I've just thought...

I've just thought...

Author
Discussion

R300will

3,799 posts

153 months

Saturday 11th February 2012
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
Nothing is burning. It's just a big controlled hydrogen bomb fusing hydrogen to helium and the lost mass is given off as energy (e=mc2).

To give the idea of the difference in power between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction, I heard once that if you converted all the matter in a matchstick into energy, it would raise Mt Everest by an inch. Can't do the maths though; maybe another Pher can?
Sounds simple enough, e=mc^2 so you work out the mass of the matchstick then the energy released if it was and converted 100% efficiently. Then using the weight of everest (might need to be fudged a bit) you can work how much the energy produced could move it, assuming it was free standing and not connected to the ground around it.

SystemParanoia

14,343 posts

200 months

Saturday 11th February 2012
quotequote all
PSBuckshot said:
Slagathore said:
There was a program on last night that had a bit of this at the beginning.

Can't remember what it was called, but it had James May presenting it.

Might be worth a watch.
Anyone know what he's talking about?
I'd like to watch smile
Things you need to know... it will be on I player

Nimby

4,671 posts

152 months

Saturday 11th February 2012
quotequote all
I just happened to come across this quote from Harlan Ellison:

"The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity".

hairykrishna

13,230 posts

205 months

Saturday 11th February 2012
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
Nothing is burning. It's just a big controlled hydrogen bomb fusing hydrogen to helium and the lost mass is given off as energy (e=mc2).

To give the idea of the difference in power between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction, I heard once that if you converted all the matter in a matchstick into energy, it would raise Mt Everest by an inch. Can't do the maths though; maybe another Pher can?
Say a matchstick weighs 10gm. E=mc^2 gives 8.99 × 10^14 Joules. Following this calculation (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_mass_of_Mount_Everest) which seems good enough for a back of the envelope, mass of Everest is 6.399 * 10^15Kg.

Use gravitational potential energy = mass x height (change of height in this case)

I get that it could lift it 14cm or ~5.5 inches.

R300will

3,799 posts

153 months

Saturday 11th February 2012
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
Simpo Two said:
Nothing is burning. It's just a big controlled hydrogen bomb fusing hydrogen to helium and the lost mass is given off as energy (e=mc2).

To give the idea of the difference in power between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction, I heard once that if you converted all the matter in a matchstick into energy, it would raise Mt Everest by an inch. Can't do the maths though; maybe another Pher can?
Say a matchstick weighs 10gm. E=mc^2 gives 8.99 × 10^14 Joules. Following this calculation (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_mass_of_Mount_Everest) which seems good enough for a back of the envelope, mass of Everest is 6.399 * 10^15Kg.

Use gravitational potential energy = mass x height (change of height in this case)

I get that it could lift it 14cm or ~5.5 inches.
But to get all of the energy in a matchstick converted 100% efficiently you would need a perfect anti-matchstick to annihalate it with meaning you would need to double your energies and therefore resulting in a 28cm lift?

Shaolin

2,955 posts

191 months

Saturday 11th February 2012
quotequote all
A match stick can support Mount Everest? Surely not!

Simpo Two

85,883 posts

267 months

Saturday 11th February 2012
quotequote all
Interesting, so I must have heard about right (it was either an inch or a foot).

Right, I've just weighed a match and it's 0.16g.

The illustration is based on converting all the matter to energy, so that means 100% efficiency (I think).

So gentleman, back to your croculators and let's have a definitive measure of Uppness smile

mondeoman

11,430 posts

268 months

Saturday 11th February 2012
quotequote all
So thats about 1% of the original estimate of 10g, so make that 1% of the 14cm you get 2mm (give or take a bit for back of head maths)

deadtom

2,594 posts

167 months

Sunday 12th February 2012
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
So thats about 1% of the original estimate of 10g, so make that 1% of the 14cm you get 2mm (give or take a bit for back of head maths)
erm, 1.4mm, shirley?

Flibble

6,477 posts

183 months

Monday 13th February 2012
quotequote all
Clearly we need a much bigger match.

Something like this maybe...


Simpo Two

85,883 posts

267 months

Monday 13th February 2012
quotequote all
OK, let's try another angle. How many matches or part thereof do we need to lift one man to the summit?

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

200 months

Monday 13th February 2012
quotequote all
PW said:
R300will said:
But to get all of the energy in a matchstick converted 100% efficiently you would need a perfect anti-matchstick to annihalate it with meaning you would need to double your energies and therefore resulting in a 28cm lift?
You only need 18% efficiency or better to get the 1 inch specified.

Quite a fair chunk of the mountain would get vapourised in the process too, so there would be less mass to lift.
Not necessarily. You could winch it up using the energy from your matchstick in your matter/anti-matter V8, built into your buckminster fullerene winchamajig 2000. Of course, you may need a second matchstick to power you laser to cut through the base once you'd taken up the slack.

ShayneJ

1,073 posts

181 months

Monday 13th February 2012
quotequote all
Who said physics isn't fun biggrin

But how does one strike an antimatch?

Marf

22,907 posts

243 months

Monday 13th February 2012
quotequote all
ShayneJ said:
Who said physics isn't fun biggrin

But how does one strike an antimatch?
Duhhh...! Bring it into contact with a match!

rhinochopig

17,932 posts

200 months

Monday 13th February 2012
quotequote all
Marf said:
ShayneJ said:
Who said physics isn't fun biggrin

But how does one strike an antimatch?
Duhhh...! Bring it into contact with a match!
Place in on the anti-forehead of the anti-ginger step-child of course.

R300will

3,799 posts

153 months

Monday 13th February 2012
quotequote all
rhinochopig said:
Marf said:
ShayneJ said:
Who said physics isn't fun biggrin

But how does one strike an antimatch?
Duhhh...! Bring it into contact with a match!
Place in on the anti-forehead of the anti-ginger step-child of course.
I'm very anti-ginger. shoot