|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 2:30 pm
Does quantum tunneling violate the law of conservation of energy? Or rather why doesn't it appear to violate this law?
And are they any means by which the chance of tunneling can be increased? I read somewhere that enzymes do it. But I'm looking for a more general method of increasing the probability to tunneling.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:33 pm
While I can't answer the question on how to increase the chances of tunneling through a given potential, I'm wondering about the first question. Why do you say that it seems to violate conservation of energy?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:30 pm
What i was wondering at the time was if the energy released by smashing 2 protons together to fuse them would be the same as the amount of energy released in a "cold fusion" process. I was thinking that any viable cold fusion process probably would have to exploit QT, but if the energy release is the same as in regular fusion then it would seem that you'd be getting more energy out than putting in. I'm assuming that you don't actually violate any laws and that the energy released in a pure QT fusion event would be significantly less than in a bruteforce proton smashing event(since the momentum of the protons would contribute to that final energy).
Anyway the main train of thought is it theoretically possible to assemble atoms from hydrogen without needing initially high temperates via quantum tunneling in a relatively short period of time, and would this process always result in high temperatures from the released energy?
I'm trying to build an atomic level "replicator". We already have plasma convertors that decompose trash to its constituent atomic elements. What i want to do is to take it a step further, by being able to sort out these atoms by isotope would be a first step, then after that i would look for a way to get the complete fission of the less useful elements down to hydrogen which we could then reassemble into what ever atoms we need. (its not energy efficient to break everything down to hydrogen to make back some of what you break down but it would get rid of the need for the pesky isotope sorter)
Either it would be nice to have this in our lifetime... i think the key things that we would need to look for are: A method of initiating the decay of any atom into free protons in a reasonable amount of time A method for fusing hydrogen into any isotope of out choosing A method of making the second process very large scale/parallel A method of assembling synthetic atoms into synthetic molecules to further create in synthetic macro structures in a reasonable amount of time.
oops i got carried away, but yeah i got a lot of nifty idea for technology I'd like to see it guess it comes with being a programmer.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:20 pm
Any fusion event, cold or not, still requires energy to be put into the system in the form of heat, pressure, and kinetic energy in the reactants. So even if a fusion done through tunneling delivered the same amount of energy as a cold fusion event, there is no reason to think that there is some energy violation. While tunneling does allow for particles to overcome potential barriers greater than their energy levels, this only means that fusion via tunneling would be more efficient than brute force smashing. Note that brute force proton smashing is just as likely to simply increase the temperature as it is to fuse the protons, so that you don't get helium, you simply get warm hydrogen. That is where any excess energy would disappear to.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:58 pm
Seen,
Are they any know ways (in theory or otherwise) to increase the probability of fusion resulting from a single collision?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:45 pm
Other than simply heating and increasing the pressure, I can't really think of anything that would increase the probability.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:53 pm
All you have to do is buy a man-sized ad-hoc quantum tunnelling through physical space device from Aperture Science Laboratories. Otherwise known as a "portal gun." xp
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|