Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Identify Possible New Substance With Highest Melting Point

JoshuaZ writes: Researchers from Brown University have tentatively identified an alloy of hafnium, nitrogen and carbon as having an expected melting point of about 7,460 degrees Fahrenheit (4120 Celsius). This exceeds that of the previous record-breaker, tantalum hafnium carbide, which melts at 7,128 F (3942 C). Its record stood for almost a century. At this point, the new alloy is still hypothetical, based on simulations, so the new record has not yet been confirmed by experiment. The study was published in Physical Review B (abstract), and a lay-summary is available at the Washington Post. If the simulations turn out to be correct, the new alloy may be useful in parts like jet engines, and the door will be opened to using similar simulations to search for substances with even higher melting points or with other exotic properties.

92 comments

  1. What's the temperature of molten lava? by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    I want to make a boiling chamber out of this stuff for electrical generation.....

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Inferno+Vulpix · · Score: 1

      700-1000C

    2. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your goals are way too low.

      I'm building a chamber around the fucking sun.

    3. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your goals are way too low.

      I'm building a chamber around the fucking sun.

      All by yoursself?

    4. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Plazmid · · Score: 1

      This has been done before. Back in the 1980s people were able to drill into a pond of molten lava for some distance and boil water with it:
      https://books.google.com/books...

      The interesting thing about doing such a thing that the high temperature is half the problem, the other one is that molten magma is highly corrosive.

    5. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by pecosdave · · Score: 2

      Now THIS would be interesting.

      Think about it, complete a Dyson's Sphere of this stuff around the sun, in time it is likely to melt a hole in it or blow out a side. When the side blows out the sun is doing what? Creating pressure in the remainder of the cylinder. Assuming we have the technology to pull this off I'm going to assume we have the technology to position the hole as we desire - a rocket propelled steerable solar system. Sure there would be planets freezing during the covered times, until they're cooked in the jet's exhaust wake during that part of their orbit, assuming they could remain in orbit, but it would be cool none the less.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    6. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by shess · · Score: 3, Interesting

      a rocket propelled steerable solar system

      Unfortunately you're propelling the shell, not the star.

    7. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it could possible still work but the shell would need to be able to take a fair deal of pressure which I guess it would probably have to anyway. Basically there would be pressure pushing on the sun from all directions. Which would I would guess would increase the reaction rate of the sun. Any way when the sphere moved the star would experience more pressure on the side that was moving toward it. It would also experience a reduced pressure on the side moving away from it. Obviously, you wouldn't want to accelerate the sphere too quickly.

      Speaking of which, it would be fun to see what the effects of a sun at speeds approaching C.

    8. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of which, it would be fun to see what the effects of a sun at speeds approaching C.

      Relative to the frame of reference of a photon leaving the sun, the sun is moving at c...

      You probably mean the effects of a sun accelerating...

    9. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to that non-molten magma? smh.

    10. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I was thinking that a sun has enough energy that if it were allowed to accelerate long enough it would reach speeds approaching C.

    11. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by lgw · · Score: 1

      It can work if you do it right (the gravitational attraction of the shell drags the star along). But you don't need a high-temp shell for that, you need a whacking great mirror.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      " a rocket propelled steerable solar system."

      Have fun filing an environmental impact statement for that thing. It would contain so much paper that for the first time, the environmental impact statement would require a second environmental impact statement, for itself.

    13. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      That's not a "chamber". The correct name is "Dyson Sphere".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    14. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by p0p0 · · Score: 2

      It's environmental impact statements all the way down.

    15. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      (the gravitational attraction of the shell drags the star along)

      The gravitational attraction by a spherical shell is zero at every point inside the shell
      (assuming uniform density of the shell material, of course).

      So an asymmetry in the construction is not optional.

    16. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Why not? Vary the density and even the shape of the construction to simulate a spherical gravitational force with the hole in place. The basics of the idea aren't exactly new. It's sort of like the "stepped" starting line on an elliptical race track.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    17. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your idea. We need more of this, we could solve our worries about solar flares, global warming/ climate change, and sunburn all in one go. Lets get this funded.

    18. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Damnit! You just leaked the plot of The Kingsman 2!

    19. Re:What's the temperature of molten lava? by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      You want to stick a candle that burns at both ends into the sun.

      Aim at another sun.

