| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ian Parker" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2006 05:34:47 AM |
| Object: |
Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
Why do politicians and economists ignore technology as being key
factors. By 2050 we will be able to place mirrors at the Lagrange point
(L1) which will enable us to reduce the amount of solar energy falling
on Earth. This can be done either by a lightweight sunshield (55kg per
km^2) or by the use of a Von Neumann machine.
If we really want to do anything about global warming this is clearly
the route we should take. It is absolute nonsense to talk about 2050
without reference to the technologies which will be available then. So
1% of the world's economy will be devoted to reducing carbon emissions.
If one part in 10,000 of the world's economy were to be devoted to
research we could find a solution to both these problems.
I would be extremely surprised if by 2050 BOTH these technologies were
not available. Hence the folly of politicians and people like Stern.
This is even without an enhanced program of research. 44 years ago we
were just advancing into single discrete transistors. Is Stern
seriously telling us that there will be no Von Neumann machines, and
(presumably) no AI by 2050. He has taken complete leave of his senses.
We really ought to be thinking much more about how technology will look
in the future. Aircraft will be controlled completely by computers and
using liquid hydrogen. What we should be doing is developing innovative
technologies rather than telling people not to fly.
Carbon trading is nonsense and dangerous nonsense .If we accept that
poor governance is the main cause of poverty carbon trading is absolute
madness. North Korea produces very little CO2 and its nuclear weapons
program would get an enormous fillip from any carbon trading scheme.
Carbon trading will also encourage fundamentalism and have a
detrimental effect on the position of women in Moslem countries. You do
not need women if either :-
1) A sticky black substance comes out of the ground.
2) Mad economists like Stern donate you money.
If money were to be given to NGO such as Oxfam and Cafod this might be
different. Putting money in the hands of bad governments must be the
height of folly.
Stern is nonsense and is DANGEROUS nonsense to boot.
.
|
|
| User: "Charlie Springer" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
09 Nov 2006 05:25:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:45:03 -0800, wrote
(in article <212c24-i11.ln1@mail.specsol.com>):
There is no free lunch.
Of course, none of this considers the energy efficiency of such an
arrangement.
Let's look at the original problem at the point where the capacitor
has charged to 10 V.
At that point in time you have 10 V times 200 A, or 2 KW going into
the capacitor.
If your source is capable of 200 V, that means somewhere you are
disipating (200 V - 10 V) X 200 A, or 38 KW .
If you let R be the sum of all the resistances involved, you
can minimize these loses by building a source that maintains the
relationship of Vo = Vc + (R X I) where I is the charging current,
Vc is the instantaneous capacitor voltage, and Vo is the instantaneous
source voltage.
I leave it to you as a design problem to come up with such a source.
I would just suggest you look at capacitors and switching networks for
step-up/step-down without ohmic losses. (or switch mode converters which are
98% efficient). Also switching networks (solid state) to change the topology
of your capacitor bank in the vehicle for charging. Also, use the same
technology for charging. Let the charging come from banks of charged caps.
I wonder how they ever got approval of the diesel-electric locomotive?
Probably told the scientists the meetings were in a different city.
-- Charlie Sprinegr
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
09 Nov 2006 06:05:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Charlie Springer <RAM@regnirps.com> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:45:03 -0800, wrote
(in article <212c24-i11.ln1@mail.specsol.com>):
There is no free lunch.
Of course, none of this considers the energy efficiency of such an
arrangement.
Let's look at the original problem at the point where the capacitor
has charged to 10 V.
At that point in time you have 10 V times 200 A, or 2 KW going into
the capacitor.
If your source is capable of 200 V, that means somewhere you are
disipating (200 V - 10 V) X 200 A, or 38 KW .
If you let R be the sum of all the resistances involved, you
can minimize these loses by building a source that maintains the
relationship of Vo = Vc + (R X I) where I is the charging current,
Vc is the instantaneous capacitor voltage, and Vo is the instantaneous
source voltage.
I leave it to you as a design problem to come up with such a source.
I would just suggest you look at capacitors and switching networks for
step-up/step-down without ohmic losses. (or switch mode converters which are
98% efficient).
Switching converters work turning the source current on and off then
running the resultant through an integrator to get back to DC at a
lower voltage.
Since you are turning the current on and off, the available current
per unit time is decreased and since capacitors charge via current not
voltage, you wind up lengthening the already horrendous charge time for
the "supercapacitor"
There is no free lunch.
Also switching networks (solid state) to change the topology
of your capacitor bank in the vehicle for charging. Also, use the same
technology for charging.
The physics of charging in series was already addressed in another post.
To recap, you decrease the charge time required and increase the voltage
source required.
There is no free lunch.
Let the charging come from banks of charged caps.
And you charge those caps from where and when? Charge time for this
"supercapacitor" is already on the order of 2 days. If you charge a
capacitor bank from another bank, the charging bank has to be charged
to twice the voltage desired on your mobile bank. If the charging bank
is the same capacitance as the mobile bank, now it takes about 4 days
just to charge the charging bank. If you also double the capacitance
of the charging bank, it now takes 8 days to charge the charging bank.
There is no free lunch.
I wonder how they ever got approval of the diesel-electric locomotive?
Probably told the scientists the meetings were in a different city.
Irrelevant babble which shows you don't understand basic Ohms law or
the physics of capacitors or electric motors.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Springer" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
10 Nov 2006 12:34:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:05:02 -0800, wrote
(in article <e1sc24-bl9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>):
I would just suggest you look at capacitors and switching networks for
step-up/step-down without ohmic losses. (or switch mode converters which
are
98% efficient).
Switching converters work turning the source current on and off then
running the resultant through an integrator to get back to DC at a
lower voltage.
Kind of (I feel like I'm wasting my time). They rectify AC to high voltage
DC, sometimes voltage doubling or tripling. They chop the DC (160 to 300
volts for units in computers and such) at high frequency, like 400 KHz, so
they can use small efficient inductors. The winding ratio gives lower voltage
output that is again rectified (integrated if you wish, but far from what I
would call in integrator). True, you can't get a free lunch, but you can get
98% or better of what you put in.
Since you are turning the current on and off, the available current
per unit time is decreased and since capacitors charge via current not
voltage, you wind up lengthening the already horrendous charge time for
the "supercapacitor"
There is no free lunch.
I'll have to remind you that we start with AC power in which the current is
already "turning on and off".
Also switching networks (solid state) to change the topology
of your capacitor bank in the vehicle for charging. Also, use the same
technology for charging.
The physics of charging in series was already addressed in another post.
Why would you make it worse by charging in series? To take advantage of a
flexible topology you charge in parralel in many charging blocks.
To recap, you decrease the charge time required and increase the voltage
source required.
There is no free lunch.
Maybe in your design. Mine would be much different.
Let the charging come from banks of charged caps.
And you charge those caps from where and when? Charge time for this
"supercapacitor" is already on the order of 2 days. If you charge a
capacitor bank from another bank, the charging bank has to be charged
to twice the voltage desired on your mobile bank. If the charging bank
is the same capacitance as the mobile bank, now it takes about 4 days
just to charge the charging bank. If you also double the capacitance
of the charging bank, it now takes 8 days to charge the charging bank.
There is no free lunch.
The banks are as big as you need. Would you build a gasoline service station
with a tank that holds enough for one car then refills over two days? I
wouldn't.
I wonder how they ever got approval of the diesel-electric locomotive?
Probably told the scientists the meetings were in a different city.
Irrelevant babble which shows you don't understand basic Ohms law or
the physics of capacitors or electric motors.
Just a comment for Mr. Middle School Ohms Law. I'm sure you could have proven
the locomotives were either impossible or impractical. Do you believe in load
factor balancing with capacitor banks? There was a revolution 30 years ago
with sigma-delta converters and switching methods and FETs with extremely low
ON resistance. Get modern or give it up.
I can do just a hair less that 100% efficient rectification of AC power
without electronic parts. Have you been living under a rock?
-- Charlie Springer
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
10 Nov 2006 02:45:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Charlie Springer <RAM@regnirps.com> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:05:02 -0800, wrote
(in article <e1sc24-bl9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>):
I would just suggest you look at capacitors and switching networks for
step-up/step-down without ohmic losses. (or switch mode converters which
are
98% efficient).
Switching converters work turning the source current on and off then
running the resultant through an integrator to get back to DC at a
lower voltage.
Kind of (I feel like I'm wasting my time). They rectify AC to high voltage
DC, sometimes voltage doubling or tripling. They chop the DC (160 to 300
volts for units in computers and such) at high frequency, like 400 KHz, so
they can use small efficient inductors. The winding ratio gives lower voltage
output that is again rectified (integrated if you wish, but far from what I
would call in integrator). True, you can't get a free lunch, but you can get
98% or better of what you put in.
True enough for how switchers work, though you just said what I did with
a bit more detail.
The problem is capacitors charge with current, not voltage. If the applied
voltage is any higher than the instantaneous capacitor voltage plus
the IR losses in the wiring, you have enormous losses.
So what you would have to design for the sake of this arguement is a
200 A, switching, constant current source. Not impossible, but not
cheap either.
Since you are turning the current on and off, the available current
per unit time is decreased and since capacitors charge via current not
voltage, you wind up lengthening the already horrendous charge time for
the "supercapacitor"
There is no free lunch.
I'll have to remind you that we start with AC power in which the current is
already "turning on and off".
Irrelevant as the AC power values are RMS. All you have to do is rectify
it.
Also switching networks (solid state) to change the topology
of your capacitor bank in the vehicle for charging. Also, use the same
technology for charging.
The physics of charging in series was already addressed in another post.
Why would you make it worse by charging in series? To take advantage of a
flexible topology you charge in parralel in many charging blocks.
Because charging in parallel extends the charging time for the capacitor
in question, which is already in the order of days. You want to make
it weeks to charge up?
Given some maximum available charging current, the only way to decrease
the time is to decrease the capacitance, which is done by charging in
series.
To recap, you decrease the charge time required and increase the voltage
source required.
There is no free lunch.
Maybe in your design. Mine would be much different.
Sure, if you can find a universe where E=(C*V^2)/2 and i=C*dv/dt doesn't
apply.
Let the charging come from banks of charged caps.
And you charge those caps from where and when? Charge time for this
"supercapacitor" is already on the order of 2 days. If you charge a
capacitor bank from another bank, the charging bank has to be charged
to twice the voltage desired on your mobile bank. If the charging bank
is the same capacitance as the mobile bank, now it takes about 4 days
just to charge the charging bank. If you also double the capacitance
of the charging bank, it now takes 8 days to charge the charging bank.
There is no free lunch.
The banks are as big as you need. Would you build a gasoline service station
with a tank that holds enough for one car then refills over two days? I
wouldn't.
Totally missing the point.
It takes about 2 days to fill the mobile capacitor. If your station has a
capacitor that can fill 20 mobiles, it takes 40 days to fill it.
I wonder how they ever got approval of the diesel-electric locomotive?
Probably told the scientists the meetings were in a different city.
Irrelevant babble which shows you don't understand basic Ohms law or
the physics of capacitors or electric motors.
Just a comment for Mr. Middle School Ohms Law. I'm sure you could have proven
the locomotives were either impossible or impractical.
Babbling nonsense and an attack on the messenger because your pet idea
is shown to be impractical by V=IR, W=VI, E=(C*V^2)/2, and i=C*dv/dt.
Do you believe in load
factor balancing with capacitor banks? There was a revolution 30 years ago
with sigma-delta converters and switching methods and FETs with extremely low
ON resistance.
Irrelevant; the charging of a capacitor is still governed by V=IR, W=VI,
E=(C*V^2)/2, and i=C*dv/dt whether you like it or not.
Get modern or give it up.
Give up and learn some basic electricity.
Start by learning what V=IR, W=VI, E=(C*V^2)/2, and i=C*dv/dt means.
I can do just a hair less that 100% efficient rectification of AC power
without electronic parts. Have you been living under a rock?
The efficiency of rectification was never an issue and just shows you have
no insight as to what the issues are.
-- Charlie Springer
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
07 Nov 2006 11:15:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Charlie Springer <RAM@regnirps.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:55:03 -0800, wrote
(in article <q9t724-bq5.ln1@mail.specsol.com>):
All capacitors have a pitiful weight to energy ratio compared to any
half ***** battery.
Not true. See experimental airogel supercaps. Airogels made in air can float
on carbon dioxide, so energy to weight looks pretty good. Apply some Moore's
Law type thinking. Nuclear power and electric everything.
Umm, no, capacitors are limited by the physics of capacitors.
Moore's law doesn't apply.
Any internal combution engine that uses air to obtain the oxidizer
produces oxides of nitrogen.
Ah, but which oxides? Depends on the engine and fuel and pressure and
temperature. (Also, I think you can make a low pressure methane or propane
burner that pretty much just makes CO2 and water, like a burner on a stove).
-- Charlie Springer
Umm, no, low pressure and temperature makes a ***** poor internal combustion
engine.
And you do get oxides of nitrogen from a burner on a stove.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie Springer" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
08 Nov 2006 01:21:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:15:02 -0800, wrote
(in article <bj5824-d2r.ln1@mail.specsol.com>):
Not true. See experimental airogel supercaps. Airogels made in air can
float
on carbon dioxide, so energy to weight looks pretty good. Apply some
Moore's
Law type thinking. Nuclear power and electric everything.
Umm, no, capacitors are limited by the physics of capacitors.
Moore's law doesn't apply.
Moore's law isn't even a physical law. It is a trend. A similar trend is
happening in condenser capacities.
Re: The physical limits. Would you mind sharing your theory that handles
nonlinear electric fields? The Nobel committee is waiting. Everyone I know
has to do numerical simulations. They would love a general analytical
solution.
Any internal combution engine that uses air to obtain the oxidizer
produces oxides of nitrogen.
Ah, but which oxides? Depends on the engine and fuel and pressure and
temperature. (Also, I think you can make a low pressure methane or propane
burner that pretty much just makes CO2 and water, like a burner on a stove).
-- Charlie Springer
Umm, no, low pressure and temperature makes a ***** poor internal combustion
engine.
The claim was ANY engine.
And you do get oxides of nitrogen from a burner on a stove.
Which ones?
-- Charlie Springer (Mary, where are you?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
08 Nov 2006 05:24:04 AM |
|
|
Charlie Springer wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:15:02 -0800, wrote
(in article <bj5824-d2r.ln1@mail.specsol.com>):
Not true. See experimental airogel supercaps. Airogels made in air can
float
on carbon dioxide, so energy to weight looks pretty good. Apply some
Moore's
Law type thinking. Nuclear power and electric everything.
Umm, no, capacitors are limited by the physics of capacitors.
Moore's law doesn't apply.
Moore's law isn't even a physical law. It is a trend. A similar trend is
happening in condenser capacities.
Re: The physical limits. Would you mind sharing your theory that handles
nonlinear electric fields? The Nobel committee is waiting. Everyone I know
has to do numerical simulations. They would love a general analytical
solution.
Any internal combution engine that uses air to obtain the oxidizer
produces oxides of nitrogen.
Ah, but which oxides? Depends on the engine and fuel and pressure and
temperature. (Also, I think you can make a low pressure methane or propane
burner that pretty much just makes CO2 and water, like a burner on a stove).
-- Charlie Springer
Umm, no, low pressure and temperature makes a ***** poor internal combustion
engine.
The claim was ANY engine.
And you do get oxides of nitrogen from a burner on a stove.
Which ones?
-- Charlie Springer (Mary, where are you?)
I am not arguing with anyone here, but I recall a discussion on space
elevators where I said that if you could support a rope at GEO you
could, by using that rope like the rubber band, have a comperable
energy density to conventional fuel.
Carbon nanotubes could (in principle) apply something approaching that
energy density. Storage of energy in capacitors would obey very similar
laws. There is one pint not mentioned. If a high energy capacitor were
to have a small imperfection it would explode, ditto for stretched
nanotubes.
I think if aviation designers want to try totally novel means of
propulsion they would do much better to have phased microwave arrays,
either on Earth or in space directing energy onto the aircraft.
The computation needed for this would at least come under Moore's law.
- Ian Parker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
08 Nov 2006 08:35:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Ian Parker <ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
I think if aviation designers want to try totally novel means of
propulsion they would do much better to have phased microwave arrays,
either on Earth or in space directing energy onto the aircraft.
It was tried and found wanting as were reactor powered aircraft.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
08 Nov 2006 08:25:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Charlie Springer <RAM@regnirps.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:15:02 -0800, wrote
(in article <bj5824-d2r.ln1@mail.specsol.com>):
Not true. See experimental airogel supercaps. Airogels made in air can
float
on carbon dioxide, so energy to weight looks pretty good. Apply some
Moore's
Law type thinking. Nuclear power and electric everything.
Umm, no, capacitors are limited by the physics of capacitors.
Moore's law doesn't apply.
Moore's law isn't even a physical law. It is a trend.
No *****?
A similar trend is
happening in condenser capacities.
Umm, no, capacitor contruction is constrained by available materials.
When you invent a new material with "better" properties you get a
jump in capacitor properties. There has been no "trend" as described
by Moore's law.
Re: The physical limits. Would you mind sharing your theory that handles
nonlinear electric fields? The Nobel committee is waiting. Everyone I know
has to do numerical simulations. They would love a general analytical
solution.
Another poster already explained it to you.
Any internal combution engine that uses air to obtain the oxidizer
produces oxides of nitrogen.
Ah, but which oxides? Depends on the engine and fuel and pressure and
temperature. (Also, I think you can make a low pressure methane or propane
burner that pretty much just makes CO2 and water, like a burner on a stove).
-- Charlie Springer
Umm, no, low pressure and temperature makes a ***** poor internal combustion
engine.
The claim was ANY engine.
Silly me, I thought we were talking about usefull engines.
And you do get oxides of nitrogen from a burner on a stove.
Which ones?
The usual ones.
-- Charlie Springer (Mary, where are you?)
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Stern - Nonsense and dangerous nonsense |
08 Nov 2006 05:00:25 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:56:59 -0800, Charlie Springer <RAM@regnirps.com>
wrote:
Besides, the global tropic is the norm of the last 50 million years. Are you
going to try to fight to keep this brief cooling "normal?"
Normal climate change would be fine. What we are experiencing now is
highly abnormal, to say the least.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
