Slashdot Mirror
'Super Steel' Sought For Fusion Reactors
Smivs writes "New research shows how
steel will fail at high temperatures because of the magnetic properties of the metal.
Scientists say an understanding of how the Twin Towers collapsed will help them develop the materials needed to build fusion reactors.
The New York buildings fell when their steel backbones lost strength in the fires that followed the plane impacts.
Dr Sergei Dudarev told the British Association Science Festival that improved steels were now being sought.
The principal scientist at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) said one of the first applications for these better performing metals would be in the wall linings of fusion reactors."
What kind of nonsense is that? Anytime something undesirable in the world happens no one is able to learn anything from it? Or are you merely asserting no one can openly say they learned anything from it? Yep, science should take a back seat to sensibilities. Excuse me while I roll my eyes. And because I am a prick I must note that the world trade centers collapsing is a footnote compared to the numerous other tragedies that people don't bother to learn about let alone cry about seven years later. Terrible that those people died but it is minuscule compared to many other losses of life in other countries.
Steel is used so widely, in large part, because it's cheap... Iron is one of the most abundant elements on the planet. Many other materials exist that are stronger than steel, lighter than steel, handle MUCH higher temperatures, etc., etc.
For a fusion reactor, however, "cheap" isn't going to be all that important... More exotic materials that can better handle high temperatures would be easily within reach when you're able to generate that much power.
The article completely fails to explain why we, for some reason, MUST use some (not-yet invented) form of "steel" for the walls of fusion reactors. Boron Carbide, Tungsten, titanium, etc., sound like much better options for this application. While this article sounds like a flimsy excuse to exploit this anniversary.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
At the moment its like saying "this will be really useful for when I genetically engineer a dragon".
Nonsense. The "truthers" are not seeking the truth in any way, shape, or form. All they are "seeking" is ways to warp the facts beyond recognition to support their neurotic preconception.
Seeking truth is what science and religion are about. They have different ways of judging it. I suppose one could make the case that the truthers are a bizarre, benighted, and perverse form of cult, but they are in no sense scientists.
Yeah. The Twin Towers should have toppled over, but instead, they blew up like a building that was being imploded for demolition. Also, the melting point of the steel used in the Twin Towers is actually about 400 degrees HOTTER than the temperature at which jet fuel burns.
In Oakland CA, a tanker truck carrying gasoline crashed under an overpass crashed and burst into flames. (Everyone was OK) The heat from the gasoline caused the metal in the overpass to weaken and the whole thing collapsed.
This pretty much proves that burning fuel can cause metal to weaken and a structure to collapse. This is especially true when you consider that jet fuel burns hotter than gasoline.
The Twin Towers would also be the first example in history of a steel building where the steel failed due to fire.
Maybe so, but it happened. Other examples would be the one I listed (although not a building) and WTC7.
In other words, "Truthers" are full of shit. They've been debunked countless times and they keep coming back. Accept it, you are wrong. There is no government conspiracy. There was no demolition. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings where the heat from the fires caused them to collapse. That is FACT!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
> The Twin Towers would also be the first example in history of a steel building where the steel failed due to fire.
Err... steel fails in fire all the time. It's a very common event... to the point that fire fighters have hated steel constructions for the better part of a decade.
Ooo, there's even a wp thingy on a recently famous example of a department that didn't comprehend that steel can and will fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_Sofa_Super_Store_fire
I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that these newer structures are held together by math... not mass.
The history of steel as a "massive" construction element makes people think that a steel truss construction will rival the failure mode and resilience of the old, truely massive, heavy timber constructions... or at least inherit some of the legacy of something "massive". It's freakin STEEL, man!
But it isn't true - trusses work because of math, not mass. The failure progressions are totally different than the evolutions of old (most notably, there often is no progression; one element fails, the entire assembly fails simultaneously.)
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
"Truthers" are afraid of facts because they don't conform to their own paranoid world view. Simply put, they want the gubmint to have conducted some wildly over the top, physically impossible plot of some kind and they aren't going to let a mountain of evidence that says different get in the way. This is why they spend their lives poring over minute inconsistencies, similes, misquotations and so on.
The funny thing is you can state very clearly to a "truther" why steel doesn't have to melt, or how fireproofing is rated by the hour, or provide evidence of how other steel frame structures fared after fire and the morons will still bleat the same shit all over again.
At this stage I think it is okay just to mock them openly to their face. They belong in the same category of stupid that creationists and holocaust deniers occupy.
I must apologize for not responding to the main of your argument, but in truth I have no quarrel with most what you say. The point at which I take exception is your reference to the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings as an act of war.
The attacks of 11 September 2001 were criminal acts, not a deliberate attack by a sovereign nation. They were not accompanied by a declaration of war, and there is no reason to believe that any sovereign nation was involved in the planning or execution of these attacks.
The terrorist attacks were a monstrous crime, truly an enormity. However, they can no more be considered an act of war than the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
That we, the citizens of the United States, have allowed these to be a justification for a much more costly and brutal conflict is a thousand times more abhorrent. Indeed, it is tens of thousands of times more vile, for we have killed tens of thousands more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than were harmed in the attacks here.
It is generally agreed that the overall course of human history has been one of progress from barbarism to civilization. Let us not now desert that course! We cannot undo the terrible evil that has been caused by our complicity, but let each of us strive to end this war, so that we may begin reparations for the depravity that has been done in our name. For I believe it to be true, that we shall not regain any rights that we do not deserve.
-T
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Ineptitude?
By what measure?
1) They got reelected.
2) Their friends got lots of money from the Iraq war (which had little to do with 9/11, but they still managed to attack Iraq anyway). When you have stuff like 1 billion of _cash_ just go missing, it makes you wonder doesn't it? A billion here and there, it all adds up to trillions.
3) What are the odds the "inept" Gov gets elected back in? If people can honestly say less than 30% then sure the Gov is inept, otherwise guess who really are the inept ones?
Perhaps you're assuming the leaders of the US Gov are working for the USA.
Who is a bigger enemy of the US people? The US Gov or the Al Qaeda? Who has cost the USA more, and caused more damage?