How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?What power generation method is the best to sustain a hovering city?How realistic is the power generation depicted in The Legend of Korra?How long can a power plant continue to generate electricity without maintenance by people?Wireless power generation in a fleet of spaceshipsHow could a mammalian body provide substantial electrical power through non-harmful, “passive” means?Wall thickness depending on the building materials usedWhat materials can be used to construct a massive aerially placed quantum random computer?Could charged plasma be used as a working fluid to spin a magnetic turbine to generate electricity?Cryosleep antifreeze, what possible materials could be used?By any scientific/pseudo-scientific means could plasma be used to increase the lifespans of living creatures?
What is the fastest integer factorization to break RSA?
Can I hook these wires up to find the connection to a dead outlet?
How to remove border from elements in the last row?
Do creatures with a listed speed of "0 ft., fly 30 ft. (hover)" ever touch the ground?
Is "/bin/[.exe" a legitimate file? [Cygwin, Windows 10]
Processor speed limited at 0.4 Ghz
How does a dynamic QR code work?
Why were 5.25" floppy drives cheaper than 8"?
What Exploit Are These User Agents Trying to Use?
Car headlights in a world without electricity
Is it possible to create a QR code using text?
Could neural networks be considered metaheuristics?
Finitely generated matrix groups whose eigenvalues are all algebraic
How can I prove that a state of equilibrium is unstable?
How to enclose theorems and definition in rectangles?
Avoiding the "not like other girls" trope?
Mathematica command that allows it to read my intentions
What is the opposite of "eschatology"?
Placement of More Information/Help Icon button for Radio Buttons
What is required to make GPS signals available indoors?
how do we prove that a sum of two periods is still a period?
Bullying boss launched a smear campaign and made me unemployable
Why are UK visa biometrics appointments suspended at USCIS Application Support Centers?
What is an equivalently powerful replacement spell for the Yuan-Ti's Suggestion spell?
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?What power generation method is the best to sustain a hovering city?How realistic is the power generation depicted in The Legend of Korra?How long can a power plant continue to generate electricity without maintenance by people?Wireless power generation in a fleet of spaceshipsHow could a mammalian body provide substantial electrical power through non-harmful, “passive” means?Wall thickness depending on the building materials usedWhat materials can be used to construct a massive aerially placed quantum random computer?Could charged plasma be used as a working fluid to spin a magnetic turbine to generate electricity?Cryosleep antifreeze, what possible materials could be used?By any scientific/pseudo-scientific means could plasma be used to increase the lifespans of living creatures?
$begingroup$
Background:
In this scenario assume technology is initially equal to our own, but a method is discovered to render material indestructible. The affected material is treated as requiring infinite or arbitrarily high amounts of energy to break any of its bonds whether they be nuclear or chemical (this does mean a previously radioactive material will no longer be able to decay).
Indestructible material can deform provided this wouldn't require breaking bonds or stretching them beyond what would have been possible for the starting material.
The process to make something indestructible costs hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter affected so answers should be limited to scenarios where using such an expensive material makes financial sense. Making an object indestructible involves placing it in a sealed reaction chamber and applying the Mcguffin effect to everything within, so you can't make only part of a contiguous object indestructible.
The process to make a material indestructible can be applied to any substance, provided you can get it in a sealed reaction chamber long enough to flip the switch. The effects on things like gases and liquids are somewhat variable and require thinking about things on a molecular level. For instance liquid water forms hydrogen bonds between molecules. So once it is made indestructible those bonds will no longer be able to break turning it into something akin to non-crystalline ice.
While this process does make any pre existing bonds unbreakable, it doesn't necessarily forbid indestructible material from forming new bonds (though these new bonds wouldn't be unbreakable). Additionally the bonds made unbreakable here are those within nuclei (and smaller constituents) and the chemical bonds within atoms. However electrons not engaged in a chemical bond can still be move around or be lost normally.
My Question: So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?
At the very least though I'd imagine there's great utility for power generation in taking advantage of this Mcguffin's ability to easily contain extreme pressures indefinitely (emitting energy through radiation, heat emitted by the vessel and light if the vessel is transparent).
science-based technology physics chemistry power-sources
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Background:
In this scenario assume technology is initially equal to our own, but a method is discovered to render material indestructible. The affected material is treated as requiring infinite or arbitrarily high amounts of energy to break any of its bonds whether they be nuclear or chemical (this does mean a previously radioactive material will no longer be able to decay).
Indestructible material can deform provided this wouldn't require breaking bonds or stretching them beyond what would have been possible for the starting material.
The process to make something indestructible costs hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter affected so answers should be limited to scenarios where using such an expensive material makes financial sense. Making an object indestructible involves placing it in a sealed reaction chamber and applying the Mcguffin effect to everything within, so you can't make only part of a contiguous object indestructible.
The process to make a material indestructible can be applied to any substance, provided you can get it in a sealed reaction chamber long enough to flip the switch. The effects on things like gases and liquids are somewhat variable and require thinking about things on a molecular level. For instance liquid water forms hydrogen bonds between molecules. So once it is made indestructible those bonds will no longer be able to break turning it into something akin to non-crystalline ice.
While this process does make any pre existing bonds unbreakable, it doesn't necessarily forbid indestructible material from forming new bonds (though these new bonds wouldn't be unbreakable). Additionally the bonds made unbreakable here are those within nuclei (and smaller constituents) and the chemical bonds within atoms. However electrons not engaged in a chemical bond can still be move around or be lost normally.
My Question: So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?
At the very least though I'd imagine there's great utility for power generation in taking advantage of this Mcguffin's ability to easily contain extreme pressures indefinitely (emitting energy through radiation, heat emitted by the vessel and light if the vessel is transparent).
science-based technology physics chemistry power-sources
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What are the properties of the material? For instance, it's thermo-conductive and electro-conductive properties? If it transfers heat well then one could simply dig a deep hole put in a rod of the stuff using the heat from below the earth to boil water and run a steam turbine.
$endgroup$
– Rob
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Rob The properties of the material are mostly the same as they were before it was made indestructible. The main difference is just that you can't cause any bonds within the material to break. So if you applied the process to say silver it should retain its conductivity.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
This question is a successful graduate of the Sandbox.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Does this process work on fluids? That is, if I put a fluid in the reaction chamber and push the button, do I get a substance that is always a fluid, irrespective of temperature and pressure? If it does, can I split the fluid into multiple containers, or is it forced to stay in one continuous mass?
$endgroup$
– asgallant
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Isn't electricity the flow of electrons through a material? How can it conduct electricity if electrons cannot flow from atom to atom? Are the electrons able to be excited by photons, meaning certain photons are absorbed and then re-emitted at the same or different frequency or vibration?
$endgroup$
– Tracy Cramer
1 hour ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Background:
In this scenario assume technology is initially equal to our own, but a method is discovered to render material indestructible. The affected material is treated as requiring infinite or arbitrarily high amounts of energy to break any of its bonds whether they be nuclear or chemical (this does mean a previously radioactive material will no longer be able to decay).
Indestructible material can deform provided this wouldn't require breaking bonds or stretching them beyond what would have been possible for the starting material.
The process to make something indestructible costs hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter affected so answers should be limited to scenarios where using such an expensive material makes financial sense. Making an object indestructible involves placing it in a sealed reaction chamber and applying the Mcguffin effect to everything within, so you can't make only part of a contiguous object indestructible.
The process to make a material indestructible can be applied to any substance, provided you can get it in a sealed reaction chamber long enough to flip the switch. The effects on things like gases and liquids are somewhat variable and require thinking about things on a molecular level. For instance liquid water forms hydrogen bonds between molecules. So once it is made indestructible those bonds will no longer be able to break turning it into something akin to non-crystalline ice.
While this process does make any pre existing bonds unbreakable, it doesn't necessarily forbid indestructible material from forming new bonds (though these new bonds wouldn't be unbreakable). Additionally the bonds made unbreakable here are those within nuclei (and smaller constituents) and the chemical bonds within atoms. However electrons not engaged in a chemical bond can still be move around or be lost normally.
My Question: So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?
At the very least though I'd imagine there's great utility for power generation in taking advantage of this Mcguffin's ability to easily contain extreme pressures indefinitely (emitting energy through radiation, heat emitted by the vessel and light if the vessel is transparent).
science-based technology physics chemistry power-sources
$endgroup$
Background:
In this scenario assume technology is initially equal to our own, but a method is discovered to render material indestructible. The affected material is treated as requiring infinite or arbitrarily high amounts of energy to break any of its bonds whether they be nuclear or chemical (this does mean a previously radioactive material will no longer be able to decay).
Indestructible material can deform provided this wouldn't require breaking bonds or stretching them beyond what would have been possible for the starting material.
The process to make something indestructible costs hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter affected so answers should be limited to scenarios where using such an expensive material makes financial sense. Making an object indestructible involves placing it in a sealed reaction chamber and applying the Mcguffin effect to everything within, so you can't make only part of a contiguous object indestructible.
The process to make a material indestructible can be applied to any substance, provided you can get it in a sealed reaction chamber long enough to flip the switch. The effects on things like gases and liquids are somewhat variable and require thinking about things on a molecular level. For instance liquid water forms hydrogen bonds between molecules. So once it is made indestructible those bonds will no longer be able to break turning it into something akin to non-crystalline ice.
While this process does make any pre existing bonds unbreakable, it doesn't necessarily forbid indestructible material from forming new bonds (though these new bonds wouldn't be unbreakable). Additionally the bonds made unbreakable here are those within nuclei (and smaller constituents) and the chemical bonds within atoms. However electrons not engaged in a chemical bond can still be move around or be lost normally.
My Question: So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?
At the very least though I'd imagine there's great utility for power generation in taking advantage of this Mcguffin's ability to easily contain extreme pressures indefinitely (emitting energy through radiation, heat emitted by the vessel and light if the vessel is transparent).
science-based technology physics chemistry power-sources
science-based technology physics chemistry power-sources
edited 1 hour ago
Vakus Drake
asked 6 hours ago
Vakus DrakeVakus Drake
885928
885928
$begingroup$
What are the properties of the material? For instance, it's thermo-conductive and electro-conductive properties? If it transfers heat well then one could simply dig a deep hole put in a rod of the stuff using the heat from below the earth to boil water and run a steam turbine.
$endgroup$
– Rob
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Rob The properties of the material are mostly the same as they were before it was made indestructible. The main difference is just that you can't cause any bonds within the material to break. So if you applied the process to say silver it should retain its conductivity.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
This question is a successful graduate of the Sandbox.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Does this process work on fluids? That is, if I put a fluid in the reaction chamber and push the button, do I get a substance that is always a fluid, irrespective of temperature and pressure? If it does, can I split the fluid into multiple containers, or is it forced to stay in one continuous mass?
$endgroup$
– asgallant
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Isn't electricity the flow of electrons through a material? How can it conduct electricity if electrons cannot flow from atom to atom? Are the electrons able to be excited by photons, meaning certain photons are absorbed and then re-emitted at the same or different frequency or vibration?
$endgroup$
– Tracy Cramer
1 hour ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
What are the properties of the material? For instance, it's thermo-conductive and electro-conductive properties? If it transfers heat well then one could simply dig a deep hole put in a rod of the stuff using the heat from below the earth to boil water and run a steam turbine.
