The best suicide technology in the world (nuclear technology?)

[darkjedi]

question is this related to your field of work? since you know quite a handful of information about this?

I study Iran out of self-interest. Iran's a good textbook example of how a 3rd world country, against all odds, quickly become a 1st world country, aside from Korea itself. Since I'm done studying Korean economy and its rise to power, I'm studying the next best example, which is Iran.   I study Iranian technology and military as an added extra.

And my complaints about the old generation of Korea is just a part of my juvenile antics. The rest are what I learn from school or internet.

I would really like to know how this went from a debate about the pros and cons of various different energy sources, nuclear in particular, to weapons to whether or not Korea can spend any fucking money.

First thing my friend, I authored this thread, so I can stir it in whatever way I want as long as I keep to forum rules, and all I need to do to keep this thread 'on-topic' is to change the name of the thread. I think renaming this thread is better than making a new thread for another minor topic, and I think psyren agrees with me.   (I think that's why he didn't lock this thread yet)

 The fact of the matter is that over time Nuclear Fission plants have become highly reliable and safe through the development of various fail safes and backup systems. However it is not the only source of major energy output out there.

Our uranium stockpile will not last very long. Here's from the Scientific American:

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

So I put our stockpile's lifespan at between 200 years and 500 years.

On the other hand, our H2 gas supply is essentially limitless, because we can extract them from gas giants in the future any time. Our own hydrogen supply from Earth's water is enough to sustain our planet until the end of the world.

The problem is, a critical nuclear fusion demands more energy to contain than does a sub-critical nuclear fission. And there's no such thing as sub-critical fusion as far as I know. So we don't have a fusion reactor yet whose containment efforts consume less energy than what the reactor produces.

Geo-Thermal Power: When someone says Geo-Thermal power you usually think of a plant that sits on a pocket of magma or on the edge of two tectonic plates where magmatic steam is more available. This will get you the greatest result but Geo-Thermal power can also be attained in the same sense of Solar power. Geo-Thermal is heat energy radiated from and off of the Earth. It is simply finding a way to capture that, which I feel isn't currently being used to it's full potential. Don't know the more specifics at this time but I do know that Geo Thermal power, if researched more, could compete with Nuclear Fission not so sure about Nuclear Fusion. Also I remember someone earlier in this thread stating how great Geo-Thermal energy was. I will say it is a great source of free renewable energy that hasn't been fully exploited, but one thing. Nuclear energy is only relevant on a planet. It holds no value in space, where as Nuclear Fusion would.

The only way geothermal power can compete with nuclear power is through heavy use of refrigerants. But then, that means we can do the same with refrigerants on nuclear power plants also, so it's even. Besides that, Earth's supply of refrigerants is extremely limited, and not renewable, and also harmful to the environment. They are carcinogens and destroy the ozone layer. I do not recommend it, although I don't know how many people will care what I say.  

Nuclear energy is very relevant in space also. Many of our deep space probes are powered through plutonium fuels that decay slowly, and afaik energy from radioactive decay is part of nuclear energy. There's no alternative to plutonium fuels right now for deep space probes because most other chemicals decay too fast or have low potential energy, and solar panels are not very viable when probes are far away from the Sun.

So I say nuclear energy is still more useful to human in space than chemical energy or solar energy are, be it through decay, fission, or fusion.

[WingZero8788]

Our uranium stockpile will not last very long. Here's from the Scientific American:

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

So I put our stockpile's lifespan at between 200 years and 500 years.

On the other hand, our H2 gas supply is essentially limitless, because we can extract them from gas giants in the future any time. Our own hydrogen supply from Earth's water is enough to sustain our planet until the end of the world.

The problem is, a critical nuclear fusion demands more energy to contain than does a sub-critical nuclear fission. And there's no such thing as sub-critical fusion as far as I know. So we don't have a fusion reactor yet whose containment efforts consume less energy than what the reactor produces.

I agree with you on most of the Nuclear Fusion comment. My take on it is that it requires a lot of energy to create a stable chain reaction and then maintain it afterwards. The main problem in containing it is you would have to have the containment field up before you begin the reaction inside the reaction chamber. I say we would have to use a "field" because there is no substance out their other then some type of magnetic field that can contain plasma, which is what it would become because of the intense heat.

