|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 30 Aug 2003 11:02:02 GMT PSmith9626 wrote: Penny, I suppose the biggest help about now would be the information as to the highest percentage that a star can have fusion as a contributor of outward star pressure. If we consider that the Sun inward pressure is 100% from Gravity. Then how much of the outward pressure is due to fusion? The best astrophysics number I have been able to find on this is that the _outward pressure_ due to fusion is approximately 28% and that the bulk of the outward pressure is due to the EM Coulomb repulsion of protons to protons and electrons to electrons (ionization of stars) and that the Sun is approx 70% outward pressure due to Coulomb repulsion. But stars come in many different masses. I think the answer is obvious and does not lie far away. If you take any star and completely replace all the atoms of that star with that of iron, it would not longer be a fusion driven outward pressure. In other words poisoned to death. And looking at the Periodic Chart of Elements, iron sits about 1/3 from hydrogen or 2/3 from uranium. So the Chart of Elements alone is indicative of a 2/3 barrier because any and every star no matter how big will end its fusion if all of its atoms were iron. In a sense, the Fusion Barrier Principle is equal to the idea that iron ends fusion reactions. Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
Does anyone know what percentage of a star's mass of iron that the star explodes into a
nova or supernova. What percentage of iron in a star core that renders it to a nova stage? Archimedes Plutonium, whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
"CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Does anyone know what percentage of a star's mass of iron that the star explodes into a nova or supernova. What percentage of iron in a star core that renders it to a nova stage? try looking it up. there are pleanty of references out there. Raz You ignorant twit. Every reference is based upon unsubstantiated theory. No facts. What a blooming knee jerk reaction fool you are. very constructive. Raz |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
In article , Raziel wrote:
"CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Does anyone know what percentage of a star's mass of iron that the star explodes into a nova or supernova. What percentage of iron in a star core that renders it to a nova stage? try looking it up. there are pleanty of references out there. Raz You ignorant twit. Every reference is based upon unsubstantiated theory. No facts. What a blooming knee jerk reaction fool you are. very constructive. Raz Damn rights it is. You're a super jackass and just in case you're going around thinking that you're helpful you need to be re-informed about just what kind of a dull brained prick of a person you really are. It is evident that you equate incompetent nonsensical theories which themselves are not products of reason nor logic but rather of intellectual masturbations that have no basis in reality with physical reality. It is easy to show that using only the simplest axiom of motion between quanta and Maxwell's equations that nuclear fusion doesn't work like the textbooks say that it does. This is something that is not only substantiated by the data but follows all the rules of logical deduction. The problem is that nitwits like you eschew reason and hate deductive logic because it reveals what intellectual regurgitating twits you really are. CC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
"CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Does anyone know what percentage of a star's mass of iron that the star explodes into a nova or supernova. What percentage of iron in a star core that renders it to a nova stage? try looking it up. there are pleanty of references out there. Raz You ignorant twit. Every reference is based upon unsubstantiated theory. No facts. What a blooming knee jerk reaction fool you are. very constructive. Raz Damn rights it is. You're a super jackass and just in case you're going around thinking that you're helpful you need to be re-informed about just what kind of a dull brained prick of a person you really are. Do you think insults add to your arguments? It is evident that you equate incompetent nonsensical theories which themselves are not products of reason nor logic but rather of intellectual masturbations that have no basis in reality with physical reality. It is easy to show that using only the simplest axiom of motion between quanta and Maxwell's equations that nuclear fusion doesn't work like the textbooks say that it does. What, exactly, does that have to do with either AP's question or my answer? Answer: nothing. This is something that is not only substantiated by the data but follows all the rules of logical deduction. yes, you always say that, but never show anything. But again, that is completely irrelevant to the post at hand. The problem is that nitwits like you eschew reason and hate deductive logic because it reveals what intellectual regurgitating twits you really are. ooook. Raz |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
In article , Raziel wrote:
"CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Does anyone know what percentage of a star's mass of iron that the star explodes into a nova or supernova. What percentage of iron in a star core that renders it to a nova stage? try looking it up. there are pleanty of references out there. Raz You ignorant twit. Every reference is based upon unsubstantiated theory. No facts. What a blooming knee jerk reaction fool you are. very constructive. Raz Damn rights it is. You're a super jackass and just in case you're going around thinking that you're helpful you need to be re-informed about just what kind of a dull brained prick of a person you really are. Do you think insults add to your arguments? I think that people who are merely regurgitators of modern theories are a pox. When I see people trying to refer a complete loon like Archie to published texts of theories matters concerning the operations of stars which have exactly zero experimental data to back them up then I throw up my hands in frustration. So, no, insults do not add to my arguments but they are free of charge. :-). Perhaps I overreacted to your seemingly apparent knee-jerk reaction referral. It is evident that you equate incompetent nonsensical theories which themselves are not products of reason nor logic but rather of intellectual masturbations that have no basis in reality with physical reality. It is easy to show that using only the simplest axiom of motion between quanta and Maxwell's equations that nuclear fusion doesn't work like the textbooks say that it does. What, exactly, does that have to do with either AP's question or my answer? Answer: nothing. Wrong. It has everything to do with both. First, his question is rife with assumptions that have exactly zero basis in reality. Next, there's absolutely no relationship between the iron present in and around a star and the tendency of a star to be involved in a supernova event. Third, any text or theory that you might refer him to that might give such parameters has no basis in reality either. So, you have a worse than a blind man in Archie asking a question the contents of which were formed by pseudoscientific concepts concerning the operations of stars and then we have you, another blind man in these matters, pointing him toward more texts as if anything approaching a definitive answer was in the grasp of the authors of such texts. Contrary to your pseudo rebuttal I've shown numerous times that fusion doesn't work like people think that it does and this means that stars and their actual dynamics are not well represented in any texts on the matters. This is something that is not only substantiated by the data but follows all the rules of logical deduction. yes, you always say that, but never show anything. But again, that is completely irrelevant to the post at hand. No. It wasn't irrelevant to the post at hand at all. You have accepted a series of fairy tales concerning the operations of stars and the truth is that you could deduce the truth from data that is readily available to anyone. But it appears you are neither willing to learn the facts, or worse, even care about them. As I stated above, I've layed out the interactive dynamics of elementary charged particles numerous times and I've shown how people can deduce these dynamics from experimental data, the simplest axiom of motion between quanta, Maxwell's equations and the basic axiom that quantum particles always obtain to the lowest available energy state. This stuff isn't hard to learn at all, it merely takes a dedication to the truth that you've demonstrated that you don't possess. I'd like to always think that there could be some hope for people; that eventually they'll want to see the light (which is the first step to actually seeing it) and I even have that hope for you Raz but when you make comments indicating that I've made claims but never show anything then I know that you must be asleep at the switch to an even greater extent than I suspected. I figure if I insult you that you'll either get so ****ed off that you'll quit posting nonsense or you'll be forced to put me in your kill file. Of course what I'd really like would be if you took physics seriously and if you cared enough about it to get to the bottom of things yourself instead of just referring people to pseudoscientific texts and theories. As far as Archie goes, I'm afraid he really is beyond help. But you, well I would think that you would have the intellectual capacity to deal with physics in a logical reasonable manner and it is frustrating to see that you don't bother. The problem is that nitwits like you eschew reason and hate deductive logic because it reveals what intellectual regurgitating twits you really are. ooook. Raz |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fusion poisons; why fission has none
"CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "CC" wrote in message ... In article , Raziel wrote: "Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message ... Does anyone know what percentage of a star's mass of iron that the star explodes into a nova or supernova. What percentage of iron in a star core that renders it to a nova stage? try looking it up. there are pleanty of references out there. Raz You ignorant twit. Every reference is based upon unsubstantiated theory. No facts. What a blooming knee jerk reaction fool you are. very constructive. Raz Damn rights it is. You're a super jackass and just in case you're going around thinking that you're helpful you need to be re-informed about just what kind of a dull brained prick of a person you really are. Do you think insults add to your arguments? I think that people who are merely regurgitators of modern theories are a pox. When I see people trying to refer a complete loon like Archie