Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
There is also that light atoms do not split into heavier ones in fusion, they fuse, over simplified: 2 or more smaller atoms slam together and become a heavier atom, beta particles are electrons, not protons, most helium isnt a good fuel for fusion reactors, the isotope that is a good fuel would be Helium-3, a lighter isotope of helium that is IIRC quite rare on Earth, especially when compared to Helium-4 which is the vast majority of natural helium.
You also cant run fission reactors on most isotopes of most elements, to run a fission reactor you need isotopes of elements that arent too stable but also arent too unstable, or(how most, if not all, reactors are fueled) a mix of specific isotopes.
This is correct. First: I reused previous paragraph to make post faster, so I missed the verb. Also, I didn't check particle composition, which is why I claimed protons being b-particles while b-particles are electrones(beta-minus-particles) and positrones (beta-plus-particles), which are also charged particles. I purposely left isotopes out as oversimplication, but I see that it allows confusion.
Ahem. In theory, fission can be induced blah blah blah. In practice, specific isotopes are used because they are cost-effective. Also, this was my attempt to tell why iron is most abudant, I admit that I carried away. So, correct. Thank you for correct my mistakes in the name of enlightening people (or in the name of "Someone is WRONG in the internet", I really don't care as long as it lessens confusion).