Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - CaptainWaffles (05/29/2013) [-]
Except the "chain-reaction" is nuclear fission, not fusion.
#7 to #3 - tyraxio (05/29/2013) [-]
Dude, it's definately a fusion. A fusion is objects going together, a fission are objects going apart. Sure, the atomic blast is a fission, but he fuses the two rocks together.
User avatar #9 to #7 - scientific (05/29/2013) [-]
Fission is where the neutrons smash into other atoms and cause an explosion, and since uranium lets off these neutrons when split, it only makes sense that when you smash two together, they'll produce more neutrons and eventually a chain reaction.
#10 to #9 - tyraxio (05/29/2013) [-]
Dude do you even into science?

He says that the fusion of these two rocks will cause a nuke. In other terms, the fusion will cause fission. He used fusion correctly.
#4 to #3 - Ken M (05/29/2013) [-]
Materials fuse under enough pressure and force, both fission and fusion can create explosions.
User avatar #5 to #4 - CaptainWaffles (05/29/2013) [-]
True, but fusion is not a chain reaction, fission is.
User avatar #15 to #5 - fannypack (05/30/2013) [-]
Also true but, A fusion reaction is usually started with a fission reaction, but if you read what he says, it's really just the author ************ what he says. "the fusion of these chunks of uranium should produce a chain reaction and an atomic blast."
User avatar #28 to #15 - CaptainWaffles (05/30/2013) [-]
Pretty much. But that's only because of our inability to create the high temperatures and pressures needed to accomplish fusion without the aide of fission. And yes, I am aware of the efforts to create "Cold Fusion" and many of the experimental fusion reactors, and that some use magnetic fields and lasers to get to the point of fusion, but at the expense of a great expenditure of energy.
 Friends (0)