Technology, Science and the Environment.

[Izzy]

31 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

What the hell is a gW?!?

 

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

One quacowatt (gW), or 1*10^-23 watts, apparently (not sure if that's actually real or not).

 

But I think Izzy meant one gigawatt, or GW.

Yeah, definitely meant a gigawatt. That's what Doc Brown on Back to The Future called it 

[Buce]

57 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Just get on with it and land on a star already. It's not rocket science FFS 

 

Hmmm.

 

Not sure how you'd land on a gaseous object with or without advanced technology.

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Hmmm.

 

Not sure how you'd land on a gaseous object with or without advanced technology.

Now you’re telling me stars are made of gas? This thread gets weirder and weirder 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Izzy said:

Now you’re telling me stars are made of gas? This thread gets weirder and weirder 

 

What are stars made of?

Stars are made of very hot gas. This gas is mostly hydrogen and helium, which are the two lightest elements. Stars shine by burning hydrogen into helium in their cores, and later in their lives create heavier elements. Most stars have small amounts of heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and iron, which were created by stars that existed before them. After a star runs out of fuel, it ejects much of its material back into space. New stars are formed from this material. So the material in stars is recycled.

 

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/205-What-are-stars-made-of-

[Izzy]

Well blown me down. Every day is a school day on FT 

[leicsmac]

And to think, mastering fusion power means we have that same power on a smaller scale for all our energy generation needs.

[LiberalFox]

I think you'd want to get to something like 1/5th the speed of light. If the nearest star is about 4 light years away it would take 20 years to reach it. 

 

 

[LiberalFox]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And to think, mastering fusion power means we have that same power on a smaller scale for all our energy generation needs.

I'm sure it was controlled fusion power that people were thinking about when "energy too cheap to meter" was mentioned. You have to wonder why has it taken so long to achieve? Is it just the technical challenge or is it the failure of capitalism to allocate funding? 

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I think you'd want to get to something like 1/5th the speed of light. If the nearest star is about 4 light years away it would take 20 years to reach it. 

 

 

 

Apart from the reasons already discussed, even that wouldn't be true because you are not accounting for acceleration and deceleration. It couldn't go from a standing start to 1/5th light speed, and neither could it just stop on a sixpence.

 

That is even truer when we consider sending humans any great distance because we could only comfortably withstand acceleration/deceleration at 1G.

[davieG]

4 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm sure it was controlled fusion power that people were thinking about when "energy too cheap to meter" was mentioned. You have to wonder why has it taken so long to achieve? Is it just the technical challenge or is it the failure of capitalism to allocate funding? 

 They said that when that discovered North Sea Oil.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm sure it was controlled fusion power that people were thinking about when "energy too cheap to meter" was mentioned. You have to wonder why has it taken so long to achieve? Is it just the technical challenge or is it the failure of capitalism to allocate funding? 

Bit of both - it's incredibly technically challenging and hasn't been funded enough because the potential gains are so long term.

 

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Apart from the reasons already discussed, even that wouldn't be true because you are not accounting for acceleration and deceleration. It couldn't go from a standing start to 1/5th light speed, and neither could it just stop on a sixpence.

 

That is even truer when we consider sending humans any great distance because we could only comfortably withstand acceleration/deceleration at 1G.

Funny thing though, if you accelerate at 1g, barring relativistic effects you actually reach the speed of light within a year - which isn't much time in the context of a long mission.

 

8 minutes ago, davieG said:

 They said that when that discovered North Sea Oil.

With respect, fusion power ain't North Sea Oil.

Edited 4 January 2019 by leicsmac

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, fusion power ain't North Sea Oil.

I'm well aware of that it just made me remember it and laughed at what has happened since, that being said it wont come cheap because someone will find a way to justify charging a lot for it.

[leicsmac]

Just now, davieG said:

I'm well aware of that it just made me remember it and laughed at what has happened since, that being said it wont come cheap because someone will find a way to justify charging a lot for it.

Yeah, that's a fair point.

 

TBH you never know what's around the corner in terms of such developments, and predictions over a period of decades about development are often pretty sketchy.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Funny thing though, if you accelerate at 1g, barring relativistic effects you actually reach the speed of light with a year - which isn't much time in the context of a long mission.

