Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:51 pm

edited while you replied...

I don't know about singularity and curing aging being interchangeable.. In the specific definition of curing aging beginning on the day we treat as fast as we age.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:55 pm

Ha! I see your 1 edit and raise you the 3 on my prior post (one to add the URL, one to remember this is the one place it doesn't need quotes, and one for grammar).

I agree they aren't interchangeable terms. I just look at the problems of SENS and sometimes feel like we're trying to move a mountain with shovels and spoons. I think our tools will need to advance considerably.

That's why things like Polywell and M-E and Rossi fusion are so fascinating, if they work out they could greatly facilitate our progress.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:13 pm

SENS might not be the only path.. What if we can regenerate organs on demand? Whether in vats or by finding how to "turn it on" like it is for simpler animals.

It's pretty disingenuous to cheer for only pet fave paths to post scarcity and singularity and whatnot, but any way I look at it, curing aging is mandatory. Whereas the singularity can wait, if we have aging cured.

I personally don't disbelieve, but also don't believe at all in "uploading" and so on, so that's probably why the singularity's not so exciting here and now, to me. I'll believe that one when I see it...

IMHO curing aging buys us all the time we want. The sky's the limit as soon as we have that. Everything else adds up to a horn of plenty that we'd still have only limited lifespan to enjoy the fruits of.

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Postby GeeGee » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:54 pm

I think if we are going to cure aging, we need to take the idea of colonizing space more seriously. If people think resources are being strained now, imagine what it would be like if almost everyone had an indefinite lifespan.

This is where the M-E would help, assuming it works as advertised.

I personally don't disbelieve, but also don't believe at all in "uploading" and so on, so that's probably why the singularity's not so exciting here and now, to me. I'll believe that one when I see it...


I agree. It's perhaps one of the biggest hopes of transhumanists. I dearly hope it comes to fruition in my lifetime, but as far as I'm concerned, the only way you can upload a human mind into an artificial substrate without destroying the original consciousness is by replacing every brain cell gradually. This can only be accomplished by Drexlerian-like nanotech, and that seems to be several decades off at best (if possible at all).

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:11 am


Stoney3K
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:24 pm

Postby Stoney3K » Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:29 am

TallDave wrote:
Stoney3K wrote:Thrust by itself does not mean power.


Why not? You can always turn one into the other.


Hence by itself.

Thrust on nothing requires no energy, neither does thrust on a non-moving object or an object that has no chance of going anywhere (e.g. my feet on the floor or that object parked against the wall).

Thrust over distance equates to energy, because it means the kinetic energy of the object being pushed will change.

In essence, an M/E thruster that causes some object to get into an equilibrium state will, theoretically, require zero power. For example, if you have an airship that uses M/E thrusters to counteract its weight and stay afloat at a constant altitude, it would, in theory, require no power to stay put because the change in potential energy (as a result of changing altitude) is zero.

That idea, would, in essence, resolve to a 'skyhook', being an object attached to nothing but capable of suspending a load in the air.

In the case of hydro power, gravity is used to generate power because it moves water down a drop. It's not the gravity that does the work, but the drop, which is the distance over which the gravity is affected.

Keep in mind, that equilibrium states do not include the situations shown above, e.g. the flywheel spun by M/E thrusters or the rocket sled, since they both have a manner of extracting power from the system, though either the generator's output or the heat developed in the rocket's brakes.

In the most ideal case, the amount of power extracted will always be the exact amount put in to power the M/E thrusters in the first place. I don't see any over-unity anywhere.
Because we can.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Postby TDPerk » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:12 pm

"For example, if you have an airship that uses M/E thrusters to counteract its weight and stay afloat at a constant altitude, it would, in theory, require no power to stay put because the change in potential energy (as a result of changing altitude) is zero."

This is so stupid a statement I won't begin to sugarcoat my criticism of it. It's 3 year old child logic. Power must be expended against gravity or it will experience (here) approximately a 32.2ft/sec/sec acceleration towards the mutual center off gravity of the two objects.

Sh!t that isn't held up falls.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:26 pm

TDPerk wrote:"For example, if you have an airship that uses M/E thrusters to counteract its weight and stay afloat at a constant altitude, it would, in theory, require no power to stay put because the change in potential energy (as a result of changing altitude) is zero."

This is so stupid a statement I won't begin to sugarcoat my criticism of it. It's 3 year old child logic. Power must be expended against gravity or it will experience (here) approximately a 32.2ft/sec/sec acceleration towards the mutual center off gravity of the two objects.

Sh!t that isn't held up falls.


Uh. Where does the table get the power from to hold your lunch?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Stoney3K
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:24 pm

Postby Stoney3K » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:35 pm

TDPerk wrote:"For example, if you have an airship that uses M/E thrusters to counteract its weight and stay afloat at a constant altitude, it would, in theory, require no power to stay put because the change in potential energy (as a result of changing altitude) is zero."

This is so stupid a statement I won't begin to sugarcoat my criticism of it. It's 3 year old child logic. Power must be expended against gravity or it will experience (here) approximately a 32.2ft/sec/sec acceleration towards the mutual center off gravity of the two objects.


No, force must be expended against gravity.

A building's floor is entirely passive, yet it can keep dozens of people away from the floor for hundreds of feet. Gravity's force (weight on the floor) is counteracted by the normal force of the floor towards the people, keeping the people where they are and causing them not to fall straight through that floor. Yet, no power is expended.

Other example: A simple helium-filled blimp or balloon. It doesn't take any power to stay up there, yet, it can defy the force of gravity with ease. Buoyancy is counteracting gravity here, and, in theory, can do so indefinitely or until there is not enough gas left in the balloons to keep them up there.

The reason conventional 'engines' (e.g. jets or props) require continuous power to keep an aircraft aloft in hover is because they're pushing air to work against gravity. Since air is notoriously inefficient at that and has a tendency to disperse, you will have to keep pushing to maintain a constant upward force.
Because we can.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:38 pm

Thrust on nothing requires no energy,


Thrust on nothing is just... nothing. A nothing cannot experience thrust.

neither does thrust on a non-moving object


So, if we fire a rocket at insufficient thrust to move it off the launch pad, no energy is consumed?

It is quite possible to expend energy, exert power, and yet still not do work on the object of the force. You can't just say "it isn't moving, therefore no energy was consumed." I must protest this conclusion on behalf of the honor of everyone who has ever strained mightily to move something very heavy and failed. :)

Conversely, pick up a 5 lbs weight, hold it at arms length, and tell me you aren't expending energy to prevent it from falling.

gravity is used to generate power because it moves water down a drop. It's not the gravity that does the work, but the drop


Now you're starting to get somewhere. I think we can agree what has happened is that the potential energy of the water has been converted into velocity and then electrical energy. But why does the water have potential energy? Because of gravity.

(Technically of course, the source of the "work" here is the fusion of atoms in the Sun, which send energy to the Earth where it evaporates water and raises the water's potential energy, which we then steal to run our computers and light bulbs and arc welders.)

In essence, an M/E thruster that causes some object to get into an equilibrium state will, theoretically, require zero power. For example, if you have an airship that uses M/E thrusters to counteract its weight and stay afloat at a constant altitude, it would, in theory, require no power to stay put because the change in potential energy (as a result of changing altitude) is zero.


Why do you expect things to work this way for M-E thrusters and not everything else that exerts force to get aloft, and must either continue to exert force to stay there or fall -- rockets, airplanes, little kids jumping?
Last edited by TallDave on Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:47 pm

Stoney3K wrote:
TDPerk wrote:"For example, if you have an airship that uses M/E thrusters to counteract its weight and stay afloat at a constant altitude, it would, in theory, require no power to stay put because the change in potential energy (as a result of changing altitude) is zero."

This is so stupid a statement I won't begin to sugarcoat my criticism of it. It's 3 year old child logic. Power must be expended against gravity or it will experience (here) approximately a 32.2ft/sec/sec acceleration towards the mutual center off gravity of the two objects.


No, force must be expended against gravity.

A building's floor is entirely passive, yet it can keep dozens of people away from the floor for hundreds of feet. Gravity's force (weight on the floor) is counteracted by the normal force of the floor towards the people, keeping the people where they are and causing them not to fall straight through that floor. Yet, no power is expended.

Other example: A simple helium-filled blimp or balloon. It doesn't take any power to stay up there, yet, it can defy the force of gravity with ease. Buoyancy is counteracting gravity here, and, in theory, can do so indefinitely or until there is not enough gas left in the balloons to keep them up there.

The reason conventional 'engines' (e.g. jets or props) require continuous power to keep an aircraft aloft in hover is because they're pushing air to work against gravity. Since air is notoriously inefficient at that and has a tendency to disperse, you will have to keep pushing to maintain a constant upward force.


Specifically, applying a force to a stationary object does not require power, to a moving object does. (theoretically arbitrarily small power can be used to support an object in air by accelerating air downwards. The levitation requires constant v*dm/dt. By making m large and v small we can therefore reduce the required power which is:
v*v*dm/dt.

Practically of course we cannot make dm/dt so very large.


The reference frame is implicit normally because forces apply between objects - it is then force applied to relative motion that requires power.

However M-E can be used to apply force to an object relative to distant universe. This (it is believed) works whatever the reference frame of the object. So it is in principle easy to use such an applied force as a local energy source.

Best wishes, Tom

Stoney3K
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:24 pm

Postby Stoney3K » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:55 pm

TallDave wrote:
Thrust on nothing requires no energy,


Thrust on nothing is just... nothing. A nothing cannot experience thrust.

neither does thrust on a non-moving object


So, if we fire a rocket at insufficient thrust to move it off the launch pad, no energy is consumed?

It is quite possible to expend energy, exert power, and yet still not do work on the object of the force. You can't just say "it isn't moving, therefore no energy was consumed.


That's only in an ideal, theoretical situation. Yet we live on a practical planet, and if that rocket doesn't budge an inch on its first seconds when the engines are started, but does expend a lot of energy, it's only because it needs to move its reaction mass (water, for an LH2/LO2 rocket) against a pile of air underneath. All of the energy in those moments is converted into heat through friction between the water vapor out of the rocket and the air surrounding it.

In the ideal situation, not changing speed or direction of movement (or temperature) will not require any energy. It's a direct result of Newton's Second Law, however, in a practical situation like here on Planet Earth, there will always be forces that require energy to counteract (like drag on an aircraft, friction in a motor's bearings, and so on), so power will be required to maintain a steady state.
Because we can.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:57 pm

Other example: A simple helium-filled blimp or balloon. It doesn't take any power to stay up there, yet, it can defy the force of gravity with ease. Buoyancy is counteracting gravity here, and, in theory, can do so indefinitely or until there is not enough gas left in the balloons to keep them up there.


Sure, because the forces are in equilibrium -- gravity vs pressure differential.

But I'm still not sure why you think an M-E drive is more like a pressure differential than a rocket.
Last edited by TallDave on Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:58 pm

Yet we live on a practical planet, and if that rocket doesn't budge an inch on its first seconds when the engines are started, but does expend a lot of energy, it's only because it needs to move its reaction mass (water, for an LH2/LO2 rocket) against a pile of air underneath.


Nope, rockets work in vacuum too. The thrust is the result of the rocket exhaust pushing against the rocket. Newton's 3rd Law.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Stoney3K
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:24 pm

Postby Stoney3K » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:07 pm

TallDave wrote:
Yet we live on a practical planet, and if that rocket doesn't budge an inch on its first seconds when the engines are started, but does expend a lot of energy, it's only because it needs to move its reaction mass (water, for an LH2/LO2 rocket) against a pile of air underneath.


Nope, rockets work in vacuum too. The thrust is the result of the rocket exhaust pushing against the rocket. Newton's 3rd Law.


In vacuum, there is. But I was trying to explain the situation where the rocket does not move, but needs to expend power. The explanation for that is simple: All of the energy wasted during those moments when the rocket remains on the pad, is converted into heat. It first needs to overcome drag before it can go anywhere.

In space, there is hardly any drag, so almost all of the energy thrown out the back is immediately converted into motion.

Sure, because the forces are in equilibrium -- gravity vs pressure differential.

But I'm still not sure why you think an M-E drive is more like a pressure differential than a rocket.


That's where the 1N/W figure comes from. It's the maximum in a static thrust situation, e.g. when there is equilibrium, the thing requires 1W for each Newton it has to push. This doesn't mean it's necessarily the same for a dynamic (moving) situation as well, since that has not been tested.

If we use the 1N/W thrusters for hover engines on, say, a 1-ton aircraft, it means the power required to keep the aircraft in the air in the same position will be 9,81 kW. All of that energy is wasted through losses in the thrusters -- it won't go anywhere else.

The whole pressure differential analog is only true for an ideal M/E thruster, with zero losses.
Because we can.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 6 guests