H/T
Video: 425/344 280/227
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Friday, September 09, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Maching Einstein
A typo in the headline? I don't think so. I'm referring to Mach's Principle. The most general idea of it is (from the wiki) "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." Einstein based his general relativity on such a concept.
As engineers (I assume most of you reading this are) you are familiar with F=ma and F=G*(m1*m2/r^2). Now the very interesting thing is that inertial mass and gravitational mass appear to be identical (as close as we can measure). There are theories about why this is so (Mach's Conjecture/Principle) but we have no proof.
So what is Mach's Conjecture? Simply that the inertia of any particular mass is a function of all the mass in the universe.
Paul March is doing experiments to see if reality corresponds to theory. He has this to say:
"Dr. Woodward has been doing M-E “proof of principle” tests since ~1990 and I started in 2002. In short, the M-E derivation indicates that when a capacitor dielectric is subjected to a sinusoidal time rate of change of stored energy while simultaneously being subjected to a bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars, that a mass density variation of the dielectric should be expressed at 2X the drive frequency of the dE/dt energy flux, AKA electrical power. And its magnitude should be proportional to the product of the cube of the applied voltage times the applied bulk acceleration with all other controlling parameters held constant.
The latest Woodward run M-E proof of principle test series was expanded in the 2008 to 2009 time period to include the upgraded Mark-III rotary test rig that could supply a variable bulk centripetal gee loading to the excited dielectric cap array that went from zero up to over 800 gees (~7,900 m/sec^2) at 3600 RPM. A ring of eight high-k (e-r=~5,000) ceramic dielectric caps that were subjected to this variable acceleration were then excited at 40 kHz with 2.0, 4.0, & 6.0 kV-peak voltages while the 2nd harmonic (80 kHz) mass density fluctuations were measured using an instrumentation system that included an FFT time to frequency domain measurement scope that displayed the magnitudes of the generated fundamental and harmonic signals. We found a mass density variation signal present at 80 kHz that was proportional to the applied gee loading, varied with the cube of the applied voltage and subtracted from the mundane electrostrictive signal that was also suppose to be expressed at this 80 kHz frequency but at 180 degrees out of phase with the dm signal. Data is available to all who are interested."
The difficulty wit his experiments is that he was using a piezoelectric accelerometer. A set up which is notoriously prone to EMI interference with the signals. I suggested that Mr. March use a spring of some sort and a laser interferometer for measurements as that would be much less prone to EMI and confounding signals.
Mr March replied: "... from your description of the spring/laser interferometer, it appears enticing if I can afford it."
Of course there is lots more on the subject. Here is a short introductory paper by James F. Woodward
And some books on the subject might be in order:
Mach's Principle and the Origin of Inertia Proceedings of the international workshop on Mach's Principle and the Origin of Inertia
The Origin of Inertia
Space and Geometry - Mach in his own words
I haven't read any of the mentioned books so I can't give a recommendation. All I can say is that they looked interesting.
If you need help with your experiments, you can contact M. Simon by getting his e-mail from the sidebar at IEC Fusion Technology
As engineers (I assume most of you reading this are) you are familiar with F=ma and F=G*(m1*m2/r^2). Now the very interesting thing is that inertial mass and gravitational mass appear to be identical (as close as we can measure). There are theories about why this is so (Mach's Conjecture/Principle) but we have no proof.
So what is Mach's Conjecture? Simply that the inertia of any particular mass is a function of all the mass in the universe.
Paul March is doing experiments to see if reality corresponds to theory. He has this to say:
"Dr. Woodward has been doing M-E “proof of principle” tests since ~1990 and I started in 2002. In short, the M-E derivation indicates that when a capacitor dielectric is subjected to a sinusoidal time rate of change of stored energy while simultaneously being subjected to a bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars, that a mass density variation of the dielectric should be expressed at 2X the drive frequency of the dE/dt energy flux, AKA electrical power. And its magnitude should be proportional to the product of the cube of the applied voltage times the applied bulk acceleration with all other controlling parameters held constant.