$endgroup$
– Rob
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Rob The properties of the material are mostly the same as they were before it was made indestructible. The main difference is just that you can't cause any bonds within the material to break. So if you applied the process to say silver it should retain its conductivity.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
This question is a successful graduate of the Sandbox.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Does this process work on fluids? That is, if I put a fluid in the reaction chamber and push the button, do I get a substance that is always a fluid, irrespective of temperature and pressure? If it does, can I split the fluid into multiple containers, or is it forced to stay in one continuous mass?
$endgroup$
– asgallant
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Isn't electricity the flow of electrons through a material? How can it conduct electricity if electrons cannot flow from atom to atom? Are the electrons able to be excited by photons, meaning certain photons are absorbed and then re-emitted at the same or different frequency or vibration?
$endgroup$
– Tracy Cramer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What are the properties of the material? For instance, it's thermo-conductive and electro-conductive properties? If it transfers heat well then one could simply dig a deep hole put in a rod of the stuff using the heat from below the earth to boil water and run a steam turbine.
$endgroup$
– Rob
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What are the properties of the material? For instance, it's thermo-conductive and electro-conductive properties? If it transfers heat well then one could simply dig a deep hole put in a rod of the stuff using the heat from below the earth to boil water and run a steam turbine.
$endgroup$
– Rob
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Rob The properties of the material are mostly the same as they were before it was made indestructible. The main difference is just that you can't cause any bonds within the material to break. So if you applied the process to say silver it should retain its conductivity.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rob The properties of the material are mostly the same as they were before it was made indestructible. The main difference is just that you can't cause any bonds within the material to break. So if you applied the process to say silver it should retain its conductivity.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
This question is a successful graduate of the Sandbox.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
This question is a successful graduate of the Sandbox.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Does this process work on fluids? That is, if I put a fluid in the reaction chamber and push the button, do I get a substance that is always a fluid, irrespective of temperature and pressure? If it does, can I split the fluid into multiple containers, or is it forced to stay in one continuous mass?
$endgroup$
– asgallant
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Does this process work on fluids? That is, if I put a fluid in the reaction chamber and push the button, do I get a substance that is always a fluid, irrespective of temperature and pressure? If it does, can I split the fluid into multiple containers, or is it forced to stay in one continuous mass?
$endgroup$
– asgallant
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Isn't electricity the flow of electrons through a material? How can it conduct electricity if electrons cannot flow from atom to atom? Are the electrons able to be excited by photons, meaning certain photons are absorbed and then re-emitted at the same or different frequency or vibration?
$endgroup$
– Tracy Cramer
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Isn't electricity the flow of electrons through a material? How can it conduct electricity if electrons cannot flow from atom to atom? Are the electrons able to be excited by photons, meaning certain photons are absorbed and then re-emitted at the same or different frequency or vibration?
$endgroup$
– Tracy Cramer
1 hour ago
|
show 5 more comments
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Easy Peasy. Fusion reactors.
The primary challenge involved with fusion power is maintaining containment, which is a big challenge given the pressures and temperatures involved. I've included a link below, but here's the important bit:
"Not only will the neutrons deposit energy in the blanket material, but their impact will convert atoms in the wall and blanket into radioactive forms. Materials will be needed that can extract heat effectively while surviving the neutron-induced structural weakening for extended periods of time."
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/challenges/fusion.aspx
The TLDR is that currently a PHYSICAL containment solution is impossible, requiring magnetic solutions that suck up most, if not ALL of the power being generated. Your Macguffin would solve this neatly, allowing a simple machined or cast sphere to be turned into a perfect containment vessel for a fusion powerplant of pretty much any size you need.
EDIT: Now that I'm thinking about it, it'd be a good solution for FISSION reactors as well, since a reactor vessel macguffin'd in the manner you describe wouldn't lose containment in a runaway nuclear reaction. The core could still melt down, but it'd stay in the reactor vessel. Your reactor would be destroyed, but it couldn't irradiate the entire powerplant ala Chernobyl or Fukushima.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't work
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake weird... try now?
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah it works now, you just left the /fusion.aspx off the link at first
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Note that meltdowns in an indestructable crucible might be considered a feature not a failure... if you don't have to worry about your fuel elements remaining solid, you can run them at a much higher temperature, which is great for a thermal powerplant.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'd like to note that you'd still technically have to use a magnetic field to suspend your indestructible containment device in, since it presumably still conducts heat, and thus would get hot enough to melt whatever you put it on top of. However, the containment device would turn the problem of containing plasma at ridiculous pressures into a problem of suspending a solid in midair, which is a far easier task.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Nuclear pressure containment is a good method.
Nukes have to be held together to make fission continue for as long as possible. If you hold 20 critical masses together for a full second, you'd generate the largest nuclear explosion ever made by humans.
With indestructible materials, you could hold them together for an hour. At those high energies, there are all sorts of effects that release even more energy.
Make a box out of indestructinum. Put a nuclear bomb in it. Detonate and let it build up fusion-capable pressure. Slowly vent it out to generate power. If your material conducts heat, put it in a very effective cooling system and generate power reactor-style.
Alternatively, vent it out quickly in the direction of someone rich until they give you what you want.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Superb answer, wish I'd thought of it. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't want to ellaborate on it, but you could as well use it in a Dyson sphere enclosing a star (or at least orbiting it)
$endgroup$
– Filipe Nicoli
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Energy storage.
If you can spin a flywheel to relativistic speeds on indestructible bearings using electromagnets (in vacuum), then you can use that flywheel as a lossless energy storage device.
Wikipedia 2019 - CCSA License
The energy density would be infinite (or limited by the unspecified arbitrary high amounts of energy in the question) - thus you would need a microscopic minuscule amount, a nano-flywheel mounted on gimbals - radically reducing the price per flywheel and opening it up to mass marketing, totally outclassing all battery tech available today.
Not only the obvious solution to the supply and demand issues with windpower, but for vehicles - cars/planes, phones, power-tools, toys, mobile phones and of course space exploration.
Infinite energy storage in the size of a grain of sand.
Miniature Tactical Nuke:
Of course, this section is about political power generation.
To release all that energy in one instant - perhaps an object charged with just below the threshold of it's (unspecified arbitrary potential energy) capacity, could be placed near an enemy stronghold and fed that last few joules of energy to tip it over the edge, that's the dark side, someone will find a way to weaponise it for sure, if not the leader of some isolationist sanctioned state, then a disaffected teenager.
Power of a civilisation through time travel.
Speculatively: Also it would have potential to enable time travel or at least the potential to send messages back in time as it would exhibit frame dragging. For a few hints on how this could be of tactical use see this answer to another question.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the "Hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter" criteria excludes your disaffected teenagers. =P
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't really understand how you propose to use this to violate causality since the indestructible material isn't made perfectly rigid (so you can't push/pull on one end of an indestructible rod and have the other end move instantly). Also being indestructible isn't going to make the pivots perfectly frictionless, so you're still going to be losing some energy to heat in your flywheels.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake Quite right, I've no Idea how causality violation would work, I'll edit to clear-up the bearings thing too.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I forsee a couple of issues... 1. charging up a micro flywheel to silly levels is going to require silly hardware (eg. enormous lasers or particle beams) which tend to be silly inefficient. Useful for specialist purposes, not for general purpose. 2. Indestructable does not imply frictionless. 3. extracting large amounts of energy at a useful rate from a miniature flywheel is going to be technically awkward...
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
bearings, +1. This is a question of what the wear parts are for every type of power plant ever made. Next would be turbine blades, some of which are already so big that if you stop spinning them they can break or deform under their own weight.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
For a more nerdy approach, you could build indestructible turbines.
(Disclaimer: My memories of thermodynamics are fading in the mists of time, so feel free to blast me in the comments if I'm wrong).
I remember that in thermal power generation (where water is heathed into steam, whose energy is used to move a turbine), they were forced to limit the calor of the steam in output from the turbine, thus reducing the efficiency (basically, the colder the exiting steam, the better the efficiency).
The reason was that if the water steam was allowed to cool too much, it would condensate and create water droplets that would move so fast to act as bullets, damaging the turbine.
But an indestructible turbine could easily withstand this scenario, thus allowing for exploiting all the energy of the steam and generating more power.
Of course it is necessary to evaluate if the increase in efficiency is enough to compensate for the higher cost of the indestructible turbine.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Construction
A thin, unbreakable wire added to dam wall construction, would allow dams to be built cheaper, thinner, stronger and higher.
A unbreakable foil added to the overflow means it would never wear out and need replacing
Large dams for energy generation cost from twenty to thirty billion dollars so an extra cost of a couple of hundred million to make it unbreakable would easily be offset by the less concrete and steel needed not to mention to maintenance costs down the track plus the safety of an unbreakable wall.
If you want next level power generation may I present
The Space Elevator
A thin unbreakable wire running to an orbital platform with a twin on the moon, would allow the efficient harvest of He3 from the lunar surface which could power fusion reactors around the world.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While the fusion power example is the most practical, you can connect a massive solar collector in orbit to the ground via an indestructible fibre-optic cable, and send a laser pulse down the cable to a boiler powering a steam turbine. As a bonus, since the cable is indestructible, you could use it to tether a space elevator, and get cheap rides to orbit.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sometimes the smallest thing has the largest impact
Do you know how much wire you can extrude from a cubic meter of copper when you can trust it to be indestructible?1
Indestructible insulating enamel + indestructible conductive wire = the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
When was the last time you opened a power supply, motor housing, generator, or anything using inductive windings, and found the transformer/motor/coil burned out. For me, it was last week (literally, it was last week). If you could make both the wire used in the windings and the enamel used to coat the wires indestructible, what you would have is the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
Yeah, but this stuff is expensive
Which is why it would make sense for large items, like turbine-style power generators where the limit to the electricity you're generating is suddenly the mechanical stress limits of the linkages and not the heat-generating characteristics of the coils. Better still, indestructible windings and enamel means you can make the coils incredibly dense — and as coil density increases, so does power output. Your efficiency might actually approach unity. Imagine a wire that is no longer a fuse if too much power is put through it. There is no longer too much power, the limitation is literally the speed electrons can be induced to move through the wire.
And if you expand to power utilization, the applications become … impressive
Miniature motors that can turn the propellers on a submarine? Dock 6. Full-size motors that push submarines at tsunami-creating speeds? Dock 2. Car alternators the size of your thumb? Aisle 14. A Dremel the size of a pencil? Aisle 1. An electric car that actually works climbing the Rockies? The display arrives next week. A residential wind turbine that actually powers an entire house? We have on the roof, you can see it as you enter the building.
The process may be expensive, but the material requirements (in terms of how much you need) drop like a rock when you can trust the wire and enamel to be indestructible. The process of making things indestructible would benefit almost any application at any price. A steam boiler the size of a Buick enjoying such high pressure that it can pull a mile-long train? On display by the front counter.
Disclaimer: at hundreds of millions of dollars per-cubic-meter there it is unlikely that any application is worth it. Unless you can jack the price through the roof, the cost recovery time at that price relegates the material to use (not necessarily power generation) in remote locations (like space) where repair costs even more. A spaceship hull would be worth that price. I frankly can't imagine any power generation/utilization solution that ever would. Not even fusion. The cost of using something less capable would be so much more economical that such a solution would only happen as a test, never a commercial solution. So, a frame challenge concerning the price.
1 A cubic meter of copper weighs 8,930 Kg. 40 Gauge wire weighs 0.04454 grams/meter for 200,490.6 Kilometers of wire. That's enough wire to wrap the equator 5 times.2 And you might be able to use thinner wire than that. It's a lot of honking wire.
2 Of course, the wire is indestructible. If you wrapped the equator just once and tied the two ends to space ships, assuming a reasonable amount of thrust, could you garrote the world in half? It gets the mind wondering, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Unfortunately you can't make complex machines out of this material. In the question it states that the material can deform but cannot break. So for example, gears under a lot of stress are going to mush themselves into useless circles. Valves won't break but they will leak, a lot. The list goes on.
$endgroup$
– Muuski
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I think your disclaimer might be hedging your bets a little more than necessary. After all plenty of valuable objects like reactors, military jets, etc already cost billions of dollars. Plus the only real limit on how little material you can get away with is how much flexibility you can tolerate.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Muuski I said the chemical bonds couldn't stretch any more than they could in the original material before breaking. So if your starting material couldn't deform very much without breaking, then the indestructible version can't either.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake re: can't deform too much, so would that mean no extrusion? since you are literally deforming a block of copper into wire. If you make it as thin as you normally can, then make it indistructable, that would be great, but not like JBH is saying. If you process the block, then you just can't extrude it anymore according to your last comment here
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
57 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Yeah that would mean no extrusion once you've already made a material indestructible. So you do need to get the material into the shape you want before you make it indestructible. That being said you can still make the material as thin as you want before you make it indestructible provided it just barely holds together.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
53 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
"So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?"
Well, if you could make copper indestructible then you could use it as I mentioned in my comment. Simply dig a very deep hole and place a copper rod in it. The heat at the bottom of the hole would conduct through the rod to boil water at ground level. The boiling water would be used in a convention steam turbine and BAM nearly infinite free and clean energy. The only reason we don't already do this is because copper would melt at the temperatures needed to get enough heat conducting through the rod to boil water on the other end. That and it would be very hard to dig a hole that deep because all the drill bits would melt but since we can make indestructible drill bits, it should be no problem... heck, we could reach the core with indestructible material.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think you need to work on the logistics of that idea a bit more (though I can see some variation of it working): The copper rod would conduct heat to the surrounding stone so little heat would make it all the way to the surface, and magma can only conduct heat into/through the copper rod so quickly placing limits on power generation (especially given indestructible material is pretty expensive).
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Vakus Drake Sure, agreed but people are already trying to do this with graphene because of its unique ability to conduct heat. You could surround the copper with a less thermal conductive material to reduce heat transfer to the surrounding rock. Copper conducts heat very well and very fast. See for yourself, grab a piece, hold one end in your fingers and put a lighter to the other end. You can boil water with a blow torch and a copper rod.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake In reality I wouldn't worry too much about logistics or details because an indestructible material would take an infinite amount of energy just to exist.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake copper is more conductive than rock, so while it WOULD transfer into the rock, most would come all the way up the rod. Then you just have the rod branch down into basically a net in the water to maximize heat transfer there. With the limits of a rod, simply bury more. I wouldn't call it infinite, but it would definitely seem that way for quite some time
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
55 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Much more heat will transfer into the adjacent portion of copper pipe than into the rock, however we're still talking about miles of piping here. Plus given the extreme cost of the material you want the pipe to be quite thin, which further reduces how much heat is transferred along its length.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
49 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Jet engine turbine blades
The limit in turbine efficiency (and why jet engines keep getting better and higher-bypass, but sloooowly) is the thermal limits of the first-stage (right behind the combustor) turbine blades. Evolution is waiting on new material-ally tech and more extreme methods of cooling(already pretty extreme and energy-robbing).
If you can make the first two stages out of indetructium, as well as a few combustor-area components that would be hard to airstream-cool, you can keep pushing up the efficiency of the engines. Now you have 20:1 or 30:1 bypass. Turboprop sub-chaser maritime patrol aircraft that can stay on station for 48 hours. Over on the ship-propulsion or terrestrial power generation side, you have ships with more range between tankers, and power plants with lower smog and cheaper power from natural gas and petroleum. It would be the deathknell of coal.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At a minimum, if you replaced all your ball bearings with indestructible bearings, you'd be a long way towards better energy production.
Many generators in the energy industry have to be tore down periodically to have their bearings and fins/rotors replaced. Never having to do this will save that cost, including labor and the energy production to cover the "down" generator.
In fact, making the entire generator out of these indestructible materials would be a major boost. Hydroelectric dams could run at any speed, same with the huge windmills. (Ever seen a windmill with a failed break mechanism break up? YouTube that if you want to cringe.)
As much as the new forms of energy production suggested by other answers would help, simply replacing the mechanisms of the existing system would help considerably. This might be a lower investment level to get poor countries more power.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143057%2fhow-could-indestructible-materials-be-used-in-power-generation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
10 Answers
10
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Easy Peasy. Fusion reactors.
The primary challenge involved with fusion power is maintaining containment, which is a big challenge given the pressures and temperatures involved. I've included a link below, but here's the important bit:
"Not only will the neutrons deposit energy in the blanket material, but their impact will convert atoms in the wall and blanket into radioactive forms. Materials will be needed that can extract heat effectively while surviving the neutron-induced structural weakening for extended periods of time."
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/challenges/fusion.aspx
The TLDR is that currently a PHYSICAL containment solution is impossible, requiring magnetic solutions that suck up most, if not ALL of the power being generated. Your Macguffin would solve this neatly, allowing a simple machined or cast sphere to be turned into a perfect containment vessel for a fusion powerplant of pretty much any size you need.
EDIT: Now that I'm thinking about it, it'd be a good solution for FISSION reactors as well, since a reactor vessel macguffin'd in the manner you describe wouldn't lose containment in a runaway nuclear reaction. The core could still melt down, but it'd stay in the reactor vessel. Your reactor would be destroyed, but it couldn't irradiate the entire powerplant ala Chernobyl or Fukushima.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't work
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake weird... try now?
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah it works now, you just left the /fusion.aspx off the link at first
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Note that meltdowns in an indestructable crucible might be considered a feature not a failure... if you don't have to worry about your fuel elements remaining solid, you can run them at a much higher temperature, which is great for a thermal powerplant.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'd like to note that you'd still technically have to use a magnetic field to suspend your indestructible containment device in, since it presumably still conducts heat, and thus would get hot enough to melt whatever you put it on top of. However, the containment device would turn the problem of containing plasma at ridiculous pressures into a problem of suspending a solid in midair, which is a far easier task.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Easy Peasy. Fusion reactors.
The primary challenge involved with fusion power is maintaining containment, which is a big challenge given the pressures and temperatures involved. I've included a link below, but here's the important bit:
"Not only will the neutrons deposit energy in the blanket material, but their impact will convert atoms in the wall and blanket into radioactive forms. Materials will be needed that can extract heat effectively while surviving the neutron-induced structural weakening for extended periods of time."
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/challenges/fusion.aspx
The TLDR is that currently a PHYSICAL containment solution is impossible, requiring magnetic solutions that suck up most, if not ALL of the power being generated. Your Macguffin would solve this neatly, allowing a simple machined or cast sphere to be turned into a perfect containment vessel for a fusion powerplant of pretty much any size you need.
EDIT: Now that I'm thinking about it, it'd be a good solution for FISSION reactors as well, since a reactor vessel macguffin'd in the manner you describe wouldn't lose containment in a runaway nuclear reaction. The core could still melt down, but it'd stay in the reactor vessel. Your reactor would be destroyed, but it couldn't irradiate the entire powerplant ala Chernobyl or Fukushima.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't work
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake weird... try now?
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah it works now, you just left the /fusion.aspx off the link at first
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Note that meltdowns in an indestructable crucible might be considered a feature not a failure... if you don't have to worry about your fuel elements remaining solid, you can run them at a much higher temperature, which is great for a thermal powerplant.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'd like to note that you'd still technically have to use a magnetic field to suspend your indestructible containment device in, since it presumably still conducts heat, and thus would get hot enough to melt whatever you put it on top of. However, the containment device would turn the problem of containing plasma at ridiculous pressures into a problem of suspending a solid in midair, which is a far easier task.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Easy Peasy. Fusion reactors.
The primary challenge involved with fusion power is maintaining containment, which is a big challenge given the pressures and temperatures involved. I've included a link below, but here's the important bit:
"Not only will the neutrons deposit energy in the blanket material, but their impact will convert atoms in the wall and blanket into radioactive forms. Materials will be needed that can extract heat effectively while surviving the neutron-induced structural weakening for extended periods of time."
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/challenges/fusion.aspx
The TLDR is that currently a PHYSICAL containment solution is impossible, requiring magnetic solutions that suck up most, if not ALL of the power being generated. Your Macguffin would solve this neatly, allowing a simple machined or cast sphere to be turned into a perfect containment vessel for a fusion powerplant of pretty much any size you need.
EDIT: Now that I'm thinking about it, it'd be a good solution for FISSION reactors as well, since a reactor vessel macguffin'd in the manner you describe wouldn't lose containment in a runaway nuclear reaction. The core could still melt down, but it'd stay in the reactor vessel. Your reactor would be destroyed, but it couldn't irradiate the entire powerplant ala Chernobyl or Fukushima.
$endgroup$
Easy Peasy. Fusion reactors.
The primary challenge involved with fusion power is maintaining containment, which is a big challenge given the pressures and temperatures involved. I've included a link below, but here's the important bit:
"Not only will the neutrons deposit energy in the blanket material, but their impact will convert atoms in the wall and blanket into radioactive forms. Materials will be needed that can extract heat effectively while surviving the neutron-induced structural weakening for extended periods of time."
http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/challenges/fusion.aspx
The TLDR is that currently a PHYSICAL containment solution is impossible, requiring magnetic solutions that suck up most, if not ALL of the power being generated. Your Macguffin would solve this neatly, allowing a simple machined or cast sphere to be turned into a perfect containment vessel for a fusion powerplant of pretty much any size you need.
EDIT: Now that I'm thinking about it, it'd be a good solution for FISSION reactors as well, since a reactor vessel macguffin'd in the manner you describe wouldn't lose containment in a runaway nuclear reaction. The core could still melt down, but it'd stay in the reactor vessel. Your reactor would be destroyed, but it couldn't irradiate the entire powerplant ala Chernobyl or Fukushima.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
Morris The CatMorris The Cat
3,354521
3,354521
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't work
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake weird... try now?
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah it works now, you just left the /fusion.aspx off the link at first
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Note that meltdowns in an indestructable crucible might be considered a feature not a failure... if you don't have to worry about your fuel elements remaining solid, you can run them at a much higher temperature, which is great for a thermal powerplant.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'd like to note that you'd still technically have to use a magnetic field to suspend your indestructible containment device in, since it presumably still conducts heat, and thus would get hot enough to melt whatever you put it on top of. However, the containment device would turn the problem of containing plasma at ridiculous pressures into a problem of suspending a solid in midair, which is a far easier task.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't work
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake weird... try now?
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah it works now, you just left the /fusion.aspx off the link at first
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Note that meltdowns in an indestructable crucible might be considered a feature not a failure... if you don't have to worry about your fuel elements remaining solid, you can run them at a much higher temperature, which is great for a thermal powerplant.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
I'd like to note that you'd still technically have to use a magnetic field to suspend your indestructible containment device in, since it presumably still conducts heat, and thus would get hot enough to melt whatever you put it on top of. However, the containment device would turn the problem of containing plasma at ridiculous pressures into a problem of suspending a solid in midair, which is a far easier task.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't work
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't work
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake weird... try now?
