...Matt Damon film, 'Elysium', a typical leftwing paranoiac entry, but there was something in the story that I found enticing. On the utopian Elysium space station, there was an MRI device that could cure whatever illness the patient inside was suffering from without invasive surgery. Sounds very futuristic but the fact is- not really.--Alicia ColonI saw the film at a local IMAX theater. You have to take everything in these movies with a grain of salt. But that bit about curing everything with just one machine is more than a bit interesting. Besides that, a space station isn't a century away, either. That is, unless something bad happens. In that case, there may never be any space stations at all. We are all living on a tight rope. Great things or awful things are possible.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Yeah, I've been noticing a little flurry of activity on the cold fusion front. At the moment, I have no comment on the acquisition because I don't know too much about them. Peswiki has some info here, so that's a start.
Where's my E-cat? I want my e-kitty now. Here kitty kitty.
Okay, I don't want to make too much fun of this. This could be a big deal. A very big deal. As always, we have to wait and see.
I was thinking of predictions and how hard they are. That's because of a number of factors, of which boils down to one basic thing--- stuff you don't know about.
The presumption is that if you had enough data you can predict the future with some accuracy. That may be true, but it is also true that you may not be able to get the information that you need.
This is what intelligence services are about. This is what spying is all about. Governments can afford this, private citizens not so much. How can a private citizen avoid being run over by a freight train? You may decide to stay away from the railroad tracks. Or, if you do play the game with the big boys, you may need something to equalize your odds. Otherwise, you may end up as roadkill.
I'm always looking out for information. I'm not roadkill yet, but the game is still on.
Another way of being as it relates to societal decline: solving problems v managing conflict. Our leadership wants to manage conflicts, it doesn't work diligently enough to solve problems. Either the quality and attitude of the leadership improves, or we should change the leadership.
The odds of this happening? At this point, the former doesn't look good, but the latter looks like a real possibility. However, there's no always or never to this stuff.
The truth is a slippery thing, but it seems that most conflict revolves around people who have taken a rather rigid position based upon their notion of what truth is. The "gold standard" should be the truth, but truth is the first casualty in war. When a war breaks out, anything can and does happen. It is generally not a good idea to start one, or be surprised by one. It is a good idea to be as prepared as possible for one, while doing the most possible to avoid one.
To make money. I'm attempting to be of service to readers who are doing what they can about the situation for their own interests, or even for decision makers who are looking for a better way of dealing with society's problems.
This may sound like it is presumptuous and way over my pay grade, but I have done a few projects that have worked over the years. It hasn't led to fame nor fortune, but it has been a modest success. What makes me qualified to claim these ideas will work? I don't make that claim, but I'll make my best judgment, and you can take it from there.
The news of Wendy Davis' political demise may be wildly exaggerated. Although this is Texas we're talking about here, things are also going downhill in this state as well. It is only a little better here than elsewhere.
It is a part of a series, ex post facto the other posts. These will be updated to include this one and put up on the left sidebar under the series heading. Call this the first one, which is actually the last one, and it will go in reverse chronological order. The last post is here.
Since the theme for the day is what the blog is about, of course, it is about making money.
There may be a money making opportunity right now in the markets. Playing the markets may be the best way for a schnook like me to make money. At this point in my life, it is too late to become a rocket scientist or a nuclear engineer. Or to become---whatever. Like what Flip Wilson used to say, what you see is what you get, honey! That means to write about it in a blog. The blog is IT.
I could be wrong about the markets, and often am, but this market may be about to take a fall. A big one.
This is not investment advice by any stretch of the imagination, but it could be an investment idea. The trouble is, if you haven't done this already, you may be too late. However, there still could be some time.
The idea is to go short. I won't be a stock picker here, though. Do your own due diligence. What you could do is to do a short etf. If you don't know about that, look it up. I won't be giving tutorials here.
Naturally, you may want to be long on precious metals. But if you were reading this blog all along, you should have figured that out already.
I will follow the same conventions as I did with that one, but will add a couple new twists. One twist is to handicap it as to its likely adoption in the future. A second twist is that I will say what I don't like about it, or put in some negatives about it. Like before, this is in no particular order.
