[guest39538]

We all know that the magnetic bottling of Plasma fails and the Plasma's snakelike charm ''buckles'' the designs. If we could extend the radius of the design from a central point, a bit like an inflating sphere, at some point I am sure the plasma could not affect and ''buckle'' the design, because the ''energy'' at a greater radius would be weak if the energy was contained centrally by a magnetic field. So is the limitation of size the problem why Plasma physics will always fail?

[evan_au]

If we could extend the radius of the design from a central point, a bit like an inflating sphere, at some point I am sure the plasma could not affect and ''buckle'' the design, because the ''energy'' at a greater radius would be weak if the energy was contained centrally by a magnetic field.

As you say, confinement of a fusion plasma is an insidious problem - every time one problem is overcome, the sneaky plasma finds another way to break out. Nevertheless, the experts assure us that they have made considerable progress (even though it may not seem so to outsiders).

Increasing the volume of the plasma is certainly a good approach - you increase the mass of plasma by the cube of the size, but only increase the area through which the heat can escape by the square of the size.

Maintaining a carefully structured, powerful magnetic field through an increased volume is also a challenge. Part of the solution is to measure the stability of the plasma at frequent intervals, and increase the strength of the magnetic field where the plasma is starting to break through to reinforce it at that point.

Unfortunately, I fear that the cost will increase by more than the cube of the size; they already have enough problems transporting the magnet pieces to the construction site for ITER.

You can find out a lot about Nuclear fusion from this podcast:
http://omegataupodcast.net/22-nuclear-fusion-at-mpi-fur-plasmaphysik/
http://omegataupodcast.net/157-fusion-at-iter/

[guest39538]

If we could extend the radius of the design from a central point, a bit like an inflating sphere, at some point I am sure the plasma could not affect and ''buckle'' the design, because the ''energy'' at a greater radius would be weak if the energy was contained centrally by a magnetic field.

As you say, confinement of a fusion plasma is an insidious problem - every time one problem is overcome, the sneaky plasma finds another way to break out. Nevertheless, the experts assure us that they have made considerable progress (even though it may not seem so to outsiders).

Increasing the volume of the plasma is certainly a good approach - you increase the mass of plasma by the cube of the size, but only increase the area through which the heat can escape by the square of the size.

Maintaining a carefully structured, powerful magnetic field through an increased volume is also a challenge. Part of the solution is to measure the stability of the plasma at frequent intervals, and increase the strength of the magnetic field where the plasma is starting to break through to reinforce it at that point.

Unfortunately, I fear that the cost will increase by more than the cube of the size; they already have enough problems transporting the magnet pieces to the construction site for ITER.

You can find out a lot about Nuclear fusion from this podcast:
http://omegataupodcast.net/22-nuclear-fusion-at-mpi-fur-plasmaphysik/
http://omegataupodcast.net/157-fusion-at-iter/

Thank you , I am not sure I understood that fully and I will view the links provided.  My understanding is that the Plasma gains mass and ''grows'', so as it ''grows'' the magnetic  field strength needs to be continually increased?

What part do likewise charges play in the plasma if any?

And is it kE that is the ''food'' for growth or other?

[William McC]

If we could extend the radius of the design from a central point, a bit like an inflating sphere, at some point I am sure the plasma could not affect and ''buckle'' the design, because the ''energy'' at a greater radius would be weak if the energy was contained centrally by a magnetic field.

As you say, confinement of a fusion plasma is an insidious problem - every time one problem is overcome, the sneaky plasma finds another way to break out. Nevertheless, the experts assure us that they have made considerable progress (even though it may not seem so to outsiders).

Increasing the volume of the plasma is certainly a good approach - you increase the mass of plasma by the cube of the size, but only increase the area through which the heat can escape by the square of the size.

Maintaining a carefully structured, powerful magnetic field through an increased volume is also a challenge. Part of the solution is to measure the stability of the plasma at frequent intervals, and increase the strength of the magnetic field where the plasma is starting to break through to reinforce it at that point.

Unfortunately, I fear that the cost will increase by more than the cube of the size; they already have enough problems transporting the magnet pieces to the construction site for ITER.

You can find out a lot about Nuclear fusion from this podcast:
http://omegataupodcast.net/22-nuclear-fusion-at-mpi-fur-plasmaphysik/
http://omegataupodcast.net/157-fusion-at-iter/

Thank you , I am not sure I understood that fully and I will view the links provided.  My understanding is that the Plasma gains mass and ''grows'', so as it ''grows'' the magnetic  field strength needs to be continually increased?

What part do likewise charges play in the plasma if any?

And is it kE that is the ''food'' for growth or other?

If you apply an oxygen and acetylene heating or cutting torch to the end of a thoriated tungsten rod, 1/16" diameter will do, you get a plasma and also massive quantities of radio active gas in seconds. From high temperature reactions involving the carbon in the acetylene and CO2, as well as the oxidizing of the Thorium a common welding accident. You also get a gravity like effect near the event, very powerful considering the size of the event. The gravity like effect that pulls the torch and even the flame itself to it may be some kind of pressure effect though. It is rather cool though to witness.

