1232
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 92 points 3 months ago

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

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 58 points 3 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.

[-] nialv7@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

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

[-] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 15 points 3 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?

[-] SkyeStarfall 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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

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 3 months ago

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

[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

*in a silly high voice due to all the helium

[-] Trollception@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[-] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 20 points 3 months ago

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

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 73 points 3 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 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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 would be more smashed apart than merging at that point.

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In alphabetical order.

Edit: oops, those are fission, my bad

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

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

[-] anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

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

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Look at all these nuclear scientists on Lemmy.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago
[-] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

I mean if we really want to be technically accurate here, the lithium is just a moderater for the hydrogen isotopes to fuse.

But for me it gets fuzzy when looking at the reaction.

LiD is 4 protons, 8 neutrons. Add a new neutron, and bam, you have 4 protons and 9 neutrons. But that's where it gets weird to me. The lithium needs to decay or something into a tritium and dueterium which forces the tritium to fuse with the existing dueterium in the LiD molecule? Clearly the neutron has enough energy to transfer into one of the atoms to increase the chance of tunneling actually occuring.

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

The only real purpose of the lithium deuteride is that it's a dry, shelf-stable, room-temperature fuel. The very first hydrogen "bomb" (actually a building-sized device) used supercooled liquid hydrogen as the fusion fuel, but this was obviously not practical for a deliverable bomb.

[-] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I get that part, it's still the reaction I can't wrap my head around mainly because I don't understand how chemistry is any different than alchemy.

I know that lithium itself doesnt fuse to create He+T+D, and I know it can't undergo fission. Since lithium isn't left over, and lithium-6 and 7 are stable, does that mean the neutron with extremely high kinetic energy really knocks like two of the LiD mokecules into each other, causing dueterium -dueterium fusion resulting in He4, and the Li6 gets more neutrons that for it to be come unstable enough to decay into tritium or deuterium?

[-] feannag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

How about a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War?

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

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

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 3 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 1 points 3 months ago

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

[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago
[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I stand corrected, because I done forgetted.

[-] Redex68@lemmy.world 13 points 3 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 11 points 3 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 11 points 3 months ago

Do you have a Lemmy client that supports mathematical functions?

[-] MBM@lemmings.world 4 points 3 months ago

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

[-] Suoko@feddit.it 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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

[-] qaz@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

[-] desktop_user 11 points 3 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 7 points 3 months ago

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

[-] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

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

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 4 points 3 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)

this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
1232 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

15967 readers
1326 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