Nuclear Physics

Alpha particle has same effect with gamma rays in photographic effect ,both can can blacken a photographic film.And it has same effect with beta particles in the effect of electric and magnetic fields, both are deflected by electric and magnetic fields.

We don't know much about fusion as it is still very experimental. It will not produce the dangerous fission products that fission does, but it may have other dangers unknown as yet.

Nuclear fusion has more destructive potential than fission. Fusion is the principle powering the H-bomb developed in the Cold War. Just to put the power of a Fusion bomb in perspective, it is detonated by a fission bomb half the size of the one dropped on Japan. THAT'S JUST THE DETONATOR.

During each alpha decay, a helium nucleus (alpha particle) is emitted, decreasing the atomic number by 2 and the mass number by 4. Protactinium-229 undergoes two alpha decays to form Francium-221. The process of alpha decay involves the emission of alpha particles from the nucleus of an atom.

The decay of an unstable nucleus is often accompanied by the release of energy in the form of radiation, such as alpha particles, beta particles, or gamma rays. This decay process helps the nucleus reach a more stable state by changing its composition or structure.

Energy is released during nuclear fission or fusion. The mass deficit (apparent loss of mass resulting from the reaction) is represented by a related (e = mc2) release of energy. Note, however, that neither mass nor energy is created or destroyed - it is simply moved from one frame of reference to another.

U-236 is formed under neutron irradiation of U-235 to some extent, but the main effect on U-235 is to cause it to fission into two fragments of non equal weight, releasing thermal energy and more neutrons. The U-236 produced does not fission so your question does not represent what actually happens. In fact the U-236 mostly just accumulates in the used fuel, a small part of it is turned into U-237 which decays to Np (Neptunium). You can see the yield of fission products from U-235 fission in a curve which has two peaks of atomic weight (see Wikipedia articles), it generally does not split equally. If it did, and the resultant element had 46 protons (because U has 92) this would be Palladium.

There is an existing fusion technology that produces controlled amounts of fusion energy - more energy out of the fusion power generating system than it takes to run the fusion power generating system.

It might be worthwhile to remember that Ivy-Mike technology worked the very first time it was tried in the 1952 nuclear test. Mike technology was the basis of the first thermonuclear weapons in the US arsenal. Adapting Mike technology to be pure DT-DD fusion opens up many new applications in safe, economical, fusion power generation.

While historically practical nuclear fusion has used a small amount of fissionable material like U235 to produce the conditions for fusion - Today, there are smaller pure fusion devices optimized to make clean energy (not blast effects) from hybrid pure DT-DD fusion while producing no radioactive fission products and high level nuclear waste. Modern DT-DD pure fusion devices produce the overwhelming majority of their energy from the DD fusion reaction of Deuterium separated from sea water.

One such modern hybrid DT-DD fusion design is called mini-Mike, which produces a small predictable controlled energy yield of 250 GJ per shot.

(Since pictures and outside web links are not allowed on Answers)

Description of a practical hybrid 2-stage fusion device -

mini-Mike is a two stage device that features a small hollow 2 mm diameter Deuterium-Tritium fusion capsule which in turn ignites a column of pressurized Deuterium cryo-liquid resulting in devices with safe and reliable energy yields optimized for power generation.

In 60 years, all existing MCF and ICF fusion systems have never worked (in the sense that they have not produced more energy from fusion than it took to get the fusion plasma to fusion conditions)..

Mike technology worked the first time it was tried and produced huge amounts of net energy (and has never failed).

Rather than placing our faith in scaling laws while we build ever larger and more expensive fusion experiments while trying to achieve break even energy generation - why not go back to the field and adapt technology that has never failed to finally find success in fusion?

Nuclear fusion is a process where two light atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus, releasing a large amount of energy in the process. It is the same process that powers the sun and other stars. Scientists are researching fusion as a potential clean and abundant energy source for the future.

The number 131 on the end shows us the mass of the isotope of iodine

If there are 53 protons, you need to take that away from the mass number to get the number of neutrons


(Remember, electrons have such a small mass, we say that they have no mass at all, just to make it easier)


131 - 53 = 78


So the answer is A

If it is a tokamak as is likely, the chamber will be under vacuum, unlike a pressurised water reactor which has a pressure vessel at high pressure. However a fully engineered design does not exist yet so what the plant to absorb the reaction's heat will look like is unknown.

Photons, gluons, and neutrinos have no charge, and are thus not deflected by a magnetic field.

Quarks, with a charge of +2/3 for the up, and -1/3 for the down, are deflected by magnetic fields, however, quarks assemble into larger particles such as protons and neutrons. The neutron, two down quarks and one up quark, has a net charge of zero, and is also not deflected by magnetic fields.

In an experiment, the standard used to compare with the outcome is called the control group. The control group is a group that is not exposed to the experimental treatment and is used as a baseline for comparison to determine the effects of the treatment on the experimental group.

This was because of laws of conservation of: momentum, angular momentum, and energy. In certain reactions, these were apparently not conserved; a hypothetical particle would resolve the observed discrepancy.

This was because of laws of conservation of: momentum, angular momentum, and energy. In certain reactions, these were apparently not conserved; a hypothetical particle would resolve the observed discrepancy.

This was because of laws of conservation of: momentum, angular momentum, and energy. In certain reactions, these were apparently not conserved; a hypothetical particle would resolve the observed discrepancy.

