# Nuclear explosion video



## god hand (Jan 16, 2006)

http://thatvideosite.com/view/1471.html


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 16, 2006)

Man those girls aren't from Indianapolis...


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 16, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> http://thatvideosite.com/view/1471.html


 Damn that shit is sweet. I wish all chemistry was nothing but crazy destruction like that.


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 16, 2006)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> Man those girls aren't from Indianapolis...


 haha, they're from Columbia


----------



## god hand (Jan 16, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Damn that shit is sweet. I wish all chemistry was nothing but crazy destruction like that.


Bet you wont say that if(when)  the US gets hit.

Its quite obvious how the worlds gonna end. That was just a preview.


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 16, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> http://thatvideosite.com/view/1471.html


 
Weak! It's not even strong enough to knock over the guy holding the camera... 


 Sweet clip no doubt...


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 16, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Bet you wont say that if(when)  the US gets hit.
> 
> Its quite obvious how the worlds gonna end. That was just a preview.


 In a few decades, nuclear energy will be nothing more than an energy source. There will be much more destructive weapons that make nuclear weapons seem like cap guns.


----------



## god hand (Jan 16, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> In a few decades, nuclear energy will be nothing more than an energy source. There will be much more destructive weapons that make nuclear weapons seem like cap guns.


WTF?


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jan 16, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> *Nuclear explosion video*


 
Yeah...

That pretty much sucks


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 16, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> WTF?


 
I bet they already have a few...


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 16, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> WTF?


 When dynamite was invented, it was considered a powerful explosive. When nitroglycerin was synthesized it was also, and so was ammonium nitrate, but now, these can be assembled by any junior chemist in a matter of minutes. The atomic bomb Little Boy was 14 kilotons when it was dropped on Hiroshima, but the Tsar Bomb was 50 megatons, making it over 3500 times more powerful than Little Boy. It's only a matter of time before we find a source that emits more thermonuclear energy than plutonium.


----------



## BigDyl (Jan 16, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> When dynamite was invented, it was considered a powerful explosive. When nitroglycerin was synthesized it was also, and so was ammonium nitrate, but now, these can be assembled by any junior chemist in a matter of minutes. The atomic bomb Little Boy was 14 kilotons when it was dropped on Hiroshima, but the Tsar Bomb was 50 megatons, making it over 3500 times more powerful than Little Boy. It's only a matter of time before we find a source that emits more thermonuclear energy than plutonium.



Like when matter collides with anti-matter.


Just think how normal the Anti-Foreman would be.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 16, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Like when matter collides with anti-matter.



Plutonium releases about 10% of it's matter to energy (if memory serves), while matter/anit-matter releases 100% of its energy.


----------



## god hand (Jan 16, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> When dynamite was invented, it was considered a powerful explosive. When nitroglycerin was synthesized it was also, and so was ammonium nitrate, but now, these can be assembled by any junior chemist in a matter of minutes. The atomic bomb Little Boy was 14 kilotons when it was dropped on Hiroshima, but the Tsar Bomb was 50 megatons, making it over 3500 times more powerful than Little Boy. It's only a matter of time before we find a source that emits more thermonuclear energy than plutonium.


The Tsar Bomb was a H-bomb not a plutonium bomb tho? I throught they stop using plutonium then started using uranium, and now is fusing the hydrogen atom which is the lightest atom of them all? Right? 

I throught you were this site science guy! This is 2005 not 1944!


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 16, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> The Tsar Bomb was a H-bomb not a plutonium bomb tho? I throught they stop using plutonium then started using uranium, and now is fusing the hydrogen atom which is the lightest atom of them all? Right?
> 
> I throught you were this site science guy! This is 2005 not 1944!


