Isnt the recombination of an electron and proton =neutron ,neuclear fusion?
480675
no. depending on the exact details its either inverse beta decay or electron capture. both release energy in very small amounts tho, in the form of radiation.
601897
Only if you are a Russian Nuclear Chemist...\n\nToday particle accelerators routinely transmute elements. A charged particle is accelerated using electrical and/or magnetic fields. In a linear accelerator, the charged particles drift through a series of charged tubes separated by gaps. Every time the particle emerges between gaps, it is accelerated by the potential difference between adjacent segments. In a circular accelerator, magnetic fields accelerate particles moving in circular paths. In either case, the accelerated particle impacts a target material, potentially knocking free protons or neutrons and making a new element or isotope. Nuclear reactors also may used for creating elements, although the conditions are less controlled. \n\nIn nature, new elements are created by adding protons and neutrons to hydrogen atoms within the nuclear reactor of a star, producing increasingly heavier elements, up to iron (atomic number 26). This process is called nucleosynthesis. Elements heavier than iron are formed in the stellar explosion of a supernova. In a supernova gold may be made into lead, but not the other way around.
926717
Surprisingly it is. See the both enclosed aticles about the theory and experiments done to prove it. In reality human mankind will not have the ability to do it for a long time.\n\nVery simplified it would work like this:\n\nIn an atom always 2 electrons on the same circle are linked. One has to have a up-spin, the other has to have a down-spin. But you do not know which one has it. Kick the elctrons out of the circle and send them into two directions. \n\nWhen you know measure the spin of one you know exactly the spin of the other one. If you would be able to manipulate one the information would be transfered immediatly to the other on. This has been done in laboratories.\n\nEInstein predicted this but nobody really believed it would work, the science community is still under a certain shock.\n\nThe challenge is to do this with all the electrons of you body.\n\nBut ther is a practible application for this. The speed of comuter today is "slow" because information is transfered in form of electrons which move in metals inside the chips, the next step would be to transport the information by light whcih is significant faster and the next step would be a "quantum-computer" where the information is transfered in the above menioned form. This would reduce the time to calculate any problem in an unbelievable way and calculations which are not possible today could be done.
1138753
This is a natural question if you think in terms of classical physics.  In fact, it's an even bigger problem than at first glance because, in classical physics, a charged object which accelerates will radiate energy.  So, in classical physics, all electrons would be expected to spiral in to the nucleus.  This puzzle cannot be addressed without quantum mechanics.\n\nHere's a very simple explanation.  It's not mathematically exact, but it carries the important concepts, and does give an answer fairly close to the mathematically correct one.\n\nFor simplicity, we'll consider hydrogen.  A single proton, no neutrons, and one electron.  There are no competing electrons to push each other apart, it really looks as if the best situation is for the electron to be squeezed right into the proton.\n\nRecall that in quantum mechanics, particles behave like waves.  Let's look at the electron that way.  What's the wavelength of this electron wave?  Well, we can't really say exactly, but a good approximation would be the wavelength is about the same as the width of the space in which you constrain the electron.  Put the electron in a large space, and it has a large wavelength.  Put it in a tiny space, and its wavelength is much smaller.  Ah, but remember, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency, and the higher the frequency, the higher the energy.\n\nNow, you have two competing effects.  If the electron goes in very close to the proton, and stays there, then it will be lowering its electrostatic energy.  But to do that, it has to confine itself to an extremely small volume, which will give it a very high "wavelength energy".  It seems natural that there's a middle point somewhere such that if the electron got closer to the proton, its wavelength energy would increase faster than its electrostatic energy would decrease.  This sets a minimum distance for the electron from the proton.  It actually needs more energy to get closer to the proton after that.  So, the place the electron winds up is actually its lowest energy state, it's stable there, and doesn't require any injection of energy to maintain this position.\n\nAs I said, this is very non-mathematical, but it gives you an idea of what's happening in the quantum mechanics which explain the effect.
1131979
OK.  There was a discrepancy in the atomic mass of elements.  We have electrons, which have insignificant mass, and an equal number of protons (to make the atom neutral), but the atomic mass exceeds the sum of the masses of the protons + electrons.  So we hypothesize that there is another particle in the atom which has atomic mass roughly the same as a proton but no charge.\nIt makes sense that this particle is in the nucleus.\nBUT, we can't use magnetic properties to isolate this particle.  And an atom is pretty much indivisible.  So we must actually strip off the electrons AND the protons to isolate neutrons.  That's not easy.
1129833
Fusion is a process when two atoms are forced to combine outside of normality. This means when extremes occur, such as super-heat, high eletromagnetic radiation, high voltage, High photonic electromagnetic radiation, a mixture of extremes, ect, you can influence two atoms that normally would never combine, combine and form other atoms but release electrons, neutrons, protons (whatever else). This repelling of each other's force causes energy. Sometimes you get, seemingly, more energy than you put into it due to chain reactions ( if you can get it at this stage, and assuming you can control it). There are infinite atom combo's but normally you will see hydrogen and helium as the prime candidates.
