Author Topic: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"  (Read 5833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12413
  • Country: au
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2022, 01:07:57 pm »
And what if someone had invented really really good batteries in the late 1800s? So good that no one would have bothered with internal combustion engines? So much of the 20th century would have been different. Oil rich nations would have remained a backwater. Probably fewer wars. Less environmental damage of the type we see today. But I expect people collectively would have found another way to do the horrible things they do.

I would expect a change in the focus for resources.  For example, instead of securing sources of oil there might have been similar efforts in securing sources of lithium or rare earth materials.
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, EPAIII

Online Kleinstein

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15155
  • Country: de
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2022, 01:38:19 pm »
A BJT-based CPU would probably require a refrigeration system to keep it sufficiently cool at just 50 MIPS. 

Are there examples of non-CMOS CPUs that were commercially produced?
CPUs on an IC?  Yes, HP made a series of machines with Silicon on sapphire substrates, for lower parasitic capacitance.
Under a microscope, you can see thriugh the chip like glass.  I don't know what the circuit topolgy was.
IBM made the 370 series with the bipolar junction transistor technology they called MST4, which was essentially similar to Motorola's ECL.
The original Z-80 was implemented in XMOS, I think.
Jon
Quite a few of the early 8 bit CPUs (8080, 6502, Z80) were either NMOS or PMOS. There was also a mix with MOSFETs and BJTs. They later switched to CMOS for lower power and better performance, though it needs a more complicated process.
Somewhat later there was even some ECL type CPU on a chip, to get a high clock speed.  At least in the early days, when running at high clock speed the power consumption for CMOS was not that much better than ECL. It only improved with reduced feature size. WIth BJTs it gets increasingly more difficult to make them very small. The main advantage in power consumption with CMOS comes in the idle state or logic in a static state, like much of memory.

Silicon on saphire is just a different substrate, but the process on top could still be CMOS, but also others.

Some of the inventions / discoveries just have there time to come.  If it does not happen in one lab, it will come somehere else.  Some parts even got invented multiple times - so reinventing the wheel is nothing new.
 

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20360
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2022, 06:05:24 pm »
And what if someone had invented really really good batteries in the late 1800s? So good that no one would have bothered with internal combustion engines? So much of the 20th century would have been different. Oil rich nations would have remained a backwater. Probably fewer wars. Less environmental damage of the type we see today. But I expect people collectively would have found another way to do the horrible things they do.

How different would things be if oil was not discovered? Modern society would probably not exist as it is today. So many products depend(ed) on crude oil. Think of the petrochemical industry.
Before oil, coal was used to make many chemicals used in industry. It can also be used to make synthetic oil.
 
The following users thanked this post: pcprogrammer

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2022, 06:35:54 pm »
Before oil, coal was used to make many chemicals used in industry. It can also be used to make synthetic oil.

Coal just as oil is a finite resource, so if they run out, it leaves us with a problem other than the transportation and energy sector falling on its ass, but I'm not very knowledgeable in the field of chemistry and wonder how big a problem it would actually be for production of goods when oil or coal would no longer be available?

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4003
  • Country: us
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2022, 08:14:25 pm »
Coal according to Wikipedia is mostly carbon.  The "valence" of carbon is zero.  Oil is a mixture mostly of hydrocarbons.  The "valence" of carbon in a hydrocarbon is something negative, such as -4.   Oxidation of carbon (i.e., increasing its valence) produces energy.  Reduction (decreasing its valence) requires energy.  Most of what we consider consumer plastics/petrochemicals require reduced carbon.  Synthesis could be done (grad students used to exercise their brains with organic syntheses beginning with carbon), but requires at lot more resources to do compared to starting with oil.

 

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7453
  • Country: pl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2022, 05:59:33 am »
Wikipedia is usually wrong about everything and always misleading.

Coal is mostly heavy and complex hydrocarbons, and pure carbon is graphite or sometimes diamond.
Coal can be used to synthesize simpler hydrocarbons, such as gasoline, without putting all the energy into it that will later be extracted by burning.
 

Online Kleinstein

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15155
  • Country: de
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2022, 06:12:18 am »
For the chemistry oil and coal can be replaced with biological sources of carbon / hydrocarbons. This tends to be more expensive and may need some additional effort, but it is possible. The main problem getting away without oil and coal is the higher price in the cases were they are used to burn as energy source. With limited supplies we will have to reduce the consumption and a high price is thus natural and good.
 

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4003
  • Country: us
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2022, 07:15:22 am »
Coal is mostly heavy and complex hydrocarbons, and pure carbon is graphite or sometimes diamond.
Coal can be used to synthesize simpler hydrocarbons, such as gasoline, without putting all the energy into it that will later be extracted by burning.

I disagree.  Can you provide a citation for converting coal to gasoline without adding any energy, chemical or otherwise.

There are different types of coal.  Some are more carbon rich than others.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/coal

Moreover, given coal's low ratio of hydrogen to carbon, one must reduce it to form hydrocarbon fuels.     
Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/coal-fossil-fuel
Quote
In general, coal can be considered a hydrogen-deficient hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to-carbon ratio near 0.8, as compared with a liquid hydrocarbons ratio near 2 (for propane, ethane, butane, and other forms of natural gas) and a gaseous hydrocarbons ratio near 4 (for gasoline). For this reason, any process used to convert coal to alternative fuels must add hydrogen (either directly or in the form of water).


As for biodiesel and related, the most common method I have seen uses methanolysis of organic fats to give methyl esters of long-chain fatty acids.  They are not hydrocarbons and have slightly less energy due to the RCOOR' group, but they are still mostly hydrocarbon and can often be substituted for hydrocarbon fuel.
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2022, 08:24:07 am »
Just a thought, no idea if it is possible, but what if we extract CO2 from the atmosphere and recombine it with what ever is needed to make some sort of synthetic gasoline and keep running internal combustion engines on it and call it CO2 neutral. This instead of massively producing batteries for electric vehicles.

Does not solve the excessive amount of CO2 there is now, but just switching to "renewable" energy does not solve this either. Only active extraction of CO2 and safely storing it could do it in a short time frame.

Still leaves a lot of other problems with other forms of pollution, but something to think about.

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7453
  • Country: pl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2022, 08:41:59 am »
I disagree.
I don't think you do, the point was simply that coal is far from being pure carbon, 10:8 C:H proportion per the source you found.

Can you provide a citation for converting coal to gasoline without adding any energy, chemical or otherwise.
I suppose a whole spectrum of tradeoff is available between adding hydrogen or removing carbon. I don't know those processes. I'm pretty sure than in an act of desperation you could simply burn a fraction of the coal to obtain energy to upgrade the rest, resulting in a "no energy input" process with appropriately lower yield, but arguably that's an exercise in accounting rather than chemical engineering.
 
The following users thanked this post: jpanhalt

Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20360
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2022, 08:44:18 am »
Just a thought, no idea if it is possible, but what if we extract CO2 from the atmosphere and recombine it with what ever is needed to make some sort of synthetic gasoline and keep running internal combustion engines on it and call it CO2 neutral. This instead of massively producing batteries for electric vehicles.

Does not solve the excessive amount of CO2 there is now, but just switching to "renewable" energy does not solve this either. Only active extraction of CO2 and safely storing it could do it in a short time frame.

Still leaves a lot of other problems with other forms of pollution, but something to think about.
Where do you get the energy from to extract the CO2 and convert it back to gasoline? I'm sure you're aware it will take much more energy to do that, then was produced from burning the gasoline.
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2022, 09:05:39 am »
Just a thought, no idea if it is possible, but what if we extract CO2 from the atmosphere and recombine it with what ever is needed to make some sort of synthetic gasoline and keep running internal combustion engines on it and call it CO2 neutral. This instead of massively producing batteries for electric vehicles.

Does not solve the excessive amount of CO2 there is now, but just switching to "renewable" energy does not solve this either. Only active extraction of CO2 and safely storing it could do it in a short time frame.

Still leaves a lot of other problems with other forms of pollution, but something to think about.
Where do you get the energy from to extract the CO2 and convert it back to gasoline? I'm sure you're aware it will take much more energy to do that, then was produced from burning the gasoline.

Very good point. Did not really think that through, but the same argument applies to the whole transition to "renewables". It still takes a lot of energy to mine the resources and produce the batteries, solar panels and windmills. Not to mention the energy and effort required to change the whole infrastructure.

But as stated before I'm no chemist and have no clue as to what would be needed in a process to convert CO2 into gasoline. Just spitting out thoughts.

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8218
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2022, 09:06:38 am »
Just a thought, no idea if it is possible, but what if we extract CO2 from the atmosphere and recombine it with what ever is needed to make some sort of synthetic gasoline and keep running internal combustion engines on it and call it CO2 neutral. This instead of massively producing batteries for electric vehicles.

Does not solve the excessive amount of CO2 there is now, but just switching to "renewable" energy does not solve this either. Only active extraction of CO2 and safely storing it could do it in a short time frame.

Still leaves a lot of other problems with other forms of pollution, but something to think about.
Where do you get the energy from to extract the CO2 and convert it back to gasoline? I'm sure you're aware it will take much more energy to do that, then was produced from burning the gasoline.
From the sun and wind. There are already days when the power generation by renewables is more than needed, and the price of electricity goes negative. The more renewables, the more of these days will happen.
BTW, carbon capture directly from air, would still be non-profitable for a long time, when you still can place it to the chimney of a coal fired plant.
 

Online EPAIII

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1165
  • Country: us
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2022, 09:13:11 am »
Sooner or later, probably later, the entire universe will fall into a black hole. That is, if it isn't there already. And when that black hole goes bang, everything will start over again.

And an entirely different race of intelligent beings will argue about energy again.

And then, even later still, it will happen all over again.

And again!

And again!

And .............
Paul A.  -   SE Texas
And if you look REAL close at an analog signal,
You will find that it has discrete steps.
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2022, 09:26:17 am »
Yes that is something that might happen, and who knows how often it has already happened. But it will probably be long after our civilization went extinct all on its own.

Estimates for the sun are about 4 billion years before it runs out and fries all the planets in its vicinity. Human race, who knows, but definitely much sooner than the sun.

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4003
  • Country: us
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2022, 10:32:30 am »
I don't think you do, the point was simply that coal is far from being pure carbon, 10:8 C:H proportion per the source you found.

I was about to write an edit earlier but decided to get some sleep.  My graduate work dealt mostly with hydrocarbons and one in particular, tetraphenylanthracene (C30H18), which has a H:C ratio of 0.6.  That type of structure can theoretically be extended to tile a surface with even lower ratios.  The ratio of 0.8 is certainly not a sharp dividing point between coal and common hydrocarbons.  One example is naphthylene (C10H8), which is quite common and low melting. Acetylene (C2H2) is also common.  I was focused on liquid fuels like gasoline and kerosine, which is my second citation.

In any event, efficient liquefaction of coal has been a dream of petrochemists for ages.  Google search shows some progress has been made, particularly in deriving petrochemicals from it..

My apologies.  John
 

Online jpanhalt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4003
  • Country: us
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2022, 10:40:35 am »
As for beginning with CO2 and making fuels, isn't that how biodiesel and ethanol are made?  With the help of plants, of course.
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2022, 10:57:33 am »
Plants are definitely capable of converting CO2 into something else, but you need a lot of them to reduce the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, and the big problem with that is where to grow them. We got rid of so many of them just to make space for where we live :o

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2022, 11:01:01 am »
In any event, efficient liquefaction of coal has been a dream of petrochemists for ages.


Just like turning lead into gold :)  (Not an exact match to the point made above, but it shows the intent.)


