June 12, 2021, 11:07:37 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Why not?  (Read 9100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

crow_of_darkness

  • Guest
Why not?
« on: January 10, 2006, 02:10:36 PM »
    We know that some isotopes turn into other if their mass number increases. That can brings even change of the element. E.g: Co-59 to Co-60, U-238 to Pu-239, Pu-239 to Pu-240 etc. There are many examples.
    My question is why it isnt possible to reverse the proceeding. To have: C0-60 to Co-59 etc. Why we cant take back with some method a netron and have for e.g: From Co-60 to Co-59 etc. Is this possible to hapen in future?
    Thanks :)


Offline jdurg

  • Banninator
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1366
  • Mole Snacks: +106/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • I am NOT a freak.
Re:Why not?
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2006, 02:47:59 PM »
In order to remove a neutron you have to fire a projectile into the nucleus to dislodge the neutron.  The thing is, you can't be sure of the structure of the nucleus and where exactly the protons are and where exactly the neutrons are.  As a result, you can't guarantee that you will eject a neutron if you fire a particle or beam of energy at the nucleus.  Imagine the nucleus as a hodge-podge of two different colored spherical magnets.  The protons are red and the neutrons are blue.  They are both the same size.  Now you take a whole bucket of the magnets and blindfolded you reach your hand into the bucket and grab a handfull.  After taking your handful of red and blue magnets you count the number of red spheres (protons) and the number of blue spheres (neutrons) that are affixed to each other.  (You basically calculate the mass of the isotope you have).  Now take this mass of protons and neutrons and suspend it in a stream of upward moving air so that it kind of "floats" on top of this stream of air.  Get in a car and drive about a football field's length away.  Now take out a gun that fires small little bee-bees at the spinning "nucleus" at the other end of the field and accurately knock off only ONE neutron.  See the problem?

The nucleus is so small and the particles arranged in such a random manner that you can't accurately predict what you'll be knocking off.  In addition, because of the attraction between the particles, you have to use either a large projectile, or a projectile with a lot of energy.  The projectile with a lot of energy will undoubtably break the nucleus apart into many fragments (fission), or will be so massive that it won't knock off just one particle.  If you don't fire it with enough energy, it will just bounce off the nucleus or become absorbed by the nucleus.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2006, 02:48:26 PM by jdurg »
"A real fart is beefy, has a density greater than or equal to the air surrounding it, consists

Offline Borek

  • Mr. pH
  • Administrator
  • Deity Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26549
  • Mole Snacks: +1723/-402
  • Gender: Male
  • I am known to be occasionally wrong.
    • Chembuddy
Re:Why not?
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2006, 03:00:36 PM »
Well, in reality it is not as hard - some elements/isotopes ARE produced by bombarding with neutrons of correct energy and mass of the produce is weighted in kilograms (if not stones). But  it is not an easy task.

We better wait for Mitch to enlight us :)
ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info, pH-meter.info

Offline jdurg

  • Banninator
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1366
  • Mole Snacks: +106/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • I am NOT a freak.
Re:Why not?
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2006, 03:14:15 PM »
Well, in reality it is not as hard - some elements/isotopes ARE produced by bombarding with neutrons of correct energy and mass of the produce is weighted in kilograms (if not stones). But  it is not an easy task.

We better wait for Mitch to enlight us :)

I think the OP was asking about why can't we take Element A with a mass of 161 and turn it into Element A with a mass of 160.  That's not something that can be done at the moment and I was trying to explain that to him.  I know we can produce certain isotopes of certain masses, but that is by ADDING neutrons to it.  I don't know of any that we make by subtracting neutrons from it.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2006, 03:15:36 PM by jdurg »
"A real fart is beefy, has a density greater than or equal to the air surrounding it, consists

crow_of_darkness

  • Guest
Re:Why not?
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2006, 02:53:33 PM »
    Jdurg is correct, i was talking about reverse of the proceeding. Jdurg, i knew that this cannot happen today, but i imagined that in next few years this could possible be reality. Now taking in mind your e.g. this sounds like science fiction. Looks like our today and next few years technology doesnt permit us to search deeper into nucleus attributes and behaviors. Many years will pass for make technology able to  permit reverse of proceeding in isotopes AND BRINGS A REAL REVOLUTION IN SCIENSE. :(

Offline Mitch

  • General Chemist
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5296
  • Mole Snacks: +376/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns
    • Chemistry Blog
Re:Why not?
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2006, 03:17:40 PM »
   My question is why it isnt possible to reverse the proceeding. To have: C0-60 to Co-59 etc. Why we cant take back with some method a netron and have for e.g: From Co-60 to Co-59 etc. Is this possible to hapen in future?
    Thanks :)

You can see for yourself with scripts that I've made for this website. http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?page=scripts#Nuclear%20Reactions%20Calculator

The script says it gives -6.6825953480029 MeV for that reaction. So you need to put in that much energy for it to occur. Have fun playing with it I do.

Just shoot the nucleus with a gamma ray with that energy and higher and you'll get your product. You'll also get other junk, but you'll be making Co59.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2006, 05:40:08 PM by Mitch »
Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums.
1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation.
2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity.
3. Forum Supports LaTex

Sponsored Links