Is it possible for nuclear fission and nuclear fusion to exist together?

Question

well i have read that nuclear fission is the process of breaking up of a heavy nucleus into two or more lighter nuclei along with emission of elementary particles and energy
and
i have also read that nuclear fusion is the process by which two or more lighter nuclei fuse together to form a single nucleus with emission of elementary particles and energy.

now to my question.
Is it possible for nuclear fission and nuclear fusion to exist together???
i mean is it possible to make a reactor in which a heavy nucleus is first split into two or more lighter nuclei (by fission) with liberation of energy after which the two or more lighter nuclei can be fused to form the heavier nucleus again (by fusion) with liberation of some more energy after which fission comes again and so on???

note--these reactions (specially fusion) will take place only at very very high temperature..

If this method is possible and finished then there is scope for production of large amount of energy in a self sustained manner..

is this possible or am i just a little too far into the future??


PS-- this is my 100th question and so i will appreciate it if you star this question.

Answer 1

The fusion reaction in a hydrogen bomb is generally started by the fission reaction in an atomic bomb.

Thermodynamics will show you why perpetual motion doesn't work.

To reverse any exothermic reaction, whether physical, chemical, or nuclear, requires the addition of at least as much energy as was released.

The fission technologies we already have can safely and economically produce all the electrical energy we are likely to need in the foreseeable future, allowing fossil fuels to be used just for transportation and for plastics etc.

If we can ever harness and sustain a fusion reaction, that would likely meet all our electric needs as long as the human race exists. There would be no reason to try to combine them.

We only know of fission with uranium and the transuranic elements, and of fusion only with hydrogen to produce helium. They are at the opposite extremes of the periodic table.

Answer 2

The nucleus of an atom is made up of protons and neutrons, the protons all carry an outstanding charge and are therefor attempting very troublesome to bypass aside yet they don't, so all of us comprehend there is an exceedingly solid tension keeping them jointly (the nuclear tension). in spite of the reality that the stress keeping the nucleus jointly is extremely solid each and every so oftentimes, at random, in any given quantity of radioactive textile one will in basic terms fly aside, liberating different forms of nuclei and neutrons which having no charge can attitude the nucleus of alternative atoms and surely reason them to split besides. because of the fact an particularly solid bond has been broken lots of potential is likewise released (and slightly mass is misplaced), If there is not adequate textile or the density isn't intense adequate maximum of those new neutrons would be misplaced during the gaps between the nuclei and finally out of the fabric and we would have a slow nuclear reaction, liberating in undemanding terms adequate potential to maintain liquid sodium particularly heat which in turn would be used to superheat water and that then drives a gasoline turbine to generate electrical energy-a nuclear potential plant. If there is adequate textile (detonation being initiated by potential of making use of a neutron sorce) or the density is intense adequate (this being performed by potential of compressing a non severe sphere of a plutonium with a intense explosive detonation to a severe density), the chain reaction occurs during the fabric so at present that a nuclear blast happens. As for why i does not want iran to have an atomic bomb, it fairly is extra a political question, if purely they could not exist however the powers that have had them for a while have shown restraint of their use, the only time if truth be told bringing the 2d international conflict to an end. Iran and North Korea on the different hand are IMHO risky states whom i might desire to not get their palms on such technologies and if meaning using nuclear weapons to evade it then so be it. As for nuclear potential, i'm particularly pleased with it no rely if that's controlled nicely and the hazards are minimised. i might lots choose progression on nuclear fusion as this may well be intrinsically fail risk-free.

Answer 3

Yes, it is possible. The Sun is a perfect example. It was also greatly feared in a "China Syndrome" whereupon a fission mass would get uncontrollably hot, then start fusion-fission, burning a hole straight through to "China". That's why nuclear plants try to avoid meltdowns.

Answer 4

With the exception of the sun's natural process of it, I see neither gain or purpose and/or practicality in doing both processes together in the same reactor, let alone the possibility and the expense.

Answer 5

oops, that's a perpetual motion machine, no?

If the fission process releases energy, then the reverse process (fusion of the fission products) must require energy.