Prev: Quantum Geometry of Spacetime
Next: Energy and Particles are changeable - (reversible) !!!
From: dlzc on 10 Aug 2010 13:30
Dear Thomas Heger:

On Aug 10, 9:41 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> dlzc schrieb:
>
> > Dear Thomas Heger:
>
> >> If they pump it into some sort of energy
> >> bubble, this would expand, if the power is
> >> shut off. As it could contain vast amounts
> >> of energy, the expansion could be a fierce
> >> explosion.
>
> > There are no "energy bubbles".  
>
> Well, you seem to know everything. But
> guess, you would be wrong. Would you bet
> your life on knowing everything right?

I'd bet my life that the energy budget is well understood, and someone
accounts for all but a handful of joules.

> What if the idea I had is actually
> correct? That would allow to create
> very tiny very energetic states, that
> could be made smaller by pumping more
> energy into it. Once a critical limit
> is achieved, this state would expand
> again, but fiercely. It's a bit like a
> spring. Since I don't know the spring
> constant, I don't know the critical
> limit, but I think, it's better to stay
> away from it.

Good. Since you are proposing a new method of storing energy, via no
mechansim at all, and since you feel that you need to stay fearful,
stay away from school. They might scare you further, when you realize
your idiocy is on record for *years*. Should anyone consider hiring
you for anything more complex than sorting recyclables, you might have
a hard time explaining your paranoia.

David A. Smith
From: dlzc on 10 Aug 2010 13:39
Dear Thomas Heger:

On Aug 10, 9:59 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> Thomas Heger schrieb:
> >dlzc schrieb:
> >>> If they pump it into some sort of energy
> >>> bubble, this would expand, if the power is
> >>> shut off. As it could contain vast amounts
> >>> of energy, the expansion could be a fierce
> >>> explosion.
>
> >> There are no "energy bubbles".  
....
> Since you most certainly don't have the
> faintest idea, what I'm talking
> about,

And clearly you don't either. The energies from the beam and its
daughter products are directly measured. We know what enters, and we
know what leaves, and there isn't anything left. The lion's share of
the power is maintaining the "ring".

> you may look at this paper from Georges
> Lochak: "Low-energy nuclear reactions
> and the leptonic monopole"
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

Does not apply. Product energies are known

> Or this:
> "The Equation of a Light Leptonic Magnetic
> Monopole and its Experimental Aspects"
http://www.znaturforsch.com/aa/v62a/62a0231.pdf

Does not apply. Product energies are known

> Since these papers describe real experiments,
> these observations are 'real', regardless if
> it would fit to current theories or not.

They are *models*. Please, you are such a treasure. Please don't
study a thing. Your ignorance itself appears to be capable of
becoming a power source. You seem to suck any sort of intelligence,
even my meagre one, into thinking spending one moment of time
responding to you is worthwhile. Now if useful work could only be
obtained thereby...

David A. Smith
From: Thomas Heger on 10 Aug 2010 14:46
dlzc schrieb:
> Dear Thomas Heger:
>
> On Aug 10, 9:41 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
>> dlzc schrieb:
>>
>>> Dear Thomas Heger:
>>>> If they pump it into some sort of energy
>>>> bubble, this would expand, if the power is
>>>> shut off. As it could contain vast amounts
>>>> of energy, the expansion could be a fierce
>>>> explosion.
>>> There are no "energy bubbles".
>> Well, you seem to know everything. But
>> guess, you would be wrong. Would you bet
>> your life on knowing everything right?
>
> I'd bet my life that the energy budget is well understood, and someone
> accounts for all but a handful of joules.
>
>> What if the idea I had is actually
>> correct? That would allow to create
>> very tiny very energetic states, that
>> could be made smaller by pumping more
>> energy into it. Once a critical limit
>> is achieved, this state would expand
>> again, but fiercely. It's a bit like a
>> spring. Since I don't know the spring
>> constant, I don't know the critical
>> limit, but I think, it's better to stay
>> away from it.
>
> Good. Since you are proposing a new method of storing energy, via no
> mechansim at all, and since you feel that you need to stay fearful,
> stay away from school. They might scare you further, when you realize
> your idiocy is on record for *years*. Should anyone consider hiring
> you for anything more complex than sorting recyclables, you might have
> a hard time explaining your paranoia.
>

Well, I can - in fact - present something to explain my idea or the
mechanism I describe.
As being only a hobbyist, it might be a bit crude and would not pass
scientific criteria. But I made it as good as I possibly could and you
can find it here:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

TH
From: Hikaru Yamoshi on 10 Aug 2010 15:13
On Aug 9, 6:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hikaru Yamoshi wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 7:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>> The LHC uses as much electricity as a town an uses it to create a
> >>> powerful beam. Actually there are two, that rotate in opposite direction.
> >>> These beams are pointed against each other and create a lot of debris.
> >>> But that doesn't seem to match the energetic input, since the beams are
> >>> so powerful as a high-speed-train.
> >> Yes.
>
> > I do not understand what you mean
>
> Yes, the LHC uses as much electrical power as a small town, yes there are two
> powerful beams rotating in opposite directions pointed against each other, yes
> their collisions create a lot of debris, yes the energy of the beams is
> comparable to the energy of a high-speed-train, and yes the energy of the debris
> is MUCH lower than the energy input to the LHC.

thank you Sir, but what do you mean by debris

atoms debris or subatomic particles?

where is this debris coming from into the system, is suppose to be
nearly perfect vacuum in there, right?

>
> >>> The collision should be more dramatic, since the collision is continuous.
> >> No. See below.
>
> >>> So there seems to be some kind of energy sink in this machine.
> >> Yes, there is. It's called a beam dump, and after the beams are degraded to the
> >> point that it's time to refresh them, the beams are decelerated and then dumped.
> >> During deceleration the beams put much of their energy back into the power grid
>
> > you mean the particles inertia generate energy?
>
> I don't know what you mean by "inertia". In any case the beams have lots of
> energy -- several hundred megajoules.
>
> >> and heating the RF components.
>
> > I am totally confused, what has "RF components" to do with anything
> > here? You mean high quality components?
>
> You need to learn how a particle accelerator like the LHC works. It is a
> synchrotron, which means that energy is put into the beam by radio-frequency

i knew they do beginner mistakes, they confuse _inductive coupling_
with RF, a very common mistake, see RFID passive tags for instance

it has nothing with to do with RF, therefore they are unable to tune
that collider properly, you need to adjust a coupling factor,
simulations etc, i could do that for you in no time, they pay - i do
job

> cavities that oscillate in a mode that puts the electric field parallel to the
> beam, and the timing is arranged so that whenever particles are present they are
> accelerated in the desired direction. During acceleration the RF timing is such
> that energy is put into the beam. During deceleration the timing of the RF
> cavities is arranged so energy is extracted from the beam, and this energy heats
> the RF components, and some of it ultimately gets fed back into the power grid.

yes, this is what it called inductive coupling, thanks

>
> >> The beam dump is an enormous block of copper,
> >> steel, and concrete (and perhaps other materials such as depleted uranium); it
> >> absorbs the remainder of the beam energy by heating up.
>
> >> Very little of the beams' energy is released in collisions,
>
> > is this not a mistake?
>
> No. It's inherent in the design. There are physical limits on what collision
> rate can be achieved, and there are tighter constraints on what the detectors
> can handle. The entire LHC was designed as a whole, and the result is that only
> ~1% of the beam energy goes into collisions, because that optimizes the physics
> output.

this is just because they are unable to touch instruments and adjust a
coupling factor

>
> > they build a large collider, then they dont know how to tune it
>
> They know how to tune it for what they are doing today, and are learning how to
> tune it for what they want to do in the future. Every complex machine like this
> has a learning curve. Off hand, I know of no system ever built by humans that is
> more complex than the LHC; it has BILLIONS of components.

does not matter, you reduce the expression down to a coupling factor,
thanks, you cant work with complex expressions

>
> > a fine tuned smaller collider gives more !!!
>
> With today's technology, a 7 TeV collider cannot be built any smaller than the
> LHC. Indeed, they pushed several parameters rather dangerously close to their
> limits (the big one is the achievable dipole field, and they currently run at
> half field to provide more safety-margin in them).
>
> >> But yes, the total stored magnetic energy in the LHC magnets is something like
> >> 30 times larger than the design total beam energy. This, too, must be removed
> >> safely. Fortunately >90% of it can be returned to the power grid during ramp
> >> down (this is much more efficient than putting beam energy back into the grid).
>
> > i disagree, this would indeed be a big mistake
>
> It's not a mistake, it's inherent in the design. All that energy must go
> somewhere, and the power grid is the best and most economical place to put it.
> After all, that's where it came from initially.
>
> > the energy that comes in into collider is conventional
> > energy from chemical molecular reaction
>
> Only partly. The direct input is electrical power, which comes in part from
> chemical reactions (burning coal, etc.), but in France and Switzerland most of
> it comes from nuclear reactors and hydroelectric power.
>
> > what comes out of the collider is energy coming
> > from nuclear and subatomic reactions, which is
> > trillions times larger, which must give over-unity
>
> Per reaction it is true that nuclear reactions yield much more energy than
> chemical reactions. But the relative numbers of reactions are ENORMOUSLY
> different, and the energy output from collisions in the LHC is a lot less than
> the electrical energy input.
>
> Tom Roberts

thanks, this is what am i talking about, with the right wide band
coupling factor, they could put the entire released energy back to
people
From: Thomas Heger on 10 Aug 2010 21:42
Hikaru Yamoshi schrieb:
> On Aug 9, 6:55 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Hikaru Yamoshi wrote:

>>> what comes out of the collider is energy coming
>>> from *nuclear and subatomic reactions*, which is
>>> *trillions times larger*, which must give over-unity
>> Per reaction it is true that nuclear reactions yield much more energy than
>> chemical reactions. But the relative numbers of reactions are ENORMOUSLY
>> different, and the energy output from collisions in the LHC is a lot less than
>> the electrical energy input.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> thanks, this is what am i talking about, with the right wide band
> coupling factor, they could put the entire released energy back to
> people

You certainly don't want to release that to the people!
The preferred destination would be the power-grid and with safety, if
possible.

TH
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Quantum Geometry of Spacetime
Next: Energy and Particles are changeable - (reversible) !!!