81–90 of 91 posts
> The only other known naturally forming quasicrystal was found inside meteorite fragments Does it really count as "naturally forming" if we had to artificially construct and detonate a nuke during a carefully conducted experiment to create this one?
If a beaver constructed and detonated the nuke, it'd still just be natural though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"As strange as it seems now, the notion of “clean” nuclear weapons was taken fairly seriously in the late 1950s and early 1960s. U.S. government officials had been interested in the possibility of such nuclear weapons, which they believed would produce far less radioactive fallout than standard “dirty” thermonuclear weapons." https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2017-0...
It doesn't seem that strange? You can drastically change the amount of fallout with materials and design decisions, so it's worth considering. For example, tsar bomba was tested with a lead tamper instead of uranium; this reduced the yield, but also the fallout. The Ripple design has no tamper, was used in the last US airdrop test, and produces very little fallout compared to other designs. A limited fallout design a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem that strange? You can drastically change the amount of fallout with materials and design decisions, so it's worth considering. For example, tsar bomba was tested with a lead tamper instead of uranium; this reduced the yield, but also the fallout. The Ripple design has no tamper, was used in the last US airdrop test, and produces very little fallout compared to other designs. A limited fallout design a…
They also wanted these for domestic use. No fallout means making a new Panama Canal, or removing a pesky mountain, are just nuclear construction projects.
Clean H-bombs are only clean if used for air bursts, but air bursts aren't effective for excavation.
> "a quasicrystal — a kind of matter scientists once thought impossible that challenges traditional ideas about how solids form" Whenever I read a phrase about scientists observing something they thought was impossible ... I get really excited for scientists in that field! :-)
> The only other known naturally forming quasicrystal was found inside meteorite fragments Does it really count as "naturally forming" if we had to artificially construct and detonate a nuke during a carefully conducted experiment to create this one?
If a beaver constructed and detonated the nuke, it'd still just be natural though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a beaver constructed and detonated the nuke, it'd still just be natural though.
I doubt many people would think that was natural and if the beaver wasn't killed outright for acting so unnaturally it'd probably spend the rest of its life in a lab being researched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding to this, I seem to recall that the specific geological/chemical conditions on the site is consequential for the sorts of glass produced. So presumably, Hiroshmiaite and Trinitite would actually be physically distinct as a material. As I recall, research on meteorite impacts use the similarly formed Impactite to deduce various things about ancient impact sites. As an aside, I think they also do really elaborate…
Yes, even the steel support structure and copper electrical wiring affect the trinitite composition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re a product of nature, it’s mistaken to believe we are above nature or that nuclear weapons aren’t also part of nature. We’re also very much dependent on nature and natural forces. So everything we do is, even if many steps removed, still an act of nature.
With the influence of humans: artificial. Without the influence of humans: natural. There’s a useful definition for you. Otherwise according to your definition the term “natural” is completely meaningless and serves no purpose.
The term “natural” is meaningless when used in ways like on “all natural juice” labels, because the line is arbitrary and suits whatever the argument is (usually by being a fancy substitute for “good”).
There are uses for the term, like in “natural sciences” (as opposed to philosophy, for example). Incidentally, the core limitation of natural sciences is related to the contention of “natural juice”: we are part of nature, and so when it comes to studying some aspects of nature it becomes circular and unproductively self-referential.
The line between ourselves and nature is paradoxical and it is worth pondering why we draw it at all.
> "a quasicrystal — a kind of matter scientists once thought impossible that challenges traditional ideas about how solids form" Whenever I read a phrase about scientists observing something they thought was impossible ... I get really excited for scientists in that field! :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To my ears “Molten” would imply that the sand is currently in liquid form. The sense ”melted” is used here, as having been melted, seems right. You melt sand to get molten sand, right?
"Melted sand" sounds strange because English already has a word for that: "glass".