David Thomson wrote:
[irrelevant calculations of fission and fusion snipped]
The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also
ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion "both
release energy".
They do not, if you're talking about the same nuclei being formed and
then split, and the calculations show that they should not.
In general, fission of heavy elements releases energy. Fusion of light
elements releases energy.
In general, fission of light elements requires energy. Fusion of heavy
elements requires energy.
Iron is at the "bottom of the trough". Fission of iron nuclei, or
fusion of iron nuclei to form heavier atoms, _both_ /require/ energy.
You snipped the calculations and called them "irrelevant" but that does
not make it so. Why did you snip them?
When atoms combine to form molecules, energy is released. (Look at
hydrogen and oxygen, for instance.) When molecules break up, energy is
also released. (Look at nitroglycerin, for instance.) That is every
bit as much of a "contradiction" as the fact that light nuclei release
energy when they fuse, while heavy nuclei release energy when they fission.
Let's not befuddle the situation by comparing apples and oranges. Let's
look directly at the fission and fusion processes, themselves.
According to modern theory, fusion results in the binding of protons and
neutrons. It is observed that when nucleons bind, the total mass is less
than the individual parts.
If you start with bare nucleons, yes.
If you start with nucleons bound in a nucleus, and you smash them
together to produce a heavier nucleus, then the answer is NOT NECESSARILY.
You snipped the calculations that went with this. Why?
This is called a "mass deficit." It is said
that the mass deficit is evidence that mass was converted into energy.
The energy release during binding is supposedly the mass that was converted
to energy. That energy is now gone, having been radiated away.
Now let us split the nucleus again into its individual components.
According to E=mc^2, the splitting apart should absorb energy from the
environment and converted it back to mass.
AND IT DOES -- if the element being split is no heavier than iron.
But you snipped the calculations which went with this assertion.
This is not observed in any
atomic reaction. In all cases of fission, more energy is released than
absorbed.
Fission of nuclei HEAVIER THAN IRON.
Lighter nuclei DO NOT NATURALLY FISSION because it's an _endothermic_
reaction in that case.
How is it that both fusion and fission reaction result in a net energy
release
Fusion followed by fission of the same nucleus do _NOT_ both release energy.
Either forming the nucleus is endothermic or it is exothermic, not both.
For the last time, you snipped the calculations that went with this
assertion and called them "irrelevant". They are not irrelevant; they
are the heart of the explanation of your conundrum.
