I herad that Neutrons are made from quraz but I don't think it's ture?
210011
Neutrons are made of quarks, yes. As are protons/neutrons (which are just positive/negative neutrons).
568305
Take a look around you from where you sit. You will notice that everything in the room is ‘made’: the walls, the upholstery, the ceiling, the chair where you sit, the book you hold in your hand, the glass on the table and countless other details. None of them happen to exist in your room of their own accord. Even the simple loops of the carpet were made by someone: they did not appear spontaneously or by chance.\nA person who is about to read a book knows that it has been written by an author for a specific reason. It would not even occur to him that this book might have come into being by chance. In the same manner, a person who sees a sculpture has no doubt whatsoever that it was made by a sculptor. And not just works of art: even a few bricks resting on top of one another make one think that they must have been brought to rest just so by someone within a certain plan. Therefore, everywhere where there is an order – either small or big – a founder and protector of this order must also exist. If, one day, somebody came forward and said that raw iron and coal came together to form steel by chance, which in turn constructed the Eiffel Tower again by chance, would not he and those who believed him be regarded as insane?\nThe claim of the theory of evolution, the unique method of denying the existence of Allah(God), is no different than this. According to the theory, inorganic molecules formed amino acids by chance, amino acids formed proteins by chance, and finally proteins formed living creatures again by chance. However, the probability of a living creature being formed by coincidence is less than the probability of the Eiffel Tower being formed in the same manner, because even the simplest human cell is more sophisticated than any man-made structure in the world.\nHow is it possible to think that the balance in the world came about by coincidence when the extraordinary harmony of nature is observable even with the naked eye? It is the most unreasonable claim to say that the universe, each point of which suggests the existence of its Creator, has come into being on its own.\nTherefore, there should be an owner of the balance visible everywhere from our body to the farthest corners of the inconceivably vast universe. So, who is this Creator that ordained everything so subtly and created all?\nHe cannot be any material being present within the universe, because His must be a will that existed before the universe and created the universe thereupon. The Almighty Creator is One Whom everything finds existence, yet Whose existence is without any beginning or end.\nReligion teaches us the identity of our Creator Whose existence we discover with our reason. Through what He has revealed to us as religion, we know that He is Allah, the Compassionate and the Merciful, Who created the heavens and the earth from nothing.\nAlthough most people have the capability to grasp this fact, they spend their lives unaware of it. When they look at a landscape painting, they wonder who its painter is. Later, they praise the artist at length for his beautiful work of art. Despite the fact that they face numerous originals of that painting the moment they turn around, they still disregard the existence of Allah, Who is the only owner of all these beauties. In truth, not even a lengthy research is needed to understand the existence of Allah. Even if one had to live in a room from the time he was born, countless pieces of evidence in this room alone would be enough for him to grasp the existence of Allah.\nThe human body so overflows with evidence that it could not be contained in many \nmultivolume encyclopaedias. Even giving a few minutes of conscientious thought to it all is enough to understand the existence of Allah. The present order is protected by Allah and maintained by Him.\nThe human body is not the only food for thought. Life abides in every square millimetre of the earth, be it observable by men or not. The world overflows with many l
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?
27036
Protons and neutrons are both made of quarks. A proton has two "up" quarks and one "down" quark, while the neutron has two "down" quarks and one "up" quark. (The up and down are just names for these two types of quark, there is no physical significance to the name. They could have selected Chocolate and Vanilla instead.)\n\nProtons and neutrons are almost always desribed as being composed of three quarks, but there are also gluons running around. Gluons are the particles which control the interaction of quarks within a proton or neutron. They carry the force that binds the three quarks together to form the larger particle.\n\nSo a proton or neutron has three quarks and a cloud of gluons.\n\nIf one combines a proton and an electron and a neutrino you will get a neutron, but, in the oddness of quantum physics that doesn't mean a neutron is made of these little guys.\n\nElectrons on the other hand seem to have no consituents, at least down to the level that has been probed with modern instruments.
