Global warming

[MfA]

If you create a huge and extremely hot plasma, where a very small amount of particles might fuse, you just threw away all the energy you pumped into the particles that didn't fuse. The vast majority.

Nope, you spend the energy increasing the temperature and apart from leakage that energy remains useful.

And you need to spend a huge amount of energy to contain that plasma as well. More wasted energy.

This is waste, but as I said ... have you done the numbers?

Now, if we scale down to simply doing all that to a single particle, with an (almost) guaranteed hit

Citation needed.

 

[Frank]

Batteries have enormous commercial impetus behind them already. Each kWh of charge/discharge can replace 1/10th of a gallon of gasoline, and for portable electronics a high density battery would be worth 10-100x that ($500 phone manufacturers would pay $10 per Wh for a superbattery even if it only lasted 300 charges).

Unfortunately for battery makers, grid storage has to compete with natural gas, which has pretty low prices right now. A CCGT plant will need less than $0.03 of gas to produce a kWh of electricity, and the rest of the cost is just maintenance and an amortization of fixed costs. Batteries can find use in isolated applications (e.g. handling major spikes on a timescale of a few hours, as you get from solar/wind), but that's it.

Don't hold your breath for batteries solving grid storage. However, for transportation and electronics there seems to be a big breakthrough that's near commercialization:
http://enviasystems.com/
400Wh/kg and $125/kWh means 50kg and $2500 is all the battery you need for a PHEV, though power density is a bit low so you'll need a supercapacitor for electric-only performance.
That's interesting. I've never even heard of that until now. However, a quick google makes it looks horribly inefficient. Is there some short cut using the sun or bacteria or something? Electricity->hydrogen->methane->ICE/CCGT seems like it would be only 20-30% efficient.

I just don't see it competing with EVs. There are many inherent advantages of EVs, like instant torque, low marginal cost/weight for high power, and silent ride. Due to all the energy conversions, per-mile fuel cost isn't nearly as good as for EVs, and energy cost is even worse. Unless the EV industry experiences a catastrophic collapse before economies of scale kick in, CNG doesn't have a chance.

As for grid storage, it's not going to compete with just using natural in the first place.

I agree.

The two main problems with Lithium batteries are grid dispersion/discharge speed and controllability.

The first one is much improved by Lithium Polymer batteries: because the grid is more scattered, the surface area and thus the reaction speed increase. Which allows more of the potential (chemical) energy to be released before the total wattage the cell can deliver drops below the threshold needed.

The second part is in the monitoring and controlling the storage and release of that energy: if the cell heats up too much, it loses capacity fast. And when it heats up even more, it explodes. To counter that effect and increase the amount of storage available, we need better sensors and smarter charge/discharge strategies.

This makes a big difference: the perceived capacity of a LiPoly cell is more than twice that of a regular LiIon cell. And the theoretical limit is much higher.

 

[hoho]

Ok. I will. But not now.

How often should I keep reminding you this promise?

 

[Frank]

Heck, why don't we create fusion power plants to deliberately CREATE lithium so we can stick it into batteries...? Considering we don't have a Dr. Manhattan in our back pocket this would be a great boon to our society!

Lithium is pretty abundant. It's the 25th most common element in the Earth's crust.

It's just very reactive, and thus hard to extract. But very easy to recycle. Like aluminium.

 

[Frank]

You do realize that atomic nucleus, no to mention subatomic particles, are literally tens of thousands if not millions of times smaller than smallest features that are etched on 22nm and below chips, right? How exactly do you intend to guide them so accurately that they hit each other?

Well, we have electronic force microscopes where we can hit a specified atom with the tip of a probe. Mechanical. And targeting and focusing an electron (or ion) beam is simpler, if you know where the target is. Still plenty hard, but very doable, as long as you have enough fidelity on the voltages on the coils.

The main problem will be in supplying the (electrically neutral) targets at the right location (or pinned down ions behind a screen), not in the hitting that location.

 

[Frank]

Nope, you spend the energy increasing the temperature and apart from leakage that energy remains useful.

This is waste, but as I said ... have you done the numbers?

Citation needed.

Pass.

 

[Frank]

How often should I keep reminding you this promise?

Ask me a direct question, and I'll answer it.

 

[hoho]

Well, we have electronic force microscopes where we can hit a specified atom with the tip of a probe. Mechanical. And targeting and focusing an electron (or ion) beam is simpler, if you know where the target is. Still plenty hard, but very doable, as long as you have enough fidelity on the voltages on the coils.

You don't seem to know much (anything?) about quantum and particle physics if you claim it's that easy.

Ask me a direct question, and I'll answer it.

Questions were asked by Mintmaster when he told why Rutan's "paper" was wrong. As you claimed it to be correct I'd like to know who was actually right. I haven't seen your reply for this post.

 

[KimB]

You don't seem to know much (anything?) about quantum and particle physics if you claim it's that easy.

Well, no, it isn't easy. It's fantastically difficult. But it is possible to direct single atoms. For example:
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

Granted, this is absurdly slow and fantastically difficult, and thus not practical for pretty much anything. I'd be rather surprised if we ever got to the point of large-scale production of structures built from the specific positioning of individual atoms.

But the bigger problem where semiconductor processes is concerned is that once you get to transistors that are on the order of a hundred atoms wide (roughly 10nm), they start to behave in an extremely quantum way, which significantly changes their behavior. We probably can compute with 10nm transistors, but it isn't going to be easy.

 

[hoho]

Well, no, it isn't easy. It's fantastically difficult. But it is possible to direct single atoms. For example:
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

Slowly moving around single (metal == big!) atoms is a piece of cake compared to the precision you need to smash few proton-neutron nucleus together at extreme speeds. Average nucleus is about 2500x smaller than hydrogen atom, x-ray wavelength is ~500x greater and gamma ~100x.

Also, this whole moving single particles wasn't about semiconductors but fusion energy

 

[KimB]

Slowly moving around single (metal == big!) atoms is a piece of cake compared to the precision you need to smash few proton-neutron nucleus together at extreme speeds. Average nucleus is about 2500x smaller than hydrogen atom, x-ray wavelength is ~500x greater and gamma ~100x.

Also, this whole moving single particles wasn't about semiconductors but fusion energy

Oh, yeah, there's basically no way to do the same thing with atomic nuclei.

 

[Grall]

But it is possible to direct single atoms. For example:
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV1003.html

Granted, this is absurdly slow and fantastically difficult, and thus not practical for pretty much anything.

I saw a blurb in the tech news stream the other week about a demostration of a single atom transistor. Now, it probably isn't very useful, because it takes lots of transistors to get any decent sort of work done and building chips out of hundreds of millions of these transistors sound like the headache of all times, but it's pretty interesting stuff nevertheless methinks.

After all the solid-state transistor itself was a bit of a useless curiosity around the time when it was invented, wasn't it? So who knows where some adaptation of this tech might end up in the future...

 

[KimB]

I saw a blurb in the tech news stream the other week about a demostration of a single atom transistor. Now, it probably isn't very useful, because it takes lots of transistors to get any decent sort of work done and building chips out of hundreds of millions of these transistors sound like the headache of all times, but it's pretty interesting stuff nevertheless methinks.

My understanding is that these are single electron transistors, which aren't quite as spectacular. I mean, sure, the single electron does come from a single atom. But the way transistors behave, that one electron tends to wander as many as a hundred atoms away. So I don't think you can realistically build single-electron circuits whose total size is smaller than a hundred or so atoms. You might be able to reduce that by a factor of a few with clever tricks, but I doubt you can do all that much better.

That said, building a single transistor and fabricating devices with trillions of them are entirely different ballgames.

 

[Grall]

So I don't think you can realistically build single-electron circuits whose total size is smaller than a hundred or so atoms.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right there, it was a pop science article, and those often gloss over the more complex aspects. There was an image, probably made with electron tunneling microscope or such that showed what appeared to be source and drains, with a single blip sitting in the middle of them. Supposedly that one lone blip was the "single atom transistor", but the whole device consists of quite a few more atoms than that.

But, still, interesting stuff that might have useful potential in the future...

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Where things stand today ....

Each line (row) of coloured pixels is the temperature record of an individual nation within its region, cked one atop the other. Blues are cooler years; the reds are warmer. The far left is 1900; the far right is the present day.

The entire planet has got hotter, increasingly so in recent decades.
...
For those with a scientific bent, the graphic at the top of this page will, though, highlight some interesting features that might otherwise be missed in a different rendering of global data.

Notice how the regions do not warm in unison. They appear as discrete blocks, Europe being the most obvious stand-out example. That's understandable. Each continent is an individual actor in the climate, influencing - and being influenced by - the system as a whole.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48678196

 

[iroboto]

I suspect if North America was getting it as bad as EU and Asia, we'd be singing a different tune here. But we're not. I heard UAE hit 56.C under the shade. Which is mental because the body is dying above 40.C; and my water tank heater is set to heat water to 50.C

 

[Bludd]

I suspect if North America was getting it as bad as EU and Asia, we'd be singing a different tune here. But we're not. I heard UAE hit 56.C under the shade. Which is mental because the body is dying above 40.C; and my water tank heater is set to heat water to 50.C

Depends on the humidity. If it's very humid and it's over 40 C, it can be intolerable. If it is dry, you can be exposed to much higher temperatures. Just think of a sauna, they can be up to 100 or even 110 C, but very dry. Contrast with a turkish bath which is humid, you would scald and have severe problems at sauna temperatures.

 

[Davros]

I'd be rather surprised if we ever got to the point of large-scale production of structures built from the specific positioning of individual atoms.

Especially considering that in 12.0107 grams of carbon or 28.0855 grams of silicon there are 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms (thats 60 with 23 zeros)

 

[iroboto]

Depends on the humidity. If it's very humid and it's over 40 C, it can be intolerable. If it is dry, you can be exposed to much higher temperatures. Just think of a sauna, they can be up to 100 or even 110 C, but very dry. Contrast with a turkish bath which is humid, you would scald and have severe problems at sauna temperatures.

As long as your body can find eventual shelter from the heat. Obviously in humidity the chance of death is higher, your sweat can no longer evaporate because the air is already full of moisture - i believe the number is closer to 45. In dry hot air, yes you can sweat off a lot more heat. But if you run out of water you dead

40C+ is the point in which your body is on the decline to organ failure (if you cannot find a way to cool off, or stave off the heat for a brief moments of time) it will lead to eventual death. Older people or infants will die first before younger 20-30 yea olds etc because their bodies are less equipped to deal with it.

Core body temperatures above 38 is the real issue. People will starts to have seizures when they have fevers pushing their temperatures greater than 40C

 

[Bludd]

As long as your body can find eventual shelter from the heat. Obviously in humidity the chance of death is higher, your sweat can no longer evaporate because the air is already full of moisture - i believe the number is closer to 45. In dry hot air, yes you can sweat off a lot more heat. But if you run out of water you dead

40C+ is the point in which your body is on the decline to organ failure (if you cannot find a way to cool off, or stave off the heat for a brief moments of time) it will lead to eventual death. Older people or infants will die first before younger 20-30 yea olds etc because their bodies are less equipped to deal with it.

Core body temperatures above 38 is the real issue. People will starts to have seizures when they have fevers pushing their temperatures greater than 40C

Yes, but you can sweat in Abu Dhabi even if it is a scorcher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

This was basically a natural disaster where thousands upon thousands died.