It's cool, but the problem is you still end up with ethanol you need to burn. Even at 70% efficiency, you are then running that through an ICE getting you maybe 25% if you get a really efficient engine(which the high octane ratting of ethanol would help with), for an overall of 17.5%. All electric is about 60% outlet to wheels, even with transmission losses you're over 55%.
I'm pretty critical of EVs, but using something you need to combust as the energy storage medium for green electrical generation seems like a nonstarter to me-the thermodynamics of combustion are just so wasteful. In order to replace our transportation petroleum usage with EVs we need to double our electrical production. If we went to something like this we'd need to increase it 8 fold instead.
It's cool, but the problem is you still end up with ethanol you need to burn. Even at 70% efficiency, you are then running that through an ICE getting you maybe 25% if you get a really efficient engine(which the high octane ratting of ethanol would help with), for an overall of 17.5%. All electric is about 60% outlet to wheels, even with transmission losses you're over 55%.
I'm pretty critical of EVs, but using something you need to combust as the energy storage medium for green electrical generation seems like a nonstarter to me-the thermodynamics of combustion are just so wasteful. In order to replace our transportation petroleum usage with EVs we need to double our electrical production. If we went to something like this we'd need to increase it 8 fold instead.
If this has applications its not within cars its with the electric grid itself. The problem is essentially "how do we transfer electricity production from places where and when its renewable to places where we want to consume". Coal plants have an average efficiency of 35% or so, and i've seen claims that they can potentially get up to 91%... Either way you can get some pretty decent efficiency out of steam generator plants.
The problem with them is that they produce CO2. If they didn't produce greenhouse gasses we would barely even care about their efficiency. So really its not the efficiency of the method that is the most important aspect, its the fact that it completes the "loop" so to speak.
Commercially this has few applications because no one cares enough about CO2 production in a hydrocarbon power plant; the price of ethanol isn't high enough and the cost of pollution too low. You would have to institute a national policy in order to generate the loop.
That vacuum decay thing is pretty neat. It could already be happening at multiple places in the universe, and we would never know! Space is so unimaginably huge that even something expanding at the speed of light isn't necessarily a threat.
And of course we could be entirely wrong about the whole thing. And even if we aren't, there's nothing we could do about it anyway.
i see someone's been taking Hitchhiker's guide seriously again.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
Could have already happened. We could be living in a vacuum bubble, the background radiation we see at the edge of the visible universe is the bubble expanding outward.
+8
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I wonder if there could be a second vacuum bubble after the first?
If there are multiples of these things already, what happens when the edges touch? do they annihilate each other?
0
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
For the first time, a team including scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have used neutron beams to create holograms of large solid objects, revealing details about their interiors in ways that ordinary laser light-based visual holograms cannot.
I wonder if there could be a second vacuum bubble after the first?
If there are multiples of these things already, what happens when the edges touch? do they annihilate each other?
Nothing would happen if they touched. Think of it like a flame dropped into the center of a paper. The paper is burning because the reaction gets to it. Multiple reactions getting to a point at the same time doesn't burn the paper harder or anti-burn the paper.
Each new Higgs field could create new realities though, and each one could have different rules of physics
No. The fields themselves should come to rest at the same minimal energy point after the reaction. If you burn two different types of wood you still get ash at the end, one of them isn't gasoline after the reaction.
Using functional magnetic resonance brain imaging (fMRI), scientists at the Northwestern Medicine and the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC) have identified for the first time the region of the brain that's responsible for the "placebo effect" in pain relief. It’s an area in the front part of the brain -- called the mid frontal gyrus -- that also plays a key role in our emotions and decision making.
In two clinical trials involving 95 patients with chronic pain from osteoarthritis, researchers found that about half of the participants had mid frontal gyrus that had more connectivity with other parts of the brain and were more likely to respond to the placebo effect.
that's good news for those of us who deal with chronic pain
Could have already happened. We could be living in a vacuum bubble, the background radiation we see at the edge of the visible universe is the bubble expanding outward.
This is actually consistent with the idea of eternal inflation.
In 1979, Alan Guth introduced the inflationary model of the universe to explain why the universe is flat and homogeneous (which refers to the smooth distribution of matter and radiation on a large scale). [4] The basic idea was that the universe underwent a period of rapidly accelerating expansion a few instants after the Big Bang. He offered a mechanism for causing the inflation to begin: false vacuum energy. Guth coined the term "inflation," and was the first to discuss the theory with other scientists worldwide.
