18 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat I meant by that is what happens if the plug doesn't unplug? There are significant difficulties associated with the corrosiveness of the molten salts which increase with temperature. There are materials problems. Basically these things are a long way from being viable as commercial power production prospects. They know how to make Gas cooled reactors and they could design and build one in less than five years with known costs and risks. There is no reason that one couldn't use a thorium fuel cycle in a gas cooled reactor.
Then the reactor shuts down.
The plug is made of 'frozen' Thorium salt.
Basically you have a pipe leading from the base of the reactor chamber
to the secondary chamber.
This pipe is actively cooled so that the salt flowing into it cools below it's
freezing point and solidifies, blocking the pipe.
In the event of a coolant failure, or the ...[text shortened]... media.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Molten_Salt_Reactor.svg
Freeze Plug --> Emergency Dump Tanks
I'm not saying that molten salt reactors have no potential, just that considerable research is needed to make them viable, and they have a different set of potential problems associated with them.
The ideal solution is nuclear fusion of helium 3 (it's aneutronic), the problem is that even tritium deuterium fusion is something like fifty years away. The industry joke is that nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future - and always will be!
18 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge
Part of the reason that electronics are expensive [among many other things]
is the limited supply of rare-earth metals that go into making them.
Which are currently largely sourced from china.
Another major potential source is the USA, which has large deposits, that
are largely untapped due in no small part to the fact that with these
rare-eart ...[text shortened]... cessive governments have failed to plan ahead or act decisively [while doing the
right thing].
Part of the reason that electronics are expensive [among many other things]
is the limited supply of rare-earth metals that go into making them.
I predict that it would be just a matter of time before research would come up with ways of designing very energy efficient electronics of virtually all types without any expensive rare-earth metals and then, partly for that reason and partly because it is just a matter of time before traditional manufacturing would be replaced with manufacturing using artificial enzymes that can efficiently do the job at room temperature and pressure, all electronics, including solar panels, LEDs and microchips, would become unbelievably dirt-cheap with at least a 100 fold reduction in manufacturing cost! -but not any time soon.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by humyPartly because all the enzymes denature if any part of your apparatus gets over 40~50 Celsius.Part of the reason that electronics are expensive [among many other things]
is the limited supply of rare-earth metals that go into making them.
I predict that it would be just a matter of time before research would come up with ways of designing very energy efficient electronics of virtually all types without any expensive rare-earth m ...[text shortened]... bly dirt-cheap with at least a 100 fold reduction in manufacturing cost! -but not any time soon.
Bio-tech has enormous potential... But biological systems are fragile, which is why we have replaced
so many with robotics and machines.
This is taken from this page: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/BrainBugs.html
Of Stardestroyer.net
Organic technology
In sci-fi nowadays, virtually all truly advanced technology seems to be "organic". From Tin Man in Star Trek to the Vorlons and Shadows in B5 and now, the latest additions to the Star Wars "extended universe" (which has obviously been polluted by sci-fi chic), the theme is omnipresent and inescapable: bio-technology is vastly superior to primitive heavy metal technologies. The motivation for this theme is tinged with human conceit; could it be that we simply want to believe that organic life is vastly superior to any piece of technology, because we refuse to accept that we are an insignificant organic speck in the history of the universe? Because like it or not, we are an insignificant speck in the history of the universe. If the time between the Big Bang and the formation of our solar system were one day, the entirety of human history would take place in less than one second, before lunch on the second day.
Either way, the popularity of the organic technology myth is somewhat baffling. One of the most baffling parts is the fact that it is assumed to be more "advanced". Here's a question for you: when did we produce the first armoured vehicle? Was it in World War 1, with the tank? Or was it centuries earlier, with the mounted knight? Did you know that the mounted knight was made possible through selective horse breeding (ie- organic technology), which produced horses big and strong enough to carry the heavy armoured riders into battle? Do you believe that sheepdogs were always like that? Dogs and horses could both be described as examples of bio-technological tools, engineered by humans for specific tasks through the use of applied evolutionary scientific principles (even if they didn't have a name for them at the time). Bio-weapons are nothing new either, having been used since at least medieval times (besieging armies would catapult diseased carcasses into a fortress). And what about bio-armour? Sorry, but all I can say is "been there, done that". Wooden ships had bio-armour, remember? Would you seriously want to pit bio-armour against the 120mm smoothbore gun of an M-1 Abrams? There is a reason we switched to steel, people! Think about it.
