As a type of general reaction, fusion is definitely a feasible technology, but a fusion machine that changes iron to gold is not nearly as likely to ever happen. To convert iron into gold, the fusion reaction would have to combine two smaller atoms’ nuclei whereas fission, an already highly used technology, requires a single, larger atom’s nucleus to split up and produce smaller atoms as a byproduct. As mentioned earlier, iron would have to increase its atomic mass and thus be more unstable if it were to undergo fusion. Because of the increased instability, the possibility of having a controlled reaction to create gold is unlikely. Ironically, although fission would be the process that is more feasible to create gold, the chance that the gold would be radioactive is much higher.
Fusion has been very successful when using smaller atoms, such as hydrogen, tritium (an isotope of hydrogen), and deuterium (another isotope of hydrogen), and is also a very clean energy source. As far as practicality for the production of precious elements, fission still remains a more likely option. In researching our topic, we decided to look into how fission can produce gold rather than fusion because the likelihood is so low as described in our earlier posts. Who knows? With so much knowledge not being spread throughout the Foundation’s society, Ponyets may have been using lead instead of iron. Well actually, he seems pretty knowledgeable, but regardless, lead is the element that would be the most probable to produce gold through a fission reaction by breaking down an element into smaller atoms. Lead is a very stable element with an atomic mass of 82, and gold also has a stable atomic mass of 79. So, to get this reaction from lead to gold, a great amount of energy is required through a process called transmutation in which enough energy is focused on the lead atom to lose 3 protons, thus turning into gold. There have been accounts of people claiming to have achieved the process, and fission occurs daily at plants. However, the fact that gold is not constantly being manufactured by people implies that these are false claims or that the process is too costly. Either way, fission would most likely be the reaction relied upon to create gold in the future.
As our group mentioned briefly in earlier posts, fusion reactions literally require more energy than the sun naturally produces through its fusion reactions because a fusion of elements larger than hydrogen/helium, are only found in supernovae. Supernovae are the most explosive and energetic forms of stellar collapses, and fusion rapidly occurs. Because they have so much energy, all smaller atoms collide to form larger atoms, which means iron can be turned into gold. Our group believes that our technology process of fusion will take off within the next few decades and provide most of the world’s energy. On the other hand, we do not think the iron to gold process Ponyets describes will ever be possible, even with magnetic donuts that contain the fusion, because the amount of energy required is billions of times larger than all the energy on our planet. Then again, if I could tell a Roman philosopher from two thousand years ago about inventions called computers, he would probably pass me off as insane. Predictions such as ours are probably foolish because new technologies continuously surpass what people imagine as possible.
Works Cited
Atherton, Kelsey D. "Fusion Power Could Happen Sooner Than You Think." Popular Science. Bonnier Corporation, 18 Feb. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Francis, Matthew. "Will We Ever … Have Reliable Nuclear Fusion Power?" BBC.com. BBC, 26 July 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Helmenstine, Anne Marie. "Turning Lead into Gold." About.com Chemistry. About.com, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
"Nuclear Fission vs Nuclear Fusion." Diffen. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
Siegel, RP. "Fusion Power: Pros and Cons." Triple Pundit. Triple Pundit, 12 July 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment