What is thermonuclear fusion?\nWhat are the pros and cons of using it for power \n\nI believe this is a trick question, but ten points to whoever nails it PLEASE
123549
It's the joining of two atomic nuclei.
283077
I don't know what everyone else here is on but we've had fusion (hydrogen) weapons for decades. Fusion weapons are capable of destroying planets as there is no real limit to how powerful they can be. There are more powerful alternatives however. Matter-Antimatter reactions can be made vastly more powerful then fusion reactions since the masses are completely transformed into energy whereas only a small portion of mass is converted into energy in fusion reactions. The problem of course is that anti-matter is annihilated upon exposure to any matter so storing it is the biggest problem in making such an idea practical and it would probably never make it to bomb form let alone the problems people have making 1/1000th of a milligram of the stuff for any sustained period.
530174
fission reaction or fusion? chain reaction? what molecules? neutrons may be? Uranuim isotope? nuclear fuel?\ni can't help you.
154028
A and B are correct.  C is kind of sketchy.  The actuall amount of iron and other processed elements is still a very tiny fraction of the sun's total mass, and an even smaller one  on a per particle basis.\n\nOn one hand you could say that there is slightly less fusion fuel for the sun.  On the other hand it will have elevated levels of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen.  Other than fusing 4H->1He via the proton-proton chain, the Sun actually produces around 1% of its energy by turning 4H->1He by way of catalytic fusions involving carbon, nitrigen and oxygen (The CNO cycle).  As stars get bigger (and hotter) the CNO cycle becomes the dominant form of energy production.\n\nWhile the original almost "pure" hydrogen and helium stars technically had more "fuel," they would not have had the elevated levels of C,N, and O to produce energy along that path.
421955
hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium atoms\n\n2.a high temperature,rather a very high temperature\n\n3.i do not u/stand the question.however if the question is where do you find fusion reaction the answer is in the stars and sun\n\n4.similarities \na.both are nuclear reactions\nb.both generate enormous amount of energy\nc.both produce a energy in the form of heat\nd.both are non conventional sources of energy\ndissimilarities\na.fusion is pollution free\nb.fusion calls for very high temperatures to start the reaction\nc.in fusion lighter nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.in fission heavier nuclei break \nd.fission is easier to control and produce as compared to fusion
171603
Nuclear fusion power. Look up the Tokamak Reactor.
118754
Im guessing it can be used for atomic bombs...... and atomic watches and otehr atomic powered devices.... would nuclear power be the same?
516178
OK, so you have compression fusion. \n\nHow does communication take place?  Through some form of radiation, like today?  The speed of radiation doesn't change depending on its source.\n\nHigh-speed usually refers to bandwidth.  This refers to the frequency range being used to communicate.  Yes, more frequencies can be used with any power source.
50568
Nuclear energy is not "cold", I am not sure what you meant by that.  The whole principle of how muclear energy is used to generate electrcity relies on the fact that it gives off a lot of heat.\n\nIt is also not too clean either.  The depleted nuclear waste posses a problem of where to dispose of it.  It will stay radio active for hundreds of thousands of years, so whereever you put it it needs to be out of the way and secure.  Right now, the government is planning to store the stock piles of nuclear waste deep underground under Yucca Mountain (in Nevada I think), but there is a lot of debate over this.\n\nAs for sustainable, perhaps not in the long run.  There is only so much fissionable material on Earth, it will run out eventually just like fossil fuels.  A more long term nuclear energy sourse would rely on fusion, not fission, but this has yet to be practical.
508007
pretty much all elements are created in stars, the actual process is very confusing thankfully wikipedia is a better expaliner than i ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion\nO2 is important because it helps us create lots of energy from glucose
536127
Good. Tritium has 2 neutrons and 1 proton where-as deuterium has one proton and one neutron. When they fuse they form Helium-4 which has 2 neutrons and 2 protons. This reaction releases one neutron and heat (as it's an exothermic reaction). Imagine tons of tritium and deuterium fusing, that's a lot of heat isn't it? It's the heat that does the damage. But it's hard to set it off. You'll need a small fission bomb to set off the fusion reaction.
610973
Hi, Kenny. You are asking for a lot of information. I have written a book, on the history of nuclear science and will link you to it to read online. This space here is awfully limited.\n\nThe short answer is that nuclear science allows us to generate electrical power out in space even when we are far away from stars like the sun. \n\nThere are two ways we do that:\n\n1. Nuclear reactors - just like the atomic power plants on earth, reactors depend upon the splitting of uranium or plutonium atoms to generate heat and then the heat is used to boil a liquid and turn a turbine. The turbine moves a coil of wire through a magnetic field and gives you electricity.\n\n2. Thermopyles - plutonium due to its alpha radioactive decay gets pretty hot naturally. If you put two dissimilar wires wrapped around each other in a heat source and then the other end of the wires in somewhere cold (like out in space), electrons will flow through them. This is called a thermocouple. If you put lots of those together, you have what is called a thermopyle. This kind of technology is pretty flawless and is used even for things like heart pacemakers.
