“Space…the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of”….Progress

I’ll admit, I am a bit of geek. Not quite Trekie or Star Wars Fan Boy, but there has always been something about sci fi and space. What would be cooler than visiting new worlds, exploring the crazy phenomena of space, all while enjoy beach parties on the holodeck? However, reality sinks in sometimes; space is not all fun and games. If we ever explore distant planets, most likely we’d need be decked out in environmental suits (recycled urine anyone?), sleep in stasis pods to conserve resources (long naps for a few years or so), and worry about the effects of cosmic radiation on our DNA (might not have kids but you could grow a third arm).

In all seriousness, with shocking accidents like the Columbia and Challenger disasters burned into the minds of the public coupled with the large price tag of any space mission, many people think we could do without NASA. Space is a dangerous place. The technical problems that can amount from drastically varied temperatures, unshielded cosmic radiation, pressure differentials, etc are not a challenge, it is a continuous battle for survival. With all of this to look forward to, "why the heck would we want to go to space, manned or unmanned?" I would tell someone: what NASA and other programs have given the United States, and the world, cannot be fully measured. 

The US government has spent an average of $10 billion on NASA since 1958. A few of the benefits that we have received in return range from shoe insoles to cordless tools.  These may seem like mundane things, yet how many people use them on a daily basis? The Global Positioning System (GPS), Google maps, and quite a few other satellite-driven technologies would not have been possible without NASA and its innovations. 

When we consider lives saved, in the 1960s NASA researched ways to prevent aircraft from hydroplaning on the runways during rainstorms. The technique of safety-grooving (indents that carry away water and improve friction forces) was soon applied to the US highway system, where it began to prevent almost 85 percent of accidents during wet weather. In the mid-1980’s, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (another space-related program) provided funding and resources to develop a high energy-density thin-filmed capacitor, to store and then discharge energy. This tech has been used in a variety of products, but most notably to power portable heart defibrillators. From fire fighters to emergency responders, they have saved lives by using such a device.

NASA’s estimated budget for 2012 is about $16 billion. With a population in the United States of about 311.6 million, this breaks down to a cost of $51.36 for this year. I think I can forgo one extra video game a year for the potential life-saving, life-changing benefits, can you? Now, of course not everyone is paying for this, I personally don’t pay much in taxes since I am a student, but once I have a full-time job I would donate more (perhaps to the Build the Enterprise if it receives a little more momentum). I ask this, as a society what have we gained for that nominal cost? Can you put a price on progress?

Intertwined with the price of innovations is what many people would bring up, the price of human life. How can we expect astronauts to put there lives on the line? This is a complex issue, and we could spend years hashing out reasons for an against the sacrifices people have made. I truly salute those that have died on the Shuttles Columbia and Challenger, and their families. In many ways astronauts are no different than other professionals that confront the possibility of death everyday. From police officers to firefighters, we hope that nothing tragic befalls upon them, yet they all take a risk to insure that the rest of us are safer, they protect the society. I believe astronauts and other scientists, those that work under dangerous circumstances, are on this same spectrum. They are insuring the betterment and continuation of our society.

Space provides a unique set of problems, problems that engineers have and will continue to solve. These solutions are invaluable, even if it cannot be seen right away, many can be applied to our terrestrial lives. If we understand that the role of government is to better society as a whole, and in this, take risks for this betterment that individuals and companies are not willing to take, for many whose main prerogative for investment is for their own benefit. Our society is shifting, many people are now investing in space travel, this shows the increased awareness of the value that is in space exploration. Should we now cut funding? No, instead we should push the boundary, “go where no one has gone before.”

Thorium Nuclear Reactors – Nuclear Energy We Should be Talking About

When many people hear “nuclear” they think of the disasters of Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, or more recently the meltdown at Fukushima in 2011. These events coupled with the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation has led to a stagnation in research, especially in the United States. While we cannot deny the dangers of nuclear energy and material, we should also acknowledge the benefits and the possibility that further research could solve or mitigate the dangers. Thorium Nuclear Reactors have this potential, to change the way we view nuclear energy and revolutionize the world.

