'Super Steel' Sought For Fusion Reactors 421
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."
We've learned something new about 9/11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Would the fact that we've learned something new about steel thanks to the way the Twin Towers fell, silence the conspiracy lovers?
No, of course not. What the hell was I thinking there?
Re:shameless (Score:5, Insightful)
Complete lies! (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone knows steel doesn't lose strength when heated up, it's magic and goes from being a full strength solid to instantly being melted into a liquid at 1500C!
Haven't the 9/11 conspiracy theorists taught these scientists anything???
Steel not the only material out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's Certainly a Strange Coping Mechanism (Score:4, Insightful)
As always, conspiracies are just a conspiracy to get people to believe in conspiracies. Did you know 9/11 wasn't an inside job?
First invent your fusion reactor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Certainly a Strange Coping Mechanism (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. The "truthers" are not seeking the truth in any way, shape, or form. All they are "seeking" is ways to warp the facts beyond recognition to support their neurotic preconception.
Seeking truth is what science and religion are about. They have different ways of judging it. I suppose one could make the case that the truthers are a bizarre, benighted, and perverse form of cult, but they are in no sense scientists.
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. The Twin Towers should have toppled over, but instead, they blew up like a building that was being imploded for demolition. Also, the melting point of the steel used in the Twin Towers is actually about 400 degrees HOTTER than the temperature at which jet fuel burns.
In Oakland CA, a tanker truck carrying gasoline crashed under an overpass crashed [sfgate.com] and burst into flames. (Everyone was OK) The heat from the gasoline caused the metal in the overpass to weaken and the whole thing collapsed.
This pretty much proves that burning fuel can cause metal to weaken and a structure to collapse. This is especially true when you consider that jet fuel burns hotter than gasoline.
The Twin Towers would also be the first example in history of a steel building where the steel failed due to fire.
Maybe so, but it happened. Other examples would be the one I listed (although not a building) and WTC7.
In other words, "Truthers" are full of shit. They've been debunked countless times and they keep coming back. Accept it, you are wrong. There is no government conspiracy. There was no demolition. Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings where the heat from the fires caused them to collapse. That is FACT!
Re:shameless (Score:3, Insightful)
"bit shamefull to abuse this day, on which the world remembers the victims of this horrible disaster to make these statements how usefull it could be for science."
Every such calamity is worthy of study, because we learn things we do not expect and might miss otherwise. Had the Twin Towers been an accident instead of murder, their study would have been just as important (but with less emotional baggage).
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:0, Insightful)
Terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings where the heat from the fires caused them to collapse. That is FACT!
No it isn't.
See what I did there? I debunked your well supported statement with an equally well supported statement of mine.
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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 [wikipedia.org]
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.)
Re:shameless (Score:3, Insightful)
The 9/11 connection is just a PR plug, though -- those properties of steel have been known for a long time. (I can't guarantee they were known when the building were built, but certainly they were known prior to the event.)
you have a funny concept of intolerance (Score:4, Insightful)
what gays and lesbians want is the right to be gays in lesbians. what gays and lesbians do in the privacy of their own homes in no way affects you whatsoever
meanwhile, to deny what gays and lesbians want, that is, to be themselves, is "cramming down their throats", as you so homoerotically describe, the beliefs of fundamentalist christianity
in other words, to give gays and lesbians what they want doesn't negatively affect your rights and freedoms whatsoever
meanwhile, to give fundamentalist christians what they want dramatically infringes on the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians
so you are angry that gays and lesbians do not tolerate your intolerance?
fine
but the idea is more rights and freedoms for everyone... except the right and freedom to deny someone else their rights and freedoms. understand that discrepancy?
what you want is intolerant. so to deny you is not intolerance of you. because intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. in fact, intolerance of intolerance is pretty much a good definition of tolerance
what gays and lesbians want does not hurt fundamentalist christianity at all: you are 100% free in a world of gay and lesbian rights to continue being an asshole
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Truthers" are afraid of facts because they don't conform to their own paranoid world view. Simply put, they want the gubmint to have conducted some wildly over the top, physically impossible plot of some kind and they aren't going to let a mountain of evidence that says different get in the way. This is why they spend their lives poring over minute inconsistencies, similes, misquotations and so on.
The funny thing is you can state very clearly to a "truther" why steel doesn't have to melt, or how fireproofing is rated by the hour, or provide evidence of how other steel frame structures fared after fire and the morons will still bleat the same shit all over again.
At this stage I think it is okay just to mock them openly to their face. They belong in the same category of stupid that creationists and holocaust deniers occupy.
Re:We've learned something new about 9/11 (Score:5, Insightful)
I must apologize for not responding to the main of your argument, but in truth I have no quarrel with most what you say. The point at which I take exception is your reference to the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings as an act of war.
The attacks of 11 September 2001 were criminal acts, not a deliberate attack by a sovereign nation. They were not accompanied by a declaration of war, and there is no reason to believe that any sovereign nation was involved in the planning or execution of these attacks.
The terrorist attacks were a monstrous crime, truly an enormity. However, they can no more be considered an act of war than the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
That we, the citizens of the United States, have allowed these to be a justification for a much more costly and brutal conflict is a thousand times more abhorrent. Indeed, it is tens of thousands of times more vile, for we have killed tens of thousands more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than were harmed in the attacks here.
It is generally agreed that the overall course of human history has been one of progress from barbarism to civilization. Let us not now desert that course! We cannot undo the terrible evil that has been caused by our complicity, but let each of us strive to end this war, so that we may begin reparations for the depravity that has been done in our name. For I believe it to be true, that we shall not regain any rights that we do not deserve.
