this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
1239 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

14201 readers
2626 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

log to the base 76000000

[–] [email protected] 92 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

*Boo

(But having a book instead is always nice.)

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I choose to believe it was meant as a warning, because GP is going to yeet a book at your head. But with a fair warning.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

I always use “book” as an insult. Especially since my phone autocorrect was updated…

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 81 points 1 week ago (13 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 week ago

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

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In alphabetical order.

Edit: oops, those are fission, my bad

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Fusion bombs use a fission bomb to fuse Hydrogen, which is why they're called H-bombs.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Look at all these nuclear scientists on Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

How about a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I stand corrected, because I done forgetted.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week 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} $)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Do you have a Lemmy client that supports mathematical functions?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 week ago

Wrong. You can't scale logs much. logs are 16 MJ/kg

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yes boss, I did work out the dynamic range of that log amplifier we wanted to use in our next product's sensor PCB, it's 80dB.

The results are over here. (points to a roll of A-4 paper)

It has 40 data points and only took me 1 week, 10 pencils, and 20 erasers to plot the chart. Yeah I can present it, it'll take me 10 minutes to roll it out, pin it down, and fetch the A-frame ladder.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›