Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alexandria]

(( If it includes murder, mayhem and over the top explosions then I'm your girl ))

[escaped lurker]

(( Why do I feel that increase in space-stuff since "Build a Forum-Game!" opened? Why indeed..  . Anyways, I do think it is time for an OOC-Thread for this one, seeing as the last two pages were... very OOC. Somewhat Game-Related, but OOC none the less. ))

[Gamerlord]

[Interesting. Link it here.]

[10ebbor10]

Also, a note; you really fucking think they're going to be using steam to power space ships, regardless of how it's heated? No. They're going to have hyper-efficient thermovoltaic processes that use the waste heat and the heat caused by the reaction to produce the energy.

Also, remember whenever you talk about efficiency, or dangers, or miniaturization. We're several hundred years in the future. How much miniaturization has occurred in the past 60 years? And since technology tends to accelerate exponentially...

Yeah. That energy pack the good doctor has is probably a fusion reactor. Because a field that makes you invisible, and a hammer that looks at the equation for gravity and says 'lolnope' probably take shittons of energy.

Speaking of which, I wonder what type of batteries are used. Supercapacitors or flywheels?

That is a good point. That sort of makes the 'heat' part of the argument redundant, as any heat would be used for power. Which means Fusion would in fact be a far better power source.

And yeah, miniaturisation. We've gone in less than 40 years from computers the size of a small school gym to a size barely visible to the naked eye. It is not impossible to think that a relatively stable power source would be miniaturised through the use of advanced materials and technology.

Pretty sure you might be breaking the second laws of thermodynamics there. Or not. Nanomaterials can do all sort of weird things. Still, it does nothing to deny my original point, that fusion is by far not needed for spacecraft, and is in fact to large to be used on anything but the largest vessels. Also, there's always waste heat, and often quite a lot of, which you will need to get rid of.

Look at your basic fission generator. How much has that one been miniaturized. Now look at fusion. I mean, we were supposed to have that by now...  Only thing that has been accelerating exponentially is the costs. It also doesn't help that size is a fundamental constraint of fusion power generator. It's a thing inherent in their design, and the principles by which they operate. Claiming "Magic" won't help there. (Because that's what you're doing).

In that case, Alexis, you got your bomb right there. As said before, fusion energy production is a function of the time, the temperature, and the pressure. A large high temperature cloud expanding rapidly is also known as a bomb. Also, the question remains why they would give us a technology that will be irreparably damaged as soon as it's hit, even if it doesn't explode. Because that's where the safety aspect of fusion is at, it doesn't work unless in optimal conditions. Most likely, the energy pack uses a thermionic reactor instead, which is stable, produces decent power, doesn't explode when shot at, and can be repaired by refilling it's water tank.

Also, supercapacitors are the better choice if you want to be able to turn around. Flywheels tend to function as gyroscopes.

Also, no. Fission produces waste heat more easily than fusion. I mean, radioactive decay and the like, which powers modern day spaceships. Also, one can never recycle all heat. That would allow for a perpetuum mobile, or an energy producing fridge. Pretty sure you need a different heat gradient, and hense also a cooling system of equivalent power.

[Gamerlord]

[Don't want to be rude... but why are you guys talking about fusion reactors again?]

[Alexandria]

(( Nerds, just nod your head and pretend your listening. Always works for me. ))

[kahn1234]

Also, a note; you really fucking think they're going to be using steam to power space ships, regardless of how it's heated? No. They're going to have hyper-efficient thermovoltaic processes that use the waste heat and the heat caused by the reaction to produce the energy.

Also, remember whenever you talk about efficiency, or dangers, or miniaturization. We're several hundred years in the future. How much miniaturization has occurred in the past 60 years? And since technology tends to accelerate exponentially...

Yeah. That energy pack the good doctor has is probably a fusion reactor. Because a field that makes you invisible, and a hammer that looks at the equation for gravity and says 'lolnope' probably take shittons of energy.

Speaking of which, I wonder what type of batteries are used. Supercapacitors or flywheels?

That is a good point. That sort of makes the 'heat' part of the argument redundant, as any heat would be used for power. Which means Fusion would in fact be a far better power source.

And yeah, miniaturisation. We've gone in less than 40 years from computers the size of a small school gym to a size barely visible to the naked eye. It is not impossible to think that a relatively stable power source would be miniaturised through the use of advanced materials and technology.

Pretty sure you might be breaking the second laws of thermodynamics there. Or not. Nanomaterials can do all sort of weird things. Still, it does nothing to deny my original point, that fusion is by far not needed for spacecraft, and is in fact to large to be used on anything but the largest vessels. Also, there's always waste heat, and often quite a lot of, which you will need to get rid of.

Look at your basic fission generator. How much has that one been miniaturized. Now look at fusion. I mean, we were supposed to have that by now...  Only thing that has been accelerating exponentially is the costs. It also doesn't help that size is a fundamental constraint of fusion power generator. It's a thing inherent in their design, and the principles by which they operate. Claiming "Magic" won't help there. (Because that's what you're doing).

No, i am not claiming 'magic' i'm leaving space for future technologies. you are basing our argument on the current understanding of the science behind these aspects of technology. These understandings could change in less than 100 years, let alone half a millennium or more.

Not to mention the advent of super-tough materials. Nano-tech researchers state that eventually we could have nano-materials that are several hundred thousand times (if not several million times) stronger than high quality steel. If anything, materials like that would be able to allow fusion reactions in something about the size of a medium sized backpack or maybe even smaller. And I'm not even taking into account new reactor designs.

And as for your argument about nuclear fission not being miniaturized, i think the reason there isn't so much the fact that we cant, its the fact that loads of idiotic green loonies cry whenever nuclear power is mentioned because of the media hype behind a small handful of accidents so many quality scientists and engineers wouldn't touch it with a 12 foot barge pole because their careers could end in the blink of an eye. That is also the reason nuclear power is so expensive at the moment.

And as for 'we should have fusion by now', that also comes back to idiots who dont know what they are talking about. Environmentalist look at the word 'nuclear' and go into a hissy fit and get the media on it as well with their lies and propaganda, so, again, scientists, engineers and politicians won't touch it. If fusion research actually had the funding it needed, we'd have fusion by now.


And nanomaterials can be interesting. They did an experiment with some early nano-gel material that is so light it flaps in the wind. But then they dropped the equivalent weight of 14 fridge-freezers on it and it held it like it was holding a feather. not even a flex or a bend. and this nano gel was only a few millimeters thick.

[10ebbor10]

No, i am not claiming 'magic' i'm leaving space for future technologies. you are basing our argument on the current understanding of the science behind these aspects of technology. These understandings could change in less than 100 years, let alone half a millennium or more.

You're claiming magic though. There are more problems which you're willingly ignoring.

Not to mention the advent of super-tough materials. Nano-tech researchers state that eventually we could have nano-materials that are several hundred thousand times (if not several million times) stronger than high quality steel. If anything, materials like that would be able to allow fusion reactions in something about the size of a medium sized backpack or maybe even smaller. And I'm not even taking into account new reactor designs.

Strength of the material is nonrelevant for fusion reactors. The important part is getting energy out of the reaction, which practically requires you to extend the fusion reaction. This is done by limiting the outflux of energy and heat, best done by increasing the size (Square-cube law). This is inherent in the design of all fusion reactors, barring the invention of cold fusion. Increasing temperature and pressure will help little, as that makes it much less unstable, and requires a far stronger heating mechanism.

Also, neutron outflux. Can only be stopped by a sufficiently thick layer of neutron absorbant materials. So that poses a severe limit on reactor minitarization.

And as for your argument about nuclear fission not being miniaturized, i think the reason there isn't so much the fact that we cant, its the fact that loads of idiotic green loonies cry whenever nuclear power is mentioned because of the media hype behind a small handful of accidents so many quality scientists and engineers wouldn't touch it with a 12 foot barge pole because their careers could end in the blink of an eye. That is also the reason nuclear power is so expensive at the moment.

Fission has been miniaturized. Thermionic reactors and such. It's fusion that can't be miniaturized, because it's very hard to keep a fusion reaction going, and reach an energy profit.

And as for 'we should have fusion by now', that also comes back to idiots who dont know what they are talking about. Environmentalist look at the word 'nuclear' and go into a hissy fit and get the media on it as well with their lies and propaganda, so, again, scientists, engineers and politicians won't touch it. If fusion research actually had the funding it needed, we'd have fusion by now.

Fusion has recieved more research funding than all other renewable technologies. Fusion has the massive funding it requires

Nuclear fusion research receives €750 million (excluding ITER funding*), compared with €810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined,[51] putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.

* 10 billion, or the same amount the EU spent on fusion research before 1990
Still, even lead scientists don't expect commercial fusion before 2050

And nanomaterials can be interesting. They did an experiment with some early nano-gel material that is so light it flaps in the wind. But then they dropped the equivalent weight of 14 fridge-freezers on it and it held it like it was holding a feather. not even a flex or a bend. and this nano gel was only a few millimeters thick.

It's also completely permeable for neutrons. Strength is not the issue, after all. Also, these nanomaterials rely completely on their structure for strength. High energy neutrons will mess that up rapidly, resulting in some sort of metal fatigue rapidly setting in.