You need breathing equipment, welding lenses for your eyes, and suits to protect your skin. The event will ionize the entire room in seconds. Connecting electrical equipment, fluorescent bulbs, anything that has an electrical potential, to flesh, and especially silver fillings. You really need radiation suits.

Enrico Fermi almost desimated the earth not knowing this. He was considered to be a Universal Scientist however he did not know what carbon and radio active substances can do at elevated temperature, or in a plasma, or ARC, this makes it doubtful he was a good Universal Scientist.

An electrical ARC is stated as being 35,000 degrees, this is certainly hot enough to create fusion with a radio active catalyst present. If you look at many of our industrial processes today they use an ARC to make chemicals even elements, almost always with a radio active catalyst present.


I would think a spherical containment would be preferred. As the imaginary spherical shape in any cubical containment, would be a surface area limitation, greater than that of the cube. In other words the plasma will be in a spherical shape naturally, when you try to measure it in a cubical confinement, the corners of the cube may actually not be getting the full potential of the plasma. Because of the Pi D^2 and Pi D^3÷6 area to volume ratio of a sphere. Similar to the cube however forming at a spherical boundary within the cube. So the corners of the cube may never get the full potential of the plasma.


Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

[evan_au]

An electrical ARC is stated as being 35,000 degrees, this is certainly hot enough to create fusion with a radio active catalyst present.

Heavy metal ions (eg Thorium or Tungsten) attract electrons strongly, and have many energy levels, which result in radiating energy much more efficiently than a fully-ionized Hydrogen plasma. These heavy ions "poison" the plasma. Fusion designers go to great lengths to avoid any contamination of the plasma by partially-ionized atoms, and to promptly remove any heavy ions from the plasma (eg atoms evaporated from the walls).

On what basis do you claim that fusion occurs with a radioactive catalyst?
- The temperature needs to be hot enough for momentum to overcome the considerable electrical repulsion of Hydrogen nuclei (usually a mixture of Tritium and Deuterium). This temperature is in the millions of degrees, not thousands.
- Thorium decays by emitting an alpha particle (Helium nucleus), but this is an example of Fission, not Fusion. The half-life is billions of years, so effectively none of it will decay in the lifetime of an electrical arc.
- Tritium is also radioactive; with a lifetime of a dozen years, a much greater fraction will decay in the lifetime of a fusion experiment. But this isn't enough to catalyze controlled fusion (at least, not yet).

I would think a spherical containment would be preferred.

A sphere is certainly the shape that has proved most effective at generating fusion energy so far; the Sun is a sphere, using gravitational confinement.

But seriously, it is a promising shape, because it has the minimal surface area (losing heat) for the volume (generating heat). A spherical fusion reactor has certainly been tried.

However, it is very hard to generate a spherical magnetic field, since magnetic fields always need a North and a South - and these are points where the plasma can escape (and potentially melt the magnet poles).

The most common approach to defeat plasma leakage at the magnetic poles is to use a toroidal reactor, with plasma shaped like a donut. In this case, it is possible to connect the  magnetic field in a closed circle, so there is no North or South pole for the plasma to escape (but it always seems to find some other way to escape [] ).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Magnetic_confinement

[guest39538]

An electrical ARC is stated as being 35,000 degrees, this is certainly hot enough to create fusion with a radio active catalyst present.

Heavy metal ions (eg Thorium or Tungsten) attract electrons strongly, and have many energy levels, which result in radiating energy much more efficiently than a fully-ionized Hydrogen plasma. These heavy ions "poison" the plasma. Fusion designers go to great lengths to avoid any contamination of the plasma by partially-ionized atoms, and to promptly remove any heavy ions from the plasma (eg atoms evaporated from the walls).

On what basis do you claim that fusion occurs with a radioactive catalyst?
- The temperature needs to be hot enough for momentum to overcome the considerable electrical repulsion of Hydrogen nuclei (usually a mixture of Tritium and Deuterium). This temperature is in the millions of degrees, not thousands.
- Thorium decays by emitting an alpha particle (Helium nucleus), but this is an example of Fission, not Fusion. The half-life is billions of years, so effectively none of it will decay in the lifetime of an electrical arc.
- Tritium is also radioactive; with a lifetime of a dozen years, a much greater fraction will decay in the lifetime of a fusion experiment. But this isn't enough to catalyze controlled fusion (at least, not yet).

I would think a spherical containment would be preferred.

A sphere is certainly the shape that has proved most effective at generating fusion energy so far; the Sun is a sphere, using gravitational confinement.

But seriously, it is a promising shape, because it has the minimal surface area (losing heat) for the volume (generating heat). A spherical fusion reactor has certainly been tried.

However, it is very hard to generate a spherical magnetic field, since magnetic fields always need a North and a South - and these are points where the plasma can escape (and potentially melt the magnet poles).