 Well god hand, let science guy break it down for your feeble little mind. Hydrogen, plutonium, uranium and suckmydickium are all elements used to create atomic chain reactions, making them nuclear bombs. The kiloton system is a means of measuring an atomic bombs power, and 1 kiloton=1000 tons of TNT. A hydrogen bomb is a type of nuclear fusion where a small atomic bomb ignites the fusion process while nuclear weapons using uranium and plutonium work off of the prinicple of nuclar fission. I'm not sure what you're asking in that last part, but plutonium and uranium or used for fission and hydrogen for fusion.


----------



## BigDyl (Jan 16, 2006)

Anti Matter bombs will yield yottaton explosions.  


True Story.


----------



## god hand (Jan 16, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Well god hand, let science guy break it down for your feeble little mind. Hydrogen, plutonium, uranium and suckmydickium are all elements used to create atomic chain reactions, making them nuclear bombs. The kiloton system is a means of measuring an atomic bombs power, and 1 kiloton=1000 tons of TNT. A hydrogen bomb is a type of nuclear fusion where a small atomic bomb ignites the fusion process while nuclear weapons using uranium and plutonium work off of the prinicple of nuclar fission. I'm not sure what you're asking in that last part, but plutonium and uranium or used for fission and hydrogen for fusion.


I'm saying there cant be a more powerful bomb  than the H-bomb. Because hydrogen is the lightest and most explosive atom. (Warning! I am not sure if I know what the hell I'm saying is true, so it might not make since)


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 16, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Plutonium releases about 10% of it's matter to energy (if memory serves), while matter/anit-matter releases 100% of its energy.


 Supposedly matter/anti-matter collisions do release 100% of their energy, but it's impossible for that to be the case in every collision because there would be no matter, or anti-matter for that fact, at all if 100% was lost as energy with each collision. There has to be some collisions where not all the matter is destroyed and after billions and billions of years, the left over matter would build up into everything in existence today.


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 16, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> I'm saying there cant be a more powerful bomb  than the H-bomb. Because hydrogen is the lightest and most explosive atom. (Warning! I am not sure if I know what the hell I'm saying is true, so it might not make since)


 Well, im not sure, but hydrogen is used because it is positively charged and because it's so light, not because it's light weight releases the most energy. See what i'm saying? One mole of hydrogen has a mass of only 1.008 grams while one mole of another cation like sodium has a mass of 22.99 grams. This is good because the ignition of fusion has to take place at very very high temperatures, in the millions of degrees I think, and this has to take place in a very confined space so that the ignition energy isn't lost. E=mc^2 shows that the more mass you have, the more energy you need to increase the temperature, so it would take less energy to heat 50 moles of hydrogen to the fusion temperature than 50 moles of sodium. Once the fusion temperature is reached, two positively charged hydrogen nuclei fuse together and form a helium nucleus. The mass of the helium nucleus that forms is less than the two hydrogen, and the difference is released as energy, and that's thermonuclear energy.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 16, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Well, im not sure, but hydrogen is used because it is positively charged and because it's so light, not because it's light weight releases the most energy. See what i'm saying? One mole of hydrogen has a mass of only 1.008 grams while one mole of another cation like sodium has a mass of 22.99 grams. This is good because the ignition of fusion has to take place at very very high temperatures, in the millions of degrees I think, and this has to take place in a very confined space so that the ignition energy isn't lost. E=mc^2 shows that the more mass you have, the more energy you need to increase the temperature, so it would take less energy to heat 50 moles of hydrogen to the fusion temperature than 50 moles of sodium. Once the fusion temperature is reached, two positively charged hydrogen nuclei fuse together and form a helium nucleus. The mass of the helium nucleus that forms is less than the two hydrogen, and the difference is released as energy, and that's thermonuclear energy.



the reason hydrogen is used is because it can sustain a chain reaction not because it can be positively charged.  duterium or tritium is what is used to make the thermonuclear warhead (more specifically lithium6, because it decays into duterium or tritium). the reason this is important is because you need the extra neutrons in the nucleus to sustain the reaction. without the lithium the bomb would be too big.  (the first thermonuclear weapon detonated used liquid hydrogen and was the size of a large house).  everything else gococks wrote is spot on from what i can remember from what i studied of this.  The book the making of the atomic bomb by richard rhodes explains this subject in great detail and can be understood even if one is not a nuclear physics guru


