-1
$\begingroup$

Imagine technology, possible achievable in short time (maximum half of the century), that we can use to build aquarium that won't break because of internal damage (water pressure, badly distributed glue or silicon between parts) and provide light and clear housing for our little habitants (without thick layers of glass).

Is there any existing solution that can be adapted to this scale (upwards or downwards) or we have to wait for revolutionary materials or 3D printing evolution?

My question born due to situation months ago, when after many years one of side walls of my dad's aquarium was pushed out of bounds causing water falling on the floor (only few inches has divided our home from little flood disaster).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You'll need to provide scoping details. How big is this aquarium? Does the aquarium need to survive water pressure from multiple-mile depths? I would also wager that no design is safe from poor construction. $\endgroup$ – Pyrotrain Aug 23 '17 at 22:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I wonder if this question might not be better asked in an aquarium forum. What is the relevance to worldbuilding? $\endgroup$ – elemtilas Aug 23 '17 at 22:20
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know. Can adamantium be transparent as glass? $\endgroup$ – Alexander Aug 23 '17 at 22:27
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean the fictional metal alloy Adamantium? Why couldn't a fictional alloy be transparent? Transparent aluminium is... but, then again, there really is a (mostly) transparent aluminium. $\endgroup$ – JBH Aug 23 '17 at 22:57
  • $\begingroup$ I think that part of the problem with this question lies in the word "unbreakable". Nothing is unbreakable. Are the conditions those under which a normal aquarium would endure? Because overengineered public aquariums tend not to break. $\endgroup$ – jdunlop Aug 24 '17 at 6:33
6
$\begingroup$

"unbreakable" is a word that does not define any existing object.

You can discuss about something more or less prone to breakage, not about something that is "unbreakable".

Said that I need to point out that "normal" home aquariums are not built to last very long without, at least, some structural maintenance.

They are built to be pretty and cheap.

Even today it would be perfectly possible to build an aquarium in a single piece, seamless, and that would not have many of the problem connected with some (usually 5) pieces of flat glass held together with bad silicon glue, but it would be much more expensive (orders of magnitude) unless you plan to make millions of them, which I believe is not the case.

Unfortunately, in our day-to-day life we are not employing the best that can be produced today but what someone decided he could sell in very large quantities at the lowest price.

That is main reason why whatever object "military grade" (including an afternoon snack) costs ten times what (approximately) the same thing costs at local drugstore. They are built "not to break" (whatever "break" may mean for the specific) and "keep working" in most situations, where "commercial" stuff would be useless.

So, no need to wait for the future! ... but have a sharp look at the price tag.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To paraphrase Dr. Who: "I’ve never cared much for the word '[Unbreakable].' Sounds a bit too much like 'unsinkable.'" ("What’s wrong with unsinkable?" asks Lethbridge) "Nothing! As the iceberg said to the Titanic… Glug, Glug, Glug." $\endgroup$ – JBH Aug 23 '17 at 22:54
1
$\begingroup$

It is unbreakable if there is nothing to break.

fish in zero g water blob

found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJjoYG2iyf0

Your aquarium would be a floating zero gravity blob, held together by surface tension. I recommend not whacking it with a hammer, because although it will not break the aquarium will move down the hammer and onto you. Rather, keep the aquarium in the center of the viewing area via puffs of oxygen delivered by attentive robots.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you use a hammer, you can break this aquarium into a number of smaller ones. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Aug 24 '17 at 2:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The fish might find that rather inconvenient! $\endgroup$ – elemtilas Aug 24 '17 at 2:22
  • $\begingroup$ Surface tension is way too weak to hold together if fishes start to move around, not to mention problems oxygenating the thing (air bubbles will not rise to the surface like in a normal aquarium) $\endgroup$ – ZioByte Aug 26 '17 at 13:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Ziobyte: Watch the video. The fish is trying to swim out but cannot leave the blob. I screen captured where he is poking his nose out. The zeroG aquarium may not be appropriate for tarpon. You would have the floating tank in an O2 atmosphere and oxygenate purely by diffusion. $\endgroup$ – Willk Aug 27 '17 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Will: That video lasts just a handful of seconds, very probably because something happened right after. Add to that a couple of things: that fish is very small; it have no space to build any speed. Notice also surface tension is (unsurprisingly) on the surface, so square/cube law works against you. Also, given structure, the force pulling toward drop center is inversely proportional to curvature radius. No, surface tension is definitely not enough. You may be able to keep it in place, but a hard sneeze in the thereabouts would send "aquarium" fragment floating around. $\endgroup$ – ZioByte Aug 27 '17 at 14:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.