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.
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.
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".
You'd invent more stuff if you used your computer mouse instead of talking to it.
Popular Mechanics explains this. Not that I think it will matter to the conspiracy crowd.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
> 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
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?
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.