Will Energy be available easly to every one on cheap rate .which one is more powerful then a neuclear energy?
89665
Anti-matter colliding with matter is the most powerful mass to energy reaction.  The problem is that we have not yet managed to produce anti-matter in large enough amounts to make it available and "stable" enough to be used safely.
1071812
dont quote me on this its been a while since this was explainded to me. atomic energy is the energy created when atoms are split,and nucleur energy is when the nucleus of the atom is split.or something to that effect. nucleur power is more complex and yeilds more energ output than atomic energy which is why we use Nucleur rather than atomic
394327
Energy increases with increasing frequency (radio waves=low freq, gamma rays=high freq).  All electromagnetic rays are invisible, except for the ones that are in the range of visible frequencies (duh?).  And "light" is simply another name for electromagnetic waves.
269384
it exists but i'm not sure if u can use it for energy...it would be to strong
228704
try looking up "nuclear" energy..you will find more info i am sure.
361317
Both could be entirely possible in theory. However the only problem comes in how to accellerate to above the speed of light, which according to Einstein is necessary to travel in time. Ont theory is to get to the highest speed possible and slingshot in a planet or stars gravitational rotation and use that to accelerate faster while using a rotational acceleration thereby accelerating to the poroper speed for it. That's sound as well, but it's hard to get funding for stuff like that and it's dangerous, because much like Back to the future and Star Trek, only nuclear fuel would provide the power necessary without adding too much weight to the vessel, and will not deplete for the radiation off a nuclear reation last for several thousand year depending on the element used.
411815
No.If there was we would use nuclear energy.It is not and never was a workable energy source because of the hazards and waste.
897311
the lighter elements need less energy to scrap an electron from the outer shell
104254
Probably about the same distance we are from a perpetual motion machine. If cold fusion were an easily achievable phenomenon, we should find it all over the universe in environments other than the stellar furnaces of the stars.\n\nSadly, we don't.
208864
Here is a little information about Nuclear Energy:\nhttp://home.clara.net/darvill/altenerg/nuclear.htm
380796
simply no. it is not possible to have a perpetual motion machine because there will always be some energy lost. fusion is fantastically efficient in terms of mass to energy and has none of the radioactive problems of its fission counterpart. however it still uses up fuel and you cannot then reuse this. also the technology at the moment uses more energy than it produces meaning that this is still quite a long way off. this is perhaps the most realistic way of powering the spacecraft that you appear to visualise however there is still the problem that it cannot go fast enough and unless a way is found of bending space itself you cannot go faster than the speed of light or indeed reach the speed of light so the answer is no at the moment and no for the foreseeable future.
913412
Not now.\nAlso, iron being at the nuclear energy low point, changing it to other elements takes power, rather than releasing it.
105865
Solar energy is available in a large quantity, in fact much larger than all other safe energy sources put together. Energy obtained from coal, petroleum, other carbon based products and that obtained from nuclear fusion/fission is not safe for the enviornment.\nSo Solar energy has two major advantages -\n1. Abundant, hence making it cheap.\n2. Environmental friendly.
106996
Currently we are using nuclear FISSION (splitting) in all nuclear reactors of the world. The only problem is all the waste fission produces (radioactive waste whose half-life is one-million years!). Because FUSION (fusing) involves combining, it produces no waste whatsoever. The only problem is that fusion requires MASS amounts of energy (via heat), so in the end, more energy is used than is created. Because it is almost impossible to receive benefit from heat fusion, scientists are currently working on COLD FUSION (requires little energy), but nothing of significance has developed yet. \n\nSo all in all the cost of nuclear fusion is that it requires too much and provides too little.
452881
False, because the binding energy increases steeply till iron and again reduces. So I would require enormous accelerators to transmute the element with Z>20.
102002
Sure, but as you can tell, it would take a whole lot of energy to make a little mass.  Just think atom bomb.
988797
Are you sure you are not mixing up your neutrino indexes? I believe that the neutrons are the ones that give off the more energy at rest, as electrons pass by they convey energy to other protons which is how elements are able to hold and give charges (positively and negatively charged ions). When a proton can pass energy to a neutron, the electrical balance is changed (+/-). Electons are then displaced, and (if the components involved are able to rearrange the atoms to create a different element structure, while giving off electrically charged ions), a fusion of chemical and electrical energy takes place releasing energy at a higher at-rest-rate (although this has not yet been scientifically proven, as this requires elements to approach the speed of light - leading to a comparitive slowdown of particles). This then produces photons (as such that are produced by UV/ X rays, and exist within light) which are more of a product of the fusion process, as opposed to the neutrino reaction within the core of atomic fusion.\n\nHope this helps with the confusion.