Dec 29, 16 / Cap 28, 00 21:03 UTC

Re: Energy/Energia  

When I speak "potential energy", I mean only the energy that bears a relation to gravitational field. I do not consider compressed springs.

Circa 20 years ago, I had found that the motion of water within vertical tube violates the rule of energy conservation. Indeed, the velocity of water is constant in tube, therefore the kinetic energy is constant also. But, the potential energy decreases (if water moves from top to bottom). Attempts to explain this effect with the taking into account the friction heat was unsuccessfull: the friction heat depends on roughness of interriour surface of the tube, but the change of potential energy is not depended on the roughness. Many other physical effects demonstrate also the Violation of the energy conservation rule (for example, the destruction of bridge owing to resonance). All these effects shown me that the idea of potential and kinetic energy could be erroneous. And when I had found the derivation of potential energy formula, I had found the error of the derivation.

QestionMark, in Topic "Unlimited energy" I have give the reference to my two articles, in which I describe all these phenomena in details. Please, seek these articles.

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 02:21 UTC

I don't see how this violates the laws of energy conservaiton. The veolicty of water in a tube isn't constant, unless it's constantly fed at the same rate, in which case this is a function of the feed, not the tube. The kinetic energy is simply a function of the mass and interacting gravity fields, and will adjust with mass. The destruction of a (poorly designed) bridge due to resonance doesn't violate the laws of conservation of energy. Each oscillation timed to add force to the waveform steadily increases the stresses on a material. It's like sitting on a swing, and each time you begin to swing forwards, someone pushed you from behind taking advantage of your own momentum to add to it further with less effort. It's not magically getting this energy from nowhere, there's a definable input.

Jan 7, 17 / Aqu 07, 01 00:39 UTC

I was thinking about the energy could not only be drawn in from the sun but also the energy from space as well the radiation from space itself could be used it will never exhaust if we have a way to harness it safely.

Jan 7, 17 / Aqu 07, 01 02:53 UTC

and how precisely to you propose to "harness" the "energy from space" or the "radiation from space itself" ?

Jan 7, 17 / Aqu 07, 01 10:25 UTC

Many years ago, I had estimated the level of energy from space radiation. Now, I do not remember exact figures. But, I remember that the output of energy was very small, microscopic small. As for the "energy from space", this energy is very huge. Many people confuse these two terms - "energy from space" and "energy from space radiation". This confusion is error. Space itself is very complex medium with structure, energy, density and physical laws. We interact with the space structure each second, receiving the energy from the space structure and transferring own energy to the space. Now, I read the article "New alternative power-Engineering" for scientific conference. After conference, I shall publish the article here in Forum.

Jan 12, 17 / Aqu 12, 01 05:23 UTC

PROKHOROV, Have yet to see anything said that is substantial, just ramblings. Please post concise tangible information on your "ideas". ty

As far as energy production goes I can think of one outside the realm of nuclear or solar, but does require the space station to be in a non geosynchronous orbit around Earth. A "not so simple" electrical wire dangling free will be pulled toward earth from the station by gravity. As the station passes through Earths magnetic field will produce electricity. This experiment was conducted on one of the space shuttles missions, tho I cannot remember which one. As I recall, it worked better than expected, but (this is the not so simple part) the wire broke, reason why was not mentioned. Also if I am not mistaken it was bound for strength with amarid fiber. Possible reasoning behind the failure could be dielectric breakdown from the excessive energy (voltage) produced causing failure in the fiber being burnt e.g. structural failure. The wire was something like 6.5miles (10km) long.

Free space or even around a planet like Mars this will not work due to exceedingly low magnetic field strength.

Beyond energy production we also would require shielding, not just from solar radiation, be it from within our solar system or outside, but also from either earth based or space based weapons. The latter two are the new weapons race currently going on. MY uncle flew for the USAF, high altitude flights, a year after he retired passed away from cancer due to high levels of radiation from the sun. He was younger than my age now, not that old, still in his prime.

Jan 12, 17 / Aqu 12, 01 17:53 UTC

Thorium based reactor technology to generate energy on earth and moon is discussed in this TedTalk. This may be the solution if thorium exists where ever Asgardians decide to set-up base/s.

Jan 14, 17 / Aqu 14, 01 02:13 UTC

The "not so simple wire" of which you speak would be a "haddop-dyson satellite" - You could also do it with a longer cable and off Sol's dynamo if you move it closer...

Thorium is nothing new, and might prove to be a slightly safer reaction, but I think anything involved with this should be somewhere it can have problems, and cause problems with anything else. I don't see how to do a 0G thorium salt heat sink - space effectively. Low G environments like the moon might work.

A large issue with conventional nuclear generation is that makes masses of thermal energy - which in space, lacking matter for convection or conduction, leaves you pretty much with InfraRed emittience, which is at best poor. Generating megawatts or even gigawatts of heat is only clever if you can get rid of that much heat. The act of using that energy commonly comes with thermal waste, too...

Jan 22, 17 / Aqu 22, 01 16:01 UTC

I think it's important for Asgardia project to think not only about energy sources, but to introduce Low Energy projects. There's another discussion about this projects, DIY projects, speaking about use of Arduino and similar systems in order to create controllers. Take it in mind if you think it's important for future developments. As an idea for energy sources, what about a solar farm? No problems of space, I think 😀, in order to build large solar camps and create non specialized work.

Jan 24, 17 / Aqu 24, 01 11:04 UTC

Arduino isn't that low energy, really, there's other similar products that give more processing power for less watts. But it's less than, say, a Raspberry-pi Zero - which is pretty conservative in it's draw, but still a power hungry beast. I do firmly feel we should be producing our own hardware - but for now it's sensible to play with OTS products. Other things to look at if you're interested in this realm would be the ESP8266, which is kind of like the arduino but with builtin wifi, and the picaxe.

The problem with solar farms isn't the space - there's lots of that, just between the moon and the earth enough sunlight misses both to be of use, both for energy and conventional farms - it isn't even the materials required to produce the square meter of panelling required, there's more than enough rocks with just the right elements floating about ripe for the picking.

The issue is their short life cycle. Ideally, we want something with a service life measurable in generations. Having to systematically replace failing units periodically might not sound like much of an issue, but when you're cycling that over millions if not billions of units, then it's a complex affair within itself. Charge controllers will ideally be required to note decreasing output over time, and as get to say 70% efficiencies order replacements - and in the process mark up what needs replacing and where, but it's still going to be a regular trauma involving full time crews to maintain.