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 16, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> the reason hydrogen is used is because it can sustain a chain reaction not because it can be positively charged.  duterium or tritium is what is used to make the thermonuclear warhead (more specifically lithium6, because it decays into duterium or tritium). the reason this is important is because you need the extra neutrons in the nucleus to sustain the reaction. without the lithium the bomb would be too big.  (the first thermonuclear weapon detonated used liquid hydrogen and was the size of a large house).  everything else gococks wrote is spot on from what i can remember from what i studied of this.  The book the making of the atomic bomb by richard rhodes explains this subject in great detail and can be understood even if one is not a nuclear physics guru


 I see what you are saying about hydrogen sustaining the chain reaction, but I think the fact that hydrogen is a cation with a +1 charge is one of the main reasons why it works so well. The two positively charged atoms will repel each other, unless you expose them to extremely high temperatures, so their nuclear strong force can overcome their charge repulsion and force them to fuse together. The formula of Coulombs Barrier of fusion is U=ke^2/r, e is the proton charge, k is Coulombs constant and r is the radius when nuclear attractive forces become stronger than the electron repulsion, meaning as charge increased, so would the required temperature. But i'm not sure if this is correct.


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 17, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> nuclar


 
nuclear... How do you ever expect to shed those gills if you can't spell "nuclear" correctly?


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 17, 2006)

The SuperFlex bomb... It's going to work on a whole new level of genius. Of course I will be the lead scientist... This is how it works... I've concocted a new means for the superior bomb. It doesn't feed on any internal fuel source but rather external. It still feeds off hydrogen but that which is airborn. The revolutionary thinking that's been put into my smart bomb is unparrelled. Albert Einstein , what a jackass... 

It literally ignites the hydrogen in the air. The current prototype is the size of a pen and packs enough explosive power, do to the remarkable engineering, to blow up the world 6,423 times over! We plan to test it this Friday just off the coast of California. Hopefully it works. Everybody say their prayers...


----------



## BigDyl (Jan 17, 2006)

You idiots don't realize the power of the Flux Capacitor.


----------



## MyK (Jan 17, 2006)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> Man those girls aren't from Indianapolis...




   

I hope you kidding, dumbass!


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 17, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You idiots don't realize the power of the Flux Capacitor.


 Marty McFly does, and that's all that matters, because he and Doc have gay time travel sex, where do you think the "wormhole" came from? It's vast, it's a tunnel through time, it can only be McFly's sphincter, or as the scientific community likes to call it, McSphincter. What are you looking at butthead?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 17, 2006)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> The SuperFlex bomb... It's going to work on a whole new level of genius. Of course I will be the lead scientist... This is how it works... I've concocted a new means for the superior bomb. It doesn't feed on any internal fuel source but rather external. It still feeds off hydrogen but that which is airborn. The revolutionary thinking that's been put into my smart bomb is unparrelled. Albert Einstein , what a jackass...
> 
> It literally ignites the hydrogen in the air. The current prototype is the size of a pen and packs enough explosive power, do to the remarkable engineering, to blow up the world 6,423 times over! We plan to test it this Friday just off the coast of California. Hopefully it works. Everybody say their prayers...



Oh, I figured it just brow-beat you until you convert to Christianity.


----------



## PreMier (Jan 17, 2006)

Amazing..


----------



## maniclion (Jan 17, 2006)

You know I'm a mushroom cloud laying motherfucker, especially on chili day.