This was because of laws of conservation of: momentum, angular momentum, and energy. In certain reactions, these were apparently not conserved; a hypothetical particle would resolve the observed discrepancy.

The nuclear energy industry in the US stopped expanding because of the political turmoil caused by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. We allowed ourselves to be driven by the anti-nuclear factions, even in the face of hard scientific evidence that nuclear power was economically viable, environmentally appropriate, and radiologically safe, when considered in the global context, particularly in comparison with the known consequences of fossil power.

Look at Shoreham. Fully assembled and tested. 851 megawatts electric. Full power operating license. Ready to go. Six billion dollars. All thrown away for a dollar because of politics. Decommissioned and left to rot. And who pays for it? And for the replacement power plants that will ultimately be needed to cover its capacity? Why, the ratepayers, of course.

Now, with the new accident at Fukushima Daiichi, things are going to get worse. Public sentiment is going to be swayed against nuclear, due to misunderstanding and, in some cases, deliberate misinformation. That is unfortunate, because we are at a very sensitive juncture, where the environmental consequences of fossil power need to be abated now, not in the distant future, and nuclear energy is the only viable option in the immediate term, and in the near and mid future.

All of the alternative sources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar are not ready for main stream commercial operation, and neither is nuclear fusion. We need to objectively consider the global issues surrounding nuclear power and take a stand, one that is based on hard scientific fact, not mythology, scare tactics, and politics.

In point of fact, both Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl released substantial amounts of radioactive material (Chernobyl about ten times as great, although the final picture is not complete on Fukushima Daiichi) but, and do not misunderstand this, the dilution effect of the enormous volume of the atmosphere and the ocean strongly mitigates the consequences of both accidents.

I am not trying to minimize these accidents. They are serious, and they need to be studied so that we can learn from them. We just need to put them into global context.

In addition, we are critically hampered by the lack of a long term high level waste facility. We have spent fuel accumulating in our 104 reactors with no place to go, simply because of politics, and misguided information. Yucca Mountain was built specifically for this purpose. We need to start using it. Now. Otherwise, we are not going to be able to proceed with a viable nuclear program, and the global consequences are that we will wind up in the dark ages, so to speak, and - might I add - literally.

And, along with nuclear power, we need to look very carefully at automobiles. The marriage of nuclear power with automobiles running on electricity is a "match made in heaven". It is time to put our collective feet down and force the issue. These gas guzzlers need to go. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts. If that means mass transit and/or a change in life style, then so be it - our very existence on Earth depends on it. No exceptions.

There are over 3,000 known isotopes in the world, with more being discovered as research progresses. Isotopes are variations of elements with the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. They play a crucial role in fields such as nuclear science, medicine, and environmental studies.

Uranium and plutonium are used in nuclear reactors because they undergo nuclear fission, releasing a large amount of energy. This energy is harnessed to generate electricity. These elements are preferred due to their ability to sustain a chain reaction in a controlled manner within the reactor core.

No, the Schrödinger equation cannot be derived using classical physics principles. It was developed in quantum mechanics to describe the behavior of quantum particles, such as electrons, and is based on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.

When bismuth-213 emits an alpha particle, it transforms into thallium-209. This process is known as alpha decay, where the atomic number decreases by 2 and the mass number decreases by 4 due to the emission of an alpha particle.

Positron emission tomography (PET) scans use radioactive substances that emit positrons to detect metabolic activity in the body. These substances are injected into the body and, as they decay, they emit positrons that interact with electrons to produce gamma rays. The gamma rays are then detected by a PET scanner to create detailed images of the body's functions.

For decay rates/decay factors in functions:

The decay rate is the actual amount you are substituting into an equation. For example, a common exponential function such as "y=a(b)^x" would show exponential decay if it were written as "y=i(1-r)^t".

"i" represents the initial amount, such as in the previous example, would be $100. "(1-r)" is the decay factor, whereas the "r" is your decay rate. The decay factor is derived from 1-r because a function would only be considered decaying if the growth/decay factor is less than 1. Another way of looking at this principal is if we were to say a car we bought lost 8% of its value every year. Then it would only be retaining 92% of it's initial value. "t" is your time unit, or the number of times the function is applied.

Example:

A medical patient is given 400 mg of antibiotics. Say that 10% of the medicine given to a patient is eliminated by the patient's body every 2 hours. How much medicine will remain in the patient's blood stream in 4 hours?

Sample equation: y=i(1-r)^t --> "i" in this case would be 400, or the 400 mg given to the patient on. (1-r) would be 1-10% or 1-0.10 -- the amount of antibiotic that will remain in the patients body. "t" in this case would be 2, because the eliminated amounts are only calculated in 2 hour increments, with 4 hours total in the problem.

Your equation: y=400(1-0.10)^2

y=400(0.90)^2

y=400(0.81)

y=324 mg of antibiotics left in the blood stream

The decay equation for Yttrium-90 decay to form Zirconium-90 is:

[ ^{90}{39}\text{Y} \rightarrow \ ^{90}{40}\text{Zr} + e^- + \overline{\nu}_e ]

This represents beta minus decay, where a neutron in the Yttrium-90 nucleus transforms into a proton, electron (e^-), and anti-neutrino ((\overline{\nu}_e)).

Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 are commonly used in nuclear fission reactions. When hit by a neutron, these particles can split into smaller fragments, releasing more neutrons and a large amount of energy.