Obviously with current technology this task is basically impossible, we don’t even have viable technology to build any kind of megastructures. However, could humanity one day in the far future build a megastructure similar to a Dyson Sphere (or swarm), and harness the power of a Neutron Star? (Magnetar in this case)
Just so I understand the process of the origin of neutron stars correctly, and overly simplify the process: when a larger star has its hydrogen exhausted, gravity wins the balance and tightens the core, forcing helium to fuse into heavier elements, until it reaches iron. Iron has no energy to give, so the core implodes in a supernova explosion. If gravity is too overwhelming, it creates a black hole. If the Star is small enough to fight gravity so that it doesn’t collapse into a black hole, it becomes a neutron Star. Newly formed neutron stars can start off as Magnetars.
I’ve learned that Magnetars can spin many times per second, and have an electromagnetic field a thousand trillion times stronger than earth’s. Not only is the neutron star extremely energetic, but it spews tons of radiation through its poles (correct?). Would it even be possible to capture this radiation and use it as energy? Would a Dyson Sphere (or swarm) be more efficient?
Sorry if my question(s) makes no logical sense or is plain stupid. I’m trying my best to wrap my head around these questions I have
A nuclear reactor is essentially just a metal barrel with a bunch of neutrons whizzing about and causing some metal to fission and release even more neutrons, right? So how does the addition of a non-metal such as boron or a metal like cadmium into steel prevent the atoms within the control rods from destabilized as well? Is it something to do with the molecular structures of the resulting alloys?
I've been researching how isotopes are created and I keep coming across these terms, but I'm not sure what the difference between them all is, since they all seem to including bombarding a nucleus with a neutron.
Title pretty much says it! As far as my research has shown, BNCT is mainly used in brain tumors and mouth and throat tumors, and sometimes other shallow tumors, such as melanoma or other skin cancer.
My guess is that anything faster than an epithermal neutron hurts tissue, but I'm not sure.
Thank you for any help!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Natural_production_in_the_atmosphere says "Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms", the reaction being: n + N14 -> C14 + p.
Why doesn't this produce N15?
Neutron activation is the process in which neutron radiation induces radioactivity in materials and occurs when atomic nuclei capture free neutrons, but what is the force that pulls in this neutron to the nucleus if they don't have a charge.
Thanks
EDIT: I know the Strong Force holds the nucleus together but what exactly is going on when a neutron is captured, it is simply that a neutron got close enough to a nucleus that the strong forced just kicked in? Is this typically what happens rather than a ricochet? What cause a ricochet vs a neutron capture?
I am aware that it is far from the magic numbers. Does this mean that it has a half filled shell, therefore making it more probable that it will capture a neutron?
I can't quite justify why that makes it more likely. Perhaps the outer shell requires a lower energy of incoming neutron to absorb it? ... Because the shell is half full?
Any clarity on the matter would be appreciated. Sorry for the confused post
A quick google search doesn't really tell me much about the current state of boron neutron capture therapy or any other use of neutrons to treat cancer.
Are neutrons routinely used in cancer treatment? Do they just not have the proven advantages to take the place of IMRT, protons, or any other treatment modality?
Are there side-effects from neutrons that are worse than from other treatments?
I know that protons are made of two up quarks and one down quark, and that neutrons are made of two down quarks and one up quark. When electron capture happens, it changes a proton into a neutron by (I assume) changing an up quark into a down quark. How can the electron, not being a quark, cause this? And how does a neutron turn into a proton by emitting an electron?
I also have two closely related question: During beta^- decay an electron is emitted as a neutron turns into a proton. Does this make the new element positively charged, assuming that it was neutral before the decay?
Is it possible for this emitted electron to be captured into an orbital, thus keeping the atoms charge constant?
Neutron activation is the process in which neutron radiation induce radioactivity in materials and occurs when atomic nuclei capture free neutrons, but what is the force that holds this neutrons to the nucleus if they don't have a charge?
Thanks
