last one got me

A(dissolved) + B (gas) -> Delta (energy released) + C(precipitate)

since a was dissolved - there was some eenrgy of dissolution, now that there is a precipitate (and lets for simplicity assume K_sp = 0) then there is some energy required to create this surface.

for reaction to be energetically favorable (Gibs free energy, so entropy is also accounted)

abs(Delta) > abs(dissolution energy) + abs(surface creation)

this is going to maintained always. Now if Delta is very large reaction will almost run to completion (provided activation energy is given, lets say in form of temperature or mechanical agitation to increase the reaction probability of A and B)

there is also energy released in reaction, that can cover for decrease in surface energy and also the energy of dissolution (think of copper sulphate crystals forming). Energetically it is possible. Problem is find the particular system which checks all boxes

Sorry, but I do understand this stuff, my bachellors is in materials science, I do not master this domain, but I at least understand the thermodynamics and solidfication okay enough. I know of bayers process, and I know it can not be used for 3d printing. What I am saying is

• If something has very high enthalpy of formation, then end prouct is very stable - something I want for the end product (most ceramics have good enough stability for our needs).

• usually activation energy required is very high - one of the best way to give activation energy is raise temperature. Problem with very high temperature is now the nucleation rate is very high (nucleation rate is rouply proportional to temperature difference between equillibrium temperature and temperature of process). If nucleation rate is very high, we will form snow like crystals - fluffy (not dense), so we can not really use it to build layers above.

• If we find something with very low activiation energy (which the CaCO₃ formation has (reasonably low compared to other ceramics, that is one of th ereasons why we use it as a primary test for verification) then we can perform reaction at very low temperature. And growth rate is exponential decaying with temperature (the mobility is exponential with temperature) so growth would be prefered and we will form large crystals.

• another thing to control is directionality - if we can have direcctional solidification (something like silicon manufacturing) then we can perform 3d printing, otherwise things will grow accordingly to minimise the surface energy (everything technically does, but what I mean is, if there is significant anisotropy in growth rate along particular direction we can use it))

I may be wrong here, I definitely have not given it much thought, but I don’t think I am absolutely off the track. It doesn’t also help that these days I am not pursuing Material processing at all, so I may have forgotten a few details, If I still have something wrong please correct me

ceramics kinda don’t shrink. They do shrink, but CTE is very low (generally due to very deep potential wells). And assume we are at low temperature crystal growth range, we would see big crystals, with relatively low internal stresses.

that is also a problem i thought (last line of last issue). What I was thinking was that if some research group has already taken this, where for example the crystal structure has really high enthalpy (something like Al₂O₃) but also low enough activation energy, then at very low temps, the reaction will drive itself, and we can use fans to evaporate. I am sure there must be some goldy-locks zone somewhere

I know about this, and this is the very source of my idea - basically thinking why dont we 3d print cement. Then realised cement or concrete are way too complex structures, lets just consider slaked lime to lime

yes and no, turning sand to glass requires temperatures in ball park of 1600 C (close to glass transition temperature of Silica), even with mixing of stuff that will go to down to something like 1200, and the ones I found online were not going to that temperature. At lower temperatures, free silicates start to grow the existing silicate chains, knocking water out. Any glazing observed would be because now we are moving towards a more smoother surface (as in, due to solidification). There plenty other side reactions, but basically at low temperatures, we can only have chain growth or initiate (at this low temperature, initiation is also very slow, and growth is the dominiant mode).

what kind of ceramic prints? the clay kind or the kind I am looking for?

yes i did think of that, but that is (i think) a smaller overall effect. If tip has solidification, the edges will grow wider, and drop will get a much larger surface to form, and if i remeber correctly, for a drop to stable, it has to be basically be like a hemispherical dome, and base radii growing means a larger drop.

no, afaik kilning of clay is basically baking clay (I think that is why we have “brick kilns”) that is basically drying of silica (or some secondary or tertiary silicate chains, or aluminate or borate chains) - removal of water, which is techinically a chemical reaction, but the boring kind. What I am thinking of baiscally making the silicate chain

they are effectively GPUs

There is no 1 single answer. Just do it when you (and they) feel comfortable. Considering from a practical standpoint, do it when both of you are comfortable in sharing their chores, and having dull moments in life.

Also from the evolutionary biology perspective - top of food chain is the worst place to affect anything. These top pedators depend on all the bottom clogs to spin well, and if they dont, almost always top of food chain suffers. Dinos were wiped because they were just too big to handle suffocation, there prey (for carnivore dinos) were either dead or in burrows which they could not access. One of the only good top of food chain members are sharks - because they are just built good and still have large varied diets, and it is not like all shark species have survived.

sorry, i am tired, but i have answered your question above. In short - we are shortsighted, and not really that smart. we always view history from tinted scoped lenses, if we find situations where violence was necessary, then we also find situations where it did not result in violence. And even if last time it required violence does not equate to violence this time to. Re-evaluate all situations, That is the least we can do, and getting violent is a very taxing activity on us. If try to reason, the time it would take for it to be just as taxing is much larger, so reasoning well is still pretty beneficial.

When we get to fungus killing bacteria - we are discussing ethics of food chain, which is absurd. It is not about survival. If we go by your reasoning (which if i read correctly is definitely a bit sarcastic, so not taking at face value), is survival the only aim? if so, why even bother doing most things?

sorry, i have not seen it, but that basically seems like giving up on the whole species, based on very little sampling. To which I would ask, who gave us that power, and if we have that power, should we keep that power?

how do we know we have exhausted all options? could it be our ignorance just getting the better of us?

sorry, I have not seen much horror (or hardly any).

morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren’t, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals.

I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - “Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to”.

but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it

someone else also mentioned this, but i dont agree with this either, there are situations where you are blinded, in such situations, knowledge is not free, and only a few control it, and I find them to be the wrong-doers. If someone uses gun to commit crime, then these blind people are essentially just weapons.

Morals can’t be absolute. Tolerance can’t be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It’s scary and it’s complex but people have to come to terms with it.

I agree with the scary and complex part, but i still uncertain about morals.

I never expected a binary answer.

You can have moral killing, and immoral pacifism.

when can be killing moral - how much evil (and of what kind) do you have to do to deserve that outcome. I can somewhat understand immoral pacifism, but is it immoral to take a stand in a non violent way.

Rigid adherence to a moral code could lead to immoral acts. Too much flexibility in morals leads to amoral behaviour.

I agree with the latter, but I dont know about the former - there can be 2 situations - either your morals were not refined enough to tackle the situation - or you did not act correctly according to those morals correctly

Every life is important, but not to the point where it overrides someone else’s rights.

I get this, and can understand it very easily. Great point. But a problem is still there - who should be put in the deciding situation. As a society - In most places we have judges - who are supposedly wise - but they are just as much human, and just as corruptible. There are juries, but still a small finite number, who may all be thinking incorrectly(For example - 12 Angry Men) Can a solution exist where we dont trust any person, but a system. I dont trust a machine predicting likeliness. I can get by with a mathematical framework - but who should be the one forming it ? Constitution is one such framework - and assuming it has mechanisms to update it self - then it should be fine, but do the the people updating it not get a lot of power, who are again corruptible.