Technology of the Day

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » Sep 21, 2014 9:01 pm

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » Dec 17, 2014 10:08 am

You can't go wrong with that kind of music :D

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » Jan 21, 2015 12:01 pm

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » Jan 25, 2015 1:02 am



Type 4 is 7.5pds per plate... this might work for a full set almost..
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » Apr 01, 2015 3:17 pm

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » Apr 30, 2015 12:18 pm

AR >>> VR

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » May 02, 2015 5:15 pm

Pretty neat:

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Windwalker » May 04, 2015 6:57 pm

Americalex wrote:I saw the new SpaceX capsule on their Facebook page and I support them too of course. Same for that Boeing alternative. Too bad for the Dream Chaser, it would have been a dignified and fitting way to perpetuate the evolutive legacy of the Space shuttle program. Maybe they can make it without the NASA financing for that testing phase? Or maybe their design is fundamentally flawed and the complexity of a runway landing craft as opposed to an ocean parachute craft is too much to get an acceptable price point. Landing on a runway feels so much more civilized though..


First of all, sorry for bumping an 8 month old comment, lol.

My understanding of the space shuttle system was that it was far less efficient than the rockets that preceded it. The long term plan was to make up for this loss by using the "throw away" external fuel tanks as modules for constructing space stations in low-earth orbit. Also, the Shuttle was of sufficient size that military/spy equipment could be loaded in its cargo bay without the Russians being able to see what we were putting into orbit and where.

We never did, however, get to the phase where we started building the large low-earth orbit space stations originally envisioned. Not only was the shuttle program cut back dramatically after the Challenger exploded, but the collapse of the Soviet Union made the International Space Station a more politically viable program than building the massive "wagon-wheel" style stations that would have been made from the external fuel tanks of shuttle launches.

All in all, I would say the shuttle program was a mixture of success and failure. It succeeded tactically by out-pacing the Soviets, succeeded in giving American's a sense that the space program was still moving forward, failed financially as it never progressed to its next phase, and failed its own safety standards as NASA was aiming for a much higher successful launch rate than 98.5%.

(On a side note, 37 of the shuttles' flights were to the ISS, over a quarter of its total cargo. It makes about as much sense as building a 37 car freight-train, using it one time to deliver a bicycle a couple of miles, and then push the 37 boxcars off of a cliff.)
User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » May 08, 2015 7:05 pm

^ Gonna comment on this later

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Windwalker » May 09, 2015 11:57 am

Americalex wrote:^ Gonna comment on this later.


Ya I am not sure how practical the idea was. I am having trouble finding any actual literature on it from source such as NASA, though there are a number of older private sites promoting the idea that still haven't come down yet. The idea was to do some of the preliminary retrofitting inside of the tanks before they are filled with fuel, so it would just be a snap-together job in space transforming the tank to a module.....

At any rate, if just ONE of the tanks had been retrofitted to the ISS as a module, it would have increase the cubic living space from its current 388 meters cubed to 1,885 meters cubed. (And it was made out of stronger, thicker, material as well.)
User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Thorium as a fuel source

Postby Windwalker » May 16, 2015 3:06 pm

Given a discussion on tanks led to a discussion on rail-guns on another thread, so I thought I would post this. A thorium powered reactor is probably the best hope for scaling down a power source for a tank armed with direct-energy weapons and/or a rail gun.

I envision a tank with a "battery" powerful enough to fire a rail-gun and/or a direct-energy weapon that could also divert energy to the motor. Ideally, this "battery" could be recharged as close to instantaneously as possible by an on-board reactor. A reactor that uses thorium as its main fuel source would be the most practical for such a small device, as it would require far less shielding than a traditional uranium reactor, and would produce far less (and less volatile) waste.

There have been concept cars recently claiming that a thorium reactor could be made safely at less than 500 pounds, which could power a car for 300,000 miles or more. The engine would essentially be a steam-powered turbine, heated by a laser create from the miniature thorium reactor.

Anyway, here is a demonstration on Thorium as an energy source given by a dude who researched it for NASA, particularly as a potential power-source for Lunar bases...

