How much energy is given off by a particle collision. Would it

>>8488674
Depends on the particle. The ones CERN collides don't produce enough energy to even give off light. But collide two plutonium particles and you'll shit bricks.

Kill yourself on livestream

>>8488674
Think of it this way
You smash a neutron going at some very high speed into a Uranium 235 nucleus. The nucleus splits into two smaller nuclei and emits a lot of neutrons going very very fast.
Say you were to slow these neutrons down by surrounding them with water. The water would heat up very fast. Fast enough that it would boil. That water, now steam, can be used to turn a turbine and generate electricity.

Congratulations, you just built a fission reactor.

>>8488684
then why don't we do it ?

>>8488689
Because you need a lot of uranium for high energy output and a lot of water to have safe error tolerances. Too heavy to put in a car.

>>8488677
If an educated person smokes pot and tries to reason through problems, the seemingly profound answers they can come up with have a chance to be plausible.

This isn't really evidence, but it's rumored that Karry Mullis tripped on LSD when he concieved the idea of the polymerase chain reaction.

>>8488689
>>8488699
For the record, we do use these reactors on submarines and extremely large ships.

>>8488699
Also isn't using fission energy output in turbines hugely wasteful? Isn't there a better way to harness the energy in a contained chamber?

>>8488712
Not really. Turbines cranking AC generators have been pretty much the most efficient method for the past 80 years. It's rather difficult to both safely contain a stable and continuous fission reaction and maximize energy output. Sometimes efficiency has to be traded out to preventing a runaway reaction and a reactor meltdown.

>>8488677
>>8488677
George Lucas designed a particle collider as an light space engine

File: ep2clones_05.jpg (12KB, 440x248px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 440x248px

>>8488677