168479
The science newsgroups have been a-buzz with tales of a 2-kiloton yield Russian red mercury fusion device, theoretically in the possession of terrorists. This, of course, prompts the question: What Is Red Mercury? The answer to this question depends largely on whom you ask. Is red mercury real? Absolutely, but definitions vary. If you had asked me before I did a bit of Internet research, I would have given you the standard cinnabar/vermillion answer. However, the Russium tritium fusion bomb is more interesting... \n\nCinnabar/Vermillion \nCinnabar is naturally-occurring mercuric sulfide (HgS), while vermillion is the name given to the red pigment derived from either natural or manufactured cinnabar. \n\nMercury (II) Iodide \nThe alpha crystalline form of mercury (II) iodide is called 'red mercury', which changes to the yellow beta form at 127°C. \n\nAny Red-Colored Mercury Compound Originating in Russia \nas in the cold war definition of 'Red'. Sponsored Links\nOrganic Chemistry Review\nDiscovery Online AP Chemistry Tutorials Grades K-12. 30-Day Trial\nwww.Cosmeo.com\n\nDistance Organic Chem\nOnline University Course Enroll today and start next week\ndistance.une.edu\n\nFree Learn Chemistry Kit\nExperiments With Fuel & Combustion Learn The Basics. Submit Offer\nChemistry.Learning-Offer.com\nI doubt anyone is using 'red mercury' in this manner, but it's a possible interpretation. \n\nA Ballotechnic Mercury Compound\nPresumably red in color. Ballotechnics are substances which react very energetically in response to high-pressure shock compression. Google's Sci.Chem group has had a lively ongoing discussion about the possiblity of a an explosive form of mercury antimony oxide. According to some reports, red mercury is a cherry red semi-liquid which is produced by irradiating elemental mercury with mercury antimony oxide in a Russian nuclear reactor. Some people think that red mercury is so explosive that it can be used to trigger a fusion reaction in tritium or deuterium-tritium mixture. Pure fusion devices don't require fissionable material, so it's easier to get the materials needed to make one and easier to transport said materials from one place to another. Other reports refer to a documentary in which is was possible to read a report on Hg2Sb207, in which the compound had a density of 20.20 Kg/dm3 (!). Personally, I find it plausible that mercury antimony oxide, as a low density (nonradioactive?) powder, may be of interest as a ballotechnic material. The high-density material seems unlikely. It would also seem unreasonably dangerous (to the maker) to use a ballotechnic material in a fusion device. One intriguing source mentions a liquid explosive, HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in the international chemical register as number 20720-76-7. Anyone care to look it up?
267060
Due to the fusion process taking place inside the sun it emits radiation. The sunlight has solar energy.\n\nIf u would use some other source of light may be artificial then may be the energy generated would be less
239319
Show a floating ring gear assembly and ask how clean free energy can be produced from it. If you are smart and belive in God and Jesus, you will be allowed to see how it works. It has taken me over thirty years to see the final answer, but it was worth the pursuit. Upon seeing and understanding how it works, the rush is on as to who first presents it to the rest of the world in a working model. May you be a person of God and Jesus and then you will see how it is built. Trust me, it can be done. Dave.
412162
Absolutely.  In fact, there have been several different approaches, including zapping little pellets with a monster laser (NOVA), which are then immersed in water.  These minuscule nuclear bombs fuse and release their energy into the water, creating steam and turning turbines.\n\nThe most promising method, however, is a fusion reactor; a magnetic bottle which traps plasma.  Fusion occurs when the electromagnetic forces of nuclei (which are positive) are overcome.  In order to get nuclei, atoms are injected into the reactor and brought to immense temperatures.  The individual atoms, which are neutral, become so energetic that the electrons are stripped from the nuclei, creating plasma.  Plasma is simply free electrons (negatively charged and unbounded to a nucleus) and the positively charged nuclei.  Because these are positively and negatively charged, the plasma is contained within magnetic field lines.  This is the proverbial "magnetic bottle".\n\nThe nuclei smash into each other, creating helium nuclei and excess neutrons.  These neutrons are EXTREMELY energetic (14 MeV), and are neutrally charged.  Therefore, these neutrons zip right past the magnetic field lines.  The charged plasma remains, continuing the fusion process; and the neutrons are captured in water, where elastic collisions with H2O molecules transfers the energy from the neutrons to the water, heating the water, turning it to steam, and turning the turbines.\n\nThere are a couple of major problems.  First, the sun is very big and very hot.  Getting similar temperatures and pressures on Earth is next to impossible.  Although the energy released is several orders of magnitude greater than the energy put in when the process is going a full capacity, getting it started has been very difficult.  However, through TFTR and the new ITER, already the plasmas have generated more energy than were used to start the process.  This is a big step.\n\nAlso, the magnetic bottle and the plasma can experience some strange instabilities and wave functions.  Any time a harmonic resonance-like phenomena occurs, the fusion can break down, the plasma cools, and the process slows or stops.  As the test reactors continue to gather data, these phenomena are better understood.\n\nFinally, those 14 MeV neutron zip through the magnetic bottle and the water, and interact with impurities in the concrete and building materials, creating radioactive waste.  This waste is not insignificant - huge amounts of concrete becomes low-level waste.  Low level waste is NOT a measure of how dangerous it is - this stuff can be very dangerous - but it will only remain dangerous for about 100 years or so.  It's not the stuff that remains deadly for thousands of years.\n\nSo solve the instabilities, be able to sustain a plasma and reaction long enough to become self-sustaining, and be prepared for the low level waste, and fusion will become an almost unlimited energy supply.
54043
it is an experimental fusion reactor, very big and very expensive. it's used to do fundamental research on subatomic particles.