[GreatWyrmGold]

[Don't want to be rude... but why are you guys talking about fusion reactors again?]

[Natural progression from antimatter power.]

[10ebbor10]

[Don't want to be rude... but why are you guys talking about fusion reactors again?]

[Natural progression from antimatter power.]

Actually, we started with fusion power.

[kahn1234]

No, i am not claiming 'magic' i'm leaving space for future technologies. you are basing our argument on the current understanding of the science behind these aspects of technology. These understandings could change in less than 100 years, let alone half a millennium or more.

You're claiming magic though. There are more problems which you're willingly ignoring.

Not to mention the advent of super-tough materials. Nano-tech researchers state that eventually we could have nano-materials that are several hundred thousand times (if not several million times) stronger than high quality steel. If anything, materials like that would be able to allow fusion reactions in something about the size of a medium sized backpack or maybe even smaller. And I'm not even taking into account new reactor designs.

Strength of the material is nonrelevant for fusion reactors. The important part is getting energy out of the reaction, which practically requires you to extend the fusion reaction. This is done by limiting the outflux of energy and heat, best done by increasing the size (Square-cube law). This is inherent in the design of all fusion reactors, barring the invention of cold fusion. Increasing temperature and pressure will help little, as that makes it much less unstable, and requires a far stronger heating mechanism.

Also, neutron outflux. Can only be stopped by a sufficiently thick layer of neutron absorbant materials. So that poses a severe limit on reactor minitarization.

And as for your argument about nuclear fission not being miniaturized, i think the reason there isn't so much the fact that we cant, its the fact that loads of idiotic green loonies cry whenever nuclear power is mentioned because of the media hype behind a small handful of accidents so many quality scientists and engineers wouldn't touch it with a 12 foot barge pole because their careers could end in the blink of an eye. That is also the reason nuclear power is so expensive at the moment.

Fission has been miniaturized. Thermionic reactors and such. It's fusion that can't be miniaturized, because it's very hard to keep a fusion reaction going, and reach an energy profit.

And as for 'we should have fusion by now', that also comes back to idiots who dont know what they are talking about. Environmentalist look at the word 'nuclear' and go into a hissy fit and get the media on it as well with their lies and propaganda, so, again, scientists, engineers and politicians won't touch it. If fusion research actually had the funding it needed, we'd have fusion by now.

Fusion has recieved more research funding than all other renewable technologies. Fusion has the massive funding it requires

Nuclear fusion research receives €750 million (excluding ITER funding*), compared with €810 million for all non-nuclear energy research combined,[51] putting research into fusion power well ahead of that of any single rivaling technology.

* 10 billion, or the same amount the EU spent on fusion research before 1990
Still, even lead scientists don't expect commercial fusion before 2050

And nanomaterials can be interesting. They did an experiment with some early nano-gel material that is so light it flaps in the wind. But then they dropped the equivalent weight of 14 fridge-freezers on it and it held it like it was holding a feather. not even a flex or a bend. and this nano gel was only a few millimeters thick.

It's also completely permeable for neutrons. Strength is not the issue, after all. Also, these nanomaterials rely completely on their structure for strength. High energy neutrons will mess that up rapidly, resulting in some sort of metal fatigue rapidly setting in.

Do you honestly believe that the human race wouldn't have found solutions to the current problems in 500+ years? As someone said earlier, technological advancement increases exponentially. This century technology is set to increase 1000 times faster than the past 300 years put together. To put that into perspective, that is like going from horse drawn carriages to landing on the moon within 1 week of each other. Do you really think fusion technology, reactor designs and other things will still ahve the same problems they do today, in 100 years?

The strength of a Fusion reactor is massively important. It is one of the main reasons holding fusion technology back. They haven't found a strong enough material that can withstand the reaction. Hence, nano-materials (which could be designed to withstand neutrons and other bombardments, either through improving the nano-tech itself, or 'weaving in' some sort of resistance metal or material). The beauty of nano-tech is that, theoretically, they can do whatever you want them to do.

Fusion cannot be miniaturized at the moment, but in 500 years? New reactor designs, advances in materials and scientific understanding etc will have advanced sufficiently. I am not 'calling magic' on it, i am just leaving space for whatever will come about. Hell, if those guys at CERN can find the 'God Particle', maybe after the appropriate research we could play with the structure of things itself and make a materiel that solves all out problems with Fusion?

As for funding. ONLY 750 million Euros? for something thousands of times more advanced and complex than glorified windmills? That is nowhere near enough. If i had the money I'd pump in a minimum of £6-10 billion. 750 million euros.....pathetic amount of funding.