-T
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, first I'd ask you for a citation (preferably one with pictures and/or video) because I've never heard that.
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, they had a neat animation that showed how it failed.
Basically the support beams for each floor started to sag as a result of the heat and the load that they were supposed to carry. As they sagged they pulled the outside walls (where most of the support for the building was) further and further inwards. Eventually the outside walls failed and the floors started to pancake onto each other. Once all of that kinetic energy was released there really wasn't a way to stop it -- hence the failure of the whole structure.
Better fire-proofing material probably would have bought more time before the buildings failed. Whether or not this would have saved many lives is questionable -- most of the non-firefighter casualties happened above the impact zones because escape routes were cut off.
One of the many recommendations NIST made was better stairwells. They should be protected with reinforced concrete and made wider. Reinforced stairwells would have provided an escape route for those trapped above the impact zones. Wider stairwells would have aided the traffic flow -- which was badly disrupted when the fire-fighters needed to go up as the civilians were going down.
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Just the one that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon
"Supposedly"? Give me a break. What else do you think happened to Flight 77? The Government shot it down after firing a cruise missile into the pentagon? Did the Government also plant the two black boxes and airplane parts that were found at the site?
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:No magic involved (Score:2, Insightful)
The massive fuel burned it's major element in the explosion, explosion. The remaining quantities burned for 10 minutes after impact, impact.
Milk is spilt though, people are dead, government is happy, war is meant to be everlasting, freedom is slavery, history is malleable. Time to stock up ammo, not argue details, details. :-)
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think that *our* government, which has shown such massive ineptitude in the past 8 years, could not only plan such a conspiracy but keep it secret? I don't think so.
what ineptitude are you referring to? Everything is going according to plan.
And when the public has been systemically educated to refuse to believe bad things about wealth and power, you don't need to keep it a secret. No one believes it anyway.
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Heavy timber and large engineered wood members generally do survive fires better than steel, at least from a structural sense. The beams can burn, but wood is a pretty good insulator, so while the outside of the beam might be charred black, there's still plenty of sound material left in the middle to hold the building up. Structure in buildings are generally specified with a very large safety margin. There's more than enough wood there so that you can afford to lose some of it to a fire. Steel, on the other hand, conducts heat very well, and so the heat required to weaken it moves throughout the member quickly. The fire doesn't have to work through the steel to weaken it, it can basically attack it all the way through all at once.
I've been in a number of buildings in the french quater in new orleans that are over 100 years old, and which have been through a number of fires. Many of those buildings contain beams that are black with char all around, but have continued to support their roof for decades.
There are a lot of reasons why steel is used instead of wood. There are many ways to protect steel from fire damage, and even with those measures, steel will often be significantly cheaper than wood. There's often a lot more flexibility with steel, as you can get a far wider variety of shapes than wood.
And just FYI, building structure is designed by structural engineers, who generally come across as pretty intelligent. Mechanical engineers (in building design at least) design HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems. Overall, I've been far less impressed with their skill and enthusiasm compared to structural engineers.
Re:Why is this posted today? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it's rated by the hour. People who sell spray on retardant for the construction industry state it will last N hours in a fire where N is usually 1-4 hours. The fact that building codes demand a fire rating should also put to rest the stupid "truther" assertion that steel must "melt" for a structure to fail or that a fire cannot cause a building failure. Even steel which is treated will fail eventually in a fire because steel conducts heat. And that of course assumes the retardant wasn't knocked off after a large jet smashed into the side of a tower at high speed.
You see, the reason we openly mock those who swallow whole piles of bullshit whole is exactly the same! But factual in this case. Creationists are mocked because they take bible bullshit at face value. Science is conducted independently and can't make it's conclusions official and true by having the government write a book in red, blue and white with a big 9/11 on the cover. See the similarities there? Use the comparison if you like, but makes you look kinda bad. :-)
Creationists and 9/11 truthers and holocaust deniers are mocked because they never advance their own theory about anything. They don't want to believe the conventional explanation despite overwhelming evidence. Therefore instead they must nitpick, deny, handwave, quote mine and generally do anything to pretend the evidence doesn't matter or means something else.
Of course if you are a "truther" yourself, perhaps you can state explicitly and in some detail what you think happened instead. Explain how the towers fell, where the charges were placed (if it was charges), who placed them, how many people are required to rig all three buildings, how long it took to lay, what type of charges we are talking about here, how they were detonated, how nobody saw or heard explosives going off, how nobody found evidence for these explosives after the fact, how all rescue workers, firefighters, FBI investigators, scientists, insurance underwriters were fooled into thinking the towers fell due by being hit by hijacked aircraft. You might also explain why you think your particular conspiracy is correct but all the other wild-eyed variants (thermite, high explosives, nukes, missiles etc.) floating around are wrong. I ask because "truthers" love to insinuate that the conventional explanation is wrong, but they never say what the alternative is let alone supply evidence for it.
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:1, Insightful)
1. No steel builing has ever collapsed due to a fire.
I think you mean no steel building, otherwise undamaged, with water and electric utilities functioning normally, and an available fire fighting force that wasn't decimated earlier in the day has ever collapsed due to a fire.
Re:If it doesn't work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really that fucking hard to type a few words into [search engine] and find out for yourself?
Is it really that fucking hard for the person making the claim to provide the links to begin with?
Re:No magic involved (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been known for thousands of years that steel becomes soft and easily worked at high temperatures.
That's why blacksmiths always heat the iron orange-hot when making horseshoes. It's a lot easier to bend and form.