this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
1187 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

14644 readers
1426 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bebabalula@feddit.dk 90 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] CaptainBlagbird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

*Boo

(But having a book instead is always nice.)

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month 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.

[–] Deebster 4 points 1 month ago

Maybe it's like a yellow card and they've been booked.

[–] bebabalula@feddit.dk 8 points 1 month ago

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

[–] xordos@lonestarlemmy.mooo.com 4 points 1 month ago

which is bigger? TREE(3) vs

((...(1 room of stacked papers ) room of paper) room of paper)...)) room of paper

The number of brackets in above expression is, eh, ok, you got the idea.

/s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 77 points 1 month 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 month 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 19 points 1 month ago (16 children)

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

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago

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

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month 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 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] DoYouNot@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean, technically it already has.

[–] Trollception@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Redex68@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month 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.

[–] desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month 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 month ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Suoko@feddit.it 10 points 1 month 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 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Do you have a Lemmy client that supports mathematical functions?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

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

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month 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)

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 72 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If we could consume uranium, you could have a teaspoon's worth and be done with eating for the rest of your life.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 139 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think that's technically true regardless.

[–] Trollception@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I wonder if that's actually factual or not. Uranium by itself isn't too terribly dangerous. It's the whole fission byproducts thing that's the buzz kill.

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You would get heavy metal poisoning, same as if you ate a chunk of lead

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Radioactivity inside your body is very bad bad

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KiwiHuman@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

Also it depends on the isotope of uranium. Something you could find naturally isn't too dangerous, but something enriched too be used as fuel or for wepons is significantly more radioactive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Bah, that graph needs antimatter.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 18 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Incorrect, if you aren't a bitch about it. Fuse that gasoline!

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 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.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This is the real big brain hack with decibels


you can use a linear scale, it's just that the units are logarithmic instead.

(Yes I know most people would call a dB axis logarithmic, it's just a silly comment.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Weird thing I’ve noticed:

Logs are taught in high school. Absolutely no one seems to remember what they are after the unit test, much less high school. I’ve even reminded other math instructors about how to use them.

Why do people have such a hard time learning to use and understand logs?

I love this comic, and it’s going to replace my weird “let’s talk about how this makes the distance between us and Alpha Centauri, and us and Earendil easier to understand” bit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›