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.
Why are you so certain this takes place 500 years in the future? On a side note, the reason we assume that our current understanding of science is correct, is because otherwise you can't make any logical assumption. After all, each and every argument will devolve to "How can you be so sure that will still be the case?". You can get full on existentialist on this one after all. "What if we discover zero point energy next sunday", "What if mind over matter actually works, and climate denial is the best thing ever", "What if Santa Claus does exist and we develop a Christmas based economy"?
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.
In theory, we'd have fusion in 1966. In theory, nuclear reactors are perfectly safe, cheap and can be build using of the shelf parts. In theory, humanity would have had a severe food crisis in the 1800, 1900, and 2000's (million death types). Watch out with theories.
Also, the fact that it can possible do that doesn't mean that it actually will.
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.
Cladding is a matter of total mass, not materials. Higher pressure comes down to the strength of it's containment field. And the temperature is not a matter of the strength of the reactor materials (the plasma never touches the sides, after all), it's a matter of can we keep the fusion material fusing long enough to actually get a net energy profit.
After all, the smaller the reactor, the faster it cools down. It hence produces less energy. You can attempt to solve this by increasing the pressure (Which increases the initial energy investement even further, and also increases cool down speed) or by increasing the temperature (Also, increased cost) to speed up the rate at which fusions occur.
Never mind the fact that in a current day reactor, the total amount of fusing material is a mere 0.5 grammes.
Your pocket fusion installation would, at best, be capable of sustaining fusion for a fraction of a second. So you need the installation to gather a massive amount of power, store it, and rapidly dispense it back into the fusion installation. And that has to happen hundreds of times per second. Why not cut out the middle man, and just use those massive batteries for all your power needs.
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.
Sadly, by that statement you're saying that everything is possible. As said before, you need to either assume that what we know is correct, with some liberties, or that virtually everything is possible.
But the fact that the technology growth rate isn't slowing, and shows signs of actually increasing, we wont be seeing the technology crash for a loooooong time.
Pride comes before the fall.
As for strength, the first fusion tests had to be postponed because the steel they were using kept melting.
Solving one problem doesn't solve the others.
You may not be able to fill them up, but multiple layers of superdense nano-material overlapping so that gaps are blocked up by the next layer of material could work. Add in self repairing nanites, impregnating the nano-material with neutron-stopping/absorbing materials and/or including between the layers of nano-material layers of strong cladding and there, problem solved.
The Scale of these gaps fails to be properly imagined by the human brain. While high density would work, it would severely collide with the idea of portable. Using multiple layers would be slightly problematic, due the fact that molecules naturally vibrate, and the slightest manufacturing error would be disastrous.
Nothing in science is ever completed is someone assumes it cannot be done before you have even tried.
We tried pocket fusion. It looks pretty, but no more than that. Consumes quite a lot of energy too.
Why would fusion be massively outdated? what could replace it? Anti-matter maybe, but that is iffy at best. I dont know enough about zero-point energy to comment on that. Cold fusion?
I don't know anything about zero point energy either. It's one of those buzzwords commonly found on free energy forums. But just imagine how little your average medieval person knew about particle physics. Cast that forward into the future.
More mundane options are nuclear fission making a comeback, solar power coming in from space, and other SF staples.
Still too little money. If it isn't funded properly, then it will always be 'only a few decades away' and never actually get here. it would be the same for any other technology.
Let me guess. It's never enough money, unless it's finished tomorrow, at 6 AM exactly? But still, there are things like that that can't be hurried. For the ITer, they needed 450 tons of special wiring. Worldwide yearly production when the project started was estimated at less than 5 tonnes.
And well, there are those who say that all the budgets given to fusion should better end up in other renewables. Can't blame them for not believing in the massive investements for a technology that won't deliver for at least 20-30 years. And well, it's coming under increased scrunity, and the US might back out entirely.
Link.
Then again, there is indeed room for getting the funds..
Link. Then again, how do you spent 50 billion pounds on a train?
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.
I think tests with the most common types of radiation have shown fantastic results. From what I've read, they haven't tried the less common types....yet. And no one is saying you could not use some sort of impregnation on the nano-materials to give it some of the qualities of neutron/radiation blocking materials. And no one is saying you couldn't use some cladding alongside the nano-materials.
[/quote]
That's not how these things work. A fast neutron is only stopped when it collides with a (heavy) atom. Want to stop it, put more of those things in front of it. No real way to do that using a lightweight solution.
My argument is not: 'things will be smaller in the future'. My argument is that it could, which lays the groundwork for suspension of disbelief, because this is a game. Hey Ebbor, is there a scientifically viable way for cold fusion to happen organically? I doubt it.
Plants actively abuse quantum physics for photosynthesis. It's unlikely, but possible. My point is, after all, not that this is impossible, but that it's not a certainty in this game.
But the GM said it goes, so it goes. So please, stop arguing, at least in the thread. I mean, I like knowing all this, but...you can't argue about what technologies will be available 300 years in the future. Because it's practically a certainty that our inherent understanding of the universe will have changed. Maybe someone will prove the second law of thermodynamics false in situation X. Or perhaps the speed of light can be exceeded if Y(Gravitic propulsion always seemed the most likely to me, since it continues to accelerate you irregardless of how heavy you get or how fast you're going. That or wormhole generators/pre-established gigantic space teleporters).
The GM said that this is rather inspiring. So, no real reason to stop.
As for breaking light speed, gravitic arceleration won't work. To reach lightspeed, you end up with an unstoppable force (gravity on an infinitive mass) vs an unmoveable mass.
Alcubiere drive and the like might work, and well gravity is strongly tied in with that.
But the fact that the technology growth rate isn't slowing, and shows signs of actually increasing, we wont be seeing the technology crash for a loooooong time.
This reminds me of something from Jared Diamond's Collapse, specifically when he mentioned that societies tend to collapse around their peak of prosperity and population.
I'm not saying we're on the brink of the "crash," but when it happens no one will see it coming.
Maybe, but how would a technology crash happen? Once something has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. Unless you mean we come to a point where we cannot advance as there doesn't seem to be any route to progress through, then i dont see how it could happen.
My point isn't that we're going to go into the Dark Ages again, it's that if there does come a point where we can't invent any more we won't be able to see it coming beforehand...and the decades before are probably going to have some of the highest technological growth rates in history.
Climate collapse. Socioeconomical collapse due to resource crisis. Solar flare ...
Pick your disaster movie, there are enough to go around.
On another note, when else would societies collapse? Since they tend to be constantly rising, the time before they collapse is their peak by nature.
EDIT: Just thought of a way to contain those neutrons.GRAVITY HOORAY
Really no way to do that effectively. The energy required to stop a very light, near lightspeed particle is enormous. If you can somehow get around that, you can just build a perpetuum mobile.
Author
Topic: The 1st Punitive Mars Expedition: Money In The Bank (Read 33620 times)