• 3 Posts
  • 1.62K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • The hotter it gets, the thicker the oxide layer form

    This is accurate enough for tempering of most cutting tools, but technically, the oxide layer will continue to grow if you hold a lower temperature for a longer than normal time, and might not fully develop if you reach a higher temperature for a shorter than normal period of time.

    This property useful if you are trying to develop a specific color rather than achieve a specific metallurgy. You can heat to a lower temperature for a longer time to develop a deeper, more consistent color.

    In my experience, it’s easier to develop colors with an oven or propane torch rather than a forge or acetylene.





  • I won’t say that this blade is properly heat treated; it probably isn’t. In welding, the problem is the wide variation of heat affects in a very small zone. You can have material that is very brittle just millimeters away from material that is very soft and ductile.

    You’re describing “normalization”, which is a process that makes steel uniformly tough, but “plastic”. When you flex it, it bends, and stays bent. “Annealing” is a similar process, where the temperature is raised a bit higher, and the cooling slowed even more. “Annealing” leaves the steel very soft.

    In tool making, you’re first looking for high hardness (acquired with a “quenching” process). This makes it very brittle; it has no elasticity.

    Next, you’re dialing back that hardness with a “tempering” process, which is done at a lower temperature than the normalization process, and the cooling can be much faster. When tempered, it’s still very hard, (significantly harder than “normalized”) but now it is slightly elastic. It will flex, but beyond a critical point, it just snaps; it probably won’t take on a permanent bend.

    These colors are oxide layers that form at temperatures in the “tempering” range.














  • Hey buddy, no one serious thinks the way you do

    The only people serious about widespread implementation of solar are, indeed, thinking the way I am. The general concept is commonly referred to as “demand shaping” in the industry. Anyone still focused on supply shaping in 2024 is supporting coal, gas, and nuclear infrastructure.

    the industry is using more fossil fuel to meet the increased demand

    The industry already has the solar capacity to meet the kind of demand I am talking about. They already have excess solar production that they can’t effectively utilize, and we know that they can’t effectively utilize it because it is regularly driving generation rates negative.

    We are already producing (or capable of producing) the solar energy in question; we are wasting it due to a lack of demand. We are shutting down solar panels in the middle of the day due to a lack of demand. Solar rollout is stalling due to lack of demand for the specific power that solar is capable of producing.

    When we create a demand specifically for solar energy, we increase the profitability of our existing solar infrastructure. We make it feasible and profitable to expand that infrastructure, which makes it pick up a bigger share of our normal load as well.


  • You do realize we are already using demand shaping, but for the traditional baseload/peaker model, right?

    Power companies offer steep discounts to industries like aluminum smelters and iron foundries to move their production to a night shift. Doing this increases the base load, which allows a larger percentage of the total power demand to be met by baseload generators instead of peaker plants.

    The problem with this should be obvious: the baseload/peaker model drives demand to hours of the day that solar and wind cannot possibly meet.

    Current peaks are higher than they need to be because people are wasting energy

    Current peaks are not nearly as high as they should be. As much night-time demand as possible should be moved to daytime, where it can be met with solar instead of less efficient coal/oil/nuclear baseload generation, pumped storage, battery storage, etc.

    But we can’t get to that point while negative rates are limiting solar capacity, and we can’t get rid of negative rates without flexible loads.


  • Offer them ridiculously cheap power under normal conditions, but price them high during shortages. They aren’t “shutting down their infrastructure”. They will still be able to handle requests. They just won’t be incorporating new training data to their models until the sun comes back out.

    You guys are fucking delusional. There’s so much efficiency to be gained by stopping all the energy waste

    There is much, much, much, much more energy feasibly available when we focus on demand shaping instead of traditional supply shaping models. Ever hear the phrase “penny wise, pound foolish”?

    You are either unaware that we are already regularly experiencing “negative rates” or you are not considering the ramifications. You are not considering how drastically “negative rates” are already stunting solar and wind development.

    What I am talking about is boosting intermittent demand so that rates don’t go negative. We need ways to soak up every available watt when we have more than we would normally use.

    Think of it this way: our current, “supply shaping” model requires extensive use of expensiv , inefficient “peaker” plants. Peakers give us the ability to match an unregulated demand with a variable supply.

    A “demand shaping” model, if enacted effectively enough, eliminates the need for inefficient peaker plants, leaving us with a moderately efficient baseload plant for overnight, and extremely efficient solar and wind during the day.