Finally, early nano-materials we have today are being tested in as many different environments (including radioactive environments) and they are promising signs that, if properly done, they dont suffer from the same deficiencies as traditional reactor materials.


EDIT: Just realised, once GWG starts playing, he better not get captured. the Kai would be interested in his Psi abilities, which could lead to some interesting capture sequences.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'm tired of the "In a few centuries people will have found a solution to Problem X" argument. It dodges the issue and gets used on problems that are rooted in the laws of physics rather than engineering problems. From the sound of it (and I trust 10ebbor10's judgement on this), the efficiency of fusion reactors at a given size is more of a fundamental issue than an engineering one. You probably could make mini-fusion reactors, but I don't think they'd work well.

I'm really tired of the "Technology Y can solve any problem" argument. It's wrong and stupid, for reasons that are obvious when you think about it for a moment. Can it solve problems rooted in, say, thermodynamics? No. In fact, most "wonder technologies" are limited to a relatively narrow series of problems in a single field.

I'm suspicious of any argument that hangs its basis on things we don't know for the same reason I'm suspicious of Intelligent Design's claims at being scientific, albeit on a smaller scale: It requires you to buy into their premise, which leads into their conclusion in a step or two. If you don't buy into the premise, though, it falls apart--and there's no proof for the premise. Sure, in 500 years they could have fusion reactors outputting as much power as modern Canada in pen-sized form...or fusion power could still be "just a couple decades away".

[10ebbor10]

Do you honestly believe that the human race wouldn't have found solutions to the current problems in 500+ years? As someone said earlier, technological advancement increases exponentially. This century technology is set to increase 1000 times faster than the past 300 years put together. To put that into perspective, that is like going from horse drawn carriages to landing on the moon within 1 week of each other. Do you really think fusion technology, reactor designs and other things will still ahve the same problems they do today, in 100 years?

Due to the current state of terraforming on Mars, I doubt that we're farther than a hundred years in the future. Besides, stop using the Sufficiently advanced technology argument.  And, exponential systems don't last. They fall apart rapidly. After all extrapolating is fun and stuff, but in the end it's guessing. And well, it's all fun and games, but you can't ignore fundamental problems.

The strength of a Fusion reactor is massively important. It is one of the main reasons holding fusion technology back. They haven't found a strong enough material that can withstand the reaction. Hence, nano-materials (which could be designed to withstand neutrons and other bombardments, either through improving the nano-tech itself, or 'weaving in' some sort of resistance metal or material). The beauty of nano-tech is that, theoretically, they can do whatever you want them to do.

The Strength of a fusion reactor is not important. After all, the plasma inside a reactor never actually touches the sides of reactor. Should it happen, then it will rapidly cool down and the fusion reaction will immediately stop, before any damage happens. The only thing a fusion reactors core lining needs is to whistand vacuum, and the neutron flow. These latter are subatomic particles, and hence nanomaterials* won't help you. Unlike what Hollywood would want you to believe, not every engineering problem can be solved by adding nano in front of it.
*^{After all, nano engineering is on the scale of individual atoms, and their strength lies in the grids in which they are arranged. High speed neutrons attack individual atoms, and hence can't easily be stopped. Self repairing nanomaterials might help, but they won't be able to stop the neutrons . After all neutrons, being the subatomic particles they are, can just fly through the gaps in the structure. (And no, you can't fill those up)}

Fusion cannot be miniaturized at the moment, but in 500 years? New reactor designs, advances in materials and scientific understanding etc will have advanced sufficiently. I am not 'calling magic' on it, i am just leaving space for whatever will come about. Hell, if those guys at CERN can find the 'God Particle', maybe after the appropriate research we could play with the structure of things itself and make a materiel that solves all out problems with Fusion?

The "god" particle is massively overhyped. In fact, it would more interesting if they hadn't found it. And as I said, it's a fundamental engineering problem. Can't solve it without inventing cold fusion of some sort. Also, neutrons are annoying particles. Can only be stopped by pure mass.

For the same matter, who says we will still be using fusion in 500 years. 3 against one, the technology is massively outdated.

As for funding. ONLY 750 million Euros? for something thousands of times more advanced and complex than glorified windmills? That is nowhere near enough. If i had the money I'd pump in a minimum of £6-10 billion. 750 million euros.....pathetic amount of funding.

Only 750 million euros in the EU alone, excluding the 15 billion ITER program. ((Costs rose a bit to much))

Finally, early nano-materials we have today are being tested in as many different environments (including radioactive environments) and they are promising signs that, if properly done, they dont suffer from the same deficiencies as traditional reactor materials.

There are many different types of radiation. Still, while they might find a problem for metal deficits, they won't be able to miniaturize the particle shields much. You'd need a pure neutronium shield to get  compact, one hundred procent capture rate.

EDIT: Just realised, once GWG starts playing, he better not get captured. the Kai would be interested in his Psi abilities, which could lead to some interesting capture sequences.

First human capture in the first game, which is canon for this one, was a natural psychic.

[kahn1234]

I'm tired of the "In a few centuries people will have found a solution to Problem X" argument. It dodges the issue and gets used on problems that are rooted in the laws of physics rather than engineering problems. From the sound of it (and I trust 10ebbor10's judgement on this), the efficiency of fusion reactors at a given size is more of a fundamental issue than an engineering one. You probably could make mini-fusion reactors, but I don't think they'd work well.

I'm really tired of the "Technology Y can solve any problem" argument. It's wrong and stupid, for reasons that are obvious when you think about it for a moment. Can it solve problems rooted in, say, thermodynamics? No. In fact, most "wonder technologies" are limited to a relatively narrow series of problems in a single field.

I'm suspicious of any argument that hangs its basis on things we don't know for the same reason I'm suspicious of Intelligent Design's claims at being scientific, albeit on a smaller scale: It requires you to buy into their premise, which leads into their conclusion in a step or two. If you don't buy into the premise, though, it falls apart--and there's no proof for the premise. Sure, in 500 years they could have fusion reactors outputting as much power as modern Canada in pen-sized form...or fusion power could still be "just a couple decades away".

And I'm tired of people assuming the human race currently knows everything about everything. And people putting words into toher peoples mouths. No one has said 'X technology could solve all problems'.

Why are you and Ebbor so certain that humanities understanding of science will not change in the next 500 years? Our understanding of science and its 'laws' have changed many times over the last 200 years. The fact of the matter is, we could debate fusion, nanotech etc until we are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is men (and women) far more intelligent than us know, to put it bluntly, fuck all about these technologies or where they could lead to in the future or even how they fit into our current understanding. People would be naive to think that the scientific laws are solid. CERN has already documented dozens of instances of interesting happenings that dont fit into our current understanding of the 'laws' of physics and science.

As it stands, at least in theory, nanotech (or one of its many sub-strata's) could solve many of the problems encountered by fusion. But not just in fusion. Nanotech could solve many problems in many areas from construction to science, engineering to healthcare.

Ebbor states that you couldn't have miniature fusion reactors without proper cladding (a matter of materials), higher pressure (which again comes down to what the reactor is made of) and higher temperatures (again, a matter of 'Can the materials take it?'). All could be solved in the future through synthetic materials. They are already making nano-materials that are more resistant and several hundred times stronger then steel and other materials usually used in reactors. In the next 100 years, nanotech specialists already predict we will have materials that are several hundred times, maybe even several million times, stronger/resistant than steel and other comparable materials, pretty much replacing the use of many natural elements and materials we use today.

To say, as you and Ebbor are, that 'Oh, it isn't possible today so it wont be in 500+ years' is a ridiculous stance. I'm sure people 100 years ago never thought they'd have computers invisible to the naked eye, and materials that are waterproof etc.

[GreatWyrmGold]

-snip-

And I'm tired of people assuming the human race currently knows everything about everything.

If we start by assuming that basic scientific understanding of the topic at hand is false, we might as well give up.

And people putting words into toher peoples mouths. No one has said 'X technology could solve all problems'.

The beauty of nano-tech is that, theoretically, they can do whatever you want them to do.

Forgive my misinterpretation...

Why are you and Ebbor so certain that humanities understanding of science will not change in the next 500 years? Our understanding of science and its 'laws' have changed many times over the last 200 years. The fact of the matter is, we could debate fusion, nanotech etc until we are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is men (and women) far more intelligent than us know, to put it bluntly, fuck all about these technologies or where they could lead to in the future or even how they fit into our current understanding. People would be naive to think that the scientific laws are solid. CERN has already documented dozens of instances of interesting happenings that dont fit into our current understanding of the 'laws' of physics and science.

To be perfectly blunt?
It's the only way we can argue.

To say, as you and Ebbor are, that 'Oh, it isn't possible today so it wont be in 500+ years' is a ridiculous stance. I'm sure people 100 years ago never thought they'd have computers invisible to the naked eye, and materials that are waterproof etc.

From what I'm reading of ebbor's statements, there are fundamental issues with the physics of fusion that prevent it from being efficient at small sizes. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but if I'm not no advances in technology are going to get around that, any more than advances in technology will get around the Laws of Thermodynamics.