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake weird... try now?
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah it works now, you just left the /fusion.aspx off the link at first
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah it works now, you just left the /fusion.aspx off the link at first
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
6 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Note that meltdowns in an indestructable crucible might be considered a feature not a failure... if you don't have to worry about your fuel elements remaining solid, you can run them at a much higher temperature, which is great for a thermal powerplant.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Note that meltdowns in an indestructable crucible might be considered a feature not a failure... if you don't have to worry about your fuel elements remaining solid, you can run them at a much higher temperature, which is great for a thermal powerplant.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
I'd like to note that you'd still technically have to use a magnetic field to suspend your indestructible containment device in, since it presumably still conducts heat, and thus would get hot enough to melt whatever you put it on top of. However, the containment device would turn the problem of containing plasma at ridiculous pressures into a problem of suspending a solid in midair, which is a far easier task.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'd like to note that you'd still technically have to use a magnetic field to suspend your indestructible containment device in, since it presumably still conducts heat, and thus would get hot enough to melt whatever you put it on top of. However, the containment device would turn the problem of containing plasma at ridiculous pressures into a problem of suspending a solid in midair, which is a far easier task.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
4 hours ago
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Nuclear pressure containment is a good method.
Nukes have to be held together to make fission continue for as long as possible. If you hold 20 critical masses together for a full second, you'd generate the largest nuclear explosion ever made by humans.
With indestructible materials, you could hold them together for an hour. At those high energies, there are all sorts of effects that release even more energy.
Make a box out of indestructinum. Put a nuclear bomb in it. Detonate and let it build up fusion-capable pressure. Slowly vent it out to generate power. If your material conducts heat, put it in a very effective cooling system and generate power reactor-style.
Alternatively, vent it out quickly in the direction of someone rich until they give you what you want.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Superb answer, wish I'd thought of it. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't want to ellaborate on it, but you could as well use it in a Dyson sphere enclosing a star (or at least orbiting it)
$endgroup$
– Filipe Nicoli
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Nuclear pressure containment is a good method.
Nukes have to be held together to make fission continue for as long as possible. If you hold 20 critical masses together for a full second, you'd generate the largest nuclear explosion ever made by humans.
With indestructible materials, you could hold them together for an hour. At those high energies, there are all sorts of effects that release even more energy.
Make a box out of indestructinum. Put a nuclear bomb in it. Detonate and let it build up fusion-capable pressure. Slowly vent it out to generate power. If your material conducts heat, put it in a very effective cooling system and generate power reactor-style.
Alternatively, vent it out quickly in the direction of someone rich until they give you what you want.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Superb answer, wish I'd thought of it. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't want to ellaborate on it, but you could as well use it in a Dyson sphere enclosing a star (or at least orbiting it)
$endgroup$
– Filipe Nicoli
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Nuclear pressure containment is a good method.
Nukes have to be held together to make fission continue for as long as possible. If you hold 20 critical masses together for a full second, you'd generate the largest nuclear explosion ever made by humans.
With indestructible materials, you could hold them together for an hour. At those high energies, there are all sorts of effects that release even more energy.
Make a box out of indestructinum. Put a nuclear bomb in it. Detonate and let it build up fusion-capable pressure. Slowly vent it out to generate power. If your material conducts heat, put it in a very effective cooling system and generate power reactor-style.
Alternatively, vent it out quickly in the direction of someone rich until they give you what you want.
$endgroup$
Nuclear pressure containment is a good method.
Nukes have to be held together to make fission continue for as long as possible. If you hold 20 critical masses together for a full second, you'd generate the largest nuclear explosion ever made by humans.
With indestructible materials, you could hold them together for an hour. At those high energies, there are all sorts of effects that release even more energy.
Make a box out of indestructinum. Put a nuclear bomb in it. Detonate and let it build up fusion-capable pressure. Slowly vent it out to generate power. If your material conducts heat, put it in a very effective cooling system and generate power reactor-style.
Alternatively, vent it out quickly in the direction of someone rich until they give you what you want.
answered 4 hours ago
Adrian HallAdrian Hall
1,357114
1,357114
1
$begingroup$
Superb answer, wish I'd thought of it. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't want to ellaborate on it, but you could as well use it in a Dyson sphere enclosing a star (or at least orbiting it)
$endgroup$
– Filipe Nicoli
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Superb answer, wish I'd thought of it. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't want to ellaborate on it, but you could as well use it in a Dyson sphere enclosing a star (or at least orbiting it)
$endgroup$
– Filipe Nicoli
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Superb answer, wish I'd thought of it. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Superb answer, wish I'd thought of it. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't want to ellaborate on it, but you could as well use it in a Dyson sphere enclosing a star (or at least orbiting it)
$endgroup$
– Filipe Nicoli
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't want to ellaborate on it, but you could as well use it in a Dyson sphere enclosing a star (or at least orbiting it)
$endgroup$
– Filipe Nicoli
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Energy storage.
If you can spin a flywheel to relativistic speeds on indestructible bearings using electromagnets (in vacuum), then you can use that flywheel as a lossless energy storage device.
Wikipedia 2019 - CCSA License
The energy density would be infinite (or limited by the unspecified arbitrary high amounts of energy in the question) - thus you would need a microscopic minuscule amount, a nano-flywheel mounted on gimbals - radically reducing the price per flywheel and opening it up to mass marketing, totally outclassing all battery tech available today.
Not only the obvious solution to the supply and demand issues with windpower, but for vehicles - cars/planes, phones, power-tools, toys, mobile phones and of course space exploration.
Infinite energy storage in the size of a grain of sand.
Miniature Tactical Nuke:
Of course, this section is about political power generation.
To release all that energy in one instant - perhaps an object charged with just below the threshold of it's (unspecified arbitrary potential energy) capacity, could be placed near an enemy stronghold and fed that last few joules of energy to tip it over the edge, that's the dark side, someone will find a way to weaponise it for sure, if not the leader of some isolationist sanctioned state, then a disaffected teenager.
Power of a civilisation through time travel.
Speculatively: Also it would have potential to enable time travel or at least the potential to send messages back in time as it would exhibit frame dragging. For a few hints on how this could be of tactical use see this answer to another question.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the "Hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter" criteria excludes your disaffected teenagers. =P
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't really understand how you propose to use this to violate causality since the indestructible material isn't made perfectly rigid (so you can't push/pull on one end of an indestructible rod and have the other end move instantly). Also being indestructible isn't going to make the pivots perfectly frictionless, so you're still going to be losing some energy to heat in your flywheels.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake Quite right, I've no Idea how causality violation would work, I'll edit to clear-up the bearings thing too.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I forsee a couple of issues... 1. charging up a micro flywheel to silly levels is going to require silly hardware (eg. enormous lasers or particle beams) which tend to be silly inefficient. Useful for specialist purposes, not for general purpose. 2. Indestructable does not imply frictionless. 3. extracting large amounts of energy at a useful rate from a miniature flywheel is going to be technically awkward...
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
bearings, +1. This is a question of what the wear parts are for every type of power plant ever made. Next would be turbine blades, some of which are already so big that if you stop spinning them they can break or deform under their own weight.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Energy storage.
If you can spin a flywheel to relativistic speeds on indestructible bearings using electromagnets (in vacuum), then you can use that flywheel as a lossless energy storage device.
Wikipedia 2019 - CCSA License
The energy density would be infinite (or limited by the unspecified arbitrary high amounts of energy in the question) - thus you would need a microscopic minuscule amount, a nano-flywheel mounted on gimbals - radically reducing the price per flywheel and opening it up to mass marketing, totally outclassing all battery tech available today.
Not only the obvious solution to the supply and demand issues with windpower, but for vehicles - cars/planes, phones, power-tools, toys, mobile phones and of course space exploration.
Infinite energy storage in the size of a grain of sand.
Miniature Tactical Nuke:
Of course, this section is about political power generation.
To release all that energy in one instant - perhaps an object charged with just below the threshold of it's (unspecified arbitrary potential energy) capacity, could be placed near an enemy stronghold and fed that last few joules of energy to tip it over the edge, that's the dark side, someone will find a way to weaponise it for sure, if not the leader of some isolationist sanctioned state, then a disaffected teenager.
Power of a civilisation through time travel.
Speculatively: Also it would have potential to enable time travel or at least the potential to send messages back in time as it would exhibit frame dragging. For a few hints on how this could be of tactical use see this answer to another question.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think the "Hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter" criteria excludes your disaffected teenagers. =P
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't really understand how you propose to use this to violate causality since the indestructible material isn't made perfectly rigid (so you can't push/pull on one end of an indestructible rod and have the other end move instantly). Also being indestructible isn't going to make the pivots perfectly frictionless, so you're still going to be losing some energy to heat in your flywheels.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake Quite right, I've no Idea how causality violation would work, I'll edit to clear-up the bearings thing too.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I forsee a couple of issues... 1. charging up a micro flywheel to silly levels is going to require silly hardware (eg. enormous lasers or particle beams) which tend to be silly inefficient. Useful for specialist purposes, not for general purpose. 2. Indestructable does not imply frictionless. 3. extracting large amounts of energy at a useful rate from a miniature flywheel is going to be technically awkward...
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
bearings, +1. This is a question of what the wear parts are for every type of power plant ever made. Next would be turbine blades, some of which are already so big that if you stop spinning them they can break or deform under their own weight.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Energy storage.
If you can spin a flywheel to relativistic speeds on indestructible bearings using electromagnets (in vacuum), then you can use that flywheel as a lossless energy storage device.
Wikipedia 2019 - CCSA License
The energy density would be infinite (or limited by the unspecified arbitrary high amounts of energy in the question) - thus you would need a microscopic minuscule amount, a nano-flywheel mounted on gimbals - radically reducing the price per flywheel and opening it up to mass marketing, totally outclassing all battery tech available today.
Not only the obvious solution to the supply and demand issues with windpower, but for vehicles - cars/planes, phones, power-tools, toys, mobile phones and of course space exploration.
Infinite energy storage in the size of a grain of sand.
Miniature Tactical Nuke:
Of course, this section is about political power generation.
To release all that energy in one instant - perhaps an object charged with just below the threshold of it's (unspecified arbitrary potential energy) capacity, could be placed near an enemy stronghold and fed that last few joules of energy to tip it over the edge, that's the dark side, someone will find a way to weaponise it for sure, if not the leader of some isolationist sanctioned state, then a disaffected teenager.
Power of a civilisation through time travel.
Speculatively: Also it would have potential to enable time travel or at least the potential to send messages back in time as it would exhibit frame dragging. For a few hints on how this could be of tactical use see this answer to another question.
$endgroup$
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Energy storage.
If you can spin a flywheel to relativistic speeds on indestructible bearings using electromagnets (in vacuum), then you can use that flywheel as a lossless energy storage device.
Wikipedia 2019 - CCSA License
The energy density would be infinite (or limited by the unspecified arbitrary high amounts of energy in the question) - thus you would need a microscopic minuscule amount, a nano-flywheel mounted on gimbals - radically reducing the price per flywheel and opening it up to mass marketing, totally outclassing all battery tech available today.
Not only the obvious solution to the supply and demand issues with windpower, but for vehicles - cars/planes, phones, power-tools, toys, mobile phones and of course space exploration.
Infinite energy storage in the size of a grain of sand.
Miniature Tactical Nuke:
Of course, this section is about political power generation.
To release all that energy in one instant - perhaps an object charged with just below the threshold of it's (unspecified arbitrary potential energy) capacity, could be placed near an enemy stronghold and fed that last few joules of energy to tip it over the edge, that's the dark side, someone will find a way to weaponise it for sure, if not the leader of some isolationist sanctioned state, then a disaffected teenager.
Power of a civilisation through time travel.
Speculatively: Also it would have potential to enable time travel or at least the potential to send messages back in time as it would exhibit frame dragging. For a few hints on how this could be of tactical use see this answer to another question.
edited 3 hours ago
jdunlop
8,08811846
8,08811846
answered 6 hours ago
AgrajagAgrajag
6,51411347
6,51411347
$begingroup$
I think the "Hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter" criteria excludes your disaffected teenagers. =P
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't really understand how you propose to use this to violate causality since the indestructible material isn't made perfectly rigid (so you can't push/pull on one end of an indestructible rod and have the other end move instantly). Also being indestructible isn't going to make the pivots perfectly frictionless, so you're still going to be losing some energy to heat in your flywheels.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake Quite right, I've no Idea how causality violation would work, I'll edit to clear-up the bearings thing too.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I forsee a couple of issues... 1. charging up a micro flywheel to silly levels is going to require silly hardware (eg. enormous lasers or particle beams) which tend to be silly inefficient. Useful for specialist purposes, not for general purpose. 2. Indestructable does not imply frictionless. 3. extracting large amounts of energy at a useful rate from a miniature flywheel is going to be technically awkward...
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
bearings, +1. This is a question of what the wear parts are for every type of power plant ever made. Next would be turbine blades, some of which are already so big that if you stop spinning them they can break or deform under their own weight.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
I think the "Hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter" criteria excludes your disaffected teenagers. =P
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I don't really understand how you propose to use this to violate causality since the indestructible material isn't made perfectly rigid (so you can't push/pull on one end of an indestructible rod and have the other end move instantly). Also being indestructible isn't going to make the pivots perfectly frictionless, so you're still going to be losing some energy to heat in your flywheels.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake Quite right, I've no Idea how causality violation would work, I'll edit to clear-up the bearings thing too.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I forsee a couple of issues... 1. charging up a micro flywheel to silly levels is going to require silly hardware (eg. enormous lasers or particle beams) which tend to be silly inefficient. Useful for specialist purposes, not for general purpose. 2. Indestructable does not imply frictionless. 3. extracting large amounts of energy at a useful rate from a miniature flywheel is going to be technically awkward...
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
bearings, +1. This is a question of what the wear parts are for every type of power plant ever made. Next would be turbine blades, some of which are already so big that if you stop spinning them they can break or deform under their own weight.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think the "Hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter" criteria excludes your disaffected teenagers. =P
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think the "Hundreds of millions of dollars per cubic meter" criteria excludes your disaffected teenagers. =P
$endgroup$
– Morris The Cat
6 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I don't really understand how you propose to use this to violate causality since the indestructible material isn't made perfectly rigid (so you can't push/pull on one end of an indestructible rod and have the other end move instantly). Also being indestructible isn't going to make the pivots perfectly frictionless, so you're still going to be losing some energy to heat in your flywheels.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't really understand how you propose to use this to violate causality since the indestructible material isn't made perfectly rigid (so you can't push/pull on one end of an indestructible rod and have the other end move instantly). Also being indestructible isn't going to make the pivots perfectly frictionless, so you're still going to be losing some energy to heat in your flywheels.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake Quite right, I've no Idea how causality violation would work, I'll edit to clear-up the bearings thing too.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake Quite right, I've no Idea how causality violation would work, I'll edit to clear-up the bearings thing too.
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I forsee a couple of issues... 1. charging up a micro flywheel to silly levels is going to require silly hardware (eg. enormous lasers or particle beams) which tend to be silly inefficient. Useful for specialist purposes, not for general purpose. 2. Indestructable does not imply frictionless. 3. extracting large amounts of energy at a useful rate from a miniature flywheel is going to be technically awkward...
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I forsee a couple of issues... 1. charging up a micro flywheel to silly levels is going to require silly hardware (eg. enormous lasers or particle beams) which tend to be silly inefficient. Useful for specialist purposes, not for general purpose. 2. Indestructable does not imply frictionless. 3. extracting large amounts of energy at a useful rate from a miniature flywheel is going to be technically awkward...
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
bearings, +1. This is a question of what the wear parts are for every type of power plant ever made. Next would be turbine blades, some of which are already so big that if you stop spinning them they can break or deform under their own weight.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
bearings, +1. This is a question of what the wear parts are for every type of power plant ever made. Next would be turbine blades, some of which are already so big that if you stop spinning them they can break or deform under their own weight.
$endgroup$
– Mazura
2 hours ago
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
For a more nerdy approach, you could build indestructible turbines.
(Disclaimer: My memories of thermodynamics are fading in the mists of time, so feel free to blast me in the comments if I'm wrong).
I remember that in thermal power generation (where water is heathed into steam, whose energy is used to move a turbine), they were forced to limit the calor of the steam in output from the turbine, thus reducing the efficiency (basically, the colder the exiting steam, the better the efficiency).
The reason was that if the water steam was allowed to cool too much, it would condensate and create water droplets that would move so fast to act as bullets, damaging the turbine.
But an indestructible turbine could easily withstand this scenario, thus allowing for exploiting all the energy of the steam and generating more power.
Of course it is necessary to evaluate if the increase in efficiency is enough to compensate for the higher cost of the indestructible turbine.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a more nerdy approach, you could build indestructible turbines.
(Disclaimer: My memories of thermodynamics are fading in the mists of time, so feel free to blast me in the comments if I'm wrong).
I remember that in thermal power generation (where water is heathed into steam, whose energy is used to move a turbine), they were forced to limit the calor of the steam in output from the turbine, thus reducing the efficiency (basically, the colder the exiting steam, the better the efficiency).
The reason was that if the water steam was allowed to cool too much, it would condensate and create water droplets that would move so fast to act as bullets, damaging the turbine.
But an indestructible turbine could easily withstand this scenario, thus allowing for exploiting all the energy of the steam and generating more power.
Of course it is necessary to evaluate if the increase in efficiency is enough to compensate for the higher cost of the indestructible turbine.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a more nerdy approach, you could build indestructible turbines.
(Disclaimer: My memories of thermodynamics are fading in the mists of time, so feel free to blast me in the comments if I'm wrong).
I remember that in thermal power generation (where water is heathed into steam, whose energy is used to move a turbine), they were forced to limit the calor of the steam in output from the turbine, thus reducing the efficiency (basically, the colder the exiting steam, the better the efficiency).
The reason was that if the water steam was allowed to cool too much, it would condensate and create water droplets that would move so fast to act as bullets, damaging the turbine.
But an indestructible turbine could easily withstand this scenario, thus allowing for exploiting all the energy of the steam and generating more power.
Of course it is necessary to evaluate if the increase in efficiency is enough to compensate for the higher cost of the indestructible turbine.
$endgroup$
For a more nerdy approach, you could build indestructible turbines.
(Disclaimer: My memories of thermodynamics are fading in the mists of time, so feel free to blast me in the comments if I'm wrong).
I remember that in thermal power generation (where water is heathed into steam, whose energy is used to move a turbine), they were forced to limit the calor of the steam in output from the turbine, thus reducing the efficiency (basically, the colder the exiting steam, the better the efficiency).
The reason was that if the water steam was allowed to cool too much, it would condensate and create water droplets that would move so fast to act as bullets, damaging the turbine.
But an indestructible turbine could easily withstand this scenario, thus allowing for exploiting all the energy of the steam and generating more power.
Of course it is necessary to evaluate if the increase in efficiency is enough to compensate for the higher cost of the indestructible turbine.
answered 4 hours ago
McTroopersMcTroopers
8856
8856
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Construction
A thin, unbreakable wire added to dam wall construction, would allow dams to be built cheaper, thinner, stronger and higher.
A unbreakable foil added to the overflow means it would never wear out and need replacing
Large dams for energy generation cost from twenty to thirty billion dollars so an extra cost of a couple of hundred million to make it unbreakable would easily be offset by the less concrete and steel needed not to mention to maintenance costs down the track plus the safety of an unbreakable wall.
If you want next level power generation may I present
The Space Elevator
A thin unbreakable wire running to an orbital platform with a twin on the moon, would allow the efficient harvest of He3 from the lunar surface which could power fusion reactors around the world.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Construction
A thin, unbreakable wire added to dam wall construction, would allow dams to be built cheaper, thinner, stronger and higher.
A unbreakable foil added to the overflow means it would never wear out and need replacing
Large dams for energy generation cost from twenty to thirty billion dollars so an extra cost of a couple of hundred million to make it unbreakable would easily be offset by the less concrete and steel needed not to mention to maintenance costs down the track plus the safety of an unbreakable wall.
If you want next level power generation may I present
The Space Elevator
A thin unbreakable wire running to an orbital platform with a twin on the moon, would allow the efficient harvest of He3 from the lunar surface which could power fusion reactors around the world.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Construction
A thin, unbreakable wire added to dam wall construction, would allow dams to be built cheaper, thinner, stronger and higher.
A unbreakable foil added to the overflow means it would never wear out and need replacing
Large dams for energy generation cost from twenty to thirty billion dollars so an extra cost of a couple of hundred million to make it unbreakable would easily be offset by the less concrete and steel needed not to mention to maintenance costs down the track plus the safety of an unbreakable wall.
If you want next level power generation may I present
The Space Elevator
A thin unbreakable wire running to an orbital platform with a twin on the moon, would allow the efficient harvest of He3 from the lunar surface which could power fusion reactors around the world.
$endgroup$
Construction
A thin, unbreakable wire added to dam wall construction, would allow dams to be built cheaper, thinner, stronger and higher.
A unbreakable foil added to the overflow means it would never wear out and need replacing
Large dams for energy generation cost from twenty to thirty billion dollars so an extra cost of a couple of hundred million to make it unbreakable would easily be offset by the less concrete and steel needed not to mention to maintenance costs down the track plus the safety of an unbreakable wall.
If you want next level power generation may I present
The Space Elevator
A thin unbreakable wire running to an orbital platform with a twin on the moon, would allow the efficient harvest of He3 from the lunar surface which could power fusion reactors around the world.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
ThorneThorne
17.7k42554
17.7k42554
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While the fusion power example is the most practical, you can connect a massive solar collector in orbit to the ground via an indestructible fibre-optic cable, and send a laser pulse down the cable to a boiler powering a steam turbine. As a bonus, since the cable is indestructible, you could use it to tether a space elevator, and get cheap rides to orbit.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While the fusion power example is the most practical, you can connect a massive solar collector in orbit to the ground via an indestructible fibre-optic cable, and send a laser pulse down the cable to a boiler powering a steam turbine. As a bonus, since the cable is indestructible, you could use it to tether a space elevator, and get cheap rides to orbit.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While the fusion power example is the most practical, you can connect a massive solar collector in orbit to the ground via an indestructible fibre-optic cable, and send a laser pulse down the cable to a boiler powering a steam turbine. As a bonus, since the cable is indestructible, you could use it to tether a space elevator, and get cheap rides to orbit.