User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Windwalker » May 17, 2015 1:58 am

Even if a miniature reactor was as close to reality as Cadillac would like us to believe, there probably won't be rail-guns on tanks in the first half of this century. Current energy-storage technology allows for 2.5 MJ/m³ of storage space. That would mean a battery-powered rail-gun capable of destroying a modern main-battle-tank would take a battery that is 12.8 m³. I suppose if we could build a tank the size of a small apartment building it would work, lol.

For now only a small portion of the Navy's destroyers even have the ability of being retrofitted with rail-guns. The majority of them would have to remove some of their existing systems to make room.
User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » May 17, 2015 2:41 pm

Space based rail guns would be pretty radical, again the cost of assembly in space is prohibitive, but it would certainly be a nice weapon for such environements!
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Windwalker » May 18, 2015 9:52 pm

Americalex wrote:Space based rail guns would be pretty radical, again the cost of assembly in space is prohibitive, but it would certainly be a nice weapon for such environements!


Unless you had one on the earth used for launch-assist instead of as a cannon, then the cost-to-orbit for materials would be greatly reduced. Of course NASA won't build one..... They have researched the idea but they are focused on developing a man-rated system, not something that can blast lots of mass into orbit at un-survivable rates of acceleration. (Of course their decades-long contracts with the oligopoly that develop and build rockets probably has nothing to do with it. :roll: )

Some of the more liberal estimates claim a powered-rail launch-assist could reduce launch costs as much as 20 times. For now we are stuck with 1940's technology muscling everything into orbit, kind of like using a fully loaded 18-wheeler to deliver pizzas, lol.
User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » May 18, 2015 10:33 pm

It falls upon private industry to produce such a magnetic catapult then... perhaps we can do this right here in Quebec as per the abundance of electricity which could power mega pulses of this stuff..
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » May 23, 2015 11:48 am

The intense weedeater sound is problematic lol

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Fat Tony » May 25, 2015 12:15 pm

Some of the hazards of thorium:

Some of these materials may burn, but most do not ignite
readily. Uranium and Thorium metal cuttings may ignite spontaneously if
exposed to air. Extremely flammable; will ignite itself if exposed to air.
Burns rapidly, releasing dense, white, irritating fumes. Substance may be
transported in a molten form. May re-ignite after fire is extinguished.
Nitrates are oxidizers and may ignite other combustibles. May explode from
heat or contamination. Some may burn rapidly. Some will react explosively
with hydrocarbons (fuels). May ignite combustibles (wood, paper, oil,
clothing, etc.). Containers may explode when heated. Runoff may create fire
or explosion hazard.


http://ibilabs.com/msds/thorium-compoun ... etal-msds/

This is nothing new lots of metals used in military weapons (tanks such as the T62 and maybe the T54 - the most used tank on earth) have intensely flammable metals used in them. Not sure if adding more flammable metals to the mix is a good idea.

Senor moron gets a physics / chemistry lesson:



There is a gentleman living in Okinawa who discovered a Japanese Type 97(?) tank. The tank was in a cave facing the coast. This tank was destroyed by USN counterbattery fire. The ensuing fire in the cave was so intense it melted the steel parts of the tank to the point where it was difficult to recognize and some of the steel was melded into the limestone *contact metamorphism*. Also the fire eventually collapsed the cave. I am not sure if the Type 97 used a lot of magnesium, I am guessing probably not.

Exotic metals in tanks - good idea or not?
eh
User avatar
Fat Tony
Supporter
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 10:39 am
Location: Nova-Scotia

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » Feb 04, 2016 4:57 pm

User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Fat Tony » Feb 13, 2016 7:59 pm

Larry King Interview with futurist FM-2030, circa 1990.



This gentleman was of persian origin. :wink:

Unfortunately, he passed away in 2010, but his ideas remain. I knew nothing of this man until 5 mins ago, but to guess, I would say he put dark thoughts on the: 'not useful' shelf and carried on, which is all you can do really. :mrgreen:

Edit: the printed castle is interesting, but there were quite a few vertical cold joints. At least they looked like cold joints to me.
eh
User avatar
Fat Tony
Supporter
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 10:39 am
Location: Nova-Scotia

Re: Technology of the Day

Postby Americalex » Feb 24, 2016 2:29 am

Amazing progress, they were purchased by Google were they not?



Squads of kickass robot soldiers storming houses in urban warfare against foes like ISIS?
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

PreviousNext

Return to Interests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
cron