13 ms·

On some of the missing ones: 1. We have at least one fusion plant I know of, the UK Joint Torus, which I know have been operating for decades. It just consumes

by zanny 13y ago

On some of the missing ones: 1. We have at least one fusion plant I know of, the UK Joint Torus, which I know have been operating for decades. It just consumes more power than it generates. But Asimov suggests one or two, which is strikingly accurate. 2. We could probably make radio-decay batteries (maybe not AA size, but car batteries running on Thorium or some such, albeit an extremely expensive containment for something running so hot). We probably just don't do it because the radiation risks are too high. And I'd count airport conveyors as moving sidewalks. Or just the complexity of baggage carrying systemes in those airports, lend that we easily have the technoloy to create weather resistant rotary motor systems as sidewalks, but like Asimovs suggestions of underground housing, cost is the bigger prohibitor than technology. Also, I don't think the degree of boredom he touches on has occured. Consumerism and the wealth concentration in the US has kept people needing to maintain 40 hour work weeks where productivity is magnitudes higher. We produce vastly more, but work as much as ever. Back in the 60s the sentiment was that 21st century Americans might have 10 hour work weeks.

dllu 13y ago
1. The National Ignition Facility [1] recently reported record amounts of energy produced by laser-based fusion, but it is more of a research facility than a power plant. 2. Do the betavoltaics [2] in some early pacemakers and the small reactor on spacecraft and the Mars Science Laboratory count as radioactive batteries? But I am assuming that, since betavoltaic pacemakers and nuclear spacecraft have been around since Asimov's time, they probably don't count. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaics
- morpher 13y ago
  The wikipedia page doesn't seem to have any information about "record amounts of energy produced" at NIF. The closest thing I've found is a press release[1] that mentions "highest [neutron] yield achieved so far from a layered DT implosion". Neutron production should be proportional to the number of fusion events (and thus also the energy released). But, its odd that they don't claim this specifically. [1] https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/project_status/index.php https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/project_status/index.php
ricardobeat 13y ago
On 2, NASA does use radioactive decay batteries on the rovers, but it's still 'space tech' :) > where productivity is magnitudes higher Overall, yes. Per worker? Hell no. Half or more of current jobs are pushing paper and doing meaningless bureaucratic work. Related article from last week: www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
- itafroma 13y ago
  > > where productivity is magnitudes higher > Overall, yes. Per worker? Hell no. Half or more of current jobs are pushing paper and doing meaningless bureaucratic work. Actually, productivity per worker has grown for most developed countries. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a wealth of information on the subject: http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htm http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htm Of note is chart 6, which shows GDP per hour worked has grown, albeit slowly, for most developed countries; and table 2a, which shows real GDP per employed person has more than doubled since 1960 for the US, and in some developed countries like Japan, increased 6-7x.
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    If you consider 'productivity' as generating financial wealth, yes, but GDP is not a material measure. Going solely by that, bankers would be the most productive workers on earth, and I'm sure lots of people would disagree.
- mortehu 13y ago
  Light bouys[1] also use radioisotope generators. 1. http://www.uspowerboating.com/Assets/TrainingDept/Powerboat+files/Education/uss-MoA-Buoy.jpg http://www.uspowerboating.com/Assets/TrainingDept/Powerboat+...
learc83 13y ago
They used to use radioisotope powered batteries in cardiac pacemakers up until the mid 80s.
ctdonath 13y ago
Like with the prescient Ladies' Home Journal predictions, much of what hasn't happened isn't so much that we couldn't do it, but that we can do it and find it uninteresting or inconvenient after all (like moon colonies: doable, just not much point given the cost involved vs benefits).
- williadc 13y ago
  It is irritating to hear claims that something can be done which has never been done. As evidenced by every project I've ever worked on, people have a very poor idea of how much work it takes to accomplish a task. There are very likely hurdles to building moon colonies that you have not considered.
  - rpedela 13y ago
    There is a big difference between saying something is possible and saying something is easy. I don't think it is easy to build a moon colony. On the other hand, I do not see any scientific or engineering reason why it is not possible. We have already proven we can land on the moon and that we can build space colonies (i.e. ISS). Sure there are hurdles I have not considered, but that just makes it hard not impossible.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      Given that we've not been able to create a self-contained biosphere on Earth, the prospect for long-term environmental support on the Moon seems low. The IIS gets regular resupplies to keep its environmental support systems operational and habitable.
      - waterlesscloud 13y ago
        There's no requirement that a lunar colony be self-sustaining in order to qualify as a lunar colony.
        13y ago
dalek_cannes 13y ago
> We produce vastly more, but work as much as ever. Back in the 60s the sentiment was that 21st century Americans might have 10 hour work weeks. Isn't that because we now have a very large semi-parasitical managerial class that we need to support? It's almost a retreat into feudalism. Doubt anybody saw that coming.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  That doesn't make a lot of sense. People don't work because they want to support someone else, they work because they want to support themselves.
  - dclowd9901 13y ago
    He's trying to make the case that there's some great conspiracy to keep people employed in jobs that shouldn't exist. I suppose he'll next tell us that the rich are "job creators."
    - solistice 13y ago
      I'm not sure what you think job creators are. Is it some kind of medal you get when you employ someone? Do you loose it if you fire them? What kind of conditions constitutes employing? Do I get to be a job creator if I give you a dollar for explaining your point? Job providers, I get why those are important. Not everyone wants to be bothered with the business side of living, along with its risks. I can actually see how that division of labour and responsibilities aids both sides of the equation. But if you count self-employment, there's job providers on every rung of the social ladder. The chinese guy selling chua'r on the street is a job provider, just as much as the multimillion entrepreneur employing thousands of people. So it becomes senseless to say that one wealth bracket supplies jobs, and another one doesn't. And then there's "job creation", which seems like a meaningless metric if you don't factor in loss of jobs, current amount of jobs, unemployment, etc. And you seriously want to pin that metric down on a single group? By the way, if the take the logic further, and look at who's implicated in major job destruction (layoffs), it's us. Hackers. I'm going from the Systems optimization definition here, and when you optimize away a part of a system, someone's bound to get fired. Your packaging machine eliminated 5 packaging workers. Your fiber optic cable eliminated 50 post office workers. They're being added, somewhere.
throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
We have at least one fusion plant I know of, the UK Joint Torus, which I know have been operating for decades. It operated ("actually sustained fusion") for a total of four seconds, in 1997. Most of the work involves non-fusion plasmas. http://www.jet.efda.org/wp-content/uploads/jeteuropeansucess.pdf http://www.jet.efda.org/wp-content/uploads/jeteuropeansucess... That was a costly experiment: the resulting radiation -- neutron activation of the structure -- made the reactor inaccessible for 18 months. http://www.iop.org/Jet/fulltext/JETP98037.pdf http://www.iop.org/Jet/fulltext/JETP98037.pdf
rpedela 13y ago
There are several teams working on a dense plasma focus design for fusion rather than the large and expensive tokamak or laser designs. What I like about dense plasma focus is if it works, little or no neutrons (bad radiation), the apparatus is the size of a garage, extremely cheap for a power plant. As far as I am aware, these guys are the closest to achieving a fusion power plant with dense plasma focus: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/
singingfish 13y ago
underground building will always be more expensive than the above ground equivalent. Some of the more interesting close to underground alternatives are still very costly in labour (earthships, straw bale), and not thoroughly tested in many climates. Engineered below ground construction will always cost a shit-tonne in concrete and waterproofing (source - just built an engineered 3.5 metre downstairs in a 2m cut on the side of a hill).
jacquesm 13y ago
While we don't have underground housing underground malls are not exactly rare. Montreal, Toronto and many other places besides.
madaxe 13y ago
We have "radio-decay batteries" - RTGs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_gen... They can be miniaturised, using the photoelectric effect, alphavoltaics or betavoltaics. We do not use them because "Nuclear is bad, m'kay?", and the market just isn't there, so the R&D hasn't happened.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >We do not use them because "Nuclear is bad, m'kay?" The irony is nice but misplaced. We already have a huge problem disposing the toxic waste of regular batteries. Not to mention what other misuses those could have if accessed by the random lunatic....
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Wouldn't the Hong Kong escalators count as moving side walks?

by zanny 13y ago

dllu 13y ago

1. The National Ignition Facility [1] recently reported record amounts of energy produced by laser-based fusion, but it is more of a research facility than a power plant. 2. Do the betavoltaics [2] in some early pacemakers and the small reactor on spacecraft and the Mars Science Laboratory count as radioactive batteries? But I am assuming that, since betavoltaic pacemakers and nuclear spacecraft have been around since Asimov's time, they probably don't count. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaics

morpher 13y ago
The wikipedia page doesn't seem to have any information about "record amounts of energy produced" at NIF. The closest thing I've found is a press release[1] that mentions "highest [neutron] yield achieved so far from a layered DT implosion". Neutron production should be proportional to the number of fusion events (and thus also the energy released). But, its odd that they don't claim this specifically. [1] https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/project_status/index.php https://lasers.llnl.gov/newsroom/project_status/index.php

ricardobeat 13y ago

On 2, NASA does use radioactive decay batteries on the rovers, but it's still 'space tech' :) > where productivity is magnitudes higher Overall, yes. Per worker? Hell no. Half or more of current jobs are pushing paper and doing meaningless bureaucratic work. Related article from last week: www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

itafroma 13y ago
> > where productivity is magnitudes higher > Overall, yes. Per worker? Hell no. Half or more of current jobs are pushing paper and doing meaningless bureaucratic work. Actually, productivity per worker has grown for most developed countries. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a wealth of information on the subject: http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htm http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.htm Of note is chart 6, which shows GDP per hour worked has grown, albeit slowly, for most developed countries; and table 2a, which shows real GDP per employed person has more than doubled since 1960 for the US, and in some developed countries like Japan, increased 6-7x.
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  If you consider 'productivity' as generating financial wealth, yes, but GDP is not a material measure. Going solely by that, bankers would be the most productive workers on earth, and I'm sure lots of people would disagree.
mortehu 13y ago
Light bouys[1] also use radioisotope generators. 1. http://www.uspowerboating.com/Assets/TrainingDept/Powerboat+files/Education/uss-MoA-Buoy.jpg http://www.uspowerboating.com/Assets/TrainingDept/Powerboat+...

learc83 13y ago

They used to use radioisotope powered batteries in cardiac pacemakers up until the mid 80s.

ctdonath 13y ago

Like with the prescient Ladies' Home Journal predictions, much of what hasn't happened isn't so much that we couldn't do it, but that we can do it and find it uninteresting or inconvenient after all (like moon colonies: doable, just not much point given the cost involved vs benefits).

williadc 13y ago
It is irritating to hear claims that something can be done which has never been done. As evidenced by every project I've ever worked on, people have a very poor idea of how much work it takes to accomplish a task. There are very likely hurdles to building moon colonies that you have not considered.
- rpedela 13y ago
  There is a big difference between saying something is possible and saying something is easy. I don't think it is easy to build a moon colony. On the other hand, I do not see any scientific or engineering reason why it is not possible. We have already proven we can land on the moon and that we can build space colonies (i.e. ISS). Sure there are hurdles I have not considered, but that just makes it hard not impossible.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    Given that we've not been able to create a self-contained biosphere on Earth, the prospect for long-term environmental support on the Moon seems low. The IIS gets regular resupplies to keep its environmental support systems operational and habitable.
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      There's no requirement that a lunar colony be self-sustaining in order to qualify as a lunar colony.
      - 13y ago

dalek_cannes 13y ago

> We produce vastly more, but work as much as ever. Back in the 60s the sentiment was that 21st century Americans might have 10 hour work weeks. Isn't that because we now have a very large semi-parasitical managerial class that we need to support? It's almost a retreat into feudalism. Doubt anybody saw that coming.

Houshalter 13y ago
That doesn't make a lot of sense. People don't work because they want to support someone else, they work because they want to support themselves.
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  He's trying to make the case that there's some great conspiracy to keep people employed in jobs that shouldn't exist. I suppose he'll next tell us that the rich are "job creators."
  - solistice 13y ago
    I'm not sure what you think job creators are. Is it some kind of medal you get when you employ someone? Do you loose it if you fire them? What kind of conditions constitutes employing? Do I get to be a job creator if I give you a dollar for explaining your point? Job providers, I get why those are important. Not everyone wants to be bothered with the business side of living, along with its risks. I can actually see how that division of labour and responsibilities aids both sides of the equation. But if you count self-employment, there's job providers on every rung of the social ladder. The chinese guy selling chua'r on the street is a job provider, just as much as the multimillion entrepreneur employing thousands of people. So it becomes senseless to say that one wealth bracket supplies jobs, and another one doesn't. And then there's "job creation", which seems like a meaningless metric if you don't factor in loss of jobs, current amount of jobs, unemployment, etc. And you seriously want to pin that metric down on a single group? By the way, if the take the logic further, and look at who's implicated in major job destruction (layoffs), it's us. Hackers. I'm going from the Systems optimization definition here, and when you optimize away a part of a system, someone's bound to get fired. Your packaging machine eliminated 5 packaging workers. Your fiber optic cable eliminated 50 post office workers. They're being added, somewhere.

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago

We have at least one fusion plant I know of, the UK Joint Torus, which I know have been operating for decades. It operated ("actually sustained fusion") for a total of four seconds, in 1997. Most of the work involves non-fusion plasmas. http://www.jet.efda.org/wp-content/uploads/jeteuropeansucess.pdf http://www.jet.efda.org/wp-content/uploads/jeteuropeansucess... That was a costly experiment: the resulting radiation -- neutron activation of the structure -- made the reactor inaccessible for 18 months. http://www.iop.org/Jet/fulltext/JETP98037.pdf http://www.iop.org/Jet/fulltext/JETP98037.pdf

rpedela 13y ago

There are several teams working on a dense plasma focus design for fusion rather than the large and expensive tokamak or laser designs. What I like about dense plasma focus is if it works, little or no neutrons (bad radiation), the apparatus is the size of a garage, extremely cheap for a power plant. As far as I am aware, these guys are the closest to achieving a fusion power plant with dense plasma focus: http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/ http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

singingfish 13y ago

underground building will always be more expensive than the above ground equivalent. Some of the more interesting close to underground alternatives are still very costly in labour (earthships, straw bale), and not thoroughly tested in many climates. Engineered below ground construction will always cost a shit-tonne in concrete and waterproofing (source - just built an engineered 3.5 metre downstairs in a 2m cut on the side of a hill).

jacquesm 13y ago

While we don't have underground housing underground malls are not exactly rare. Montreal, Toronto and many other places besides.

madaxe 13y ago

We have "radio-decay batteries" - RTGs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_gen... They can be miniaturised, using the photoelectric effect, alphavoltaics or betavoltaics. We do not use them because "Nuclear is bad, m'kay?", and the market just isn't there, so the R&D hasn't happened.

coldtea 13y ago
>We do not use them because "Nuclear is bad, m'kay?" The irony is nice but misplaced. We already have a huge problem disposing the toxic waste of regular batteries. Not to mention what other misuses those could have if accessed by the random lunatic....

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

Wouldn't the Hong Kong escalators count as moving side walks?