The latest Woodward run M-E proof of principle test series was expanded in the 2008 to 2009 time period to include the upgraded Mark-III rotary test rig that could supply a variable bulk centripetal gee loading to the excited dielectric cap array that went from zero up to over 800 gees (~7,900 m/sec^2) at 3600 RPM. A ring of eight high-k (e-r=~5,000) ceramic dielectric caps that were subjected to this variable acceleration were then excited at 40 kHz with 2.0, 4.0, & 6.0 kV-peak voltages while the 2nd harmonic (80 kHz) mass density fluctuations were measured using an instrumentation system that included an FFT time to frequency domain measurement scope that displayed the magnitudes of the generated fundamental and harmonic signals. We found a mass density variation signal present at 80 kHz that was proportional to the applied gee loading, varied with the cube of the applied voltage and subtracted from the mundane electrostrictive signal that was also suppose to be expressed at this 80 kHz frequency but at 180 degrees out of phase with the dm signal. Data is available to all who are interested."
The difficulty wit his experiments is that he was using a piezoelectric accelerometer. A set up which is notoriously prone to EMI interference with the signals. I suggested that Mr. March use a spring of some sort and a laser interferometer for measurements as that would be much less prone to EMI and confounding signals.
Mr March replied: "... from your description of the spring/laser interferometer, it appears enticing if I can afford it."
Of course there is lots more on the subject. Here is a short introductory paper by James F. Woodward
And some books on the subject might be in order:
Mach's Principle and the Origin of Inertia Proceedings of the international workshop on Mach's Principle and the Origin of Inertia
The Origin of Inertia
Space and Geometry - Mach in his own words
I haven't read any of the mentioned books so I can't give a recommendation. All I can say is that they looked interesting.
If you need help with your experiments, you can contact M. Simon by getting his e-mail from the sidebar at IEC Fusion Technology
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Why Aren't We Pouring More Efforts Into This?
There has been a lot of progress lately in the area of carbon nanotube (CNT) research. How about a look atCNT transistors.
And the process control for making carbon nanotube and graphene materials is in its infancy the results are looking better all the time.
Fortunately there have been some breakthroughs in the wire making area.
Carbon nanotubes are a promising material for making display control circuits because they're more efficient than silicon and can be arrayed on flexible surfaces. Until recently, though, making nanotubes into transistors has been a painstaking process. Now researchers at the University of Southern California have demonstrated large, functional arrays of transistors made using simple methods from batches of carbon nanotubes that are relatively impure.When the industry gets this worked out we will have much faster transistors capable of very high heat dissipation. Wouldn't it be nice to have high power electronics that was loafing along at 200°C?
And the process control for making carbon nanotube and graphene materials is in its infancy the results are looking better all the time.
Single-walled carbon nanotubes can be classified as either metallic or semiconducting, depending on their conductivity, which is determined by their chirality. Existing synthesis methods cannot controllably grow nanotubes with a specific type of conductivity. By varying the noble gas ambient during thermal annealing of the catalyst, and in combination with oxidative and reductive species, we altered the fraction of tubes with metallic conductivity from one-third of the population to a maximum of 91%.Carbon nanotube conductivity has been measured to be around 5X that of copper. Think of what could be done with low weight, high strength, high conductivity wire. Motors. Transformers. Transmission lines. Antennas. etc.
Fortunately there have been some breakthroughs in the wire making area.
A new method for assembling carbon nanotubes has been used to create fibers hundreds of meters long. Individual carbon nanotubes are strong, lightweight, and electrically conductive, and could be valuable as, among other things, electrical transmission wires. But aligning masses of the nanotubes into well-ordered materials such as fibers has proven challenging at a scale suitable for manufacturing. By processing carbon nanotubes in a solution called a superacid, researchers at Rice University have made long fibers that might be used as lightweight, efficient wires for the electrical grid or as the basis of structural materials and conductive textiles.So my question is: with all the money going out to the bankers why isn't more being spent on science like his that will actually make a difference?