Online Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 20360
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2022, 02:06:27 pm »
Just a thought, no idea if it is possible, but what if we extract CO2 from the atmosphere and recombine it with what ever is needed to make some sort of synthetic gasoline and keep running internal combustion engines on it and call it CO2 neutral. This instead of massively producing batteries for electric vehicles.

Does not solve the excessive amount of CO2 there is now, but just switching to "renewable" energy does not solve this either. Only active extraction of CO2 and safely storing it could do it in a short time frame.

Still leaves a lot of other problems with other forms of pollution, but something to think about.
Where do you get the energy from to extract the CO2 and convert it back to gasoline? I'm sure you're aware it will take much more energy to do that, then was produced from burning the gasoline.
From the sun and wind. There are already days when the power generation by renewables is more than needed, and the price of electricity goes negative. The more renewables, the more of these days will happen.
BTW, carbon capture directly from air, would still be non-profitable for a long time, when you still can place it to the chimney of a coal fired plant.
Is that really true? Most countries heavily subsidize renewables.

Wind turbines aren't perfect. There's the problem of disposing of them when they've reached the end of life. The blades are made of resin bonded fibreglass which can't be recycled. I suppose it's possible to thermally depolymersise the resin, to produce oil and char and the glass will melt and reused, most probably as a building material. The problem is this won't be cheap. I can see most of it going to landfill.

The Sabatier reaction can be used to convert CO2 to methane, synthetic natural gas, but a source of hydrogen is needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2022, 02:19:19 pm »
Wind turbines aren't perfect. There's the problem of disposing of them when they've reached the end of life. The blades are made of resin bonded fibreglass which can't be recycled. I suppose it's possible to thermally depolymersise the resin, to produce oil and char and the glass will melt and reused, most probably as a building material. The problem is this won't be cheap. I can see most of it going to landfill.

Solar panels have similar problems at end of live, or can even be a problem when they get damaged by hail. 25 years, or less, from now it is seen as nowadays asbestos.

Offline Cyberdragon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2676
  • Country: us
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2022, 03:31:51 am »
And what if someone had invented really really good batteries in the late 1800s? So good that no one would have bothered with internal combustion engines? So much of the 20th century would have been different. Oil rich nations would have remained a backwater. Probably fewer wars. Less environmental damage of the type we see today. But I expect people collectively would have found another way to do the horrible things they do.

They did have electric cars in the Edwardian era. But they faded into obscurity because of lack of support infrastructure, cost, exc. AFAIK they were mainly marketed towards women.
*BZZZZZZAAAAAP*
Voltamort strikes again!
Explodingus - someone who frequently causes accidental explosions
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9321
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2022, 03:54:10 am »
Plants are definitely capable of converting CO2 into something else, but you need a lot of them to reduce the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, and the big problem with that is where to grow them. We got rid of so many of them just to make space for where we live :o
Use ocean algae, 3x as much ocean area as land area. And rapidly phase out factory farming to replace it with sustainable farming which uses much less land.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline pcprogrammer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4670
  • Country: nl
Re: "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y"
« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2022, 05:49:48 am »
Plants are definitely capable of converting CO2 into something else, but you need a lot of them to reduce the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, and the big problem with that is where to grow them. We got rid of so many of them just to make space for where we live :o
Use ocean algae, 3x as much ocean area as land area. And rapidly phase out factory farming to replace it with sustainable farming which uses much less land.

Topping of the oceans with algae to an extend that the surface is closed of by algae will cause other kind of problems. That is one of the things the human race constantly gets wrong. We often think up a solution without considering long term effects and when it goes sour it is repeated all over again. There never seems to be a balance in things.

As an example, we bring an animal species to the brink of extinction, and then flip to such an extend that things get out of hand to save the last couple from dying.

You mention sustainable farming, and that might be a good thing, but what are the costs?

A sustainable society is what is needed, but the question is what is a sustainable society. At least one where there is no population growth. And the consumption rate also has to drop to a level that is sustainable. This includes food as well as other things that we use and throw out when we are done with it.

At the moment we just produce more and more to fight something we created by a growing population and a growing rate of production.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf