FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [31 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
hhc314@yahoo.com
science forum addict


Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

I believe that Greg Neil explained this to you very clearly.

Other than that, it would appear to me that somehow you are confusing
fusion of the nuclei of two atoms with the fusing of two electrons, the
latter being something I am unaware has ever been observed...but it's
been a long while since I've been involved in this stuff.

Right or wrong, I can tell you that until you learn the basic
fundamentals of nuclear physics, you won't be in a position to grasp
the more advanced relearch topics and problems. I'd suggest that you
purchase a copy of Sears and Zemansky or Halliday and Resnick, learn
the basics, then proceed onward from there. With your inquisitive mind,
I believe that you would enjoy and benefit from either of these classic
introductory physics texts.

Harry C.




Radium wrote:
Quote:
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:
Mass has nothing to do with the strength of coulomb barrier.

It has a great deal to do with the method chosen to overcome the
coulomb barrier.

Then why is it SO difficult to fuse deuterium with tritium while it so
easy to fuse carbon to carbon and form graphite?

The temperatures and pressures required for D-T fusion are MUCH higher
than those required for graphite formation. Graphite formation is an
example of "electron fusion" in which electron bonds among the carbons
are generated using high temperatures and pressures such as those close
to the earths core. Nuclear fusion, OTOH, requires millions of degrees
Celsius and millions of atmopheres of pressure. What causes this
requirement?


Once again, often in physics an analogy helps people to visualize a
situation better than often do the numbers themselves. Now I will
assume you already know that energy is required to overcome the coulomb
barrier (except of course for quantum mechanical tunneling).

Assume the coulomb barrier to be a 1-inch thick sheet of armor plate.
To pierce it, would you chose a BB or a very dense and massive bullet
made of something like depleted uranium. Which of these two projectiles
do you believe would be more practically accelerated to a sufficient
level of kinetic energy to penetrate the barrer?

Also, consider the difficulties associated with elevating or
accelerating electrons to very high energy levels, compared to far more
massive objects like protons and ions. Note the real estate required
for a large electron accelerator, vs. that required to a proton
accelerator. Sill, this is something for another post by another
poster.

Harry C.



Radium wrote:
Chuck Grempu wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1153194028.485540.33100@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Chuck Grempu wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1153180526.982086.45860@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Hi:

A proton has a charge of 1.6022 × 10^-19 coulombs. An electron has a
charge of -1.6022 × 10^-19 coulombs. This means that an electron
and a proton have the same amount of charge -- just in opposite
polarities. So why is the coulomb barrier of a proton so much more
difficult to overcome than the coulomb barrier of an electron?




because it is made of sheepskin.

No offense but I asked a serious question. Please respond with
scientific answers and leave out the junk.


what is the difference in masses, Rotium ?

How does mass have anything to do with the strength of the coloumb
barrier?

google for it, or wiki wax it.
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1153244934.177773.164620@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Greg Neill wrote:


Graphite formation is just common chemistry involving
the outer electrons and binding energies of a few
electron volts.

Okay.

Nuclear reactions involve much higher
energies, hence require much higher temperatures.

But it is to break the protons' coloumb barriers that such high
temperatures and pressures are required. Right?

Not exactly. The coulomb barrier, as you put it,
stands in the way of getting the particles (protons
in this case) close enough together for the the
strong nuclear force to act, or similarly, in order
to get close enough with enough punch to sunder the
bond of the strong nuclear force.

Quote:

If the strength of the coloumb barrier was somehow decreased, would
this decrease the temperature and pressure requirement to initiate
nuclear fusion? I guess so but I could be wrong.

Yes, if it were easier to get the protons in close
proximity then fusion would be easier.

Quote:

Moreover, if nuclear reactions involve such high energies, then why is
nuclear fission so much easier to accomplish than nuclear fusion?

Fissionable atomic nuclei are already unstable and
poised on the threshold of fissioning. Enough
energy can be supplied by a neutron (which sees no
coulomb barrier) to cause the breakup.

Quote:

Why does nuclear fusion require so much higher temperatures and
pressures than nuclear fission?

See above.
Back to top
srp
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

hhc314@yahoo.com a écrit :
Quote:
Andre posted:

"Maybe the strictly electrostatic Coulomb barrier concept would
benefit from being reconsidered."

