The Factory Floor

3:25 PM

@James Morning.

James

4:03 PM

Release merge and RST promotion week suuuuuuuuuucks.

@James RST?

Release, merge, and reset?

James

oh...right acronyms...no its just our regression environment, we put everything in there for about two weeks and run some testing/cycles against it

My company is terrible with initialisms. About 80% of them are in German.

4:19 PM

Ooh, we got down to only five unanswered questions.

Although three are hard-science.

Like, science is hard kind of hard-science?

Yes, it seems.

The "anyone happen to be writing a thesis about this?" kind of questions?

The star map one should be easy! I thought I would wake up to find it answered.

I doubt anyone's writing papers on harnessing energy from an x-ray binary, though.

A: How can I create a map of an underground city?

@HDE226868, I made you a map of UnderLondon.

5

Something like this... Depiction Choices The cartography of such a map as UnderLondon can choose whatever shapes they please to convey the needed information. The above map uses rhomboids to convey a sense of depth but note that Big Dome 300 has a different shape to indicate that it is, in f...

4:23 PM

@Green Cool, I hadn't yet seen your answer.

I like the "Kings Coal Seam". Nice touch.

Yeah, the British and their kings.

Good, I'm glad you like it.

@Green Do you have a day job?

I do but I have every Friday off.

And generally work is pretty slow so I have free time at work M-Th.

Touché

It's an excellent answer.

Better than my google image results for "mine maps".

That was a really fun map to make. I didn't bother to look up the names of existing stations in 1895 because I couldn't find a big list of stations as of 1895.

@Samuel Thanks! I'm really happy with it too.

4:29 PM

Hm, I found a paper that might help with the star density question, but it has 26 authors and 51 pages.

In the introduction, it says at one point, "This is the first paper, in a series of three"

Mostly empirical, though.

4:49 PM

Ooh, looks like there are more:

adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/…

Q: Creating a realistic world map - Underwater

5:32 PM

Is this too broad?

0

Prelude Shortly before writing this question, I realized that it is quite similar to an earlier series of questions that TimB wrote, starting with Creating a realistic world map - Landmass formation. I decided to use this question to revive the series, as I think it is still useful, and TimB sai...

science-based geography underwater erosion

5:47 PM

I don't think so.

Though if you want to make sure you might limit it to great distances from any land masses. Then it's equivalent to any of the map making questions as it asks about a fairly consistent environment.

@Samuel Good idea.

I would phrase that as something like >100 miles from land masses. Someone pedantic like me might take "middle of the ocean" literally ;)

I chose the continental shelf as the boundary.

Excellent choice.

It's the first world map question where I have literally no idea as to what the answer is.

6:19 PM

@HDE226868 Sorry that answer is a bit boring. I've got some stuff dropped on my desk that I have to get done today.

Q: An immediate upvote on my question?

6:47 PM

And yet I'm still spending time here.

Got to close this now.

Cheers!

Undu Lationer

8:08 PM

This is a man's world...
This is a man's world...
But it would be nothing
Nothing without a conflict of its own

You see man made the guns
To take us out of the world
Man made the terror
To carry the heavy blow
Man made the electro beam
To take us into the dark
Man made the stage for the war
Like Nitrate made an ally
This is a man's, man's, man's world
But it would be nothing
Nothing without a conflict of its own

Man thinks of our little violent heart
Man make us brutal 'Cause man makes them toys

somebody help me complete paraphrasing this

Worldbuilding Meta

10:01 PM

1

Don't get me wrong, I like up-votes, but it seems strange to me that probably less than three seconds after I asked my most recent question I got a +1 vote on it: With current technology, what would be the best way to store energy for future generations? That isn't nearly enough time to actually...

support specific-question voting

Would work be easier on a world with less gravity (if our energy source or beings doing the work aren't from that world)? The definition of Watt for example seems to reference gravity. I did the calculation and raising a 100kg rock on an asteroid by 30m would take 89x less Watt than on earth (assuming g=0.11 on the asteroid)

Does power generation depends on gravity too? That would only work for power generation that doesn't depend on the local gravity right?

I think power generation depends on gravity at least for stuff like turning a turbine around

I specify beings from outside because I guess that a cat born on Ceres would have the same power-to-weight ratio than earth cat (ie: adapted to the gravity of their local world) and basically collapse on itself on Earth

10:24 PM

@Mystra007 Yes, it would be easier.

Potential energy is defined by $$PE=mgh$$

or

$$PE=Fs$$

Assuming that the force is applied at an angle of 0 degrees to the object.

It does mean that by raising an object $x$ meters, it has less potential energy than on a planet with a higher $g$.

KE is still mv^2 though right? So if a boulder fell on me on Ceres I'd barely feel it, but if the ISS clipped me at 450 kmh Id be dead?

$$KE=\frac{1}{2}mv^2$$

Don't forget that factor of 0.5.

why does your formula have $$ signs in them and backslashes?

@Mystra007 I'm using something called LaTeX.

You can get a chat plug-in to render it.

Let me pull up the link. I'll be right back.

I guess some kind of power generation like anything involving boilers would be affected by liquid pressure depends on gravity and you'd get much less efficient power generation

*because liquid pressure

10:31 PM

meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/3297#3297

@Mystra007 See this for using MathJax/LaTeX:

I'm not sure about efficiency there. Thermodynamics isn't my thing.

It would make a good question, but it would probably be too broad and too complicated to answer

so many things to factor. ie: how is power generation affected in a low-gravity world

You could put it in the Sandbox and ask for opinions. I think it still has some merit.

My instinct is that even though it take less work to do thing the generated power would also be less thus making things even

Unless you import energy (solar panels, batteries, etc)

@Mystra007 Exactly.

Less pain, less gain.

Or burn things where the heat doesn't depends on the pressure of something

ie: nuclear / coal / hydrogen / oil power plants would be much less efficient (lower pressure = less electricity)

10:37 PM

@Mystra007 I'm not sure there. Perhaps.

Well I am sure ;)

lower pressure = lower point of boiling for water

That's good. :-)

which more energy is lost in transit to the generator for the same unit of ressources consumed

*which mean more energy

10:51 PM

Thanks for the sandbox suggestion. We will see

Good luck with it.

Oh btw. I saw you on the "Where in the solar system is the most viable place to put my colonists, after Mars and Luna?" question

Turns out the math someone gave about removing all the CO2 on Venus and replacing it with O2 seems correct

@Mystra007 Was it this answer? I didn't comment on it, but I did give it the bounty.

Yeah, the comment Annix made

Rather, the bounty was auto-awarded. I was away and missed giving it out. Stupid me.

10:55 PM

turn out he is right for saying it would be easier to change Earth orbit than to replace all the CO2 with O2

Did you tell ArtOfCode about that?

I'd ping him.

Ah, you did.

? No I didn't. I'm just saying the math in a comment is surprisingly accurate ;)

@Mystra007 Anixx is big on that kind of stuff, and on the question in particular. . .

The energy required to change Earth orbit (which I assume has to be gravitational binding energy) is lower than the energy produced by the conversion of the mass CO2 on Earth to energy. I assume there's even more CO2 on Venus

By an order of magnitude of about 1000

That would be something.

11:04 PM

Ceres is a really bad answer

Don't know if the answered realize it. But radiation would kill everything quickly on Ceres and shorts electronics

Unless you live and drill really deep

There's also not much there. And surface gravity is minimal.

Solar flares and solar weather would be ugly too

No magnetic field or atmosphere to protect you or your electronics

Apparently some peoples think Ceres would be a good "transit" spaceport

and that some things could be built locally (metallic ores)

It's not particularly bad, considering some of the other options.

Radiation is one of the few things humans can't beat. Shuttles have to be replaced eventually in RL because space radiation produce isotopes when it encounter the materials on the shuttle / ISS / satellites

ie: just like when you bombard a material with neutrons (neutron activation)

so radiation eventually get throught whatever the material is, just like erosion eventually eats seaside cliffs

@Mystra007 I didn't know that. Interesting. Where did you read about that?

11:13 PM

adl.gatech.edu/research/tff/radiation_shield.html

bah

and nasa.gov/pdf/284275main_Radiation_HS_Mod3.pdf

page 9 and 10 in the nasa link speak about neutron activation

the gatech links speak about long term consequences

My understanding is that in low-earth orbit it probably doesnt require a lot of shielding or structure replacement on the ISS or spacecrafts because the atmosphere is still protecting us unless there were a lot of solar events. But on long-term missions in space the shielding may need to be replaced much more often because the radiation eventually replace the shielding with nuclear byproducts

Another source also mention that it'd be a big danger on asteroids or planets without atmosphere because their top soil has had billions of year to accumulate nuclear products

@HDE226868 Note that Serban Tanasa has updated his energy storage answer with references. I'm not sure about the downvotes though, presumably too late to change without an edited question.