 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / What If / July 2008What if: Romans see potential of Steam Power?
It is well known and accepted that simple steam engines -- mostly used for toys to amuse the wealthy -- existed under the Roman Empire from the early centuries of the Christian era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria Nevertheless, fifteen hundred years were to pass before the steam engine became the force that propelled England and the rest of Europe into the Industrial Revolution. Why the enormous lapse of time before the full potential of steam power was exploited? While a number of critical inventions were made that proved useful in the development of steam power -- in particular, cast iron, itself derived from the coke produced in blast furnaces -- in the intervening millenium and a half, were these really beyond the power and conception of the Roman mind? What if the Romans had seen the full potential of steam power? Would their empire still have fallen? What affects would such technological developments have had on the form and extent of the empire? On government. On the economy. On the military. On religion. On Christianity. In particular, why didn't the Romans develop steam power? What, exactly was the obstacle, or obstacles? Were they technological, social, economic, religious? > In particular, why didn't the Romans develop steam power? What, > exactly was the obstacle, or obstacles? Were they technological, > social, economic, religious? There was no economic rationalization, no need for it. Yes, it would have made building large things easier, but labor was perfectly synched into the economy (which is tightly coupled with the social rationale). >> In particular, why didn't the Romans develop steam power? What, >> exactly was the obstacle, or obstacles? Were they technological, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >have made building large things easier, but labor was perfectly synched >into the economy (which is tightly coupled with the social rationale). Wasn't it Vespasian who rejected a proposal to use improved machines to hoist stones into position during building because it'd prevent the roman poor earning money and lead to instability?  SignatureAndy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair) > In article <7sSdnUV-PIB34MvVnZ2dnUVZ_uedn...@supernews.com>, > >> In particular, why didn't the Romans develop steam power? What, > >> exactly was the obstacle, or obstacles? Were they technological, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > hoist stones into position during building because it'd prevent the > roman poor earning money and lead to instability? I think the concept of socio-economic obstacles to scientific and technological progress is well worthy of exploration. It hasn't been studied much at all, as far as I'm aware. People tend to call you a "conspiracy nut" if you even mention the possibility, actually. > It is well known and accepted that simple steam engines -- mostly used > for toys to amuse the wealthy -- existed under the Roman Empire from [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > exactly was the obstacle, or obstacles? Were they technological, > social, economic, religious? The had enough slaves. e. > "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > In particular, why didn't the Romans develop steam power? What, > > exactly was the obstacle, or obstacles? Were they technological, > > social, economic, religious? > > The had enough slaves. > e. Just to draw a parallel. Any chance that the reason we have failed so miserably to develop controlled nuclear fusion is that we still have enough oil? In article <5af6271e-178f-41b9-b97c-35e77db55991@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > miserably to develop controlled nuclear fusion is that we still have > enough oil? No. CNF is *hard* to do, at least by the approaches being largely funded so far. On Jun 16, 10:22 am, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote: > In article > <5af6271e-178f-41b9-b97c-35e77db55...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > In particular, why didn't the Romans develop steam power? What, > > > > exactly was the obstacle, or obstacles? Were they technological, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No. CNF is *hard* to do, at least by the approaches being largely funded > so far. Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled nuclear fusion is virtually impossible to do. And incredibly expensive. So, I really don't quite understand why comparatively simple and cheap inertial containment technologies are not being funded at nearly the same levels as electromagnetic containment approaches. Unless, of course, the people providing the funding don't really want to get it to work, yet. Because we're not out of oil, yet. > On Jun 16, 10:22 am, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > really want to get it to work, yet. Because we're not out of oil, > yet. I think you are attributing hyper-competence to "the people providing the funding", since its not all coming from the same source. Just IMO. But I think the current indicator of "because we're not out of oil yet" is when a new technology is labelled as "not economically feasible". When it starts to become "economically feasible" I think would be the modern equivalent of "Hmm, maybe we don't have enough slaves." SignatureHistory Channel is showing 'Ice Road Truckers' as part of their "American Originals" brand of shows. Too bad they're Canadian truckers. Jerry Kraus wrote:> > Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled > nuclear fusion is virtually impossible to do. And incredibly > expensive. So, I really don't quite understand why comparatively > simple and cheap inertial containment technologies are not being > funded at nearly the same levels as electromagnetic containment > approaches. That is because they do not work so well in principle. The best inertial confinement field provided by nature is the massive gravitational field. Bob Kolker > Jerry Kraus wrote:> > > Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That is because they do not work so well in principle. The best inertial > confinement field provided by nature is the massive gravitational field. I wouldn't say that stars use inertial confinement. They use gravitational confinement. Inertial confinement uses, well, the inertia of particles provided by a shock wave, to generate a pulse of fusion via increases in density and temperature. Eg via a z-pinch device or laser. Other types of fusion are magnetic confinement (eg the ITER white elephant) and electro-static confinement (eg the Polywell). > > Jerry Kraus wrote:> > > > Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > a shock wave, to generate a pulse of fusion via increases in density > and temperature. The Sun uses gravity to achieve what we feebly try to achieve transiently by inertia. Remembering that gravity and inertia both refer to the effects of particles traversing geodesics, I think it's an apt analogy. The're on the same page. <...