The most common approach to defeat plasma leakage at the magnetic poles is to use a toroidal reactor, with plasma shaped like a donut. In this case, it is possible to connect the  magnetic field in a closed circle, so there is no North or South pole for the plasma to escape (but it always seems to find some other way to escape [] ).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Magnetic_confinement

Why don't we rotate the magnetic field so the magnetic poles are constantly moving about ?


Plasma is clearly dynamic so surely a ''stationary'' magnetic field will always fail and a field to hold a dynamic must be surely a dynamic field?

''Stationary'' fields surely have a threshold?


added- You can make a spherical field with no poles to produce a mono-field by ''aiming'' either + or - of a bar magnet inwards to make a sphere of magnets with one polarity pointing inwards and one polarity pointing outwards.

[evan_au]

You can make a spherical field with no poles to produce a mono-field by ''aiming'' either + or - of a bar magnet inwards to make a sphere of magnets with one polarity pointing inwards and one polarity pointing outwards.

Charged ions spiral around the magnetic field lines - this is what causes the Aurora Borealis (and its Southern cousin, the Aurora Australis).
The goal in a magnetically-confined fusion reactor is to have a very strong magnetic field (so the spirals have a small radius, much smaller than the reactor size), and form closed loops (so the ions stay inside the reactor).

In trying to visualise a spherical arrangement of bar magnets, I imagine that this will produce a region of uniformly weak magnetic field in the center of all the North poles; the few magnetic field lines remaining in this region will terminate on the North poles of the bar magnets. This means most of the plasma will explode straight out between the bar magnets, with some spiraling along the weak magnetic field lines into the North ends of the bar magnets.

Maybe someone else can visualise it better than I?

[William McC]

An electrical ARC is stated as being 35,000 degrees, this is certainly hot enough to create fusion with a radio active catalyst present.

Heavy metal ions (eg Thorium or Tungsten) attract electrons strongly, and have many energy levels, which result in radiating energy much more efficiently than a fully-ionized Hydrogen plasma. These heavy ions "poison" the plasma. Fusion designers go to great lengths to avoid any contamination of the plasma by partially-ionized atoms, and to promptly remove any heavy ions from the plasma (eg atoms evaporated from the walls).

On what basis do you claim that fusion occurs with a radioactive catalyst?
- The temperature needs to be hot enough for momentum to overcome the considerable electrical repulsion of Hydrogen nuclei (usually a mixture of Tritium and Deuterium). This temperature is in the millions of degrees, not thousands.
- Thorium decays by emitting an alpha particle (Helium nucleus), but this is an example of Fission, not Fusion. The half-life is billions of years, so effectively none of it will decay in the lifetime of an electrical arc.
- Tritium is also radioactive; with a lifetime of a dozen years, a much greater fraction will decay in the lifetime of a fusion experiment. But this isn't enough to catalyze controlled fusion (at least, not yet).

I would think a spherical containment would be preferred.

A sphere is certainly the shape that has proved most effective at generating fusion energy so far; the Sun is a sphere, using gravitational confinement.

But seriously, it is a promising shape, because it has the minimal surface area (losing heat) for the volume (generating heat). A spherical fusion reactor has certainly been tried.

However, it is very hard to generate a spherical magnetic field, since magnetic fields always need a North and a South - and these are points where the plasma can escape (and potentially melt the magnet poles).

The most common approach to defeat plasma leakage at the magnetic poles is to use a toroidal reactor, with plasma shaped like a donut. In this case, it is possible to connect the  magnetic field in a closed circle, so there is no North or South pole for the plasma to escape (but it always seems to find some other way to escape [] ).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Magnetic_confinement

Why don't we rotate the magnetic field so the magnetic poles are constantly moving about ?


Plasma is clearly dynamic so surely a ''stationary'' magnetic field will always fail and a field to hold a dynamic must be surely a dynamic field?

''Stationary'' fields surely have a threshold?


added- You can make a spherical field with no poles to produce a mono-field by ''aiming'' either + or - of a bar magnet inwards to make a sphere of magnets with one polarity pointing inwards and one polarity pointing outwards.

To answer you about fusion in common every day stuff, I have to touch on subjects so exposing to modern science that even I get a little red trying to consider modern science and also bring out things that used to be known by grade school kids in school.

Ammonia is to trained life safety chemists an oxidizer. Nitrogen as you may know does not oxidize anything. It is often used to purge and protect metal from high heat, like when brazing copper refrigeration lines. You can use helium or argon as well, however nitrogen is usually cheaper and it is the normal substance to use to protect metal surfaces from oxidation when braising copper line sets for refrigeration and air conditioning.

My point is that ammonia is today NH3 however up until 1973 it was NO2 in our area. I removed some of the last bottles of Malincrodt reagent ammonia from public and private schools here on the island where I live. I assumed mistakenly that they would be replaced with fresh bottles. I was wrong.