Great point Andre, but are you aware of any experimental results that
suggests that it is in need of reconsideration?

The verified stability of the orbitals, maybe.

Quote:
That is, how well does
the current theretical model predict observed experimental results?

Rather than "predict", I am tempted to say "describe". Then the answer
becomes - rather well -, very precise quantization at the fundamental
level having allowed coherent mathematical description of the
structures.

If we replace "predict" with "explain", then I see the answer hitting
bottom with - not at all -.

Quote:
Also calls to mind the expression: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it!"
(Likely sounds better in French, Italian, or even German.) Smile

It sounds fine in English all right. Well, has it ever been fixed
to then be in a position to be broken?

To my knowledge, a mechanical explanation has not yet come to light.

Quote:
Also, this introduces that age old philosophical question: "Does
experiment lead theory, or does theory lead experiment?" I believe
that most readers would agree that until near the middle of the 20th
century, experiment led theory, since that time on, theory has lead
experiment.

I agree. I also think the trend was set when SR and then GR became
the methodological reference. It seems to me that all subsequent
theories have been leading experiment.

My view is that this approach will not lead to an explanation.

André Michaud
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

"srp" <srp2@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:44BD5A42.3010109@globetrotter.net...
Quote:
hhc314@yahoo.com a écrit :
Andre posted:

"Maybe the strictly electrostatic Coulomb barrier concept would
benefit from being reconsidered."

Great point Andre, but are you aware of any experimental results that
suggests that it is in need of reconsideration?

The verified stability of the orbitals, maybe.

Actually, the problem of the stability of the orbitals
contrary to the prediction of Classical Electrodynamics
(which predicted that orbiting electrons should emit
electromagnetic waves and hence spiral into to the
nucleus in very short order) leads neatly into Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED) to supplant the classical theory
with the quantum. QED's predictions in this area have
enjoyed unparalleled success in terms of accuracy.

It is extremely doubtfull that any patching up of the
coulomb field could save classical electrodynamics at
the atomic scale.

Quote:

That is, how well does
the current theretical model predict observed experimental results?

Rather than "predict", I am tempted to say "describe". Then the answer
becomes - rather well -, very precise quantization at the fundamental
level having allowed coherent mathematical description of the
structures.

If we replace "predict" with "explain", then I see the answer hitting
bottom with - not at all -.

Of course, this is true of all of physics. Physics answers
"How" type questions, not "Why" type questions. Physics
seeks to predict, usually via mathematical model, how things
behave. It does not answer the metaphysical "why" of things.

Quote:

Also calls to mind the expression: "If it ain't broken, don't fix it!"
(Likely sounds better in French, Italian, or even German.) :-)

It sounds fine in English all right. Well, has it ever been fixed
to then be in a position to be broken?

To my knowledge, a mechanical explanation has not yet come to light.

Also, this introduces that age old philosophical question: "Does
experiment lead theory, or does theory lead experiment?" I believe
that most readers would agree that until near the middle of the 20th
century, experiment led theory, since that time on, theory has lead
experiment.

I agree. I also think the trend was set when SR and then GR became
the methodological reference. It seems to me that all subsequent
theories have been leading experiment.

My view is that this approach will not lead to an explanation.

True. And it is not clear how any theory can, with any
claim to validity other than an appeal to metaphysics or
mysticism, lead to an "explanation" of why things are the
way they are or work the way they do at fundamental levels.
In general, scientists concern themselves with finding out
how things happen and constructing models that match that
empirical "how".
Back to top
hhc314@yahoo.com
science forum addict


Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Posts: 90

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

OK Andre, I mistoke you for being a plysicist. This way my error.

Carry on. (Even I believe I know how to say this in Frencb.)

Harry C.
Back to top
daestrom
science forum addict


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:27 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1153244934.177773.164620@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Greg Neill wrote:
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1153240163.324367.19840@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:
Mass has nothing to do with the strength of coulomb barrier.

It has a great deal to do with the method chosen to overcome the
coulomb barrier.

Then why is it SO difficult to fuse deuterium with tritium while it so
easy to fuse carbon to carbon and form graphite?

The temperatures and pressures required for D-T fusion are MUCH higher
than those required for graphite formation. Graphite formation is an
example of "electron fusion" in which electron bonds among the carbons
are generated using high temperatures and pressures such as those close
to the earths core. Nuclear fusion, OTOH, requires millions of degrees
Celsius and millions of atmopheres of pressure. What causes this
requirement?


Graphite formation is just common chemistry involving
the outer electrons and binding energies of a few
electron volts.

Okay.

Nuclear reactions involve much higher
energies, hence require much higher temperatures.

But it is to break the protons' coloumb barriers that such high
temperatures and pressures are required. Right?

If the strength of the coloumb barrier was somehow decreased, would
this decrease the temperature and pressure requirement to initiate
nuclear fusion? I guess so but I could be wrong.


Consider that for fusion, you must bring these two positive charges very
close together. The strength of the electric field around a 'point source'
varies with the square of the distance, so the amount of energy needed to
bring these two charges that close together is very high.

Also consider that in chemistry reactions, there is more than just two
electrons involved. The electrons are in the general proximity of their
nuclei. So the electric field of the negatively charged electrons is partly
countered by the fields surrounding the positively charged nuclei.

Quote:
Moreover, if nuclear reactions involve such high energies, then why is
nuclear fission so much easier to accomplish than nuclear fusion?


Fission of heavy atoms is 'easy' in part because the n-p ratio is already
skewed quite a bit. The nucleus of these heavies is already unstable and
thus takes less of a 'push' to overcome the barrier to bring about fission.

Quote:
Why does nuclear fusion require so much higher temperatures and
pressures than nuclear fission?


In most fusion, the first step is to get rid of the electrons. That means
first heating to the point of forming plasma. Now you have to overcome the
electrostatic forces keeping the nuclei apart. In fission, you just
'change' the nucleus from one that is marginally stable (say, U-235) to one
that is less stable and at the same time inputing some energy (the
absorption energy of adding a neutron). This brings the atom to an unstable
state. Sometimes it doesn't fission, but statistically, it more often will.

daestrom
Back to top
srp
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 198

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:09 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

hhc314@yahoo.com a écrit :
Quote:
OK Andre, I mistoke you for being a plysicist. This way my error.

Carry on. (Even I believe I know how to say this in Frencb.)

Not surprised.

I have yet to meet a physicist who is not afraid of fundamental
research or of peers opinions.

André Michaud
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:07 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

In article <1153239722.369898.188440@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> writes:
Quote:

Radium wrote:
Hi:

A proton has a charge of 1.6022 =D7 10^-19 coulombs. An electron has a
charge of -1.6022 =D7 10^-19 coulombs. This means that an electron
and a proton have the same amount of charge -- just in opposite
polarities. So why is the coulomb barrier of a proton so much more
difficult to overcome than the coulomb barrier of an electron?


It's not. I imagine you're misreading something.

The energy required to *penetrate* a proton is *lower* than the energy
required to penetrate an electron. This is often said another way: we
can "see" the structure of a proton, but we can't see any structure to
an electron.

Now, the energy required to *eject* an electron from an atom is a lot
lower than than the energy required to *eject* a proton from an atom,
but this doesn't have anything to do with a coulomb barrier. The proton
is held in the atom by a force a million times stronger than the
coulombic force, and you have to overcome that to eject a proton.

One final guess as to what you're talking about: the energy required to
*approach* a certain distance from an electron and from a proton is
identical. Getting to within 1E-11 m of the center of the atom (where
the electrons live) is easier than getting to within 1E-15 m of the
center of the atom (where the protons live). But when you are 1E-11
from the center of an atom, you are not right up close to an electron,
either.

PD

Just a little add on, to clarify the confusion I sense among some

posters, and that's regarding the very term "coulomb barrier". For
the "barrier" to exist in the first place you need two things:

1) A coulomb (aka electrostatic) repulsive force.
2) Another force, attractive, short range but such that at the short
ranges where it acts it overwhelms the coulomb force.

When this situation exists, you've a proper "barier", meaning, up to
some point it is harder and harder to get closer, but once you went
through this points, the resistance disappears and it is a smooth
sailing. That's "breaking through the barrier". But if only the
coulomb force is present, without the short range attractive force,
then there is no barrier to break. It is just "the closer you want to
come, the more force is needed".

