this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
1255 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

20009 readers
1042 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Uranium generates that energy by fission. The hydrogen in sugar could generate huge amounts of energy if fused.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

And this boulder could generate huge amounts of energy if I pushed it up to the top of Mt. Kilimanjaro and let it roll down.

44 upvotes and 0 downvotes for a comment that doesn't understand that energy density measurements like this tend to measure the useful energy of a system.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

How much more energy would you get if you fused uranium?

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 74 points 1 year ago

Using the rule of thumb, anything heavier than iron requires energy input to fuse. So you lose energy fusing uranium.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Serious answer: A huge negative amount. Anything above iron requires energy to fuse (which is why it produces energy from fission.) and I'm pretty sure nothing with 184 protons could be stable enough to count as being produced - the nuclei would be more smashed apart than merging at that point.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In alphabetical order.

Edit: oops, those are fission, my bad

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Those are fission. Fusion bombs don't fuse uranium. They use a fission bomb to fuse Lithium.

For that matter, even the Nagasaki bomb ("Fat Man") didn't use Uranium at all - its fuel was Plutonium.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Oh, they do, but not as the primary or secondary. You can wrap depleated uranium around the core to capture fast neutrons that are leftover from the rest of the process. Changing the number of layers is how you can dial in a desired yield.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Damnit, you're right and I'm wrong!

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I stand corrected, because I done forgetted.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It's disappointing that natural selection didn't figure out fusion.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

It figured out photosynthesis instead. Why do your own fusion when you can just take advantage of the fusion that's already happening?

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DoYouNot@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, technically it already has.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's good it didn't, otherwise it's possible that all the hydrogen in the ocean would be fused into helium by now

Well, more likely it would significantly heat up earth due to the amount of energy released first, cooking everything/starting an endless cooking->extinction->cooling cycle

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On the fusion planet: "Man, can you imagine if early life figured out how to make poisonous oxygen gas?"

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

*in a silly high voice due to all the helium

[–] Trollception@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We have fusion (hydrogen) bombs. We just haven't figured out how to maintain and efficiently harness it for energy.

[–] Redex68@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Whilst I get your point, their point is still valid in the sense that you just can't extract that energy from gasoline in a more efficient manner than just burning it. For practical purposes, gasoline truly is that much less energy dense.

[–] Suoko@feddit.it 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For comparison:

  • Chemical combustion of uranium: ~4.7 MJ/kg
  • Nuclear fission of uranium-235: ~83.14 TJ/kg (or $ 83.14 \times 10^6 , \text{MJ/kg} $)
[–] qaz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you have a Lemmy client that supports mathematical functions?

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

Built-in LaTeX support would be so cool (and not that hard, Mathstodon has it)

[–] Suoko@feddit.it -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

With ollama, having smart local bots for your lemmy instance should be easy

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

and all would generate the same if thrown to something capable of lossless e=mc^2 conversion (maybe a black hole)

[–] sga@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

sadly black holes go to something like 42% conversion (source: some minute physics video i think)

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's quite interesting. Is it because of the light produced when the materia starts spinning around in the accretion disk in very high speeds? I doubt hawking radiation would do anywhere near that much

[–] sga@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://youtu.be/t-O-Qdh7VvQ

No, It is actually the light produced that we can actually use as a energy source, the limiting thing is, before completely loosing its kinetic energy to frictional heat, stuff falls into black hole, from where we can not get anymore energy back. If black hole is stationary, then its 6%, and if its spinning (and assuming the fastest spinning theoretically possible) - 42% (spinning black holes are smaller and have smaller radius of no-return

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ahhh alright I was thinking the black hole converting mass to energy for itself, not as if we were to try utilize it

[–] sga@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

we can't let the noble black hole keep all ye energy, ye shall liberate it

[–] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

In theory, yes. In practice, of those two only fission is currently viable.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

If you can do nuclear fusion yea, it's more efficient. Cold fusion has been a sci Fi thing for a while; they mostly moved on to antimatter-matter annihilation, and ZPE(seems to be a favorite for sg1)