Guth's original formulation was problematic, as there was no consistent way to bring an end to the inflationary epoch and end up with the hot, isotropic, homogeneous universe observed today. Although the false vacuum could decay into empty "bubbles" of "true vacuum" that expanded at the speed of light, the empty bubbles could not coalesce to reheat the universe, because they could not keep up with the remaining inflating universe.
In 1982, this "graceful exit problem" was solved independently by Andrei Linde and by Andreas Albrecht and Paul J. Steinhardt.[5] who showed how to end inflation without making empty bubbles and, instead, end up with a hot expanding universe. The basic idea was to have a continuous "slow-roll" or slow evolution from false vacuum to true without making any bubbles. The improved model was called "new inflation."
In 1983, Paul Steinhardt was the first to show that this "new inflation" does not have to end everywhere. [1] Instead, it might only end in a finite patch or a hot bubble full of matter and radiation, and that inflation continues in most of the universe while producing hot bubble after hot bubble along the way. Alexander Vilenkin showed that when quantum effects are properly included, this is actually generic to all new inflation models.[2]
Though, eternal inflation may be on uneven footing regarding its status as a scientific theory.
In 1983, inflation was shown to be eternal leading a multiverse in which space is broken up into bubbles or patches whose properties differ from patch to patch spanning all physical possibilities.
Paul Steinhardt, who produced the first example of eternal inflation, [1]eventually became a strong and vocal opponent of the theory. He argued that the multiverse represented a breakdown of the inflationary theory, because, in a multiverse, any outcome is equally possible, so inflation makes no predictions and, hence, is untestable. Consequently, he argued, inflation fails a key condition for a scientific theory.[18][19]
Both Linde and Guth, however, continued to support the inflationary theory and the multiverse:
“It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.“ Alan Guth. [20]
“It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real.” Andrei Linde. [20]
Using functional magnetic resonance brain imaging (fMRI), scientists at the Northwestern Medicine and the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC) have identified for the first time the region of the brain that's responsible for the "placebo effect" in pain relief. It’s an area in the front part of the brain -- called the mid frontal gyrus -- that also plays a key role in our emotions and decision making.
In two clinical trials involving 95 patients with chronic pain from osteoarthritis, researchers found that about half of the participants had mid frontal gyrus that had more connectivity with other parts of the brain and were more likely to respond to the placebo effect.
that's good news for those of us who deal with chronic pain
Huh, I'd be super curious to see what sort of implications this also has for other disorders.
That would probably have a very strong correlation for successful hypnotherapy as well I would imagine.
We all want there to be aliens. Green ones, pink ones, brown ones, Greys. Or maybe Vulcans, Klingons, even a being of pure energy. Any type will do.
That's why whenever a mysterious signal or energetic fluctuation arrives from somewhere in the cosmos and hits one of our many telescopes, headlines erupt across the media: "Have We Finally Detected An Alien Signal?" or "Have Astronomers Discovered An Alien Megastructure?" But science-minded people know that we're probably getting ahead of ourselves.
Skepticism still rules the day when it comes to these headlines, and the events that spawn them. That's the way it should be, because we've always found a more prosaic reason for whatever signal from space we're talking about. But, being skeptical is a balancing act; it doesn't mean being dismissive.
What we're talking about here is a new study from E.F. Borra and E. Trottier, two astronomers at Laval University in Canada. Their study, titled "Discovery of peculiar periodic spectral modulations in a small fraction of solar type stars" was just published at arXiv.org. ArXiv.org is a pre-print website, so the paper itself hasn't been peer reviewed yet. But it is generating interest.
...
We all want there to be aliens, and maybe the first sign of them will be pulsed light signals from stars like our own sun. But it's all still very preliminary, and as the authors acknowledge, "…at this stage, this hypothesis needs to be confirmed with further work."
That further work is already being planned by the Breakthrough Listen Initiative, a project that searches for intelligent life in the cosmos. They plan to use the Automated Planet Finder telescope at the Lick Observatory to further observe some of Borra's 234 stars.