$endgroup$
While the fusion power example is the most practical, you can connect a massive solar collector in orbit to the ground via an indestructible fibre-optic cable, and send a laser pulse down the cable to a boiler powering a steam turbine. As a bonus, since the cable is indestructible, you could use it to tether a space elevator, and get cheap rides to orbit.
answered 4 hours ago
asgallantasgallant
1613
1613
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sometimes the smallest thing has the largest impact
Do you know how much wire you can extrude from a cubic meter of copper when you can trust it to be indestructible?1
Indestructible insulating enamel + indestructible conductive wire = the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
When was the last time you opened a power supply, motor housing, generator, or anything using inductive windings, and found the transformer/motor/coil burned out. For me, it was last week (literally, it was last week). If you could make both the wire used in the windings and the enamel used to coat the wires indestructible, what you would have is the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
Yeah, but this stuff is expensive
Which is why it would make sense for large items, like turbine-style power generators where the limit to the electricity you're generating is suddenly the mechanical stress limits of the linkages and not the heat-generating characteristics of the coils. Better still, indestructible windings and enamel means you can make the coils incredibly dense — and as coil density increases, so does power output. Your efficiency might actually approach unity. Imagine a wire that is no longer a fuse if too much power is put through it. There is no longer too much power, the limitation is literally the speed electrons can be induced to move through the wire.
And if you expand to power utilization, the applications become … impressive
Miniature motors that can turn the propellers on a submarine? Dock 6. Full-size motors that push submarines at tsunami-creating speeds? Dock 2. Car alternators the size of your thumb? Aisle 14. A Dremel the size of a pencil? Aisle 1. An electric car that actually works climbing the Rockies? The display arrives next week. A residential wind turbine that actually powers an entire house? We have on the roof, you can see it as you enter the building.
The process may be expensive, but the material requirements (in terms of how much you need) drop like a rock when you can trust the wire and enamel to be indestructible. The process of making things indestructible would benefit almost any application at any price. A steam boiler the size of a Buick enjoying such high pressure that it can pull a mile-long train? On display by the front counter.
Disclaimer: at hundreds of millions of dollars per-cubic-meter there it is unlikely that any application is worth it. Unless you can jack the price through the roof, the cost recovery time at that price relegates the material to use (not necessarily power generation) in remote locations (like space) where repair costs even more. A spaceship hull would be worth that price. I frankly can't imagine any power generation/utilization solution that ever would. Not even fusion. The cost of using something less capable would be so much more economical that such a solution would only happen as a test, never a commercial solution. So, a frame challenge concerning the price.
1 A cubic meter of copper weighs 8,930 Kg. 40 Gauge wire weighs 0.04454 grams/meter for 200,490.6 Kilometers of wire. That's enough wire to wrap the equator 5 times.2 And you might be able to use thinner wire than that. It's a lot of honking wire.
2 Of course, the wire is indestructible. If you wrapped the equator just once and tied the two ends to space ships, assuming a reasonable amount of thrust, could you garrote the world in half? It gets the mind wondering, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Unfortunately you can't make complex machines out of this material. In the question it states that the material can deform but cannot break. So for example, gears under a lot of stress are going to mush themselves into useless circles. Valves won't break but they will leak, a lot. The list goes on.
$endgroup$
– Muuski
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I think your disclaimer might be hedging your bets a little more than necessary. After all plenty of valuable objects like reactors, military jets, etc already cost billions of dollars. Plus the only real limit on how little material you can get away with is how much flexibility you can tolerate.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Muuski I said the chemical bonds couldn't stretch any more than they could in the original material before breaking. So if your starting material couldn't deform very much without breaking, then the indestructible version can't either.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake re: can't deform too much, so would that mean no extrusion? since you are literally deforming a block of copper into wire. If you make it as thin as you normally can, then make it indistructable, that would be great, but not like JBH is saying. If you process the block, then you just can't extrude it anymore according to your last comment here
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
57 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Yeah that would mean no extrusion once you've already made a material indestructible. So you do need to get the material into the shape you want before you make it indestructible. That being said you can still make the material as thin as you want before you make it indestructible provided it just barely holds together.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
53 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Sometimes the smallest thing has the largest impact
Do you know how much wire you can extrude from a cubic meter of copper when you can trust it to be indestructible?1
Indestructible insulating enamel + indestructible conductive wire = the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
When was the last time you opened a power supply, motor housing, generator, or anything using inductive windings, and found the transformer/motor/coil burned out. For me, it was last week (literally, it was last week). If you could make both the wire used in the windings and the enamel used to coat the wires indestructible, what you would have is the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
Yeah, but this stuff is expensive
Which is why it would make sense for large items, like turbine-style power generators where the limit to the electricity you're generating is suddenly the mechanical stress limits of the linkages and not the heat-generating characteristics of the coils. Better still, indestructible windings and enamel means you can make the coils incredibly dense — and as coil density increases, so does power output. Your efficiency might actually approach unity. Imagine a wire that is no longer a fuse if too much power is put through it. There is no longer too much power, the limitation is literally the speed electrons can be induced to move through the wire.
And if you expand to power utilization, the applications become … impressive
Miniature motors that can turn the propellers on a submarine? Dock 6. Full-size motors that push submarines at tsunami-creating speeds? Dock 2. Car alternators the size of your thumb? Aisle 14. A Dremel the size of a pencil? Aisle 1. An electric car that actually works climbing the Rockies? The display arrives next week. A residential wind turbine that actually powers an entire house? We have on the roof, you can see it as you enter the building.
The process may be expensive, but the material requirements (in terms of how much you need) drop like a rock when you can trust the wire and enamel to be indestructible. The process of making things indestructible would benefit almost any application at any price. A steam boiler the size of a Buick enjoying such high pressure that it can pull a mile-long train? On display by the front counter.
Disclaimer: at hundreds of millions of dollars per-cubic-meter there it is unlikely that any application is worth it. Unless you can jack the price through the roof, the cost recovery time at that price relegates the material to use (not necessarily power generation) in remote locations (like space) where repair costs even more. A spaceship hull would be worth that price. I frankly can't imagine any power generation/utilization solution that ever would. Not even fusion. The cost of using something less capable would be so much more economical that such a solution would only happen as a test, never a commercial solution. So, a frame challenge concerning the price.
1 A cubic meter of copper weighs 8,930 Kg. 40 Gauge wire weighs 0.04454 grams/meter for 200,490.6 Kilometers of wire. That's enough wire to wrap the equator 5 times.2 And you might be able to use thinner wire than that. It's a lot of honking wire.
2 Of course, the wire is indestructible. If you wrapped the equator just once and tied the two ends to space ships, assuming a reasonable amount of thrust, could you garrote the world in half? It gets the mind wondering, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Unfortunately you can't make complex machines out of this material. In the question it states that the material can deform but cannot break. So for example, gears under a lot of stress are going to mush themselves into useless circles. Valves won't break but they will leak, a lot. The list goes on.
$endgroup$
– Muuski
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I think your disclaimer might be hedging your bets a little more than necessary. After all plenty of valuable objects like reactors, military jets, etc already cost billions of dollars. Plus the only real limit on how little material you can get away with is how much flexibility you can tolerate.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Muuski I said the chemical bonds couldn't stretch any more than they could in the original material before breaking. So if your starting material couldn't deform very much without breaking, then the indestructible version can't either.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake re: can't deform too much, so would that mean no extrusion? since you are literally deforming a block of copper into wire. If you make it as thin as you normally can, then make it indistructable, that would be great, but not like JBH is saying. If you process the block, then you just can't extrude it anymore according to your last comment here
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
57 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Yeah that would mean no extrusion once you've already made a material indestructible. So you do need to get the material into the shape you want before you make it indestructible. That being said you can still make the material as thin as you want before you make it indestructible provided it just barely holds together.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
53 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Sometimes the smallest thing has the largest impact
Do you know how much wire you can extrude from a cubic meter of copper when you can trust it to be indestructible?1
Indestructible insulating enamel + indestructible conductive wire = the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
When was the last time you opened a power supply, motor housing, generator, or anything using inductive windings, and found the transformer/motor/coil burned out. For me, it was last week (literally, it was last week). If you could make both the wire used in the windings and the enamel used to coat the wires indestructible, what you would have is the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
Yeah, but this stuff is expensive
Which is why it would make sense for large items, like turbine-style power generators where the limit to the electricity you're generating is suddenly the mechanical stress limits of the linkages and not the heat-generating characteristics of the coils. Better still, indestructible windings and enamel means you can make the coils incredibly dense — and as coil density increases, so does power output. Your efficiency might actually approach unity. Imagine a wire that is no longer a fuse if too much power is put through it. There is no longer too much power, the limitation is literally the speed electrons can be induced to move through the wire.
And if you expand to power utilization, the applications become … impressive
Miniature motors that can turn the propellers on a submarine? Dock 6. Full-size motors that push submarines at tsunami-creating speeds? Dock 2. Car alternators the size of your thumb? Aisle 14. A Dremel the size of a pencil? Aisle 1. An electric car that actually works climbing the Rockies? The display arrives next week. A residential wind turbine that actually powers an entire house? We have on the roof, you can see it as you enter the building.
The process may be expensive, but the material requirements (in terms of how much you need) drop like a rock when you can trust the wire and enamel to be indestructible. The process of making things indestructible would benefit almost any application at any price. A steam boiler the size of a Buick enjoying such high pressure that it can pull a mile-long train? On display by the front counter.
Disclaimer: at hundreds of millions of dollars per-cubic-meter there it is unlikely that any application is worth it. Unless you can jack the price through the roof, the cost recovery time at that price relegates the material to use (not necessarily power generation) in remote locations (like space) where repair costs even more. A spaceship hull would be worth that price. I frankly can't imagine any power generation/utilization solution that ever would. Not even fusion. The cost of using something less capable would be so much more economical that such a solution would only happen as a test, never a commercial solution. So, a frame challenge concerning the price.
1 A cubic meter of copper weighs 8,930 Kg. 40 Gauge wire weighs 0.04454 grams/meter for 200,490.6 Kilometers of wire. That's enough wire to wrap the equator 5 times.2 And you might be able to use thinner wire than that. It's a lot of honking wire.
2 Of course, the wire is indestructible. If you wrapped the equator just once and tied the two ends to space ships, assuming a reasonable amount of thrust, could you garrote the world in half? It gets the mind wondering, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
Sometimes the smallest thing has the largest impact
Do you know how much wire you can extrude from a cubic meter of copper when you can trust it to be indestructible?1
Indestructible insulating enamel + indestructible conductive wire = the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
When was the last time you opened a power supply, motor housing, generator, or anything using inductive windings, and found the transformer/motor/coil burned out. For me, it was last week (literally, it was last week). If you could make both the wire used in the windings and the enamel used to coat the wires indestructible, what you would have is the perfect transformer/motor/generator.
Yeah, but this stuff is expensive
Which is why it would make sense for large items, like turbine-style power generators where the limit to the electricity you're generating is suddenly the mechanical stress limits of the linkages and not the heat-generating characteristics of the coils. Better still, indestructible windings and enamel means you can make the coils incredibly dense — and as coil density increases, so does power output. Your efficiency might actually approach unity. Imagine a wire that is no longer a fuse if too much power is put through it. There is no longer too much power, the limitation is literally the speed electrons can be induced to move through the wire.
And if you expand to power utilization, the applications become … impressive
Miniature motors that can turn the propellers on a submarine? Dock 6. Full-size motors that push submarines at tsunami-creating speeds? Dock 2. Car alternators the size of your thumb? Aisle 14. A Dremel the size of a pencil? Aisle 1. An electric car that actually works climbing the Rockies? The display arrives next week. A residential wind turbine that actually powers an entire house? We have on the roof, you can see it as you enter the building.