714427
I'm sorry, but the previous answer was very misleading.  First of all, an electron's spin does not give it its charge.  After all, neutrons spin yet they have zero electrical charge.  Its spin gives it a magnetic moment, which is subtly different from a magnetic field.\n\nA charged object such as an electron moving in any trajectory will create a magnetic field.  A charge moving in a helical path will create an approximation to a solenoidal magnetic field.  In current carrying wires, the electrons are moving collinearly with the electric field created due to the potential difference, i.e. in more or less a straight line.\n\nNow, why does the moving charge create the magnetic field in the first place?  A good way to explain it is with an example.\n\nSuppose you have 2 protons (+ charge) placed close to each other, the pair initially being stationary with respect to you.  You know what would happen right?  They would drift apart, repelled by their like positive charges.\n\nNow picture yourself running very fast, past those two protons.  If you run fast enough, the relativistic time dilation will make it appear, from your perspective, that the protons are drifting apart more slowly... as if some force is holding them back.  If you consider that you running very fast with respect to the protons is the same as the protons moving very fast with respect to you, you can see that the two moving charges are having an effect on each other which cannot be explained by their electric field strength alone.  This is what we call the magnetic field, essentially a relativistic distortion of the electric field due to time dilation.
564251
Neuclear Fission and Fusion:\n\nSIMILARITIES:\n\n1.Both work on the basis of electromagnetic radiation.\n2.In both, a slow moving nuetron is used to emit radiation.\n3The source partiles are the same(U235, U238, PLUTANIUM, ETC)\n\n\n\nDifferences between fission and fusion\n\n\n\n\nThe main difference that there is between fission and fusion is that fission is the splitting of an atom to form two smaller ones while fusion is the fusing of two smaller atoms to form a larger atom. In each of these the binding energy of the final product or products is higher than that of the prerequisites. This is explained more fully in the next section (Binding Energy).\n\n\n\n\nFission itself is a nuclear process which does not usually occur naturally in nature (at least not that we know of) as it requires a large mass and an incident neutron to start the reaction. However this would not last for a long time as the reaction would explode and produce a result such as in an atomic bomb. This volatile nature is what prevents fission from occurring for any length of time naturally.\n\n\n\n\nFusion on the other hand is a process which occurs quite naturally. In fact, if fusion did not occur naturally we would not be around today. This is due to stars being the result of the fusion process, the fusion of mainly light atoms into heavier atoms. Fusion also releases a lot more energy in comparison to fission in relation to the mass input. Put simply you will get more energy released from the fusion of 1kg of hydrogen ions than you will from fission of 1kg of Uranium.
895113
This is true in isolated atoms.\n\nIf we put them into the electric fields generated by nearby atoms, especially those of water of crystallisation, the energy levels can change and rearrange the electron orbitals.\n\nTo explain this to our satisfaction would mean solving the equations and getting the answers.  Unfortunately this is known as a many bodied problem and only the simplest of them can be solved.\n\nTake heart in the fact that the energy levels are so close together that we can glibly announce the fact and move on quickly to the next topic!
298477
neutrons\n\nIsotopes have to have the same numbers of protons\nor they'd be different elements.  Since the\nelectrons match up with the protons, the electron\ncount is consistent too.
776963
the fusion of light atoms to make energy at near room temperatures. There was alot of hype about this several years back when a physicist claimed to have achieved cold fusion, but his results weren't reproducible and he was discredited. \n\nPersonally I don't see how it's possible even in theory how cold fusion could work, the energy just isn't available to sustain any sort of reaction at room temperatures.
250875
All the protons and neutrons are not bound equally strongly to the nucleus.\nI don't think the second or third law of thermodynamics are  involved. It is only a matter of binding energy and E=mc2.
909853
Fusion requires a lot of initial energy to overcome Coulomb forces on the atomic scale. This energy is found via heat and pressure.\n\nUnfortunately the heat required to reach this energy level are beyond anything we have achieved.\n\nCold fusion is achieving this goal without the great heat.
779247
no... protons are held in place by the negatively charged electrons.\nits called neutron radiation or ionizing radiation. This type of radiation is one of the worse because it can pass through matter better than other types and only stops after a headon collision with a nucleus\n\nDiscovery\n\nIn 1930 Walther Bothe and H. Becker in Germany found that if the very energetic alpha particles emitted from polonium fell on certain of the light elements, specifically beryllium, boron, or lithium, an unusually penetrating radiation was produced. At first this radiation was thought to be gamma radiation although it was more penetrating than any gamma rays known, and the details of experimental results were very difficult to interpret on this basis. The next important contribution was reported in 1932 by Irène Joliot-Curie and Frédéric Joliot in Paris. They showed that if this unknown radiation fell on paraffin or any other hydrogen-containing compound it ejected protons of very high energy. This was not in itself inconsistent with the assumed gamma ray nature of the new radiation, but detailed quantitative analysis of the data became increasingly difficult to reconcile with such a hypothesis. Finally (later in 1932) the physicist James Chadwick in England performed a series of experiments showing that the gamma ray hypothesis was untenable. He suggested that in fact the new radiation consisted of uncharged particles of approximately the mass of the proton, and he performed a series of experiments verifying his suggestion. Such uncharged particles were eventually called neutrons, apparently from the Latin root for neutral and the Greek ending -on (by imitation of electron and proton).
367288
Yes.\nStuff that make up the protons and neutrons.\nAnd stuff that make up the stuff that make up the protons and neutrons.\nAnd ..................it goes on and on, but we humans do not know where it ends, or even if it does end, there are only theories about it.
106996
Currently we are using nuclear FISSION (splitting) in all nuclear reactors of the world. The only problem is all the waste fission produces (radioactive waste whose half-life is one-million years!). Because FUSION (fusing) involves combining, it produces no waste whatsoever. The only problem is that fusion requires MASS amounts of energy (via heat), so in the end, more energy is used than is created. Because it is almost impossible to receive benefit from heat fusion, scientists are currently working on COLD FUSION (requires little energy), but nothing of significance has developed yet. \n\nSo all in all the cost of nuclear fusion is that it requires too much and provides too little.
492501
From fusion of hydrogen atoms.