The Breakthrough team don't seem that excited about Borra's findings. They've already poured cold water on it, trotting out the old axiom that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in a statement on Borra's paper. They also give Borra's findings a score of 0 to 1 on the Rio Scale. The Rio Scale is something used by the international SETI community to rank detections of phenomena that could indicate advanced life beyond Earth. A rating of 0 to 1 means its insignificant.
A Fourier transform analysis of 2.5 million spectra in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey was carried out to detect periodic spectral modulations. Signals having the same period were found in only 234 stars overwhelmingly in the F2 to K1 spectral range. The signals cannot be caused by instrumental or data analysis effects because they are present in only a very small fraction of stars within a narrow spectral range and because signal-to-noise ratio considerations predict that the signal should mostly be detected in the brightest objects, while this is not the case. We consider several possibilities, such as rotational transitions in molecules, rapid pulsations, Fourier transform of spectral lines, and signals generated by extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). They cannot be generated by molecules or rapid pulsations. It is highly unlikely that they come from the Fourier transform of spectral lines because too many strong lines located at nearly periodic frequencies are needed. Finally, we consider the possibility, predicted in a previous published paper, that the signals are caused by light pulses generated by ETI to makes us aware of their existence. We find that the detected signals have exactly the shape of an ETI signal predicted in the previous publication and are therefore in agreement with this hypothesis. The fact that they are only found in a very small fraction of stars within a narrow spectral range centered near the spectral type of the Sun is also in agreement with the ETI hypothesis. However, at this stage, this hypothesis needs to be confirmed with further work. Although unlikely, there is also a possibility that the signals are due to highly peculiar chemical compositions in a small fraction of galactic halo stars.
Obviously, there's a very high chance this is nothing but hype given the paper hasn't even finished going through peer-review yet, and really we just have to wait and see if the BLI is able to verify that there's actually anything of interest here. From cursory searching it seems like the researchers are at least legit; Borra has a decent publication history.
Winky on
0
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
I'll be honest; modulating the output of a star somehow (massive filter array? Magnetic satellites?) seems like a good way to get the attention of someone else on a civilisation kinda level… but there's always the same old problem; why would an alien signal look like anything we would expect?
Even our most basic long range communication using the em spectrum used a peculiar aspect of our own biology interacting with our atmosphere to modulate a narrow sub-set of the frequencies most easily transmitted through the characteristic band gaps in an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere. Why would that look anything like communication to a species that communicates by bioluminescent patterns and encodes that for long range transmission via a special "lens" made of frequency shifting crystals that give their natural light better penetration of their methatne-hydrogen atmosphere?
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Because of the weak anthropic principle, applied to alien-hunting.
No, really. The weak anthropic principle answers the question "Why does the universe have all these laws of physic and chemistry that seem perfect to give rise to life that would eventually get intelligent enough to understand some of them?" with "Because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to ask the question, duh. You're speculating on a small data set. Get your eyes back on the microscope/telescope/thingoscope."
So why would we bother to start off an alien hunt by looking for signs of aliens we wouldn't expect, when we literally don't expect them?
Plus, we know life can exist in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere on a planet with 75% surface water and X amount of sunlight. Why do you think we got so excited when we found evidence of water on Mars? Or that it seems like there's a huge ocean under Europa's glaciers? First rule of science: replicate the results.
+11
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
in the same article they claim it is fuel-less and that it uses electricity as fuel
No fuel as in reactant mass.
Yes fuel in that it has something that makes it go.
Doesn't make it any less eye-rolling but let's not bury the lead, here.
I know this but I don't think the article's author does. They were writing like it breaks the laws of thermodynamics, omg free energy, perpetual motion machines! etc.
in the same article they claim it is fuel-less and that it uses electricity as fuel
No fuel as in reactant mass.
Yes fuel in that it has something that makes it go.
Doesn't make it any less eye-rolling but let's not bury the lead, here.
I know this but I don't think the article's author does. They were writing like it breaks the laws of thermodynamics, omg free energy, perpetual motion machines! etc.
I don't get that at all. They're talking about thrust/kw and how it breaks Newton's laws, not thermodynamics
So, according to Newton and our current understanding of the world around us, for a system to produce propulsion, it has to push something out the other way (in space, that's usually combusted rocket fuel).
But the EM Drive works without any fuel or propellants at all.
