Guest David Johnston Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:15:42 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >David Johnston wrote: > >> >> Yes, does that really need to be spelled out? > >Yes. Birds have been doing heavier than air flight for millions of years. However wouldn't the use of the word "machine" in my sentence hint at what I was talking about? Quote
Guest Matt Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 On Mar 30, 2:26 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > Matt wrote: > > > Not really that long, probably closer to 40. > > Not so. They have been talking about fusion generation since 1950. Just > the way they talked of atomic fission production of energy after the > first A-bomb worked. > > > I'm not quite clear on why you think so. The lawson criteria is simply > > the point at which you are getting back an equal amount of energy to > > what you had to put in. Think of it as a 'break even' point. At this > > point, > > the reactor "ignites" and you get power. It certainly requires extreme > > power to get started, I agree. > > > Why do you think it is unattainable? > > Consider the amount of astounding progress. I don't think it is > unttainable. The Sun has been doing it for 5 billion years. What I think > is that there are extemely difficult technical proglems to be addressed > and solved and that optimism for a quick breakthrough is empirically > unjustified. As I said. Controlled nuclear fission has been thirty years > in the future for the last sixty years. It makes you wonder how the > pundits get their optimistic predictions. Um, I assume you mean fusion here. Fission has been around for a while, we do it fairly well The issues have always been the same: a magnetic bottle strong enough to hold the reaction, and enough energy to start the thing going. It can be done today, it just has a nasty habit of exploding rather violently before the fusion reaction is stable. If it were truly a priority, I really have little doubt we could solve this problem. Whether our solution would be viable in terms of the energy produced vs energy used, I don't know. > > I think it is 1000 years in the future. Neither of us will know if that > is the case or not. But I have no less evidence in favor of my estimate > than you have in favor of yours. The optimists have been wrong for over > thirty years. Shrug. We'll see, I guess. Matt Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Jerry Kraus wrote: > > Depends on what people do, doesn't it Bob? I am interested in results, not excuses. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 David Johnston wrote: > > However wouldn't the use of the word "machine" in my sentence hint at > what I was talking about? You and I are machines. Our arms and legs are levers. Our teeth are wedges. We run on metabolized glucose. Next question? Bob Kolker Quote
Guest David Johnston Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:52:55 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >David Johnston wrote: >> >> However wouldn't the use of the word "machine" in my sentence hint at >> what I was talking about? > >You and I are machines. Personally, I'm a biological organism. Quote
Guest Peter B. P. Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 David Johnston <david@block.net> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:03:59 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> > wrote: > > >"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message > >news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com... > >> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> > >> wrote: > >> > >>>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of sci-fi > >>>novels. Now it's becoming big business. > >> > >> Which big business would that be? > > > >Ask Ford and Boeing: > > > > "Becoming big business" is not "Big business funding research". > Nanotechnology is still the subject of sci-fi novels. You are thinking molecular assemblers, and they are onthe horizon even now. -- regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk Quote
Guest Les Cargill Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Bob Kolker wrote: > Jerry Kraus wrote: > >> >> Depends on what people do, doesn't it Bob? > > > I am interested in results, not excuses. > > Bob Kolker > Science is a process, not a result. -- Les Cargill Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Matt wrote: > > Um, I assume you mean fusion here. Fission has been around for a > while, > we do it fairly well I meant fusion. Sorry about that. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Les Cargill wrote: >> > > Science is a process, not a result. Controlled fusion is a specific technological goal. It has not been reached. It is not likely to be reached in the promised thirty years which is already thirty years overdue. The -theory- of fusion is as completely known as any matter in physics. The process by which stars shine is known. The -technology- of producing a sustained controlled fusion reaction to produce useful amounts of power is as yet not reached. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Mani Deli Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:18:07 -0400, Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote: >Mani Deli wrote: >> >> They are further away since Reagan, hero of Granada, stopped funding >> alternative fuel research which was started by Carter. > >Throwing money at a problem is no substitute for brains and cleverness. >The Freres Wright invented modern aviation with $1200 1903 dollars, from >their own pocket. Samuel Langley, on the other hand, crashed three of >his experimental aircraft in the Potomac with %$50,000 dollars in aid >and grants from Congress. > >It just goes to show you have effective government financing can be. > >Bob Kolker I guess the Manhatten project was also a failure in your mind, along with all the good that came out of the GI Bill. Quote
Guest Peter B. P. Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > Roger wrote: > > > > Yeah, and they said teleportation to distant planets was also impossible. > > At light speed? Yes it is. Massive bodies can not be speed up to the > speed of light. That would require infinite energy. You can get to > another planet if you are willing to go slow enough. I think you need to read up on the concept of teleportation, Bob. -- regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Mani Deli wrote: > > > I guess the Manhatten project was also a failure in your mind, along > with all the good that came out of the GI Bill. There were no private parties making a-bombs. That would have been stopped cold by the government. On the other hand Burt Rutan built a space ship that went to a height of sixty miles for two cents (his) on the (governments) dollar. The GI bill was a very enlightened grant. In exchange for being corveed into service/slavery and having hostile folk shoot at you (and sometimes hitting), you get four years of college. It has not been repeated with the same effect since. What we got instead was Operation Head Start. The result of which was Sesame Street and Black Drug Lords who use cell phones to do their business. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Peter B. P. wrote: > > I think you need to read up on the concept of teleportation, Bob. There is no such thing, Peter. There is electromagnetic communication which can transfer data (not mass) at light speed. That is as good as it gets. There are also methods of replicating quantum states using light speed communication but that not the same as moving mass. Teleportation is a plot gimmick in -Star Trek-, not a reality. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Peter B. P. Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Bob Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > Peter B. P. wrote: > > > > I think you need to read up on the concept of teleportation, Bob. > > There is no such thing, Peter. There is electromagnetic communication > which can transfer data (not mass) at light speed. That is as good as it > gets. There are also methods of replicating quantum states using light > speed communication but that not the same as moving mass. > > Teleportation is a plot gimmick in -Star Trek-, not a reality. But for how long. -- regards , Peter B. P. http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Peter B. P. wrote: > > > But for how long. You tell me. I estimate about ten billion years. Mass cannot be sped up to the speed of light. It requires an infinite amount of energy. The best we can do is ship a massive matter transducer to a remote point at sublight speed, then send the instructions to it to construct what needs to be constructed from matter available locally (at the remove location). Sort of like a fax machine. But the initial state can only be acheived by moving mass at sublight speed. Get used to it. Nothing goes faster than the speed of light. And only light (electromagnetic radiation) and gravitation travel at light speed. Look at those interactions that involve massless bosons. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest no spam Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 >>Throwing money at a problem is no substitute for brains and cleverness. >>The Freres Wright invented modern aviation with $1200 1903 dollars, from >>their own pocket. Samuel Langley, on the other hand, crashed three of >>his experimental aircraft in the Potomac with %$50,000 dollars in aid >>and grants from Congress. >> >>It just goes to show you have effective government financing can be. >> >>Bob Kolker > > I guess the Manhatten project was also a failure in your mind, along > with all the good that came out of the GI Bill. And Mussolini had all the trains running on time. IOW, just because you can point to one or two good things that came from something doesn't make the entire thing good. Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message news:nbmq039o1nun4outg4cehlf4m1t9tai8cn@4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:09:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> > wrote: > >> >>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message >>news:qdvo03hsbthd59bvlqluqtp0qv7ufttb3r@4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:44:17 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message >>>>news:r1po03h8a2k3h7m1rto9jjdgcto2hopj9b@4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:03:59 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message >>>>>>news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of >>>>>>>>sci-fi >>>>>>>>novels. Now it's becoming big business. > >>I'll give you partial credit for being aware of Drexler's writings. >>However, nano-scale construction of elegant structures for commercial >>applications is indeed commonplace. > > When did anyone write science fiction about the "nano-scale > construction of elegant structures"? For the same reason that they write science fiction about using rockets to fly to the stars. We have rockets; but we can't yet fly to the stars. Quote
capslockf9 Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Know this that: if we ran out of oil today - science will have invented something faster better cheaper cleaner. Meanwhile multinational corporation have hired the american military to protect their revenue. Quote
Guest What Me Worry? Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 "Bob Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:5774f6F2c80tmU1@mid.individual.net... > Peter B. P. wrote: > >> >> >> But for how long. > > You tell me. I estimate about ten billion years. Mass cannot be sped up to > the speed of light. It requires an infinite amount of energy. That is only if you take the long way home. Here is a list of links to scholarly papers on Lorentzian wormholes (aka "spacetime shortcuts") and similar phenomena: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/barcelo00brane.html > The best we can do is ship a massive matter transducer to a remote point > at sublight speed, then send the instructions to it to construct what > needs to be constructed from matter available locally (at the remove > location). Sort of like a fax machine. But the initial state can only be > acheived by moving mass at sublight speed. > > Get used to it. Nothing goes faster than the speed of light. Except things that do go FTL: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/epfd-ltt081905.php (No, this doesn't violate Einstein's theories.) > And only light (electromagnetic radiation) and gravitation travel at light > speed. Here's a nice summary of Einsteinian gravity as represented in superstring theory: http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4.html The last section suggests that Einsteinian spacetime is not immutable. That could, as they suggest, have profound implications. I suspect that if teleportation is ever invented, it will leverage superstring theoretic spacetimes. No, I don't know how that will fling people across the universe instantly to arrive alive and with all of their limbs in the right place; but my point is that we clearly don't yet know all there is to know about spacetime. Quote
Guest Baldin Lee Pramer Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 On Mar 29, 2:59 pm, "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 3:46 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > Jerry Kraus wrote: > > > > I understand your point. I'm simply arguing that it doesn't have to > > > be this way. > > > Write us when it happens, won't you? Right now controlled fusion energy > > is the technological equivalent of vaporware. > > > Google <Fusion Lawson Number>. > > > Bob Kolker > > Yes Bob, but why??? Aren't you just the little tiniest bit curious as > to why, given the importance of this techology? Is it corruption, > incompetence, stupidity, obstructianism, technical difficulties, It is technical difficulties. Look, Jerry, some of the smartest people in the world are working on this stuff, and the potential payoffs are enormous. If you think you have a method that will work, write a four page article and submit it to PRL. You will become world renowned. If you have a method that will work, patent it. You'll be rich. > bad > luck, dishonesty...?? What's the problem? We've had fusion bombs > since 1952. Why should the enormously more useful practical > application of controlled nuclear fusion be so impossibly difficult? > Don't you find this rather an interesting intellectual puzzle? No. It's relatively easy to start a fusion reaction. Keeping it confined is the hard part. What is your idea for confining the plasma? Light pressure from a mass of nanolasers around a containment sphere? Baldin Lee Pramer Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 What Me Worry? wrote: > For the same reason that they write science fiction about using rockets to > fly to the stars. We have rockets; but we can't yet fly to the stars. > Not unless we (1) develop hibernation technology or (2) increase our lifetime by several orders of magnitude. One thing we will not do is move mass at light speed. A species with a life span of a hundred years (order of magnitude) is not fit for star travel. So we either have to live longer or learn how to slow down the aging process (hibernation). Keep in mind that the theory of relativity which postulates a finite upper bound for speed (the speed of light in a vacuum) is OVERWHELMINGLY supported by experimental evidence. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 What Me Worry? wrote: > "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message > news:nbmq039o1nun4outg4cehlf4m1t9tai8cn@4ax.com... > >>On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:09:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> >>wrote: >> >> >>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message >>>news:qdvo03hsbthd59bvlqluqtp0qv7ufttb3r@4ax.com... >>> >>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:44:17 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:r1po03h8a2k3h7m1rto9jjdgcto2hopj9b@4ax.com... >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:03:59 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:0udo03hpv1egnm96jgn0qjaq9k1dbsul3g@4ax.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:40:16 -0500, "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>petrochemicals. 5 years ago, nanotechnology was the subject of >>>>>>>>>sci-fi >>>>>>>>>novels. Now it's becoming big business. >> >>>I'll give you partial credit for being aware of Drexler's writings. >>>However, nano-scale construction of elegant structures for commercial >>>applications is indeed commonplace. >> >>When did anyone write science fiction about the "nano-scale >>construction of elegant structures"? > > > For the same reason that they write science fiction about using rockets to > fly to the stars. We have rockets; but we can't yet fly to the stars. > > Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 What Me Worry? wrote: > > > For the same reason that they write science fiction about using rockets to > fly to the stars. We have rockets; but we can't yet fly to the stars. The SRB used in the Shuttle works on exactly the same principles as the Chinese rockets of 2000 years ago. Action-reaction. Crude but effective. All of our propulsion systems are reaction systems. As long as that is the case we are not going to move really massive objects at anywhere near light speed. Relativitstic time dilation does not become significant until about 8/10 c. Work it out. Moving mass at light speed is about as likely as a perpetual motion machine. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 What Me Worry? wrote: > > Here is a list of links to scholarly papers on Lorentzian wormholes (aka > "spacetime shortcuts") and similar phenomena: > http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/barcelo00brane.html Write us when a significantly massive object can be move somewhere through a worm hole. I promise not to hold my breath. There is the troublesome matter of stability of a worm hole and the only reliable way of producing or getting a wormhole is an a Kerr black-hole. Do you want to try your luck? Most likely you will be spaghettified. Bob Kolker Quote
Guest Bob Kolker Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Baldin Lee Pramer wrote: > > No. It's relatively easy to start a fusion reaction. Keeping it > confined is the hard part. What is your idea for confining the plasma? > Light pressure from a mass of nanolasers around a containment sphere? That is true. Fusion reactions are a dime a dozen. Any old H-Bomb will do. H-Bomb detonations are the closest thing we have gotten to useful fusion reactions. I have a proposal. Blow up H-Bombs underground to heat up the rocks, then generated steam from the hot rocks to run an electric generator. That is at least doable. Bob Kolker Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.