- Molten-salt reactors What I like Proven in the lab. Only one step from commercialization. What I don't like Politics is against it. Nuclear energy, especially fission energy, is becoming almost forbidden. To put it more accurately, I don't like the leadership on the issue, not the technology itself. Odd of success? Maybe 50-50. With appropriate leadership, it's a can't miss prospect.
- Focus Fusion ( aneutronic fusion method ) What I like It is also on the list for fusion propulsion for space travel. Very, very elegant energy solution. What I don't like People do not see the value of this proposal. To put this one more accurately, what I don't like is the failure of leadership on this issue as well, not the technology itself. However, this may be changing for the better. Odds of success? Technology wise maybe less than 50-50. Otherwise better than 50-50.
- Polywell Fusion ( aneutronic fusion method) What I like Very elegant. What I don't like May not work. The original inventor of the idea has died. There is nobody to move it forward like Robert Bussard could have. Odds of success? Less than 50-50.
- Cold fusion What I like Even more elegant solution than aneutronic fusion. What I don't like It may be a futile quest for the Holy Grail of Energy. In reality, there may not be any clean and safe source of energy at all, and the risk is that the quest could be a big waste of time. Odds of success? Less than 50-50.
- Muon catalyzed fusion What I like It almost works, so somebody may figure it out and make it work someday. What I don't like This one is like Focus Fusion. It is a technology that is being overlooked. It's not a technology problem, it's a people problem. Odds of success? Less than 50-50.
- Hydrogen fuel cells What I like It can work today. What I don't like Again, nothing wrong with the tech, it's the failure of leadership that's the problem. Odds of success? Less than 50-50 because of poor leadership, as for the technology itself, it already exists.
- (updated) Fracking What I like It works today. What I don't like If there's anything here that causes concern, it that we can't burn fuel in the atmosphere forever. This changes the atmosphere. Do we really want to do that? Odds of success? N/A since it already works and is in production. Long term prognosis is uncertain.
- (updated) Ethanol and Flex Fuel Vehicles What I like It works today What I don't like It doesn't include methanol, but ethanol could be produced cheaply soon from methane with new GTL methods. Odds of success? N/A because it already exists, but ethanol from natural gas doesn't exist yet. The odds of that are better than 50/50.
For the record, I positively do not like solar, wind, and other so-called renewables. These are huge wastes of money and time as they will definitely not work. At least not on the ground. Solar energy may work in space.
Update: Part 2 of a series. Part 3 here. Part 1 here.
Previously, I wrote that I was interested in picking outcomes to football games. I wrote a computer program that I wanted to market that would do that---that is, pick games versus the spread. The outcome of that wasn't satisfactory, although one guy I knew thought well of it. If it doesn't meet my objectives, I cannot in good conscience market it as a product. So, I didn't.
Years later, I wrote another program that attempted to predict the movement of the stock market. That one didn't work out either. One thing that it may have accomplished was to find anomalies. To me, this is the most useful thing that you can look for in watching the market action. Trying to predict the way the market will go on any given day is about as useful as predicting the outcome of football games versus the spread. In other words, a waste of time.
I guess the point here is that I have a track record of trying to predict the future. That track record indicates to me that it is an impossible job. But you can find anomalies that may tell you something useful going forward.
That is what I trying to do with this blog. Predictions for the future. I am trying to handicap potential solutions for problems.
Going forward, that is what this blog will attempt to do. In order to bring more focus to what I do here, I will try to handicap potential solutions for problems.
What a mess of a post.
Update: Part 3 of a series. Part 2 here. Part 4 here.
First of all, I want to discuss how to improve the blog. There was a post that ranked the blog in terms of its effectiveness. I used the results of that test in order to make a slight improvement in the header this morning. "Solutions" is a keyword to this blog. I needed to work that into the header and came up with a new header that is slightly revised from the old one.
I didn't do another concept for a keyword, and that is future. Other keywords should be energy and space. I didn't do those either. There is a risk of trying to cover too much ground. Solutions should be good enough. ( I hope )
So, for now on, solutions are a keyword for this blog.
Update: Part 4 of a series. Part 5 here. Part 3 here.
Friday, January 24, 2014
This one isn't as clear cut to me as it was 2008. But what is clear cut is that nothing has been done to improve matters.