 

 

 

This is fast becoming my favourite thread.

[Izzy]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Bit of both - it's incredibly technically challenging and hasn't been funded enough because the potential gains are so long term.

 

Funny thing though, if you accelerate at 1g, barring relativistic effects you actually reach the speed of light within a year - which isn't much time in the context of a long mission.

 

With respect, fusion power ain't North Sea Oil.

Mac, it's quite obvious your a fookin genius, so what the fook are you doing pissing around on FT with us Muppets all day? 

 

Shouldn't you be busy changing the world or inventing something instead? 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Mac, it's quite obvious your a fookin genius, so what the fook are you doing pissing around on FT with us Muppets all day? 

 

Shouldn't you be busy changing the world or inventing something instead? 

Two reasons, Izzy

 

Firstly, there are much, much better people out there doing research and innovation than me. Compared to some of the people I've met, I'm no genius at all.

 

And secondly, science suffers because it isn't communicated as well to everyone as it needs to be - the current strain of anti-intellectualism going round right now is partly caused by that and it's often a truth that good researchers aren't often good communicators of knowledge. There's no point in scientific and technological development if folks can't see how it will benefit them and the rest of humanity and so allow it to be part of their lives - and so that's where I want to be, helping people understand how cool and good these new developments are and how they can be used for a better future.

[davieG]

Genetically modified 'shortcut' boosts plant growth by 40%
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
3 January 2019

These genetically modified tobacco plants were found to be 40% more productive
Scientists in the US have engineered tobacco plants that can grow up to 40% larger than normal in field trials.

The researchers say they have found a way of overcoming natural restrictions in the process of photosynthesis that limit crop productivity.

They believe the method could be used to significantly boost yields from important crops including rice and wheat.

The study has been published in the journal Science.

Researchers are growing increasingly concerned about the ability of the world to feed a growing population in a time of serious climate change.

It's expected that agricultural demand will increase globally by 60-120% by the middle of this century compared to 2005. Increases in crop yields however are rising by less that 2% per annum, so there's likely to be a significant shortfall by 2050.

While the use of fertilisers, pesticides and mechanisation have boosted yields over the past few decades, their potential for future growth is limited.

Instead, scientists are increasingly looking to improving the process of photosynthesis as a way of increasing food productivity.

While plants use the energy from sunlight to turn carbon dioxide and water into sugars that fuel the plant's growth, the chemical steps involved produce some toxic compounds that actually limit the potential of the crop.

These toxins are then recycled by the plant in a process called photorespiration - but this costs the plant precious energy that could have been used to increase yield.

In this study, researchers set out to developed a way around the photosynthesis glitch.

"We've tried three different biochemical designs with the aim of shortcutting this very energy expensive process," said lead author Dr Paul South with the US Agricultural Research Service.

"It's been estimated that in plants like soybeans, rice and fruit and vegetables, it can be a significant drag on yield by as much as 36%. We've tried to engineer this shortcut to make them more energy efficient - and in field trials this translated into a 40% increase in plant biomass."

One important aspect of the problem is that it becomes more prevalent at higher temperatures and under drought conditions.

"Our goal is to build better plants that can take the heat today and in the future, to help equip farmers with the technology they need to feed the world," said co-author Amanda Cavanagh, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Illinois.

The researchers chose tobacco plants because they are easy and quick to modify. They also form a fully closed canopy in the field similar to many food crops.

The team is now hoping to use these findings to boost the yields of soybean, rice, potato and tomato plants.

The experiment is significant say researchers because it involved two years of of field trials
"This process is very similar among all the crops that we are looking to grow," said Dr South.

"We are are really hoping that this is a technology that provides a tool that further optimises agriculture so that we are not using outside inputs as much and we are growing more food on less land."

However, the authors recognise that using genetic modification is controversial in many parts of the world.

They argue that a lengthy review process will ensure that if food crops are developed using this technology, they will be accepted by farmers and consumers alike.

"The research that's necessary to prove that it has low environmental impact and is safe for consumption takes a minimum of ten years and many more dollars in research funds to make sure that this is a good and safe food product," said Dr South.

The technology is being developed for royalty-free distribution to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and in Southeast Asia.

It is being funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research and the UK's Department for International Development.

[Buce]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Two reasons, Izzy

 

Firstly, there are much, much better people out there doing research and innovation than me. Compared to some of the people I've met, I'm no genius at all.

 

And secondly, science suffers because it isn't communicated as well to everyone as it needs to be - the current strain of anti-intellectualism going round right now is partly caused by that and it's often a truth that good researchers aren't often good communicators of knowledge. There's no point in scientific and technological development if folks can't see how it will benefit them and the rest of humanity and so allow it to be part of their lives - and so that's where I want to be, helping people understand how cool and good these new developments are and how they can be used for a better future.

 

Nothing to do with football then? 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Mac, it's quite obvious your a fookin genius, so what the fook are you doing pissing around on FT with us Muppets all day? 

 

Shouldn't you be busy changing the world or inventing something instead? 

 

‘Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise’. 

 

Thomas Gray

 

 

[stripeyfox]

I love all this space shit. 

 

What's your view on the Fermi Paradox @leicsmac? Could advanced life and civilizations be so rare (or even unique) that we never find one another?

 

 

1. 

    

   A graphical representation of the Arecibo message, humanity's first attempt to use radio waves to actively communicate its existence to alien civilizations

   The Fermi paradox, or Fermi's paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates^[1] for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations.^[2] The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi (1901–1954) and Michael H. Hart (born 1932), are:

2. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are similar to the Sun,^[3][4] and many of these stars are billions of years older than the Solar system.^[5][6]
3. With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets,^[7][8] and if the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life.
4. Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step the Earth is investigating now.
5. Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.^[9]

6. According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens. In an informal conversation, Fermi noted no convincing evidence of this, leading him to ask, "Where is everybody?"^[10][11] There have been many attempts to explain the Fermi paradox,^[12][13] primarily either suggesting that intelligent extraterrestrial life is extremely rare or proposing reasons that such civilizations have not contacted or visited Earth.

 

 

[The Bear]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Funny thing though, if you accelerate at 1g, barring relativistic effects you actually reach the speed of light within a year

Relativity exists though. Bit of a stumbling block as you can never reach the speed of light. 

 

There are radioactive powered ion based rockets that can do that progressive acceleration though. It's just really slow going to start with. 

[The Bear]

Re: Fermi paradox - My take is that civilizations don't exist at the same time to be able to overlap and be able to find each other. That and they probably don't be around long enough to become advanced enough to be able to travel the galaxy.

Edited 4 January 2019 by The Bear

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Re: Fermi paradox - My take is that civilizations don't exist at the same time to be able to overlap and be able to find each other. That and they probably don't be around long enough to become advanced enough to be able to travel the galaxy.

 

My take on it differs because I don't accept the premise that other civilisations exist.

 

One simply can't extrapolate probability from a sample size of one.

[The Bear]

But given the number of planets that would have the conditions and elements for life to start from, plus the experiments that show it does spontaneously happen from those elements when put together, you can confidently say that statistically it's almost certain it will happen or have happened somewhere in the universe, if not our own galactic back yard. 

[Buce]

13 minutes ago, The Bear said:

But given the number of planets that would have the conditions and elements for life to start from, plus the experiments that show it does spontaneously happen from those elements when put together, you can confidently say that statistically it's almost certain it will happen or have happened somewhere in the universe, if not our own galactic back yard. 

 

Nope.

 

Until and unless we find evidence of life elsewhere, we cannot say that there is the probability of it existing anywhere else but Earth. And even if we take a leap of faith and accept that 'Earth-type' planets will sometimes develop simple life, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that simple life would develop into more complicated life as it did on Earth. Then there is nothing to suggest that 'more complicated life' would develop into intelligent life. And if it did there is nothing to suggest such life would have the desire to venture beyond its own environment. Each of those suppositions is based on it having happened here on Earth, a sample size of one.

 

You talk of statistical probability: have you ever considered how statistically unlikely our own existence is? The evolution of our distant (pre-human, even pre-mammalian) ancestors could have taken a different turn at any juncture. Just to give one example: the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs enabled mammals to thrive; no extinction event no mammals, no humans. The same can be said of all five mass extinction events.

 

Until and unless we find evidence of life elsewhere, it is just as probable that life is unique to Earth, and even more so intelligent life.