While reading this critique of the recent 3D blockbuster Avatar by Jonah Goldberg, I became curious about the rare element unobtainium which is a plot point in the movie.
quote:
Sully is sent in mufti, like a futuristic Lawrence of Arabia, to further the schemes of the evil corporate nature-rapists desperate to obtain the precious mineral "unobtainium" (no, really).
It was his mildly disparaging "no, really" that rang wrong. I was sure I'd heard it used before, and a quick trip to Wikipedia confirmed that its use predates Avatar. The really fun thing was to follow some of the cross-references to this page and this site. I always did have fond memories of phlogiston and upsidaisium.
Ah, I missed this. Still haven't seen Avatar, but I intend to.
I've always liked the phlogiston theory. I just read about it in Wikipedia and found this interesting:
quote:
Eventually, quantitative experiments revealed problems, including the fact that some metals, such as magnesium, gained weight when they burned, even though they were supposed to have lost phlogiston. Mikhail Lomonosov attempted to repeat Robert Boyle's celebrated experiment in 1753 and concluded that the phlogiston theory was false. He wrote in his diary: "Today I made an experiment in hermetic glass vessels in order to determine whether the mass of metals increases from the action of pure heat. The experiment demonstrated that the famous Robert Boyle was deluded, for without access of air from outside, the mass of the burnt metal remains the same."
Some phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative weight; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air. However, a more detailed analysis based on the Archimedean principle and the densities of magnesium and its combustion product shows that just being lighter than air cannot account for the increase in mass.
This reminds me of medical research today. So often the answer is right in front of everyone's face, but people rationalize that it can't be true. That we must continue with what we've always done. Amazing to see that same thing happened in the 18th century.
2000 BC — Here, eat this root. Feel better. 1000 BC — That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer. AD 1840 — That prayer is a superstition. Here, drink this potion. AD 1920 — That potion is snake oil. Here, take this pill. AD 1985 — That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic. AD 2010 — That antibiotic is unnatural. Here, eat this root.
Some phlogiston proponents explained this by concluding that phlogiston had negative weight; others, such as Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, gave the more conventional argument that it was lighter than air.
I read that the supporters of the phlogiston theory gave the example of the extreme lightness of hydrogen, which they believed to be almost pure phlogiston.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
In the circles I travel in (And it's almost always a circle) unobtanium has been a running joke for as long as I can remember. I'm surprised that its use hadn't spread into the general populace!
In mechanical device discussions it isn't necessarily an imaginary element, but one sufficiently exotic that the average person could not afford it. An example sentence might be: Due to the toxicity of the hard chroming process, chrome has become "unobtanium," and the softer nickel has been substituted.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
IMO we are past peak oil and peak coal. Rare earths are hard to gauge, as above, but obviously we have less of them. This is not to say that we will run out of any of these things any time soon but that the cornucopia is rapidly drawing to a close.
And there's no plan B. The environmental wackjobs think that we should all move into solar paneled geodesic domes made of goat dung and the right wingnuts think that high prices will trigger some sort of star trek overnight; both are deluded, and nobody else even talks about it.
My main point in all of this is that as the supplies are stretched tight 'an incident' will be catastrophic. An earthquake, or a major ship sinking in the wrong place, a coup etc. will trigger a massive round of speculation and collapse the leverage that's out there, because all the bets assume the cornucopia continuing. And something like that could very well kibosh any confidence in the financial system. As any actuary can tell you, there's going to be 'an incident', and the longer that we go without one, the worse that it will be.
And there's no plan B. The environmental wackjobs think that we should all move into solar paneled geodesic domes made of goat dung and the right wingnuts think that high prices will trigger some sort of star trek overnight; both are deluded, and nobody else even talks about it.
I agree that fossil fuels are running out (anyone who believes they are not is surely deluded - any finite resource is - finite) and the solution is not an easy or obvious one.
However, there is much that can be done individually to reduce fossil fuel consumption and examples of this are easy to find. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK new road signs are powered by a combination of wind and solar power - a minor saving for each sign but a significant saving in total.
I don't live in a geodesic dome, but my modest bungalow had been fully insulated and needs less heating than most. My hot water is supplied (for 8 months of the year in rainy England) by solar panels on my roof. Today I am seeing about getting solar-electric panels installed which will generate maybe 30% of my electricity. Complete independence from fossil fuels it is not; a worthwhile saving it is.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
