Comment on logs are for quitters

Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨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.

  source
• IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
  • davidgro@lemmy.world ⁨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 be more smashed apart than merging at that point.

    source
  • PunnyName@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    In alphabetical order.

    source

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source

      • anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        [deleted]

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

        source
      • frezik@midwest.social ⁨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.

        source
      • PunnyName@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

        source
    • davidgro@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That’s fissed, not fused.

      source

      • PunnyName@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I stand corrected, because I done forgetted.

        source
• nialv7@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source

  • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world ⁨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?

    source
  • ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    There is still time

    source

    • DoYouNot@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I mean, technically it has.

      source
  • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

    source

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        *in a silly high voice due to all the helium

        source
  • Trollception@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
• desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source

  • sga@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

      source

      • sga@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        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

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Redex68@lemmy.world ⁨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.

  source
• Suoko@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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} $)

  source

  • qaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Do you have a Lemmy client that supports mathematical functions?

    source

    • MBM@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
    • Suoko@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      With ollama, having smart local bots should be easy

      source

      • qaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Did you reply to the wrong comment?

        source
• dalekcaan@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source
• Ledericas@lemm.ee ⁨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)

  source