Thorium crystal

At this point, most people would ask, “Is this some new miracle-cure or a dream scientists have been chasing like cold-fusion?” The answer would be neither. Thorium was seen as a potential energy source in the 1960s, an experimental reactor was created and tested at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s using a Molten-Salt Reactor, which we will discuss more in-depth later. Even though thorium is about 3 times more abundant in the earth than uranium (the fuel used in almost all commercial reactors worldwide), further study was discontinued in the US, and most other countries. Multiple sources point to the disadvantage of thorium at that time, the nuclear process did not produce easily-weaponized nuclear material, unlike uranium and plutonium. Recently funding was denied to a project by Dr. Carlo Rubbia in 2000, a Nobel laureate and former director of CERN. Some thorium experts argue that the European Energy Commission, along with the US Department of Energy, is biased against thorium because of the large, in-place investments in mining and utilizing uranium.

While other countries, like India and China, have recently delved into the realm of thorium reactors, the state of information about thorium in the world news is dancing on the fringes. Tech magazines such as Wired or web resources such as Tech News Daily have glowing reports of thorium reactors and every once and a while a big news source such as Forbes or the Washington Post will elaborate on a new development. However, compared to the green tech such as wind, solar or even wave power, there is only a little exposure. This can be explained by market penetration, more commercialization equals more news exposure, and research funding, it is much cheaper to fund a few million dollars for a wind turbine study than a couple hundred million for an experimental reactor. Along with the stigma of nuclear energy, the entrenched forces of the current energy industry, both uranium-based and hydrocarbon-based companies, may fight any implementations of large changes.

Molten Salt Reactor from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

While thorium is much more abundant than uranium or plutonium, using the Molten Salt Reactor design, a thorium reactor is much more efficient. Dr. Rubbia argues that 1 ton of thorium produces as much energy as 200 tons of uranium or 3,500,000 tons of coal. This is possible through thorium's inherent properties and the different reactor design, which can harnesses up to 98% of the available energy in a given volume of thorium, compared to the typical 3% of energy to volume of uranium. Some put this efficiency rate at 50%, which is still much higher than uranium. The salt is a mixture of the thorium fuel and sodium fluoride, which has an added safety feature, the mixture can exist at high temperatures but low pressures, which would prevent the pressured-caused explosions at Fukushima and Chernobyl (other fuels can be used in this design but thorium is the most efficient). Coupled with this would be a plug of solid salt in the molten chamber, cooled by an electric system. When the power goes out, the plug would melt, allowing the molten salt to passively cool in a larger chamber, which would end the nuclear conversion process. These multiple safety features could assuage the fears of many anti-nuclear activists, possibly bring the risk of a meltdown to 0. 

This high efficiency is the largest downfall of a thorium reactor, first it needs a large input of energy for the process to begin, Rubbia suggests using a large particle accelerator which alone would cost over 500 million euros. Yet this process can use weapons-grade plutonium, thus "using up" the huge stockpile of warhead-grade plutonium we have worldwide. The other side of the efficiency rate is that the chamber holding the molten salt would need to be designed to meet the high temperatures and degradation caused by the nuclear reaction. Coupled with this is the problem of converting thorium into useable uranium-233, the thorium is first converted into protactinium-233, then to uranium while some atoms turns into protactinium-234 which cannot be used in the fissile (nuclear fuel) material. This unwanted product would need to be filtered out and a efficient process is still being worked on.

Some people call thorium the “magic silver bullet.” With high energy-to-volume conversion rates, abundant to the point that thorium is a waste product when mining for rare earth minerals, and a much shorter half-life (only a few hundred years compared to the thousands of years of uranium), at minimum thorium should be further investigated as a potential alternative to conventional nuclear fuel. Perhaps with enough funding thorium could power the future?

Complete Ultimaker DIY-Kit - Fun in a Box

Say you are browsing the internet and see a really sweet Lindsey Lohan bobble-head to add to your secret collection. Well, instead of waiting a week for it to arrive by mail or walking into the mall shamefully, you just click print. In less than 10 minutes you could be admiring your new guilty pleasure, or telling Lindsey all about your day with her listening intently (bobble-bobble), made possible by your brand new 3D printer! While this might be a niche (and weird) example, there are many practical uses for 3D printing, but let’s first go over the basic idea.

The concept of 3D printing is quite simple being very similar to a typical 2D, inkjet printer you use at home or work. Instead of having cartridges of blank and colored ink, a 3D printer takes a material (typically plastic) and sets a micro blob of liquid material onto the work surface. This quickly hardens, and then another blob is set, again and again. With the blobs building onto each other, like little building blocks, until you have whatever you programmed the 3D printer to make. These designs are usually from a Computer Aided Drafting program, and there are many available online for free or a small price. Currently a scenario like the Lindsey Lohan bobble-head is missing a few things, there are no large commercial websites where you can purchase patented goods (like an iconic celebrity bobble-head) and most 3D printers can only use one type plastic a time (you would just have to spend some extra, quality time with a set of paints and your new BFF).

From the Ultimaker Website

One product, called the Complete Ultimaker DIY-Kit, was recently brought to the market by a small Dutch company, Ultimaker, in May of 2011. While there are many different 3D printer companies out there, the Ultimaker stands out because of its price, with a 21x21x22 cm potential build volume (the largest volume part the machine can build) for about 1600 USD. This is one of lowest priced printers out there, and this draw is only enhanced by its open-source software and hardware, meaning the company encourages changes to its software and hardware to suit its customers’ needs.

Thor from Starcraft II, example from the Ultimaker Website

The drawbacks are that you need to have some technical background (or be willing to spend a frustrating weekend) to assemble the machine from its major components (DIY stands for Do-It-Yourself, so their target audience enjoys this sort of thing). Also, it can only use plastic and in this, one color of plastic at a time. While more expensive models can print with a few different colors of plastic and some can use multiple materials, as with anything the price goes up more features. This and that most printers can only be used for relatively small objects, are the areas that could be greatly improved upon in the future.

Some enticing technical specifications, for the enthusiast, are its printing precision, in the Z axis it can lay down material around 0.1 mm, but it is best for features to be at least 0.5 mm due to structural considerations (you don’t want your new plastic toy to fall apart). It is actually more precise in the vertical direction (y-axis), being able to create layers of about 20 micrometers (less than 0.0008 inches). The website says that when designing the part, taking this into consideration will allow you to decide the best orientation for printing. For more tech specs, you can see their website here and the FAQ.

While I used the example of a niche bobble-head, 3D printing is used extensively in engineering research, which can be considered a part of the process of rapid prototyping. This process allows engineers to quickly build a part to test the design. Consider a mechanical engineer designing and building intricate part for an existing engine and he or she will be using an expensive composite material to make it. Within an hour or two a 3D printer could create a plastic version that then could test the shape and size of the current design within engine. If it fits, then the design could be shipped off to the manufacturer, or the design could be quickly modified, all potentially saving time and money.

3D printing is not just for engineers and researchers. A 3D printer in the home could allow you to build multiple copies of door handles, little horses for party favors, multiple pieces to build a replica of the Eiffel Tower for a school project, etc. If someone could design it on the computer, and it could fit within the build platform, a 3D printer could probably build it (you can download designs that others have made if you are not confident in your CAD skills).

The future is full of exciting innovations, many are only in the stages of inception and some of the game-changers are still waiting discovery. One invention that changed the way we view and interact with society and world was the personal computer. Most people know that it took a few years for the computer to gain wide commercialization with some starting at 2000 USD in the 1980s, but once they reached a certain point, the revolution began. What is the next upheaval? Many people point to the emerging tech of 3D printers. A word of caution; if you know a hoarder, do not get them one for Christmas.