      Someone want to link the Schlock Mercenary strip where a bunch of idiot AI's steered a gas giant into another gas giant by doing this?

  2. Make the stuff by gurps_npc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then publicize. Don't dream up a vaporware material and talk about that to the press.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Make the stuff by Whiternoise · · Score: 2

      I think you meant publish, publicising is exactly what they're doing! ;)

    2. Re:Make the stuff by godrik · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah right slashdot! Stop giving us hope for new fancy material with potential application in engineering! We only care about politics and social issues! This is slashdot, not a geek news website!

    3. Re:Make the stuff by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Don't dream up a vaporware material

      I see what you didn't know you did there.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Make the stuff by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      Don't dream up a vaporware material

      nono, it's about melting point, not sublimation.

    5. Re:Make the stuff by necro81 · · Score: 2

      The purpose of the investigation was really the atomic-level computer simulation. Specifically, they were investigating whether they could properly simulate the entropy levels of an alloy in the solid and liquid phases, and the heat of fusion required to melt the substance, then extrapolate the melting point from that data. Ultimately, finding a material with a record-high melting point was the challenge used to develop the computation, not an end to itself.

      That said, now that they've identified the alloy, the article mentions they are will be collaborating with another institution to synthesize and characterize it, hopefully verifying their calculations and predictions.

    6. Re:Make the stuff by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Then publicize. Don't dream up a vaporware material and talk about that to the press.

      No, need to patent it first!

  3. Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I googled "jet engine temperature" and got 2000 C. Is the difference between 3942 and 4120 going to matter in a jet engine?

    1. Re:Applications? by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With current fuels, no. However, if you can build engines with much higher melting points the options for fuels grows and you may get an engine with higher power, better fuel efficiency or both. Or you could just end up with a really expensive paper weight. That's why modern companies are so skittish about R&D.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re:Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jet engine parts are expensive. If this material in any way could reduce that cost, extend the lifespan of engines, or simplify manufacturing, we're that much closer to jet powered wingsuits for the common man.

    3. Re:Applications? by godrik · · Score: 1

      I am nowhere near an engineer. But maybe you could use it to cast some other alloy?

    4. Re:Applications? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Engineers come from all walks of life, and don't usually wear signs that say "Hello, my name is engineer". You could have been near one at the grocery store, on the bus, or in line at Starbucks. So my question is, how do you *know* for certain you aren't near an engineer, right now?

    5. Re:Applications? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Nowhere near an engineer"... so, you're riding in the caboose, then?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:Applications? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but I still don't quite have the concept. How would you use it in a car?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    7. Re:Applications? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Some engineers are also invisible and intangible.

      I mean, until proven otherwise.

    8. Re:Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, but I still don't quite have the concept. How would you use it in a car?

      Well maybe you can cut your engine block out of it.

    9. Re:Applications? by PPH · · Score: 1

      The upper limit on jet engine combustion temperatures is the point at which one begins to produce unacceptable amounts of NOx. We have the fuel and pressure ratios capable of reaching this point already.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The smell.

      Well, you asked.

    11. Re:Applications? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      And many of them can be assumed to be spherical.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re:Applications? by murkwood7 · · Score: 1

      Some engineers are also invisible and intangible.

      I mean, until proven otherwise.

      And many of them can be assumed to be spherical.

      That would be "theoretical" engineers, would it not?

      --
      - X/Y -
  4. Probably not useful by dj245 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If the simulations turn out to be correct, the new alloy may be useful in parts like jet engines, and the door will be opened to using similar simulations to search for substances with even higher melting points or with other exotic properties.

    No, it won't. Materials for jet engines must be reasonably affordable, machinable or otherwise workable, and available in large quantities. I have about 4600 lbs [2086kg] of 422 stainless going through my shop right now for a single row of blades for one machine. They're big blades, but even for small blades, hundreds of pounds of material is common. An alloy of hafnium, nitrogen and carbon isn't going to be cheap enough for that to ever be feasible. It is probably a brittle material as well. Brittle materials and a high vibration environment don't mix.

    Maybe you could apply it as a coating, but I'm not sure how that would be possible. Almost all coatings of this type require you to liquify or vaporize the coating material. Plus, you run into the same problem as before- a thin coating won't protect the base metal, and a thick one would be prohibitively expensive.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:Probably not useful by willworkforbeer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hafnium is about a dollar / gram. Nitrogen and carbon are plentiful and relatively cheap. Is this dramatically more expensive than current high temp materials?