My experiments with ammonia show it to be an oxidizer. From accidents, fuel air explosions involving ammonia I would concur with others that now feel it contains oxygen. Years ago the process that used hydrogen and nitrogen to manufacture ammonia was understood to add one hydrogen atom to the nitrogen under heat and pressure, creating an oxygen atom. That oxygen atom would bond with nitrogen and then pick up one more oxygen atom, created by turning nitrogen into oxygen by the addition of one hydrogen atom. But if this was true what have people been doing? Witch doctor stuff in my opinion.

So when you say fusion takes place at some mythical temperature, I find it hard to answer you without digging deep for some skeletons.

As I mentioned nitrogen was used in gasoline fire extinguishers not because it oxidizes but rather it replaces oxygen with an almost inert gas, and extinguishes the gasoline fire.

But the most damning evidence that ammonia is not NH3 is that the gas companies do not use those 3 luscious hydrogen atoms to make hydrocarbons, but rather go after the two hydrogen atoms contained in water. For old timers this is perhaps a bit funny, I dread having to bring this old battle into your world. However it is how it was and I suspect highly how it still is.

Fussion fission takes place everyday in industry.

Years ago I had told a lot of people on the internet that colleges that did not take grant money and shut up about the real atom, were cutoff from Federal funding and or tax breaks, which is still how most schools survive. Those schools that promoted the truth closed, that is why I did not bother to exercise my scholarship to C.W. Post because if they were still open, business as usual, they were corrupt. And of no use to me.

Money is no object, it is purely a conceptual tool. Like a hammer or a stick of dynamite it has a purpose. If you use any tool wrong you get wrong results. Used correctly all are tools of God.

There is no such thing as poverty, it requires massive counterintelligence, war, politics, and of course lies, to split up the people.

There is no such thing as a shortage of money scientifically or mathematically, if you can still print money and you are not at war with the world. So problems run deep, very deep. These are not new problems rather very old problems that date back to England's revolution from Rome.

That is why America is a republic, not everything about any civilizations beginning is ever totally wrong. My founding fathers, found all the good stuff from all the civilizations on earth and found that all the good stuff does work together. However it creates jealousy of a murderous nature. Much like the movie City Ember. There are those that just want their status quo to remain as it is. Even if it is embarrassingly degraded. They have a twisted following and want it to stay that way. They are usually just sick hoarders. 

If you look at the shallow nature of individuals today, you might get an idea that most people heard the rather damning news about their failed world and just did not do anything. They were often rewarded for it by others that also did not want to do anything or be goaded into doing something. People are quick to say they don't care, let someone else worry about it, it is not my problem. So we have the land of chaos and no one cares. That is how we might have fusion happening everyday in industry.

Carbon some oxidized uranium atoms, heat and pressure differentials will create your fusion.

Sincerely,

William McCormick



 

[William McC]

An electrical ARC is stated as being 35,000 degrees, this is certainly hot enough to create fusion with a radio active catalyst present.

Heavy metal ions (eg Thorium or Tungsten) attract electrons strongly, and have many energy levels, which result in radiating energy much more efficiently than a fully-ionized Hydrogen plasma. These heavy ions "poison" the plasma. Fusion designers go to great lengths to avoid any contamination of the plasma by partially-ionized atoms, and to promptly remove any heavy ions from the plasma (eg atoms evaporated from the walls).

On what basis do you claim that fusion occurs with a radioactive catalyst?
- The temperature needs to be hot enough for momentum to overcome the considerable electrical repulsion of Hydrogen nuclei (usually a mixture of Tritium and Deuterium). This temperature is in the millions of degrees, not thousands.
- Thorium decays by emitting an alpha particle (Helium nucleus), but this is an example of Fission, not Fusion. The half-life is billions of years, so effectively none of it will decay in the lifetime of an electrical arc.
- Tritium is also radioactive; with a lifetime of a dozen years, a much greater fraction will decay in the lifetime of a fusion experiment. But this isn't enough to catalyze controlled fusion (at least, not yet).

I would think a spherical containment would be preferred.

A sphere is certainly the shape that has proved most effective at generating fusion energy so far; the Sun is a sphere, using gravitational confinement.

But seriously, it is a promising shape, because it has the minimal surface area (losing heat) for the volume (generating heat). A spherical fusion reactor has certainly been tried.

However, it is very hard to generate a spherical magnetic field, since magnetic fields always need a North and a South - and these are points where the plasma can escape (and potentially melt the magnet poles).

The most common approach to defeat plasma leakage at the magnetic poles is to use a toroidal reactor, with plasma shaped like a donut. In this case, it is possible to connect the  magnetic field in a closed circle, so there is no North or South pole for the plasma to escape (but it always seems to find some other way to escape [] ).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Magnetic_confinement

Countries use centrifuge systems on petroleum they have to, it moves the bulk of radio active materials. You have to centrifuge it or you will be oxidizing uranium as you drive. There is always some oxidized uranium left in tar, petroleum and even natural gas. But we try to remove as much as we can.

