Tag Archives: Fukushima

The relationship between Valyrian steel (from Game of Thrones), Damascus steel, and nuclear nanotechnology

There’s a very interesting June 20, 2014 posting by Charles Day on his Dayside blog (located on the Physics Today website). Day manages to relate the Game of Thrones tv series to nuclear power and nanotechnology,

The military technology of A Song of Ice and Fire, George R. R. Martin’s series of fantasy novels, is medieval with an admixture of the supernatural. Dragons aside, among the most prized weapons are swords made from Valyrian steel, which are lighter, stronger, and sharper than ordinary steel swords.

Like many of the features in the rich world of the novels and their TV adaptation, Game of Thrones, Valyrian steel has a historical inspiration. Sometime before 300 BC, metalworkers in Southern India discovered a way to make small cakes of high-carbon steel known as wootz. Thanks to black wavy bands of Fe3C particles that pervade the metal, wootz steel was already strong. …

Perhaps because the properties of wootz and Damascus steels depended, in part, on a particular kind of iron ore, the ability of metallurgists to make the alloys was lost sometime in the 18th century. In A Song of Ice and Fire, the plot plays out during an era in which making Valyrian steel is a long-lost art.

Martin’s knowledge of metallurgy is perhaps shaky. …

Interestingly, the comments on the blog posting largely concern themselves with whether George RR Martin knows anything about metallurgy. The consensus being that he does and that the problems in the Game of Thrones version of metallurgy lie with the series writers.

I first came across the Damascus steel, wootz, and carbon nanotube story in 2008 and provided a concise description on my Nanotech Mysteries wiki Middle Ages page,

Damascus steel blades were first made in the 8th century CE when they acquired a legendary status as unlike other blades they were able to cut through bone and stone while remaining sharp enough to cut a piece of silk. They were also flexible which meant they didn’t break off easily in a sword fight. The secret for making the blades died (history does not record how) about 1700 CE and there hasn’t been a new blade since.

 The blades were generally made from metal ingots prepared in India using special recipes which probably put just the right amount of carbon and other impurities into the iron. By following these recipes and following specific forging techniques craftsmen ended up making nanotubes … When these blades were nearly finished, blacksmiths would etch them with acid. This brought out the wavy light and dark lines that make Damascus swords easy to recognize.3

 It turns out part of the secret to the blade is nanotechnology. Scientists discovered this by looking at a Damascus steel blade from 1700 under an electron microscope. It seems those unknown smiths were somehow encasing cementite nanowires in carbon nanotubes then forging them into the steel blades giving them their legendary strength and flexibility.

The reference information I used then seems to be no longer available online but there is this more than acceptable alternative, a Sept. 27, 2008 postiing by Ed Yong from his Not Exactly Rocket Science blog (on ScienceBlogs.com; Note: A link has been removed),

In medieval times, crusading Christian knights cut a swathe through the Middle East in an attempt to reclaim Jerusalem from the Muslims. The Muslims in turn cut through the invaders using a very special type of sword, which quickly gained a mythical reputation among the Europeans. These ‘Damascus blades‘ were extraordinarily strong, but still flexible enough to bend from hilt to tip. And they were reputedly so sharp that they could cleave a silk scarf floating to the ground, just as readily as a knight’s body.

They were superlative weapons that gave the Muslims a great advantage, and their blacksmiths carefully guarded the secret to their manufacture. The secret eventually died out in the eighteenth century and no European smith was able to fully reproduce their method.

Two years ago, Marianne Reibold and colleagues from the University of Dresden uncovered the extraordinary secret of Damascus steel – carbon nanotubes. The smiths of old were inadvertently using nanotechnology.

Getting back to Day, he goes on to explain the Damascus/Valyrian steel connection to nuclear power (Note: Links have been removed),

Valyrian and Damascus steels were on my mind earlier this week when I attended a session at TechConnect World on the use of nanotechnology in the nuclear power industry.

Scott Anderson of Lockheed Martin gave the introductory talk. Before the Fukushima disaster, Anderson pointed out, the principal materials science challenge in the nuclear industry lay in extending the lifetime of fuel rods. Now the focus has shifted to accident-tolerant fuels and safer, more durable equipment.

Among the other speakers was MIT’s Ju Li, who described his group’s experiments with incorporating carbon nanotubes (CNTs) in aluminum to boost the metal’s resistance to radiation damage. In a reactor core, neutrons and other ionizing particles penetrate vessels, walls, and other structures, where they knock atoms off lattice sites. The cumulative effect of those displacements is to create voids and other defects that weaken the structures.

Li isn’t sure yet how the CNTs resist irradiation and toughen the aluminum, but at the end of his talk he recalled their appearance in another metal, steel.

In 2006 Peter Paufler of Dresden University of Technology and his collaborators used high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to examine the physical and chemical microstructure of a sample of Damascus steel from the 17th century.

The saber from which the sample was taken was forged in Isfahan, Persia, by the famed blacksmith Assad Ullah. As part of their experiment, Paufler and his colleagues washed the sample in hydrochloric acid to remove Fe3C particles. A second look with TEM revealed the presence of CNTs.

There’s still active interest in researching Damascus steel blades as not all the secrets behind the blade’s extraordinary qualities have been revealed yet. There is a March 13, 2014 posting here which describes a research project where Chinese researchers are attempting (using computational software) to uncover the reason for the blade’s unique patterns,

It seems that while researchers were able to answer some questions about the blade’s qualities, researchers in China believe they may have answered the question about the blade’s unique patterns, from a March 12, 2014 news release on EurekAlert,

Blacksmiths and metallurgists in the West have been puzzled for centuries as to how the unique patterns on the famous Damascus steel blades were formed. Different mechanisms for the formation of the patterns and many methods for making the swords have been suggested and attempted, but none has produced blades with patterns matching those of the Damascus swords in the museums. The debate over the mechanism of formation of the Damascus patterns is still ongoing today. Using modern metallurgical computational software (Thermo-Calc, Stockholm, Sweden), Professor Haiwen Luo of the Central Iron and Steel Research Institute in Beijing, together with his collaborator, have analyzed the relevant published data relevant to the Damascus blades, and present a new explanation that is different from other proposed mechanisms.

At the time the researchers were hoping to have someone donate a piece of genuine Damascus steel blade. From my March 13, 2014 posting,

Note from the authors: It would be much appreciated if anyone would like to donate a piece of genuine Damascus blade for our research.

Corresponding Author:

LUO Haiwen
Email: haiwenluo@126.com

Perhaps researchers will manage to solve the puzzle of how medieval craftsman were once able to create extraordinary steel blades.

Scientists take inspiration from poetry and welcome science slams

Physicist Herbi Dreiner has written a very engaging piece on Science Slams in his July 11, 2013 posting for the Guardian science blogs. This is how he describes a Science Slam,

Recently I was standing on a stage in Dortmund, Germany. The setting was fabulous, the Stahlhalle of the DASA, the German research organization for safety in industrial work places. I know, it sounds tax-office-kind-of boring, but imagine an arched 10m high ceiling, huge defunct steel production devices around the stage in professional bluish-pink lighting, an intermediate level overlooking the hall with a small jazz band, 300 people in the audience and a lively bar in the back. Deep-breath-kind-of Wow!

A slam, whether it’s poetry or science, is a performance cum sporting event. The scientist or poet gives a 10 minute performance which the audience rates (organizers gauge the amount of applause, hoots, hollers, etc.) and winners are declared and prizes, if there are any, are disbursed. Science slams got their start in Germany by poet Alex Deppec in 2006, from the Science slam Wikipedia essay (Note: Links and footnotes have been removed),

A Science Slam is a scientific talk where scientists  present their own scientific research  work in a given time frame – usually 10 minutes – in front of a non-expert audience. The focus lies on teaching current science  to a diverse audience in an entertaining way. The presentation is judged by the audience. A science slam is a form of science communication.

The prototype of the Science Slams is the Poetry Slam. In the end of 2006 Poetry Slammer Alex Dreppec founded it in Darmstadt (Germany). Since 2008 it has become very popular in Germany. Since 2010 it has become popular internationally as well.

The Wikipedia lists at least some  of the countries that have jumped on the ‘Science Slam’ wagon,

  • Germany (founded there)
  • Austria
  • Chile
  • Denmark
  • Egypt
  • Finland
  • Indonesia
  • Netherlands
  • Russia
  • South Africa
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland

The essay provides links to the science slam organizations in the various countries.

Getting back to Dreiner’s description of his most recent Science Slam experience (he functioned as the opening act  not one of the competitors),

Since March, 2011, I had been giving public talks about the Fukushima nuclear accident and thought it was the obvious topic. It was clear it would be of interest, but not really a laughing matter. I had a breakthrough riding home on my bike. I decided not to use slides, and instead to take you right into the heart of the reactor, highlighting the physics principles of the accident through simple reenactment. I represented the fuel rods myself, with a lab coat as the zirc alloy encasing. The audience helped me with water pistols (cooling mechanism), a pea shooter (neutrons for the chain reaction) and a tea kettle with a toy pinwheel for the generated steam and turbines. My main goal was to bring across the distinction between the nuclear chain reaction and radioactive decays. …

I encourage you to read Dreiner’s entire description and for those of you who are interested in exploring science slams further, here’s the LUUPS Science Slam webpage (you will need your German language skills) in addition to the listings you’ll find in the Wikipedia essay. You will also need German language skills for Alex Dreppec’s (the person who launched Science Slams) poetry performance (video below) and his own website,

Threats to increase anti-science violence

Andy Coghlan has a May 29, 2012 article on the New Scientist’s website outlining the recent history of violence and renewed threats against scientists,

It’s like something out of Kafka. Anti-science anarchists in Italy appear to be ramping up their violent and frankly surreal campaign. Having claimed responsibility for shooting the boss of a nuclear engineering company in Genoa, the group has vowed to target Finmeccanica, the Italian aerospace and defence giant.

In  a diatribe sent on 11 May to Corriere della Sera newspaper on 11 May, the Olga Cell of the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front said it shot Roberto Adinolfi, head of Ansaldo Nucleare, in the leg four days earlier. “With this action of ours, we return to you a tiny part of the suffering that you, man of science, are pouring into this world,” the statement said. It also pledged a “campaign of struggle against Finmeccanica, the murderous octopus”.

This group has also claimed responsiblity for the 2010 attempted attack on a nanotechnology centre in Switzerland (mentioned most recently in my July 25, 2011 posting) and, according to Coghlan’s article, the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front is associated with the, in English,  Individuals Tending to Savagery (ITS) group who claimed responsibility for the August 2011  attacks on ‘nanotechnology researchers’ in Mexico (mentioned in my August 11, 2011 posting).

The anarchists seem to be turning their attention away from nanotechnology to focus on the nuclear industry.  This quote from Coghlan’s article stimulated a new line of thinking on the topic of violence and science  for me (I’ve been horrified by it all),

“At least with animal rights activists, you know what they want, but with these anarchists, I’m not sure,” he says. “Do they want us to stop all scientific experiments, stop driving cars or go back to living in caves? I don’t know.” [Michael Hagman, head of communications at the Empa institute in Duebendorf, Switzerland]

The cynic in me finally awoke when I put that quote together with the group’s shift to a new target. After last year’s Fukushima incident and the huge amount of interest and concern, I imagine the Informal Anarchist Federation International Revolutionary Front has concluded they will get far more attention and notoriety, their primary and only goal,  by focusing on the nuclear industry.

If you’re interested, the details about the most recent attack, the group’s international links,  and some good writing are featured in Coghlan’s article.

ETA Aug. 30, 2012: I corrected the author’s name from Coughlan to Coghlan.

ETA Feb. 21, 2013: Leigh Phillips contacted me to mention that there was a May 28, 2012 article for Nature, Anarchists attack science, which preceded Coghlan’s article for New Scientist and to which Coghlan provides a link. Phillips’ preceding article was subtitled, Armed extremists are targeting nuclear and nanotechnology workers. Phillips opens with the then recent attack on a nuclear engineering executive and subsequently focuses on attacks in the nanotechnology sector.

Burnaby-based company (Canada) challenges fossil fuel consumption with nuclear fusion

General Fusion, a Burnaby-based company getting ready to commercialize nuclear fusion by the end of this decade, is making a bit of a media splash. From a Nov. 30, 2011 news item on physorg.com (written by Tim Lawrence for AFP),

In the race against world governments and the wealthiest companies to commercialize a nuclear fusion reactor, a small, innovative Canadian firm is hoping to bottle and sell the sun’s energy.

They hope to test a prototype in 2014 and eventually become the first to commercialize the technology, offering a safe, cheap, pollution-free and virtually inexhaustible source of energy.

“What we’re trying to do is build the technology that can make the power that drives the sun, make it here on earth,” said Michael Delage, General Fusion’s vice president.

Most times when we hear ‘nuclear’, especially in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident, we think of nuclear fission not nuclear fusion, which is a different technology. From the General Fusion website page on Safety,

Nuclear fusion power plants produce electricity without incurring the dangers associated with nuclear fission.

Fusion systems cannot melt down or explode since the fusion reaction only acts on a small amount of nuclear fuel at a time and can only occur if suitable conditions can be created and maintained for a sufficient time. If any part of the process does not work perfectly, fusion will not occur. In contrast, in a fission reactor, fuel is added in bulk and the reactor controls the rate at which a chain reaction occurs; if the control mechanism fails, the reaction can run away and a meltdown can occur.

Fusion systems do not use or produce highly active, long-lived radioactive waste. In contrast, fission reactors create reaction products that are unstable and more highly radioactive than the parent fuel material. Some of these fission products have half-lives of tens of thousands of years, creating long-term radioactive waste storage problems.

Fusion power plants are unattractive terrorist targets since their destruction cannot cause widespread environmental damage or human injury, and they do not produce or contain any materials that could be used for making bombs.

The description of the benefits from the technology are certainly persuasive (from the General Fusion website section on Benefits),

Environmental

Nuclear fusion power plants produce electricity without emitting greenhouse gases or pollutants.

Sustainability

General Fusion’s technology preserves non-renewable resources and promotes energy access, independence and security.

General Fusion power plants use deuterium and lithium as input fuel. The generator converts the lithium into tritium during the reaction process.

Lithium is abundant and widely available. The current annual lithium production is 16,000 t with 28.5 Mt of known land reserves and 250 Gt of seawater reserves. If fusion power plants were used to generate all of today’s electricity, land and sea reserves of lithium would be sufficient for 207 million years of production.

If you prefer to get your information via video,

Good luck to the  folks at General Fusion!

A brief reference to the Fukushima nuclear accident then, nanotechnology and cleaning up radioactive waste

I came across an excellent article about the Fukushima nuclear accident (courtesy @edyong209) that recounts the first 24 hours of  the emergency. It’s fascinating to find out what they did right and why it all went so wrong in 24 Hours at Fukushima by Eliza Strickland for the November 2011 issue of IEEE Spectrum (published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [IEEE]). Excerpted from the article,

True, the antinuclear forces will find plenty in the Fukushima saga to bolster their arguments. The interlocked and cascading chain of mishaps seems to be a textbook validation of the “normal accidents” hypothesis developed by Charles Perrow after Three Mile Island. Perrow, a Yale University sociologist, identified the nuclear power plant as the canonical tightly coupled system, in which the occasional catastrophic failure is inevitable.

On the other hand, close study of the disaster’s first 24 hours, before the cascade of failures carried reactor 1 beyond any hope of salvation, reveals clear inflection points where minor differences would have prevented events from spiraling out of control. Some of these are astonishingly simple: If the emergency generators had been installed on upper floors rather than in basements, for example, the disaster would have stopped before it began. And if workers had been able to vent gases in reactor 1 sooner, the rest of the plant’s destruction might well have been averted.

Strickland provides some historical context (Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents) in the addition to the 24 hour overview which provides details such as the fact that workers at the plant pulled the batteries out of their cars to generate some form of power after the plant generators failed.

Whether or not you believe we should be using nuclear, there can’t be any question that we have to deal with radioactive waste. From the Strickland article,

… So far, the cost of Fukushima is a dozen dead towns ringing the broken power station, more than 80 000 refugees, and a traumatized Japan.

On that note, the Nov. 2, 2011 news item (Nanotechnology makes storing radioactive waste safer) takes on some urgency. From the news item on Nanowerk,

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) researchers have developed new technology capable of removing radioactive material from contaminated water and aiding clean-up efforts following nuclear disasters.

The technology, which was developed in collaboration with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and Pennsylvania State University in America, works by running the contaminated water through the fine nanotubes and fibres, which trap the radioactive Cesium (Cs+) ions through a structural change.

By adding silver oxide nanocrystals to the outer surface, the nanostructures are able to capture and immobilise radioactive iodine (I-) ions used in treatments for thyroid cancer, in probes and markers for medical diagnosis, as well as found in leaks of nuclear accidents.

“It is our view that just taking the radioactive material in the adsorbents isn’t good enough. We should make it safe before disposing it,” he [Professor Huai-Yong Zhu] said.

“The same goes for Australian sites where we mine nuclear products. We need a solution before we have a problem, rather than looking for fixes when it could be too late.”

“In France, 75 per cent of electricity is produced by nuclear power and in Belgium, which has a population of 10 million people there are six nuclear power stations,” he said.

“Even if we decide that nuclear energy is not the way we want to go, we will still need to clean-up what’s been produced so far and store it safely,” he said.

There’s no mention of commercializing this means of dealing with radioactive waste but I hope they manage it, or something better,  soon (from the news item),

“One gram of the nanofibres can effectively purify at least one tonne of polluted water,” Professor Zhu said.