60 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Why does /sci/ refuse to acknowledge the huge disparity in university quality? You get topics filled with people talking about their grades in Calc 1 and Calc 2 etc. You may as well talk about how long pieces of string are. Places like MIT do Calc 1 to 3 in two courses any way. And still have more content. And Caltech does proofs etc on day one. And that's just the disparity in two maths courses. Now imagine four times that difference every year because there are 8 courses, multiplied by four for every year of the degree, multiplied by being surrounded by smarter people rather than the dumb normies who got shit school grades.
Also another way you can tell that /sci/ goes to bad unis is when they boast "99 % of my CS101: Java Syntax class failed." How the fuck is this a boast? The shitter universities have higher drop out rates (a few exceptions, when they take many people but weed them out, but this is rare and mainly very prestigious nationalised institutions). Hard working students almost always pass. If a Harvard guy goes up to me and says "99 % of people passed CS101" I'm not going to see Harvard as shit.
When I once posted a problem from the first year Oxford maths course on here as a way to troll people at worse universities, I got tonnes of abuse.
Also I'm not an Ivy league guy. I'm a guy who went to a uni ranked 100 - 150 in the world and I am as butthurt as anyone can get. My anus is redder than a cherry dipped in blood. Don't think I'm trolling. Also there are very few exceptions to the stuff I say: I mainly think of Germany, or other mainland Euro countries (not France), where I think there is more equality due to government intervention or something (or maybe we just never hear about them).
>inb4 only grad school matters
Yeah, sure, 4 years of the difference in quality I talked about contributes zero difference to grad school performance...
33 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Hello, fellow /sci/entists.
So I'm currently studying nuclear physics, and today I came across the story of Hisashi Ouchi for the first time. For those unfamiliar:
Ouchi was exposed to lethal levels of radiation and kept alive by the government for almost three months against his will to see what would happen.
The morbid details of his death aside, I'm mostly interested in the cause of the accident itself. According to various other sources, he was pouring a bucket of aqueous uranyl nitrate into a tank containing uranium dioxide when the solution suddenly went critical. I've always been under the assumption that criticality can only be achieved with relatively large amounts of enriched uranium, but the uranium sustaining the reaction in this case was natural uranium. Since I haven't been able to find any information about this reaction, I figured you might be able to answer my questions:
1. Can high levels of gamma and neutron radiation like what killed Ouchi be produced by simply reacting aqueous uranyl nitrate with uranium dioxide?
2. Assuming it can, what's smallest amount of these two chemicals that can be combined to achieve criticality?
3. In the event that such a solution remained subcritical, would it still produce any measurable levels of gamma and neutron radiation?
4. Can such a reaction be safely reproduced in a lab setting?
Thank you for the help.
>picking one area of expertise
4 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
how the fuck do you decide what you will study for the next 4-5 years? this is insane. what if you lose interest?
i'm interested in superconductors, CPU architecture, heat exchangers, propulsion systems, chemical explosives, protein synthesis, nonlinear PDEs, energy storage, machine learning/cryptography, lithography/crystallography, electroactive polymers, josephson junctions, multijunction solar arrays, all both in theory and in application. am i fucked? some anon here said do material science, electrical engineering, or physics. pic related.
Why do some smart high school students want to do research?
2 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
There are smart people in the UK, Europe, etc who get top grades in their finals and yet decide to pursue Physics, Math, etc instead of Medicine, Law, etc for their undergraduate degrees. Some aspire to do research in the future.
Yes, I understand that being a doctor or lawyer is stressful, but why don't these smart people go for "easy" jobs instead? Being a physiotherapist, nutritionist or actuary is not that stressful. Working for the government is nice as it's difficult to be fired from your job. This is certainly the case compared to something such as a researcher where no results = no funding = no income.
Really, all jobs are boring in their own ways. Even if they are interesting at the start, they become dull over time. Why not just pick something which leads to a stable income and learn to love that job?