The Second Subprime Bubble Is Bursting, Gundlach Warns
Back in the years just before the previous housing bubble burst (not to be confused with the current, even more acute one), one person did the math on subprime, realized that the housing - and credit bubble - collapse was imminent, and warned anyone who cared to listen - almost nobody did. That man was Kyle Bass, and because he had the guts to put the money where his mouth was, he made a lot of money. Fast forward to 2014 when subprime is all the rage again and the subprime bubble is bigger than ever: it may comes as a surprise to some that in 2013, subprime debt was one of the best performing fixed income instruments, returning a whopping 17% in a year when most other debt instruments generated negative returns. And this time, while Kyle Bass is busy - collecting nickels (each costing a dime ) perhaps - it is someone else who has stepped into Bass' Cassandra shoes: that someone is Jeff Gundlach. "These properties are rotting away,"
- Airship to Orbit ---- Why I like it. Even if it doesn't work, it can help reach orbit provided that it can be made to carry sufficient mass at sufficient velocity. What I like most is the attention to mass. The mass of this method should be the least amongst all methods of getting to space. Looks like it would definitely work on Mars ( that's a big deal ).
- Space sailing --- Why I like it: Once again, here is a method of space travel that requires little if any reaction mass.
- Focus Fusion ( as space drive ) Why I like it: Very high ISP. Could enable exploration and settlement of the entire solar system. Perhaps may even be useful for travel to nearest stars.
- Beamed power for propulsion Why I like it If Nuclear Thermal Engines cannot be used to get to orbit, perhaps this method will be acceptable.
- Nuclear Thermal Engines Why I like it Better ISP than chemical rockets. Radioactivity issue could be handled if a commitment were made to deal with that issue.
- Safe-400 ( space nuclear reactor ) Why I like it Good things can come in small packages. It only weighs about 1100 lbs. You're going to need power in space, and this little reactor can deliver it.
- A Moonstalk and a Mars Stalk Why I like it Will allow access to the surface with no mass penalty.
- Gas Guns Why I like it Will enable delivery of mass from the surface of the Moon or Mars with no mass penalty. From the Moon, it wouldn't even require heating of the gas.
- AX-5 Spacesuit Why I like it I like the concept of a hard cover on the suit. It does allow for 95% of normal movement, so it isn't too restrictive. It probably won't happen this way, but if it could be made livable for a long period of time, it would be a big help.
- Skylon Why I like it SSTO and reuse, what's not to like?
- Falcon 9 Why I like it It will be fully reusable and with a fast turnaround, unless something goes wrong.
These are all I can remember for now. If I can think of any others, I will add them to the list.
Update: Last of a series done in reverse chronological order. The reason for doing it this way was that the reasoning for what I claim to be true isn't necessarily easily found on the blog. It so happens that it was chronological this time, but it won't necessarily be that way in the future. The blog format doesn't easily allow for this. This way, you can see how the reasoning is built up over a series of posts. To see even deeper, use the category-sub category listings at the bottom of each post.
The previous post in the series is here.
A question popped up in my mind: Could you build a plane out of air that could fly on Mars?
Well, that's basically what John Powell of JP Aerospace is doing. His Airship to Orbit will start at 140k feet and climb to space. At 140k feet, the air is thinner than the atmosphere on Mars.
He will use a fancy propulsion device that is similar to what was portrayed in the film The Hunt for Red October. Such a propulsion device has already been built and operated before in a sub. The Japanese did it awhile back.
He compares his airships to subs, by the way. The principles are quite similar. You can float on air as well as water. It isn't exactly a new concept. The thing that's new is his aggressiveness in pursuing the concept. People have given up on airships.
Try to imagine an airship that can travel at hypersonic speeds. Even the government with all its money cannot field an airplane that can fly faster than Mach 3. I am talking about an operational vehicle, not experimental vehicles here.
Powell's ideas could be disruptive. It would be a mistake to underestimate him.
To be 100% honest, which I am always trying to be, I have wondered about my traffic here. It seemed like a lot of robo traffic, not real people.
I suspect that there are real people coming here, but the numbers had always been small. In other words, this news is not news to me. But it does make me wonder what the intention behind it was. Influence perhaps?
I intend to run the blog in the same way as always. Nothing has changed with me. I think the blog is better than ever. Even if nobody reads it at all, I will still post here as a research project. So, there.
If the extreme drought in the western half of the country keeps going, the food supply problems that we are experiencing right now are only going to be the tip of the iceberg.
The Apocalyse is coming soon. Well, it certainly appears plausible.
Things could be coming to a head all over. If it does, then it may be considered as the time that the excrement hits the recirculation device. It could be happening right now.
Ukraine first, then we're next she says. With the news this morning, it doesn't surprise me. We've just about got a war on our hands right here right now.
Apparently there's something called the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. It was created on the recommendation of the 9/11 panel and doesn't seem to have done much until now.
The devil you say. Why do you suppose it has taken this long for them to have done something?
Do you suppose it had anything to do with the Snowden affair? Naw, couldn't be. /sarc
Checked the main web page, and I can't find anything there that might explain things. Has something happened?
I did find this video that is fairly recent.
Published on Jan 9, 2014
We needed to get the submarine flipped over to work on the underside. To make it easier we build large wheels that attach to the side of the sub. Here's the roll in 10 seconds.
Maybe they are just very busy over there. That could be a good sign. Based upon some of his most recent postings, he may have a big mission in the works soon.
He hasn't been on the Space Show recently, either. At least, as far as I can tell.
Immigration is back on the GOP agenda. Nobody wants this, but it doesn't matter to these politicians.
ObamaCare political support hits new low. A law nobody likes or wanted manages to hang on.
1978 Lufthansa heist may be on verge of being solved. An arrest was made recently.
Various other stories indicate to me that a political war is taking place. Others suggest a real war could break out in the Pacific.
Nice start to the day, huh? Also, the weather is cold here in Houston. That could be fun. /sarc
Thursday, January 23, 2014
I've been thinking about an airship to orbit on Mars. If John Powell thinks he can get to orbit in an airship on Earth, it stands to reason that he can on Mars. Advantage of using this method of getting to orbit is too good to ignore. You can use it to get back and forth from the surface to orbit. Getting it to Mars would be fairly easy because it would not weigh very much, nor take up very much room.
About the Mars infrastructure: instead of putting a lot of ground vehicles on Mars, use airships instead. Airships are lighter in weight , and can cover a lot more distance. When you get to a point of interest you can stop, and then walk around. You can use atmospheric air as a way to get airborne. Mars atmosphere contains nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Separate out the nitrogen and it will float in a sea of carbon dioxide that is the majority of the Martian atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is relatively dense gas, while nitrogen is a lot less dense.
She's not fat, "she's so heavy". (Beatles)
That water is just waiting for somebody to mine it.
Perhaps I should have added something about the politics of this blog. Basically my pet peeve about politics is that they don't serve us well enough. That's another problem to solve, and it may well be the hardest one of all.
One more thing on this post. I write about solutions, but I don't implement them. I leave that to others. What I do here is to write about these things. Like the Joker in the movie, I just DO things. Writing is my thing. I'm "like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it".
Each part of the infrastructure will be specialized to accomplish one part of the mission. For example, there would be a mission to Low Earth Orbit. This pretty much exists already. The next leg would be to the proposed Gateway at EML-2. You'd devise a specialized craft for that mission. From the Gateway, there is only a delta-v of 2.17 km/sec to Deimos. From Deimos, it takes only .7 delta v to get to the surface. Likewise, there'd be a specialized craft that went from the Gateway to Deimos. And so on.
To get back to Deimos from Mars' surface will take more than just .7 km/sec using aerobraking, but the rest of the trip back to Earth is just back tracking through the delta-v's. Thus, to get from Deimos to EML-2 would require only 2.17 km/sec. But there may be a problem. To get from Mars's surface to Deimos would take 5.9 km/sec, according to this mission table map.
Well, I don't like that part, so let's just go from the surface to Mars' orbit, then on to Deimos. That would change things somewhat on the inbound, but you could use aerobraking and refueling to achieve that. That would be the Deimos' base's mission. Then aerobraking on the way down could still be employed, and refueling on the Mars' surface for the trip back up to orbit. Deimos could serve as a base for the refueling of the Mars' surface trips and the trips back to Earth. By the way, to get to Mars orbit from its surface requires 3.5 km/sec delta-v.
That's the point. Specialized missions for each piece of equipment and each base.
But more than that. The heaviest part of the equipment is the lander. It would be best to take that to Mars' orbit and keeping it there, rather than sending the entire package all the way from Earth and back on each trip to Mars. This would save a lot of fuel as the masses would be minimized. The mass penalties are the big killers and that's why you have propellant depots and reusable ships.