The only way geothermal power can compete with nuclear power is through heavy use of refrigerants. But then, that means we can do the same with refrigerants on nuclear power plants also, so it's even. Besides that, Earth's supply of refrigerants is extremely limited, and not renewable, and also harmful to the environment. They are carcinogens and destroy the ozone layer. I do not recommend it, although I don't know how many people will care what I say.  Tongue

Nuclear energy is very relevant in space also. Many of our deep space probes are powered through plutonium fuels that decay slowly, and afaik energy from radioactive decay is part of nuclear energy. There's no alternative to plutonium fuels right now for deep space probes because most other chemicals decay too fast or have low potential energy, and solar panels are not very viable when probes are far away from the Sun.

So I say nuclear energy is still more useful to human in space than chemical energy or solar energy are, be it through decay, fission, or fusion.

I apologize. Meant to say that Geo-Thermal energy is only relevant, or only capable of being used, on a planet and that Nuclear Energy can be used essentially anywhere including space.

Photovoltaic cells, as the name suggests, rely on light induced chemical reactions to produce a current.  They aren't mirrors and they certainly don't ave a central tower which gets heated. It would be pretty funny though to see a pocket calculator complete with a tiny mirror and tower.

Sorry about that. Meant to say mirrors instead of photovoltaic cells. The way you described is an alternative form though. Also liked that list little bit. Really need to not rush through my posts when I've not had any sleep for two days.

First thing my friend, I authored this thread, so I can stir it in whatever way I want as long as I keep to forum rules, and all I need to do to keep this thread 'on-topic' is to change the name of the thread. I think renaming this thread is better than making a new thread for another minor topic, and I think psyren agrees with me.  Wink (I think that's why he didn't lock this thread yet)

I also apologize in regards to my earlier opening comment. It bugs me when topics stray that far off from their original intent, even if it was due to the original creator.

[darkjedi]

Someone called me one-dimensional. ._.

'how can you judge a country's technological attainment by looking at military hardwares alone?'

olololol *rant* *rant*

but I chose it because it's the most obvious example. >_< And most often military technology are far ahead of civilian technology!

[mgz]

Someone called me one-dimensional. ._.

'how can you judge a country's technological attainment by looking at military hardwares alone?'

olololol *rant* *rant*

but I chose it because it's the most obvious example. >_< And most often military technology are far ahead of civilian technology!

which is why soviet russia is the perfect example of why to look at military technology instead of civilian technology.

Because judging a country on the best of the best gives you the most accurate results.

And because of that logic, nobody in america is poor, they all are worth about 40 billion dollars since we looked at bill gates financial worth and decided it was an accurate representation of the country

[darkjedi]

I'm not exactly sure if I correctly understood you but anyway,

[Rant Mode Activated]

I'm not looking for the best of the best per se, as in, which country's got the best technology or a better technology on a particular field; it's an analytical case study. Knowing their best technology just helps analyze their scientific R&D's evolutionary path better.

I'm trying to look for what Iran has got right in its R&D and see if we can implement it in a Korean environment.

So far I've focused much on reverse-engineering associated with military hardware and space program only. Inevitably some dude will start pulling my hair and tell me to start looking at industrial technology, agricultural technology, (lol actually no idea), medical technology, transportation technology, but actually that's all bullshit because when they say 'transportation technology' they are telling me to compare Hyundai cars to some random Iranian car or something for shits and giggles.   In retrospect, the best of the best 'transportation technology' of Korea still belongs to its military, e.g. Aegis destroyers (navigation technology) and KT-50 fighters. (aviation technology) Have we reverse-engineered an Airbus 320 while I wasn't looking? lol.

These Aegis destroyers, KT-50 fighters, and most of the technology associated with them are useless for civilian application. And for that, most people who are likely to examine my papers are not going to take them seriously, because it's not going to improve their quality of life, which is one of the fundamental purposes of a research. (improving the quality of life) But why should my research be particularly useful to the ordinary Korean mankind when it's gonna be snubbed by them anyway?

It's hard to compare industrial and agricultural technology because they are extensive and often universal throughout the world. We do not know the origin of these technology so we won't know if its really indigenous to a specific country or actually just improved copycats of earlier versions.

It's like telling me to compare one Korean factory's equipment to an Iranian factory's equipment. There are thousands of factories. >.> And they look god damn similar to each other, man. Let's just look at the products of these industrial technology. Military technology inherently has its roots on industrial technology because you need industry to make a military hardware. By comparing military technology, you are already comparing an industrial technology that's far more advanced than ordinary civilian technology.

For medical technology I lack the familiarity and the interest on the subject matter.

In the end, I believe that the questions that I'll be addressing in this research will be more philosophical rather than practical; questions such as what positive scientific attitudes and philosophical mindsets did Iran display that made Iran's scientific R&D more successful than expected? (I'm gonna include 'more respect for the younger generations of scientists and engineers' as a hypothesis on this one) What circumstances caused Iran to foster these scientific attitudes and philosophical mindsets that made Iran's scientific R&D more successful than expected? (preliminary hypotheses will be something like 'lack of foreign support forced Iran to be more resourceful with its limited domestic resources'; and also 'Some of Iran's scientific R&D are closely tied to its strategic interests, e.g. ballistic missile technology') What conditions gave rise to the circumstances that caused Iran to foster these scientific attitudes and philosophical mindsets that made Iran's scientific R&D more successful than expected? (This will include the study of Iran's history, culture(?), economy, and politics; e.g. why Iran lacks technological support from other countries, why Iran has poor diplomatic relationship with the West and Israel, what is holding Iran back from producing better economic and political environments that are more conducive for scientific R&D, etc.)

Ah whatever, as long as I could find a less obnoxious panel of thesis examiners and get a good grade out of it, I wouldn't care whether my research's gonna be useful or not.

[Rant End]

[Tatsujin]

I'm not exactly sure if I correctly understood you but anyway,

[Rant Mode Activated]

I'm not looking for the best of the best per se, as in, which country's got the best technology or a better technology on a particular field; it's an analytical case study. Knowing their best technology just helps analyze their scientific R&D's evolutionary path better.

I'm trying to look for what Iran has got right in its R&D and see if we can implement it in a Korean environment.

So far I've focused much on reverse-engineering associated with military hardware and space program only. Inevitably some dude will start pulling my hair and tell me to start looking at industrial technology, agricultural technology, (lol actually no idea), medical technology, transportation technology, but actually that's all bullshit because when they say 'transportation technology' they are telling me to compare Hyundai cars to some random Iranian car or something for shits and giggles.   In retrospect, the best of the best 'transportation technology' of Korea still belongs to its military, e.g. Aegis destroyers (navigation technology) and KT-50 fighters. (aviation technology) Have we reverse-engineered an Airbus 320 while I wasn't looking? lol.

These Aegis destroyers, KT-50 fighters, and most of the technology associated with them are useless for civilian application. And for that, most people who are likely to examine my papers are not going to take them seriously, because it's not going to improve their quality of life, which is one of the fundamental purposes of a research. (improving the quality of life) But why should my research be particularly useful to the ordinary Korean mankind when it's gonna be snubbed by them anyway?

It's hard to compare industrial and agricultural technology because they are extensive and often universal throughout the world. We do not know the origin of these technology so we won't know if its really indigenous to a specific country or actually just improved copycats of earlier versions.

It's like telling me to compare one Korean factory's equipment to an Iranian factory's equipment. There are thousands of factories. >.> And they look god damn similar to each other, man. Let's just look at the products of these industrial technology. Military technology inherently has its roots on industrial technology because you need industry to make a military hardware. By comparing military technology, you are already comparing an industrial technology that's far more advanced than ordinary civilian technology.

For medical technology I lack the familiarity and the interest on the subject matter.

In the end, I believe that the questions that I'll be addressing in this research will be more philosophical rather than practical; questions such as what positive scientific attitudes and philosophical mindsets did Iran display that made Iran's scientific R&D more successful than expected? (I'm gonna include 'more respect for the younger generations of scientists and engineers' as a hypothesis on this one) What circumstances caused Iran to foster these scientific attitudes and philosophical mindsets that made Iran's scientific R&D more successful than expected? (preliminary hypotheses will be something like 'lack of foreign support forced Iran to be more resourceful with its limited domestic resources'; and also 'Some of Iran's scientific R&D are closely tied to its strategic interests, e.g. ballistic missile technology') What conditions gave rise to the circumstances that caused Iran to foster these scientific attitudes and philosophical mindsets that made Iran's scientific R&D more successful than expected? (This will include the study of Iran's history, culture(?), economy, and politics; e.g. why Iran lacks technological support from other countries, why Iran has poor diplomatic relationship with the West and Israel, what is holding Iran back from producing better economic and political environments that are more conducive for scientific R&D, etc.)

Ah whatever, as long as I could find a less obnoxious panel of thesis examiners and get a good grade out of it, I wouldn't care whether my research's gonna be useful or not.

[Rant End]

Do you even know why, not just Iran, but just about the whole Middle East, about every Muslim country hates Israel?! ... You do know that half the government in the United States are Jewish and/or support Israel too, right? There's your answers.

[darkjedi]

I didn't know half the government in the U.S. were Jewish >.>

[AceHigh]

I didn't know half the government in the U.S. were Jewish >.>

I don't believe that.... it doesn't even fit with the stereotype 

However the generalisation that most bank owners are Jews has a lot of truth to it however and we all know that bankers have a huge amount of power through influence.

[darkjedi]

Hm, I don't think the Jewish bankers of the U.S. is the primary reason why Iran's economy is stagnating though. At least, there are no obvious ways of finding out without investigating beyond the Internet. My guess so far had always been the lack of diplomatic relationship between the West and Iran; lack of trade other than just oil and technology transfer, to be most precise. (sanctions) Their infrastructure couldn't keep up with their growing population and economy. The money they earn goes down the drain if they don't have an infrastructure that can convert these money into something useful. And they can't buy a lot of stuff from abroad either to compensate for insufficient domestic capacity because they have poor relationship with the West to begin with.

[relic2279]

That would be their own fault though it seems. If they had allowed nuclear inspectors in, and complied with the treaty they signed, the sanctions could have been lifted. I believe inspectors were recently allowed in (not sure if they have been kicked out again though) so we will see.

[darkjedi]

I had the same discussion in the other forums, and my conjecture was that there might have been something else other than a hypothetical nuclear weaponization program that Iran wanted to hide. For example, (I'm stressing the 'for example') If IAEA obtained the complete schematics of the facilities, and knew where each and everything was located performing which function, it might have become easier for Iran's enemies to infiltrate the facilities and conduct sabotage.

Israel conducting sabotage on a civilian nuclear facility doesn't seem far fetched when they threaten to do so with air strikes anyway.

[Tatsujin]

I didn't know half the government in the U.S. were Jewish >.>

I don't believe that.... it doesn't even fit with the stereotype 

However the generalisation that most bank owners are Jews has a lot of truth to it however and we all know that bankers have a huge amount of power through influence.

It's just a thing between Jewish and Muslims. Because the fact that America helps Israel with a whole bunch of things and Israel just loves to invade Palestine to kill women and children (Anyone seen this year's incident before Obama became the president? Google "israel kills palestinian children 2009") they were intentionally aimming for their heads and bodies. Pretty much they hate each other. Iran dislikes American, so does Saudi Arabia, so does the whole Middle East. The US is trying to keep the Middle East "under control" by not allowing the Mulsim countries to unite again like in the past. They'll pretty much become the #1 threat to the US if they do unite, when they do actually.

So the US hits Iran, then they'll pick another Muslim country and make up some stupid shit, blackmail/control most of the Media around the world to make them look "good" against them. Which country did they invade before Iran? Iraq. Before Iraq? and before that Country? And before that country?

[darkjedi]

I don't think U.S. would give a shit whether the Middle East united against the U.S. or not unless 3/4 of the world's oil reserves was sitting there.

Africa deserves more help than Middle East if we go by the U.S.'s mandate of 'we fight for justice and freedom', but it doesn't get the help it deserves, because Africa is less strategically important to the U.S.

At the core, the U.S.'s mandate is 'we fight for whatever is most beneficial to us.'

[Tatsujin]

I don't think U.S. would give a shit whether the Middle East united against the U.S. or not unless 3/4 of the world's oil reserves was sitting there.

Africa deserves more help than Middle East if we go by the U.S.'s mandate of 'we fight for justice and freedom', but it doesn't get the help it deserves, because Africa is less strategically important to the U.S.

At the core, the U.S.'s mandate is 'we fight for whatever is most beneficial to us.'

With:

I didn't know half the government in the U.S. were Jewish >.>

I don't believe that.... it doesn't even fit with the stereotype 

However the generalisation that most bank owners are Jews has a lot of truth to it however and we all know that bankers have a huge amount of power through influence.

It's just a thing between Jewish and Muslims. Because the fact that America helps Israel with a whole bunch of things and Israel just loves to invade Palestine to kill women and children (Anyone seen this year's incident before Obama became the president? Google "israel kills palestinian children 2009") they were intentionally aimming for their heads and bodies. Pretty much they hate each other. Iran dislikes American, so does Saudi Arabia, so does the whole Middle East. The US is trying to keep the Middle East "under control" by not allowing the Mulsim countries to unite again like in the past. They'll pretty much become the #1 threat to the US if they do unite, when they do actually.

So the US hits Iran, then they'll pick another Muslim country and make up some stupid shit, blackmail/control most of the Media around the world to make them look "good" against them. Which country did they invade before Iran? Iraq. Before Iraq? and before that Country? And before that country?

That's pretty much what the US is all about.

[darkjedi]

Some pics from Iran's military parade this week:






































































Their tanks and infantry got a lot better.