The process may be expensive, but the material requirements (in terms of how much you need) drop like a rock when you can trust the wire and enamel to be indestructible. The process of making things indestructible would benefit almost any application at any price. A steam boiler the size of a Buick enjoying such high pressure that it can pull a mile-long train? On display by the front counter.
Disclaimer: at hundreds of millions of dollars per-cubic-meter there it is unlikely that any application is worth it. Unless you can jack the price through the roof, the cost recovery time at that price relegates the material to use (not necessarily power generation) in remote locations (like space) where repair costs even more. A spaceship hull would be worth that price. I frankly can't imagine any power generation/utilization solution that ever would. Not even fusion. The cost of using something less capable would be so much more economical that such a solution would only happen as a test, never a commercial solution. So, a frame challenge concerning the price.
1 A cubic meter of copper weighs 8,930 Kg. 40 Gauge wire weighs 0.04454 grams/meter for 200,490.6 Kilometers of wire. That's enough wire to wrap the equator 5 times.2 And you might be able to use thinner wire than that. It's a lot of honking wire.
2 Of course, the wire is indestructible. If you wrapped the equator just once and tied the two ends to space ships, assuming a reasonable amount of thrust, could you garrote the world in half? It gets the mind wondering, doesn't it?
answered 3 hours ago
JBHJBH
47.7k699223
47.7k699223
$begingroup$
Unfortunately you can't make complex machines out of this material. In the question it states that the material can deform but cannot break. So for example, gears under a lot of stress are going to mush themselves into useless circles. Valves won't break but they will leak, a lot. The list goes on.
$endgroup$
– Muuski
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I think your disclaimer might be hedging your bets a little more than necessary. After all plenty of valuable objects like reactors, military jets, etc already cost billions of dollars. Plus the only real limit on how little material you can get away with is how much flexibility you can tolerate.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Muuski I said the chemical bonds couldn't stretch any more than they could in the original material before breaking. So if your starting material couldn't deform very much without breaking, then the indestructible version can't either.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake re: can't deform too much, so would that mean no extrusion? since you are literally deforming a block of copper into wire. If you make it as thin as you normally can, then make it indistructable, that would be great, but not like JBH is saying. If you process the block, then you just can't extrude it anymore according to your last comment here
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
57 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Yeah that would mean no extrusion once you've already made a material indestructible. So you do need to get the material into the shape you want before you make it indestructible. That being said you can still make the material as thin as you want before you make it indestructible provided it just barely holds together.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
53 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Unfortunately you can't make complex machines out of this material. In the question it states that the material can deform but cannot break. So for example, gears under a lot of stress are going to mush themselves into useless circles. Valves won't break but they will leak, a lot. The list goes on.
$endgroup$
– Muuski
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I think your disclaimer might be hedging your bets a little more than necessary. After all plenty of valuable objects like reactors, military jets, etc already cost billions of dollars. Plus the only real limit on how little material you can get away with is how much flexibility you can tolerate.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Muuski I said the chemical bonds couldn't stretch any more than they could in the original material before breaking. So if your starting material couldn't deform very much without breaking, then the indestructible version can't either.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake re: can't deform too much, so would that mean no extrusion? since you are literally deforming a block of copper into wire. If you make it as thin as you normally can, then make it indistructable, that would be great, but not like JBH is saying. If you process the block, then you just can't extrude it anymore according to your last comment here
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
57 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Yeah that would mean no extrusion once you've already made a material indestructible. So you do need to get the material into the shape you want before you make it indestructible. That being said you can still make the material as thin as you want before you make it indestructible provided it just barely holds together.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately you can't make complex machines out of this material. In the question it states that the material can deform but cannot break. So for example, gears under a lot of stress are going to mush themselves into useless circles. Valves won't break but they will leak, a lot. The list goes on.
$endgroup$
– Muuski
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Unfortunately you can't make complex machines out of this material. In the question it states that the material can deform but cannot break. So for example, gears under a lot of stress are going to mush themselves into useless circles. Valves won't break but they will leak, a lot. The list goes on.
$endgroup$
– Muuski
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I think your disclaimer might be hedging your bets a little more than necessary. After all plenty of valuable objects like reactors, military jets, etc already cost billions of dollars. Plus the only real limit on how little material you can get away with is how much flexibility you can tolerate.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think your disclaimer might be hedging your bets a little more than necessary. After all plenty of valuable objects like reactors, military jets, etc already cost billions of dollars. Plus the only real limit on how little material you can get away with is how much flexibility you can tolerate.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Muuski I said the chemical bonds couldn't stretch any more than they could in the original material before breaking. So if your starting material couldn't deform very much without breaking, then the indestructible version can't either.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Muuski I said the chemical bonds couldn't stretch any more than they could in the original material before breaking. So if your starting material couldn't deform very much without breaking, then the indestructible version can't either.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake re: can't deform too much, so would that mean no extrusion? since you are literally deforming a block of copper into wire. If you make it as thin as you normally can, then make it indistructable, that would be great, but not like JBH is saying. If you process the block, then you just can't extrude it anymore according to your last comment here
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
57 mins ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake re: can't deform too much, so would that mean no extrusion? since you are literally deforming a block of copper into wire. If you make it as thin as you normally can, then make it indistructable, that would be great, but not like JBH is saying. If you process the block, then you just can't extrude it anymore according to your last comment here
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
57 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Yeah that would mean no extrusion once you've already made a material indestructible. So you do need to get the material into the shape you want before you make it indestructible. That being said you can still make the material as thin as you want before you make it indestructible provided it just barely holds together.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Yeah that would mean no extrusion once you've already made a material indestructible. So you do need to get the material into the shape you want before you make it indestructible. That being said you can still make the material as thin as you want before you make it indestructible provided it just barely holds together.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
53 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
"So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?"
Well, if you could make copper indestructible then you could use it as I mentioned in my comment. Simply dig a very deep hole and place a copper rod in it. The heat at the bottom of the hole would conduct through the rod to boil water at ground level. The boiling water would be used in a convention steam turbine and BAM nearly infinite free and clean energy. The only reason we don't already do this is because copper would melt at the temperatures needed to get enough heat conducting through the rod to boil water on the other end. That and it would be very hard to dig a hole that deep because all the drill bits would melt but since we can make indestructible drill bits, it should be no problem... heck, we could reach the core with indestructible material.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think you need to work on the logistics of that idea a bit more (though I can see some variation of it working): The copper rod would conduct heat to the surrounding stone so little heat would make it all the way to the surface, and magma can only conduct heat into/through the copper rod so quickly placing limits on power generation (especially given indestructible material is pretty expensive).
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Vakus Drake Sure, agreed but people are already trying to do this with graphene because of its unique ability to conduct heat. You could surround the copper with a less thermal conductive material to reduce heat transfer to the surrounding rock. Copper conducts heat very well and very fast. See for yourself, grab a piece, hold one end in your fingers and put a lighter to the other end. You can boil water with a blow torch and a copper rod.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake In reality I wouldn't worry too much about logistics or details because an indestructible material would take an infinite amount of energy just to exist.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake copper is more conductive than rock, so while it WOULD transfer into the rock, most would come all the way up the rod. Then you just have the rod branch down into basically a net in the water to maximize heat transfer there. With the limits of a rod, simply bury more. I wouldn't call it infinite, but it would definitely seem that way for quite some time
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
55 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Much more heat will transfer into the adjacent portion of copper pipe than into the rock, however we're still talking about miles of piping here. Plus given the extreme cost of the material you want the pipe to be quite thin, which further reduces how much heat is transferred along its length.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
49 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
"So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?"
Well, if you could make copper indestructible then you could use it as I mentioned in my comment. Simply dig a very deep hole and place a copper rod in it. The heat at the bottom of the hole would conduct through the rod to boil water at ground level. The boiling water would be used in a convention steam turbine and BAM nearly infinite free and clean energy. The only reason we don't already do this is because copper would melt at the temperatures needed to get enough heat conducting through the rod to boil water on the other end. That and it would be very hard to dig a hole that deep because all the drill bits would melt but since we can make indestructible drill bits, it should be no problem... heck, we could reach the core with indestructible material.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think you need to work on the logistics of that idea a bit more (though I can see some variation of it working): The copper rod would conduct heat to the surrounding stone so little heat would make it all the way to the surface, and magma can only conduct heat into/through the copper rod so quickly placing limits on power generation (especially given indestructible material is pretty expensive).
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Vakus Drake Sure, agreed but people are already trying to do this with graphene because of its unique ability to conduct heat. You could surround the copper with a less thermal conductive material to reduce heat transfer to the surrounding rock. Copper conducts heat very well and very fast. See for yourself, grab a piece, hold one end in your fingers and put a lighter to the other end. You can boil water with a blow torch and a copper rod.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake In reality I wouldn't worry too much about logistics or details because an indestructible material would take an infinite amount of energy just to exist.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake copper is more conductive than rock, so while it WOULD transfer into the rock, most would come all the way up the rod. Then you just have the rod branch down into basically a net in the water to maximize heat transfer there. With the limits of a rod, simply bury more. I wouldn't call it infinite, but it would definitely seem that way for quite some time
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
55 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Much more heat will transfer into the adjacent portion of copper pipe than into the rock, however we're still talking about miles of piping here. Plus given the extreme cost of the material you want the pipe to be quite thin, which further reduces how much heat is transferred along its length.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
49 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
"So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?"
Well, if you could make copper indestructible then you could use it as I mentioned in my comment. Simply dig a very deep hole and place a copper rod in it. The heat at the bottom of the hole would conduct through the rod to boil water at ground level. The boiling water would be used in a convention steam turbine and BAM nearly infinite free and clean energy. The only reason we don't already do this is because copper would melt at the temperatures needed to get enough heat conducting through the rod to boil water on the other end. That and it would be very hard to dig a hole that deep because all the drill bits would melt but since we can make indestructible drill bits, it should be no problem... heck, we could reach the core with indestructible material.
New contributor
$endgroup$
"So how could these aforementioned indestructible materials be used in conjunction with existing or near future technology to improve power generation?"
Well, if you could make copper indestructible then you could use it as I mentioned in my comment. Simply dig a very deep hole and place a copper rod in it. The heat at the bottom of the hole would conduct through the rod to boil water at ground level. The boiling water would be used in a convention steam turbine and BAM nearly infinite free and clean energy. The only reason we don't already do this is because copper would melt at the temperatures needed to get enough heat conducting through the rod to boil water on the other end. That and it would be very hard to dig a hole that deep because all the drill bits would melt but since we can make indestructible drill bits, it should be no problem... heck, we could reach the core with indestructible material.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 5 hours ago
RobRob
2814
2814
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
I think you need to work on the logistics of that idea a bit more (though I can see some variation of it working): The copper rod would conduct heat to the surrounding stone so little heat would make it all the way to the surface, and magma can only conduct heat into/through the copper rod so quickly placing limits on power generation (especially given indestructible material is pretty expensive).
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Vakus Drake Sure, agreed but people are already trying to do this with graphene because of its unique ability to conduct heat. You could surround the copper with a less thermal conductive material to reduce heat transfer to the surrounding rock. Copper conducts heat very well and very fast. See for yourself, grab a piece, hold one end in your fingers and put a lighter to the other end. You can boil water with a blow torch and a copper rod.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake In reality I wouldn't worry too much about logistics or details because an indestructible material would take an infinite amount of energy just to exist.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake copper is more conductive than rock, so while it WOULD transfer into the rock, most would come all the way up the rod. Then you just have the rod branch down into basically a net in the water to maximize heat transfer there. With the limits of a rod, simply bury more. I wouldn't call it infinite, but it would definitely seem that way for quite some time
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
55 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Much more heat will transfer into the adjacent portion of copper pipe than into the rock, however we're still talking about miles of piping here. Plus given the extreme cost of the material you want the pipe to be quite thin, which further reduces how much heat is transferred along its length.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
49 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I think you need to work on the logistics of that idea a bit more (though I can see some variation of it working): The copper rod would conduct heat to the surrounding stone so little heat would make it all the way to the surface, and magma can only conduct heat into/through the copper rod so quickly placing limits on power generation (especially given indestructible material is pretty expensive).
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Vakus Drake Sure, agreed but people are already trying to do this with graphene because of its unique ability to conduct heat. You could surround the copper with a less thermal conductive material to reduce heat transfer to the surrounding rock. Copper conducts heat very well and very fast. See for yourself, grab a piece, hold one end in your fingers and put a lighter to the other end. You can boil water with a blow torch and a copper rod.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake In reality I wouldn't worry too much about logistics or details because an indestructible material would take an infinite amount of energy just to exist.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake copper is more conductive than rock, so while it WOULD transfer into the rock, most would come all the way up the rod. Then you just have the rod branch down into basically a net in the water to maximize heat transfer there. With the limits of a rod, simply bury more. I wouldn't call it infinite, but it would definitely seem that way for quite some time
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
55 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Much more heat will transfer into the adjacent portion of copper pipe than into the rock, however we're still talking about miles of piping here. Plus given the extreme cost of the material you want the pipe to be quite thin, which further reduces how much heat is transferred along its length.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
49 mins ago
$begingroup$
I think you need to work on the logistics of that idea a bit more (though I can see some variation of it working): The copper rod would conduct heat to the surrounding stone so little heat would make it all the way to the surface, and magma can only conduct heat into/through the copper rod so quickly placing limits on power generation (especially given indestructible material is pretty expensive).
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think you need to work on the logistics of that idea a bit more (though I can see some variation of it working): The copper rod would conduct heat to the surrounding stone so little heat would make it all the way to the surface, and magma can only conduct heat into/through the copper rod so quickly placing limits on power generation (especially given indestructible material is pretty expensive).
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@Vakus Drake Sure, agreed but people are already trying to do this with graphene because of its unique ability to conduct heat. You could surround the copper with a less thermal conductive material to reduce heat transfer to the surrounding rock. Copper conducts heat very well and very fast. See for yourself, grab a piece, hold one end in your fingers and put a lighter to the other end. You can boil water with a blow torch and a copper rod.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Vakus Drake Sure, agreed but people are already trying to do this with graphene because of its unique ability to conduct heat. You could surround the copper with a less thermal conductive material to reduce heat transfer to the surrounding rock. Copper conducts heat very well and very fast. See for yourself, grab a piece, hold one end in your fingers and put a lighter to the other end. You can boil water with a blow torch and a copper rod.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake In reality I wouldn't worry too much about logistics or details because an indestructible material would take an infinite amount of energy just to exist.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake In reality I wouldn't worry too much about logistics or details because an indestructible material would take an infinite amount of energy just to exist.
$endgroup$
– Rob
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake copper is more conductive than rock, so while it WOULD transfer into the rock, most would come all the way up the rod. Then you just have the rod branch down into basically a net in the water to maximize heat transfer there. With the limits of a rod, simply bury more. I wouldn't call it infinite, but it would definitely seem that way for quite some time
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
55 mins ago
$begingroup$
@VakusDrake copper is more conductive than rock, so while it WOULD transfer into the rock, most would come all the way up the rod. Then you just have the rod branch down into basically a net in the water to maximize heat transfer there. With the limits of a rod, simply bury more. I wouldn't call it infinite, but it would definitely seem that way for quite some time
$endgroup$
– Aethenosity
55 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Much more heat will transfer into the adjacent portion of copper pipe than into the rock, however we're still talking about miles of piping here. Plus given the extreme cost of the material you want the pipe to be quite thin, which further reduces how much heat is transferred along its length.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
49 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Aethenosity Much more heat will transfer into the adjacent portion of copper pipe than into the rock, however we're still talking about miles of piping here. Plus given the extreme cost of the material you want the pipe to be quite thin, which further reduces how much heat is transferred along its length.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
49 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Jet engine turbine blades
The limit in turbine efficiency (and why jet engines keep getting better and higher-bypass, but sloooowly) is the thermal limits of the first-stage (right behind the combustor) turbine blades. Evolution is waiting on new material-ally tech and more extreme methods of cooling(already pretty extreme and energy-robbing).
If you can make the first two stages out of indetructium, as well as a few combustor-area components that would be hard to airstream-cool, you can keep pushing up the efficiency of the engines. Now you have 20:1 or 30:1 bypass. Turboprop sub-chaser maritime patrol aircraft that can stay on station for 48 hours. Over on the ship-propulsion or terrestrial power generation side, you have ships with more range between tankers, and power plants with lower smog and cheaper power from natural gas and petroleum. It would be the deathknell of coal.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Jet engine turbine blades
The limit in turbine efficiency (and why jet engines keep getting better and higher-bypass, but sloooowly) is the thermal limits of the first-stage (right behind the combustor) turbine blades. Evolution is waiting on new material-ally tech and more extreme methods of cooling(already pretty extreme and energy-robbing).
If you can make the first two stages out of indetructium, as well as a few combustor-area components that would be hard to airstream-cool, you can keep pushing up the efficiency of the engines. Now you have 20:1 or 30:1 bypass. Turboprop sub-chaser maritime patrol aircraft that can stay on station for 48 hours. Over on the ship-propulsion or terrestrial power generation side, you have ships with more range between tankers, and power plants with lower smog and cheaper power from natural gas and petroleum. It would be the deathknell of coal.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Jet engine turbine blades
The limit in turbine efficiency (and why jet engines keep getting better and higher-bypass, but sloooowly) is the thermal limits of the first-stage (right behind the combustor) turbine blades. Evolution is waiting on new material-ally tech and more extreme methods of cooling(already pretty extreme and energy-robbing).
If you can make the first two stages out of indetructium, as well as a few combustor-area components that would be hard to airstream-cool, you can keep pushing up the efficiency of the engines. Now you have 20:1 or 30:1 bypass. Turboprop sub-chaser maritime patrol aircraft that can stay on station for 48 hours. Over on the ship-propulsion or terrestrial power generation side, you have ships with more range between tankers, and power plants with lower smog and cheaper power from natural gas and petroleum. It would be the deathknell of coal.
$endgroup$
Jet engine turbine blades
The limit in turbine efficiency (and why jet engines keep getting better and higher-bypass, but sloooowly) is the thermal limits of the first-stage (right behind the combustor) turbine blades. Evolution is waiting on new material-ally tech and more extreme methods of cooling(already pretty extreme and energy-robbing).
If you can make the first two stages out of indetructium, as well as a few combustor-area components that would be hard to airstream-cool, you can keep pushing up the efficiency of the engines. Now you have 20:1 or 30:1 bypass. Turboprop sub-chaser maritime patrol aircraft that can stay on station for 48 hours. Over on the ship-propulsion or terrestrial power generation side, you have ships with more range between tankers, and power plants with lower smog and cheaper power from natural gas and petroleum. It would be the deathknell of coal.
answered 2 hours ago
HarperHarper
6,99211026
6,99211026
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At a minimum, if you replaced all your ball bearings with indestructible bearings, you'd be a long way towards better energy production.
Many generators in the energy industry have to be tore down periodically to have their bearings and fins/rotors replaced. Never having to do this will save that cost, including labor and the energy production to cover the "down" generator.
In fact, making the entire generator out of these indestructible materials would be a major boost. Hydroelectric dams could run at any speed, same with the huge windmills. (Ever seen a windmill with a failed break mechanism break up? YouTube that if you want to cringe.)
As much as the new forms of energy production suggested by other answers would help, simply replacing the mechanisms of the existing system would help considerably. This might be a lower investment level to get poor countries more power.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At a minimum, if you replaced all your ball bearings with indestructible bearings, you'd be a long way towards better energy production.
Many generators in the energy industry have to be tore down periodically to have their bearings and fins/rotors replaced. Never having to do this will save that cost, including labor and the energy production to cover the "down" generator.
In fact, making the entire generator out of these indestructible materials would be a major boost. Hydroelectric dams could run at any speed, same with the huge windmills. (Ever seen a windmill with a failed break mechanism break up? YouTube that if you want to cringe.)
As much as the new forms of energy production suggested by other answers would help, simply replacing the mechanisms of the existing system would help considerably. This might be a lower investment level to get poor countries more power.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At a minimum, if you replaced all your ball bearings with indestructible bearings, you'd be a long way towards better energy production.
Many generators in the energy industry have to be tore down periodically to have their bearings and fins/rotors replaced. Never having to do this will save that cost, including labor and the energy production to cover the "down" generator.
In fact, making the entire generator out of these indestructible materials would be a major boost. Hydroelectric dams could run at any speed, same with the huge windmills. (Ever seen a windmill with a failed break mechanism break up? YouTube that if you want to cringe.)
As much as the new forms of energy production suggested by other answers would help, simply replacing the mechanisms of the existing system would help considerably. This might be a lower investment level to get poor countries more power.
$endgroup$
At a minimum, if you replaced all your ball bearings with indestructible bearings, you'd be a long way towards better energy production.
Many generators in the energy industry have to be tore down periodically to have their bearings and fins/rotors replaced. Never having to do this will save that cost, including labor and the energy production to cover the "down" generator.
In fact, making the entire generator out of these indestructible materials would be a major boost. Hydroelectric dams could run at any speed, same with the huge windmills. (Ever seen a windmill with a failed break mechanism break up? YouTube that if you want to cringe.)
As much as the new forms of energy production suggested by other answers would help, simply replacing the mechanisms of the existing system would help considerably. This might be a lower investment level to get poor countries more power.
answered 53 mins ago
computercarguycomputercarguy
2,255214
2,255214
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143057%2fhow-could-indestructible-materials-be-used-in-power-generation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
What are the properties of the material? For instance, it's thermo-conductive and electro-conductive properties? If it transfers heat well then one could simply dig a deep hole put in a rod of the stuff using the heat from below the earth to boil water and run a steam turbine.
$endgroup$
– Rob
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Rob The properties of the material are mostly the same as they were before it was made indestructible. The main difference is just that you can't cause any bonds within the material to break. So if you applied the process to say silver it should retain its conductivity.
$endgroup$
– Vakus Drake
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
This question is a successful graduate of the Sandbox.
$endgroup$
– JBH
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Does this process work on fluids? That is, if I put a fluid in the reaction chamber and push the button, do I get a substance that is always a fluid, irrespective of temperature and pressure? If it does, can I split the fluid into multiple containers, or is it forced to stay in one continuous mass?
$endgroup$
– asgallant
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Isn't electricity the flow of electrons through a material? How can it conduct electricity if electrons cannot flow from atom to atom? Are the electrons able to be excited by photons, meaning certain photons are absorbed and then re-emitted at the same or different frequency or vibration?
$endgroup$
– Tracy Cramer
1 hour ago