Fredxx wrote:

I would say room temperature superconductivity is a breakthrough

if it was anywhere near atmospheric pressure ...

On 20/10/2020 15:43, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/10/2020 10:42:28, Richard wrote:
On 17/10/2020 10:35, harry wrote:
New superconductor found, works at room temperature.
Most important discovery of the decade?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02895-0


So this isn't actually a breakthrough.

It is possibly a similar breakthrough to a field-effect transistor that
was proposed in 1925.

More comparable with the very first laser which also required an
impressive sized perfect gemstone and a room full of kit to work.


Or wouldn't you consider that a pretty useless device in 1925 could ever
result in something like the iPhone?

Sorry, I would say room temperature superconductivity is a breakthrough.
There may well be other similar materials that exhibit the same effect
at pressures we may be more used to.

If there were they would probably have been found by now.

Magnesium diboride was the last surprise moderately high temperature
superconductor family discovery at 39K in 2001.

https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Article...hen-Louie.html

Superconductors that will work at LN2 temperatures are about the best we
have got right now but they are ceramics and as brittle as hell.
Theoreticians are still trying to figure out exactly why they work.

League table is here and up to date:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-t...tivity#History

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 20/10/2020 16:42:42, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

Superconductors that will work at LN2 temperatures are about the best we
have got right now but they are ceramics and as brittle as hell.
Theoreticians are still trying to figure out exactly why they work.

For me you've hit the nail on the head. Until we understand why these
materials behave the way they do we're just stabbing in the dark.

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:04:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

These are pretty good sources. It would take a fair number of nukes to
match them.

What effect does removing that energy from the ecosystem have on it ?

What's a little flooding here and there ? :-)

You need fish ladders for the salmon to get past a dam.
That's if your river has salmon.

The silt tends to fall out, behind the dam. And
likely needs to be dredged at some point.

And the reservoir likely has methylmercury in it.

Paul

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:53:01 -0400, Paul wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 07:04:27 -0400, Paul wrote:

These are pretty good sources. It would take a fair number of nukes to
match them.
What effect does removing that energy from the ecosystem have on it ?
What's a little flooding here and there ? :-)

You need fish ladders for the salmon to get past a dam.
That's if your river has salmon.

The silt tends to fall out, behind the dam. And likely needs to be
dredged at some point.

And the reservoir likely has methylmercury in it.

TL;DR - not the zero sum game the terminally dim would have us believe.

They do an environmental assessment before building one,
so that the cost/benefit is there to see.

I think on balance, compared to the things we could be doing,
it's a pretty good solution.

We've run out of rivers to dam, so there won't be any more
really big projects, at a guess. Next comes tidal power :-)
(Don't worry, there's only one good spot for it... And
I don't think anyone is ready to pay for it.)

Paul

On 21/10/2020 12:27, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 07:16:18 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Next comes tidal power :-)
(Don't worry, there's only one good spot for it... And
I don't think anyone is ready to pay for it.)

Paul

Which spot had you in mind? UK or world-wide? A tidal barrage, like La
Rance in France, or tidal flow, like in the Pentland Firth?

Neirher of which proved economically viable


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 21/10/2020 12:54, Tim Streater wrote:
On 21 Oct 2020 at 12:27:21 BST, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 07:16:18 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Next comes tidal power :-)
(Don't worry, there's only one good spot for it... And
I don't think anyone is ready to pay for it.)

Paul

Which spot had you in mind? UK or world-wide? A tidal barrage, like La
Rance in France, or tidal flow, like in the Pentland Firth?

I suspect he'll say Bristol Channel, and when it's pointed out that tidal is
no better that wind for providing continuous 24x7 power, he'll say that we
build another at Grimsby or wherever the tide is in a suitably different
phase. It'll be the usual story of not noticing that he's built two power
stations to get the output of one.

And the Grimsby tides are about one tenth of the power of the atlantic ones

And tidal power is not renewable. It slows the moon down


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

In message , Tim Streater
writes
On 21 Oct 2020 at 12:27:21 BST, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 07:16:18 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Next comes tidal power :-)
(Don't worry, there's only one good spot for it... And
I don't think anyone is ready to pay for it.)

Paul

Which spot had you in mind? UK or world-wide? A tidal barrage, like La
Rance in France, or tidal flow, like in the Pentland Firth?

I suspect he'll say Bristol Channel, and when it's pointed out that tidal is
no better that wind for providing continuous 24x7 power, he'll say that we
build another at Grimsby or wherever the tide is in a suitably different
phase. It'll be the usual story of not noticing that he's built two power
stations to get the output of one.

Gulf of St. Lawrence?


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
On 21 Oct 2020 at 12:27:21 BST, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 07:16:18 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Next comes tidal power :-)
(Don't worry, there's only one good spot for it... And
I don't think anyone is ready to pay for it.)

Paul

Which spot had you in mind? UK or world-wide? A tidal barrage, like La
Rance in France, or tidal flow, like in the Pentland Firth?

I suspect he'll say Bristol Channel, and when it's pointed out that
tidal is no better that wind for providing continuous 24x7 power, he'll
say that we build another at Grimsby or wherever the tide is in a
suitably different phase. It'll be the usual story of not noticing that
he's built two power stations to get the output of one.

But it's likely something we could do in house. And not rely on the likes
of China to provide the know how.

I've got a name for this. Taking back control. ;-)

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/10/2020 14:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:30:09 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

On 21 Oct 2020 at 13:07:55 BST, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

And tidal power is not renewable. It slows the moon down

Worse: it causes the Moon to recede from the Earth. One important thing
the Moon does is stabilise the Earth's spin axis. Once it gets too far
away, that interaction will be reduced to an extent where chaotic
gravtitaional effects from other planets (such as Jupiter) will start to
become important. Then, there is quite a non-zero likelihood that the
Earth's spin axis could tip over to horizontal, which would totally ****
up life on the planet.

I think you underestimate the ability of humans to totally not give a
**** about the future.


No way anything we do will move the moon enough to detect.

It's mass is apparently 7x10^22Kg. That's a _lot_.

Andy