Prev: Quantum Geometry of Spacetime
Next: Energy and Particles are changeable - (reversible) !!!
From: Thomas Heger on 7 Aug 2010 20:39
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.
The collision should be more dramatic, since the collision is continuous.
So there seems to be some kind of energy sink in this machine.
Personally I think, they should be careful, that this wouldn't bounce
back and kick the LHC into low orbit, including a significant part of
switzerland.

TH
From: dlzc on 7 Aug 2010 22:22
Dear Thomas Heger:

On Aug 7, 5:39 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> 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.
> The collision should be more dramatic, since the
> collision is continuous. So there seems to be
> some kind of energy sink in this machine.
> Personally I think, they should be careful, that
> this wouldn't bounce back and kick the LHC into
> low orbit, including a significant part of
> switzerland.

Yes, all those small cities do that all the time... bounce off into
space.

If you are really interested, the energy is lost in keeping things
cool, and in magnetizing things that really don't accept the kind of
field they apply.

David A. Smith
From: Thomas Heger on 8 Aug 2010 00:15
dlzc schrieb:
> Dear Thomas Heger:
>
> On Aug 7, 5:39 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> 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.
>> The collision should be more dramatic, since the
>> collision is continuous. So there seems to be
>> some kind of energy sink in this machine.
>> Personally I think, they should be careful, that
>> this wouldn't bounce back and kick the LHC into
>> low orbit, including a significant part of
>> switzerland.
>
> Yes, all those small cities do that all the time... bounce off into
> space.
>
> If you are really interested, the energy is lost in keeping things
> cool, and in magnetizing things that really don't accept the kind of
> field they apply.
>
So lets start beyond the cooling process. They cool the magnets, because
they want them to be super-conducting and this they want, because large
currents are put into the coils. The work done by those currents should
be somewhere, but where is it?
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.

TH
From: Tom Roberts on 8 Aug 2010 13:49
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.


> 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
and heating the RF components. 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, most is returned to
RF systems, the power grid, and deposited in the beam dumps. The design is that
the beams circulate for 20 hours per cycle, during which losses total about 5%
of the beam, collisions account for about 1% of the beam, and the rest is
decelerated and dumped. They are not anywhere close to this, yet -- losses are
higher, collisions are lower, and the beam lifetime is shorter; they have lots
to learn about tuning and operating the machine.

In an emergency they can dump the full-energy beam. They try very hard to avoid
that, as it is very stressful for the beam dumps. This is the primary reason
they still are not anywhere close to the full intensity, but high losses are
also a concern. They also are running at half the design energy, primarily due
to concern about cryogenic margins in the magnets, but also to reduce the total
energy in the beams.


> Personally I think, they should be careful, that this wouldn't bounce
> back and kick the LHC into low orbit, including a significant part of
> switzerland.

They are indeed careful, because so much energy in the beams could damage the
accelerator if not disposed of properly. But your wild claim is utterly
impossible: things would melt, but cannot possibly "go into orbit", because the
total stored energy (magnets + beam) is insufficient to lift even a single LHC
dipole into low earth orbit (which requires on the order of 30 MJ/kg).


dlzc wrote:
> the energy is lost in keeping things
> cool, and in magnetizing things that really don't accept the kind of
> field they apply.

This is completely different. It is only a tiny fraction of the beams' energy
that get deposited in the magnets. Necessarily so as they could not hope to keep
the magnets at 2K if any significant fraction of the beams' energy was deposited
in them. The rule of thumb is that losses in an accelerator must be kept below
~1 watt per meter, or otherwise they become too radioactive to work on; for
cryogenic systems this must be reduced by a factor of 10 to 100, or the
refrigeration to overcome such losses becomes unwieldly. I don't know their
actual design criteria.

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).


Tom Roberts
From: Hikaru Yamoshi on 8 Aug 2010 15:00
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

>
> > 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 thought inertia, like gravity, is geometry, therfore
should not generate energy (!)

> and heating the RF components.

I am totally confused, what has "RF components" to do with anything
here? You mean high quality components?

>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?

>most is returned to
> RF systems, the power grid, and deposited in the beam dumps. The design is that
> the beams circulate for 20 hours per cycle, during which losses total about 5%
> of the beam, collisions account for about 1% of the beam, and the rest is
> decelerated and dumped. They are not anywhere close to this, yet -- losses are
> higher, collisions are lower, and the beam lifetime is shorter; they have lots
> to learn about tuning and operating the machine.

I would agree with that, seems that they do a lot a mistakes

they build a large collider, then they dont know how to tune it

a fine tuned smaller collider gives more !!!

>
> In an emergency they can dump the full-energy beam. They try very hard to avoid
> that, as it is very stressful for the beam dumps. This is the primary reason
> they still are not anywhere close to the full intensity,

thanks for that

> but high losses are
> also a concern. They also are running at half the design energy, primarily due
> to concern about cryogenic margins in the magnets, but also to reduce the total
> energy in the beams.
>
> > Personally I think, they should be careful, that this wouldn't bounce
> > back and kick the LHC into low orbit, including a significant part of
> > switzerland.
>
> They are indeed careful, because so much energy in the beams could damage the
> accelerator if not disposed of properly. But your wild claim is utterly
> impossible: things would melt, but cannot possibly "go into orbit", because the
> total stored energy (magnets + beam) is insufficient to lift even a single LHC
> dipole into low earth orbit (which requires on the order of 30 MJ/kg).
>
> dlzc wrote:
> > the energy is lost in keeping things
> > cool, and in magnetizing things that really don't accept the kind of
> > field they apply.
>
> This is completely different. It is only a tiny fraction of the beams' energy
> that get deposited in the magnets. Necessarily so as they could not hope to keep
> the magnets at 2K if any significant fraction of the beams' energy was deposited
> in them. The rule of thumb is that losses in an accelerator must be kept below
> ~1 watt per meter, or otherwise they become too radioactive to work on; for
> cryogenic systems this must be reduced by a factor of 10 to 100, or the
> refrigeration to overcome such losses becomes unwieldly. I don't know their
> actual design criteria.
>
> 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

the energy that comes in into collider is conventional
energy from chemical molecular reaction

what comes out of the collider is energy coming
from nuclear and subatomic reactions, which is
trillions times larger, which must give over-unity

>
> Tom Roberts

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