When they set the Kuwait oil fields on fire, they released massive amounts of uranium into the air. Germany warned of this potential accident, and suspected that chain reactions could take place, creating more and more radio active stuff as the uranium particulate started to oxidize.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[evan_au]

the most damning evidence that ammonia is not NH3 is that the gas companies do not use those 3 luscious hydrogen atoms to make hydrocarbons, but rather go after the two hydrogen atoms contained in water.

It is true that many attempts to produce hydrogen gas (eg to fuel hydrogen cars) starts with water as the hydrogen source.
- That is because the Earth is 70% covered with the stuff - it even falls from the sky.
- If you were on Jupiter, you might decide to start with Ammonia (except Jupiter already has plenty of Hydrogen...)
- On Earth, Ammonia is far more valuable as a feedstock for agricultural fertilizer and chemical processes than it is to fuel a small number of hydrogen vehicles.
- And we tend to pump or dig hydrocarbons out of the ground. You can't produce them from water or Ammonia (which have no carbon)
- The very inert nature of Nitrogen (N₂) is due to the triple bonds between the two Nitrogen atoms which must be broken to attach other atoms. If you can break the triple bond, you can attach a Hydrogen to each of them, producing NH₃ (Ammonia).
 - Worldwide, humans spend a largish percentage of our energy costs/carbon dioxide emissions on capturing nitrogen from the air (while legumes like beans do it for free).

For a picture of Ammonia (NH₃), see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia
For a picture of Nitrous Oxide (NO₂), see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide
- NO₂ has been used as an oxidiser in rocket motors, and laughing gas in dentistry...
- I can see why they might not want tanks of the stuff hanging around in schools!

My experiments with ammonia show it to be an oxidizer. From accidents, fuel air explosions involving ammonia I would concur with others that now feel it contains oxygen.

If I remember my chemistry classes, the definition of an oxidiser is a chemical that likes to steal electrons from other chemicals. Oxygen is the most familiar example of it (we breathe it every few seconds), and oxygen lends its name to this group of chemicals.
But other chemicals can also act as oxidisers without actually containing any oxygen. Some chemicals like fluorine are even more active oxidisers than oxygen.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_agent

Fussion fission takes place everyday in industry.

Electrical fuses use fusion every day. One meaning of "Fusion" is melting, which does not change the nature of atomic nuclei (and may not even result in chemical changes beyond much faster oxidation).

But this thread is about Nuclear Fusion, where Hydrogen nuclei are fused into Helium to yield the most energy (sometimes more circuitous routes via intermediates like Lithium & Beryllium are proposed, which have their own problems).

Please provide some examples of everyday industrial processes which use Nuclear Fusion.

[William McC]

the most damning evidence that ammonia is not NH3 is that the gas companies do not use those 3 luscious hydrogen atoms to make hydrocarbons, but rather go after the two hydrogen atoms contained in water.

It is true that many attempts to produce hydrogen gas (eg to fuel hydrogen cars) starts with water as the hydrogen source.
- That is because the Earth is 70% covered with the stuff - it even falls from the sky.
- If you were on Jupiter, you might decide to start with Ammonia (except Jupiter already has plenty of Hydrogen...)
- On Earth, Ammonia is far more valuable as a feedstock for agricultural fertilizer and chemical processes than it is to fuel a small number of hydrogen vehicles.
- And we tend to pump or dig hydrocarbons out of the ground. You can't produce them from water or Ammonia (which have no carbon)
- The very inert nature of Nitrogen (N₂) is due to the triple bonds between the two Nitrogen atoms which must be broken to attach other atoms. If you can break the triple bond, you can attach a Hydrogen to each of them, producing NH₃ (Ammonia).
 - Worldwide, humans spend a largish percentage of our energy costs/carbon dioxide emissions on capturing nitrogen from the air (while legumes like beans do it for free).

For a picture of Ammonia (NH₃), see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia
For a picture of Nitrous Oxide (NO₂), see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide
- NO₂ has been used as an oxidiser in rocket motors, and laughing gas in dentistry...
- I can see why they might not want tanks of the stuff hanging around in schools!

My experiments with ammonia show it to be an oxidizer. From accidents, fuel air explosions involving ammonia I would concur with others that now feel it contains oxygen.

If I remember my chemistry classes, the definition of an oxidiser is a chemical that likes to steal electrons from other chemicals. Oxygen is the most familiar example of it (we breathe it every few seconds), and oxygen lends its name to this group of chemicals.
But other chemicals can also act as oxidisers without actually containing any oxygen. Some chemicals like fluorine are even more active oxidisers than oxygen.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_agent

Fussion fission takes place everyday in industry.

Electrical fuses use fusion every day. One meaning of "Fusion" is melting, which does not change the nature of atomic nuclei (and may not even result in chemical changes beyond much faster oxidation).

But this thread is about Nuclear Fusion, where Hydrogen nuclei are fused into Helium to yield the most energy (sometimes more circuitous routes via intermediates like Lithium & Beryllium are proposed, which have their own problems).

Please provide some examples of everyday industrial processes which use Nuclear Fusion.