well, we can agree on that at least. to published texts of theories I never said that. I said there are pleanty of references out there. matters concerning the operations of stars which have exactly zero experimental data to back them up then I throw up my hands in frustration. So, no, insults do not add to my arguments but they are free of charge. :-). Perhaps I overreacted to your seemingly apparent knee-jerk reaction referral. perhaps. It is evident that you equate incompetent nonsensical theories which themselves are not products of reason nor logic but rather of intellectual masturbations that have no basis in reality with physical reality. It is easy to show that using only the simplest axiom of motion between quanta and Maxwell's equations that nuclear fusion doesn't work like the textbooks say that it does. What, exactly, does that have to do with either AP's question or my answer? Answer: nothing. Wrong. It has everything to do with both. First, his question is rife with assumptions that have exactly zero basis in reality. Agreed on the latter.. And perhaps if he spent some time looking for the answer we would be spared from his silly questions for some time. Next, there's absolutely no relationship between the iron present in and around a star and the tendency of a star to be involved in a supernova event. I won't argue with that point either. Third, any text or theory that you might refer him to that might give such parameters has no basis in reality either. maybe, but I left it up to him to find the reference. I specified nothing, I only said there are references out there. So, you have a worse than a blind man in Archie asking a question the contents of which were formed by pseudoscientific concepts concerning the operations of stars many of which can be answered regardless of the fusion theory to which you subscribe. and then we have you, another blind man in these matters, pointing him toward more texts as if anything approaching a definitive answer was in the grasp of the authors of such texts. I said there were references out there. One of those references could be yours, you never know what he will find. Then again, if you actually wrote up your theories into a text, it would also be out there more readily for people to find. Contrary to your pseudo rebuttal I've shown numerous times that fusion doesn't work like people think that it does and this means that stars and their actual dynamics are not well represented in any texts on the matters. fine, but irrelevant to the post at hand. This is something that is not only substantiated by the data but follows all the rules of logical deduction. yes, you always say that, but never show anything. But again, that is completely irrelevant to the post at hand. No. It wasn't irrelevant to the post at hand at all. You have accepted a series of fairy tales concerning the operations of stars and the truth is that you could deduce the truth from data that is readily available to anyone. But it appears you are neither willing to learn the facts, or worse, even care about them. As I stated above, I've layed out the interactive dynamics of elementary charged particles numerous times and I've shown how people can deduce these dynamics from experimental data, the simplest axiom of motion between quanta, Maxwell's equations and the basic axiom that quantum particles always obtain to the lowest available energy state. This stuff isn't hard to learn at all, it merely takes a dedication to the truth that you've demonstrated that you don't possess. I'd like to always think that there could be some hope for people; that eventually they'll want to see the light (which is the first step to actually seeing it) and I even have that hope for you Raz but when you make comments indicating that I've made claims but never show anything then I know that you must be asleep at the switch to an even greater extent than I suspected. I figure if I insult you that you'll either get so ****ed off that you'll quit posting nonsense or you'll be forced to put me in your kill file. You claim you have presented material, and technically you have. You have posted it here. All I ask from you is a paper. Write it up. Include all of your mathematics, all of your definitions of terms and axioms, any citations you may have, and anything else that the reader needs to be able to follow the mathematics from top to bottom. A newsgroup is not the proper forum to present mathematics such as this. It is difficult to follow, and does not contain all the information necessary. Of course what I'd really like would be if you took physics seriously and if you cared enough about it to get to the bottom of things yourself instead of just referring people to pseudoscientific texts and theories. As far as Archie goes, I'm afraid he really is beyond help. But you, well I would think that you would have the intellectual capacity to deal with physics in a logical reasonable manner and it is frustrating to see that you don't bother. see above comment. Raz |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to really terraform (part 1) | Scott Lowther | Policy | 92 | June 25th 04 11:41 AM |
Space Station to Mars? | Micky Fin | Policy | 47 | April 20th 04 09:27 AM |
How much more efficient would Nuclear Fission rockets be? | Rats | Technology | 13 | April 9th 04 08:12 AM |
percentage of Sun's fusion to EM | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 2nd 03 09:22 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |