Prev: Quantum Geometry of Spacetime
Next: Energy and Particles are changeable - (reversible) !!!
From: Thomas Heger on 8 Aug 2010 23:04
Hikaru Yamoshi schrieb:
> On Aug 8, 7:49 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> 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?
>
If 'energy' is regarded as conserved, than moving bodies should of
course have energy. Thats what experience tells us and that was in the
title of Einsteins paper 'electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
So particles do not generate energy, but are energetic, as they seem to
balance the energetic input, or, are quantized states of energy.
This energy is timelike stable, but could be released, if these states
would be put in proper resonance.

> i thought inertia, like gravity, is geometry, therfore
> should not generate energy (!)
>
Depends on what you call 'geometry'. Certainly not euclidean geometry,
but GR is actually a geometric theory, but on 'curved spacetime'.
>> 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?
>
Well, they simply don't know. So they test things. But this is what I'm
worrying about, because they could create havoc by this test.

>> 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 !!!
>
But a large one gives a nicer bang.
CERNs objective seem to be to replicate the big-bang and I think, they
could possibly make one.


>> 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 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

Certainly CERNs masterminds should rethink their experiments and safely
exclude a nuclear reaction.


TH
From: Tom Roberts on 9 Aug 2010 00:55
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.


>>> 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
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.


>> 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.


> 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.


> 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
From: dlzc on 10 Aug 2010 12:09
Dear Thomas Heger:

On Aug 7, 9:15 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> dlzc schrieb:
> > 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.

And there are losses from the beam, and heat addition from the
environment. And heaven help them if the magnets "quench".

> The work done by those currents should be
> somewhere, but where is it?

Already listed.

> 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". The entire energy budget has been
listed (especially Tom's contribution). The closest Nature comes to
"energy reservoirs" in this system is the magnetic fields, and the
beams. You seem to comprehend those, and you seem to have no feel for
how limited those must be, and how controllable they are... by design.

Knowledge heals fear. I recommend you go to high school, and learn
some physics. You'll feel a lot better about these "silly" things,
and wonder at all the things we don't know yet.

David A. Smith
From: Thomas Heger on 10 Aug 2010 12:41
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?
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.

th
From: Thomas Heger on 10 Aug 2010 12:59
Thomas Heger schrieb:
> 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?
> 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.

Since you most certainly don't have the faintest idea, what I'm talking
about, 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

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

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

TH

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