Rivalarrival

@Rivalarrival@lemmy.today

Dieses Profil is von einem föderierten Server und möglicherweise unvollständig. Auf der Original-Instanz anzeigen

Rivalarrival ,

Uh... You might be confusing welding and heat treating concepts...

Rivalarrival ,

I won't say that this blade is properly heat treated; it probably isn't. In welding, the problem is the wide variation of heat affects in a very small zone. You can have material that is very brittle just millimeters away from material that is very soft and ductile.

You're describing "normalization", which is a process that makes steel uniformly tough, but "plastic". When you flex it, it bends, and stays bent. "Annealing" is a similar process, where the temperature is raised a bit higher, and the cooling slowed even more. "Annealing" leaves the steel very soft.

In tool making, you're first looking for high hardness (acquired with a "quenching" process). This makes it very brittle; it has no elasticity.

Next, you're dialing back that hardness with a "tempering" process, which is done at a lower temperature than the normalization process, and the cooling can be much faster. When tempered, it's still very hard, (significantly harder than "normalized") but now it is slightly elastic. It will flex, but beyond a critical point, it just snaps; it probably won't take on a permanent bend.

These colors are oxide layers that form at temperatures in the "tempering" range.

Rivalarrival , (Bearbeitet )

The hotter it gets, the thicker the oxide layer form

This is accurate enough for tempering of most cutting tools, but technically, the oxide layer will continue to grow if you hold a lower temperature for a longer than normal time, and might not fully develop if you reach a higher temperature for a shorter than normal period of time.

This property useful if you are trying to develop a specific color rather than achieve a specific metallurgy. You can heat to a lower temperature for a longer time to develop a deeper, more consistent color.

In my experience, it's easier to develop colors with an oven or propane torch rather than a forge or acetylene.

Rivalarrival ,

WikiLeaks was a centralized platform.

Lavabit was a centralized platform.

Tiktok is a centralized platform.

Centralized platforms are proprietary, brittle, easily targeted. When they are taken down, they stay down.

Lemmy is, effectively, a protocol, not a platform. Anyone can host an instance, and they all talk to each other by default. Any of the big instances get knocked down, and they get replaced by a dozen others. An instance may die, but so long as someone wants to put up another, Lemmy remains.

Bitcoin is not a centralized platform. Tor is not a centralized platform. Government has had little success targeting these protocols.

Rivalarrival ,

The only source that life there is terrible are defector's testimonies, which contradict each other on a daily basis and where the worst, most emotional stories are rewarded with fame and money.

There are other sources.

For example:

https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/1602dad4-4264-4e5a-a933-4dcab518a0b4.jpeg

Rivalarrival , (Bearbeitet )

That might be their real problem. I mean, everywhere else on the planet, the value of menial labor greatly exceeds the cost of the lighting a human needs to be able to work. If they are, indeed, only providing lighting during daylight hours, they are only utilizing 1/3 to 1/2 of the industrial capacity they have invested in. They bought a tractor plant, but because they won't turn on the lights, it's production is far short of its capacity.

For want of a lightbulb, the production was lost. For want of production, farming equipment was lost. For want of farming equipment, the harvest was lost. For want of a harvest, the people were lost.

If the value of electricity to run a lightbulb so greatly exceeds the value of human labor, I would expect that they would have human powered generators to convert low-value human labor into high-value lighting, so that other laborers would have the light they need to produce.

Rivalarrival , (Bearbeitet )

The DPRK has no shortage of coal. It's one of their export products. They currently produce 35 million tons a year, and only burn 10 million.

While not commonly used in the rest of the world due to abundant oil and gas supplies, coal liquefaction and gasification are relatively simple and proven technologies. Having coal provides a (somewhat dirty) source of gas and liquid fuels, if utilized for that purpose.

Apparently, electricity is considerably more valuable in DPRK than the opportunity cost of shutting down the entire country overnight. I would think that the factories producing tractors and equipment for converting non-arable land into cropland would be a sufficiently high enough priority to justify burning some excess coal, but apparently not.

  • Alle
  • Abonniert
  • Moderiert
  • Favoriten
  • random
  • haupteingang
  • Alle Magazine