ulyssessword

Karma: 37

ulyssessword 5 Sep 2024 6:00 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: bhauth’s comment on: on Science Beakers and DDT
Key paragraph:
The A-12 “practically spawned its own industrial base” (CIA 2012), and over the course of the program thousands of machinists, mechanics, fabricators, and other personnel were trained in how to work with titanium efficiently. As Lockheed gained production experience with titanium, it issued reports to the Air Force and to its vendors on production methods, and “set up training classes for machinists, a complete research facility for developing tools and procedures, and issued research contracts to competent outside vendors to develop improved equipment” (Johnson 1970).
The 1952 symposium is clearly a precursor to its 1959-1964 production and development, and the 1966 one is drawing from the experiences of the industrial base it created.
EDIT: and more directly:
What can we learn from the story of titanium?
For one, titanium is a government research success story. Titanium metal was essentially willed into existence by the US government, which searched for a promising production process, successfully scaled it up when it found one, and performed much of the initial research on titanium’s material properties, potential alloys, and manufacturing methods. Nearly all early demand for titanium was for government aerospace projects, and when the nascent industry struggled, the government stepped in to subsidize production. As a result, titanium achieved a level of production in 10 years that took aluminum and magnesium nearly 30.

ulyssessword 5 Sep 2024 4:58 UTC
13 points
0
on: on Science Beakers and DDT
I think you’re overstating your case on Science Beakers. Take the example of titanium, as described here. In short, what happened was:
1. Basic research happened, leading to small-scale production and basic knowledge of its properties.
2. People (including the US government) started spending science beakers on the Titanium tech node.
3. Through experience and research, they learned stuff like the fact that cadmium-coated wrenches are bad.
4. Now, we can effectively work titanium.
If it wasn’t for the A-12 project (and its precursors and successors), then we simply wouldn’t be able to build things out of titanium. No reasonable amount of non-titanium background research would get an engineer to check their marking pen for chloride-based inks or discover osseointegration.
I haven’t looked into supersonic flight technology, but I’d be shocked if they discovered nothing new from the design and operation of the Concorde.

ulyssessword 16 Jul 2024 4:43 UTC
6 points
4
on: Why People in Poverty Make Bad Decisions
What are the interactive elements? I didn’t see any, so I’m curious what the “full experience” was supposed to be.

ulyssessword 22 Sep 2023 6:00 UTC
7 points
2
on: Contra Kevin Dorst’s Rational Polarization
I’d like to take Kevin’s $0.02 in the coin-flipping word search.
First, I’ll buy a prediction contract that I will flip Heads. This will cost $0.50 for a $1 payout.
Second, I’ll buy the right to a futures contract: After the word is revealed and his search is complete, I will be given a prediction contract which pays $1 if Tails is revealed. If his expected posterior for Heads is 0.52 then the futures contract would have a value of $0.48.
In aggregate, I’ve paid $0.98 for a guaranteed $1.00 return.

ulyssessword 7 Nov 2022 10:25 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Sable’s comment on: Word-Distance vs Idea-Distance: The Case for Lanoitaring
The eutectic and eutectoid points are quite similar ideas: both are about a homogeneous material that changes into a mixture of two solid phases as it cools. However, eutectic goes from a liquid to a pair of solid phases (liquid iron into the austenite and cementite phases in the example above), while eutectoid goes from one solid phase to two (austenite into ferrite and cementite).
If you wanted to use the same word for both points, then you’d need some other way of disambiguating them. Maybe the “austenite easy transition point” and “liquid easy transition point”?

ulyssessword 6 Nov 2022 17:30 UTC
1 point
0
on: Word-Distance vs Idea-Distance: The Case for Lanoitaring
I don’t think that giving similar-meaning words similar labels is a good idea. In one class, I had to struggle to distinguish between:
- hypoeutectoid (“less than well-melting-ish”, such as steel with 0.022%-0.76% carbon)
- hypereutectoid (“more than well-melting-ish”, such as steel with 0.76%-2.14% carbon)
- hypoeutectic (“less than well-melting”, such as cast iron with 2.14%-4.30% carbon)
- hypereutectic (“more than well-melting”, such as cast iron with >4.30% carbon)
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic_system#Eutectoid for more details)
Although hypo- and hyper- don’t conform to your system (they have opposite meanings but similar sounds), -oid and -ic do, and it causes confusion and misunderstanding.

ulyssessword 15 Jul 2022 6:07 UTC
13 points
0
on: Upcoming heatwave: advice
Re: dehumidifiers
A standalone dehumidifier will heat the air more than sweating can cool it. You can see that from conservation of energy and thermodynamics: evaporating water (eg. when you sweat) absorbs heat , and condensing water (eg. in a dehumidifier) releases an equal amount. You also need to pay a bit of extra energy to run the machine and to overcome entropy.
Using an air conditioner to dehumidify doesn’t have that same problem, as it vents the heat outside.