*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7190
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #80 on: May 26, 2014, 06:55:31 PM »
Make an educated guess.

Not worth it without knowing any real variables, including the texture pattern and thickness. I would be wasting my time making a calculation that would probably be biased when I start guessing.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3178
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #81 on: May 26, 2014, 06:58:40 PM »
Damage to one would not necessarily be damage to all of them. If a section of road became damaged then they could spend more time replacing it, but it would still be quicker than with asphalt. Keep in mind it would also start small for testing.

Assuming the interconnection of such modular systems is always error free. That's a big assumption.
Why is it a big assumption? If the signal is interrupted then there could easily be a default notification system in place and then the problem panel or panels could be fixed/replaced.

Make an educated guess.

Not worth it without knowing any real variables, including the texture pattern and thickness. I would be wasting my time making a calculation that would probably be biased when I start guessing.
The texture pattern is known.

Of course both of you are making these complaints assuming this goes from prototype to covering all the roads. This is going into proto-testing first where these questions will likely be answered more thoroughly.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5509
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #82 on: May 27, 2014, 02:23:09 AM »
Yes, friction physically wears objects away.  But if you rub some styrofoam against a rock, what's going to be damaged, the rock or the styrofoam?

Both, actually. The Styrofoam will simply be damaged more.
Right.  Counting atoms now?

Quote
In this case it's a grinding force (your friction) but if one object is significantly harder than another, such grinding force isn't relevant for the road surface.  It might wear it away to dangerous levels in a hundred years but is that really a problem?

Glass isn't very resistant to friction, as we've already discussed it is an amorphous solid.
You know, I've been reading up on amorphous solids and for the life of me I can't seem to find anything that suggests that they deform easier or are more prone to frictional damage.  Do you have evidence to support your claim?

Quote
Also, because it's a glass pane on top of a solar panel, replacing it does not require replacing the whole panel.

That's not the concern. The concern is if you put these on a busy road, over time cars can't brake as effectively as they could when the panels were optimal. That is a major safety issue.

If you drive on an asphalt road enough, it'll erode into gravel.  What's the coefficient of gravel again?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7190
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #83 on: May 27, 2014, 04:03:07 AM »
Right.  Counting atoms now?

Well in the case of styrofoam versus rock, probably. Rubber versus glass? I could count a few moles.

You know, I've been reading up on amorphous solids and for the life of me I can't seem to find anything that suggests that they deform easier or are more prone to frictional damage.  Do you have evidence to support your claim?

The bonds between atoms in an amorphous solid are very weak (being the exact opposite of a crystal).

If you drive on an asphalt road enough, it'll erode into gravel.  What's the coefficient of gravel again?

Hahah, what? Did you read this after you wrote it?

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5509
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #84 on: May 27, 2014, 10:33:41 AM »
You know, I've been reading up on amorphous solids and for the life of me I can't seem to find anything that suggests that they deform easier or are more prone to frictional damage.  Do you have evidence to support your claim?

The bonds between atoms in an amorphous solid are very weak (being the exact opposite of a crystal).
I have not seen anything about amorphous solids having very weak bonds between atoms.  What I have seen is that the bond type is what determines strength.  A covalent bonds, for example, are quite strong.
Also saying that a crystalline solid is stronger can be disproven simply by taking a pencil to paper.

Quote
If you drive on an asphalt road enough, it'll erode into gravel.  What's the coefficient of gravel again?

Hahah, what? Did you read this after you wrote it?
Are you suggestion that the road you drive on are pure asphalt?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7190
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #85 on: May 27, 2014, 02:47:41 PM »
I have not seen anything about amorphous solids having very weak bonds between atoms.  What I have seen is that the bond type is what determines strength.  A covalent bonds, for example, are quite strong.
Also saying that a crystalline solid is stronger can be disproven simply by taking a pencil to paper.

The graphite in pencils is actually called amorphous graphite. Wow. You make this too easy.

Amorphous graphite is generally used in the manufacture of lead for pencils



Are you suggestion that the road you drive on are pure asphalt?

Are you going to play pedantics now? I hope you're used to playing with yourself then, because I can assure you the only one playing pedantics will be you.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3178
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #86 on: May 27, 2014, 02:52:47 PM »
This is just going to go back and forth forever. There's just not enough detailed info that someone like Irush would need in order to determine the friction rate to his liking.

However, the further along this project moves the more likely it is to draw in experts. I'm sure all safety concerns would be settled before mass production.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5509
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2014, 04:56:50 PM »
I have not seen anything about amorphous solids having very weak bonds between atoms.  What I have seen is that the bond type is what determines strength.  A covalent bonds, for example, are quite strong.
Also saying that a crystalline solid is stronger can be disproven simply by taking a pencil to paper.

The graphite in pencils is actually called amorphous graphite. Wow. You make this too easy.

Amorphous graphite is generally used in the manufacture of lead for pencils
http://asbury.com/technical-presentations-papers/materials-in-depth/amorphous-graphite/

Quote
The term “amorphous graphite” is a contradiction in terms All graphite is crystalline by definition, therefore it is impossible for graphite to be amorphous. However, the term was applied due the anhedral (no visible crystallinity) morphology of this form of graphite.
Try again.

Quote
Are you suggestion that the road you drive on are pure asphalt?

Are you going to play pedantics now? I hope you're used to playing with yourself then, because I can assure you the only one playing pedantics will be you.
You're the one who seems comfortable driving on a gravel asphalt mixture and not worrying about wear.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7190
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2014, 06:36:36 PM »
Try again.

Amorphous graphite is made of microcrystals, which don't have the same properties as a full crystal structure. For example, diamond is a crystal, but graphite in pencil lead is not. You make this too easy yet again.

You're the one who seems comfortable driving on a gravel asphalt mixture and not worrying about wear.

Let me guess, you just learned during your google adventures that asphalt isn't what a road is actually made of. Should I golf clap that you can try pedantics now? Up until this point you seemed rather okay with my use of asphalt as a colloquial and interchangeable term.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4385
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #89 on: May 27, 2014, 08:14:47 PM »
The bonds between atoms in an amorphous solid are very weak (being the exact opposite of a crystal).
What makes the covalent bonds in glass weaker than the covalent bonds in crystals?  ???
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7190
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #90 on: May 27, 2014, 08:20:14 PM »
What makes the covalent bonds in glass weaker than the covalent bonds in crystals?  ???




*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4385
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #91 on: May 27, 2014, 08:25:04 PM »
What makes the covalent bonds in glass weaker than the covalent bonds in crystals?  ???


I'm sorry, but what does that picture have to do with covalent bonds between atoms?  You do understand what a covalent bond is, don't you?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5509
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #92 on: May 27, 2014, 08:37:49 PM »
Try again.
Amorphous graphite is made of microcrystals, which don't have the same properties as a full crystal structure. For example, diamond is a crystal, but graphite in pencil lead is not. You make this too easy yet again.
Look, you want to educate me, why don't you go and show me why a crystal structure is stronger than a non-crystal structure and why a microcrystal structure doesn't count as a crystal structure because I can't seem to find anything to back up your claims.

Quote
You're the one who seems comfortable driving on a gravel asphalt mixture and not worrying about wear.

Let me guess, you just learned during your google adventures that asphalt isn't what a road is actually made of. Should I golf clap that you can try pedantics now? Up until this point you seemed rather okay with my use of asphalt as a colloquial and interchangeable term.
I've known all along what asphalt was and what was in the road.  It wasn't until I got to the heart of the matter on why you think glass is a terrible idea that I began to wonder if our current roads were any better.
This led me to examine why things wore away with friction and grinding.  Unfortunately I couldn't come up with the same conclusion as you.  From what I've read, it's not about the crystal structure but rather the strength of the bonds.  For example:
Talc is a crystal but it's one of the softest crystals in the world.  You can scratch it with your finger nail. 

This lead me to hardness as being the factor that determines if something will wear away another thing.
And it turns out that the binding agent of the roads (asphalt) has a lower hardness compared to glass.

So if tires are going to grind away glass then they'd also grind away the asphalt in the road.  Based on the hardness difference, it would seem to me that a tire would grind away the asphalt faster than glass.  And when the binding agent get's worn away, what's left but the loose rock?  Well that and the sub-layer if there is one.


This is why I was being pedant.

Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #93 on: May 27, 2014, 08:47:22 PM »
Not worth it without knowing any real variables, including the texture pattern and thickness. I would be wasting my time making a calculation that would probably be biased when I start guessing.

Then your conclusions and/or speculations have no basis in fact.

Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #94 on: May 27, 2014, 08:56:26 PM »
Why is it a big assumption? If the signal is interrupted then there could easily be a default notification system in place and then the problem panel or panels could be fixed/replaced.

Assuming the default notification system works error free. That's a big assumption.

Just because its modular, or has an error reporting mechanism, doesn't mean all problems can be quickly diagnosed and fixed. If you have a car then chances are it features such a system. There are sensors all over the place reporting coolant levels, brake disc wear, headlamp luminosity and so on. And after it's been in the garage for a day the mechanic comes back and says "It wasn't your fuel intake that was faulty, it was the sensor. The sensor was misreading fuel levels and decided to limit the top speed because it thought you had no fuel left."

Don't get me wrong, it is cool that it has this reporting mechanism, and it will help diagnose faults 1000 times quicker. But there's still going to be a huge load diagnostic and maintenance work needed. If they claim this isn't the case they're lying. in my opinion.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7190
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #95 on: May 27, 2014, 10:29:12 PM »
I'm sorry, but what does that picture have to do with covalent bonds between atoms?  You do understand what a covalent bond is, don't you?

I'm not interested in teaching you about chemistry, in fact, I'm not even interested in replying to you. You're boring.

Look, you want to educate me, why don't you go and show me why a crystal structure is stronger than a non-crystal structure and why a microcrystal structure doesn't count as a crystal structure because I can't seem to find anything to back up your claims.

Bonds between molecules are stronger when there are more of them, quite simply there a more of them in a crystalline solid than an amorphous one. You keep using graphite as an example, but it isn't a crystal, it has some crystal structures, yes, but it isn't a crystal. The crystalline form of graphite is called diamond and I don't think we'll be making pencils out of it any time soon.

I've known all along what asphalt was and what was in the road.  It wasn't until I got to the heart of the matter on why you think glass is a terrible idea that I began to wonder if our current roads were any better.

We're not talking about current roads, though. I'm explaining that these solar panels are a bad idea, I have not even once stated that asphalt roads are a good one.

This led me to examine why things wore away with friction and grinding.  Unfortunately I couldn't come up with the same conclusion as you.  From what I've read, it's not about the crystal structure but rather the strength of the bonds.  For example:
Talc is a crystal but it's one of the softest crystals in the world.  You can scratch it with your finger nail. 

A materials structure reflects how many bonds exist. You can reference the picture I replied to Markjo with (who apparently either doesn't understand it or doesn't want to).


This lead me to hardness as being the factor that determines if something will wear away another thing.
And it turns out that the binding agent of the roads (asphalt) has a lower hardness compared to glass.

To wear away a road's traction, you'd have to grind up the entire road. To wear away one of these panels, you just have to grind the texture off.

So if tires are going to grind away glass then they'd also grind away the asphalt in the road.  Based on the hardness difference, it would seem to me that a tire would grind away the asphalt faster than glass.  And when the binding agent get's worn away, what's left but the loose rock?  Well that and the sub-layer if there is one.

See above.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 5509
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #96 on: May 28, 2014, 12:52:13 AM »
Bonds between molecules are stronger when there are more of them, quite simply there a more of them in a crystalline solid than an amorphous one. You keep using graphite as an example, but it isn't a crystal, it has some crystal structures, yes, but it isn't a crystal. The crystalline form of graphite is called diamond and I don't think we'll be making pencils out of it any time soon.
http://www.steelguru.com/article/details/MjU%3D/Solid_State_Structure.html
I see your point.

Still, the bonds do help keep it together as well as what else they throw in there.  Gorilla glass is not the same as blown glass.

Quote
I've known all along what asphalt was and what was in the road.  It wasn't until I got to the heart of the matter on why you think glass is a terrible idea that I began to wonder if our current roads were any better.

We're not talking about current roads, though. I'm explaining that these solar panels are a bad idea, I have not even once stated that asphalt roads are a good one.
I had been under the impression that you favored the current road system.  If I'm mistaken then a lot makes more sense.

Well, it's very bumpy so at least it'll be noticable when it wears.



*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7190
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #97 on: May 28, 2014, 01:19:28 AM »
http://www.steelguru.com/article/details/MjU%3D/Solid_State_Structure.html
I see your point.

Still, the bonds do help keep it together as well as what else they throw in there.  Gorilla glass is not the same as blown glass.

That's a change in the molecule the glass consists of, but not the structure of the glass. Gorilla glass' primary goals are to withstand impacts, not frictional force; this is evident when you note gorilla glass is scratched rather easily. Most phones have some sort of ablative coating on the glass to avoid this.

I had been under the impression that you favored the current road system.  If I'm mistaken then a lot makes more sense.

Well, it's very bumpy so at least it'll be noticable when it wears.

I'd rather have a bumpy ride than a ride so smooth the wheels can't brake.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3178
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #98 on: May 28, 2014, 02:12:40 AM »
The ride wouldn't even be bumpy.

Re: Solar Roadways
« Reply #99 on: May 28, 2014, 10:41:22 PM »
The ride wouldn't even be bumpy.

That's another point. How will they cope with camber, and general "undulations"?