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    2. Re:Probably not useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the combustion chamber it is all about how hot you can get the hotter the more efficient the engine (at a close approximation). Superalloys are the norm now, and the engines already routinely operate at very close to the melting point of the blade material. To achieve this effective cooling design and incredibly sophisticated metallurgy are used.

      An alloy that is significantly higher in melting point is of interest.

    3. Re:Probably not useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4600lbs of this material would cost, at a price of $1/gram, a good 2.1 million dollars. Compared to, what I can only estimate, is maybe at max $100,000 of current 422 stainless steel.

    4. Re:Probably not useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it could be 3d printed? (ducks). On a serious note, this is why I come here, an impossibly specific topic comes up and somebody who actually knows about it comes in and posts. I as a layperson was going to question the claim as well, on the basis that the difference between the 3900 and 4100 celsius mustn't be a big advance, unless the price or other properties of the new material are otherwise preferable.

    5. Re:Probably not useful by EmperorArthur · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hafnium is about a dollar / gram. Nitrogen and carbon are plentiful and relatively cheap. Is this dramatically more expensive than current high temp materials?

      442 stainless steel is US $1500.00 / Ton from Alibaba. Assuming metric, that works out to $1.5/kg, or $0.0015/g.
      Plus that $1/g is just for the raw Hafnium. Alloys like the one proposed here tend to be expensive, time consuming, and finicky to get right.

      Then you get into the fact that producing Hafnium leaves pure Zirconium. Which is typically used as cladding for nuclear fuel rods. Something that a fair portion of the world would freak out about, because anything that's good for nuclear must be bad. Plus there's this gem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    6. Re:Probably not useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The major difficulty usually comes with manufacturing ultra-high-temp refractories; you can't exactly throw hafnium, nitrogen, and carbon into a crucible and melt them together - there's no pot that could hold the alloy at that temperature! Furthermore, you would likely need to be in an oxygen-free environment, making production even more difficult. It is probably possible to do nanoparticle or thin film synthesis using plasmas in controlled atmospheres (which will likely be the experimental approach used to test these calculations), but we will likely never see this material in a bulk form

    7. Re:Probably not useful by Plazmid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Current jet turbine blades(at least the first stage ones) are made of some of the most exotic materials we know of using some pretty expensive manufacturing processes. First stage jet turbine blades are almost always made of single crystalline super alloy. Oh and they're hollow, so they have to be made from a crazy investment mold. Oh and tiny holes have to be EDM'd into them.

      It's a pretty expensive to make them, but it's worth it. All this crazy manufacturing is to done so that jet turbines can burn hotter, so that by Carnot they're more efficient. Even small changes in efficiency can be worth millions of dollars in fuel savings.

      So as long as this material isn't as hard to process as ceramics(and it exists), it will probably find some use in a jet engine.

    8. Re:Probably not useful by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Magnetic containment vessels, just like they use for fusion reactors? Not sure about the vacuum requirements, but I agree, manufacturing anything with this alloy would be ridiculously expensive, perhaps even more expensive than using diamond vapor deposition.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    9. Re:Probably not useful by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those blades also have exotic coatings and actually operate at a temperature above the melting point of the metal in them. A couple of weeks ago I heard the BBC Elements program on nickel and they were bringing up its use in jet engines. Jet turbines use the vast majority of the very limited supply (about 70% of 40 tons) of rhenium produced each year and it is one of the most expensive metals so I doubt the cost is an issue.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    10. Re:Probably not useful by TimothyDavis · · Score: 3, Funny

      You could always use it to make a smelting crucible to melt tantalum hafnium carbide into.

      :)

    11. Re:Probably not useful by blackanvil · · Score: 1

      Crucible 422 steel is a high alloy steel, which while expensive, looks like it should sell for about the same as some of the high-end knife steels, which go for about $.06/gm retail. Even if the price didn't go up with demand, which is practically an axiom of economics, that's a pretty significant difference. We'd probably switch to titanium or zirconium alloys first, or even tungsten, they all have very high melting points, plus have known reserves and stockpiles, and are relatively common, and while more expensive than stainless would be much less so than a hafnium based one.