They can and do strip the hydrogen off of the oxygen in water using carbon heated to incandescence, in a chamber void of most oxygen. To create free hydrogen that they then combine to create most of the hydrocarbon products we use. If ammonia were NH3 they would use every drop of it to create the hydrocarbons we use regularly.

Nitrogen does not bond with hydrogen for one, that was basic chemistry where I come from.

As I mentioned nitrogen snuffs out fires, it is an anti oxidant. It is not an oxidizer. That means if there is any oxidizing going on from the presence of ammonia we are claiming that hydrogen is the oxidizer. There is serious basic error in the chemical formula NH3. There is no such chemical.

But there are many books that state there is such a chemical as NH3. There are many books that claim a lot of things today. In many older chemical books they refused to put a chemical formula for ammonia in the chemical books, while every other chemical in the books had a formula. It was because, it was not NH3 like a few pre World War Two German chemists claimed it was. Whether they did that for a joke or a facetious prank to belittle poor American chemistry, it eventually stuck.

Propane and ammonia gas can create a silent explosion that can hurl humans at the speed of a bullet. Positively accelerating them in a few feet to the velocity of a bullet. Hazmat personnel have been seriously injured by this type of fuel air explosive. Farm animals as well have been hurled great distances by this type of silent explosion. This was part of my training as a HAZMAT professional. It came complete with a video of a man being hurled through a cinder block wall during the making of a training video to train people how to safely handle an anhydrous ammonia spill. That may seem comical until you see the video. I was already aware of this danger because it was standard training when you were young in my area. Many refrigeration systems still used ammonia as the refrigerant and this was a potential accident. It also occurred on farms when urine from animals on hot stagnant days accumulated and mixed with methane from the animals rotting feces.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[chiralSPO]

They can and do strip the hydrogen off of the oxygen in water using carbon heated to incandescence, in a chamber void of most oxygen. To create free hydrogen that they then combine to create most of the hydrocarbon products we use. If ammonia were NH3 they would use every drop of it to create the hydrocarbons we use regularly.

Yes, carbon can strip the oxygen from water. But everything else you say here is incorrect. Ammonia is, in fact NH₃! And we do not use ammonia to make hydrocarbons because ammonia is more valuable than hydrocarbons. In fact, we use hydrocarbons to make ammonia (I think the Haber-Bosch process is responsible for about 5% of the global natural gas usage...)

Nitrogen does not bond with hydrogen for one, that was basic chemistry where I come from.

As I mentioned nitrogen snuffs out fires, it is an anti oxidant. It is not an oxidizer. That means if there is any oxidizing going on from the presence of ammonia we are claiming that hydrogen is the oxidizer. There is serious basic error in the chemical formula NH3. There is no such chemical.

Nitrogen gas (N₂) is fairly unreactive, and can be used to put out some fires, but do not confuse this with being non-oxidizing. Reactive metals like lithium, sodium, potassium, and magnesium will all burn violently in pure N₂ atmosphere, producing the metal nitride (e.g. Mg₃N₂). Hydrogen also reacts with nitrogen to produce ammonia (exothermically), but the process requires a catalyst and high temperatures and pressures to work effectively (Haber-Bosch process)

But there are many books that state there is such a chemical as NH3. There are many books that claim a lot of things today. In many older chemical books they refused to put a chemical formula for ammonia in the chemical books, while every other chemical in the books had a formula. It was because, it was not NH3 like a few pre World War Two German chemists claimed it was. Whether they did that for a joke or a facetious prank to belittle poor American chemistry, it eventually stuck.

If ammonia is not NH₃, pray tell, what is it? By the way, I am fairly certain, based on first-hand experience as a chemist, that ammonia is NH₃. For instance, when acids (a source of H⁺) are added to metal nitrides (like the aforementioned Mg₃N₂), ammonia is produced (it is very easy to tell by odor alone). Also ammonia can be deprotonated by strong bases, and reacted with electrophiles to form amines (which proves that there are N–H bonds).

Propane and ammonia gas can create a silent explosion that can hurl humans at the speed of a bullet. Positively accelerating them in a few feet to the velocity of a bullet. Hazmat personnel have been seriously injured by this type of fuel air explosive. Farm animals as well have been hurled great distances by this type of silent explosion. This was part of my training as a HAZMAT professional. It came complete with a video of a man being hurled through a cinder block wall during the making of a training video to train people how to safely handle an anhydrous ammonia spill. That may seem comical until you see the video. I was already aware of this danger because it was standard training when you were young in my area. Many refrigeration systems still used ammonia as the refrigerant and this was a potential accident. It also occurred on farms when urine from animals on hot stagnant days accumulated and mixed with methane from the animals rotting feces.

Explosive decompression of liquified ammonia or liquefied propane is not proof of any type of chemical reaction.

Frankly I am terrified that someone as ill-informed as you can be a "trained HAZMAT professional"

[William McC]

the most damning evidence that ammonia is not NH3 is that the gas companies do not use those 3 luscious hydrogen atoms to make hydrocarbons, but rather go after the two hydrogen atoms contained in water.