> > > > Jerry Kraus wrote:> > > > > Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > refer to the effects of particles traversing geodesics, I think it's > an apt analogy. The're on the same page. He didn't use it as an analogy. He said it was inertial confinement. Gravitational confinement is on the same page as electro-static confinement - a central potential, with continuously output. Inertial confinement isn't gravitational confinement. There's no potential well at all, and you get a pulse. > > > > Jerry Kraus wrote:> > > > > > Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Inertial confinement isn't gravitational confinement. There's no > potential well at all, and you get a pulse.- Hide quoted text - Term of art. I stand by my arguments. Edward Green wrote:> > Term of art. I stand by my arguments. Motion in a gravitational field is uncoerced inertial motion along a manifold geodesic. Intertial confinement derives energy from interrupting such motion. In either case you are right. Freefall is a great source of energy when the free falling body goes splat! Bob Kolker > Jerry Kraus wrote:> > > Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That is because they do not work so well in principle. The best inertial > confinement field provided by nature is the massive gravitational field. Speaking of the HFRS (Huge Fusion Reactor in the Sky), just what fraction of the implied free energy in the incidence of its radiation on Earth do we capture? (Include all useful plants, if you like). Let's make up a figure "7%". Imagine we could increase it to 14%. My wacky goal is, capture the energy implicit in hurricanes, before they go boom. This is massive destructive waste work done by the HFRS. >> Jerry Kraus wrote:> >>> Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they go boom. This is massive destructive waste work done by the > HFRS. But hurricanes do good by stirring the ocean. /BAH > >> Jerry Kraus wrote:> > >>> Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > But hurricanes do good by stirring the ocean. Why is that good? >>>> Jerry Kraus wrote:> >>>>> Oh, I agree that using electromagnetic containment to do controlled [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Why is that good? oxygen. wouldn't the waters in the deep become stale (or is turgid a better term?)? Rain. The southeast US had a drought last summer. /BAH > EdwardGreenwrote: > >> EdwardGreenwrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > oxygen. wouldn't the waters in the deep become stale (or is > turgid a better term?)? Turbid? I don't know. So you propose that my little scheme to Tamper with Nature will have Unintended Consequences: in this case that the oceans will die because we've stopped the cyclonic storms which oxygenated them? It's always thus! I have no idea whether ordinary wind and wave action is sufficient or whether major storms have a significant impact on oxygenation. I don't think even cat 5 storms stir the deep ocean much though: any oxygen which gets down there is by some other type of stirring... convection over hot spots? Save the hurricances! >> EdwardGreenwrote: >>>> EdwardGreenwrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > oxygen which gets down there is by some other type of stirring... > convection over hot spots? Wouldn't there be some kind of current created when large amounts of water evaporate? Hot and cold also cause stirring. I would think that a storm, which creates hundred foot waves, and moves in a constant direction would stir things up. > Save the hurricances! I think leaving them alone would be better. "saving" in this world of Hollywood thinking implies some kind of action. /BAH jmfbahciv wrote:> > But hurricanes do good by stirring the ocean. Catch them just before landfall. Bob Kolker > jmfbahciv wrote:> >> >> But hurricanes do good by stirring the ocean. > > Catch them just before landfall. Was it just my imagination that the southeast US had a bad drought last summer? Hurricanes bring rain. /BAH In article <4d12a9ca-41bc-41ae-9c4f-c2966747e010@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > On Jun 16, 10:22 am, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > funded at nearly the same levels as electromagnetic containment > approaches. Because they're not really all that much, if any, easier to do. > Unless, of course, the people providing the funding don't > really want to get it to work, yet. Because we're not out of oil, > yet. Only if you really believe in conspiracies. Mostly it's a case of the EMC types having been more convincing initially. Once the government money starts to flow, changing direction is extremely hard to accomplish. It's really that simple; they've committed to an approach. Changing to another would be admitting that they were wrong. Can't have that. Whoever gets controlled fusion to work reliably is going to become stinking, filthy rich. Oil-based rich is going to be chicken feed in comparison. Don't forget; the "oil companies" are really energy companies. If anyone is going to be making money from fusion tech, they will be in there if it's possible to make money doing it. >On Jun 16, 10:22 am, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >really want to get it to work, yet. Because we're not out of oil, >yet. Your reasoning makes no sense. They would have no reason to fund the electromagnetic experiments either. It is likely that the "simple and cheap" inertial containment technologies are not funded because they obviouly wouldn't work. > On Jun 16, 10:22 am, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > really want to get it to work, yet. Because we're not out of oil, > yet.- Conspiracy nut. :-) > > On Jun 16, 10:22 am, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > really want to get it to work, yet. Because we're not out of oil, > > yet.- Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text - > Conspiracy nut. :-)- My friend, I'm just wondering what the problem is? Why such total failure of so many "brilliant" minds? > > > On Jun 16, 10:22 am, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > My friend, I'm just wondering what the problem is? Why such total > failure of so many "brilliant" minds?- Hide quoted text - I was just using your own sobriquet. But maybe the problem is just too hard. Or maybe you're right: "energy too cheap to meter" overnight would upset a lot of applecarts. > Or maybe you're right: "energy too cheap to meter" overnight would > upset a lot of applecarts.- I think this possibility is quite real. Along with the fact that radically new technologies are generally not money makers for their inventors. Too hard to control the patents. We may need to create an incentive for people and companies to develop radically new technologies that supplements conventional free market incentives. >> Or maybe you're right: "energy too cheap to meter" overnight would >> upset a lot of applecarts.- > > I think this possibility is quite real. Breaking physical laws is a possibility???!!!! > Along with the fact that > radically new technologies are generally not money makers for their > inventors. Too hard to control the patents. Oh, come on people. If a person produced some kind of magic that provided power not based on oil, s/he could make billions just being a "hero"; s/he wouldn't need income from the patent. > We may need to create an > incentive for people and companies to develop radically new > technologies that supplements conventional free market incentives. No, we need politicians and a general populace who deals with reality. Obama finally uttered those two swear words, Nuclear Power, but only wrapped in terms of R&D. I supposed this is an improvement over pretending this power source doesn't exist but it's still full of fairies and sprites and pixies. /BAH > No, we need politicians and a general populace who deals with reality. > > Obama finally uttered those two swear words, Nuclear Power, but only > wrapped in terms of R&D. I supposed this is an improvement over > pretending this power source doesn't exist but it's still full > of fairies and sprites and pixies. Interesting angle. So, you're suggesting that the problem with our approach to nuclear power is that we're afraid of it. So, private inventors don't want to touch it, no cash prizes are awarded for developing it, philosophers don't speculate about it, engineers don't study it. I think you might have a point, there. A bit like the mediaeval Christian fear of "witchcraft", which suppressed the development of mathematics and chemistry, for example. "Nuclear Energy is the Spawn of Satan!!! Nuclear Energy will destroy the Planet!!!" This attitude, could, indeed, explain a lot of the problems in developing controlled nuclear fusion. >> No, we need politicians and a general populace who deals with reality. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Interesting angle. So, you're suggesting that the problem with our > approach to nuclear power is that we're afraid of it. No. Fear isn't the reason. I still haven't figured the real reason for this idiocy of Congress and Democrats. > So, private > inventors don't want to touch it, no cash prizes are awarded for > developing it, philosophers don't speculate about it, engineers don't > study it. I think you might have a point, there. A bit like the > mediaeval Christian fear of "witchcraft", which suppressed the > development of mathematics and chemistry, for example. Man, when you go off your deep end, you really make a big leap. > "Nuclear Energy is the Spawn of Satan!!! Nuclear Energy will destroy > the Planet!!!" Sigh! This is mentioning the words. Democrats don't even say them; you should start to wonder why this is so. Work on preventing your thoughts from thinking in terms of Hollywood dramas. > This attitude, could, indeed, explain a lot of the problems in > developing controlled nuclear fusion. I saw a device that did that kind of stuff in 1984 or earlier. If there had been only an attitude problem with nuclear fusion, there would devices all over the place. The problem is physical. what don't you understand about that? /BAH The problem is physical. what > don't you understand about that? Oh, I understand there are technical problems. As there were technical problems with the development of steam power. That doesn't mean it's impossible. It means there's something wrong with our appraoch. What don't you understand about that? > Oh, I understand there are technical problems. As there were > technical problems with the development of steam power. That doesn't > mean it's impossible. It means there's something wrong with our > appraoch. What don't you understand about that? The problems with fusion are at the theoretical level. We do not have energy levels that can match the gravitational potential of the sun. We are also up against stability problems and thermodynamics. How do you unburn water. How do you overcome coulomb forces? Bob Kolker > > Oh, I understand there are technical problems. As there were > > technical problems with the development of steam power. That doesn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bob Kolker As I keep repeating, Bob, the trick is to make the focal area extremely small. To achieve nuclear fusion in a cubic nanometer, we really don't need the gravitational potential of the sun now, do we? > As I keep repeating, Bob, the trick is to make the focal area > extremely small. To achieve nuclear fusion in a cubic nanometer, we > really don't need the gravitational potential of the sun now, do we? We don't have the technology for it and it is not clear it is theoretically possible. The only real fusion that occurs in nature is the kind produced by gravitational potential in massive clouds of gas. The only manmade fusion occurs with deutrium subjected the the temperature produced by a fission explosion. To make an H-bomb, you need an A-bomb and that is not nano-tech. Your suggestion is like this: to make your first million $$$$ make your second million $$ then double it. So easy to speak of. So hard to do. Bob Kolker - > We don't have the technology for it and it is not clear it is > theoretically possible. The only real fusion that occurs in nature is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So easy to speak of. So hard to do. Uh...Duuuuuuuuhhhh...yeah. This IS rocket science! This is something new, it will require risks, imagination and systematic applied experimentation. But it's a simple and plausible approach, unlike electromagnetic containment. > - > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Uh...Duuuuuuuuhhhh...yeah. This IS rocket science! No, it is not rocket science. > This is > something new, it will require risks, Sigh! What kinds of risks? You are still thinking in Hollywood terms. > imagination No, that kind of "science" only works on gooeys. > and systematic > applied experimentation. have you read any of the papers written about the experiments done? >But it's a simple and plausible approach, > unlike electromagnetic containment. Go do it. If you don't, why not? /BAH > Go do it. If you don't, why not? Good question. It would be moderately expensive, and extremely dangerous. To develop controlled nuclear fusion using nanotechnology and intertial containment, that is. Also, not much likelihood of making any money out of it. Impossible to control a patent on something with this wide an application. >> Go do it. If you don't, why not? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >making any money out of it. Impossible to control a patent on >something with this wide an application. Get real. The idea that something with wide applications would be difficult to make money from is idiotic. > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:30:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >making any money out of it. Impossible to control a patent on > >something with this wide an application. > Get real. The idea that something with wide applications would be > difficult to make money from is idiotic. David, David, David, David. Have you ever studied the history of science and technology? Let me provide you with a simple example. Eli Whitney is well known as the inventor of the "Cotton Gin", an automated mechanism for processing cotton for the manufacture of clothing and fabric. His invention virtually created the "Old South", a commerical empire based on Slaves picking cotton and shipping it off for processing in Northern American Factories with water and steam powered Cotton Gins. Eli Whitney didn't make a single dime from from his invention. Not a single penny. The same people who were making a fortune by exploiting his invention were sitting on the juries deciding the application of Eli Whitney's patent. Not surprisingly, they didn't think they owed him any money for using his invention! Very few inventors make a dime from their inventions, whether they are used or not. It is extremely difficult to enforce a patent, especially if it has very wide application. Ideas cannot be patented. Only very specific technical innovations. Look into it, David. The Ballad of Eli Whitney Let me tell you the story ‘bout a man they say Changed the course of history. He wasn’t any soldier , and he wasn’t any King, But he sure was a wizard when he fabricated things. He’s the first one mentioned of inventor’s fame, Eli Whitney was his name. Chorus: Old Eli didn’t give a damn, Because he was an Engineering Man, “I like makin’ money and I’m good with my hands,” “And I don’t really give a damn.” Now Eli was a farmer’s boy, He learned his fabricatin’ on the fly, He could fix any tractor, he could make them spry, But they still only paid him for cleaning out the sty. “Now Eli, you’re a genius Man,” “But we don’t really give a damn.” Chorus: Old Eli didn’t give a damn, Because he was an Engineering Man, “I like makin’ money and I’m good with my hands,” “And I don’t really give a damn.” So Eli went down Harvard’s way, An education will make them pay, A genius with a good degree, And a first-class referee, Can find a rich man who’ll employ Him as a tutor/servant/toy. Chorus: Old Eli didn’t give a damn, Because he was an Engineering Man, “I like makin’ money and I’m good with my hands,” “And I don’t really give a damn.” There Eli went and plied his trade Finding new things to be made. He thought it would be no sin To come up with a cotton gin. In just one day he had that sucker made. Revolutionized the cotton trade. Chorus: Old Eli didn’t give a damn, Because he was an Engineering Man, “I like makin’ money and I’m good with my hands,” “And I don’t really give a damn.” But this time round, the Black Man’s pain, Didn’t turn to Eli’s gain, All that money for the Northern Plants, Not a cent in Eli’s pants. Eli learned his lesson well. He must first control and sell. Chorus: Old Eli didn’t give a damn, Because he was an Engineering Man, “I like makin’ money and I’m good with my hands,” “And I don’t really give a damn.” So bein’ a practical sorta guy, Eli went the normal way “If I wanna make money, it’s no joke,” “I better get to killen’ folk.” So to put money in his pants, He went into armaments. Chorus: Old Eli didn’t give a damn, Because he was an Engineering Man, “I like makin’ money and I’m good with my hands,” “And I don’t really give a damn.” © Copyright Jerome Raymond Kraus 2005 >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:30:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >powered Cotton Gins. Eli Whitney didn't make a single dime from from >his invention. Not a single penny. He didn't but a hell of a lot of other people did. The same people who were making a >fortune by exploiting his invention were sitting on the juries >deciding the application of Eli Whitney's patent. If it had been one of those people who made the invention, he would have had a lot more luck getting the patent. Not surprisingly, >they didn't think they owed him any money for using his invention! >Very few inventors make a dime from their inventions, whether they are >used or not. So, what's the name of the inventor who came up with the fusion power plant design which is being suppressed? > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus But Whitney did not "invent" the cotton gin There is slight controversy over whether the idea of the cotton gin and its constituent elements are correctly attributed to Eli Whitney. The popular version of Whitney inventing the cotton gin is attributed to an article on the subject in the early 1870s and later reprinted in 1910 in the The Library of Southern Literature. In this article Andrews mentioned how Catherine Littlefield Greene suggested to Whitney the use of a brush-like component instrumental to separate out the seeds and cotton. Historians later explored this idea, and some consider that Catherine Littlefield Greene, Whitney's landlady, should be credited with the invention of the cotton gin, or at least with the original concept. Women were not eligible to receive patents in the early U.S., and Greene may have asked Whitney to obtain it for her. Patent office records also indicate that the first cotton gin may have been built by a machinist named Sean Paul two years before Whitney's patent was filed. Joseph Watkins, who resided near Petersburg, Georgia is credited by many historians as the first inventor of the cotton gin, and was using it on his plantation when he was visited by the frustrated Eli Whitney, who on seeing it went back to Savannah and soon developed his model which he patented. Watkins was urged to sue Whitney, but had no desire to engage in a controversy and never asserted his claim. Watkins was a planter of large means, who pursued the study and application of mechanics more for amusement than profit. While the Watkins story had some romantic adherents, and still others have credited Hodgson Holmes, later publication of certain of Whitney's papers, including letters to his family during the invention process, showed the claims to be lacking foundation. At least according to Whitney's papers. >>On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > be credited with the invention of the cotton gin, or at least with the > original concept. She got the idea while combing cooties out of her hair. Bob Kolker >> Go do it. If you don't, why not? > > Good question. It would be moderately expensive, and extremely > dangerous. To develop controlled nuclear fusion using nanotechnology > and intertial containment, that is. I suppose you could be more vague and speak with more glittering generalities but it isn't immediately apparent how. :-) I think we should apply boojum technology and finite topology to the problem. Of course that would be moderately fearsome and extremely ugly. Bob Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein > >> Go do it. If you don't, why not? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > A. Einstein Allow me to be more specific. 10,000 microlasers all aimed at a focal point. Should be able to produce a temperature of tens of millions of degrees centigrade at the focal point. Which is all that is really needed, to achieve nuclear fusion. Heat should dissipate within a few meters, if the focal point is small enough. Energy produced should be at conventional levels, if the focal point is small enough. > Allow me to be more specific. 10,000 microlasers all aimed at a focal > point. Should be able to produce a temperature of tens of millions of > degrees centigrade at the focal point. Which is all that is really > needed, to achieve nuclear fusion. Heat should dissipate within a few > meters, if the focal point is small enough. Energy produced should be > at conventional levels, if the focal point is small enough. And what assurance do you have that the energy derived will be sufficient to keep those micro-lasers lasing. We have controlled fusion reactors that produce energy output, but not enough to sustain the reaction. Bob Kolker > > Allow me to be more specific. 10,000 microlasers all aimed at a focal > > point. Should be able to produce a temperature of tens of millions of > > degrees centigrade at the focal point. Which is all that is really > > needed, to achieve nuclear fusion. Heat should dissipate within a few > > meters, if the focal point is small enough. Energy produced should be > > at conventional levels, if the focal point is small enough. . > Bob Kolker > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > And what assurance do you have that the energy derived will be > sufficient to keep those micro-lasers lasing. We have controlled fusion > reactors that produce energy output, but not enough to sustain the reaction Well, you know, that's the thing about fundamentally new technologies, Bob. You never really know exactly what they're going to do until you actually build them, and try them out. On the other hand, obviously there would be an awful lot of variables that could be tweaked here, relatively cheaply -- the number of microlasers, their power and energy levels, the heat they generated. Sounds credible that some arrangement could be discovered that would produce more energy than it consumed, given the incredible efficiency of fusion energy production. Sounds worth a try. Particularly since much less plausible approaches involving electromagnetic containment are having tens of billions of dollar spent on them, as we speak. >>>> Go do it. If you don't, why not? >>> Good question. It would be moderately expensive, and extremely [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > point. Should be able to produce a temperature of tens of millions of > degrees centigrade at the focal point. Not if each of those 10,000 microlasers is limited, by a cooling requirement for example, to less than 1/10,000 of the output of a single one scaled up appropriately. I don't know this to be true. I just intend to point out that the fact that you can say something doesn't necessarily give it physical feasability. Bob Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein >> >> Go do it. If you don't, why not? >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >degrees centigrade at the focal point. Which is all that is really >needed, to achieve nuclear fusion. It is not enough to achieve nuclear fusion. That was done a long time ago. One must also get more power out of it than one puts in. > It is not enough to achieve nuclear fusion. That was done a long time > ago. One must also get more power out of it than one puts in. He keeps forgetting that. We have operational fusion devices but they cannot produce enough power to sustain their operation. Bob Kolker > > It is not enough to achieve nuclear fusion. That was done a long time > > ago. One must also get more power out of it than one puts in. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bob Kolker That's because they're using enormously expensive and inefficient electromagnetic containment technologies. I'm not forgetting anything. You keep forgetting that inertial containment doesn't really require any containment at all. Or, you keep saying that a mass the size of the sun is required. This is total nonsense. > That's because they're using enormously expensive and inefficient > electromagnetic containment technologies. I'm not forgetting > anything. You keep forgetting that inertial containment doesn't > really require any containment at all. Or, you keep saying that a > mass the size of the sun is required. This is total nonsense. That is true. We can always use H-bombs to heat up rocks by exploding the bombs. The heat from the rocks can boil water. Bob Kolker > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:38:01 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The advantage of the approach I am suggesting -- thousands of microlasers aimed at a focal point -- is that there are huge numbers of variables that can be easily manipulated to ensure that more energy is produced than is consumed. By the way, inertial containment regularly produces more energy than it consumes. The concern of the U.S. military was that it might "get away from them" -- release uncontrollable amounts of energy. Which is why they classified the technology. >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >uncontrollable amounts of energy. Which is why they classified the >technology. Yeah. Not buying it. > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 08:13:52 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So, you're saying I can't count on you as a major investor here, David? That IS disappointing. >> >The advantage of the approach I am suggesting -- thousands of >> >microlasers aimed at a focal point -- is that there are huge numbers [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >So, you're saying I'm saying you made up a story. > On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I'm saying you made up a story. Actually, I'm quoting a technician with the U.S. military who's a friend of mine. Perhaps he made up the story. But, I doubt it. In any case, if you look up "inertial confinement", you'll find that producing more energy than is consumed is not a problem. No energy is required for confinement, which is one of the big obstacles in electromagetic confinement technology. It just hasn't been fully developed into a workable, steady means of producing energy for commerical application. The notion that somehow producing more energy than is consumed with nuclear fusion is "impossible" -- like a perpetual motion machine -- is utterly ridiculous. It's just that the technologies being investigated are so ridiculously inefficient and awkward. Nuclear fusion is an astonishly efficient means of producing energy. >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > investigated are so ridiculously inefficient and awkward. Nuclear > fusion is an astonishly efficient means of producing energy. Some reason they think that extracting the energy within something is imposible without putting more energy in than we get out. but.. we light a match and toss it in gas fumes and we find out it is not impossibe with every bang of a car engine but we use a spark instead of the match. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 6, 3:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, but that's a familiar technology. People are, by nature, intensely conservative. They will refuse to believe in anything new until it's put repeatedly in front of their eyes. That, and the quite real likelihood of blowing up yourself and half your neighbourhood are the real obstacles to the development of controlled nuclear fusion. The academics don't want to take any real physical risks. Can't develop a new energy technology without the risk of blowing yourself up. Much easier to play with equations for the design of the the perfect megaproject, or diddle with chemical "cold fusion" in a conventional chemistry laboratory. > On Jul 6, 3:50 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > perfect megaproject, or diddle with chemical "cold fusion" in a > conventional chemistry laboratory. Yes, it does seem that inovation has stepped back to pen and paper and never actually trying things for real anymore. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Yes, but that's a familiar technology. People are, by nature, > intensely conservative. They will refuse to believe in anything new [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > perfect megaproject, or diddle with chemical "cold fusion" in a > conventional chemistry laboratory. Cold fusion has been shown not to work. Pond and Fliescher were either scam artists or very badly mistaken. Bob Kolker >> Yes, but that's a familiar technology. People are, by nature, >> intensely conservative. They will refuse to believe in anything new [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Cold fusion has been shown not to work. Pond and Fliescher were either > scam artists or very badly mistaken. A man tied a bird to a mans head and said look man can fly. Robert said. see, it is proven that man can not fly. The guy proved it with the bird on the head thing. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > > Yes, but that's a familiar technology. People are, by nature, > > intensely conservative. They will refuse to believe in anything new [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Cold fusion has been shown not to work. Pond and Fliescher were either > scam artists or very badly mistaken. Oh, I agree with you there, Bob. Cold fusion is nonsense. But, you'd be surprised how many people are still working on it. Certainly thousands. As we speak. Quite serious academics, many of them, too. You see, it's risk-free. Just ordinary chemistry. Which is also exactly why it doesn't work. Like I say, it's virtually iimpossible to motivate people to take the physical risks necessary to develop controlled nuclear fusion. I'm becoming convinced that that's the real obstacle to progress, here. >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >any case, if you look up "inertial confinement", you'll find that >producing more energy than is consumed is not a problem. No, I won't. I'll find out it is a problem. Here's a sample: " capsule or cavity. However, the low energy efficiency of laser beams (only a few percent) makes it unlikely that they would be used in an inertial confinement fusion reactor unless there is a great improvement in optical pumping efficiency. " No energy is >required for confinement, which is one of the big obstacles in >electromagetic confinement technology. It just hasn't been fully [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The notion that somehow producing more energy than is consumed with >nuclear fusion is "impossible" -- I don't think it's impossible. I just don't think we are very close to developing the technology that can do it. > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - As I've indicated, the paradigm of thousands of micro-lasers aimed at a focal point is an extremely flexible one, and not particularly expensive, compared to other approaches to controlled nuclear fusion. Plenty of opportunity to tweak parameters to ensure more energy is produced than is consumed. But, considerable highly dangerous empirical investigation would be required. Instead of simply playing with equations to design the perfect containment system, trial and error using actual fusion reactors would be required. Most of them would probably blow up. Actually, most of them probably did blow up. > As I've indicated, the paradigm of thousands of micro-lasers aimed at > a focal point is an extremely flexible one, and not particularly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > error using actual fusion reactors would be required. Most of them > would probably blow up. Actually, most of them probably did blow up. You can't make a real good omelette without a few eggs being broken somewhere. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> The advantage of the approach I am suggesting -- thousands of [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > error using actual fusion reactors would be required. Most of them > would probably blow up. Actually, most of them probably did blow up. You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. /BAH > >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power > infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. You're an oil man, right? >>>>>>>>> The advantage of the approach I am suggesting -- thousands of >>>>>>>>> microlasers aimed at a focal point -- is that there are huge numbers [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > You're an oil man, right? Wrong, wrong, wrong. /BAH > You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power > infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. Not quite. I insist that a nation's power infrastructure depend on something that will be extremely dangerous to develop. >> You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power >> infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. > > Not quite. I insist that a nation's power infrastructure depend on > something that will be extremely dangerous to develop. What makes you think the danger would go away? Congress passing a law that declares it not to be a danger. You are still insane. /BAH > >> You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power > >> infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > /BAH Good question, actually. If you research the history of electricity, or steam, or chemical energy, you will find that there were quite extreme dangers involved in their development. One of the reasons Hero of Alexander didn't further develop his steam engine was that he was afraid of it. It achieved unheard of speeds and energy release in his laboratory, and he was afraid of getting killed by it. One of the reasons it took so long for chemical energy to move from applications in fireworks and gunpowder to practical internal combustion engines -- which are explosive, by the way -- was its explosive properties, which meant any experimentation was extremely dangerous for the experiment. The entire technology of harnassing chemical energy had to be developed in a step by step process of "mastering" chemicals, so that people knew exactly what to do to avoid getting blown up, and to harnass the released energy. Sheer trial and error, and very dangerous. As for electricity, think of Benjamin Franklin and the kite in the lightning storm! Can you think of anything more dangerous or crazier? But, it was a necessary experiment to understand and master this new source of energy. Only way to do it, I'm afraid. >>>> You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power >>>> infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > understand and master this new source of energy. Only way to do it, > I'm afraid. You are nuts. Go read some more books. /BAH > >>>> You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power > >>>> infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The idea of progress frightens a lot of people. I see you're one of them. >>>>>> You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power >>>>>> infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The idea of progress frightens a lot of people. I see you're one of > them. You are using lots of computers to post this. I helped make that possible so progress doesn't frighten me at all. You have absolutely no idea how work got done. What you think was progress is some fairy fantasy that exists only in your head. I suggest you get out and do some real work that involves making something. /BAH > >>>>>> You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power > >>>>>> infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - heil caligula > > >>>>>> You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power > > >>>>>> infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=UDHPcjkOGEI nice song <snip> >> /BAH- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - I did not write the appendage; you are being intellectually dishonest. /BAH >> >> You are completely insane. You insist that a nation's power >> >> infrastructure depend on something that you state won't work. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >was afraid of it. It achieved unheard of speeds and energy release in >his laboratory, and he was afraid of getting killed by it. There's a slight problem with that analysis. It's a total fantasy. Hero's steam engine did not and could generate "unheard of speeds and energy release". It was totally feeble. > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Depends on what account you read. Some say it was a small glass toy. Some say it was a large bronze vessel filled with boiling water. The latter design could certainly have gotten out of hand in terms of speeds and energy generated. >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >latter design could certainly have gotten out of hand in terms of >speeds and energy generated. No, he could not have created the necessary airtight seal. > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > No, he could not have created the necessary airtight seal. Ctesibius did, 250 years earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesibius > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - intellectually dishonest. /BAH ggggg :^/ vewwy funny > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > ggggg :^/ vewwy funny http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10314110&wwwflag=2&imagepos=8 The site was good when I found it. Try this, it's visual, help your acceptance. and this http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/erudits/philon/appareils.htm#_ftnref25 > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > ggggg :^/ vewwy funny Not dishonest, you seem to have screwed it up Ctesibius did, 250 years earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesibius Ctesibius From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For the lunar crater, see Ctesibius (crater). Ctesibius or Ktesibios or Tesibius (Greek Κτησίβιος) (fl. 285-222 BC) was a Greek[1] or Egyptian[2] inventor and mathematician in Alexandria, Ptolemaic Egypt. He wrote the first treatises on the science of compressed air and its uses in pumps (and even a cannon). This, in combination with his work on the elasticity of air On pneumatics, earned him the title of "father of pneumatics." None of his written work has survived, including his Memorabilia, a compilation of his research that was cited by Athenaeus. Contents [hide] * 1 Inventions * 2 Reputation * 3 References * 4 External links [edit] Inventions Ctesibius was probably the first head of the Museum of Alexandria. Very little is known of his life but his inventions were well known. It is said (possibly by Diogenes Laertius) that his first career was as a barber. During his time as a barber, he invented a clever counterweight-adjustable mirror. His other inventions include the hydraulis, a water organ that is considered the precursor of the modern pipe organ, and an improved water clock called a clepsydra. The clepsydra kept more accurate time than any clock invented until the Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens detailed the use of a pendulum to regulate a clock in the 17th century. He described the one of the first force pumps for producing a jet of water, or for lifting water from wells, and examples have been found at various Roman sites, such as at Silchester in Britain. The principle of the siphon has also been attributed to him. According to Diogenes Laertius, Ctesibius was miserably poor. Laertius details this by recounting the following concerning the philosopher Arcesilaus: "when he had gone to visit Ctesibius who was ill, seeing him in great distress from want, he secretly slipped his purse under his pillow; and when Ctesibius found it, 'This,' said he, 'is the amusement of Arcesilaus.'" [1] [edit] Reputation Ctesibius's work is chronicled by Vitruvius, Athenaeus, and Philo of Byzantium who repeatedly mentions him, adding that the first mechanicians such as Ctesibius had the advantage of being under kings who loved fame and supported the arts. Proclus (the commentator on Euclid) and Hero of Alexandria (the last of the engineers of antiquity) also mention him. [edit] References 1. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica "Greek physicist and inventor, the first great figure of the ancient engineering tradition of Alexandria, Egypt." 2. ^ George Sarton (1959). A History of Science: Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries, p.343-344. Harvard University Press. [edit] External links * Ancient Greek Scientists: Ctesibius [hide] v * d * e Greek mathematics Mathematicians Anaxagoras · Anthemius · Archytas · Aristaeus the Elder · Aristarchus · Apollonius · Archimedes · Autolycus · Bion · Boethius · Bryson · Callippus · Carpus · Chrysippus · Cleomedes · Conon · Ctesibius · Democritus · Dicaearchus · Diocles · Diophantus · Dinostratus · Dionysodorus · Domninus · Eratosthenes · Eudemus · Euclid · Eudoxus · Eutocius · Geminus · Heron · Hipparchus · Hippasus · Hippias · Hippocrates · Hypatia · Hypsicles · Marinus · Menaechmus · Menelaus · Nicomachus · Nicomedes · Nicoteles · Oenopides · Pappus · Perseus · Philolaus · Philon · Porphyry · Posidonius · Proclus · Ptolemy · Pythagoras · Serenus · Simplicius · Sosigenes · Sporus · Thales · Theaetetus · Theano · Theodorus · Theodosius · Theon of Alexandria · Theon of Smyrna · Thymaridas · Xenocrates · Zeno of Elea · Zeno of Sidon · Zenodorus Treatises Almagest · Archimedes Palimpsest · Arithmetica · Conics · Elements · On the Sizes and Distances (Aristarchus) · On Sizes and Distances (Hipparchus) · On the Moving Sphere Centers Academy of Athens · Library of Alexandria · Cyrene Influences Babylonian mathematics · Egyptian mathematics Influenced European mathematics · Islamic mathematics · Indian mathematics Tables Timetable of Greek mathematicians On Jul 12, 1:44 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus > [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Nice Jack. One of our problems, of course, is the destruction of Libraries such as the Library of Alexandria. With better documentation, the exact progress of science and technology would be much easier to determine. Paper and the science of printing in China, for example, give them much better records, much farther back. Did you know that the Chinese have census data for the entire nation documenting changes in population to the man, from 2,000 years ago? But back to my main point, it seems clear that progress in technology could be faster. And that risk aversion on the part of the average person, and professional scientists in particular, seems to be something of an obstacle to progress. Any way around this? > On Jul 12, 1:44 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] > person, and professional scientists in particular, seems to be > something of an obstacle to progress. Any way around this? Problems arise, first there is some sort of unwritten (of course) rule that says the most commonly copied item will disappear first, because it is so common no one needs to keep their copy. Then the best system for saving copies turns out to have a life short enough as to ensure eventual loss (microfiche) and long enough so that the problem has already lost much that should have been copied. There are major projects afoot to find and store original copies of newspapers, because they have been put onto microfiche so early and then destroyed. Everybody who was anybody knew their Ctesibius, Philo and Hero, so they got reduced to shortened generalities that were later miscopied or simplified to the point of being wrong. The irony seems to be that some of those documents survived until the 16th and 17th Centuries as many "inventions" of this period share remarkable similarities to those made in the Alexandrian period. My best example is the differential gearing on the Antikythera machine was used to translate synodic months into sideral months, the exact same use they were put to in 16th Century astronomical clocks. Even the shape of gear teeth, not an obvious item for transmittal, is one way in the Alexandrian age and after the 16th Century, but elsewise (square teeth) between. >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually, I'm quoting a technician with the U.S. military who's a > friend of mine. Does he write code that displays cartoons on a computer screen? You can make cartoons do anything; just watch Roadrunner. <snip> /BAH > The advantage of the approach I am suggesting -- thousands of > microlasers aimed at a focal point -- is that there are huge numbers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > uncontrollable amounts of energy. Which is why they classified the > technology. Have you ever seen a real laser. How do you go about building a molecular size laser? The micro-laser is one of your brain farts. Bob Kolker > > As I keep repeating, Bob, the trick is to make the focal area > > extremely small. To achieve nuclear fusion in a cubic nanometer, we [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The only manmade fusion occurs with deutrium subjected the the > temperature produced by a fission explosion. Well, that's only because neither A-Bombs, nor H-Bonbs are tech of any kind. A-Bonbs are controlled denonataors, rather than explosives to start with. And deutirium is just a physicistist's cheap trick, rather than nature anyway. Which is why A.I, Lasers, GPS, DVD, Cruiise Missiles, PV Cells, Robots, Silicon, and Cold Fusion work so well with the idiots. To make an H-bomb, you need > an A-bomb and that is not nano-tech. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> Oh, I understand there are technical problems. As there were >> technical problems with the development of steam power. That doesn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bob Kolker He doe |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message