• henfredemars
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I also think it’s an interesting choice to use uranium. Wouldn’t osmium be a better choice due to its increased density?

    • 69420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think more people know what uranium is. I, for one, had never heard of osmium until right now. Jokes are funnier if you don’t have to explain them.

    • phcorcoran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Picking a higher density of the material just means the one gram would occupy less volume, it doesn’t affect how much energy that gram is equivalent to in terms of E=mc2. For that calculation, as the equation implies, only the mass matters; a gram of feathers is equivalent to the same amount of energy as a gram of lead for that equation. Now, this equation is in fact a simplified assumption; if you launch your feather at relativistic speed, then we’re talking

      • henfredemars
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        This is true. This is why I compared them using the fixed volume of one cubic centimeter rather than using something like specific gravity. The only thing that differs is the mass, which is of course, directly proportional to the energy.

      • henfredemars
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Given that mass behaves the same regardless of what is providing that mass in a gravity field, I imagine it simply the ratio of the weights. I’m assuming NewtonIan physics here.

        Osmium is 22.59 g/cm3.
        Uranium is 19.1 g/cm3

        I would therefore expect about 10% more energy if it was made of osmium, simply equating mass and energy here with the famous crazy-haired guy equation.