Yondoza @ Yondoza @sh.itjust.works

Posts

7

Comments

257

Joined

2 yr. ago

Understood, my mistake. This is pure speculation, but I doubt you'd see those in consumer electronics. Those energy storage devices would essentially be very power electromagnets and I really don't think people would be walking around with those in their pockets. I do agree that they would be super useful for grid-level energy storage though! If you can engineer around the large magnetic field they'd create it would be a super efficient energy storage device!

Also, sorry in advance - this is me being nit-picky, but that would be more analogous to replacing a battery with an inductor (not a capacitor). Inductors store energy in magnetic fields, capacitors store them in electric fields. Doesn't really matter... I'm just being pedantic.

That's not going to happen though. Superconductors won't make capacitors store energy for longer durations. They won't improve battery chemistry technology. They won't significantly improve CPU efficiency. They'd make consumer electronics slightly more efficient, but replacing all the conductors in your phone with superconductors isn't going to make your battery last even 25% longer.

This would not have a significant impact on solar panel efficiency.

The overwhelming majority of the heat from processors is not from resistive power dissipation, it's from transistors switching state. This will not go away because of superconductors.

Ok, I see a lot of false info in here. EE chiming in here.

Minor efficiency improvements: consumer electronics, batteries, solar panels, CPUs/GPUs

Major efficiency improvements: power transmission, wireless power transmission, electric motors, high density electro-magnets (used in fusion, MRI, etc), 'traditional' energy generation techniques that spin a thing to produce electricity (wind, nuclear, hydro, gas, (even coal, but let's pretend coal doesn't exist)).

Outside of my expertise, but I'm speculating major improvements: wired and wireless data transmission (antenna tech)

The implications that excite me the most are mostly around transportation.

-Realistically, of existing technologies I think electric motors are the biggest winner with superconductors. For the most part, the size and power of electric motors are constrained by how to get the electrical waste heat out. With superconductors you don't have electrical waste heat. You can create incredibly small, powerful, efficient electric motors with super conductors. This means efficiency gains in so many of our big 'energy sinks' right now. Transportation, air conditioning, manufacturing... I mean it would be a largely unnoticed improvement to almost every aspect of our modern lives.

-Cars with close to 100% regenerative braking (superconductors+capacitors for temporary energy storage) You could stop at a red light and accelerate back to the same speed 'for net-zero energy'. THAT IS BANANAS! A current conventional gas car burns fuel for ~30% efficiency, the other 70% is waste heat. Then after you've done all that inefficient work to get moving you hit the brakes and USE FRICTION TO TURN YOUR MOMENTUM INTO MORE WASTE HEAT! Bugs the bajesus out of me! Superconductors would make it much more practical to recoup energy when stopping a vehicle.

Then you can get into cool new technologies:

-Mag-Lev trains would be super cool. I don't see a huge practical benefit since the mechanics of train wheels on rails are pretty efficient as is, but come on... levitating trains? so cool!

-Rail gun style space launch systems (unfortunately, this comes with rail gun style weapons too, sorry everybody!)

-Tokamak nuclear fusion reactors are currently constrained by the strength of the magnetic fields they can produce using electromagnets. The limiting factor is largely cooling for these electromagnets and the associated superconductors. Room temp superconductors allows for much more compact designs for the magnetic confinement infrastructure used in these facilities.

-You could make a friggin mag-lev skate park. Hoverboards! REAL FRIGGIN HOVERBOARDS could be produced!

-(I think) We can actually start talking about 'active support' structures. Buildings that would not be possible because of the compressive or tensile strength of known materials can be supplemented by active support through electromagnets!

-This removes probably the biggest constraint in electrical engineering and design. We will see amazing technology come out of this that none of us can predict.

EDIT (I'm just gonna keep adding these as they get mentioned elsewhere):

-Magnetic energy storage. Similar to how an electrical transformer works: You induce a current to flow which 'stores' the energy in a magnetic field. In the case of magnetic energy storage you just leave that current flowing. No resistance means it will flow indefinitely. You can then extract it directly or through interaction with the magnetic field.

This isn't true... Resistance of conductors is not what's holding battery technology back. It's battery chemistry. You could improve some efficiency with superconductors but the chemistry is really the limiting factor these days.

If you're referring to more efficient computers, that will land you in the same situation. Minor improvement in efficiency, but the power hog for that is transistor switching which won't be improved with superconductors.

Really appreciate the write up! I didn't know the computing power required!

Another stupid question (if you don't mind) - adding superconductors to GPUs doesn't really se like it would make a huge difference on the heat generation. Sure, some of the heat generated is through trace resistance, but the overwhelming majority is the switching losses of the transistors which will not be effected by superconductor technology. Are we assuming these superconductors will be able to replace semiconductors too? Where are these CPU/GPU efficiencies coming from?

Stupid question probably - is computing power what is holding back general AI? I've not heard that.

Idk, presumably you have time before/after work everyday plus a weekend in this other place without travel. I feel like I could enjoy something like this.

I don't understand, what's the significance of what AI has to say about it? If you're talking about large language models (like chat GPT) it's just going to say whatever is currently posted/published online on the topic.

Pure speculation - a typical siege strategy was to dig under walls to cause them to collapse. First, the earthen mound would make the tunneling to collapse a much more labor intensive effort. Second, if an enemy was at the base of the wall it could actually be easier to hit them with projectiles at this angle rather than leaning over and aiming straight down.

Again, I have zero evidence to support these points, just spitballing here.

Agreed, it's a half step forward. Leaving fossil fuels underground is still progress, even if we aren't sequestering CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm optimistic that building a market like this can drive design efficiency for direct air capture tech. If that efficiency is improved it could make capture and sequestration a more plausible option for govts in the future.

Fingers crossed!

This is an interesting take that some institutions have interest in keeping a slow and low level conflict going indefinitely. I have to admit I haven't heard or considered this perspective. Most of the evidence provided though can quite easily be described by pure reactionary measures to the situation though. The examples provided like grain and oil speculation do not require a conspiracy of interests prolonging the conflict to explain why we saw those markets respond that way.

I do t doubt that some groups could benefit from a prolonged conflict, but I don't see any direct evidence from your post, just a narrative that implies it's possible. I think it's a great idea to pursue this line of thinking, but I'm not personally convinced at this point.

Fantastic post, even though I don't agree with your conclusions!

I fucking LOVE fingerling potatoes!

Seems to be the case for most mental ailments. It's hard for some people to grasp that other people experience life completely differently. It took me a long time and some very patient people to finally teach me that.

Can't a system be a true democracy and a democratic republic at the same time? I don't see how adding some republic detracts from the democracy.

Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Can't you achieve 1 easily if you have 2?

What would it be called from an academic standpoint?