Others have made carbon-nanotube fibers by pulling the tubes from solid hair-like arrays or by spinning them like wool as they emerge from a chemical reactor. The problem with starting from a solid, says Rice chemical engineering professor Matteo Pasquali, is that "the alignment is not spectacular, and these methods are difficult to scale up." The better aligned and ordered the individual nanotubes in a larger structure, the better the collective structure's electrical and mechanical properties. Using the Rice methods, well-aligned nanotube fibers can be made on a large scale, shot out from a nozzle similar to a showerhead.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Engines Of Prosperity
In my last post I discussed Forth as a language.
A language that is based on a virtual machine. What if that virtual machine was turned into a real machine? Good things. For one operations can be done in parallel. Returns can be automatically initiated at the end of an instruction cycle. And except for a few special cases Forth machines are two stack zero operand machines. Thus instruction bits that would otherwise need to be used to designate registers are freed up for other uses. The two stacks are the return stack and the data stack. This means data does not need to be flushed from the return stack on a return. Which means you can nest subroutines easily and upon return the data required for the next operation is at the top of the stack. The process is not totally automatic. But it is nearly so. As you can imagine, eliminating a stack thrash on return from a subroutine is a very good idea. And having the data right where you need it for the next operation is a time saver too. Another time saver is that because "registers" are actually stack items you can have as many "registers" as you need in a machine just by making the stacks deeper. At least if you are designing with an FPGA.
But first a nod to the man who kicked all this off Charles Moore.
Masterminds of Programming: Conversations with the Creators of Major Programming Languages (Theory in Practice) Is a book about a number of programming language designers and how they made the decisions they did. One reviewer had this to say about the interview with Moore, "The interview with charles moore is completely insane, in a good way."
Forth machines come in many flavors. Phil Koopman in his book, Stack Computers: the new wave, discusses the design issues in building stack machines. In addition there are a number of examples of machines that have been built. You can also read Phil's book for free on line at Stack Computers - Phil Koopman's Page. In addition you can download a copy from Phil's page.
From: A very short bio of Charles Moore
In 1983 Moore founded Novix, Inc., where he developed the NC4000 processor. This design was licensed to Harris Semiconductor which marketed it as the RTX2000, a radiation hardened stack processor which has been used in numerous NASA missions. The RTX2000 patent number is 4,980,821. The patent was filed on March 24, 1987 and issued on December 25, 1990. So by any measure the patent has expired. You can look up the patent at the US Patent Office.
Here is a link to the RTX2010 data page. The device is no longer in production.
To get the pluses and minuses of such a design Phil Koopman among others compares the RTX2000 to other architectures of its day (1992).
So what do you do if you want a Forth processor these days? You get out an FPGA and program it. Because the design of the processor is so simple they are easy to impliment and test and they don't use a lot of gates. With stacks internal to the machine there is no waiting to get stack data. And since internal stacks can be circular there is no need to flush a stack (change the stack pointer) if you have no further need for the stored data.
So where do you go for such a machine? I have worked with a 16 bit Forth machine that John Rible designed in about 1998 that was very nice. John did the architecture and Cadence did the implimentation. John currently does Forth chips in Verilog for FPGAs. His www site is: Sandpipers. Another place to get a Forth chip is at opencores.com. There is a Forth core that is available for download.
Of course he can help with architecture as I can. I did a few tweaks on the processor John designed. I also have a few ideas of my own for a 32 bit machine.
So how about an assembler/Forth for such a machine? It is pretty easy to write one in Forth. Or Forth Inc. will do the job for you. You can contact them at Forth Inc. Or you could ask me. And think about it: For many of the basic instructions the assembly code maps directly to the machine code. Pretty slick and runs fast too.
If you need help with your Forth Chip design, or even tech writing you can contact M. Simon by getting his e-mail from the sidebar at IEC Fusion Technology.
A language that is based on a virtual machine. What if that virtual machine was turned into a real machine? Good things. For one operations can be done in parallel. Returns can be automatically initiated at the end of an instruction cycle. And except for a few special cases Forth machines are two stack zero operand machines. Thus instruction bits that would otherwise need to be used to designate registers are freed up for other uses. The two stacks are the return stack and the data stack. This means data does not need to be flushed from the return stack on a return. Which means you can nest subroutines easily and upon return the data required for the next operation is at the top of the stack. The process is not totally automatic. But it is nearly so. As you can imagine, eliminating a stack thrash on return from a subroutine is a very good idea. And having the data right where you need it for the next operation is a time saver too. Another time saver is that because "registers" are actually stack items you can have as many "registers" as you need in a machine just by making the stacks deeper. At least if you are designing with an FPGA.
But first a nod to the man who kicked all this off Charles Moore.
Masterminds of Programming: Conversations with the Creators of Major Programming Languages (Theory in Practice) Is a book about a number of programming language designers and how they made the decisions they did. One reviewer had this to say about the interview with Moore, "The interview with charles moore is completely insane, in a good way."
Forth machines come in many flavors. Phil Koopman in his book, Stack Computers: the new wave, discusses the design issues in building stack machines. In addition there are a number of examples of machines that have been built. You can also read Phil's book for free on line at Stack Computers - Phil Koopman's Page. In addition you can download a copy from Phil's page.
From: A very short bio of Charles Moore
In 1983 Moore founded Novix, Inc., where he developed the NC4000 processor. This design was licensed to Harris Semiconductor which marketed it as the RTX2000, a radiation hardened stack processor which has been used in numerous NASA missions. The RTX2000 patent number is 4,980,821. The patent was filed on March 24, 1987 and issued on December 25, 1990. So by any measure the patent has expired. You can look up the patent at the US Patent Office.
Here is a link to the RTX2010 data page. The device is no longer in production.
To get the pluses and minuses of such a design Phil Koopman among others compares the RTX2000 to other architectures of its day (1992).
So what do you do if you want a Forth processor these days? You get out an FPGA and program it. Because the design of the processor is so simple they are easy to impliment and test and they don't use a lot of gates. With stacks internal to the machine there is no waiting to get stack data. And since internal stacks can be circular there is no need to flush a stack (change the stack pointer) if you have no further need for the stored data.
So where do you go for such a machine? I have worked with a 16 bit Forth machine that John Rible designed in about 1998 that was very nice. John did the architecture and Cadence did the implimentation. John currently does Forth chips in Verilog for FPGAs. His www site is: Sandpipers. Another place to get a Forth chip is at opencores.com. There is a Forth core that is available for download.
Of course he can help with architecture as I can. I did a few tweaks on the processor John designed. I also have a few ideas of my own for a 32 bit machine.
So how about an assembler/Forth for such a machine? It is pretty easy to write one in Forth. Or Forth Inc. will do the job for you. You can contact them at Forth Inc. Or you could ask me. And think about it: For many of the basic instructions the assembly code maps directly to the machine code. Pretty slick and runs fast too.
If you need help with your Forth Chip design, or even tech writing you can contact M. Simon by getting his e-mail from the sidebar at IEC Fusion Technology.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Pay Pal
Donate as produced by PayPal is easy.
====
Donate from PaC
Writing is how I earn a living. If you like what you read here:
Make A Donation Today
==
====
====
Donate from PaC
Writing is how I earn a living. If you like what you read here:
Make A Donation Today
==
====
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Monday, January 05, 2009
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Makers vs Takers
I just learned about a book by Jane Jacobs, Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics
which was published in 1992, from Duane J. Oldsen. It has a fascinating look at the two major systems of morality that we find in the world. Commercial Morality and Guardian (Political) Morality. Or what I like to call Makers vs Takers. The two are complimentary (neither does well without the other) and yet stand in opposition to each other. Things get really nasty when the spheres of influence are mixed without consideration for consequences.
