PDA

View Full Version : Any particle physics people out there?



bengalfreak
April 2nd, 2010, 01:07 PM
I have recently gotten into particle physics and would like to build a cyclotron (1950s version). Just looking to open a forum for discussion of physics ideas. One of my questions is what are the dangers in building and operating one and how can these dangers be managed?

I know Bremmstahlung Radiation is a hazard. And I am wondering if there is any hazard in the ionization of hydrogen gas using thermionic emission. It seems that the latter could ignite the hydrogen. YIKES! But is this problem eliminated in a vaccum chamber?

MystEerieUsOne
April 2nd, 2010, 07:45 PM
You are making your own personal particle accelerator?

Got me curious enough to ask... What are you planning on doing with it?

Interesting.

And, if you don't understand all the dangers of building it, what about those after-the-fact effects?

?

bengalfreak
April 3rd, 2010, 01:22 AM
That is the plan! I want to learn hands on particle physics and data analysis. The design I have is for a 2.2 MeV (low power) cyclotron. Enough energy to study particles though. Mainly I want to challenge myself!

God's Toy
April 3rd, 2010, 12:35 PM
An interesting idea for sure! However I cant say I'd know anyone here that would have the answers you seek. But I'd love to be wrong about that.

Logio
April 5th, 2010, 04:57 AM
I know Bremmstahlung Radiation is a hazard. And I am wondering if there is any hazard in the ionization of hydrogen gas using thermionic emission. It seems that the latter could ignite the hydrogen. YIKES! But is this problem eliminated in a vaccum chamber?

I am not very familiar with cyclotrons...but I believe the vacuum chamber (in the cyclotron) is utilized for least resistance of the accelerating particles; so, the ignition of hydrogen would not occur by this ionization process, because of the low presence of oxygen.

Rana
April 5th, 2010, 08:01 AM
.. you are too able to study particles the way the monks do ..with meditation .. but i understand you have a passion to do this ..just be careful for your safety while doing so ..

bengalfreak
April 5th, 2010, 02:07 PM
Thank you Rana! I will be careful to learn all necessary precautions and physics! And thank you Logio! I believe you are correct. Do you have working knowledge on RF systems or thermionic emmission cathodes?

Lion Spirit Walker
April 6th, 2010, 07:38 AM
'Feeling' compelled to contribute this thought...
Having the knowledge to do something and having the wisdom to Understand that which in truth you do, are vastly different.

Logio
April 6th, 2010, 08:19 PM
Thank you Rana! I will be careful to learn all necessary precautions and physics! And thank you Logio! I believe you are correct. Do you have working knowledge on RF systems or thermionic emmission cathodes?

It's out of my depth. Are you a physics major? I suppose it would also help to understand some chemistry and engineering in the field you are pursuing.

bengalfreak
April 6th, 2010, 11:29 PM
Logio, no I am a sculptor. I am studying particle physics, calculus, and nuclear engineering for my own interest. Why limit ourselves? And me like brain candy! :)

bengalfreak
April 7th, 2010, 04:54 AM
Logio,

You may find this of interest. RF System, which I erroneously thought stood for Radio Frequency, is actually the Resonance Frequency System. Accellorators like the Cyclotron and Betatron would use an RF System. Colliders like the LHC would use an SRF System or Self-Resonance System. Here is a link if you are curious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance The RF System I believe initializes a resonance frequency in a square wave pattern to fascillitate occillation. I still have more reading to do, but I think this either controls the particle speed, OR the spiral flight path of protons towards the target.

Logio
April 7th, 2010, 06:34 AM
Logio,

You may find this of interest. RF System, which I erroneously thought stood for Radio Frequency, is actually the Resonance Frequency System. Accellorators like the Cyclotron and Betatron would use an RF System. Colliders like the LHC would use an SRF System or Self-Resonance System. Here is a link if you are curious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance The RF System I believe initializes a resonance frequency in a square wave pattern to fascillitate occillation. I still have more reading to do, but I think this either controls the particle speed, OR the spiral flight path of protons towards the target.

Keep at it, my smart friend. Thank you! You have piqued my interest.
You know, you may be the type of person who could be the next Einsten. Einstein, as you probably know, was more creative than mathematical. Thank you, bengalfreak. ;)

bengalfreak
April 7th, 2010, 01:05 PM
Logio,

Regretfully I am a "bear of very little brain". There are so many smarter people. I just find myself bored frequently and feeling myopic. Recently I began taking a meditation and mindfulness class and it forced me to realize exactly how much I love learning new things. So I thought I would learn some new things.


There are many other curious individuals who have built cyclotrons for fun. Recently there was a group of high school students who got funding from J Lab in Virginia. And an MIT student built one for grad thesis. There are a few others who have built them at home on a budget.

I don't care about being smart. I just feel the need to "do the thing I think I cannot do". I can't stand the way people talk about Organic Chemistry, or Quantum Mechanics, or Finnegans Wake and Ulysees for that matter. Why do we have to CONVINCE ourselves that certain things are too difficult?
It IS possible to learn it. People DO learn it. Sometimes I think "intelligence" is an illusion like time.
We think we need more time to do things. But we have all the time in the world. We think something requires smarts, but it just takes focus and the learning of a new vocabulary.

