this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
1274 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

14285 readers
2170 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 93 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] CaptainBlagbird@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

*Boo

(But having a book instead is always nice.)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bebabalula@feddit.dk 8 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 80 points 1 week 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 150 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think that's technically true regardless.

[–] Trollception@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 week 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 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] KiwiHuman@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week 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.

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

Radioactivity inside your body is very bad bad

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 80 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 61 points 1 week 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 21 points 1 week ago (16 children)

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

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 73 points 1 week 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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 20 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week 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 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] DoYouNot@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean, technically it already has.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Redex68@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week 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 12 points 1 week 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 week 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 11 points 1 week 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 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Do you have a Lemmy client that supports mathematical functions?

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

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

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

Bah, that graph needs antimatter.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 19 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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...

[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It is perfectly fair in the context of "fuel", a resource used to produce energy. Whether energy is generated via chemical or nuclear reaction is irrelavent in this case.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week 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 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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)
[–] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago

In recent developments, 10% of the US GDP is now allocated to producing Astronomy and Astrophysics plots. More news at 9.

[–] Terrarium@hexbear.net 8 points 1 week ago

Log scales are great but cannot be understood by the vast majority of people. They simply aren't taught to a level of comprehension.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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)
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

would burning fat be carbon neutral?

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