backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 238 comment(s) - last by xsilver.. on Sep 15 at 12:03 AM


A visualization of iron atoms in solid steel. The black balls are irregularities, which damage the steel's internal magnetic fields, making it pliable at lower temperatures.  (Source: BBC)

Dr. Dudarev and the UKAEA helped Britain develop its JET lab fusion project, which was a pioneer in the field. Now he looks to take his new insight into steel to design better fusion reactor cages.  (Source: BBC)
One of America's greatest disasters could yield insight that helps power the future

It was one of America's darkest hours -- a terrorist attack struck on American soil, killing 2,974 people.  It was a tragedy felt worldwide, as 90 countries were represented among those who died.

The most devastating part of the attack in terms of damage was not the impact of the airplanes themselves, but the fires they caused.  The fires burned in the middle stories of the buildings at temperatures of around 500C (932F).  They weakened the steel supports, which eventually collapsed, taking the rest of the building with them, killing many in the top floors.  Part of the mystery was how this occurred -- steel's melting point is much higher. 

Dr Sergei Dudarev, principal scientist at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) explains, "Steels melt at about 1,150C (2,102F), but lose strength at much lower temperatures.  [The steel] becomes very soft. It is not melting but the effect is the same."

This deadly mystery was not first observed in the 9/11 attacks.  It was widely known among the scientific community before them that steel became pliable at lower temperatures.  This was unfortunate as steel's normal strength would lend itself nicely to many ultra-hot applications, such as lining the wall of a fusion reactor.  The phenomena went largely unexplained and unexplored until after 9/11 when the topic was brought into sharp focus.

Now, Dr. Dudarev and his fellow scientist have experienced a breakthrough developing new insight into how steel weakens at higher temperatures.  What they discovered was that tiny irregularities in the steel's structure disrupt the internal magnetic fields.  When the metal is cool it is hard, but when it is heated the irregularities damage the magnetic fields which hold the atoms rigid, allowing them to slide past each other.

The phenomenon is similar to that exploited since the days of ancient Rome to work iron.  While not able to reach temperatures high enough to melt the iron, sometimes, blacksmiths discovered if they heated it to a relatively hot temperature, the metal became pliable, able to be shaped into weapons.  While this was good for the Romans, it was not so good for modern applications which demand heat resistance, such as architecture and fusion power.

Architects have previously tried to protect buildings from this phenomenon by placing insulating panels around the support beams.  However, as the 9/11 attacks showed, these panels can be easily ripped off by a disaster.  This is precisely what is thought to have happened -- the collision with the airliners ripped off the insulation, exposing the steel to the fire.  Ultimately this elasticity doomed the structure.

Trying to make something good come of such a negative event, Dr. Dudarev and the UKAEA first worked out the mechanism for this weakness.  Now they are working on developing steel that lacks the irregularities and thus is able to operate at blistering temperatures.  Such Iron Man-like steel would be a crucial step towards achieving clean cheap power for mankind through nuclear fusion.  The group is working on the ITER reactor, the international community's largest experimental fusion reactor yet.

The 500 MW ITER reactor must be lined with ultra-robust materials. By mixing steel with other elements, Dr. Dudarev is confident he and his team can develop exotic steels to fit the bill.  He is confident that the problem is not a difficult one, and just comes down to experimentation.  He states, "We need to look at the magnetic properties of steel, [and] vary their chemical composition in a systematic way in order to get rid of this behavior."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You see
By FITCamaro on 9/11/2008 9:38:20 AM , Rating: 5
This where any alternative energy money needs to be going. Fusion. It's our future. Not half-brained schemes to try and push solar and wind where they're not feasible and practical. Which is large scale power generation.




RE: You see
By MPE on 9/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: You see
By djc208 on 9/11/2008 9:59:33 AM , Rating: 5
Isn't it heavily subsidized by the government? They buy the electricy for far more than what it would be worth in a free market.

It may be the necessary first step to making it feasable but that doesn't make it so now.


RE: You see
By Sunrise089 on 9/11/2008 10:03:37 AM , Rating: 4
Put your logic away please. It's much more fun "green" type people to point to their success stories that aren't price competitive but rely on subsidies, tax exemptions, or outright exclusive contracts to prove how viable they are.


RE: You see
By quiksilvr on 9/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: You see
By mikefarinha on 9/11/2008 10:57:26 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
20 grand. Granted that's not chump change but after 5-6 years you get that money back with the money saved from monthly electric bills.


Are you telling me you pay $20,000 in electricity every 5-6 years?!?! Did your energy company tell you that your electricity is gold plated or something?


RE: You see
By AmbroseAthan on 9/11/2008 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 5
As ridiculous as that sounds...

My last electric bill in my apartment was ~$350, for August; luckily I split it with my roommates. I am in NYC and per KWh my building charges 34.5 cents (Welcome to New York City). This is with keeping the A/C & lights off when people are not home, which is most of the day.

Our last two bills have been this high, and at the current rate, we would hit $20,000 in slightly over 5.5 years.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 1
Even still you wouldn't break even in 5.5 years on a set of $20K solar panels, given they would only supply you with power roughly 1/3 of the time. Actually, probably less than that in NYC, due to latitude, clouds, and (possibly) shade from other nearby buildings.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/2008 11:56:15 AM , Rating: 3
A house takes 30 years to pay off buddy. Many people live in their homes many years after that... I know your an anti global warming, pollute the planet and who gives a shit kinda person, Ive seen it before in your posts but this is simple math. Besides the price of electricity isn't going down over the next couple of decades.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 12:06:39 PM , Rating: 1
On the exceedingly rare occasion when solar proponents actually do the "simple math", the results induce them to slink away with their tail between their legs.

And by the way, over the last 50 years, the price of electricity has risen far *slower* than inflation. The next 50 years should be the same-- unless the environmentalists achieve their goals of making energy both scarce and expensive.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/2008 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Ok Nostradamus, I guess well all just take your word that power costs should "stay the same" rate of increase over the next 50 years. I on the other hand read the news papers. US Russian(large source of oil) tensions are at are at an all time high since the cold war. The middle east is a model of stability and should be a completely reliable source of energy for the next 50 years.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 12:46:02 PM , Rating: 3
If you're going to be sarcastic, you should at least be on topic. We were discussing electricity costs, which in the US derive almost entirely from coal, hydro, and nuclear. Secondly, the Middle East has always been unstable, and tensions with Russia are far lower today than they were in the 1950s and 60s, a period in which electricty costs still decreased on an inflation-adjusted basis.

So yes, the prediction that electricity will, barring regulatory changes motivated by environmental groups, continue to get cheaper is certainly a safe one.


RE: You see
By Murloc on 9/11/2008 12:54:46 PM , Rating: 3
the best thing is to use solar panels to heat water, so you don't need to use oil during the summer, and they are not too expensive.
It's not all, but something.


RE: You see
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2008 1:08:43 PM , Rating: 4
Absolutely. When you need *heat* on a sunny day, solar power makes perfect sense. For hot water and swimming pools, the economics are there. I have a solar-powered pool heater myself...it's essentially just a couple large panels of blackened pipes, that mount on the top of the pool cabana.


RE: You see
By Polynikes on 9/11/2008 1:55:51 PM , Rating: 3
I saw a lot of that on houses in the Outer Banks in NC. Seems like a smart idea to me.


RE: You see
By dl429 on 9/11/2008 1:09:32 PM , Rating: 1
Oil is still used in the production of electricity and home heating purposes. In fact 8% of NY's electricity is from oil burning sources(yeah I can google too). Ever heard of combined-cycle technology? Probably not, but I just did all of the radiographic weld inspection for a brand new combined-cycle power production facility in Redlands CA. This plant requires oil based fuels to power the combustion turbine, the first stage of the combined-cycle. So actually oil is used for electricity generating purposes and new oil burning plants are being built today.


RE: You see