The SLS could install the big pieces into place on the Gateway, Deimos, Mars' orbit, and the surface of Mars itself. Once in place, all of these pieces can be serviced as a part of a regular schedule that should only require one launch of the big SLS rocket. Or perhaps, not even that would be necessary. Only in cases where something big has to be replaced on a leg of the journey would the big rocket be needed. Smaller, cheaper rockets can take up the rest of the slack.
The first mission for the SLS is scheduled for 2017. Rather than do a lunar flyby, you'd set up the EML-2 Gateway. This would be an unmanned mission and it could still test the Orion module. The second mission is scheduled to be manned, but instead of doing that, they should set up the Deimo's architecture. In support of this, there would be missions ahead of time in order to determine if there is water on Deimos. If not, that show is off, but you could still try Phobos. If possible, you'd install the Orion at EML-2 on this mission, and then leave it there.
Orion could take you home from the Gateway, or perhaps not even used at all. Perhaps a better way to get home can be devised than that. Perhaps it could be used in order to aerobrake and slow down to orbital velocity only, and then it will dock with a lander that is specialized to go from Earth orbit back to the surface. A tug could take the Orion back to the Gateway for future missions.
Now after just two trips, you have the Gateway and Deimos set up. Now, you go for the Mars orbit leg. Install a lander module in Mars' orbit with SLS-3. You could also put in a shuttle craft between Deimos/Phobos and Mars' orbit. After this third trip, you've got the capability to get to the surface, but not back up. With the final mission, SLS-4, you can go all the way to the surface and install the refueling base.
The refueling base on Mars is a permanent Mars base in which operations on the ground can commence. You spread out on Mars from there. Craft will have to be devised to give transport on the surface.
The craft used for the Gateway to Deimos/Phobos could be the Nautilus craft that would supply the crew with artificial gravity. It's mission would be to go back and forth between the Gateway and Mars' moons. It should not take an SLS mission to launch that.
With 4 SLS launches and some support launches of lesser rockets, you could install the infrastructure that will allow missions to Mars every two years. That compares with 7 to 10 big SLS rockets to emplace a one off mission to the surface of Mars and back. The value of this approach should be obvious.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
This 2012 article seems to be on the right track. Ion propulsion is much more fuel efficient. It takes longer to arrive to a destination, but that doesn't matter if the idea is to place infrastructure into place. This infrastructure will save money because it will allow reuse of expensive modules. Furthermore, you don't have to drag a whole lot of hardware with you on each trip because one is there already and waiting for you.
Some of the discussion sadly repeats the same pattern of Apollo. Send up a bunch of hardware that only goes on a long trip in order to be sent back. All of this requires a lot of mass, which causes you to have use the big rockets.
The best use of the big rockets is to send up a butt load of hardware that is then forwarded to the LaGrange point by the use of ion thrusters. For example, a lander, empty fuel tanks, and a habitat could be placed a EML-1/2 on a single launch of an SLS. The next mission could send a fuel for multiple landings. If there would be another SLS, send mining equipment down to the surface to gather up LOX. This would be a big help in saving mass that has to be delivered to the station.
Finally, a mission which may not even need an SLS could send a crew.
Only 6 kg per sec, though.
I am going to put a speculation alert on this.
It is also quite preliminary, so it is very, very speculative at this point.
Anyway, my spreadsheet study last night concluded that a Methane/Lox engine pod could propel the spacecraft towards the Moon. The XCor's engines could work, but you will need 3 of them, I'd estimate. That would be for the Earth Departure Stage.
There's a question about what you would do with the EDS. I think send it to a LaGrange point and tow it back to LEO with an ion engine. It would take months, but then you would save on another launch as it would now be reusable.
An insertion burn would be needed. This would include fuel for the burn and lunar surface operations. I am really allowing only a small mass to land. About 2k kilograms dry mass. This is about the mass of the ascent stage of the Lunar Module during the Apollo Era. The plan is to refuel on the surface and return to dock in lunar orbit. This saves considerable mass, which makes the EDS much smaller, which makes the liftoff rocket much smaller.
An XCor rocket could do the honors of the landing. The same as above. Only one should suffice. Even then it may be overpowered.