At no time have we ever seen a shred of evidence that biological systems can realistically supplant wholly artificial technologies in applications such as large-scale power generation, armour, naval or aircraft propulsion, military weaponry, bridges and buildings, etc. In fact, all of those technologies were developed to replace biological systems! Biological systems are chemically reactive and structurally feeble in comparison to metals and ceramics, and both of these characteristics can spell doom for a starship. Furthermore, there are strict limits to how much this will ever change, because chemical reactivity is a prerequisite for life! Moreover, living cells requires a constant supply of nutrients, which means that all living cells must always be semi-permeable. Compare this to a massive, inert piece of metallic or ceramic/metal composite armour, and you can quickly see the problem for organics.
"But biological organisms can self-repair!" some might say. However, they are far more easily injured in the first place, and the kind of attack that a biological organism can repair won't even scratch the surface of a metallic armoured vehicle. "But biology is the most powerful force this planet has ever known!" some might say. Sorry, but that's one of those non-literal figures of speech, like "the pen is mightier than the sword" or "faith can move mountains". Nuclear fusion (particularly from the Sun) is far more powerful. "But the roots of a tree can push up sidewalks!" some might say. Sorry, but it's no big deal to push up a sidewalk. A sidewalk is just stones laying on gravel and dirt, and the routine thermal contraction and expansion of the ground every winter destroys more sidewalk slabs and miles of pavement than tree roots ever could.
Organic technology is good for medical applications (obviously, since we are organic) and bioweapons are certainly dangerous (although they're also fraught with difficulties). However, the idea of organic space combat vehicles and high-powered propulsion and/or weapons systems is just silly. Even organic computers are a highly questionable idea in sci-fi, since we are already researching quantum computing today, and quantum computing operates on a smaller scale than organics can. Sci-fi writers and fans who tout the omnipotence of organic technology tend to identify areas in which it is superior, while ignoring all of the areas in which it is vastly inferior. As usual, they simplify variables out of the equation, and the remaining oversimplified idea becomes a brain bug.
"Captain, I'm picking up an approaching ship."
"What can you tell me about it?"
"Oh my God, it's organic! What are we going to do, Captain?"
"There's not much we can do, Ensign. Organic technology is so far beyond our grasp that we can't even imagine the power they must have. All we have is high-powered guns, nuclear missiles, and our primitive metallic armour. What are you reading from their incredibly advanced bio-ship?"
"Their ship is soft and flexible. Its construction materials are semi-permeable and laced with a network of delicate circulation passages. Instead of using impermeable high-density materials, it's made from countless tiny thin-walled cells which tend to rapidly break down in the presence of corrosive chemicals or radiation."
"What? And we were supposed to be afraid of this? Open fire!"
SQUISH ...
18 Jun 14
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeI think I should point out that I wasn't talking about making or using living organic machines (a concept that I am not too impressed with anyway ) but rather using artificial enzymes to manufacture things at room temperature and pressure and therefore manufacture with extremely low energy costs making the product much cheaper -a completely different and far better proposition. Most of the energy costs of conventional manufacture currently comes from producing extremes of temperature and pressure. Manufacturing with the help of enzymes could slush those costs. Such enzymes are fragile but that doesn't matter for this application because they don't have to last long and the final products (machines, solar panels etc that are not 'organic' ) are not fragile.
Partly because all the enzymes denature if any part of your apparatus gets over 40~50 Celsius.
Bio-tech has enormous potential... But biological systems are fragile, which is why we have replaced
so many with robotics and machines.
This is taken from this page: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/BrainBugs.html
Of Stardestroyer.net
[ ...[text shortened]... ion."
"What? And we were supposed to be afraid of this? Open fire!"
SQUISH ...[/i][/quote]
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by humyThe funny part being that once you have developed these methods, you won't be needing to make so many solar panels.
Most of the energy costs of conventional manufacture currently comes from producing extremes of temperature and pressure. Manufacturing with the help of enzymes could slush those costs.
In both Zambia and South Africa, smelting in the mines is one of the biggest power users. If we find less energy intensive ways to extract metals from rock, we could get rid of several power stations.
18 Jun 14
4 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
The funny part being that once you have developed these methods, you won't be needing to make so many solar panels.
In both Zambia and South Africa, smelting in the mines is one of the biggest power users. If we find less energy intensive ways to extract metals from rock, we could get rid of several power stations.
The funny part being that once you have developed these methods, you won't be needing to make so many solar panels.
that is an irony.
I neglected to mention that I also think the age of metal is coming to a permanent end (especially for steal -the age of steal will end ) -metals for most current applications will be replaced with superior substitutes once they come much easier and cheaper to manufacture thanks to artificial enzymes.
For example, copper wire will be replaced by graphene wire (probably containing either graphene ribbons or carbon nanotubes ) because eventually defect-free graphene will be made (I predict with the help of enzymes ) that would have electrical resistance less than copper.
Another example: where strong heat-resistant shock-resistant material is required for a machine component, instead of steel, the lighter, more shock resistant and heat resistant silicon nitride could be used. Silicon nitride is already used for some such components (such as high-quality ultra-strong ball bearings ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_nitride . I guess the main reason why silicon nitride hasn't already replaced all steel is simply because of the higher cost of manufacture?
Where very high temperature resistance and hardness is required but not so much shock resistance, silicon carbide could be used. With both silicon carbide and silicon nitride, there is always at least one ceramic material that is better than steel in every way for any given application.
Also, aluminum currently used for aircraft bodies would be completely replaced with carbon composite materials which will be better than aluminum in every way.
In fact, the only applications I can currently think of for metals in the far future would be not for support but for
1, inside batteries and probably only the metals lithium and magnesium.
2, the surface of certain mirrors.
The only possible use I can think of for steal in the far future is for lightning conductors.
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by humyI am doubtful that the age of steel is anywhere near coming to an end for the construction industry, which I think uses about half of the total annual steel produced.
I neglected to mention that I also think the age of metal is coming to a permanent end (especially for steal -the age of steal will end ) -metals for most current applications will be replaced with superior substitutes once they come much easier and cheaper to manufacture thanks to artificial enzymes.
18 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by PatNovakI don't think it will end any time soon but eventually it will. I think it has arguably already started a very very slow gradual subtle incremental death with increasing use of alternatives to steel in some areas (example, the increase use of silicon nitride as a substitute for steel for some mechanical components ) but it will not start to die noticeably until much cheaper ways are found to manufacture those alternatives -only then will it quickly come to an end.
I am doubtful that the age of steel is anywhere near coming to an end for the construction industry, which I think uses about half of the total annual steel produced.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Jun 14
Originally posted by humyNonsense.
I don't think it will end any time soon but eventually it will. I think it has arguably already started a very very slow gradual subtle incremental death with increasing use of alternatives to steel in some areas (example, the increase use of silicon nitride as a substitute for steel for some mechanical components ) but it will not start to die noticeably until ...[text shortened]... aper ways are found to manufacture those alternatives -only then will it quickly come to an end.
We still build with stone and wood, we make things out of copper and bronze,
we have drystone-walls and thatched cottages.
Metals are used in inks and alloys, paints and machines, buildings and cables.
They are ductile and conductive, simple to use, cast or extrooded.
The idea that we will ever stop using some of the most common and useful
elements is ludicrous.
You get way to excited about the new. Newer doesn't always mean better,
and after investing thousands of years developing ways to use metals, we
are not going to abandon them simply because there are some high end
applications where we have better alternatives. Just because a trend starts
does not mean it will continue indefinitely.
It simply doesn't make economic sense to abandon most of the periodic table,
particularly given the abundance of many of the metals on it.
History tells us that once we gain a technology or use of a material we keep
invariably keep using it. There are people looking at mud construction here in
the UK as a green and cheep alternative to concrete.
Technologies and materials go in and out of fashion, and wax and wane in importance
and use. But once invented or discovered they almost never disappear.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have never seen one of your posts so riddled with flawed concepts.
Nonsense.
We still build with stone and wood, we make things out of copper and bronze,
we have drystone-walls and thatched cottages.
Metals are used in inks and alloys, paints and machines, buildings and cables.
They are ductile and conductive, simple to use, cast or extrooded.
The idea that we will ever stop using some of the most common and ...[text shortened]... x and wane in importance
and use. But once invented or discovered they almost never disappear.
We still build with stone and wood, we make things out of copper and bronze,
That is because we haven't yet invented artificial enzymes (or something else that would make their manufacture extremely cheap ) that can help extremely cheaply manufacture the stronger lightweight alternatives that will be better in every way. I have already covered copper (copper cable will be replaced with graphene based cable that will conduct better ). As for bronze, a few things will be made of bronze but, as with now, generally nothing important -mainly just ornaments I would guess. Most things will not be made out of bronze. In case you haven't already noticed, the stone age and the bronze age has already ended!
we have drystone-walls and thatched cottages.
Not in most places. I haven’t seen any for years. In case you haven’t already noticed, in post technologically advanced places int the world, most houses these days have no dry-stone walls and are not thatched.
The idea that we will ever stop using some of the most common and useful
elements is ludicrous.
Why ridiculous? WHY is it ridiculous that the cheapest alternatives would most probably be made of the most useful and cheaply available (partly because they are common ) chemical elements such as carbon, silicon, etc?
Newer doesn't always mean better,
Right, but the fact remains, newer can be made to be better and there is no barrier that will stop us making it better. It is inevitable that all our technology, and that includes all the materials we use, will get better NOT because it is “newer”, although it would be also that, but because we made it better. And we cannot have better materials in the future without them being newer.
and after investing thousands of years developing ways to use metals,
Like cavemen invested thousands of years developing ways to use flint
we are not going to abandon them simply because there are some high end
applications where we have better alternatives.
But we WOULD abandon them if they are better for virtually ALL applications. We have already done this for flint -hence the end of the stone age. It has happened once before and there is no special reason why it couldn't happen again.
Just because a trend starts
does not mean it will continue indefinitely.
-Unless it makes sense to do so.
It simply doesn't make economic sense to abandon most of the periodic table,
Actually, I predict that, while some elements would be used less (not abandoned ), others would probably be used more because there are currently elements that are underexploited. Two example: phosphorus and nitrogen. Phosphorus and nitrogen could be used within future ceramics (not by themselves obviously but chemically combined and probably with silicon or carbon ).
I am also not talking here about the complete abandonment of the metal chemical elements because they would be used not much in there pure form or in alloys but increasingly used chemically combined with other none metals in ceramics and other materials.
History tells us that once we gain a technology or use of a material we keep
invariably keep using it.
This is evidently not always true else why don't we still generally use flint axes and flint-tipped spears?
Technologies and materials go in and out of fashion, and wax and wane in importance
and use. But once invented or discovered they almost never disappear.
Strange! I haven't seen all these flint axes and flint-tipped spears that have "never disappeared"!
The only ones I am aware of are those displayed in museums -don't think that counts here.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by humyI think you underestimate the vast numbers of things we produce and use.
I have never seen one of your posts so riddled with flawed concepts.We still build with stone and wood, we make things out of copper and bronze,
That is because we haven't yet invented artificial enzymes (or something else that would make their manufacture extremely cheap ) that can help extremely cheaply manufacture the stronger lightw ...[text shortened]... ed"!
The only ones I am aware of are those displayed in museums -don't think that counts here.
Take this for example...
As for bronze, a few things will be made of bronze but, as with now, generally nothing important
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze
... Bronze is still commonly used in ship propellers and submerged bearings. ....
Bronze also has very low metal-on-metal friction, which made it invaluable for the building of cannon where iron cannonballs would otherwise stick in the barrel.[19] It is still widely used today for springs, bearings, bushings, automobile transmission pilot bearings, and similar fittings, and is particularly common in the bearings of small electric motors. Phosphor bronze is particularly suited to precision-grade bearings and springs. It is also used in guitar and piano strings.
Unlike steel, bronze struck against a hard surface will not generate sparks, so it (along with beryllium copper) is used to make hammers, mallets, wrenches and other durable tools to be used in explosive atmospheres or in the presence of flammable vapors.
Bronze is used to make bronze wool for woodworking applications where steel wool would discolor oak.
You are making wild assumptions about the performance and economics of future technology
and you are predicting the uses of materials where you cannot possibly have considered all
their current uses.
The problem with producing bulk materials with nano-tech, and enzymes are nano-tech, is
that it's incredibly hard to organise billions or trillions of 'nanites' to make one coherent object
without any errors in it. Biological systems are a pretty good example of what 'big stuff built by
nano-tech' looks like. We are fragile, wear out quickly, and are full of defects.
We are also inefficient, we waste a lot of energy
The idea that we will make cooking pans in the future using nano-tech as opposed to just casting
metal is ludicrous... The best engineering solutions are often the simplest.
we have drystone-walls and thatched cottages.
Not in most places. I haven’t seen any for years. In case you haven’t already noticed, in post technologically advanced places int the world, most houses these days have no dry-stone walls and are not thatched.
I live in the UK, technologically advanced westerns country.
In my local area I can think of 30+ thatched houses just off the top of my head. I also know of many houses
built using flints, an abundant local materiel.
If you go up to Derbyshire you will find thousands upon thousands of miles of drystone walls.
Also, lets look at Obsidian, an ancient material used for cutting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian
Though not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use on humans, obsidian is used by some surgeons for scalpel blades, as well-crafted obsidian blades have a cutting edge many times sharper than high-quality steel surgical scalpels, the cutting edge of the blade being only about 3 nanometers thick.[35] Even the sharpest metal knife has a jagged, irregular blade when viewed under a strong enough microscope; when examined even under an electron microscope an obsidian blade is still smooth and even.[36] One study found that obsidian incisions produced fewer inflammatory cells and less granulation tissue at 7 days, in a group of rats.[37] Don Crabtree produced obsidian blades for surgery and other purposes,[35] and has written articles on the subject. Obsidian scalpels may currently be purchased for surgical use on research animals. ....
Newer is not always better. More complex is not always better.
You can't just claim that 'enzymes' or nano-tech will make manufacture of everything much cheaper.
You have to prove that it is so.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Engineering.html
Star Trek's insults to the engineering profession don't stop with their insane ignorance of basic safety principles. Here are a two more recurring Star Trek technology clichés which have irritated me over the years:
1: They never use any low-technology solutions; can you imagine seeing a bucket or a wrench in Star Trek? When their kids go to the beach, they probably take a portable forcefield generator instead of a bucket and shovel. But in real life, engineers don't always use the most advanced technology. In fact, the most elegant engineering solutions are those that require the least technology, not the most. A good example is a machine gun; it uses a simple, elegant and robust mechanical system to eject each cartridge and load the next, based on gas pressure, springs, rods, and other low-tech principles. The simpler, the better. With modern technology, we could design a machine gun that uses miniaturized robotics instead, but why? The resulting weapon would be far more expensive, and far less reliable. It would require a power source, and software. It would be far more difficult to maintain. ....
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't get me wrong, we will keep coming up with new materials and the
I suspect that the most used materials for anything other than building will be whatever turns out to be the best for 3D printing. This will probably be a range of materials, as ideally a 3D printer should be able to produce objects with a range of properties.
most commonly used materials will change.
And you are correct, that if/when 3D printing becomes a really big thing,
the materials that are best suited to 3D printing [which already includes
metals] will gain greater prominence.
But it's highly unlikely that we will 3D print everything, traditional manufacturing
is likely to still be the best method of manufacturing certain types of products.
I do however think that 3D printing will be big in construction. [although not
by any means a universally applicable or applied technology].
20 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
I think you underestimate the vast numbers of things we produce and use.
Take this for example...
As for bronze, a few things will be made of bronze but, [b]as with now, generally nothing important
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze
... Bronze is still commonly used in ship propellers and submerged bearings. ....[/b]
...[text shortened]... d require a power source, and software. It would be far more difficult to maintain. ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze
OK, so it is still used for some, not most, important things. But that will obviously not last when ultra-cheap ways of manufacturing silicon nitride, carbon fibre composites etc are invented because, for a given application, these lightweight materials can outperform bronze in every way including on strength and cost. When that happens, bronze will become obsolete just like flint has.
The problem with producing bulk materials with nano-tech, and enzymes are nano-tech, is
that it's incredibly hard to organise billions or trillions of 'nanites' to make one coherent object without any errors in it
“nanites”? Who said anything about “nanites”? This is pure science fiction. No 'nanites' required to make objects -have no idea where you got that from! We already make microchips with complex microscope design with no need for 'nanites' -isn't making a microchip making “ one coherent object” without 'nanites'? -You are making no sense.
I live in the UK, technologically advanced westerns country.
In my local area I can think of 30+ thatched houses just off the top of my head.
So what? That doesn't mean most new houses are made that way.
Newer is not always better. More complex is not always better.
Straw man; newer said that newer and more complex is better. Improving energy efficiency is generally better and that often but not always requires 'newer' and 'more complex'.
You can't just claim that 'enzymes' or nano-tech will make manufacture of everything much cheaper.
No, that is not what I am saying; merely nano-tech will not make things cheaper but artificial enzymes can be used to slush manufacturing energy costs by avoiding the need for extremes of temperature or pressure.
You have to prove that it is so.
No I don't -because that isn't quite what I claim.
20 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, and no 'nanites' required for that -I don't know where googlefudge got that from!
I suspect that the most used materials for anything other than building will be whatever turns out to be the best for 3D printing. This will probably be a range of materials, as ideally a 3D printer should be able to produce objects with a range of properties.