504889
If it were posible for the neutronium to exist in a plane, then yes, I think so. However, neutronium is so dense that its own gravity will pull it into a sphere. If you got close enough to look at it, it would pull you in and you would be a (very thin) stain on the surface.\n\nNeutron stars are supposed to be made mostly of neutronium. If two collided or got close enough for their tides to pull one apart, then small pieces might be left. But neutronium is supposed to be very unstable. It is only its own gravity that binds the electrons and protons together so that they merge and lose their identities. \n\nFor very massive neutron stars (just short of being black holes, I guess) their inner layers are supposedly a quark-gluon soup. \n\nFor very small ones or pieces broken off, if that is possible, if there is not enough gravity to keep the particles together, the electrons and protons will regain their identities and the nuclear interctive forces will reassert themselves, and the mesons will begin to interact between the electrons and protons again,. What would happen is that the small piece of neutronium would erupt in a burst of energy and high energy particles. \n\nS/F writers like H. Beam Piper (in the 60's) postulated that we would learn to control nuclear forces like we learned to control electricity and have (what he called ) 'collapsium' plated spacecraft, where the outer shells of the electrons were in contact with the nuclei (what we would now call 'degenerate matter'.) Such a plating (a tiny fraction of an inch thick) would protect like several feet of lead shielding. It would also weigh more than many feet of lead shielding! (He also proposed that we would have antigravity by now.)\n\nTheoretically, a sphere of neutronium would be perfectly reflective, and the noted s/f author Larry Niven used that feature in his classic story There Is A Tide (1968, Galaxy magazine.)\n\n15 NOV 06, 1632 hrs, GMT.
609506
Wow.  Three responders came up with the same smat*** joke.\n\nCold fusion has been performed in laboratory settings, in a reactor.  So yes, it has been made.  There are no large-scale operations.  That are public.
197813
It’s actually not that easy and I disagree that a student can make a nuclear bomb, dirty bomb, maybe, nuclear bomb, no. There is an isotope of uranium that is required. An isotope is an element with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons. Common uranium is known as U238. Uranium used for making bombs is the rare U235. Once enough U235 is gathered, it must go through an enrichment process. Various equipment and technology is needed. Yes, the United States has been able to this for more than 60 years, but the technology is heavily guarded by the civilized world. Iran has had to start from the beginning to develop the technology which is not trivial.
97641
HUH????\nUranium is a heavy metal.\nThere are NO metals in woolen materials.
442219
Hm.  Okay.  Here's some stuff about atoms to get you started:\n\nJust like all things are made of atoms, all atoms for the most part are made up of the same three parts.  Protons, neutrons, and electrons.\n\nProtons and neutrons are comparatively really heavy.  Pretty much all the weight of an atom comes from these guys.  Because they're heavy, they don't move around a lot unless the whole atom is moving.  Instead they stick together in the center of the atom (also called the nucleus).\n\nElectrons live very different lives.  Unlike protons and neutrons, they are not only light but comparatively large.  They buzz around the nucleus like planets around a star... or perhaps more like beach balls around a sack of marbles.  A lot of chemistry has to do with electrons zipping around, being attracted to one thing or another... or more likely to several things at once.\n\nAnother important thing to know about the parts of atoms is their charge.  The charge in these parts come from the electric force, which (if you can imagine it) is a billion billion billion billion billion billion times stronger than gravity (yes, that's a one followed by 36 zeroes).  The electric force is also involved with electricity that we use in our houses and the like.\n\nThe pro- in proton comes from its positive charge.  To make things easy for themselves scientists just decided to say a proton has a +1 charge.  The neu- in neutron comes from it being neutral.  It has zero charge.  Electrons have the opposite charge of protons, so they have a -1 charge.  Pretty straightforward.\n\nAnd here's where things get interesting.  The name we give an atom (like helium or uranium or whatever) depends ONLY on the number of protons it has.  So, for example, an atom with two protons is helium, no matter WHAT else its got.  Neutrons hang out in the nucleus with protons, where they add to the weight of an atom but don't do much else.  And the REASON all those electrons are buzzing around a boring nucleus instead of being off somewhere else is because all those negative charges like to be near all those positive charges.  And since the electric force is so incredibly strong, you can bet that just about everything you run into is going to have as close to a zero total charge as it can get.\n\nSo there you have it.  Atoms in a nutshell.  Hope that helps!