Fuel in this sense is the same as propellant or reaction mass, not "input energy"
Posts
I'm pretty critical of EVs, but using something you need to combust as the energy storage medium for green electrical generation seems like a nonstarter to me-the thermodynamics of combustion are just so wasteful. In order to replace our transportation petroleum usage with EVs we need to double our electrical production. If we went to something like this we'd need to increase it 8 fold instead.
If this has applications its not within cars its with the electric grid itself. The problem is essentially "how do we transfer electricity production from places where and when its renewable to places where we want to consume". Coal plants have an average efficiency of 35% or so, and i've seen claims that they can potentially get up to 91%... Either way you can get some pretty decent efficiency out of steam generator plants.
The problem with them is that they produce CO2. If they didn't produce greenhouse gasses we would barely even care about their efficiency. So really its not the efficiency of the method that is the most important aspect, its the fact that it completes the "loop" so to speak.
Commercially this has few applications because no one cares enough about CO2 production in a hydrocarbon power plant; the price of ethanol isn't high enough and the cost of pollution too low. You would have to institute a national policy in order to generate the loop.
But the fact that you could is important.
And of course we could be entirely wrong about the whole thing. And even if we aren't, there's nothing we could do about it anyway.
Eat at Arby's.
If there are multiples of these things already, what happens when the edges touch? do they annihilate each other?
Nothing would happen if they touched. Think of it like a flame dropped into the center of a paper. The paper is burning because the reaction gets to it. Multiple reactions getting to a point at the same time doesn't burn the paper harder or anti-burn the paper.
No. The fields themselves should come to rest at the same minimal energy point after the reaction. If you burn two different types of wood you still get ash at the end, one of them isn't gasoline after the reaction.
that's good news for those of us who deal with chronic pain
This is actually consistent with the idea of eternal inflation.
Though, eternal inflation may be on uneven footing regarding its status as a scientific theory.
Look at that spacetime dance!
Huh, I'd be super curious to see what sort of implications this also has for other disorders.
That would probably have a very strong correlation for successful hypnotherapy as well I would imagine.
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-stars-strange-aliens-contact.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/128/969/114201
Abstract of the actual article itself:
Obviously, there's a very high chance this is nothing but hype given the paper hasn't even finished going through peer-review yet, and really we just have to wait and see if the BLI is able to verify that there's actually anything of interest here. From cursory searching it seems like the researchers are at least legit; Borra has a decent publication history.
Even our most basic long range communication using the em spectrum used a peculiar aspect of our own biology interacting with our atmosphere to modulate a narrow sub-set of the frequencies most easily transmitted through the characteristic band gaps in an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere. Why would that look anything like communication to a species that communicates by bioluminescent patterns and encodes that for long range transmission via a special "lens" made of frequency shifting crystals that give their natural light better penetration of their methatne-hydrogen atmosphere?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
No, really. The weak anthropic principle answers the question "Why does the universe have all these laws of physic and chemistry that seem perfect to give rise to life that would eventually get intelligent enough to understand some of them?" with "Because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to ask the question, duh. You're speculating on a small data set. Get your eyes back on the microscope/telescope/thingoscope."
So why would we bother to start off an alien hunt by looking for signs of aliens we wouldn't expect, when we literally don't expect them?
Plus, we know life can exist in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere on a planet with 75% surface water and X amount of sunlight. Why do you think we got so excited when we found evidence of water on Mars? Or that it seems like there's a huge ocean under Europa's glaciers? First rule of science: replicate the results.
Normally I'd exercise some more caution about this type of science reporting (I don't even know if the paper is legit) but
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
THEY PLAN TO.
BUT DO IT FASTER DAMMIT
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Plus they have a direct link to the paper.
I wouldn't doubt it if it is. It was just the first link after a google search, but the story it's reporting is real
Yes fuel in that it has something that makes it go.
Doesn't make it any less eye-rolling but let's not bury the lead, here.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Both of those things are true. The drive requires power (which is a fuel) but it doesn't require fuel.
I know this but I don't think the article's author does. They were writing like it breaks the laws of thermodynamics, omg free energy, perpetual motion machines! etc.
I don't get that at all. They're talking about thrust/kw and how it breaks Newton's laws, not thermodynamics
Fuel in this sense is the same as propellant or reaction mass, not "input energy"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/
Better?
The section about how their force measurement device is sensitive enough to pick up wave action on the Gulf of Mexico on windy days is pretty great.
Mistakes were made!
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN