bugsuper
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#641
Report 6 years ago
#641
Maybe you could look at it as each particle exerting an AVERAGE impulse of 2mv where t is the time between collisions

obviously in reality, most of that impulse is concentrated during the time when it's colliding, but for our purposes we can spread it across the whole time between collisions and including collisions (because they happen 'instantaneously'). So you average that out with all of the time between collisions, when the impulse the molecule exerts is zero, to get a value which is kind of the force the molecule contributes all the time
0
reply
Pinkhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#642
Report 6 years ago
#642
(Original post by Jack93o)
still don't get it

for one collision, how can force simply be equal to change in momentum?

change in momentum is impulse, whereas force is change in momentum divided by time


and just to be clear, when you say, 'average force', this is for a collision between a molecule and a wall, right?
I think I was supposed to say ''The average force = change of momentum per collision × number of collisions per second.''
I probably overcomplicated it.

We're thinking about the force transferred to the wall by the molecule. So gain in momentum of the wall in one second because of the collision = momentum transferred in one collision x number of collisions per second.
1
reply
Minumi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#643
Report 6 years ago
#643
(Original post by saba146)
the CGP textbook is quite good
I have that, it's not bad, but I find CGP better for cramming/reviewing just before the exam, as it's so concise!
(Original post by Pinkhead)
I used this alongside the AQA textbook:
http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/...hermal_Physics

And I have the same problem. I keep using methods I use in Chemistry . That's probably the only annoying part of the core unit.
Ah that's brilliant, thanks! I've been looking for something like this.
Yeah I keep on trying to be clever and linking them, but it always ends in disaster
0
reply
cooldudeman
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#644
Report 6 years ago
#644
In thermal reactor, the neutron is fired at the U238 so it becomes 239 but where does U235 come from??

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
crc290
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#645
Report 6 years ago
#645
(Original post by cooldudeman)
In thermal reactor, the neutron is fired at the U238 so it becomes 239 but where does U235 come from??

Posted from TSR Mobile
The fuel rods consist of U238 which is enriched with U235. The U235 undergoes fission when it is bombarded with neutrons. U238 is not fissile. Is that what you meant?
0
reply
cooldudeman
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#646
Report 6 years ago
#646
(Original post by crc290)
The fuel rods consist of U238 which is enriched with U235. The U235 undergoes fission when it is bombarded with neutrons. U238 is not fissile. Is that what you meant?
So do the fired neutrons colide with the fuel ro?
Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
crc290
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#647
Report 6 years ago
#647
(Original post by cooldudeman)
So do the fired neutrons colide with the fuel ro?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well yeah, they collide with the U235 nuclei in the fuel rods
0
reply
Sabr
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#648
Report 6 years ago
#648
guys can someone explain the balmer series and why it starts at n = 2?
(thats if ur doing the astrophysics)
0
reply
JRP95
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#649
Report 6 years ago
#649
If u235 is the one that undergoes fission then why are the fuel rods mainly u238 (which is non fissionable and so is pointless?) and only 2-3% u235 when that is fissionable (surely more fission would occur or you'd get a longer chain reaction with a greater mass of fissile material right?)
0
reply
bugsuper
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#650
Report 6 years ago
#650
(Original post by JRP95)
If u235 is the one that undergoes fission then why are the fuel rods mainly u238 (which is non fissionable and so is pointless?) and only 2-3% u235 when that is fissionable (surely more fission would occur or you'd get a longer chain reaction with a greater mass of fissile material right?)
A number of reasons:

- Uranium is naturally 99% U-238, the non-fissionable isotope. You have to get three times as much Uranium and then go through the complicated process of enriching it to get fuel rod material that only has 3% of the fissionable isotope, so getting a "pure" fuel rod would be prohibitively expensive. (They do something similar to this for nuclear weapons, but I imagine that they're much more expensive to build then maintaining a nuclear reactor is.) You can't just selectively mine the Uranium ore.

- The second, far more important reason, is that if you had a rod that was made of purely U-235, it would almost certainly blow you to hell. The point is not a "longer chain reaction", but instead a CONTROLLED chain reaction. The non-fissionable isotope actually helps, because it absorbs some of the neutrons that are produced by fission - as well as the control rods. If it didn't do this, then the reaction would quickly spiral out of control and you have the workings of a nuclear bomb.

To illustrate the point, U-235 does naturally decay by fission - although with a long half-life - without needing to be initiated or bombarded by neutrons. So if you had a pure fuel rod of the stuff, one of the nuclei would probably decay on its own, almost certainly spark a chain reaction, and kill you before you were able to put it in the semi-safety of a reactor.
0
reply
Pinkhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#651
Report 6 years ago
#651
(Original post by bugsuper)
To illustrate the point, U-235 does naturally decay by fission - although with a long half-life - without needing to be initiated or bombarded by neutrons. So if you had a pure fuel rod of the stuff, one of the nuclei would probably decay on its own, almost certainly spark a chain reaction, and kill you before you were able to put it in the semi-safety of a reactor.
To be honest, spontaneous fission occurs so rarely that it's negligible. You can get a pure rod of U-235 and it probably won't blow up any time soon.
0
reply
posthumus
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#652
Report 6 years ago
#652
(Original post by Pinkhead)
To be honest, spontaneous fission occurs so rarely that it's negligible. You can get a pure rod of U-235 and it probably won't blow up any time soon.
Would it blow up as soon as you make it?
I mean if you made the fuel rod with U-235 being above it's critical mass
0
reply
Allahu Akbar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#653
Report 6 years ago
#653
Does anyone know where you can get mark schemes for the nuclear and thermal physics? I've looked on the aqa website and I can't find any, just for the extra topics.
0
reply
bugsuper
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#654
Report 6 years ago
#654
(Original post by Pinkhead)
To be honest, spontaneous fission occurs so rarely that it's negligible. You can get a pure rod of U-235 and it probably won't blow up any time soon.
Fair enough! I still wouldn't want to be in a room with a pure rod of U-235
0
reply
Pinkhead
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#655
Report 6 years ago
#655
(Original post by posthumus)
Would it blow up as soon as you make it?
I mean if you made the fuel rod with U-235 being above it's critical mass
Well you would need a neutron with the right speed being released from the nuclide. Critical mass only matters after a neutron starts the reaction right?
0
reply
Allahu Akbar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#656
Report 6 years ago
#656
(Original post by Pinkhead)
To be honest, spontaneous fission occurs so rarely that it's negligible. You can get a pure rod of U-235 and it probably won't blow up any time soon.
All you need though is one stray neutron and 'Allahu Akbar' ... you're history. Wouldn't catch me hanging around billions upon billions of angry U-235 nuclei
4
reply
ThatRandomGuy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#657
Report 6 years ago
#657
The more negative the absolute magnitude, the brighter it is right? And likewise the more negative the apparent magnitude the brighter it appears?
0
reply
bugsuper
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#658
Report 6 years ago
#658
(Original post by ThatRandomGuy)
The more negative the absolute magnitude, the brighter it is right? And likewise the more negative the apparent magnitude the brighter it appears?
Yes.


Re: the nuclear fission thing - even if it wouldn't spontaneously blow up, it's still going to be horribly dangerous to actually put 100% U-235 in a reactor and bombard it with thermal neutrons
0
reply
ThatRandomGuy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#659
Report 6 years ago
#659
This AQA PDF thing is crap for self teaching.

Why is a star a black body? As in how does a star absorb and then emit 100% of all radiation that lands on it?
0
reply
bugsuper
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#660
Report 6 years ago
#660
(Original post by ThatRandomGuy)
This AQA PDF thing is crap for self teaching.

Why is a star a black body? As in how does a star absorb and then emit 100% of all radiation that lands on it?
Stars aren't perfect blackbodies, I don't think. They're just such good emitters of radiation that they can be modelled as blackbodies, and the theories that apply to these objects can be used to model stars to a high degree of accuracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...rs_and_planets

That might help? I don't think we necessarily need to be able to explain why stars can be modelled as blackbodies beyond "they're good emitters and absorbers of radiation"
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • The University of Law
    The Bar Series: Applications and Interviews - London Bloomsbury campus Postgraduate
    Thu, 17 Oct '19
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 19 Oct '19
  • Coventry University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 19 Oct '19

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (2)
3.85%
They might tell the bully (5)
9.62%
I don't think they'd understand (9)
17.31%
It might lead to more bullying (19)
36.54%
There's nothing they could do (17)
32.69%

Watched Threads

View All