----------



## god hand (Jan 17, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Well, im not sure, but hydrogen is used because it is positively charged and because it's so light, not because it's light weight releases the most energy. See what i'm saying? One mole of hydrogen has a mass of only 1.008 grams while one mole of another cation like sodium has a mass of 22.99 grams. This is good because the ignition of fusion has to take place at very very high temperatures, in the millions of degrees I think, and this has to take place in a very confined space so that the ignition energy isn't lost. E=mc^2 shows that the more mass you have, the more energy you need to increase the temperature, so it would take less energy to heat 50 moles of hydrogen to the fusion temperature than 50 moles of sodium. Once the fusion temperature is reached, two positively charged hydrogen nuclei fuse together and form a helium nucleus. The mass of the helium nucleus that forms is less than the two hydrogen, and the difference is released as energy, and that's thermonuclear energy.


From what I remember, the H-bomb has an atomic bomb inside of it. Why? Because when the Atomic bomb goes off, the incrediable amounts of heat energy released sets off a chain reaction   you know where I'm going.


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 18, 2006)

MyK said:
			
		

> I hope you kidding, dumbass!


 
Of course I was kidding dipsiznit. And I mean that in the gayest of ways...


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 18, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Oh, I figured it just brow-beat you until you convert to Christianity.


 
Testing has been put off until July 4th. Bush contacted me and what's to do the testing in Iran...


----------



## MyK (Jan 18, 2006)

SuperFlex said:
			
		

> Of course I was kidding dipsiznit. And I mean that in the gayest of ways...


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 18, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> From what I remember, the H-bomb has an atomic bomb inside of it. Why? Because when the Atomic bomb goes off, the incrediable amounts of heat energy released sets off a chain reaction   you know where I'm going.


 You're correct. There is an atomic device inside hydrogen bombs, which is used to generate enough heat to begin the fusion reaction. So the fission reaction initiates the fusion reaction.


----------



## god hand (Jan 18, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> You're correct. There is an atomic device inside hydrogen bombs, which is used to generate enough heat to begin the fusion reaction. So the fission reaction initiates the fusion reaction.


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 18, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

>


 Einstein actually never had a thing to do with inventing the nuclear bomb. His equation E=mc^2 only proved that breaking atomic bonds would yield massive amounts of energy. He volunteered to help with the Manhattan Project after writing a letter to Roosevelt about the Germans being capable of harnessing nuclear energy, but Roosevelt deemed him a security threat. They were afraid he would pass secrets to other scientists in Germany who would then "sell" them to the Nazi's so he had absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## god hand (Jan 18, 2006)

Okay I'm just havin fun now


----------



## BigDyl (Jan 18, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> Okay I'm just havin fun now



String theory is outdated.  Replaced and accepted by MOST by brane theory, or membrane theory.


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 18, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> String theory is outdated.  Replaced and accepted by MOST by brane theory, or membrane theory.


 Brane theory is just a more advanced String theory, or M Theory, which basically says strings, that previously existed in 10 dimensions, are the intersection of Manifolds (M) in eleven dimension space, which correspond with M-Branes in 4 dimensional space. But Brane theory is already beginning to evolve, the newest is D-Brane Theory


----------



## BigDyl (Jan 18, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Brane theory is just a more advanced String theory, or M Theory, which basically says strings, that previously existed in 10 dimensions, are the intersection of Manifolds (M) in eleven dimension space, which correspond with M-Branes in 4 dimensional space. But Brane theory is already beginning to evolve, the newest is D-Brane Theory




GoCock's mom gives good "brane" theory, or GCMGG-Brane Theory. That's a pretty popular one too.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 18, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> I see what you are saying about hydrogen sustaining the chain reaction, but I think the fact that hydrogen is a cation with a +1 charge is one of the main reasons why it works so well. The two positively charged atoms will repel each other, unless you expose them to extremely high temperatures, so their nuclear strong force can overcome their charge repulsion and force them to fuse together. The formula of Coulombs Barrier of fusion is U=ke^2/r, e is the proton charge, k is Coulombs constant and r is the radius when nuclear attractive forces become stronger than the electron repulsion, meaning as charge increased, so would the required temperature. But i'm not sure if this is correct.




charge never comes into play in a nuclear reaction.   heat is a huge factor in this reaction, but so is pressure.  many atoms can have a positive charge and a cation, but only with hydrogens isotopes under the correct circumstances do you get a h-bomb.  its the same reason u-235 or pu-239 are used in a fission bomb.  they give off nutrons to sustain the reaction.  plenty of other atomic isotopes are radioactive, but that does not mean they can support a reaction.

these are the steps involved in a thermonuclear weapon.


The fission bomb imploded, giving off X-rays. 
These X-rays heated the interior of the bomb and the tamper; the shield prevented premature detonation of the fuel. 
The heat caused the tamper to expand and burn away, exerting pressure inward against the lithium deuterate. 
The lithium deuterate was squeezed by about 30-fold. 
The compression shock waves initiated fission in the plutonium rod. 
The fissioning rod gave off radiation, heat and neutrons. 
The neutrons went into the lithium deuterate, combined with the lithium and made tritium. 
The combination of high temperature and pressure were sufficient for tritium-deuterium and deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions to occur, producing more heat, radiation and neutrons. 
The neutrons from the fusion reactions induced fission in the uranium-238 pieces from the tamper and shield. 
Fission of the tamper and shield pieces produced even more radiation and heat. 
The bomb exploded.


----------



## SuperFlex (Jan 18, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> charge never comes into play in a nuclear reaction. heat is a huge factor in this reaction, but so is pressure. many atoms can have a positive charge and a cation, but only with hydrogens isotopes under the correct circumstances do you get a h-bomb. its the same reason u-235 or pu-239 are used in a fission bomb. they give off nutrons to sustain the reaction. plenty of other atomic isotopes are radioactive, but that does not mean they can support a reaction.
> 
> these are the steps involved in a thermonuclear weapon.
> 
> ...


 
That's similar to what I was going to say but with less detail...


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 18, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> charge never comes into play in a nuclear reaction.   heat is a huge factor in this reaction, but so is pressure.  many atoms can have a positive charge and a cation, but only with hydrogens isotopes under the correct circumstances do you get a h-bomb.  its the same reason u-235 or pu-239 are used in a fission bomb.  they give off nutrons to sustain the reaction.  plenty of other atomic isotopes are radioactive, but that does not mean they can support a reaction.
> 
> these are the steps involved in a thermonuclear weapon.
> 
> ...



 Charge is a very big factor in nuclear fusion, which is what a hydrogen bomb is. There is a substantial energy barrier opposing nuclear fusion, and there are two basic forces that together make nuclear reactions as powerful as they are, which are electrostatic force and strong nuclear force. 


Hydrogen is beneficial because it has the smallest nuclear charge so it reacts at the lowest temperature. Helium's mass per nucleon is very low, which is why it's favored as a fusion product from an energy standpoint. That's why hydrogen bombs combine hydrogen isotopes to form helium isotopes. The entire fusion reaction is completely dependent upon the fact that the two hydrogen nuclei are repelling each other due to the fact that they are like charges, both being +1. The extreme heat is needed to accelerate the rate of the reaction, because the hydrogen nuclei need to be pushed together close enough to the point where strong nuclear force overcomes electrostatic repulsion. When strong nuclear force takes over, they will fuse, forming a helium isotope and releasing energy, and the destructiveness of the bomb is dependent upon this reaction occuring again and again in a very quick period of time. It's basic nuclear physics.


----------



## BigDyl (Jan 18, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Charge is a very big factor in nuclear fusion, which is what a hydrogen bomb is. There is a substantial energy barrier opposing nuclear fusion, and there are two basic forces that together make nuclear reactions as powerful as they are, which are electrostatic force and strong nuclear force.
> 
> 
> Hydrogen is beneficial because it has the smallest nuclear charge so it reacts at the lowest temperature. Helium's mass per nucleon is very low, which is why it's favored as a fusion product from an energy standpoint. That's why hydrogen bombs combine hydrogen isotopes to form helium isotopes. The entire fusion reaction is completely dependent upon the fact that the two hydrogen nuclei are repelling each other due to the fact that they are like charges, both being +1. The extreme heat is needed to accelerate the rate of the reaction, because the hydrogen nuclei need to be pushed together close enough to the point where strong nuclear force overcomes electrostatic repulsion. When strong nuclear force takes over, they will fuse, forming a helium isotope and releasing energy, and the destructiveness of the bomb is dependent upon this reaction occuring again and again in a very quick period of time. It's basic nuclear physics.





Very good, my student.  You have learned much in my introduction to atomic particles and stuff 101 course.


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 18, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Very good, my student.  You have learned much in my introduction to atomic particles and stuff 101 course.


nucleowned?


----------



## BigDyl (Jan 18, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> nucleowned?




Neutrinowned.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Jan 18, 2006)

Who was the artist of the song on that vid?
Megadeath ?


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 18, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> Charge is a very big factor in nuclear fusion, which is what a hydrogen bomb is. There is a substantial energy barrier opposing nuclear fusion, and there are two basic forces that together make nuclear reactions as powerful as they are, which are electrostatic force and strong nuclear force.
> 
> 
> Hydrogen is beneficial because it has the smallest nuclear charge so it reacts at the lowest temperature. Helium's mass per nucleon is very low, which is why it's favored as a fusion product from an energy standpoint. That's why hydrogen bombs combine hydrogen isotopes to form helium isotopes. The entire fusion reaction is completely dependent upon the fact that the two hydrogen nuclei are repelling each other due to the fact that they are like charges, both being +1. The extreme heat is needed to accelerate the rate of the reaction, because the hydrogen nuclei need to be pushed together close enough to the point where strong nuclear force overcomes electrostatic repulsion. When strong nuclear force takes over, they will fuse, forming a helium isotope and releasing energy, and the destructiveness of the bomb is dependent upon this reaction occuring again and again in a very quick period of time. It's basic nuclear physics.



strong and weak nuclear forces are acting upon atoms regardless of wheather they are charged particles or not.  they deal with the forces present in an atom at the nucleus. for instance in the nucleus of a helium atom you have two protons or two positively charged particles which should repel each other. the fact they are held together is because of strong and weak nuclear forces. nothing in the literature ive read indicates the electron must be stripped off of the hydrogen atom before a thermonuclear reaction will occur.  the energy released is due to the fact that you have a loss of mass in a fission or fusion reaction.  the duterium or tritium are not charged particles.


----------



## gococksDJS (Jan 18, 2006)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> strong and weak nuclear forces are acting upon atoms regardless of wheather they are charged particles or not.  they deal with the forces present in an atom at the nucleus. for instance in the nucleus of a helium atom you have two protons or two positively charged particles which should repel each other. the fact they are held together is because of strong and weak nuclear forces. nothing in the literature ive read indicates the electron must be stripped off of the hydrogen atom before a thermonuclear reaction will occur.  the energy released is due to the fact that you have a loss of mass in a fission or fusion reaction.  the duterium or tritium are not charged particles.


 Do you think i'm talking about ionic charge when I say +1? I think you might be, because I referred to hydrogen as a cation in an earlier post, which I shouldn't have because we're talking about the nucleus, not the electron cloud surrounding the nucleus. I think the confusion comes from me referring to it as an ion, because the ionic charge of hydrogen is +1 but the formal charge of the nucleus is +1 because it only has one proton. What I meant earlier was that the nucleus of hydrogen has a formal charge of +1, which is what causes the electrostatic repulsion between the two atoms, and because the charge is +1, it's Coulomb barrier is the smallest of any other element. Electrostatic force increases as the number of protons increase, so the +1 on a hydrogen atom means that it's easier to break the electrostatic force between two hydrogen atoms than any other element on the periodic table. So it requires the least amount of energy for the strong nuclear force to overcome the electrostatic force meaning it requires the least amount of heat, compared to the other elements, to initiate fusion. Hopefully this clears things up.


----------

