Science News Thread (for articles that don't relate to ongoing discussions)

[magnemoe]

On 8/8/2023 at 10:33 AM, DDE said:

Those guys are really barking up at all the wrong trees. Capacitors are ill-suited for slowly releasing energy, and... wireless personal trolleycars?

Anyway, much easier to add a mechanical accumulator that goes up and down, and is made of the same concrete.

Generally yes, I also don't see how this don't leak out the energy pretty fast as in how to avoid the wires to touch. An capacitor is two charged plates seperated by an insulator 

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Nope on the non-SSL link...

Six parts in Russian

https://rodom-iz-tiflis.livejournal.com/12721.html

(Warning, some may consider it conspiracy theory.

Personally I have no idea.)

[AckSed]

 

5 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Generally yes, I also don't see how this doesn't leak out the energy pretty fast as in how to avoid the wires to touch. A capacitor is two charged plates separated by an insulator 

The researchers know. The MIT link has more explanation:

Quote

The researchers achieved this by introducing carbon black — which is highly conductive — into a concrete mixture along with cement powder and water, and letting it cure. The water naturally forms a branching network of openings within the structure as it reacts with cement, and the carbon migrates into these spaces to make wire-like structures within the hardened cement. These structures have a fractal-like structure, with larger branches sprouting smaller branches, and those sprouting even smaller branchlets, and so on, ending up with an extremely large surface area within the confines of a relatively small volume. The material is then soaked in a standard electrolyte material, such as potassium chloride, a kind of salt, which provides the charged particles that accumulate on the carbon structures. Two electrodes made of this material, separated by a thin space or an insulating layer, form a very powerful supercapacitor, the researchers found.

Quote

Ulm says that the system is very scalable, as the energy-storage capacity is a direct function of the volume of the electrodes. “You can go from 1-millimeter-thick electrodes to 1-meter-thick electrodes, and by doing so basically you can scale the energy storage capacity from lighting an LED for a few seconds, to powering a whole house,” he says.

The thing historically holding supercapacitors/ultracapacitors back is their low availability and difficult construction. To have a scaleable, self-assembling, literally dirt-cheap version of them (cement, water, carbon black, potassium chloride), that, if you so wished, could be a structural element... I'm sure the energy storage and transmission industry is interested.

[StrandedonEarth]

2 hours ago, AckSed said:

I'm sure the energy storage and transmission industry is interested.

And vested interests are scared…

[darthgently]

3 hours ago, AckSed said:

To have a scaleable, self-assembling, literally dirt-cheap version of them (cement, water, carbon black, potassium chloride), that, if you so wished, could be a structural element... I'm sure the energy storage and transmission industry is interested.

Add to that list millions of charge recharge cycles.  I mean if your office building foundation supercapacitor only has a few thousand cycles it would be hard to replace.  One would probably require near zero net chemical changes in the concrete in a charge-discharge cycle for this to be true.  But concrete typically undergoes chemical structural changes throughout its life even without using it as a capacitor and running currents through it.  A cool idea, but I'm thinking not easy to make a feasible technology

[FleshJeb]

The amusing thing is that carbon black has long been the standard pigment we specify to match the color of new concrete to old concrete....and in roughly the same percentages.

Excuse me while I go charge my phone off of all those sidewalks we poured...

[DDE]

19 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Six parts in Russian

https://rodom-iz-tiflis.livejournal.com/12721.html

(Warning, some may consider it conspiracy theory.

Personally I have no idea.)

TL;DR: the stark shape and global proliferation of star forts has made some people believe that they are an artifact of an ancient civilization (well, not exactly ancient, some think they're from the run-up to the Nuclear War of 1812) and they're designed to focus and control some sort of energy.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

TL;DR: the stark shape and global proliferation of star forts has made some people believe that they are an artifact of an ancient civilization (well, not exactly ancient, some think they're from the run-up to the Nuclear War of 1812) and they're designed to focus and control some sort of energy.

Yes, I have one right a mile from here, and two more in me-related cities,

But they are older than 1812,

Edited August 11, 2023 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes, I have one right a mile from here, and two more in me-related cities,

But they are older than 1812,

Yes, they become popular as fortifications back around 1500 and lasted in popularity up to 1850 so quite some time and it explains why so many was build. 
They was not very effective then you got rifled guns firing projectiles with explosives as you could either detonate them after impact blasting large holes in the wall or you could use timed fuses trying to get explosions in the air over the fort to kill soldiers inside.

[darthgently]

32 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, they become popular as fortifications back around 1500 and lasted in popularity up to 1850 so quite some time and it explains why so many was build. 
They was not very effective then you got rifled guns firing projectiles with explosives as you could either detonate them after impact blasting large holes in the wall or you could use timed fuses trying to get explosions in the air over the fort to kill soldiers inside.

If we consider bomb dropping aircraft as "2.75D" warfare, artillery as "2.5D" warfare, these forts thrived in the "2.25D"-ish era.  Numbers pulled from an guesstimated void

[kerbiloid]

55 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

They was not very effective then you got rifled guns firing projectiles with explosives as you could either detonate them after impact blasting large holes in the wall or you could use timed fuses trying to get explosions in the air over the fort to kill soldiers inside.

Most of them don't have walls, they are solid flat hills. So, it's nothing to penetrate, except the hill 200 m in diameter, like we have here.
Also, in those who are wall-based, the wall can be 10..20 m thick, made of ground.
So, I still prefer the cryptocivilisation hypothesis, lol.

Btw, two more good examples are in N'York, the basement of the Statue of Liberty, and the Hovernor's island aside.

(What again, in its turn, makes to think that it's made by cryptoatlants.)

Edited August 11, 2023 by kerbiloid

[StrandedonEarth]

The star forts were built to withstand cannon fire, with walls backed by earth. The star shape and sloped walls are to deflect cannonballs instead of having to withstand the full impact. The star shape also allows the entrances to be placed where attackers would face a withering crossfire if they tried to breach it

Edited August 11, 2023 by StrandedonEarth

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

The star forts were built to withstand cannon fire, with walls backed by earth. The star shape and sloped walls are to deflect cannonballs instead of having to withstand the full impact. The star shape also allows the entrances to be placed where attackers would face a withering crossfire if they tried to breach it

These ones look so (though, the top looks unprotected and asking for sandbags or so).

Spoiler

But most of them look like leaf-like flat hills with no structures on top.

Often placed in the middle of nowhere, far from strategic points. Sometimes cut by a sea coast or another landscape detail.

And it's funny to compare in Google Earth the mentioned fort Lippe near Elvas and Elvas itself (two nearby star forts).

The tricky geometry of the former contrasts with proper bastion-like geometry of the city.

[farmerben]

http://www.theworldgeography.com/2012/09/15-star-shaped-forts-from-around-world.html

[magnemoe]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Most of them don't have walls, they are solid flat hills. So, it's nothing to penetrate, except the hill 200 m in diameter, like we have here.
Also, in those who are wall-based, the wall can be 10..20 m thick, made of ground.
So, I still prefer the cryptocivilisation hypothesis, lol.

Btw, two more good examples are in N'York, the basement of the Statue of Liberty, and the Hovernor's island aside.

(What again, in its turn, makes to think that it's made by cryptoatlants.)

Yes they had an stone front followed by dirt,  the round iron shots would just bury themselves but an explosive shell would also bury themselves in the dirt and then explode creating an breach. 
Air burst could also effective in clearing the exposed top but open topped coastal artillery was common well past 1900 to fight cruisers and battleship, but they had thick concrete walls to protect them. 

[kerbiloid]

49 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes they had an stone front followed by dirt,  the round iron shots would just bury themselves but an explosive shell would also bury themselves in the dirt and then explode creating an breach. 

The howitzer grenades fall from above, and the fortress shape doesn't play role for them, only vertical projection total area does.

The horizontal fire is done with more lightweight and mostly penetrating shells. They will bury inside, blow up, and the ground will just fall down.
The thick embankment will need a repair, but it will anyway need it after battle, and the ground means that the repair is easy, unlike granite walls.
The front stone is also usually an artificial trash stone (lime + sand, or clay, or gypsum, or tuff → artificial sandstone, limestone, Roman concrete, etc.), which is as easy to deliver, mix, and shape in bags, as ground.
So, the greatest advantage of the early bastions is their easy repairability, and at the same they allow to keep the enemy artillery far from the internal part of the fortress when the cannon fire is limited with 600 m distance.
They are by origin not angular towers , but additional external elements of field fortification around the fortress itself, at the same time having made the fortress inside excessive.

So, the increased distance of the artillery fire allowed to shoot farther than from the bastionish 200..500 meters distance, so the angular shape became excessive and obsolete. The bastions were making sense only for close combat.

Edited August 11, 2023 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oldest-lakeside-village-europe-lake-ohrid-albania-treasure-trove/

8,000 year old village found beneath lake waters. 

[darthgently]

6 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oldest-lakeside-village-europe-lake-ohrid-albania-treasure-trove/

8,000 year old village found beneath lake waters. 

Tolkien's Laketown in Middle Earth

[FleshJeb]

17 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oldest-lakeside-village-europe-lake-ohrid-albania-treasure-trove/

8,000 year old village found beneath lake waters. 

This is the part where I make a well-researched, high-effort post "debunking" dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating to parody climate change skeptics.

Or, I could drink coffee and watch cartoons.

Or (dammit), I could start reading this:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1125786523000450?via%3Dihub

"Wiggle matching" LMAO, who does Big Archaeology think they're fooling? Clearly this is a plot to get us all to believe in "trees."

"95.4% probability" See?!? They don't know for sure!

(Am I being unfairly reductive? Yes. Am I being an ass? Yes.)

Onward to coffee.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, FleshJeb said:

They don't know for sure!

Don't forget water levels.  We all know water levels never change.  They're just waiving 'trees' at you to disguise the fact that they've found evidence of Mermaids.

[magnemoe]

On 8/11/2023 at 9:19 PM, kerbiloid said:

The howitzer grenades fall from above, and the fortress shape doesn't play role for them, only vertical projection total area does.

The horizontal fire is done with more lightweight and mostly penetrating shells. They will bury inside, blow up, and the ground will just fall down.
The thick embankment will need a repair, but it will anyway need it after battle, and the ground means that the repair is easy, unlike granite walls.
The front stone is also usually an artificial trash stone (lime + sand, or clay, or gypsum, or tuff → artificial sandstone, limestone, Roman concrete, etc.), which is as easy to deliver, mix, and shape in bags, as ground.
So, the greatest advantage of the early bastions is their easy repairability, and at the same they allow to keep the enemy artillery far from the internal part of the fortress when the cannon fire is limited with 600 m distance.
They are by origin not angular towers , but additional external elements of field fortification around the fortress itself, at the same time having made the fortress inside excessive.

So, the increased distance of the artillery fire allowed to shoot farther than from the bastionish 200..500 meters distance, so the angular shape became excessive and obsolete. The bastions were making sense only for close combat.

Think we mostly agree but around 1860 you got large bore rifled cannons, still muzzle loaded but able to fire shells with explosives, this could blow out the walls making breaches you could storm. 
But with rapid fire guns this was getting harder, into 1900 and you get rates of fire so high walls was not needed anymore, they just made a place the enemy could hide and you get WW 1 style defenses. 
 

[kerbiloid]

54 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

into 1900 and you get rates of fire so high walls was not needed anymore

The high walls were making sense in the epoch of archery, with aiming range 30..50 m and maximum ~200 m, so the archer on ground (especially separated by the moat) could not aim the top of the wall effectively, while the archer on top had much greater shooting range.
The thickness was not essential, as the trebuchets had the same problem, and wooden rams could penetrate the gate, but unlikely the wall.
Also, it was possible to make them out of stone and/or "concrete", as they could hardly be damaged with those tools.

Artillery made it possible to cause severe damage to the stone walls, and it's a problem to repair a 20 m wall made of stone blocks.
Also it made the top of the wall easily shootable.

So, they tended to drive the enemy artillery away from the walls, by surrounding the fortress external embankments with artillery positions.
Their great height would mean cross-section and thus vulnerability to the horizontal fire (while the mortars and others had puny range and hardly could be placed close to the walls). So, these embankments (then turned into bastions) had minimum possible height, just to prevent them from being captured by a lance-long hand-held ladder, so about 6 m.
At the same time the embankment worked as a trap for the enemy soldiers having climbed on top, and becoming aims for the internal guns and artillery.

Also, even a meter-deep water in the moat made it hard to hold a ladder.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 8/11/2023 at 6:21 AM, DDE said:

TL;DR: the stark shape and global proliferation of star forts has made some people believe that they are an artifact of an ancient civilization (well, not exactly ancient, some think they're from the run-up to the Nuclear War of 1812) and they're designed to focus and control some sort of energy.

Dear God... How did I miss this absurdity? 

Please tell me this is some kind of fiction? 

[darthgently]

39 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Dear God... How did I miss this absurdity? 

Please tell me this is some kind of fiction? 

A 30-ish y.o. I was talking science with at a social gathering suddenly confided in me that science had proven mermaids existed, the earth was hollow and occupied by beings (also apparently proven by science) and then took out his cell phone and displayed it as proof that extraterrestrial aliens exist and live among us because there is no way humans could manufacture such a thing.  I couldn't help but laugh nervously and shortly found a reason to mix elsewhere.  I didn't bother mentioning having worked at an Intel fab and had seen with my own eyes humans making chips!

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Please tell me this is some kind of fiction? 

This is some kind of fiction.

Spoiler

That's all you should know.