The Difference between Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion

In so many state and institutions in the world today so many people say that this topic is toxic in nature and by so doing can not do any thing about it.

It is a very complex topic, but not that hard to be put in a short terms that everyone can understand.

To get right to it, the basics deal with atom smashing. Fission breaks the nucleus of a big atom apart, and fusion squishes small ones together.

Fission is what powers the lowest of our nuclear weapons, the original atom bomb, as well as our nuclear power plants. The general process involves shooting a free neutron at a Uranium nucleus, splitting it in half – and unleashing huge amounts of energy.

As a weapon, all this energy goes into super-super heating an area, causing a titanic blast as the air density tries to equalize along the steep gradient. In a reactor, this is a slower, controlled process, that produces heat, which, in turn, is used to create the motive force that turns a generator.

In fusion, technically any light atoms can be smashed together. Usually, though, the process involves Hydrogen, because the power output decreases as the mass of the components goes up, and you can’t get lighter than Hydrogen.

The two atoms can be forced, by a variety of means, to merge. In a Hydrogen bomb, a weapon far more powerful than an atom bomb, a Uranium-fission trigger is used to hyper-compress an ultra-dense capsule of specially prepared Hydrogen, forcing it into a state where the Hydrogen atoms begin to combine into Helium.

The resulting blast dwarfs what an atom bomb can do.

Needless to say, the process is far more complicated than that. It is a difficult reaction to control, which is partly why there aren’t any power plants in the U.S. that make use of the higher output this technology provides.

Simply put, though, “Fission” has two (s)’s, and leaves you with two atoms. “Fusion” has only one, and leaves you with one atom. At its most basic level, that’s the key difference, and a handy mnemonic device besides.

non-blacks can not simply be called africans because they are not original americans. what i mean by “original africans” is that i am referring to the fact that when america was “borne” so to speak, the only people considered to be africans where european blacks. the constitution referred only to them.