Some one recently told me Quantum Mechanics is so difficult that it would take me years to even begin to grasp it. My first response to that is @*#! YOU! These are just lies we tell ourselves and they create glass ceilings. Things are difficult if we make them difficult.

I have no interest in being Einstein or even a professional physicist. But I want to reach my full potential, which is much more than just being an artist. Maybe I will find that I have always sucked at art and am more suited for something else. Maybe studying math and science will balance my creative brain and help make my work better.

One of the reasons I posted this thread was because Polly :) told me she had friends on Mysterious Wisdom who were interested in and knowledgeable on this topic. Perhaps I need a physics forum? I am getting plenty of theory, but it is the technical side I am missing. Hence all the questions. I don't understand it yet. But I will.


Keep at it, my smart friend. Thank you! You have piqued my interest.
You know, you may be the type of person who could be the next Einsten. Einstein, as you probably know, was more creative than mathematical. Thank you, bengalfreak. ;)

Narnia
April 7th, 2010, 01:35 PM
One of the reasons I posted this thread was because Polly :) told me she had friends on Mysterious Wisdom who were interested in and knowledgeable on this topic. Perhaps I need a physics forum? I am getting plenty of theory, but it is the technical side I am missing. Hence all the questions. I don't understand it yet. But I will.

Yeah - this is true ... it all started with a random thought .... I think the premise of the discussion was on the spectrum of the technical aspects ... the whole 'what are your thoughts behind it?' 'How is it effecting the direction of the Planet and the whole Universe for that matter'

Because as we know ... those that have some knowledge of the Super-Colliders is ... there is the potenetial threat of a creating a black hole ... though I am sure the circumstnaces have to be perfect in order for that event to occur ... it's probbly a 1 in 13.7 billion shot at happening ....

Anyhoo ... I feel that many curious minds ... ie: scientists .. follow a certain path of thought ... (and I am going to steal a line from Jurassic Park here) .... 'that scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should."

I sense a great danger with this path of curiousity ... in Humans massing around messing with the sub particle world of the Universe .... the outcome may not be what we were hoping to find.

Just my 2 cents! :)



[Later Edit] Adding the random thought I had ...


The Super-Collider and Human Curiousity!

A crazy random thought here .... but we Humans are so damn curious about the origins of the Universe and how, why, what and etc .... that a Super-Atom-Collider has been invented. Just so we can look 'deeper' into space and time in the hopes of seeing the birth of the Universe .... well .... what if it was us Humans that were the ones to have created the Universe ... by accident I mean. In the midst of our seeking and perhaps getting closer to finding 'answers' .... there is the potential 'threat' of creating a 'Black Hole' ..... *hm?* .... an interesting by-product of the Collider ..... and as we know, there is no controlling a Black Hole.

So, what if - it was through our seeking for answers with the use of a Super-Collider ... that took us to the point of simultaneously creating another Universe and effectively destroying our very existence .... doesn't it stand to reason that we could possibly be in a Universe is like a broken record ....

Big Bang, Time and Space are created, the Universe expands and settles into itself, Galaxies are formed and collide, Solar Systems form, they settle into their respective orbits, Life finds a way to starts on the perfect Planet, Life evolves, and evolves, Thought begins and Questions soon follow, Answers are wanted, and then Life creates a Super-Collider and accidently creates a Black Hole ie: the Big Bang theory .... and it starts all over again.

Just a random thought I had .....

bengalfreak
April 8th, 2010, 12:10 AM
Polly, I agree about the age old question of whether "can implies ought". But there is nothing wrong with learning! Not all nuclear research is bad. Not all particle physics is ill advised. ALL good things have their evil counter part and in between lies choice. The research is not bad. The only bad is what is done with the findings.

Logio, I was wrong in my understanding of RF System. I have been in contact with J Lab and this is their response.

Jefferson Lab:

"RF stands for radiofrequency. The energy used to accelerate electrons with CEBAF is in the radio band of frequencies, or wavelengths of light, on the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Thermionic guns can be used to produce a stream of electrons that, in turn, ionize hydrogen atoms, thus producing free protons. However, this process is most ... See Moresuccessful in a near-vacuum environment (one working thermionic gun lists its vacuum at .00005 Torr, whereas the average atmosphere on Earth is 760 Torr). Hydrogen requires oxygen to burn, so the hydrogen will not burn in near-vacuum, because there simply isn't enough oxygen available for the hydrogen to ignite."

Narnia
April 8th, 2010, 12:41 AM
But there is nothing wrong with learning!

Well, of course there is nothing wrong with learning ... that is how the Human Consciousness as an individual and or collective whole rises to higher heights of awareness ... :)



ALL good things have their evil counter part and in between lies choice.

Yes - Universal balance ...



The only bad is what is done with the findings.

Exactly! :)

bengalfreak
April 8th, 2010, 12:45 AM
luvluvluvluvluv there is nothing like a friends luv

Narnia
April 8th, 2010, 12:48 AM
luvluvluvluvluv there is nothing like a friends luv

I couldn't agree more ... *he-he* :)

bengalfreak
April 8th, 2010, 12:54 AM
mwah!

Narnia
April 8th, 2010, 12:55 AM
Okay, okay ... back on topic please!! :D :giveheart