Quote:
Originally Posted by nota
bigger bits take more input energy to fuse
and I think give off less energy in return too
or a double problem for cheap energy
also I think most fusion joins two like mass same elements
as there maybe a energy penalty both in put and out to a unlike mass reaction
most stars take a long time to fuse H to He
but once the H is used up the process takes less time
for each mass increase
btw the most stable is iron it only fuses in a supernova
|
They don't have to be the same. The standard fusion reaction is Dueterium-Tritium.
Heavier particles have more momentum, which might give them a better chance to stick. This is why we do H(2) and H(3) instead of just 2x H(2).
As I've pointed out before, in my nuke-e classes, the professor asked us what the size of a critical mass of Uranium was, and he'd hold his hands a few inches apart like he was holding a small sphere. He then asked what the size of a critical mass for Hydrogen Fusion. He then pointed out the window at the sun.
IF fusion were easy, we'd alreayd be there.
And I think you're right about Iron being the most stable.
And Plutonium is no worse than a lot of other substances we use. And it is much harder to make a Pu bomb than a U235 bomb.