    12. Re:Probably not useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most current single crystal alloy development is focused on the elimination of Hf because of cost and difficulty in maintaining consistent supply. The other very expensive raw material we use is Platinum for oxidation/corrosion coatings. There's also significant focus into reducing and eliminating platinum use. Pratt & Whitney got away from Platinum coating years ago. GE and Rolls still use a lot of platinum but are working on reducing the amount.

      Raw material cost is a significant part of gas turbine airfoil part cost.

    13. Re:Probably not useful by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Rhenium, also used in turbine blades, goes for about $2500/kg... so, $1/gram for hafnium doesn't seem like much at all.

    14. Re:Probably not useful by Threni · · Score: 1

      So, a hypothetical argument against a hypothetical substance. My simulations suggest it's too close to call.

    15. Re:Probably not useful by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      A bit expensive to start making filaments for incandescent bulbs out of it then . Pity.

    16. Re:Probably not useful by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      leaves pure Zirconium. Which is typically used as cladding for nuclear fuel rods. Something that a fair portion of the world would freak out about, because anything that's good for nuclear must be bad. Plus there's this gem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Well, they should get to the freaking out part because Zirconium isn't exactly uncommon or difficult to produce. Its a by product of all sorts of mining processes and fairly common within the Earths crust.

      And if you want to throw prices out there, $900/ton for Zirconium makes it cheaper than stainless, so if anyone was going to freak out about it ... they would have.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    17. Re:Probably not useful by weav · · Score: 1

      The "Workable" (as in bendable, malleable, etc) part is a big question... how in heck would you work this stuff? If the melting point is over 4000C, what does it take to make it mushy enough to work?

    18. Re:Probably not useful by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      Honestly the freaking out thing isn't that bad, but the issue isn't Zirconium in general. For most applications, when they use Zirconium they don't bother to extract the Hafnium. It has most of the same properties, and it's expensive to remove. It just happens to be that one of the main applications that requires pure Zirconium involves the word nuclear. Which, is something no politician wants to touch with a ten foot pole.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    19. Re:Probably not useful by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Plus there's this gem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The possibility to manipulate gamma ray coherence, even to a small degree, would be interesting

      You don't say... A friggin' gamma ray laser and scientists aren't jumping on it like maggots on peanut butter ?!?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  5. Practical concerns by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Is this kind of liking finding an acid that will dissolve any substance -- what do you store it in? Exactly what do you use as a cauldron for forging parts with the substance with the highest melting point ever? (Yeah, probably magnetic containment.) Regardless, it seems rather difficult to make anything out of this stuff; if it was easy, they have produced a working sample, instead of a theoretical substance based on a computer simulation.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Practical concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you use as a cauldron?

      Maybe some active cooling. Rocket engines run hotter than the vaporization temperature of steel.

  6. hey, if you don't have to test it... by swschrad · · Score: 1

    I posit that Unobtainium has a melting point of 15,775 Celsius, a freezing point of -500 Kelvin, and yo'Momma, there, dude. get back into the lab and prove me wrong.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  7. Flameo, Hotman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would happen if they used quarternium?

  8. Re:Science. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Since it is trivial to convert Fahrenheit to Celcius or Kelvin (just type in into Google, duh!) I don't think it really matters what units are used, as long as they are clearly labeled.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. New conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can jet fuel melt Hafnium beams?

    1. Re:New conspiracy by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      If you could hold the heat in with a kiln.
      It's all about energy. If your flame burns at 1000C, confine the heat (aka energy) so it can't cool off and the temperature will increase above 1000 degrees. The more energy you dump into the kiln, the hotter it will become regardless of how fast you dump it in. Energy radiates from the kiln at some rate, you have to dump energy into the system faster than it dissipates and the temperature will increase indefinitely.

  10. Re:Melting is for cows. by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Funny

    You keep milking that cheesy cow fetish whey too much.

  11. Rocket$ and Space by ememisya · · Score: 1

    That is pretty cool, so now we can land a missle anywhere on Earth in about 45 minutes instead of 1 hour. I'm sure it'll help with atmosphere re-entry stuff too, but who cares about space stuff.

  12. Doesn't matter, Wassenaar would ban it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've by chance read the Wassenaar munitions list, you'd find they ban any exotic limits above current science pretty much across the board. No material stronger than X but lighter than Y, no materials made up of more than X percentage of various metals, etc.

