Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:02 am
In MegaTokyo 2040 they looked at using the potential difference for power generation. Think about it--you're basically bridging a giant capacitor. Why not tap it for power?
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Love that phrase. It would make a great teaser for a job advertisment.Tom Ligon wrote:opportunity to discover new modes of disaster
Reminded me of that Darwin Award. Just checked, and I'm disappointed to discover its not true.icarus wrote:Yeah, why not strap a solid booster to the roof of your beat-up ford taurus and head off into the desert ....
whatta you gonna use for brakes?
I believe it is the tendency of the waveform to not get disrupted. That is, the waveform is stable, and it requires force to change its stability.GIThruster wrote:I'm surprised to hear this. Can I ask, where do you think inertia comes from?WizWom wrote: With all due respect, Dr. March, while i appreciate the attempt to model the origin of mass by Mach, I find that his explanation adds complexity without adding clarity.
WTF? Gravity is a force; inertia is a measure of the amount of resistance to force. Gravity acts at a distance, inertia has no effect outside of each mass. I think you are getting confused since both seem to scale with mass.Since gravitic and inertial effects seem identical at times,
Ah, now, that's calculable. Let's say a big cable, 3 cm in diameter. Cross section along 3 km is then .03*3000 = ~100 m^2; wind pressure from a 13 m/s breeze would be 120 N/m^2 or 12,000 N - trivial (about a 3/8" bolt could hold it). And that's assuming it's a square, and the wind is perpendicular.GIThruster wrote:Honestly, there are just so many problems with the elevator that I can neWhat do you do when there's a 25 mph breeze against say, 2 miles of elevator?
That was my favorite Darwin award story. I was also disappointed, but not surprised, to hear that its not true.BenTC wrote:Reminded me of that Darwin Award. Just checked, and I'm disappointed to discover its not true.icarus wrote:Yeah, why not strap a solid booster to the roof of your beat-up ford taurus and head off into the desert ....
whatta you gonna use for brakes?
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1995-04.html
I suggest you read a little about Mach:WizWom wrote:I believe it is the tendency of the waveform to not get disrupted. That is, the waveform is stable, and it requires force to change its stability.GIThruster wrote:I'm surprised to hear this. Can I ask, where do you think inertia comes from?WizWom wrote: With all due respect, Dr. March, while i appreciate the attempt to model the origin of mass by Mach, I find that his explanation adds complexity without adding clarity.
WTF? Gravity is a force; inertia is a measure of the amount of resistance to force. Gravity acts at a distance, inertia has no effect outside of each mass. I think you are getting confused since both seem to scale with mass.Since gravitic and inertial effects seem identical at times,
I heard another problem is that of resonance along a 30,000 km cable. Also, do realize that the fullerine materials have yet to be made at the required tensile strength to make the whole thing possible. Around 60GigaPascal of tensile strength materials are necessary for the space elevator. Progress on making long length fullerine cables seems to have stalled at around 20 GPa.GIThruster wrote:Honestly, there are just so many problems with the elevator that I can never understand how anyone could think it's a good idea.
What do you do when there's a 25 mph breeze against say, 2 miles of elevator?
I saw someone do the calc a few years ago and it's just lunacy. I swear, it has to be that people are looking for a lifetime employment project that doesn't have to generate results and can say will succeed in 50 years, then bump the number back every 10 years. Kinda like fusion and DOE. . .
I think the NIAC version used tape rather than cord; it was much larger than 3cm and anchored on a platform in the Pacific. Remember also that it's tapered so it's much thicker above than below. Despite the attempts to solutions, they never had real answers for lighting storms, the wind sheer is very significant, the results of meteorite or orbital debris impact are devastating, the proposed materials react to atomic oxygen, and at each iteration, the requirements for the material strength and the length of the elevator grows.WizWom wrote:Ah, now, that's calculable. Let's say a big cable, 3 cm in diameter. Cross section along 3 km is then .03*3000 = ~100 m^2; wind pressure from a 13 m/s breeze would be 120 N/m^2 or 12,000 N - trivial (about a 3/8" bolt could hold it). And that's assuming it's a square, and the wind is perpendicular.GIThruster wrote:Honestly, there are just so many problems with the elevator that I can neWhat do you do when there's a 25 mph breeze against say, 2 miles of elevator?
Even if you take 100 km, you're just upping it to a 30 times that, 360,00 N.
No, it's the gale-force winds that would be the problem, and the jet stream.
But, since you'd want to use the highest mountain on the equator in a stable zone, you'll be above a good portion of the air, lessening the wind pressure significantly.
The mass of the cord itself is much more important than the shear forces from wind. By about 3 orders of magnitude. You're talking about a cord that could be wrapped around the Earth.
That's true but there's always the library and IMHO, as an advocate for Woodward's work, I often find it's more effective to point people to sources that have nothing to do with his work. Fact is, Woodward just brought Einstein and Mach together in ways no one had thought of in a century, but there have been significant numbers of physicists over the decades who saw the import, if not the utility of Mach's work, especially including Einstein. Indeed, one of the arguments made in the book is that Einstein owes so much to Mach that without Mach's work, we would probably not have GR.Betruger wrote:I don't think you can bet on such a skeptic paying a hundred bucks to supposedly read something that defies everything he knows. There's lots of free resources e.g. all the papers and powerpoints and articles for free on the net, that e.g. Paul March has linked to.