安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
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).