Talk:Stillsuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Novels / Science fiction       (Rated Stub-Class) Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Science fiction task force. (with unknown importance) Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Science Fiction     (Rated Stub-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion. Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Real-world analysis

Are there any real equivalents to a stillsuit? i.e. a breathing mask to recollect moisture? I was wondering because it seems like that would be useful for backpacking. --Keflavich 00:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. I believe that space suits worn by astronauts have some sort of waste collection, but not the recycling. However, Wired magazine recently (i.e. spring/summer 2006) had an article about a NASA project to do precisely that: recycle and filter(!) urine for eventual consumption (i.e. drinking pee). --Kevininspace 13:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the part about them not being viable in real life because of somthing about how taking away the water secreted before it evaporates would cause one to easily over heat faster, when in fact in the dune quote it specificly says that the water is drawn away at the same speed as normal evaporation. DaeDroug 23:59 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-deleted this section, as the new version still seemed to contradict the article's quote. Since the article itself says that full evaporation takes place, full cooling would take place, the excess heat energy being used to transfer liquid to gas. The reclaiming process would produce heat, but if the heat production is localized, it is quite feasible to radiate it away from the body. I realize I am speculating, and if somebody wants to put in a new section on how they are infeasible, feel free, but make sure you specifically address the fact that the quote in the article explicitly states that full evaporation takes place.LittleBrother 07:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the deleted "real world" section is scientifically correct or contradicts the quote, it is original research and has no place in the article. It is interesting, though, so I'm wondering if an external link to the de-bunking article might be appropriate. TAnthony 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, on re-reading the external "article" (a sentence, really) I think it should be noted somewhere in the Stillsuit article. But a section or paragraph devoted to "debunking" the stillsuit technology would only be appropriate if the topic has been specifically analyzed somewhere else, or if there is an established area of thermodynamics that specifically contradicts the technology and can be cited here in a non-original research manner. So I've quoted the external piece as a footnote, which seems the best way to include it. TAnthony 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restored note

I put back the recently deleted footnote because, though it's a blog, it is an interesting addition/counterpoint to the article, and the writer seems to be a scientific expert and seemingly reliable. I of course would like to have a source that more appropriately meets WP requirements, but this info isn't inflammatory and seems accurate. — TAnthony^Talk 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-deleted note

Gave reasons in log as: removed totally irrelevant straw-man discussion of whether or not stillsuit would actually work in real life if partially implemented with current technology and a bad design

very grumpy way to put it, I apologize, but I really do feel it's precisely accurate. if Wikipedia allowed this sort of thing you'd have some variation of it on every single page concerned with every single sci-fi concept in the history of the genre. you can't dispute the workings of a sci-fi hypothetical technology when you're the one hypothesizing those workings. if you want to write something about how a technology in sci-fi would or wouldn't work, you really need to be addressing the details of the technology provided by its canon, not details you inferred. the note could easily be countered by the creation of new nanotech, or materials that exist in the Dune universe but not in ours, or some other implementation detail for preventing the condensation process.

besides, the whole discussion is a huge tangent, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's goal of keeping track of authoritative information. it's just a threadjack.

also, the bit under real-world analysis points out the repeatedly deleted and un-deleted note contradicts stuff in the book, making it an intellectually lazy threadjack to boot. enough already. it doesn't belong on this page. let it die. 75.50.150.233 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)GilesBowkett