NeuroTypical

Brigham Young statue vandalized

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

The Confederate monuments should come down

I think they should all stay up, but with an addition; place a placard detailing the positive reasons for why the statue was erected and also the negative or controversial actions or characteristics of the individual.  Regardless, I am okay with cities voting to replace or remove statues, but I'm not okay with vandals tearing them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, person0 said:

I'm not okay with vandals tearing them down.

I'm not either, though it's happening and I'm not sure you can just put the statues back up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, person0 said:

I think they should all stay up, but with an addition; place a placard detailing the positive reasons for why the statue was erected and also the negative or controversial actions or characteristics of the individual.  Regardless, I am okay with cities voting to replace or remove statues, but I'm not okay with vandals tearing them down.

I'm partially in agreement with you. Though I'd prefer to take them down and put them in a museum to be contextualized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I'm not sure you can just put the statues back up. 

Weld and concrete those things in better. Make 'um so that it would take a tank to pull them down.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, person0 said:

I think they should all stay up, but with an addition; place a placard detailing the positive reasons for why the statue was erected and also the negative or controversial actions or characteristics of the individual.  Regardless, I am okay with cities voting to replace or remove statues, but I'm not okay with vandals tearing them down.

It is interesting to consider this when I think of the monument built to "The Hero of Saratoga".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I'm not either, though it's happening and I'm not sure you can just put the statues back up. 

Sadly, true.

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm partially in agreement with you. Though I'd prefer to take them down and put them in a museum to be contextualized. 

I like this idea very much.  It is certainly an improvement to the desecration and destruction happening now.  Regardless, I doubt it would be well received by the radicals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Weld and concrete those things in better. Make 'um so that it would take a tank to pull them down.

This is not as easy as it seems.  Given the geometry and materials involved... Anything tall and skinny will be subject to the laws of physics.

If a crowd of people are dead set on taking it down, there are enough readily available tools to take it down.

To make it "virtually" impregnable, you'd need to have a reinforced concrete sphere specially dimensioned to make maximum use of physics and geometry.  Then make the figure out of a tungsten-steel-titanium alloy.  The most they could do to that is knock off pointy objects like a sword or finger... unless they had a blowtorch.

But that would be pretty expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Then make the figure out of a tungsten-steel-titanium alloy.

Interestingly, titanium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust, more common than carbon. The only reason it's such an exotic and expensive metal is because the refining process is unbelievably complex, labor- and energy-intensive. This is the position aluminum was in a century or so ago, before the Bayer refining process was developed. Perhaps something similar will happen with titanium, and our grandchildren will drink their caffeinated, carbonated garbage from superthin titanium cans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Vort said:

Interestingly, titanium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust, more common than carbon. The only reason it's such an exotic and expensive metal is because the refining process is unbelievably complex, labor- and energy-intensive. This is the position aluminum was in a century or so ago, before the Bayer refining process was developed. Perhaps something similar will happen with titanium, and our grandchildren will drink their caffeinated, carbonated garbage from superthin titanium cans.

That would be interesting.

But we would still have to overcome the rarity issue.  Aluminum is the most abundant metal on earth -- that's why there was such a desire to make it more affordable.  Titanium runs in 7th place (among metals).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is not as easy as it seems.  Given the geometry and materials involved... Anything tall and skinny will be subject to the laws of physics.

If a crowd of people are dead set on taking it down, there are enough readily available tools to take it down.

To make it "virtually" impregnable, you'd need to have a reinforced concrete sphere specially dimensioned to make maximum use of physics and geometry.  Then make the figure out of a tungsten-steel-titanium alloy.  The most they could do to that is knock off pointy objects like a sword or finger... unless they had a blowtorch.

But that would be pretty expensive.

Carb the engineer at work!

I deleted the rest of my other post. Besides securing/building it better... let people know that if they try to take it down it will self detonate into 10,000 pieces of statue shrapnel. Then see who is willing to pull it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That would be interesting.

But we would still have to overcome the rarity issue.  Aluminum is the most abundant metal on earth -- that's why there was such a desire to make it more affordable.  Titanium runs in 7th place (among metals).

Yeah, I was just being funny. Still, a Bayer-like process for titanium would revolutionize our materials science and usage. For example, automobiles would become far lighter and more efficient if made from titanium instead of from iron. Given the materials savings, it might not even be much more expensive to buy a titanium car than it is now to buy an iron car. Of course, it would take a generation for our metalworking techniques to catch up with titanium production. Titanium is extremely difficult to work with normal metalworking techniques; it work-hardens very easily and is what machinists call "sticky".

elements-earth-crust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Carb the engineer at work!

I deleted the rest of my other post. Besides securing/building it better... let people know that if they try to take it down it will self detonate into 10,000 pieces of statue shrapnel. Then see who is willing to pull it down.

Doesn't this just become an epic game of dodgeball at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun thing about titanium:

We have a super critical water oxidizer (SCWO) reactor at work to treat some toxic byproducts of our primary process.  The SCWO sits in a titanium sleeve, and the chemical process reduces the toxic organics into salt water. The process happens inside a titanium sleeve.  

The process is corrosive enough that we have to replace the 12' long titanium sleeve every 100 hours of operation.

 

Another fun thing about titanium:

U.S. Submarines are made from steel.  When they descend to their crush depth, the steel compresses and the submarine gets smaller.  But upon ascending, the steel expands again into it's original size.  U.S. submarines may descend to this crush depth repeatedly.

Russian submarines are made from titanium. When the descend to their crush depth, the titanium compresses and the submarine gets smaller. But upon ascending, the titanium does not expand to its original size. Russian submarines may only descend to their crush depth once, and then they can never go that deep again.  But the Russian submarine crush depth is much, much deeper than the U.S. submarine crush depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Doesn't this just become an epic game of dodgeball at this point?

Hum, I suppose so. Drop that statue um... dodgeball game in the middle of CHOP/CHAZ and let them have fun.
CHAZ dodgeball league. What??
dodgeball.jpg.303206b73ca6c8611891cea427d3aa5b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Fun thing about titanium:

We have a super critical water oxidizer (SCWO) reactor at work to treat some toxic byproducts of our primary process.  The SCWO sits in a titanium sleeve, and the chemical process reduces the toxic organics into salt water. The process happens inside a titanium sleeve.  

The process is corrosive enough that we have to replace the 12' long titanium sleeve every 100 hours of operation.

What is your "primary process"? This sounds really interesting. Can you give me an idea of what it's all about? Maybe point me to some online resource or something?

11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Another fun thing about titanium:

U.S. Submarines are made from steel.  When they descend to their crush depth, the steel compresses and the submarine gets smaller.  But upon ascending, the steel expands again into it's original size.  U.S. submarines may descend to this crush depth repeatedly.

Russian submarines are made from titanium. When the descend to their crush depth, the titanium compresses and the submarine gets smaller. But upon ascending, the titanium does not expand to its original size. Russian submarines may only descend to their crush depth once, and then they can never go that deep again.  But the Russian submarine crush depth is much, much deeper than the U.S. submarine crush depth.

So the bottom line is that Russian subs can work exactly the same as US subs, but in addition can have a one-time descent to a superdeep depth, after which they can continue operating at normal, US-like submarine depths. Correct?

I am reminded of something I learned as a child, but almost opposite in materials. I learned that when a Soviet fighter defected to the West with his MIG, examination revealed some amazing things. US fighter jets were made of titanium, but the inferior Soviet fighter jets were just made of steel. Go 'Murca! Years later, I learned what was supposed to be the real story: Yes, the Soviet MIGs were indeed made of steel, because the Russians figured out how to build an airplane from steel that still had performance characteristics that the US had to use titanium to achieve. It's all in the marketing.

(BTW, I have no sources for any of this. I'm just retelling what I heard in my youth and young adulthood. So don't bet any large sums of money on it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Fun thing about titanium:

We have a super critical water oxidizer (SCWO) reactor at work to treat some toxic byproducts of our primary process.  The SCWO sits in a titanium sleeve, and the chemical process reduces the toxic organics into salt water. The process happens inside a titanium sleeve.  

The process is corrosive enough that we have to replace the 12' long titanium sleeve every 100 hours of operation.

This is interesting.  Nitric Acid?  Or is the critical point of water just THAT corrosive on its own?

Quote

U.S. Submarines are made from steel.  When they descend to their crush depth, the steel compresses and the submarine gets smaller.  But upon ascending, the steel expands again into it's original size.  U.S. submarines may descend to this crush depth repeatedly.

Russian submarines are made from titanium. When the descend to their crush depth, the titanium compresses and the submarine gets smaller. But upon ascending, the titanium does not expand to its original size. Russian submarines may only descend to their crush depth once, and then they can never go that deep again.  But the Russian submarine crush depth is much, much deeper than the U.S. submarine crush depth.

Since I've never designed a submarine before, I was wondering what conditions would cause this to be the case.  And I realized that it was beyond the stress levels that I usually work with.

I believe that this is either a geometry based issue or a strain-hardening issue.  Given that Russian sub continues to work for a time after the first crush depth, I'd conclude that it is a strain-hardening issue.  

Would that be correct?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

This is interesting.  Nitric Acid?  Or is the critical point of water just THAT corrosive on its own?

I'm pretty sure it isn't just the water, but the mixture of the carbons we deal with.  I couldn't tell you the exact chemistry. I'm a math guy, not a chemist.

Quote

Since I've never designed a submarine before, I was wondering what conditions would cause this to be the case.  And I realized that it was beyond the stress levels that I usually work with.

I believe that this is either a geometry based issue or a strain-hardening issue.  Given that Russian sub continues to work for a time after the first crush depth, I'd conclude that it is a strain-hardening issue.  

Would that be correct?

Again, you're in properties that I don't fully understand. My brother served on a boomer and most of what I know I've learned from him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough with the metals and submarines, etc.
Can we just make something that keeps my eggs from sticking to my frying pan already, someone, anyone? 
What, they did? Put that on the statues then.

On a different note: Did anyone know that asbestos is a fibrous mineral that they mined for in Australia? What!
Put that in a Russian sub at crushing depth and see what happens.


Joking everyone. Carry on.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Parents need to teach the FULL history of the church and not just the good stuff. It is irresponsible to only teach the good stuff and let your kids hear the bad stuff from anti-Mormons. Had the person that vandalized the B.Y. statue heard about Brighams racists events from a compassionate parent or even church leader they wouldnt have had so much anger built up, chances are they heard it from anti-Mormon sources.  

I grew up in a Catholic family.  My parents didn't need to teach me anything about the "full history of the (Catholic or LDS) Church" for me to understand both churches is full of flawed people doing their best with what they know.  If kids are hearing the bad stuff from anti-Mormons and they trusted THEIR VALUES more than the parent's values when they're in conflict, then the parents FAILED IN TEACHING THEM HOW TO DISTINGUISH GOOD FROM BAD - another VALUE.

A kid with "so much anger built up" because he hears bad stuff from anti-Mormons is another kid whose parents failed in teaching VALUES - Patience, Forgiveness, and Perseverance.

And here's another failure - blaming somebody else for one's lack of values... is a lack of value.

Quote

 

In regard to vandalizing property, yes, parents should teach their kids self-discipline and respect for other property.

 

Yep.  Two VALUES.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

Given the materials savings, it might not even be much more expensive to buy a titanium car than it is now to buy an iron car

That sounds like a material saving to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And here's another failure - blaming somebody else for one's lack of values... is a lack of value.

Quote

When things go wrong it's rather tame
To find we are ourselves to blame,
It gets the trouble over quicker
To go and blame things on the Vicar.
The Vicar, after all, is paid
To keep us bright and undismayed.
The Vicar is more virtuous too
Than lay folks such as me and you.
He never swears, he never drinks,
He never should say what he thinks.
His collar is the wrong way round,
And that is why he's simply bound
To be the sort of person who
Has nothing very much to do
But take the blame for what goes wrong
And sing in tune at Evensong.

John Betjeman "Blame the Vicar"

vicar-cartoon-pic.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Enough with the metals and submarines, etc.
Can we just make something that keeps my eggs from sticking to my frying pan already, someone, anyone? 

That's easy.  It's called grease. :) 

Seriously, the best frying pan for eggs and the like is a cast iron pan that has been properly seasoned at least once.  Then be sure to spread a tablespoon of oil all around the pan each time you're getting ready to fry some eggs.

Unfortunately, we can't put that on statues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vort said:

Given the materials savings, it might not even be much more expensive to buy a titanium car than it is now to buy an iron car.

WOW!  The price of titanium has dropped from $21,000/metric ton (2005) to $3750/metric ton (2016).  And I just saw it on Alibaba for $2400/metric ton.  I guess when the market asks for it.  Producers produce.

Steel is around $575/metric ton.

Check my math on this:

  • S.G. difference:  8.05 vs 4.5.
  • Roughly equivalent tensile strength (BTW, this number has changed since I went to school.  No idea why)
  • For tension & short compression parts that's 3.44 times the cost.
  • For bending parts, it can be as little as 2 times the cost. (Varies with design)
  • For long compression parts, it can be a wash. (Varies with design)

If automakers wanted to, they could start marketing high-end cars made of titanium, and the public would buy them for not much more than other high end cars today.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Another fun thing about titanium:

U.S. Submarines are made from steel.  When they descend to their crush depth, the steel compresses and the submarine gets smaller.  But upon ascending, the steel expands again into it's original size.  U.S. submarines may descend to this crush depth repeatedly.

Russian submarines are made from titanium. When the descend to their crush depth, the titanium compresses and the submarine gets smaller. But upon ascending, the titanium does not expand to its original size. Russian submarines may only descend to their crush depth once, and then they can never go that deep again.  But the Russian submarine crush depth is much, much deeper than the U.S. submarine crush depth.

Could this description of the metals’ characteristics perhaps be backwards?  I am a bit of a Titanic buff and some years ago was reading a description of the research sub Alvin, which had a titanium pressure hull.  The author claimed that the pressure hull compresses at depth but returns to its original size as external pressures diminish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

WOW!  The price of titanium has dropped from $21,000/metric ton (2005) to $3750/metric ton (2016).  And I just saw it on Alibaba for $2400/metric ton.  I guess when the market asks for it.  Producers produce.

Steel is around $575/metric ton.

Check my math on this:

  • S.G. difference:  8.05 vs 4.5.
  • Roughly equivalent tensile strength (BTW, this number has changed since I went to school.  No idea why)
  • For tension & short compression parts that's 3.44 times the cost.
  • For bending parts, it can be as little as 2 times the cost. (Varies with design)
  • For long compression parts, it can be a wash. (Varies with design)

If automakers wanted to, they could start marketing high-end cars made of titanium, and the public would buy them for not much more than other high end cars today.

Someone notify Elon Musk. Perfect for electric cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now