How much more energy would you get if you fused uranium?
Comment on logs are for quitters
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Uranium generates that energy by fission. The hydrogen in sugar could generate huge amounts of energy if fused.
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Using the rule of thumb, anything heavier than iron requires energy input to fuse. So you lose energy fusing uranium.
davidgro@lemmy.world 10 months 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 be more smashed apart than merging at that point.
PunnyName@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In alphabetical order.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Those are fission. Fusion bombs don’t fuse uranium. They use a fission bomb to fuse Lithium.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 10 months ago
For that matter, even the Nagasaki bomb (“Fat Man”) didn’t use Uranium at all - its fuel was Plutonium.
frezik@midwest.social 10 months 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 10 months ago
Damnit, you’re right and I’m wrong!
davidgro@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That’s fissed, not fused.
PunnyName@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I stand corrected, because I done forgetted.
nialv7@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s disappointing that natural selection didn’t figure out fusion.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 10 months 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 months ago
There is still time
DoYouNot@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I mean, technically it has.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
It’s good it didn’t, otherwise it’s possible that all the hydrogen in the ocean would be fused into helium by now
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
On the fusion planet: “Man, can you imagine if early life figured out how to make poisonous oxygen gas?”
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 10 months ago
*in a silly high voice due to all the helium
Trollception@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
We have fusion (hydrogen) bombs. We just haven’t figured out how to maintain and efficiently harness it.
desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
and all would generate the same if thrown to something capable of lossless e=mc^2 conversion (maybe a black hole)
sga@lemmings.world 10 months ago
sadly black holes go to something like 42% conversion (source: some minute physics video i think)
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
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 10 months ago
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
Redex68@lemmy.world 10 months 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 10 months ago
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 10 months ago
Do you have a Lemmy client that supports mathematical functions?
MBM@lemmings.world 10 months ago
Built-in LaTeX support would be so cool (and not that hard, Mathstodon has it)
Suoko@feddit.it 10 months ago
With ollama, having smart local bots should be easy
qaz@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
dalekcaan@lemm.ee 10 months ago
In theory, yes. In practice, of those two only fission is currently viable.
Ledericas@lemm.ee 10 months 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)
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 10 months 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.