this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
398 points (96.9% liked)

Science

3384 readers
714 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

I'm studying Physics at the moment and Prof. gave us a printout of a textbook last week stating that the internal of the sun generates approximately 150 W / m³ on average. That's about as much as a compost pile, so, not very much. The sun only generates enormous amounts of power because it's so huge. In other words, reproducing fusion on Earth might actually not be very efficient.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 minutes ago* (last edited 5 minutes ago)

Different kind of fusion. Don't forget hydrogen bombs have been around for decades, right? They're just not very controlled and harnessable.

To the sun's credit, it's 4.5 billion years in and it's still got plenty of juice left to go.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago

Look up the etymology of the word "sophomore".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah that is not how that works

The sun is enormous, yeah, but fusion only really happens at the core. A very tiny fraction of the sun is doing the fusion, the rest jlgets heated up, makes gravity and such, bit doesn't really do anything of interest energy wise.

Fusion creates a shit tonne more energy than 150w/cm3. Heck, you've never seen what a nuke does

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 minutes ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago)

No, OP is right - or rather, OP's physics professor. There's different kinds of fusion, though, and nobody's suggesting we do the exact same kind here on Earth (we basically can't).

Fusion creates a shit tonne more energy than 150w/cm3. Heck, you’ve never seen what a nuke does

That's power density (Watts). Multiply by 10 billion years to get energy density.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Found this article

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/17/3478276.htm

And it looks like it's saying that the energy produced by nuclear fusion (which happens in the relatively small core) divided by the entire mass of the sun, gives you that low number.

Terrestrial fusion power plants are aiming to be sun cores, so that all the hydrogen they put in gets fused, and not just a few atoms here and there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 minutes ago

It's low in the core too, just not quite that low.

How does nobody else here know that we're talking about artificially fusing some blend of deuterium or tritium? The sun fuses ordinary hydrogen at this point in it's evolution - that's why it's a nice slow 10 billion year burn.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Why do people assume that scientists don’t sanity check themselves? Genuine question, no offense to the OC here.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 hours ago

Cause maybe they assume scientists are hyping things up like VCs for AI.

In a dishonest world, the honest would be mistrusted more.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 hours ago

"guys, I know we've been working on this for decades, but I've been going over this first-year textbook, and I have some bad news..."