Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Low-Background Steel

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: Low-Background Steel

#31

Post by zucker42 »

crispyporkbites wrote: post #4

Im always curious how we will send messages to future civilizations. How will we ensure we’ll be remembered or even noted in 10,000, 100,000, 1 million years? How can we prevent the same disaster(s) that eventually wipes our civilisation out from repeating again in future intelligent generations (human or otherwise) Could environmental markers like these be the way? After all, it’s how we look at the past today

If you knew that a past civilization or even non-human intelligent species had been wiped out by war or climate change, would it change your actions?

I don't know there's much we could say that future civilizations would care to listen to.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#32

Post by oh_sigh »

toast0 wrote: post #29
Natsu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Also, it makes me wonder why someone enterprising hasn't stockpiled a few tons of the stuff somewhere to let it become low background lead for the future. You'd think that some government or another would be able to drop a million dollars on putting a lead stockpile somewhere safe for t…

> It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Looking into this a bit, it seems that the radiation in refined lead isn't coming from the lead ore, but from the other materials used in the smelting process. Old lead would have had time for all those things to decay.

I wonder why manufacturers don't just use filtered atmospheric air in the process to create low-background steel, if it is infact valuable.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#33

Post by saagarjha »

oh_sigh wrote: post #32
toast0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Looking into this a bit, it seems that the radiation in refined lead isn't coming from the lead ore, but from the other materials used in the smelting process. Old lead would have had time for all those things to decay.

I wonder why manufacturers don't just use filtered atmospheric air in the process to create low-background steel, if it is infact valuable.

Not valuable enough to bother.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#34

Post by [deleted] »

toast0 wrote: post #29
Natsu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Also, it makes me wonder why someone enterprising hasn't stockpiled a few tons of the stuff somewhere to let it become low background lead for the future. You'd think that some government or another would be able to drop a million dollars on putting a lead stockpile somewhere safe for t…

> It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Looking into this a bit, it seems that the radiation in refined lead isn't coming from the lead ore, but from the other materials used in the smelting process. Old lead would have had time for all those things to decay.

[deleted]

Re: Low-Background Steel

#35

Post by chrisbrandow »

oh_sigh wrote: post #32
toast0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Looking into this a bit, it seems that the radiation in refined lead isn't coming from the lead ore, but from the other materials used in the smelting process. Old lead would have had time for all those things to decay.

I wonder why manufacturers don't just use filtered atmospheric air in the process to create low-background steel, if it is infact valuable.

Extremely difficult to separate different molecules that differ by only the weight of a single neutron.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#37

Post by garmaine »

oh_sigh wrote: post #32
toast0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Looking into this a bit, it seems that the radiation in refined lead isn't coming from the lead ore, but from the other materials used in the smelting process. Old lead would have had time for all those things to decay.

I wonder why manufacturers don't just use filtered atmospheric air in the process to create low-background steel, if it is infact valuable.

How do you suggest filtering by isotope?

Re: Low-Background Steel

#39

Post by Taek »

fnord77 wrote: post #36

no way to make steel without forced air?

Presumably no way that's cheaper than just getting it from shipwrecks. Doesn't seem like there's a huge demand, so old shipwrecks for the time being have enough supply.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#40

Post by Gaelan »

confeit wrote: post #16
xattt wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a particular trigger for this post? Is this a case of someone stumbling into the concept and wanting to share it with the world? Is there some trend in SV around low-background steel right now? Genuinely curious about the phenomenon of posts around topics that have a great deal of understanding and aren’t necessarily trending in the general news cycle.

I saw it linked from the comments on a Tweet by Karpathy and found it intellectually curious. > By posting GPT generated text we’re polluting the data for its future versions https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1284660899198820352

You seem to have gotten your replies mixed up. This looks like it's for the GPT "Bitcoin" thread?
Post reply on HN