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:10 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

srp wrote:
Quote:
Radium a écrit :
Hi:

The combined magnetic field of the quarks up and down and the
binding energy making up a proton is bound to be considerably
more intense than that of an electron.

Maybe the strictly electrostatic Coulomb barrier concept would
benefit from being reconsidered.

André Michaud
-----------------------------

as i was suspecting
the OP question was not defined properly

it is like asking
what is the cost of a pair of shose.....

we have to know about what is the set up of electrons or protons we
are dealing with .

i guess that even if we attack say a a silicon crystal by electrons -
from one angle
it will not be exactly the same results as from another angle
............

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

In article <1153234455.166248.59020@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:

Quote:

what is the difference in masses, Rotium ?

How does mass have anything to do with the strength of the coloumb
barrier?

Haven't you heard of the ID Ten T theory?

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
Radium
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 241

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:59 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
In article <1153234455.166248.59020@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Radium <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote:


what is the difference in masses, Rotium ?

How does mass have anything to do with the strength of the coloumb
barrier?


Haven't you heard of the ID Ten T theory?

No. What is "ID Ten T theory"?

Quote:

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
Sergey
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:20 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

Quote:
what is the difference in masses, Rotium ?

How does mass have anything to do with the strength of the coloumb
barrier?


Haven't you heard of the ID Ten T theory?

No. What is "ID Ten T theory"?

Quote:



Can someone post a picture of electron and proton?
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:39 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

Dear Sergey and Radium:

"Sergey" <serbolky@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:ISAvg.17009$iP1.9924@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Quote:
what is the difference in masses, Rotium ?

How does mass have anything to do with the
strength of the coloumb barrier?


Haven't you heard of the ID Ten T theory?

No. What is "ID Ten T theory"?

ID ... 10 ... T -> ID10T

David A. Smith
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:32 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

I did not know you could overcome the coloumb barrier of an electron. What
happens when you do?
"Radium" <glucegen1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1153180526.982086.45860@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Hi:

A proton has a charge of 1.6022 × 10^-19 coulombs. An electron has a
charge of -1.6022 × 10^-19 coulombs. This means that an electron
and a proton have the same amount of charge -- just in opposite
polarities. So why is the coulomb barrier of a proton so much more
difficult to overcome than the coulomb barrier of an electron?


Thanks,

Radium
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:37 am    Post subject: Re: Coulomb barriers -- Electron vs. Proton Reply with quote

I suppose if the collision energy was high enough you might get a couple of
anti-protons.

After all it only an interference pattern.

I went to hospital one day for a tooth extraction and they asked me about my
proton structure theory.

I explained that all matter was made from light (high energy photons in the
gamm energy band) I explained how the photons because of their high energy
bend the space around themselves as in the general theory of relativity
(gravity) so that they did not propagate, thus making a stable object. The
law I worked out meant that the photon trapped by its own energy density so
formed nodes as in the shrodinger equation thus making the proton appear to
have structure with hard lumps inside (quarks) they are in reality just
nodes in this frozen wave such that it fits inside somehow as in an
interference pattern. I made up an equation somehow based on the probation
of light and the gravity equation of the general theory of relativity. The
various constants gravity, e m c and h all got involved.

I then said that collisions between these particles caused the waves they
were made up of to recombine in different ways to form an interference
pattern and this is what high energy reseach was getting.

Some collisions between a photon and a proton causes a decomposition of the
proton so that a phase shift occures causing the proton to dissapear in one
place and re-appear elswhere without touching space between. This is quantum
teleportation.

The doctor then said I was mad and cut out my brain instead.

I'm feeling better now. My funny insect friends must have put a newish one
in!
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [31 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Jun 29, 2017 9:11 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts What are the obstacles to building a pen-sized free-elect... Radium Research 0 Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:48 pm
No new posts Proton Theory The Real Chris Particle 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:28 pm
No new posts Electron Configuration Graph? Patrick D. Rockwell Chem 12 Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:30 am
No new posts Proton battery Zak Battery 0 Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:58 pm
No new posts Electron Orbits in Hydrogen atom GSS Particle 80 Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:12 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0357s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0040s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]