408033
Protons and neutrons are made of three quarks each. Quarks have properties with names like up, down, color, flavor, truth, beauty and charm. They also carry a charge of +2/3 and -1/3 of a proton's charge, so two 2/3 quarks combined with one -1/3 make a proton, and one 2/3 with two -1/3s make a neutron.\n\nThat's one version, anyway. Physicists are now poking around at an even smaller level than quarks in the latest attempt to unify the four forces of nature and have come up with several types of string theory as possible explanations.\n\nStrings are supposed to be one-dimensional things that vibrate in ten-dimensional space and are the fundamental components of everything. Physicists have hypothesized a smallest possible length - called the Planck length - and a smallest possible time - the Planck time, how long it takes light to travel the Planck length. If these things are real it means that space and time come in tiny chunks just like energy: there is no Planck length/2, for example.\n\nPretty strange concepts, however not as strange as assuming that things are infinitely sub-dividable. That leads to even worse paradoxes!
538317
A neutron must be going extremely slow (the same speed as the molecules of the water due to room temperature heat -- just jiggling around) to cause a uranium atom (the kind weighing 235 units, the ones we split in reactors and bombs mostly) to fission.
535661
Indeed, the number of neutrons in Bromine (79.904 amu) is 45.\n\nThe AMU is given as a decimal because it is the average AMU of a mole of Bromine atoms(a really lot of atoms). On the Periodic Table round the given AMU and you will have the most commonly occurring isotope (atoms of the same elements with different numbers of neutrons).\n\nGet an "A".
357776
a very small piece of styrofoam in the middle represents the nucleaus. it should consist of one proton and a different colored neutron. then, have a lot of space then put in a cirle around the center one styrofoam ball representing an electron.
194892
Iso- as a prefix means "the same". Thus isobar (same pressure), isosceles triangle (two sides the same length) and isotope two or more versions of the same element which all have the same number of protons (or it would be a different element!) but varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus.\n\nAs protons are positively charged and neutrons have no charge (electrons have a negative charge) neutrons are needed as "packing materials" to help keep the positive charges fom repelling one another and making the nucleus unstable.\n\nWith elements of low atomic number, the number of neutrons will be the same or just greater than the number of protons. But with elements of high atomic number, more packing materials are needed, and the ratio of neutrons to protons begins to climb towards 1.5:1\n\nThere is only a narrow range of options for that ratio for isotpes that are stable. Those with too few or too many neutrons, iutside that range, are unstable and decay.\n\nCompare Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 with Uranium 235 and Uranium 238\n\nCarbon 12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons and is stable\n\nCarbon 14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons and is unstable, it decays\n\nU235 has 92 protons, 143 neutrons and is unstable.\n\nU238 has 92 protons, 146 neutrons and is unstable\n\nAs regards silver (Ag) oy has two stable isotopes Ag 107 (47p, 60n) and Ag 109 (47p, 62n) But very short-lived isotopes varying in atomic mass from the neutron-deficient Ag 93 (47p, 46 n) to Ag 123 (47p 76n) also exist.
76245
It is not against the laws of physics to create element 119 and there is no cut off number on the periodic table.  Elements aren't included until their existance has been established.  In principle you could have element number 158,982.  In fact, if you like you can think of neutron stars as being really big atoms.  The problem is that as the element number (the number of protons) increases, the attractive nuclear force binding the nucleus together can't overcome the repulsive electric force between the protons.  This is why large elements tend to be radioactive.  You may have noticed that large numbered elements tend to have many more neutrons than protons.  The extra neutrons help keep the larger elements together by creating a stronger nuclear force.  You may think that by adding more neutrons we could make any larger element stable by making the nuclear force stronger, however more neutrons in the nucleus means a greater chance of quantum tunneling (leading to radioactive decay).
228929
According to the standard model (which has proven correct MANY times) atoms are made up of neutrons and protons and are circled by electrons in their basic form. Neutrons and protons are both baryons (which are types of hadrons) and are composed of quarks. Quarks are fundamental particles (not composite) just like the electron. They are known as point particles as well.\n\nTheories are that these point particles are in fact strings (string theory) oscillating at different frequencies etc, but that is still disputed.
142228
Commercially, helium isn't made from hydrogen. Helium is found  alonside natural gas in certain natural gas wells. It's actually a fairly limited natural resource.\n\nIt's true that special nuclear reactors can fuse hydrogen nuclei into helium nuclei, and this reaction takes place in the sun as well. However, the amount produced this way on earth is miniscule.