Ironman is not steam punk in any sense of the word. Which is funny because most of our power sources use steam. Nuclear IS steam punk !!!
Or as a friend who works on a nuclear aircraft carrier says, "hot rocks make boat go."
Personally, I argue steam power is only "steam power" if steam is directly used to perform work -- i.e. steam pressure pushes a piston which then turns a wheel which makes the locomotive go. If the steam power is converted to another form of energy before performing mechanical work, then it's not steam power. In the case of nuclear, usually steam power is converted into electrical energy and it's the electrical energy that is then used to perform work.
Yeah it's funny because there's a million ways to skin it depending on the technology. There's not a consistent rule, but it has to be logically tailored to the processes.
If one were to define nuclear powered items the same way we define steam powered items, then would it have to involve nuclear fusion/fission directly powering things no? In that case the only stuff I can think of that would fit, and one could call 'nuke punk' or what-not would be limited to Nuclear Bombs, Project Orion, Project Pluto, Stars, and I guess nuclear reactors that can make steamy-steam. But there's gotta be other creative ways to make purely nuclear powered stuff that doesn't convert that energy into something else to do the work. Radiation drives or something.
But seems by that definition Ironman could totes be steampunk tho, as the Arc Reactor would make a great source of heat for some steam boilers.
The closest thing we have to that is probably the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), but even that converts the heat naturally produced by radioactive decay to electricity and it's that electricity that does useful stuff.
Right now, it seems the extent of our ability to use energy to perform physical work limits us to either electrical energy or fluidic expansion, whether using steam (as in pushing pistons or turning turbines) or combustible substances (as in an internal combustion engine, where burning fuel turns into rapidly expanding gas that pushes pistons or turns turbines). If we can't get the energy into the form of either electricity or a rapidly expanding fluid, there isn't a heck of a lot we can do with it.
To be fair, one may argue that electricity is the most fundamental form of energy we can use to perform work as the laws of electricity govern the vast majority of ways in which normal matter interacts with itself. The only other force that has any real impact on normal matter is gravity, and we have no idea how to manipulate that.
Part of the problem with admitting the other side was right is that the "other party" will never let you live it down.
It would be nice if the "other party" would just give them a hug and say," I know, but that's in the past. Let's just focus on the future." Instead we get, "Damn straight you were wrong! Because you were wrong on this one thing I am now going to heckle you anytime you do something I do not like and point to this thing you did wrong and proclaim everything you do wrong by association with this one particular wrong act."
My thing is something specific about this article. This first opening sentence reads "Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades.", and is followed by a lot about how polarized we have become. But buried is the 6th paragraph which reads - "These sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want." I just thought it was interesting that even Pew buries the fact that most Americans are in the middle and want compromise under a lot about how polarized and unwilling to compromise either side has become.
"Guerlain Chicherit attempted to beat the record for longest car jump. The result was a record of a man confronting his own mortality and ultimately experiencing a moment of grace."
Comments
Finally a good steampunk iron man.
Personally, I argue steam power is only "steam power" if steam is directly used to perform work -- i.e. steam pressure pushes a piston which then turns a wheel which makes the locomotive go. If the steam power is converted to another form of energy before performing mechanical work, then it's not steam power. In the case of nuclear, usually steam power is converted into electrical energy and it's the electrical energy that is then used to perform work.
If one were to define nuclear powered items the same way we define steam powered items, then would it have to involve nuclear fusion/fission directly powering things no? In that case the only stuff I can think of that would fit, and one could call 'nuke punk' or what-not would be limited to Nuclear Bombs, Project Orion, Project Pluto, Stars, and I guess nuclear reactors that can make steamy-steam. But there's gotta be other creative ways to make purely nuclear powered stuff that doesn't convert that energy into something else to do the work. Radiation drives or something.
But seems by that definition Ironman could totes be steampunk tho, as the Arc Reactor would make a great source of heat for some steam boilers.
Right now, it seems the extent of our ability to use energy to perform physical work limits us to either electrical energy or fluidic expansion, whether using steam (as in pushing pistons or turning turbines) or combustible substances (as in an internal combustion engine, where burning fuel turns into rapidly expanding gas that pushes pistons or turns turbines). If we can't get the energy into the form of either electricity or a rapidly expanding fluid, there isn't a heck of a lot we can do with it.
To be fair, one may argue that electricity is the most fundamental form of energy we can use to perform work as the laws of electricity govern the vast majority of ways in which normal matter interacts with itself. The only other force that has any real impact on normal matter is gravity, and we have no idea how to manipulate that.
(Now watch it turn out that this has already been posted a dozen times and I've just missed it!)
It would be nice if the "other party" would just give them a hug and say," I know, but that's in the past. Let's just focus on the future." Instead we get, "Damn straight you were wrong! Because you were wrong on this one thing I am now going to heckle you anytime you do something I do not like and point to this thing you did wrong and proclaim everything you do wrong by association with this one particular wrong act."
Healing starts with a hug not a wagging finger.
My thing is something specific about this article. This first opening sentence reads "Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades.", and is followed by a lot about how polarized we have become. But buried is the 6th paragraph which reads -
"These sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want."
I just thought it was interesting that even Pew buries the fact that most Americans are in the middle and want compromise under a lot about how polarized and unwilling to compromise either side has become.
We now have AT&T U-verse, and now I save over $100 on my monthly bill.
"Guerlain Chicherit attempted to beat the record for longest car jump. The result was a record of a man confronting his own mortality and ultimately experiencing a moment of grace."