Question

Can you break every single known atomic partical down to hydrogen? If so, why don't people invent a hydrogen powerplant using this tehnology.

Answer 1

Every atom is constituted of neutrons and protons. Hydrogen in its most common isotope is just a proton core with an orbiting electron. When the core becomes more complex, it means you have more protons and neutrons in the core. You might notice that protons are all positive, and should, according to basic understanding of electricity, repulse themselves. However there is a nuclear force that "glues" the core together. So if you took a carbon atom (12 nucleotides, a nucleotide being a proton or a neutron) and wanted to break it down into 12 hydrogen atoms, you'd actually need a LOT of energy to "unglue" the nucleotides, which means doing what you suggest would be extremely inefficient.

Answer 2

What would yeild the largest energy source... A.) A small neuclei atom or B.) A large neuclei atom.

Answer 3

If you are *splitting* atoms (nuclear fission), then the largest energy source would be large nuclei. If you are *binding* them (nuclear fusion) the largest energy source would be small nuclei , like binding two hydrogen nuclei and getting a helium nucleum. I could try to explain why, but it would take a while... if you want further explanation tell me, but it seems you're only asking an a/b question.

Answer 4

So if you took a large Nuclei Atom (say Uranium for obvious reasons) and split it (fission) to create smaller particles could you then take those small Nuclei Atoms and fission them together? (theoretically as we have not acheived mass fission yet) & what problems would the radiation of the fission cause to the reaction of the fusion? (theoretically)

Answer 5

If you split an uranium atom, to get an actually efficient energy-generating fission, you'd have to split it into nuclei that aren't really small... If you split it into a bunch of hydrogen atoms you'd actually have to give it a lot of energy. You split an uranium atom and get nuclei that are still considered heavy.
In fact when you do these reactions, you always try to get a nuclei with a stronger binding force per nucleon(cf. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg/671px-Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg.png ) so you'd always want to get an atom that's on top of that curve. For instance, you try to split uranium to get nuclei that are closer to the top part of the bell, and you try to fusion hydrogen to get nuclei closer to the top part of the bell.

Answer 6

from my french textbook, with my attempt to translate it :
"-if a nucleum that's really heavy is split into two lighter nuclei, these two nuclei will be closer to the top of the bell than the original nucleum, meaning that the binding energy per nucleon will increase
Since binding energy per nucleon represents energy lost by each nucleon, saying it augments is to say the nucleons will lose energy. This energy is the energy liberated by fission.
-if two light nuclei fusion to form a heavier nucleum , this heavier nucleum will be closer to the top of the bell. As before, the increase in binding energy means a decrease in each nuclei's energy. This energy is the one liberated through fusion"

Answer 7

I think I understand, so when you break or merge atoms using nuclear physics the general outcome is a particle that is closer to the top of 'the bell' which makes the (nuclear?) force holding it together increase which in turn releases energy...

Answer 8

Exactly, when you do a nuclear reaction, you want the nucleum to lose energy (energy you will recover in some way, like heating water in a classical nuclear plant).

Answer 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Nuclear_binding_energy