Yoda made by Screal

A Short Intro to the World of Mechanical Engineeering

As I previously studied philosophy, a lot of people assumed I would spend a few years in cave contemplating the meaning of life or end up going to law school. Since I decided to go back to school for mechanical engineering, many people have asked me why. When asked, I usually have three main points; one, I am not fond of dark, gloomy caves; two, I would rather not spend 3 years of my life slaving away in a dusty library and then 10 years working 90 hour weeks arguing about precedent and perjury; and finally three, who wouldn’t want to potentially become "a billionaire, playboy, philanthropist" with an awesome suit of armor like Tony Stark? I have to admit, the movie Ironman II sparked my initial inner-fire to pursue a career in mechanical engineering. With the dream of designing and building a sweet mechanical suit that could save the day came the question; what do mechanical engineers really do?

We all wanna be Ironman.. Right?

As I researched this, there is a problem with the question. What almost could be asked is; what don’t mechanical engineers do? As undergraduates we study force and motion, heat, energy, and how they interact with environments and especially things people build. We dabble in energy production and computers, or materials for buildings and machines that make machines. You could define mechanical engineers as people who create, design, and build products, while also working on the boring instructions and documentation so that people can use these products. We must use computer programs to build parts for simulations and programed instructions on how to manufacture the parts. We can experiment with the amount of heat a product can take or at what speed it is most efficient.

An undergrad during finals

In many ways, undergraduate mechanical engineers could be considered the jack-of-all-trades. While this may sound awesome, (“you people get to learn everything”) or incredibly boring, (“you people have to learn everything”), it makes defining mechanical engineering quite hard. Like many engineers, as professionals mechanical engineers must specialize because of the breadth of the field, or risk having their heads explode from information overload.
  
For this post we won’t have enough room to look at all the different areas, so I chose a few that sets mechanical engineers apart. One life-saving discipline is a concentration in biomedical engineering. Quite a few engineers are working on new surgery tools that can make surgery safer or drug delivery devices/methods that could drastically reduce costs. Another important area of study is energy efficiency, where engineers look at potentially more efficient ways of producing energy with solar cells or using the ambient energy from the earth to cool or heat a house. An area that I am interested in is of course robotics. 

Strong and cute - definitely from Japan.

In this field engineers have made strides in creating walking, face-recognizing robots that could potentially help the elderly and do your laundry (or take over the world if you offend them). Of course mechanical engineers do not work alone, as the lone and eccentric inventor in the company’s secret lair is somewhat rare. They collaborate with other engineers (from electrical to civil) or researchers (like medical doctors) in many of these areas.
 
While some of you might have a better idea of what a mechanical engineer does, others might be saying, “you’ve introduced a lot of new research, some vague definitions, but what can a mechanical engineer do for me, in my daily life?” That is a great question and I will use common product that you might be familiar with: the iPhone. The first iPhones had a problem in the lab; when the engineers put them in their pocket, the glass would get all scratched up from anything metal; i.e. keys, change, etc. Quite a few years before (1960) a group of researchers developed a scratch-resistant material called Chemcor glass, but they didn’t find a wide, commercial use for this product. Well, the two got together in 2006, and after some initial concerns about not being able to make enough glass, now called Gorilla Glass, the iPhone emerged as a game-changing product complete with its scratch-resistant glass. As of 2011, the glass could be found in 200 million handset devices worldwide. From nearly 0 to 200 million in 5 years, not bad! The U of Columbia puts it nicely, “The role of a mechanical engineer is to take a product from an idea to the marketplace.” While in this case it took almost 50 years, the product is now a success, made possible through mechanical engineering, specifically material science with a combination of pure sand and a proprietary-recipe of chemicals.

To summarize, mechanical engineers are part of the process of inventing, designing, building, and sometimes even repairing a large gamut of products, from airplanes to iPhones or demolition charges to nano-bots. While I may not build a suit of armor and become a rich superhero (anytime soon), I am still excited to be part of a field that has such a large range of opportunities and application. And I could always work on my suit after hours in the lab; mechanical engineer by day, crime-fighter by night!

Maybe in the Future?