More thinking on this is necessary as is it all very preliminary.
Perhaps you could use the EDS for the insertion burn and for the landing. How? Make them detachable. Somehow. Otherwise, you need to add engines, tanks and etc.
Here's a possibility. Go to a LaGrange point on the TLI. From the LaGrange point, do the landing and then return. This will require a longer burn, but it may save having to use a lot of hardware and possibly be forced to make expensive equipment expendable. If that idea works, then a reusable lander can take off from the LaGrange point with one XCor engine.
Back to the original thought. Perhaps you could use Xcor's EZrocket for the lunar ops. It runs on LOX too, so lunar oxygen can help reduce the reaction mass needed. These may be expendable, or kept in lunar orbit as needed.
At any rate, all of the masses should be considerably less than Apollo. Which means it could be launched on a Falcon heavy once the infrastructure is in place. This means a Moon base is necessary, or it doesn't make sense.
The whole point should be a Moon base, or what the hell are you doing there?
For example, during the Apollo Era, the capsule went to the moon and back. You only need it for re-entry. You don't need it to go all the way to the Moon.
There was a reason why they did this, of course. The reason is that they would have had to find a way to slow down the re-entry and that would have been complicated. Much simpler just to do it the way they did it. As a result, the mission was set up for safety, and simplicity. Not for optimization of mass. This is why the rocket was so big. If you are going to send tons of equipment to the moon and back, you are going to need a very big rocket to do it.
What this means is that an attempt to go back to the Moon does not require a Saturn V type rocket. It may be possible with just two launches of a Falcon type rocket either existing today, or will exist soon. Probably for the majority of the equipment needed, a Falcon Heavy will do.
If you used a Nuclear Thermal Rocket, a single launch of a Falcon Heavy should suffice.
In addition to that, it should explain why a trip to Mars is going to be frightfully expensive in terms of hardware and launches. If the government insists upon safety above all else, it is going to cost a bundle.
The best way to deal with this is to send everything up before sending people and have it in place in advance. That would include fuel depots. This technology will have to be perfected before a reasonable mission can be attempted. That's the bottom line.
If they don't do this, and send all the equipment at once as they are apparently planning, it will take up to 20 launches of the big SLS rocket in order to get to Mars. No wonder Constellation was canceled. This is wildly impractical.
My prediction is that there will be no Mars mission attempted until NASA changes its thinking.
I have to apologize here. I relied totally upon memory for this post and there is probably an error. There won't be 20 launches, as mentioned just above. It may take as few as 7 launches. The idea is probably not that unrealistic after all. My mistake, sorry.
That's the second time this kind of thing has happened recently, but the other did not result in a post. I have to be a bit more careful.
Here is what I remembered incorrectly, as I wrote about it recently.
But I do stand by what I said about sending "everything at once". This is indeed a lot of launches and equipment going up that might be done in another way.
That and a few other things seemingly all at once. Nothing too serious, but still...
I must be slipping.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Just wait until it stinks up the joint.
Actually, it's a science experiment.
After nearly 80 years they may have an answer.
I got an idea: make an iron man suit. They got most of what they need already.
With 68% efficiency from artificial light, perhaps one can see that you could survive anywhere if you had an energy source of sufficient magnitude. The Sun isn't always available, you see.
link from Instapundit
Well, somebody out there sees an opportunity. Too bad it isn't Americans. We could use the jobs and the wealth creation. This would help wealth creation? You bet! New industries are just waiting to go into business, but won't be able to if the sky is full of junk.
Rhett and Link have a space junk song:
Okay, but what to do about it?
Get Weinstein banned may be good for starters.
I saw this yesterday, but didn't have time to comment upon it. This kind of thing seems like whining to me. What do these people ever do about this things that they complain about? When I read this I think "fine, now what are you going to do about it?"
Meanwhile, the forces of destruction want to shut us all down. If this wasn't a war, it sure gives every impression of being one. If you don't fight back, you lose.
Doing nothing reminds me of the stories I read about the fall of the Roman Empire. All the Romans of that time did was to complain about the Christians. But they wouldn't do any of the fighting and let the barbarians do that. If the barbarians were good fighters and won some battles, they would stab them in the back out of jealousy. If a good Roman was successful, they'd do the same thing. Nothing good can survive in such an environment.
** Rosetta comet-chaser phones home **
Europe's Rosetta spacecraft wakes from its 31-month hibernation, confirming the mission's readiness to hunt down and land on a comet.
** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >
Interesting use of language. I used that yesterday in relation to this story.
Anyway, the comet is 4.5 km in size and since comets are called "dirty snowballs", it would seem that it would be full of carbon and ice. Perfect constituent elements to make tons of methane and lox. Yeah, but who would actually think of doing that?
What I wanted to know is if the BEC could induce quantum entanglement into its constituent elements. So, if the wave itself is in a state of quantum entanglement, are all of atoms making up the wave in the same state?
I was wondering about that because quantum entanglement seems to have the property of changing the relations of space and time. I'm referring to what Einstein called "spooky actions from a distance".
Now with that in mind, what if we were to look at this wave that has become a BEC and posit that it becomes trapped 2 dimensionally, as was done in the photon BEC experiment. If enough atoms are trapped inside a 2 dimensional structure and if enough are entangled, could it be that they could overwhelm the coulomb barrier and begin fusion? The fermionic properties of the individual atoms normally would not allow so many to be there in one space, but if they were acting as bosons, and/or were entangled, would that property change and allow them into close enough proximity?
Monday, January 20, 2014
Look, I've been over that pretty much. For those who think it's over, go look at the history of the Roman Empire. You may conclude it was all over, but in my opinion, it really wasn't over until the last good man was killed off. Then collapse was all but inevitable. But that point had come just 1 generation before the final disposition of the Empire.
In other words, the Empire could have been saved if that one good man had survived a bit longer. Others will argue otherwise. But I think as long as there was somebody capable who could defend the Empire, it would have survived. There was such a man until about 452 or so.
What we have seen with Obama and so forth does not mean its over unless the people give up and nobody cares anymore. That's quite possible, but not inevitable at this point. I think people are really shocked by Obama like the people were in Rome after it was sacked in 410 AD. But Rome could have survived that. But what Rome could not survive was in doing the same things that led to the sack, and that's exactly what they did do and that's why Rome could not live any longer. If you can't or won't learn, you really are a hopeless case.
The history of the oil business is booms and busts. If there's a boom now...
It's a fair write up. Not a fanboy article, nor a too critical one.
Checking out the dirty snowball.
The last person in the world to go pinko,moi, I have to say something can be done about this. My beef is that politicians only make it worse.
Make a lottery for qualified projects that would generate wealth for the rest.
Who could qualify a project? Somebody rich, but be careful who you choose to do this.
The spacesuit should be the main home of an astronaut. Why? Well, the amount of mass that is required in order to properly shield crew members make it too prohibitive to cover a large interior space. A small amount of matter, which could be well south of 1000 lbs, could be used for shielding instead. This would be a big help in not only an astronaut's health on long missions, but in reducing mass so that interplanetary exploration could proceed.
A radical idea ( according to some ) would be to make it a nuclear powered spacesuit. The power generated could recycle the oxygen from the exhaled carbon dioxide and make it unnecessary to keep a large supply of oxygen in the suit. Here's a solution: It turns out that the plutonium that the rover Curiosity uses is not dangerous to humans and has actually been used in pacemakers. This could be a power source that could clean up biological wastes and make them safe to store aboard the spacesuit until they can be removed.
Perhaps the removal can take place once or twice a day. Since the astronauts are spending all their time in the suits, the shielding won't be needed for a pressurized "bathroom" where they could visit to do the necessary chores of maintaining the body and the spacesuit. Other than these visits, a crew member would stay in the suits continually.
It may taking some getting used to, however.
"Both mother and baby are in good health," said Pasquale Carducci, the director of the local hospital.
"Not possible", eh? I supposed it was a virgin birth? Evidently, she was able to fool people all the way up to the point of delivery of the child.
Just remembered something---a TV show called the Flying Nun. I guess the Pregnant Nun was too fat to fly. yuk, yuk
This three year old story isn't exactly news, but something about it got my attention yesterday.
- This photonic Bose-Einstein condensate is a completely new source of light that has characteristics resembling lasers.
- The Bonn physicists then increased the quantity of photons between the mirrors by exciting the pigment solution using a laser. This allowed them to concentrate the cooled-off light particles so strongly that they condensed into a "super-photon."[emphasis added]
- "We are currently not capable of producing lasers that generate very short-wave light -- i.e. in the UV or X-ray range," explained Jan Klärs. "With a photonic Bose-Einstein condensate this should, however, be possible."
This could be a quite significant discovery. So what has been done in the last 3 years?
I googled it and found a few more stories. It has been replicated in the lab. More evidence that these can be collected
- The microwaves from the cavity interacted with the material, generating polaritons. These drifted preferentially along the wire toward the aluminum-free zone, where they collected and condensed.
- In other words, the electronic properties of the material itself replaced the need for cooling, allowing the quasiparticles to gather and condense into a BEC. The experimenters confirmed this effect by detecting the telltale light emission.[emphasis added]
Here's another link with a video. Perhaps sometime, I'll have some time to watch the video, but not now.
Very interesting stuff. One application mentioned in another link above was to use the BEC photons to etch even more powerful computer chips. It is possible because of the X-ray laser that can now be produced, which are of smaller wavelength. There are other applications for X-ray lasers, I'm sure.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
What's the trouble? Well, for one thing, I don't know how this gets taken sometimes. It seems that I've gone off the deep end with the speculations and such, and maybe I should knock it all off. But if I did that, I would only write about the stuff I've actually done. To me, that is all rather boring stuff. So, I won't write about my boring job.
Besides, there's reason for me to believe that even if I look foolish writing some of these speculations, that it may have merit anyway.
I'll give an example. In a psychology book many years ago, I remember reading a story about a program that some of the mind men were given that would help in the targeting for bombers during WWII. The mind men came up with an idea that was rejected by the military, but probably not because it wouldn't work, but because of the way it would look. The idea was to train a bird to peck at a target which gave midcourse corrections for a bomb so that it could stay on a target all of the way in.
Now that sounds ridiculous, I'm sure. But the darned idea could have worked. Especially on a hard target to hit, like an aircraft carrier. The ship could easily avoid a bomb from a high altitude bomber. An innovation like that could have been a game-changer, but it was rejected for reasons that had nothing to do with its efficacy.
So, I won't worry anymore about the way something looks or what its source may look like to some. Even the so-called best and brightest aren't the ones who come up with great ideas. Maybe I won't come up with anything here, but if I don't try, I am guaranteed not to succeed.
Damn the torpedos, full steam ahead.
call BR-549 and ask for Junior.
Note: Woman not included. But you can ask.
repost follows immediately:
Somebody's melting after today. I guess we'll see who shortly.
"SHOCKER": White House, Administration, Defense Secretary, et al knew immediately Benghazi was a terror attack
Obviously, I am not shocked. I included the quotation marks to show that.
Of course they knew. They just needed to lie long enough for things to calm down a bit and get themselves re-elected.
Most people are living in the false world the media and academia has created. They couldn't think for themselves if their very lives depended upon it. They've been indoctrinated very well indeed.
If things are to get better, people are going to have to unlearn what they have learned.
- Students naturally self-select their degree according to a combination of inclination, aptitude, and perseverance. [ check: That's what I did. In fact, I was making my own decisions by the time I was 13 years old. Unfortunately for me, these were not the best possible decisions.]
- Knowledge may be priceless, but a higher education is clearly not. [ check: I got a degree, but little good it did me. It was even in a field that was in demand---computer science. My grades were good. But the quality of the education, which I conclude was inadequate, was the key. That's what I take from this post. Educators ain't educating.]
- Dangerous Children have mastered at least three different ways of supporting themselves financially, by the time they are 18 years of age. [ check. I'm still trying to decide what I'm going to be when I grow up. Clearly, I wasn't a "Dangerous Child".]
If I was like my oldest brother, I would have been a mechanic. I found that out that I wasn't.
I tried sales, but that was no good either.
If I was like my daddy, I would have been a hunter. In his later years, he talked about living off the land. He could do it too. But I never really learned how. Hunting and fishing ain't my bag, baby. But I could do it even now if I had to. So could a whole lot of people. My old man could drive an 18 wheeler. Now, that is something. Not everybody can do that. But the old man died off too early to teach me that.
My mom lived on a farm when she grew up. Family farms are a thing of the past, but may have a comeback when the machines take over.
I started to learn Spanish, but didn't finish that project. Russian too, same story. I did finish my degree, so I got that going for me.