3 ms·
Nearly everything you said is wrong. First of all, we can do/have done fusion on earth (from H-bombs, which are quite calculable, to ICF, also quite calculable
by ivalm 8y ago
Nearly everything you said is wrong.
First of all, we can do/have done fusion on earth (from H-bombs, which are quite calculable, to ICF, also quite calculable).
Second, proton capture for heavy nuclei is endothermic (so you cool down) and there is no way "cycling" can produce energy since that would be a perpetual energy source. That's why fusion stops in iron rich stars (fusion is exothermic until you reach Fe-56). We have A LOT of astro observations to back this up.
The heavy elements that do get produced are generally produced by neutron capture, not proton capture (r-process). This is an endothermic process and happens during large energy releases such as neutron star mergers and potentially core collapse supernovae (although there still needs to be more experimental evidence).
- PavlikPaja 8y ago> ICF, also quite calculable). It doesn't seem to be working, so it's reasonable to expect it's wrong. >Second, proton capture for heavy nuclei is endothermic (so you cool down) No, it isn't. Whoever calculated that Iron is where it ends forgot to add the binding energy of the added proton. The binding energy per nucleon decreases, but there is one nucleon more, so it's still a net gain. > there is no way "cycling" can produce energy since that would be a perpetual energy source. It wouldn't you're using up hydrogen. >We have A LOT of astro observations to back this up. There are also observations of lead rich stars.