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."
...it will be only the third time that fire has melted steel.
Ceramics Compound Steel with NanoMesh stabilizing support. Or a couple of layers of transparent aluminium ... oh wait, we ain't supposed to have that yet.
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 isn't strong, boy. Flesh is stronger. Look around you." Thulsa motions to some of the thousands of followers surrounding his mountain who worship him as the mouthpiece of Set. He points up to the top of a cliff, "There, on the rocks, that beautiful girl." He motions to the girl, "Come to me, my child." The girl steps off the cliff and falls to her death. "That is strength, boy. That is power: the strength and power of flesh. What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength of your body, the desire in your heart. I gave you these...."
Who run Barter Town?
If it worked and we can make Fusion Reactors. This would leave some irony to the terrorist.
The Terrist may think they won because once we go Fusion we won't need to protect our oil interests thus mostly ignoring that area of the world, except for the occasional humanitarian mission, thus reducing our influcene in their countries...
However because we are not funding those countries with money they end up bankrupt in far more trouble then with the US involved.
When the Terrorist actually win they loose, because their goals will lead to their destruction.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Would the fact that we've learned something new about steel thanks to the way the Twin Towers fell, silence the conspiracy lovers?
No, of course not. What the hell was I thinking there?
Well, we're getting WAY off topic from the original story here but people deal with loss differently. Some Americans have a near psychotic desire to be a part of bringing justice to those responsible. 9/11 affected us all in different ways. From losing loved ones to losing a sense of security to losing our rights, everyone believes they've lost something.
I listened to a This American Life episode where a man whose mother was raped and killed spent a large part of his life going over what had happened. He even went so far as to go to the jail and interview one of the murderers. He was so convinced there was more to it than just a random robbery gone wrong.
The "Truthers" (as they call themselves) are trying to cope with this in a unique way where they will relentlessly seek the truth--to a fault. They won't ever be satisfied because the attacks were so inconceivable that there must be an equally outrageous explanation for them. Occam's Razor is not in their reasoning kit anymore.
Personally, I think we just need to let them have their community and leave them alone and give them the information they need. You can't change the way these people think and as Americans they have this right to believe what they want--so long as they don't go infringing on other people's life, liberty & pursuit of happiness.
Following World War II, the public's imagination has gone wild from JFK's assassination to 9/11. It's simply something that can no longer be avoided.
My work here is dung.
I know they produce stylish, compact and inexpensive wall-linings for fusion reactors, but the self-assembly is a fucking nightmare, and you always end up spending at least fifty quid on candles too.
Meta will eat itself
It is not as if high strength hasn't always been sought after in steels (iron-carbon alloy). INcluding high temperature strength. The usual solution is various nickel alloys starting with the austenitic stainless steels and going up from there (HK-40, HP modified).
Yes, we may yet find some interesting corners on phase diagrams, especially via combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput experiementation. But please do not pretent this search is anything remotely novel.
For many high temperature applications, the usual solution is cold wall designs with refractory (insulating alumina) linings keeping the load bearing steels cool. With or without a (thermal expansion problematic) liner (usually austenitic SS) as a membrane seal.
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".
The fusion reactor in MY house is built from SOLID UNOBTANIUM.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
The point of this article eludes me.
You aren't the only one. If you want something that can retain it's strength at high temperatures, don't use steel. I recommend some sort of engineered ceramic, like tungsten carbide (which I believe is what you meant).
The article seems to ignore the fact that engineers see steel becoming weaker with heat as a benefit. If steel was always super strong at any temperature, how would you make anything out of it? Engineers currently utilize the "irregularities" (we call them dislocations) in steel to manufacture things. One such process is known as work hardening. When certain materials, like steel, are formed (bent, rolled, etc.) at low temperature, the dislocations propagate and move. The dislocations interact with each other, like tangling up a ball of yarn, making the material stronger. The component can then be heated to make further manufacturing easier, or left in it's cold worked state to make the finished part stronger. This property of steel is utilized around the world to make very strong, and inexpensive parts. A variety of other heat treatments are available to perform similar tasks.
In summary, the thermal properties of steel are considered a asset, because it allows us to manufacture things with high strength inexpensively. Using a material that is strong at all temperatures will increase costs. Such materials do exist but steel isn't one of them.
Disclaimer: If you find anything above factually incorrect, I was a C student in material science.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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.
What you say is largely true, but for nuclear applications you usually have a few more constraints that make steel look more attractive again.
The core of a fast breeder reactor, or the structural components of a fusion reactor, will unavoidably be exposed to a very intense flux of high energy neutrons. These neutrons can cause all kinds of defects in the material you use, ranging from dislocating atoms to changing their elements due to nuclear transmutations, and whatever material you use must be able to withstand the irradiation. Many nickel alloys fail for this reason.
Also any material which absorbs a lot of neutrons, or reduces their energy, is going to cause issues. If you use Nitrogen in a ceramic it may need to be enriched to prevent excessive Carbon-14 production as an example. Some elements, like Lithium, Cobalt and Bismuth, produce very troublesome radioactive isotopes when irradiated. Carbon is quite good, and carbon based ceramics are heavily researched, but it is a rather light nucleus, and will slow neutrons that scatter against it. This may be desirable in a thermal reactor, but for fusion reactors and fast breeder reactors you want a very high neutron energy to enable the destruction of long lived waste isotopes, and this means you need to limit the amount of carbon present in your core and structural materials.
Furthermore materials to be used for a reactor need to go through very time consuming and thorough testing program , and this is why steels are very attractive candidates since much of the necessary data already exists. Sure, using something like Silicon Carbide may be worth investigating ( and it is indeed being investigated for a number or reactor designs ) , but even thou it has good thermal conductivity, corrosion resistance and thermal stability, it is not immediately clear that it will withstand the radiation environment, it's fracture hardness is less than ideal, and you need to be able to reliably produce it to the strict standards required by the nuclear industry. To develop and test a material for nuclear applications is a very expensive procedure, so if you can use materials that you already have data for, it will dramatically reduce the necessary research and development costs.
Also, as usual there is a cost issue of the material itself. Tungsten, with its high melting point, good strength at elevated temperatures, and low neutron absorption is very attractive from technological aspects, but building an entire reactor from it will hurt your bank account.