Let me start with a couple of references. First The Wiki which provides a short look at the major points. Second is this pdf which is much more detailed with many excerpts from the book. However, I must caution that it is somewhat hard to read due to the many typos.
I want to start first with a table of contrasting moral precepts. Which I have modified slightly from the wiki to make the contrasts a little clearer.
Moral Precepts for Systems of Survival
I think the commercial class is rather self explanatory but the political class needs some explanation.
which was published in 1992, from Duane J. Oldsen. It has a fascinating look at the two major systems of morality that we find in the world. Commercial Morality and Guardian (Political) Morality. Or what I like to call Makers vs Takers. The two are complimentary (neither does well without the other) and yet stand in opposition to each other. Things get really nasty when the spheres of influence are mixed without consideration for consequences. Let me start with a couple of references. First The Wiki which provides a short look at the major points. Second is this pdf which is much more detailed with many excerpts from the book. However, I must caution that it is somewhat hard to read due to the many typos.
I want to start first with a table of contrasting moral precepts. Which I have modified slightly from the wiki to make the contrasts a little clearer.
Moral Precepts for Systems of Survival
| Guardian System | Commercial System |
| Shun trading | Shun force |
| Take | Earn |
| Be obedient and disciplined | Be efficient |
| Adhere to tradition | Be open to inventiveness and novelty |
| Respect hierarchy | Use initiative and enterprise |
| Be loyal | Come to voluntary agreements |
| Take vengeance | Respect contracts |
| Deceive for the sake of the task | Dissent for the sake of the task |
| Make rich use of leisure | Be industrious |
| Be ostentatious | Be thrifty |
| Dispense largess | Invest for productive purposes |
| Be exclusive | Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens |
| Show fortitude | Promote comfort and convenience |
| Be fatalistic | Be optimistic |
| Treasure honor | Be honest |
I think the commercial class is rather self explanatory but the political class needs some explanation.
testing columns
This is a strange way to show what happens.
| Shun trading | Shun force |
| Take | Earn |
| Be obedient and disciplined | Be efficient |
| Adhere to tradition | Be open to inventiveness and novelty |
| Respect hierarchy | Use initiative and enterprise |
| Be loyal | Come to voluntary agreements |
| Take vengeance | Respect contracts |
| Deceive for the sake of the task | Dissent for the sake of the task |
| Make rich use of leisure | Be industrious |
| Be ostentatious | Be thrifty |
| Dispense largess | Invest for productive purposes |
| Be exclusive | Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens |
| Show fortitude | Promote comfort and convenience |
| Be fatalistic | Be optimistic |
| Treasure honor | Be honest |
Monday, May 19, 2008
nother table test
This is a strange way to show what happens.
What comes after
| Systems of Survival | Shun trading | Shun force |
| Exert prowess | Come to voluntary agreements |
| Be obedient and disciplined | Be honest |
| Adhere to tradition | Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens |
| Respect hierarchy | Compete |
| Be loyal | Respect contracts |
| Take vengeance | Use initiative and enterprise |
| Deceive for the sake of the task | Be open to inventiveness and novelty |
Friday, April 20, 2007
Drill Teams
Little Green Footballs put up this excellent video of the US Marines Silent Drill Team. The silent part means that no commands are given to initiate various actions as is done in normal squad manuvers. Commands like "About Face", "Forward, March", "Attention", "Present Arms", etc.
Which of course got me to thinking about my days as a Navy boot.
We drilled with the Springfield M1903. It is a very fine piece to drill with. They never trusted us with bayonets though. LOL (Boot camp for me started 11 Nov '63. NTC San Diego. Right next to Marine Corps Camp Pendelton. We'd be having a smoke next to the fence watching the Marines double timing around the perimiter of the Pendelton. I know we thought "stupid Jar Heads". They probably thought "pussy Sailors". I'm sure the positioning was intentional. Motivation for both sides. LOL.)
BTW I love the way the fittings on the rifles rattle. It sounds like men going to battle since the age of metal weapons began.
Wiki on the 1903:
Which of course got me to thinking about my days as a Navy boot.
We drilled with the Springfield M1903. It is a very fine piece to drill with. They never trusted us with bayonets though. LOL (Boot camp for me started 11 Nov '63. NTC San Diego. Right next to Marine Corps Camp Pendelton. We'd be having a smoke next to the fence watching the Marines double timing around the perimiter of the Pendelton. I know we thought "stupid Jar Heads". They probably thought "pussy Sailors". I'm sure the positioning was intentional. Motivation for both sides. LOL.)
BTW I love the way the fittings on the rifles rattle. It sounds like men going to battle since the age of metal weapons began.
Wiki on the 1903:
Due to its balance, it is still popular with various military drill teams and color guards, most notably the U.S. Army Drill Team. M1903 rifles are also common at high school Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) units to teach weapons handling and military drill procedures to the cadets. JROTC units use M1903s for regular and inter-school competition drills, including elaborate exhibition spinning routines similar to a majorette spinning a baton.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
A Helpful Bunch
Popular Science looks at Thiago Olson's fusion reactor.
How did he do it? Olson pored over graduate-level physics textbooks, studied vacuum-pump manufacturers’ manuals, and scoured the Web for cheap parts. Though mostly self-taught, he occasionally solicited advice on a fusion Web site. Once, he posted photos of a cheap photomultiplier tube he’d bought online because he had no idea how to rig it up. Another fusioneer on the site who had the same model promptly told him which wires went where. Amateur nuclear engineers are, it seems, a helpful bunch.Yes we are.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Image Manipulation
Instapundit says that we will need coal, oil, and natural gas for some time even if some one invents Mr. Fusion tomorrow. Which is true.However, Mr. Fusion was invented yesterday (several years ago actually).
It was invented by Dr Robert Bussard formerly of the AEC fusion office. He did the work under a Naval contract.
The Bussard Fusion Reactor will lower electrical costs at the busbar by at least 10X over coal or fission nuke power plants. Capital cost for electical plants using the Bussard Fusion design will decline by at least 5X mainly because no turbines, condensers, steam generators or electrical generators are required. With such a lowering of costs and simplicity of required equipment, roll out will be very fast.
The reactor is just a big sphere surrounded by electro-magnets. The main cost of the plant is converting the 2 million volts DC output to AC for local use. The direct 2 million volt output would be great for long distance transmission. Although the plants copuld be sited in just about any reasonably sized electrical yard since any required cooling would not requre a water supply. Air cooling would work fine.
The power generator is about 10 to 12 ft across for an output between 100 MW and 1,000 MW. Power output scales as the 7th power of size. Double the size and you get 128X as much power.
No thermal plant is required. Thermal plants - steam generators, turbines etc. - are long lead time items. They can take from 3 to 5 years from start of production to delivery. The Bussard Fusion Reactor output is direct 2 million volts DC. (a very large battery).
Unlike fission plants there is no fuel stored in the reactor core = no Three Mile Island kind of problems. Turn off the electricity or turn off the fuel and the
reaction stops.
It would make a good rocket engine for fast interplanetary travel.
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion - video plus technical details.
Dr Bussard needs $2 million in start up funds to verify reaction constants. He will need $200 million for a test reactor.
The fuel is Boron 11 which is very abundant. We have 200,000+ years of reserves on the planet if it is used exclusively for power. Most borax is used now for borosilicate glass.
Let me take this time to specifically thank the crew at Classical Values Justin and Eric for giving me a heads up on this.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Just a test
Dissension In The Ranks
If you came here it is your own damn fault. Click on the link above to get back
If you came here it is your own damn fault. Click on the link above to get back
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
