SkepticLance

Realistically, we are not going to be able to exploit space minerals for 100 plus years, no matter how urgent we see it. We need a space elevator first, if not many. And that will take 100 years. Again, realistically, we will turn to lower purity ores for our minerals. As I have argued many times before, there is plenty of material right here on Earth. Enough for centuries. For example : someone mentioned lead. The Earth's crust contains 14 parts per million, meaning a total of more than 10 trillion tonnes. If we ever learn to tap the mantle, that number increases massively. In the ocean, lead is a little under 3 parts per trillion. That is : a total of about a million tonnes. Rather than charging off into space to mine these materials, could we not learn to exploit a higher proportion of what is already here in planet Earth?

To npts and swansont Sorry, I was a bit ambiguous in my statement about ships. I meant, how about using it in a commercial ship, as opposed to a navy ship? If the system is that good, it means that a large container vessel could run nuclear, and avoid burning oil. International trade goes carbon emission free. I agree that the 'no moving parts' would refer only to the reactor. The heat generated has to be turned into electricity, and the most likely way to do this is via a steam turbine, which definitely does have moving parts. The key to this reactor has to be the passive failsafe for the reactor. Anyone got any better ideas on how this will operate? I could imagine a system with neutron reflectors held against the reactor against powerful springs with electricity. Anything that goes wrong would interfere with electricity production, causing the springs to push the reflectors out, stopping the fusion???? Is it possible that we will see even smaller reactors in the future? Imagine being able to power every commercial vessel with a similar nuclear system, including small coastal freighters. Perhaps even trains might go nuclear??? If the inbuilt safety systems are good enough, this would be a major step forward.

To Sayonara I have no problem with speculation as long as it is identified as such. I do have a problem with speculation that is presented as if it is fact. In the same way, I enjoy reading fiction, but I do not mistake it for anything else. Honest fiction is great. Dishonest is when someone like Van Daniken comes along and writes a book of fantasy and tells everyone it is fact. Exploiting space minerals will be a lot more difficult than Moontanman seems to think. The biggest problem is simply getting clear of the Earth's gravity well. Once we can do this easily, things will become a lot less difficult. The solution exists in theory in the form of the hypothetical space elevator. There appears to be no barrier in terms of the laws of physics to this elevator, and I think it will probably be built some time in the next 100 years. After that we could get exploitation of space minerals. There will be volunteers to go into space to do it. There are always enough idiots around! The time that will have to be dedicated to such a project, though, is mind boggling. Imagine volunteering to mine the moons of Saturn, and going into space for the many decades required! And this is assuming we have a solution to the problem of lethal radiation. The logical way to do it is to find a lump of rock in space with lots of water. Set up base upon the rock, and mount ion drive engines. Use the water as reaction mass and fusion fuel, and begin the slow deceleration of that rock into Earth orbit. It would take 50 plus years! You would leave the Earth to live in a tin can for pretty much the rest of your life.

Just read Hyperions own write up. http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ Seems to me it must be neutron reflector technology. A small amount of fissionable fuel is inside the module, and surrounded by neutron reflectors designed to make it react. Presumably, something in the reflector design makes it passively fail safe. If it starts to flare, the reflectors fail.

How about a modified version of the plant to power a large ship?

The products should be boric acid plus sodium chloride.

One strong clue to cause and effect is timing. Cause precedes effect. If, in the genesis of a human, the chromosome precedes the sex development, the chromosome is the cause. If sexual development precedes, then it is the cause. As we all know, sperm and eggs bear chromosomes. The sperm either has X or Y. Until sperm and egg unite, and for a long time after, there is no gender. The chromosome came first, so it is the cause, and gender, which develops later, is the effect.

A point of interest in relation to scarce metals : I read recently an analysis of iron rich meteorites. Apparently they are also extremely rich (by Earth standards) in Platinum, Iridium and other precious metals. This suggests that those scarce materials are abundant off the Earth. What this means to a future society is a possible source of speculation. It may also be worth speculating about the distribution of heavier elements on Earth. It appears, from analysis of rock that has come from the Earth's mantle, that heavier elements are more abundant deeper down. Lighter elements such as Aluminium are very abundant in the Earth's crust, but deeper down we get more of the rarer and heavier atoms. Could a future technology tap this resource? Worth thinking about.

iNow If you post information and leave it at that, then fine. You did not. You said : "I now return you to your regularly scheduled program, and await SkepticLance's spin about how he's still right and how my point about making sure the context was set for comments is unecessary." That was a personal and provocative comment, and totally unnecessary. The wording was clearly an intention to argue, when an argument was not needed. You tend to do this sort of thing, even when you do not think you are. I do not like an implication that I am putting 'spin' on a point, when it is merely a factual statement.

iNow said " I was simply putting a blunt edge in front of SkepticLance's distractions." No, iNow. You were trying to be a problem. The original question asked what effect the coming low in sunspots might have. It is well established that sunspots have an effect on global temperature, with an estimated difference of 0.2 C from high to low in a typical 11 year cycle. This point I made. There was, in fact, no invitation for you to treat it as an argument, since there was nothing controversial stated. I did not try to say that sunspots were the cause of current warming. You were arguing against a point I did not make. ie. You were being difficult. Why not admit that you were out of line? If you want to argue against me, that is fine. But please wait till I say something that you can disagree with. And this time, I said no such thing. In other words, lplease do not try to create unnecessary arguments.

ecoli You push analogy beyond what is intended. I am sure you get the point, anyway. The thing is that nations are like neighbours. Everything works better when they cooperate. Things are less pleasant, or even nasty, when they do not.

Imagine you were living in a street that was afflicted with large amounts of rubbish, and other eyesores and sources of disease, such as mosquito infested pools of water. Imagine that the neighbours got together to carry out a clean up. Imagine that one such neighbour refused to cooperate, and even refused to let anyone onto his property to spray his own infested ponds. Now think how you would feel about that person. That neighbour might be exercising freedom. He might be within his legal rights. He will still be seen as antisocial. When the USA refuses to go along with necessary international duties, this is how we feel about the US administration. I am not anti-American. I have American neighbours and they are lovely people and good friends. I love much of what makes up American culture, and certainly American science. But I am not blind to certain aspects of the government of the USA and their approach to the rest of the world. Because the USA is so powerful, what they decide to do matters. It matters very much. And when they fail to be a good international neighbour, everyone suffers. That is the reason why the rest of the world follows the US presidential elections. That is why we are concerned.

Hey guys. I carefully used the term 'cooperative'. That is NOT world government. I am not pushing for world government. Just a world in which various nations work together. Cooperate. Get it? And a refusal to cooperate is not freedom. It is bloody mindedness. Something like agreeing to restrict land mines is not an attack on American sovereignty. It is plain good sense. And saves thousands from death and maiming.

To jackson The fact that the US fails to conform to many international laws and treaties is a very sore point to non Americans. Outside the US, we see this as another example of the unbelievable arrogance of the US administration. For example : land mines are a dreadful weapon which kills and maims thousands of innocents around the world each year. There is a comprehensive land mine ban to which all civilised nations have signed. The conspicuous absense is the USA. Is this because the US military wants to continue to use this dreadful and indescriminate weapon and continue to kill and maim innocents each year? Is it because they are arrogant and callous? Is it some kind of ridiculous gesture towards independent choice of action? In any event, it is reprehensible that the world's largest military power refuses to sign that treaty. The world, like it or not, is shrinking. Because of instantaneous communication, and rapid transport, no nation is an island any more. Trade and trans-cultural influences bring us all closer. We all have to work together and try to form a harmonious world cooperative. Nations that refuse to cooperate are a pain in the arse!

ecoli is so right. Trade is good, and aid is good. Interventionism is bad.

Speaking as a non-American, I have a passing interest in who gets elected. This is because of the power wielded and the impact on non-American parts of the world. The USA has done some wonderful things. In particular from my personally biased science loving view, it has advanced space exploration, and invested enough in science in general to advance the whole field. In addition, I love much of what comes out of Hollywood. However, the US administration has a well deserved international reputation for arrogance. This comes from its tendency to rush in to try to control the fate of other nations. The number of nations it has invaded since WWII is staggering. Even where it failed to apply military force, the US administration has frequently applied other forms of force to coerce results that are in the interests of the US administration, rather than in the interests of the sovereign, independent nations so affected. None of us living in other nations consider this desirable. We want to control our own destinies, free of American self interest. It has been said that with great power comes great responsibility. Few in the world outside the USA would say that the US administration has been particularly responsible in the way it has exercised that power outside the USA. For this reason, we have a strong interest in the outcome of the presidential election, in the hope that someone will come to power who will respect our independence and national sovereignty.

I doubt it would work. Take shingles, which is the same virus as chickenpox. It activates, usually in older people, when they are stressed and is very painful. However, in between the virus 'hides' in certain nerve cells, where it is undetected by the immune system. If the outbreak is stimulated by simulating stress, there would still be the viruses in hiding to continue the infection after all the work of the immune system is over.

iNow You are attempting to argue against a point I was not making. I said that sunspots are one of the factors influencing global warming, and that is true. To argue how much each effect might be is a quite separate argument and lets not go there.

Lesser sunspot activity to a degree mitigates global warming. Does not stop the warming, but slows it down a bit. It has been previously calculated that the global temperature difference due to the sunspot cycle being at a maximum versus the normal minimum is about 0.2 Celsius. If the cycles themselves are reduced, the global temperature is reduced, albeit by a small amount. After all, the previous Maunder Minimum in sunspots, in the 17th Century, was a time called the Little Ice Age.

To iNow There is plenty to learn and discover without descending to pseudoscience. Getting rid of pseudoscience means getting rid of beliefs for which there is no credible scientific evidence. It does not mean closing your mind. It does not mean failing to study and learn. After all, string theory has been a art of mainstream science for a long time, and it meets most of the criteria of psudoscience. Yet it is largely tolerated. If it does not come up with a testable prediction soon, though, it will probably be dropped. At that stage, string theory will be classified as pseudoscience. Yes, I agree that pseudoscience has little or nothing to contribute, apart from a massive distraction. We need a good working definition of pseudoscience, though.

mooeypoo I had thought of that. However, the full potential of animal power could not be realised before the invention of the yoke. A horse or ox pulling against a coil of rope or similar could not do much work, since the rope would act to restrict breathing. Only the yoke and collar could spread the load and permit the animal to pull heavy loads. Not sure of when this happened, but I think it was after Greek civilisation??? In fact, I vaguely remember reading that the invention of the yoke was a major influence in the reduction of human slavery. Horses and oxen, using yokes, could do more work than a human slave.

Mr Skeptic To the best of my knowledge, the ocean currents discussed were discovered independently of global climate models, and were not discovered because of them. I agree that the models would be showing value if they led to such discoveries, although that would still not show predictive value. On me and my ruler. You still don't get it. I can make simple predictions using that devise. However, a global climate model should do much more. I am waiting for details showing the models giving predictions that are not simple, and that are unexpected. I agree that I should not be the equal of a model, and I do not think I am. However, the models have to be able to do more. I can predict from simple principles, and from what we know due to hindsight, that the world is likely to keep warming. I can predict that the warming will be lower atmosphere and there will be a cooling at a higher altitude. I can predict that the warming will be greater in the high Arctic. None of these predictions require a computer model. What I am asking, is what predictions the models have made that cannot be made from simple principles, and when were these predictions tested and proven to be correct. Please don't answer my query with a list of references that would take me an unconscionably long time to read. If you have the data, you can post it as a quote, where we can all read it. bascule I am not an expert on economic models. I assume until informed otherwise, that the mega million dollar economic models had a good success record until the recent crash. Will climate models also crash? Only time will tell.

Fortunately, I do not have to justify a position, since I am asking a question. What iNow objects to is that I recognise that I have not yet received a satisfactorily adequate answer.

I agree with iNow about closing the thread. Once a participant descends to gratuitous insults, even hidden under </circumventing infraction> then we need to get the hell out.

The ancients were able to do some things better than we can. Not due to technology, but due to body physical conditioning. For example, Roman triremes could be rowed at an average of 7 knots for 6 hours non stop. Modern researchers have manned replica triremes with olympic champions and found they could not keep this speed up for more than 30 minutes. Superior body conditioning is reported in historical documents for Roman gladiators, and for Spartan soldiers. Perhaps some of the great ancient accomplishments were due to extraordinary physical abilities. Dragging bloody great rocks up earth ramps to build pyramids would require outstanding strength and stamina.