    Surely any advance this creates, that treaty would ban..... just read it.

    http://www.wassenaar.org/controllists/2014/WA-LIST%20%2814%29%202/WA-LIST%20%2814%29%202.pdf

  13. Incandescant lights? by calidoscope · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm guessing the material should be quite happy to sit at 4000K, which would make for a much higher luminous efficiency than tungsten. Kind of like a 21st century version of the Nernst lamp (which was twice as efficient as a carbon filament, but half of tungsten's efficiency).

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    1. Re:Incandescant lights? by maestroX · · Score: 1

      thanks, very interesting, led me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  14. Re:Science. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    It's 2015, folks. You lost.

    Evidently not, TFA used glorious Fahrenheit.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  15. Re:Science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have a better idea, go sukadik.

  16. Re:Science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Since it is trivial to convert Fahrenheit to Celcius or Kelvin (just type in into Google, duh!)

    Not really a feasible solution, but what I really wanted would be some kind of demoronizer to translate an article from English with brain-damaged units to English with SI units.

    Of course, this might require some AI and that's not exactly easy.

    Heck, look at the other replies: it's not even easy to make humans think!

    > I don't think it really matters what units are used, as long as they are clearly labeled.

    Then why is it that nobody uses old Inca units, provided they're clearly labeled?

  17. I'd love to have a hat by tgibson · · Score: 1

    made out of that stuff.

  18. Re:Science. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Fahrenheit is just as easy to understand. Proof: Americans get it. If you, oh so superior European, have trouble, perhaps it's because you're a complete and utter moron.

  19. Core catcher by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a useful material for building core catchers.

    1. Re:Core catcher by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Core catchers? As in the jamming sleeve that stops your core from sliding out of the bottom of the core barrel, after you've cut it?

      I've seen dozens of them when I've been catching core (and I just had the lovely news that I'll probably be catching my next series of cores in breathing apparatus. Oh joy!), but I've never seen one that had significant signs of heat damage.

      What sort of coring do you do that burns out catchers?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  20. jetfuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    7,128 F (3942 C)... luckily we just need some jetfuel to melt that. #modernscience

  21. Perhaps this can get us further down? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Our drills melt at 8 miles. We really don't know what's beneath that, we only speculate on the mantle and the core.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    1. Re:Perhaps this can get us further down? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

      Turtles

    2. Re:Perhaps this can get us further down? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      ... all the way down!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Perhaps this can get us further down? by Keybounce · · Score: 2

      No, if you did deeper, you'll find the horrors that Jon Pertwee's Doctor was trying to save us from, by stopping the crust penetrating drill.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    4. Re:Perhaps this can get us further down? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Do you think that is what stops us from drilling deeper? I always thought that the biggest problem was the drill strings. After all, a working bit only gets above 150 degrees (Centigrade, of course) if you've fucked your pumps and have a crack head on the brake.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  22. 7460? 14,920 is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of hafnium, why don't they just use the whole thing and get twice the melting point?
    Idiot scientists just doing it half way.

  23. Nuclear reactor cores by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    Core catchers? As in the jamming sleeve that stops your core from sliding out of the bottom of the core barrel, after you've cut it?

    Kind of, only that the core is several thousand degrees hot, and if it burns through the bottom of the building, the whole incident gets upgraded a few steps on the INES scale.

    1. Re:Nuclear reactor cores by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Ah, a rather different sort of core. For catching yours, you'll probably need a bit more than breathing apparatus.

      But hang on a few seconds - your cores are already a happening event, so what have you got to achieve? Stop it going anywhere ; stop any nuclear reactions ; minimise venting of volatiles ; cool it down. For stopping the nuclear reactions, you need either boron by the tonne or cadmium (and of the two, cadmium is a poisonous heavy metal and boron a bio-not-particularly-nasty ; easy choice) ; IIRC. For cooling it down and stopping it going anywhere, you really need thermal inertia ; dumping heat you can do by running it into a bed of sand or anything with a high thermal mass, as long as it contains enough (dispersed) boron to kill the reaction. Arranging your flow paths so the the core separates into multiple smaller, isolated units to increase the cooling surface - would that make clean up harder or easier. Reducing volatiles - I guess you need to choose your mineralogy.

      Can you make cement with 30% by weight boron? Or cement with an aggregate of a high-melting boron mineral?

      I'm sure this has been well discussed before, but I don't know the state of the art, and after an 8 hour meeting today, I'm going to the bar!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"