You must log in or register to comment.
Copy pasta without source. Book! https://xkcd.com/1162/
*Boo
(But having a book instead is always nice.)
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.
If we could consume uranium, you could have a teaspoon’s worth and be done with eating for the rest of your life.
I think that’s technically true regardless.
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.
You would get heavy metal poisoning, same as if you ate a chunk of lead
Interestingly, no. It’s not the same as if you ate a chunk of lead.
Lead binds to calcium channels, and then blocks them. This makes it a bit of a neurotoxin. It also accumulates in the bones.
Uranium on the other hand is one of the heavy metals that the body is good a filtering out of the blood. The body is not as good at expelling the uranium. It accumulates in the kidney. This can lead to kidney disease, and other related issues. And that’s just the chemical toxicity of Uranium. Add in the radioactive side of things, and you have a truly distinct form of metal poisoning.
Radioactivity inside your body is very bad bad
AM or FM?
5G
Incorrect, if you aren’t a removed about it. Fuse that gasoline!
I was thinking the same thing. It’s unfair compare chemical energy to nuclear energy. Coal still kind of sucks, but the hydrogen in the others could definitely be used in fusion…
If we’re counting future technology, my money are on iron man style reactor. Don’t need to fuze shit, infinite energy.
Except the Ironman style reactor is pure science fiction, whereas hydrogen fusion is real, but still has issues of energy capture, which several groups are working on.
There are two promising avenues, one is a direct physical capture, as in fusion is initiated with huge pistons that are physically moved by the fusion explosion,
And the other cool one is direct magnetic coupling.
I expect both to take off long before the tokamak style does.
But fission power is already here, and much easier to set up. Molten Salt Thorium is also promising. And once some corrosion issues are solved, could power the earth at current levels for the next thousand years.
All while producing an isotope of actinium that produces only alpha radiation. Which is super useful in killing cancer cells.
Well, they suggested fuzing gazoline, not me.
But fission power is already here
Asterisk. A big one. There is no real life prototypes of energy-positive reactors yet. There are several promising pre-prototypes that are almost ready, just need to fix some engineering issues. And it would not be a problem if the whole field wasn’t in this state since the sixtieth.
Fission. As in uranium and Thorium.
We’ve had energy positive fission since the 1950s.
Uranium generates that energy by fission. The hydrogen in sugar could generate huge amounts of energy if fused.
It’s disappointing that natural selection didn’t figure out fusion.
It figured out photosynthesis instead. Why do your own fusion when you can just take advantage of the fusion that’s already happening?
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.
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} $)
Do you have a Lemmy client that supports mathematical functions?
With ollama, having smart local bots for your lemmy instance should be easy
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
and all would generate the same if thrown to something capable of lossless e=mc^2 conversion (maybe a black hole)
Bah, that graph needs antimatter.
Is there enough paper on earth?
Antimatter doesn’t really do anything by it’s own, but if we let 1 kg react with 1 kg of matter (non-anti-matter), we get E = mc2 with m = 2 kg. So 1.8 * 1017 J, or 1.8 * 1011 MJ. If we assume that 10 MJ/kg is represented by about 1 cm, the bar would have to be 1.8 * 1010 cm or about 1.8 * 108 m. A standard A4 piece of paper is about 30 cm tall, so 6.0 * 108 A4 papers are needed. I.e. 600 million papers.
So we definitely have enough paper, but it would be a very tall stack.
deleted by creator
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.
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.)
You call this a linear holograph of a non linear phenomenon and earn yourself that promotion.
now add cost
Okay but since you’re the one trying to make a point by saying that, it’s really up to you to add the cost and show that the results really do make the point you want to make.