It is true that many attempts to produce hydrogen gas (eg to fuel hydrogen cars) starts with water as the hydrogen source.
- That is because the Earth is 70% covered with the stuff - it even falls from the sky.
- If you were on Jupiter, you might decide to start with Ammonia (except Jupiter already has plenty of Hydrogen...)
- On Earth, Ammonia is far more valuable as a feedstock for agricultural fertilizer and chemical processes than it is to fuel a small number of hydrogen vehicles.
- And we tend to pump or dig hydrocarbons out of the ground. You can't produce them from water or Ammonia (which have no carbon)
- The very inert nature of Nitrogen (N₂) is due to the triple bonds between the two Nitrogen atoms which must be broken to attach other atoms. If you can break the triple bond, you can attach a Hydrogen to each of them, producing NH₃ (Ammonia).
 - Worldwide, humans spend a largish percentage of our energy costs/carbon dioxide emissions on capturing nitrogen from the air (while legumes like beans do it for free).

For a picture of Ammonia (NH₃), see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia
For a picture of Nitrous Oxide (NO₂), see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide
- NO₂ has been used as an oxidiser in rocket motors, and laughing gas in dentistry...
- I can see why they might not want tanks of the stuff hanging around in schools!

My experiments with ammonia show it to be an oxidizer. From accidents, fuel air explosions involving ammonia I would concur with others that now feel it contains oxygen.

If I remember my chemistry classes, the definition of an oxidiser is a chemical that likes to steal electrons from other chemicals. Oxygen is the most familiar example of it (we breathe it every few seconds), and oxygen lends its name to this group of chemicals.
But other chemicals can also act as oxidisers without actually containing any oxygen. Some chemicals like fluorine are even more active oxidisers than oxygen.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_agent

Fussion fission takes place everyday in industry.

Electrical fuses use fusion every day. One meaning of "Fusion" is melting, which does not change the nature of atomic nuclei (and may not even result in chemical changes beyond much faster oxidation).

But this thread is about Nuclear Fusion, where Hydrogen nuclei are fused into Helium to yield the most energy (sometimes more circuitous routes via intermediates like Lithium & Beryllium are proposed, which have their own problems).

Please provide some examples of everyday industrial processes which use Nuclear Fusion.

There is a difference between the naturally occurring nitrogen N2 which is a siamese bond between two nitrogen atoms, compared to a single nitrogen atom. In a siamese bond one atom of the siamese bond of any element will be found to act a little like the element just lower than the element in siamese bond, but only while in the siamese bond. That is why two nitrogen atoms in siamese bond, act a little like carbon. Making the N2 version capable of holding some hydrogen. But a single atom of nitrogen will not hold hydrogen. Hydrazine is so unstable because it is only bound by the weak siamese N2 bond. Which can be easily broken by shocking it. That is why early attempts at utilizing hydrazine failed in amazing fiery displays as the hydrogen set free became H2 a very high pressure gas breaching its containment easily.   

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McC]

Explosive decompression of liquified ammonia or liquefied propane is not proof of any type of chemical reaction.

Frankly I am terrified that someone as ill-informed as you can be a "trained HAZMAT professional"

You are injecting conjecture. Who stated explosive decompression of a liquified ammonia or liquefied propane? Certainly not me.

I stated that anhydrous ammonia and propane in air can create a silent explosion. A fuel air explosive. Now I can understand you have no data or experience with such a thing. But you can do the experiment if you like.

Just create a chamber with anhydrous ammonia at the bottom of the chamber like a spill, reagent grade anhydrous ammonia still has water in it, then add just a tiny bit of propane into the chamber, and ignite it. Do not be anywhere near this experiment. The chamber can be almost at atmospheric pressure it can have a large vent to the atmosphere. Things like kiln dust, ash, and uncoated cement can turn anhydrous reagent grade ammonia, and even store bought ammonia hydroxide into powerful asphyxiating ammonia gas. If you find your ammonia is not strong enough.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McC]

Nitrogen gas (N₂) is fairly unreactive, and can be used to put out some fires, but do not confuse this with being non-oxidizing. Reactive metals like lithium, sodium, potassium, and magnesium will all burn violently in pure N₂ atmosphere, producing the metal nitride (e.g. Mg₃N₂). Hydrogen also reacts with nitrogen to produce ammonia (exothermically), but the process requires a catalyst and high temperatures and pressures to work effectively (Haber-Bosch process)

I have never seen or even heard of nitrogen reacting with pure sodium. If you are getting reactions you more than likely have sodium that is contaminated, sodium is almost always carrying some oxygen. Sodium reacts with oxygen and chlorine.

Sodium can take oxygen from carbon dioxide and create carbon monoxide. To do an experiment you would have to scrub a chamber of oxygen, then add nitrogen from liquified purified nitrogen, not nitrogen that has sat in a scientific grade cylinder to do the experiment, that will be found to contain oxygen from the cylinder walls, only purified liquid nitrogen containing almost zero oxygen can be used for the experiment. The sodium and the chamber has to be deoxidized.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[chiralSPO]

Explosive decompression of liquified ammonia or liquefied propane is not proof of any type of chemical reaction.

Frankly I am terrified that someone as ill-informed as you can be a "trained HAZMAT professional"

You are injecting conjecture. Who stated explosive decompression of a liquified ammonia or liquefied propane? Certainly not me.

I stated that anhydrous ammonia and propane in air can create a silent explosion. A fuel air explosive. Now I can understand you have no data or experience with such a thing. But you can do the experiment if you like.

Just create a chamber with anhydrous ammonia at the bottom of the chamber like a spill, reagent grade anhydrous ammonia still has water in it, then add just a tiny bit of propane into the chamber, and ignite it. Do not be anywhere near this experiment. The chamber can be almost at atmospheric pressure it can have a large vent to the atmosphere. Things like kiln dust, ash, and uncoated cement can turn anhydrous reagent grade ammonia, and even store bought ammonia hydroxide into powerful asphyxiating ammonia gas. If you find your ammonia is not strong enough.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

Sorry, I guess I misread your initial statement. Of course ammonia or propane can form an explosive fuel air mixture in air. Isn't this is an argument in favor of ammonia being more similar to hydrocarbon? (they both burn in air)

Regarding the reaction of sodium and nitrogen: Lithium and magnesium burn violently in nitrogen. Sodium will react, but not quite as completely--this is a reversible reaction, and an equilibrium mixture is attained depending on the temperature.

Perhaps you can offer some evidence as to why ammonia couldn't be NH₃?

[William McC]

Explosive decompression of liquified ammonia or liquefied propane is not proof of any type of chemical reaction.

Frankly I am terrified that someone as ill-informed as you can be a "trained HAZMAT professional"

You are injecting conjecture. Who stated explosive decompression of a liquified ammonia or liquefied propane? Certainly not me.

I stated that anhydrous ammonia and propane in air can create a silent explosion. A fuel air explosive. Now I can understand you have no data or experience with such a thing. But you can do the experiment if you like.

Just create a chamber with anhydrous ammonia at the bottom of the chamber like a spill, reagent grade anhydrous ammonia still has water in it, then add just a tiny bit of propane into the chamber, and ignite it. Do not be anywhere near this experiment. The chamber can be almost at atmospheric pressure it can have a large vent to the atmosphere. Things like kiln dust, ash, and uncoated cement can turn anhydrous reagent grade ammonia, and even store bought ammonia hydroxide into powerful asphyxiating ammonia gas. If you find your ammonia is not strong enough.


Sincerely,

William McCormick

Sorry, I guess I misread your initial statement. Of course ammonia or propane can form an explosive fuel air mixture in air. Isn't this is an argument in favor of ammonia being more similar to hydrocarbon? (they both burn in air)

Regarding the reaction of sodium and nitrogen: Lithium and magnesium burn violently in nitrogen. Sodium will react, but not quite as completely--this is a reversible reaction, and an equilibrium mixture is attained depending on the temperature.

Perhaps you can offer some evidence as to why ammonia couldn't be NH₃?

Chemicals like NaN2 are not made by burning. They create a state where one of the Nitrogen atoms acts like oxygen however it does not burn the sodium, rather it creates a weak bond with the sodium. But it is not a violent reaction at all, in fact it requires energy.

I dislike arguing chemicals because the basics have been tampered with. The level of purity compromised. So many chemicals have been mislabeled that more are mislabeled than properly labeled, from my own personal experience. The changes that were made in chemistry without a global reaching announcement are proof enough for me that we went from right to wrong in my opinion.

Most metals like sodium, lithium, and potassium are rarely purified to a point that they do not contain oxygen. Nitrogen will bond with oxygen, which is found in and on most metals. I believe if you really wish to do so, that you can see that most nitriding operations, are a combination of oxidation and nitration of the oxygen.

One time I had a discussion with a chemist and he claimed that he was using scientific grade gases. The truth is that scientific grade gases are certified to 99.9995 percent going into the tank. That is because they fill the tank from a source that contains liquid nitrogen. Coming out of the tank not so much. The reason is that all metal at the surface contains impurities, almost always oxygen, sometimes carbon, and other impurities. So as the tank sits, the nitrogen lifts these impurities from the walls of the tank usually the oxygen. Much like freon based refrigerants will remove the oxidation from the inside of copper piping. That is why it is important not to let the inside of copper refrigerant piping be exposed to outside air. The use of R-11 flush will help.

The way this got sorted out was by the chemists own statement that the nitrogen had an asphyxiating effect almost immediate, and a metallic odor. While having worked with liquid nitrogen in abundance in a rarified liquid and gas supply company, I have been totally engulfed in an expanding cloud of nitrogen for some time, I know there is no asphyxiating effect. There is no detectable odor. The same is true of liquid carbon dioxide verses gaseous carbon dioxide. So to me the chemistry world is a witch doctor environment. Even if you do real experiments they might only be for you because there is not a real scientific language to relay the results.



Sincerely

William McCormick