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."

5 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. Re:shameless by runlevelfour · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Steel not the only material out there... by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scientists say an understanding of how the Twin Towers collapsed will help them develop the materials needed to build fusion reactors.

    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
  3. First invent your fusion reactor by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the moment its like saying "this will be really useful for when I genetically engineer a dragon".

  4. Re:If it doesn't work... by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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

  5. Re:If it doesn't work... by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --