Removing a Protons and or a Neutron on a Stable Element

Lookup/Google atomic binding energy. That's your answer.

Still sharp as ever. Thanks man!

1) How much energy is required to remove these sub-atomic particles as compared to removing or adding up electrons in the outer most orbitals

The amount of expended energy is dependent on composition of the matter being manipulated, the method used, and the ambient conditions.

2) What physical effects you would expect on the removal and adding process?

I am sure if you alter the atomic makeup, you alter the molecular structure so most likely you end up with an isotope, an ion, or possibly a completely different element.

For the nucleus the amount of energy is simply the sum of its atomic binding energy. Environment has nothing to do with it nor does the method.

Changing the nucleus creates a different element or at the last alters the atomic mass of that element. Changing the number of electrons, such that it is more or less than the number of protons, creates an ion, which is an element with a net charge.

Ionization, I've heard but, I haven't heard in the industry almost my entire life, that an application or purpose wanted to get rid the stuff in the nucleus.

I mean nuclear radiation is quite a different thing, where protons and neutrons seems to have much than the electrons around.

Creating new elements to even simple things like nuclear fission and fusion do that.

If you add or remove a proton to/from the nucleus, you definitely get a different element. Atomic number = number of protons in the nucleus (= number of electrons in the neutral atom) which determines which element it is, hence its chemistry.

Changing the number of neutrons gives a different isotope of the same element.

A good example is radio-carbon dating. Cosmic rays entering the atmosphere convert nitrogen (7P, 7N) into radioactive carbon-14 (6P, 8N). Normal carbon is 6P, 6N. The carbon-14 decays back to nitrogen by emitting an electron. The fraction of carbon-14 reaches a dynamic equilibrium and living things, with a steady input and excretion of carbon compounds, have the same fraction. But after death the fraction of carbon-14 falls and by measuring it can determine how long since the organism died.

Yeah, but carbon dating is wildly innacurate for anything that was on the surface of the planed during the late 1930's and early 1940's, and is completely useless for anything from 1941-2 onwards, due to the screwing up of the 'laobratory conditions' with nuclear explosions and reactor 'malfunctions' contaminating the scene. Stuff that was underground during that time can still be dated, but we 'broke' our reference ruler for recent items.

To the future archeologists who will struggle with carbon dating our culture: we're sorry.

The example you provided is a good one because it is a reminder that our system of classification is a useful set of rules for us to follow and not one the particles obey. Note, the cosmic ray interaction is thermal neutron absorption by nitrogen. Absorption of a thermal neutron by nitrogen 14 on any reasonable time scale consistently results in another element.

.

"Essentially, all models are wrong. Some are useful" George E P Box

"I am sure if you alter the atomic makeup, you alter the molecular structure so most likely you end up with an isotope, an ion, or possibly a completely different element."

Change number of electrons - Ion

Change number of protons - change element

Change number of neutrons - Isotope

Do not change atoms, but change configuration between atoms - Allotrope (Graphene and Diamond are different allotropes of Carbon)

(I tossed that last one in because I like the way the phrase 'isotopes and allotropes' rolls off the tongue.)

Poetic justice, one hopes.

Some claimed they can reduce or increase atomic number (atomic transmutation) by adding or deducing protons and neutrons in the nucleus.

Actually, that's how they synthesize (discover) elements beyond Uranium (atomic number 92), which don't occur naturally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transuranium_element

The reason they don't occur naturally (on Earth) is they are highly unstable and radioactively decay in a short time (sometimes a very short time).

I suspect they do occur naturally in a supernova explosion (for a very short time).

Your posts make me really scared, Mildred.

Oh relax, he's just asking questions, it's not like he could be building a nuclear reactor in a shed behind his house. Who do you think he is, David Hahn?

("Oh don't mind me, I'm just over here, throwing more gasoline on the fire.")

He's "into" alchemy, hoping to make gold out of lead or silver. It can be done in a nuclear reactor under the right circumstances, but you wind up with gold worth $1150 per ounce costing several million dollars per ounce to produce. Maybe we should just tell him where to get some philosopher's stone.

Perhaps we should point him toward "cold fusion." Excuse me - Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. I here some rather exotic molecules can be created by that process.

Doh! Wrong here/hear. sorry 'bout that.

Feh, modern alchemy isn't about isotopes anymore, it's all about the alletropes and crystal structures now.

We're working with graphene sheets and carbon nanotubes, structures not typically found in Nature, toying with allotropic carbon⁽¹⁾ to improve on structure and conductivity. And let us not forget the studies of Damascus Steel, what ainchent weaponsmiths did by rote and tradition are now understood at the 'macro-molecular' level. The key to steel is not just the recipe, but also the crystal sizes in the finished product. Changing the crystal size changes the properties of the metal, so the strength of the Samurai blade, with the metal folded one hundred times, is from all that careful, focused working and reworking of the metal creating 1.268*10³⁰ laminate layers, with crystal structure so fine the metal is practically amorphorous, has a scientific reason for its strength and sharpness⁽²⁾. I remember reading an article a few years back about a materials lab that was experimenting with crystal sizes in various substances, one of the things they made was 'squishy' ceramics, under compression the sample sylinders would deform like marshmallows⁽³⁾ instead of shattering as their load capacity was exceeded.

Notes:

1. No relation to the Allotropic Iron of the Lensmen series,
2. Is there any doubt WHY they were the inspiration for the Light Sabers of Star Wars?
3. In slow motion. Watching them squish in real time makes watching paint dry seem like a short, dynamic activity. But the very concept of a strong, load-bearing support that would deform rather than shatter when overloaded must have gotten the Civil Engineers all twitterpated, as that could extend the service life of a structure. Think of an overpass that, instead of spalling off concrete from its collums when overloaded, would just begin to 'sag' as the 'squish zones' in its supports take the brunt of the abuse. And when it's squished past a certain point, the overpass is closed for the brief time, on the order of days, it takes to jack up the span and replace the squish collars with new ones. Sure beats the hell out of closing the overpass for months to rear it apart and rebuild it.
   

Oh, if he really wants to play with isotopes, he could try comerciallizing that procedure to turn Uranium into Lead.

Yes, I know it happens naturally, but if you bombard a sample of uranium with ionizing radiation, you can 'trick' it into decaying faster. In essence, you're 'simulating' a larger quantity of radioactive materials with the ionizing radiation, so the 'phantom mass' of radioactives get added to the 'real mass' of the sample for purposes of half-life⁽¹⁾.

Notes:

1. And half-lives are just statistical estimates of a collection of semi-independant events. The more radioactives, the more high-energy protons being shot around, and the more targets for the protons to hit.
   

Protons, huh? What kind of decay are we talking about?

Proton decay. It's theoretical and not been experimentally observed.

Well, if it's moving 'up the chain' from Uranium to Lead, It needs to lose a proton or two, right? If memory serves, a 'loose' proton is an 'alpha' particle, the least dangerous of radioactive particles. stopped by a mere sheet of paper, or even a few layers of dead skin cells (such as we have all over our bodies).

--- (Checks Wikipedia) ---

I stand corrected, Alpha particles are TWO protons and two neutrons bound together. But they are part of atomic decay of Uranium, so I wasn't completely talking out of the wrong end. I was just a bit 'miseducated,' if I may coin the phrase.

'Up the chain', huh?

J/k.... I won't harass you about unconventional perspective about directions in idioms.

.

I will offer a contrary view on your perspective on something with more impact.... that of alpha particles being the least dangerous. While alphas are the easiest to shield against, that same quality can make alpha emitters quite damaging.

Alphas from decay originate with a fair amount of energy....typically in the 4 to 6 MeV range (just for reference, a gamma with a little over 1.1 MeV is energetic enough to cause pair production), because of the high charge, all that energy is transferred to tissue immediately surrounding any ingested or inhaled alpha contamination.

Want a real world example? Google Alexander Litvinenko.

.

BTW, there have been observations of proton emission, it has always been at an accelerator. The more common results of an excess of protons (as compared to neutrons) are alpha decay (as you noted above), and less frequently beta+ emission or beta- capture.

I admit, I'm not a Nuclear Engineer, I'm an Electronics Engineer. What I say about nuclear decay may sound like the 'wit and wisdom' of Gracie Adams, but at least my darts are hitting within the dartboard cabinet, even if they miss the target. It's close enough that I can be corrected.

And as for the idiomatic directions, the lighter elements on the periodic table are to the left of the reference in the same line, or anywhere in the lines above it. (Not counting the 'actinides,' or whatever that group is called that's shown at the bottom of the chart, but the analogy would fit if they were put in the spot where their placeholder boxes are. I guess nobody does that because it would stretch the horizontal of the chart out to where it would not fit comfortably on a standard Letter/A4 sheet.)

Fair enough.

You seem to be getting plenty of the standard answers involving classical nuclear theory. The transmutation done by non-traditional means (most commonly referred to as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - LENR) happens by neutron movement. Neutrons, having no charge, can move between atoms under certain conditions because they can pass through the 'Coulomb Shield' of electrons surrounding the nucleus. This does not change the element, it creates a different isotope of the element.

Atoms have a preferred ratio of neutrons and protons. If you add a neutron to the nucleus so that there are too many neutrons, the atom corrects the ratio by turning the extra neutron into a proton through beta radiation. In β- (beta minus) radiation a neutron turns into a proton and the atom emits a beta particle: an electron and an electron antineutrino.

The atomic weight doesn't change, but now you have a new element by virtue of adding a proton which adds 1 to the atomic number. Carbon turns into nitrogen: Transmutation!

If there are too many protons, β+ (beta plus) radiation occurs. The atom changes the extra proton into a neutron and the atom emits a beta particle, in this case a positron and an electron neutrino. The atomic weight stays the same, the atomic number goes down by one.

Transmutation can also occur by electron capture, when a proton captures one of the inner shell electrons and turns into a neutron. The atom emits an electron neutrino, atomic weight stays the same, and the atomic number decreases by one.

Now, on the off chance that what you really want to do is make some specific element using this method, you would have to find some way of getting thermal neutrons to migrate in the direction you want them to go. Say, by controlling the temperature so that the atomic radius of two elements are the same. Look up the expansion factors and atomic radius of the two elements and calculate the temperature where the radii are equal. It is possible this might cause a resonant effect. Add kinetic energy to keep the neutrons rattling around and they will tend to migrate from the lighter nuclei to the heavier ones. If the process is working you should be able to detect low level beta radiation. Check your work via before and after XRF analysis. If the XRF shows the element you are attempting to create is present, but you can't isolate it chemically, check out ORMEs. You can restructure ORMEs chemically using the information in David Hudson's patent, or you can try something like Milewski's microwave method, or traditional smelting techniques like ore roasting.

Have fun!