 |
| Mike Malis 2003-06-20 21:55:32 | Stephen, I found an article that may interest you. Look Here Mike Malis |
| Stephen Brooks 2003-06-21 16:55:00 | I went to a talk about phase space tomography at the ICFA space-charge simulation mini-workshop this Easter. I'm not sure if you've twigged but it's mainly used as a diagnostic method on the actual machines themselves, for reconstructing the beam phase-space (usually in 2D) from actual measurements of the running machine. It's quite an interesting technique though. The place where it falls down is that to reconstruct the phase-space picture of the beam distribution, you need an accurate model of the flow within the phase space. This is fine for low-charge beams (like the one in Muon1 currently) but when the "space charge", or mutual repulsion between particles becomes significant, the beam distribution affects the phase-space flow. So you apparently have a chicken-and-egg situation. I vaguely mentioned at the workshop the idea that you could treat the repulsion as a perturbative effect and iterate to a solution by subtituting those chickens and eggs into each other until they converged. Today's weather in %region is Sunny/(null), max. temperature #NAN°C |
| Mike Malis 2003-06-21 23:36:47 | Stephen, it is too bad that we don't have advanced enough math to describe multiple object systems. Iteration is a great thing, for systems with a small number of objects interacting. But, for a large number, it takes fffooorrreeevvveeerrr. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't even think that we have the math yet to describe a three particle interacting system because of the chaotic bifurcation patterns that it produces. I definetely envy you, getting to see all that cool stuff. (off on a tangent)>>What kind of math program do I need to calculate the force between magnets of different shape, magnetic density, and a changing but repetitive angle and position between one another. I have been working on an overunity project since 6th grade and you seem like you deal with that kind of stuff. Mike Malis |
| Stephen Brooks 2003-06-22 08:08:48 | We do have the maths to describe chaotic systems - that's part of the interesting thing - it just happens that their long-term behaviour becomes a very rapidly-varying function of their initial conditions. The fact we can't _predict_ such things (in the long term) reliably using maths should not come as much of a surprise given that the maths essentially _tells_ you that such a task is impossible without being able to measure things within some absurd accuracy like 1 part in 10^1000. As for the Muon system, it's an interesting case because to be viable as a practical machine, it has to be insensitive to slight variations. However the large number of beamline elements leaves open the possibility that there might be some very high (combinotorially high) number of different ways of doing the problem. So you do get a large number of possible alternative behaviours, but not because of chaos per se. An over-unity machine will almost certainly never work. If you put as your assumption that Maxwell's electromagnetic equations are correct, then you can _derive_ from this that energy is conserved in certain ways. I've heard that similar conservation results hold even when you go to either quantised electrodynamics, or to curved space. However, if you think about it, you don't necessarily need to violate conservation of energy to make an interesting device. One possibility that has been mentioned is the "vacuum energy" and the associated Casimir effect. Some people have made microscopic devices using MEMS that do in some ways use this effect to drive oscillating components in a way that seems counterintuitive given normal mechanics. Since some estimates of this energy 'sea' are around 10^55 Joules/cm^3 (from memory - could be wrong), you won't run out of power fast if you find a way to tap into it. On the other hand, so far at least, we've only made devices that "borrow" energy from this vacuum and later give it back in some way. There may be a "no-go" theorem about this as well. One thing you might have slightly more luck in trying to violate is thermodynamics. These are not strictly-speaking laws, but rather (as I understand) observations coming from averages in statistical mechanics. I think the resolution of thermodynamics with quantum mechanics is still a work in progress, so anomalous effects at small scales might be present. Finally, an interesting concept is that you might not either decrease entropy or increase total energy, but you could move the defecit to somewhere where most people wouldn't see or notice it. These sort of "fake over-unity" systems are quite commonplace - for instance that "muon cooling" thing I talk about sometimes manages to decrease the amount of position-velocity phase-space occupied by the beam, which is typically not possible anywhere else (without losing some of the beam), due to a conservation 'law'. It does this by exchanging the momentum with a liquid hydrogen coolant component. You can at least imagine that it might be possible to do entropy or energy-exchange with neutrinos. These interact so little with normal matter (and move away at near the speed of light) that it would appear as if the energy or entropy would have just disappeared into nothing. The current barrier to using this idea is that (as we know) it's really very tough to produce neutrinos in large enough quantities to carry away a large amount of energy. That is after all one of the intermediate purposes of the neutrino factory (the final purpose being to measure the properties of these neutrinos on other other side of the world). Interestingly, some models of supernovae explain some apparent energy anomalies by strong interactions involving the release and recapture of neutrinos, so there is at least a precident for this sort of energy release in the universe (and demonstrated at a very large scale too). Today's weather in %region is Sunny/(null), max. temperature #NAN°C |
| Mike Malis 2003-06-22 11:08:27 | Well Stephen, you certainly know a lot about this subject. I have already studied all of those concepts too except for the neutrino one, that could be useful in quantum cosmology certainly. The device I am working on right now has already been tested on a very small scale and works. I am currently building a 5.5 Kw version (using point source calculations). The device uses Neodymium-Iron-Boron magnets with 33 Million Gauss (33 Tesla) magnetic field density. It works by folding the dimention of magnetic potential (similar to folding the spacetime dimention---wish we could do that!) by reversing the magnetic force and geometry verctors simultaneously but without the need for commutaion or timing circuits. Energy is released in the form of torque through a distance. At a specific geometric moment that I have chosen, the "folding" takes place and the previously released potential is instantaneously restored (without an apparent source except mathematics itself!) and the process repeats itself. I don't have a clue where the energy comes from but I know that it does come from somewhere because a small prototype worked and the math also shows this if I integrate the cycle and divide by the time interval (it is always a positive output anyway so simple logic wouldn't even require this). The math to describe any size machine with any magnetic density took me over 4 years to calculate but I got the same answer using upwards of 10 different methods (and other people to check every one of them). The actual calculations were done using a TI-89 so unless it has a program deficiency, the numbers are correct. There is a significant difference between the energy released by the operating device and the calculations done and I attribute this to hysterisis loss, frictional loss, and the fact that the calculations are all done using point source magnetic fields. The calculational distance to magnet size ratio is large enough that this point souce approach is very close to accurate (but I would like it to be perfect). Later I will incorporate hysterisis loss and friction as those are the minimal inaccuracies because I have specially manufactured non-metallic nylon gears. I have calculated that if I were to build one of these prime movers 40x40x40 ft that it would put out roughly 4.5 GW (that is not including the size of the generator). Where can I find more (good) information about the muon cooling channel. I have already seen the phase space conservation and I would like to compare the two. When do you think that this type of technology (muon cooling channel) will be implemented in this simulation program? Mike Malis |
