enough to evaporate after 1 second.

There isn't much difference in time, on a human scale atleast, between the evaporation of a 100,000 metric ton black hole, or a 1 kilogram black hole, or even a milligram black hole--they all will appear to evaporate almost instantaneously, even though the milligram one will evaporate on time scales of a few trillionths of a trillionth of a second, and the 100KT blackhole will do so on the order of a few a milliseconds--still pretty darn quick by human standards.

And the energy librated will approach the mass-energy of the hole. So a one kilogram hole will librate energies approaching what a high-yield hydrogen bomb would produce--something in the neighborhood of 20 Megatons of TNT equivalent. Bigger holes will make bigger holes in the ground--so to speak!

Hawking once calculated that in order for a hole to have been created at the beginning of the Universe--not an entirely unrealistic possibility--then for a 3.5 billion metric tons hole created 14 billion years ago, the hole would be finished evaporating just about now, i.e., exploding. This was one of the original hypothesis regarding the mysterious gamma-ray bursts first detected in the late 1960's by the Vella satellites.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Well, for warfare I'm pretty sure the anti-matter will be of more use and the x-ray laser.

Personally I like the idea of the energy gain, although, that that terrawatt worth of waste heat can be quite a problem. (assuming we want to get 1 terrawatt of energy). Can you please link me to a site detailing matter annihilations reactions?

I wonder what would happen if a proton and a helium ion made out of anti-protons meet (or the other way around)? Does the proton break off violently or what?

-- Edited by Andrew at 19:22, 2007-05-08

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Silly question: I recall that there are particles called "neutrinos" and that they react with the nucleus of the atom. Where can I learn more of these reactions, their effects and so forth?

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

I've really seen anything the specific question p(-) + He4.  But one thinks of
p(-) + He4 --> T + (meson/anti-meson pairs) it is also possible that we might get D + n + (meson/anti-meson pairs) or even p(+) + 2n + (meson/anti-meson pairs). 

Here are some links on neutrino physics:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/neutrino/index.html

http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino/

Basically there are three types of neutrinos: the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino.  The correspond to the three pairs of quark types respectively: up and down; strange and charmed; and bottom and top.
I hope that helps.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Yes, that and the links are quite enlightening, thank you.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Would it be possible to create a nuclear bomb that is not, or at least significantly less, radioactive then normal? Most nuclear bombs uses D-T reaction, but what about others? Would a nuclear bomb be significantly less radioactive if it used a D-He3 or even a p-B11 reaction?

I also read about shaped charges. Would it be possible to shape the blast into a toroid shape?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

Actually the 'cleanliness' of an H-bomb has more to do with what kind of material is used in the tamper of the fusion secondary. If a dense, high-Z material is used that is not fissionable by fast neutrons--like lead--then the device will end up being quite 'clean.' If the device uses depleted uranium in the secondary tamper, then the total yield of the device can be doubled simply because U-238 is readily fissioned by fast neutrons of the energy level emitted by D-T fusion. Tring to go for a D-He3 burn is not only impractical, the He3 will become a neutron sink, and the device will not be able to chainreact. If it cannot chain react, the reaction will quickly dampen out, and you will get a fizzle. Of course, the exact ratio of He3 to Tritium needed to create a fizzle is of course classified, but suffice it to say that Nuclear Weapon's Engineers always view He3 as a contaminant, and one of the reasons why thermonuclear weapons must be pulled from service from time to time and refurbished is to remove He3 contamination from the booster in the triggering device. It is not necessary to remoce He3 from the secondary, as the Tritium is only formed in the instant that the weapon is detonated. It is a common misconception that the deuterium burns with the lithium--it does not. Fast neutrons strike the Li6 and fission into He4 and H3 (tritium) which then fuses with the deuterium. Li7 also undergoes neutron spallation and forms Li6 plus an additional neutron, so it is not necessary to isotopically purify natural Li to Li6. Both will work just fine.

The biggest H-bomb ever exploded is the Russian "Tsar Bomba" device which was intended to be a 3 stage 100 Megaton bomb. The uranium tamper was replaced with a lead one which resulted in a 56-58 Megaton yield, of which about 90-98% of the energy release was fusion--which resulted in the one of the 'cleanest' tests (on a per Megaton of yield basis) of any other bomb. Of course, 'cleanliness' or 'dirtiness' are relative terms--no atmospheric nuclear explosion will ever be free of radioactive fallout.


__________________
1 2 3  >  Last»  | Page of 3  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard