/sci/ - Science & Math

Aww yeah, Mad Sci thread.

The existing alternative for desalination:

http://www.nitro-pak.com/products/water/water-filters-and-purifiers/salt-water-filters

Military armor based on fish scales:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/02/future-soldiers-could-go-to-war-wearing-fish-scale-armor/

A relatively inexpensive, easily deployed life support buoy for anyone considering building their own modest underwater observatory:

http://www.amazon.com/Floating-Surface-Compressor-Hookah-Divers/dp/B000T82PLU

It's intended for use as a surface supplied air source, for helmet or hookah diving (similar to snuba) but it will also work as a small habitat life support system provided no more than three people are inside at one time

It's fairly simple, the only real secret sauce is how they filter emissions and intake so that gas fumes don't get into your lungs, but clever /sci/ducks could probably hack together something identical to this using an inflatable raft and gas powered (oil-free) air compressor for a fraction of the price.

>>4360007

Not really a new development btw, neither are reverse osmisis desalinators, just thought I'd throw that i there because there was someone in a past thread who said they really wanted to build their own small habitat and both of those products would be very helpful for such a purpose.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Coral World Park. I am most excited for it. It's a true 1atm undersea colony 60 feet deep commissioned by the CEO of the international aquatic resort chain Coral World Parks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGcp_2IPpA

Unlike other similar projects it is not struggling for funding and will definitely come to fruition, whether or not some think it's a good idea. Individual pods will be possible to rent as residences, but the price will exclude all but the very wealthy. For the rest of us, there's Atlantica.

Also, Sylvia Earle, famousand accomplished aquanaut/oceanographer, has joined the likes of Richard Branson and James Cameron in the "Race to Inner Space":

http://www.deepsearch.org/

Her sub design appears more traditional that the hydrobatic, high speed subs of Cameron and branson, having more in common with US Submarines' low speed traditional entry into the race. However like all other contestants it has a transparent hemispherical cockpit, as anything less in this day and age would be a disappointment.

Best of luck to all the competitors. Whoever reaches the Challenger Deep first, we all win because of the funding poured into vastly increasing the crush depth of submersibles that will soon be available to marine biologists, putting even the deepest parts of the ocean within our reach.

A graphic visualizing the Challenger Deep relative to the nearby Guam and the average depth of the oceans overall. Disappointingly it showcases only two of the competing subs, but it's useful info nonetheless.

It isn't just the Challenger Deep they will explore, but the five deepest trenches on Earth, the rest of which have never seen human visitors.

Doesn't seem to be many people on tonight.
Have better luck bumping this tomorrow.

It's a shame that I'm too young to be actively involved in those projects, as I'm only starting with uni this year.

Well, at least I have a strong motivation to finish up my degree - it sure beats working some McJob.

Just to explain why reusable sodasorb is a big deal, look at this picture. Look how many buckets of sodasorb are in it. You're looking at a 10-14 day supply, much of which is off camera.

>>4360046

That's a lot of cocaine

Would you live in a bubble at Challenger Deep mad?

>>4360051
I would love to.

>>4360051

Naw, I am all about the continental shelf. (Pic related). I'd love to visit it though. And supposedly Virgin Oceanic will be taking tourists there if the Race to Inner Space goes smoothly (i.e. no implosions) for them. I'm inclined to believe they ca make it happen, considering that they've gone ahead full steam with Virgin Galactic.

www.virginoceanic.com

Pic: Richard Bransons' next generation sub. Presumably the multi-passenger model will be considerably more spacious.

A render of the sub in action. In the background you can see a whale that's all like, "No dude don't go any further. It's banaynay down there."

>>4360062
He should stop all funding for it and just spend it on Virgin Galactic, the Ocean floor is useless

>>4360068
or strap the SpaceShipTwo's rocket engine to the back of it and shoot down to the ocean floor

>>4360068
But that's wrong. There's much to discover.

>>4360071
Like what? how about discovering something on the ocean floor of a different planet

>>4360073
Well, let's ask Sci.

How much of the ocean's floor has been explored? Can you give an approximate percentage?

>>4360068

>He should stop all funding for it and just spend it on Virgin Galactic, the Ocean floor is useless

"As soon as we start running out of strategic minerals, there will be a stampede straight into the ocean for resources. And you won’t be talking to little submarine workshops like mine but to industrial giants tapping these mega resources. We’re going to exploit the oceans on a massive scale within our lifetimes.

By my calculations, in the unclaimed part of this planet, beneath the ocean, at all depths, there are seven moons’ worth of material—I’m talking about physical minerals, food, space—to fuel humanity. And it’s on the order of maybe 10,000-to-1 times less expensive to get there than to the moon. Everyone has got their head screwed on backward if they don’t go to the oceans instead of space."

~Graham Hawkes, father of hydrobatic submersibles

>>4360073

>Like what? how about discovering something on the ocean floor of a different planet

We can't do it there until we can do it here. Europa has much deeper oceans than Earth does. It also has lower gravity and thus less pressure increase per foot of depth, but we may be looking at oceans anywhere from thirty to a hundred miles deep. We have nothing that could get down there yet. Efforts like these bring us closer to that goal.

>>4360077
You won't find anything down there, just because a person hasn't seen it with their own eyes doesn't mean we don't know what's down there

>>4360077
>How much of the ocean's floor has been explored? Can you give an approximate percentage?

An area roughly equivalent to west virginia, just under 5% as of the most recent ten year marine life census. None of that included the abyssal plain, as we only recently upgraded Alvin such that it can reach those depths, and even now it can't reach the deepest parts of the abyssal plain, much less any trenches. That's why this competition is such a big deal, it's providing the funding we needed for the development of next gen subs using new materials that will totally leapfrog all existing submersibles in terms of maximum depth capability.

Moon?
>cold, lifeless world, inhospitable, causes severe complications due to lowered gravity and lack of atmosphere, somewhat rich in minerals
Mars?
>cold, lifeless world, inhospitable, causes severe complications due to lowered gravity, distance, and hostile atmosphere, rich in minerals
Venus?
>burning hot, lifeless world, inhospitable, utterly hostile surface conditions prohibit all forms of life and technology, extremely rich in minerals
Sea floor?
>alien environment, filled with many heretofore undocumented life forms, "all or nothing" conditions generally either permitting existence or resulting in instantaneous, complete destruction, extremely rich in minerals

I'm in favor of not skipping off Earth until we're completely done here.

>>4360080
see
>>4360083

There you go. You can't just assume there's noting of use on the ocean's floor when so little of it has been explored.

>That feel when I haven't been racist to Mad Scientist in years

>>4360080
>You won't find anything down there

But they regularly do. Here's what they found most recently.

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-super-giant-shrimplike-creatures-found-off-new-zealand-20120203,
0,3844484.story

Literally every expedition discovers new species. Even where we thought no life larger than microbes could exist.

What knowledge led you to believe that nothing is ever discovered in the deep sea? Or did you assume it to be the case without any prior knowledge?

>>4360089

>>4360078
>By my calculations, in the unclaimed part of this planet, beneath the ocean, at all depths, there are seven moons’ worth of material

Gotta git dat cash money niggas.

Also, to better explain the significance of a cheap, low power desalinator; Military subs brute force separate oxygen and hydrogen out of water via hydrolysis, an extremely energy hungry and inefficient way to get air out of water that they can afford in terms of energy use only because they have a nuclear reactor onboard. They then use some of the oxygen to replenish the air and recombine the rest to get extremely pure, clean drinking water (having been reconstituted from it's two chemical elements rather than filtered from outside sea water)

Now, there recently came into being a device for separating oxygen out of ocean water using vastly, vastly less electricity. 150 watts per person. It uses a vacuum generating centrifuge, the only downside is it lacks the added desalination capability of hydrolysis. With a low power, cheap desalination device, that's no longer the case. The military has no need of either because of the absurd excess of energy available from the onboard nuclear reactor, but if you're looking to make underwater living space affordable for normal people, these two developments are hugely significant. It eliminates completely the necessity of burning gas to power air compressors to send down fresh air. Now all you need is something like a tidal turbine in the gulf stream, which now exists (pic related)

With this uninterrupted, day and night source of reliable, renewable power, technologically speaking you could meet the life support needs for tens or hundreds of thousands of colonists without any surface interaction and without the use of gas generators or air compressors.

>>4360109

>technologically speaking you could meet the life support needs for tens or hundreds of thousands of colonists without any surface interaction and without the use of gas generators or air compressors.

But what will we do once the sea-dwellers cut off all contact, and deprive us of their bounty?
We cannot nuke them without tsunami-ing ourselves!

>>4360115
Ever heard of dynamite fishing? a regular 2,000lb bomb would probably implode their city

>>4360117

Aren't there net systems that make depth charges virtually harmless? A previous Mad Scientist thread had them, saying they were used to protect underwater nuclear reactors.

>>4360115
>But what will we do once the sea-dwellers cut off all contact, and deprive us of their bounty?

Probably send a few virginia class subs to confront them. They might hypothetically be able to turn a profit simply by putting workers onsite and doing the kinds of things that are most effectively done in open ocean, shallow water conditions (farming otherwise verboten high price fish stocks like bluefin tuna) however as the world increasingly depends on seafood for protein in lieu of increasingly expensive traditional livestock animals (due to their exorbitant cost in terms of land and energy use per pound of beef or chicken) we will need a significant portion of these oceanic products to make their way back to land. What kind of agreement with those who choose to live on the blue frontier and farm these animals will best benefit both parties remains to be seen.

>>4360119
>Aren't there net systems that make depth charges virtually harmless?

Yes, although for obvious reasons they could be thwarted by timed detonation and sheer persistence.

It's a good defense against terrorism. Not against a first world navy.

>>4360119
A net wont stop a frogman with wirecutters

>>4360128
>A net wont stop a frogman with wirecutters

Right, because of all those underwater terrorists. The Taliban is known for it's expertise in technical mixed-gas saturation diving.

>>4360115

>We cannot nuke them without tsunami-ing ourselves!

Actually deep-sea nuclear testing (while admittedly, and thankfully, scarcely done in its heyday and forbidden now) only evaluated that it causes a singular large wave, nothing even near the continuous devastation of a tsunami.

Although it kills a SHITTON of fish.

>>4360129
Well they're building nuclear reactors, and operate submarines.. I think they could figure deep sea diving out

>>4360133
Wasn't there a plan to close the Deep Water Horizon hole with a nuke

>>4360145

Yes, and the man who created the idea should be named "dumbest life form to ever create an opinion", tarred and feathered, and dropped in a volcano.

>>4360150
Why? It would create a small wave and glass the seafloor.. all the fish around it were already dead

>>4360145

Yup. The Deepwater Horizon fiasco is also a big part of the rationale for the development of ocean floor oil rigs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8228548/Brazil-to-replace-oil-rigs-
with-underwater-cities.html

Along with the increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, and the decreased oxygen available for corrosion.

>>4360154
how would you control the fallout, though
or is there some bomb configuration i'm not aware of that doesn't have fallout
i know the russians did it, but, the russians usually could give two shits about environmental safety

>>4360154
You want to set off a NUCLEAR weapon in the fucking gulf stream?

>>4360164
That is one happy cow.

>>4360164

Water is 800 times denser than air and blocks radiation extremely effectively. It would not spread nearly as far or as quickly as in the atmosphere unless it took place in or near the gulf stream or a similar current capable of carrying the irradiated particulate matter long distances.

>>4360170
Would a mid-depth detonation be safer/cleaner than a sea-floor detonation? Assuming equal danger from currents?

>>4360205

I don't know. Presumably, as less seafloor matter would be irradiated and spread the further the explosion is from the bottom, but I'd want to read up on the results from 1950s-60s underwater nuclear tests.

>>4360169
who doesn't love brushie brushie brushie

>>4360170
do we even really know how the hell stuff like currents work down there, or is it just vague guesstimates?
i remember there being alot of confusion as to why portions of the oil coming out of the well decided to sink and settle at the ocean floor rather than float.

>>4360218
>do we even really know how the hell stuff like currents work down there, or is it just vague guesstimates?

There's hard data on it from underwater nuclear tests, I am just not well read on that topic.

>i remember there being alot of confusion as to why portions of the oil coming out of the well decided to sink and settle at the ocean floor rather than float.

It will hopefully be a moot point if the industry at large follows Petrobarras' example of putting 100% of the oil rig equipment on the bottom where the well is. Up until now the way they've been doing it is like trying to unlock a car door through a crack in the window using a bent coat hanger. The sooner we bite the bullet and commit to putting the facility and people down where the source of the oil is the sooner we can see a final end to disasters like the Deep Horizon spill.

>>4360083
How do they reinforce those subs for those high pressures? and don't you dare say hexagons.

>>4360237
Trigons.

>>4360237

Cylinders and spheres. The new transparent material that makes several of the competitors' panoramic viewing domes possible at that depth is called borosilicate glass. It has a unique molecular structure that becomes stronger as pressure on it increases, provided the shape of the dome/sphere is mathematically flawless. It takes many months of heating, shaping, then cooling the dome/sphere to achieve that shape and the necessary molecular properties. Others are using pure quartz, or very thick acrylic.

>>4360087
hey whoah, who ever said we can't do both

leave the sea alone freaks

>>4360109
I lived on a nuclear powered submarine. We used reverse osmosis on seawater for our potable water. We never drank the water from hydrolysis. Most of the power taken from the reactor was used to spin turbines for propulsion, a little was taken to spin a few turbines for electricity. While a nuclear reactor may have a large store of energy. you still have to have the equipment to draw off the power. There's not as much usable excess as you think and a lot of energy is lost to seawater just to maintain efficient steam flow. A nuclear reactor generates heat more than anything. Harnessing that heat in such a small space has limitations.

>>4360282

>leave the sea alone freaks

>>4360164

Man that'd be a hell of a back scratcher,

>>4360336

I guess, but how would you get the cow to hold still while you scratched your back with it? Maybe just rub up against the cow while it's standing there? If I were a cow that would weird me the fuck out

>>4360317
Loss of energy as heat is a problem in pretty much all technology (e.g. cars, computers etc.). Thermoelectrics are going to be a big field and would be a perfect solution to both problems in that they could cool the engine/reactor and generate electricity. Also they rely on temperature differentials so having a hot engine room next to the cold sea would be especially efficient.

>>4360339

I'm now picturing cows as furniture.

Thanks anon!

Dear mad scientist,

Expanding earth theorists would have me believe that the center of oceans contain newer rock, and that as you move toward land, the rock ages. They hold thst this is evidence that plate techtonic theory is wrong.

Could you please weigh in on ocean age identifying,? As I aleays assumed that if we only know 5% of the floor, we can not accurately know its age.