Reader Nathan asks: "Do you think we'll ever be able to build robot mecha like the Gundams from the Japanese anime series Gundam or the Valkyries from the Japanese anime series Macross?" The comment box is open. Practical? Plausible? What are the obstacles? Submit your science and technology questions to fyi@popsci.com.
Power and movement are the two largest problems with mechs. The biggest breakthroughs will be synthetic muscle type materials, and a power supply that can run them for more than a few minutes. A nuclear power supply using a material like Americium is one proposition, and another possibility could be some kind of superconduction motor/generator. On the tactical side, depending on the design of the mech, you could have a machine that would be far more mobile than a tank, because you could have the ability to move vertically very quickly, as well as horizontally. There are actually two kinds of mech design templates out in circulation. The "humanoid"-type, which is high mobility, and the "machine"-type, which focuses more on heavy armor and weapons. The most well known of the machine-type are the mechs from the Battle Tech or Mech Warrior, and the Gundam units are a humanoid-type.
It's going to be at least another two decades before any commercial models are built, but researchers are at work designing the Generation IV nuclear reactors. Unlike the generation II and III models now in use that use water to cool and control the fission (preventing runaway reactions, subsequent meltdowns and the environmental apocalypse that would result), the leading contender for cooling material for the Gen IV reactors is molten sodium. Not sodium chloride (plain, unreactive table salt), but sodium metal.
For a magnetic pump, you could use something along the lines of a coil-gun concept. Run the molten sodium through a locomotive magnetic coil. My biggest problem with this reactor type though, is if it does go the way of Chernobyl, it is going to be far worse. Any kind of coolant leak would spill the liquid sodium onto the ground, which would react with any water violently. The coolant would also be radioactive, adding more problems. Then there is the fact that there will be water in the reactor, unless they have devised some other way of generating electricity that we don't know about. If there was an event in which both the reactor coolant and the water coolant lines were ruptured at the same time, it would make Chernobyl look like a firecracker in comparison. I am of the party that they should be going towards the helium cooled pebble bed reactors, instead as something as dangerous as sodium.
The first annual BioMass conference, attended by biofuels researchers, manufacturers, equipment suppliers, and farmers, is underway here at the Minneapolis Convention Center. Prime on the agenda in the opening session this morning was a question lately blaring from headlines, for instance in a story in today's New York Times: can we grow crops for converting into fuel without catastrophically upsetting the world's food supply?
This is all well and good, but there are still a couple problems. Problem number one: Are the Bio-Fuel farmers actually doing this, and Two: Can you efficiently extract the required components form the grasses?
Brigham Young University bear biologist Thomas Smith says that guns aren't necessarily your best option when facing down one of the beasts. Smith and his team analyzed 20 years worth of incidents in Alaska, and found that the wilderness equivalent of pepper spray effectively deterred bears 92 percent of the time, whereas guns only did the trick one-third less often. (He studied polar bears, too, hence the picture, at left, of an unconscious mother and her cubs. And yes, he did get away before everyone woke up.)
Yeah... Bear spray may work in Alaska, on polar bears, but that is only one area and one species. Grizzlies and blackbears on the other hand, now hitting them with bearspray is like hitting someone in the face with ketchup. It's a shock at first, then it is an annoyance, and then it is a flavor enhancer. Then there is the fact that bearspray is subject to short distance and wind direction. You could get it in your eyes before you get it in the bears. Personally, I would prefer a dead bear at 150 yards, to a hungry, royally ticked off bear at 50.
The Author of this article also has not read the comic books, or even done any in-depth research into the characters he is poking at. 1. Ironman does not use rockets. The "Jets" on his boots are the same as his palm mounted weaponry, which are repulsor pads. These pads produce a repulsive force of some kind, presumably a gravimetric force, but it could also be some kind of electromagnetic wave. His power supply is in his suit, and (in the comics at least) this power supply could be further augmented using such things as high-tension electrical lines. Because of this, it could also be assumed that Ironman's suit could absorb static electricity built up during flight. 2. Storm does not produce lightning bolts as Lee_Jones already pointed out. Looking at some of the older (and better) comicbook story lines, Storm is able to control the weather through some kind of specific telekenesis. This would explain why the weather would change suddenly in accordance with her emotional states. 3. Magneto is also like Storm, in that he has a property specific telekinetic ability (ex. able to effect magnetic objects). Both of these "mutants'" abilities require concentration in proportion to the feat, as a loss of concentration is usually followed by something big going wrong. 4. The Hulk and a number of other characters in the Marvel universe gain special abilities when exposed high levels of radiation due to the fact that they have interesting genetic structures, and the massive amounts of energy simply trigger growth of these abilities. There have been several characters where the deliberate exposure to high yield radiation has caused normal human reactions (ex. Saskquatch, Bucky, etc.) Whether this is at all possible is the question, but it clearly is not.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.