Jump to content


Photo

Hydroplates And Meteorites

brown hydroplate flood noah meteorite astronomy

  • Please log in to reply
356 replies to this topic

#341 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 January 2017 - 12:13 AM

Those rare collisions that take place will tend to have random results.  Most commonly colliding bodies in a fairly elastic collision will depart each other at a considerable rate.  Picture one of those lottery machines with the bouncing balls but no walls.  Even if speed equalization were to take place you would need to show that takes place at a faster rate than dispersion.  It isn't even close.

If you had a lottery ball entering a swarm of other lottery balls that were not moving, what are the odds that the ball could bounce off the other balls and exit the swarm?  I suppose it could if it hit something near the outer edge, but if it made it into the inner part of the swarm, it would not "disperse"...it would become a part of that swarm. 

It is far more likely that a collision will take place in which the incoming ball will not only bounce out of the "swarm" but will knock another ball (or balls) out of the swarm.  Example, breaking the rack in billiards.  By far, most of the trajectories for incoming objects will result in the breaking up of the swarm.  Remember, these objects are not (yet) held together by gravity.  Even if they are, it is pretty minimal.  For even the largest, most massive, objects (a 50m diameter rock) a velocity difference of less than 0.647 m/sec (out of 11,200) is enough to prevent capture.  That's 0.00058%.

 

Pi>>The (shotgun pellet) analogy is not only fair, it is ideal for Brown's "swarm."  Do you have any reason to think the pellets would be drawn together by gravity if the shotgun were fired from the ISS during a space walk?  How about if we sent a shotgun into space between Earth and Mars and fired it there .... do you think the pellets would be drawn together by gravity?>>

 

I would concede that in space, shotgun pellets could not be pulled together by their mutual gravity.  The question is whether the analogy holds true when you scale it up.

First, a clarification.  I've watched some high speed videos of shotguns.  The shot leaves the barrel still surrounded by the wadding.  This means separation of the shot does not begin until after the "swarm" of bb's has exited the muzzle.

 

Scaling up is a simple matter .... we can pick a distance, say 60 yards at 600 fps.  For the shotgun, that means reaching the target would take 0.03 seconds.  A difference of 0.00058% in velocity would mean a difference of a about 0.0124 inches (front to back).  With the swarm starting out at a length of around one inch, that means it would still be within about 1.02 inches in distance (front to back) at 60 yards.  I had also calculated an the angle of trajectory must be within about 0.001o.  At 60 yards and assuming an initial barrel diameter of one inch, the pattern should spread no more than 0.04 inches in width at 60 yards.  Most of the patterns I saw were 30 inches at 30 yards and up to 150 inches at 60 yards.  In other words.... if the bb "swarm" from a shotgun were 50m rocks (which are exceedingly rare, according to you) they would need to be within 0.04 inches laterally and 0.02 inches longitudinally at 60 yards to have any chance of "capture."  All of the videos I found were much more spread out than that.

 

Scaling up does not help.

 

Pi>>In the case of a shotgun, the pellets start out closely packed and are launched down a smooth bore tube at almost identical velocities.  These are ideal conditions to keep a "swarm" together.<<

 

This would be true of any objects which are at 1 AU.  If they are less than 1 AU, then eventually they would be accelerated enough (by solar forces) until they were at 1 AU and at the same speed.

All objects launched from Earth start at 1AU with an orbit that intersects their point of launch (with adjustment for perturbations).  Solar forces will act on all objects as a function of their distance from the Sun, surface area, and mass.  There is no equalizing aspect of solar forces that will cause them to settle in "at 1AU and at the same speed."    Nor is there any equalizing aspect of those forces that will circularize their orbits at the asteroid belt.

 

 

Pi>>We've discussed the equalization of speeds that would be necessary.  For even the largest rocks to be gravitationally bound requires speed within a fraction of a meter per second and trajectory within thousandths of a degree.  Otherwise they just sail right past each other on divergent trajectories.  Collisions will be increasingly rare over time as the launched material spreads out. >>

 

Those objects on the yellow line trajectory would be slowed until they were travelling the same speed and direction and at some point, as the swarm grew by random collisions of new objects, the gravity would take over to hold them together.

So your rebuttal consists of a drawing with arbitrary lines drawn on it to illustrate potential zones of capture. 

 

OK... I will agree that there are trajectories that will miss entirely.  There are trajectories in which an object will pass thru a "swarm."  And there are trajectories that will result in some kind of capture.  Those facts are not in dispute. 

 

The point is that the ones that result in a capture are far fewer than those that will pass by or thru.  In fact, in terms of collisions, there are far more trajectories that will knock an existing part of the swarm out than there are that will result in capture.

 

.... all I have time for right now..... I think I have one more "back" post of Indy's I really want to answer.....



#342 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 January 2017 - 01:48 AM

This isn't the post I was talking about, this first point bears answering AGAIN.....

Can you explain/justify WHY you would say that the temp of the swarm/cloud would NOT be similar to the Moon's?

I've explained this many times.

 

A solid rock (like the moon) will have very different thermal properties than a cloud.  The small particles in a cloud heat much more quickly than a rock and radiate that heat thru the cloud.  The kind of cloud you're talking about in space will tend to have a pretty uniform temperature all the way thru.  Not anything at all like a solid rock.

 

If you want another comparison, the cloud you're talking about is what, 15 km in diameter.  The moon is 3474 km in diameter.  It's absurd to think the cloud that has a diameter 230x smaller has 53,000 times less surface area and incredibly less mass will behave the same as the moon.

 

=========

I'll go ahead and answer the other point I was going to address now without going back to look up exact quotes.....

 

Indy had wanted to know why I said the maximum surface temperature of the cloud would be around -50C (-58F).  That is the temperature at which water sublimes to a gas in space.  Since the cloud lacks the gravity to hold the gas, the water component will disperse to space at temperatures over  -50C.

 

With regard to the claim that launch temperature will be near absolute zero.  It won't, but that is a point better suited for a discussion of Brown's "Rocket Science" claims.



#343 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 31 January 2017 - 03:49 PM

 

You should remember that the propulsion experts at NASA are fully aware of Carnot and don't even try to use that effect.....

 

 

There could be many other reasons they would not use Carnot.  One is that to get some object which is thick enough to NOT heat through, would probably by prohibitive, due to its launch weight.  Also it might be impossible to steer it in order to return it back to 1 AU (like they CAN with a sail).

 

 

 

>>Yeah, I would say it's "off some."  Indy claims 139 kg-m/s for solar energy per square meter while the sail produces only 0.000007 kg-m/s per square meter.  That's a factor of about 20,000,000 times the thurst per unit area NASA claims for a solar sail. >>

 

A solar sail is nowhere near as efficient as Carnot.  Do you deny this?  What do YOU say "Carnot efficiency" MEANS?  What is YOUR estimate for the amount of thrust from a Carnot engine that is 70% efficient?...or 1%?  Don't just give us your "incredulous" answer.  Even at 1%...that is PLENTY. 

 

>>If we look at another form of propulsion that NASA is experimenting with, ion propulsion, the situation is similar.  The Dawn mission used ion propulsion converting sunlight to electricity which is then used to ionize argon gas for propulsion.  The thrust produced by Dawn was 0.009N... about equal to a sheet of paper....  from a solar array having an area of 36.4m2 with a system efficiency of 65-80% (similar to that claimed by Brown for the Carnot effect).  That's about 40x the thrust/area ratio of a solar sail, but still 500,000 times less than Indy claims for the claimed "swarm" of debris launched by Brown's process.  Notice, ion propulsion pretty closely matches the efficiency claimed for Brown's carnot engine proposal in converting solar energy to thrust.>>

 

Apples and oranges.  Ion propulsion uses fuel.  This is a red herring anyway.  I will here and now concede that solar wind could not move things outward fast enough.  It is a combination of FOUR forces, and the greatest is Carnot.

 

>>I guess we are to believe all those propulsion experts at NASA, JPL, and Ames are idiots to be spending billions of dollars since the early days of space flight trying things like solar sails and ion propulsion when all they need to is stick up a one meter square piece of well insulated material and use a Carnot engine to get (at least) 500,000x the thrust provided by the vastly more complex systems under testing.>>

 

Maybe...if you include the idea of "well insulated" (to prevent it heating through).  Of course if you compare the weight to launch something like that to the ultra THIN solar sail, there is no comparison.   I have no idea if they considered Carnot or not. 

 

>>First, I notice you have reduced the size of the cloud to 1 km.  I'll just point out the thrust/mass ratio gets worse with increasing size as the radius of your "swarm" increases.  This is because area (and therefore thrust) increases as a function of radius squared while the mass increases as a factor of the radius cubed.>>

 

I pointed this out long ago.  And of course the OPPOSITE it true as well...that if you go SMALLER than 1 km,. the thrust is greater.  I would agree that if there is just ONE swarm with the mass of Pluto or even Ceres, then it probably would not be accelerated much.  I'm not sure if Brown has considered this, but he SHOULD.  I would guess his answer (like mine) would be that there would be many smaller proto-asteroids  which could be accelerated to great speed and then later merge to become one object.

 

l>>Without checking your calculations, the area of 785,400m2 needs to be adjusted for the curvature of the object.  Using an average 45o angle of incidence your effective area is reduced to under 560,000m2. >>

 

I suppose that would depend on the albedo.  If there is a low albedo, so that the energy is NOT reflected, then the real relevant factor is the cross-sectional area.  Period.  I just used a similar approach to what Sharp used (or was it Jellison?)...which was that a 1 km diameter would have approximately 1 sq km of crossectional area.  I just used pi r2 instead.  If you want to suggest that there would be less absorption on the edges...maybe.  But maybe not.  Also, I found an error I made...in total area of Sunjammer.  I said 304...you said 1440...Wiki says 1200 m2.  So my calc needs to be multiplied by 4-5x.  But the solar sail factor is inconsequential.  I have admitted that it could not move objects outward fast enough.

 

>>The mass of the object is irrelevant with regard to determining the thrust produced.>>

 

Mass if OF COURSE relevant...to get the amount of acceleration. 

 

>>Regardless of what you believe, your proposed thrust is off by a factor of at least 500,000 as demonstrated by ion propulsion engines that convert sunlight to thrust with an efficiency close to the claimed Carnot efficiency of 70%.>>

 

You can't compare a system that uses fuel to one that uses only solar.  You still have not told us YOUR estimate of the thrust of a 70% efficient (or 1% or whatever) Carnot engine.  You just told us about your incredulity...which means nothing.

 

>>The thrust to mass ratio is the important factor. >>

 

Of course it is! LOL.  That's why I did an area/mass calculation!  Did you miss that part?

 

>>Area is important only for purposes of determining thrust.  Using the results of ion engine testing, you would get about 0.0000063 kg-m/s over an area of 560,000m2.  This gives you a total of about 3.53 kg-m/sec for the entire surface.  Apply that to your mass of 524 million kg.>>

 

 

Who knows if ion engine is relevant?  IT USES FUEL.  I have said that if solar wind (sail) is all you have it is probably not enough.  But it ISN'T all you have.  I showed a site that does the Carnot calculation and at 70% it got enough thrust IN ONE DAY.  At 1% it was enough IN ONE YEAR.  You have never touched top, bottom or sides of that point.  All you said was NASA would have used Carnot...and that is not a direct reply to the argument. 

 

>>Ion propulsion takes the 1360 watts/m2 and converts it to thrust with a (Carnot) efficiency near 70%. >>

 

I believe that efficiency is in converting ELECTRICAL power to kinetic.  Not solar.  You have to know how efficient it is in making electricity out of solar.  And that STILL is a system USING FUEL. 

 

>>The demonstrated thrust is at least 500,000 less than you claim.  This is not estimated. It is not arbitrary.  It's a direct measurement made by actual propulsion systems.<<

 

You quoted wiki:

Ion thrusters have an input power need of 1–7 kW, exhaust velocity 20–50 km/s, thrust 25–250 millinewtons and efficiency 65–80%.

 

I don't think you understood the quote.  At 100%, solar energy of 1360 watt/m2 equals 139kg-m/s/s.  So if your idea is true, then 70% of that would be 97.3 neutons per second...NOT MILLIneutons!  So that is about 1000 times LESS.  Their efficiency MAY be 70% of conversion of the fuel into kinetic energy by way of electricity, but NOT conversion of solar input. 



#344 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 31 January 2017 - 03:53 PM

We can come up with all kinds of such comparisons.  For one thing, the cloud is 62% rock by mass.  Another factor is that rock is 3x the density of water.  If you have the same size rock as that small drop of water or snowflake, it would need 30 cm of empty space to result in an average density of 0.001.

 

Putting it another way, a cloud with a density of 0.001 made up of water will be 99.9% empty space.  BTW, that density of 0.001 is only a little less dense than air (about 0.00125 at STP).  The mixture being 62% rock by mass will be considerably less dense than air.

 

 

Yada yada.  If the particle of rock is 1/3 the volume of the droplet of water then it would be spaced 10 cm apart.  My only point is that this is not some very low-density object.  It is quite dense.  Picture a cloud of sand that is 1000 meters in diameter...with each sand grain 10 cm apart...that is a dense object.  At least when compared to SPACE it is. 



#345 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 31 January 2017 - 04:11 PM

It is far more likely that a collision will take place in which the incoming ball will not only bounce out of the "swarm" but will knock another ball (or balls) out of the swarm.  Example, breaking the rack in billiards.  By far, most of the trajectories for incoming objects will result in the breaking up of the swarm.  Remember, these objects are not (yet) held together by gravity.  Even if they are, it is pretty minimal.  For even the largest, most massive, objects (a 50m diameter rock) a velocity difference of less than 0.647 m/sec (out of 11,200) is enough to prevent capture.  That's 0.00058%.

 

I would dispute this.  When the object enters the cloud and then (say) 1/3 into it, it strikes an object, that would likely be NOT a direct hit, but a glancing blow.  So the two objects would go sideways, and then likely strike others.  The overall effect over time would be to equalize the speeds. 

 

>>(re shotgun) Scaling up is a simple matter .... >>

 

I am not asserting any captures by gravity early on.  There would be more captured by collisions (with some stuff sticking...like frost) to begin with. 

 

>>All objects launched from Earth start at 1AU with an orbit that intersects their point of launch (with adjustment for perturbations).  >>

 

Also adjustments by added solar tangential thrust...RIGHT?  Their perihelions do NOT intersect with 1 AU after that...RIGHT?  That is the DEFINITION of "spiral"...RIGHT?  DIDN'T YOU ALREADY AGREE TO THIS?  I expect you to probably yell again in 48 point red letters, but this is the REASON I have to keep after you to clearly admit something.  YOU OFTEN TAKE IT BACK!

 

>>Solar forces will act on all objects as a function of their distance from the Sun, surface area, and mass.  There is no equalizing aspect of solar forces that will cause them to settle in "at 1AU and at the same speed."   >>

 

I did not mean they "settle in".  I just meant that they start out < 1 AU and then they move gradually outward...which means they will, over time, have likelihood of encountering other objects at nearly the same speed.  Even if it is tiny sand particles or droplets or even gases, this will tend to equalize the speeds.  Then they would remain at whatever distance from the sun that speed would be, unless they keep getting pushed...as most would.  

 

>>Nor is there any equalizing aspect of those forces that will circularize their orbits at the asteroid belt.>>

 

The a-belt is quite wide.  But trying to address why some stuff stopped there and other stuff kept moving outward is a subject I am not ready to discuss.  Make of that what you will.  I have had my own questions about what could cause stuff to stay closer in while other stuff keeps moving outward.  I believe Brown would say it would be determined by how large the cloud of gases the object could hold onto against the force of the solar wind.  But he is vague about that, IMO. 

 

>>So your rebuttal consists of a drawing with arbitrary lines drawn on it to illustrate potential zones of capture. >>

 

Yep!  It was a pretty USEFUL drawing if I have to say so myself.

 

>>OK... I will agree that there are trajectories that will miss entirely.  There are trajectories in which an object will pass thru a "swarm."  And there are trajectories that will result in some kind of capture.  Those facts are not in dispute. >>

 

Oh REALLY?!  Then it WAS a useful drawing.  There WOULD be captures, even before gravity can do it.

 

>>The point is that the ones that result in a capture are far fewer than those that will pass by or thru.>>

 

You can't say that for sure and unless that bare assertion WERE true, then the cloud would gradually get larger, due at first to such captures, and later due to gravity.

 

>>In fact, in terms of collisions, there are far more trajectories that will knock an existing part of the swarm out than there are that will result in capture.>>

 

I dispute that.  It would be very hard for the yellow or purple (lines in my drawing) objects to knock away something on the outer fringe.  And stuff on the green line would be as likely to be sent inward as it would to be sent outward.  Only stuff on the outer edges could be knocked out of the cloud, and even then, the object doing the knocking would be sent inward, so there would be no net loss.  The cloud would GROW. 



#346 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 31 January 2017 - 04:26 PM

 

A solid rock (like the moon) will have very different thermal properties than a cloud.  The small particles in a cloud heat much more quickly than a rock and radiate that heat thru the cloud.  The kind of cloud you're talking about in space will tend to have a pretty uniform temperature all the way thru.  Not anything at all like a solid rock.

 

Picture a hollow Moon with a shell that is maybe 10 meters thick.  I believe it would behave the same as a solid Moon would as far as how much Carnot thrust is generated.  (You have seemed to even agree about this).  The mass would of course be less so the acceleration would be much greater.  The cloud of particles and gases would behave similarly.  There would be some thickness (say it is 100 meters) where 100% of the solar energy is captured, and it heats up the particles...and on the cold side, where 100% of the warmer stuff is exposed to the coldness of the shadowed space so that it gets cold.  This means there would be similar heat differentials to the Moon's...except that (because of different specific heats) the solar energy would heat up water-ice and vapor less.  So the differential would be about 25% less.  This would easily be compensated by a slightly slower rotation rate. 

 

Why don't you commit to telling us what YOU say the heat differential would be IF the cloud rotated 1 time each 28 days. 

 

>>If you want another comparison, the cloud you're talking about is what, 15 km in diameter.  The moon is 3474 km in diameter.  It's absurd to think the cloud that has a diameter 230x smaller has 53,000 times less surface area and incredibly less mass will behave the same as the moon.>>

 

I certainly DON'T think it would BEHAVE the same, since the greater mass of the Moon means it would be accelerated FAR less.  But as far as how much Carnot thrust occurs...it could indeed behave close to the same.  All I have said is that the TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL would be nearly the same.  And size has nothing to do with that. 

 

For instance, I think you could have a 1 km rock object that rotates once per 28 days and the temps would be similar to the Moon's.  Do you deny this?  So size is not particularly important, except to cause it to NOT "heat through."

 

 

>>Indy had wanted to know why I said the maximum surface temperature of the cloud would be around -50C (-58F).  That is the temperature at which water sublimes to a gas in space.  Since the cloud lacks the gravity to hold the gas, the water component will disperse to space at temperatures over  -50C.>>

 

Ok.  SO?  If it is ice particles or if it is cold vapor...there is little difference.  And of course rocky particles do not sublime. 

 

>>With regard to the claim that launch temperature will be near absolute zero.  It won't, but that is a point better suited for a discussion of Brown's "Rocket Science" claims.>>

 

I calculated it, after that part was questioned by the peer reviewers.  And the calc is now (for the past month or so) under review.  I suppose we'll see if they have objection to my calc.  You can use the combined gas laws to arrive at the temperature if you know (or assume) a given start temperature, start pressure, and end pressure.  I came up with several sets of numbers, using several start assumptions.  ALL were 35K or less.  Brown's expertise and doctoral thesis was in this area.  I doubt you want to dispute this part with him.  His model starts with gravitational pressure, and then added heat raises the temperature and pressure...then it is released.  His one and only assumption is that the Earth was created with the SWC and the water was increasing in temperature (and pressure)...until it ruptures the crust. 



#347 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 31 January 2017 - 10:36 PM

>>Using the results of ion engine testing, you would get about 0.0000063 kg-m/s over an area of 560,000m2. This gives you a total of about 3.53 kg-m/sec for the entire surface.<<

Previously you said the Dawn mission had a thrust of.009 Newtons from 36.4 square meters. That works out to .00025 Newtons per square meter...which is 400x more thrust. It still is irrelevant however, because I have conceded that solar wind power and even the kind of force produced by an ion engine would not be enough even if you did have the fuel. I don't know much about the force from the radiometer effect or the Yarkovsky effect but it seems that the major force would have to come from Carnot.

#348 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 February 2017 - 12:51 AM

You should remember that the propulsion experts at NASA are fully aware of Carnot and don't even try to use that effect.....

There could be many other reasons they would not use Carnot.  One is that to get some object which is thick enough to NOT heat through, would probably by prohibitive, due to its launch weight.  Also it might be impossible to steer it in order to return it back to 1 AU (like they CAN with a sail).

NASA has used material in space that will not heat thru for 40 years or so.  The Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System had to withstand temperatures over 1250C (about 3000F).

 

With regard to steering... There is no reason it couldn't be steered the same way a sail can.  Another way to steer is by rotating the panel to adjust the amount of thrust  There is no reason an inability to return to 1AU is a serious problem....  almost all missions are one way trips.

 

My point stands.....

The experts in space flight .... all the way back to Von Braun .... have been looking for a simple cost effective source of thrust in space.  It reduces the costs of space flight considerably.  For example, one of the uses of ion propulsion is course adjustments on the ISS.  It would save some $200 million a year in ISS fuel costs alone.  The leading proposals are solar sails and ion propulsion.  The ion system is heavy and highly complex.

 

Every one of the experts at NASA, JPL, Ames, and all of the other professionals involved with space flight for the last six decades must be absolute idiots to have missed such a simple, lightweight, inexpensive system that would produce 500,000x more thrust than the systems under consideration.  All of them.  No exceptions.  Not one.

 

 

Apples and oranges.  Ion propulsion uses fuel.  This is a red herring anyway.  I will here and now concede that solar wind could not move things outward fast enough.  It is a combination of FOUR forces, and the greatest is Carnot.

The usage of fuel in ion propulsion is irrelevant.  Solar forces would act on the panels of the ion unit in pretty much the same way as any other object in space.

 

Pi>>I guess we are to believe all those propulsion experts at NASA, JPL, and Ames are idiots to be spending billions of dollars since the early days of space flight trying things like solar sails and ion propulsion when all they need to is stick up a one meter square piece of well insulated material and use a Carnot engine to get (at least) 500,000x the thrust provided by the vastly more complex systems under testing.>>

 

Maybe...if you include the idea of "well insulated" (to prevent it heating through).  Of course if you compare the weight to launch something like that to the ultra THIN solar sail, there is no comparison.   I have no idea if they considered Carnot or not. 

As I pointed out, the insulation and weight problems have been solved for decades.  In fact, a one meter panel made of appropriate materials would have many advantages over the systems being tested in terms of weight, cost, space and complexity.

 

Many of these guys are physics PhDs.  They're fully aware of solar forces.... including Carnot.  They work with these forces on a daily basis.  In fact, in one of those saw it, didn't bookmark it, and can't find it things I saw where such forces had resulted in a 15,000 mile difference on a Mars mission.

 

They must all be idiots.  All they had to do is build a one meter panel and get 500,000x more thrust.



#349 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 01 February 2017 - 02:01 PM

>>My point stands.....The experts in space flight ....>>

 

I understand your point, but you still have not told us what YOU think the Carnot efficiency site's number MEANS.  What is your answer?  If it means what I say then there is TONS of excess thrust.  But I could be wrong.  Even if the efficiency were .001% (.00001x) it would be much more than enough. 

 

I don't know if the only consideration NASA may have had was the weight of insulation...there could be many more.  I will concede that if Carnot does not add substantial thrust, then the idea of pushing stuff out to the K-belt fails.  But just because you have incredulity that Carnot has validity because you think if it did, then NASA would have used it...and that you have considered all the factors NASA may have...is not good enough reason.

 

>>inexpensive system that would produce 500,000x more thrust than the systems under consideration.  All of them.  No exceptions.  Not one.>>

As I mentioned before...I think your 500,000 factor is off by about 400x.  See my post previous to this one (#347). 



#350 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 01 February 2017 - 03:20 PM

Continuing to fact check you...

You wrote:

>>The thrust produced by Dawn was 0.009N... about equal to a sheet of paper.... from a solar array having an area of 36.4m2 with a system efficiency of 65-80% (similar to that claimed by Brown for the Carnot effect). >>

Your source was wiki, and I have no idea where that author got "65-80%." The source wiki has is THIS which does not give those numbers. Instead it says a FUTURE type would have "40-60%" efficiency, but what does this mean? The MPDT thruster will produce 2.5 newtons from 100 KW of electricity. That is nowhere NEAR the idea that a square meter would convert the solar energy to newtons at 60% efficiency. Depending on how efficient the solar panel is...to get 100 KW from it might mean 200 KW or so of solar input. A square meter has 1.36 KW of solar energy (at 1 AU). That means if this WERE 60% efficient in converting solar energy to newtons, then instead of 2.5 newtons, the 74 sq meters that has 100 KW of solar hitting it would make (139 x 74 x .60) 6172 newtons. So with a 50% efficient solar panel, this type of ion drive produces from a SINGLE square meter of solar panel about (2.5 / (200 x 1.36)) about .017 newtons. A 100% efficient Carnot engine delivers 139 kg-m/s, and a 1% efficient Carnot delivers 1.39. So the ion drive at .017 newtons per m2 is like having a Carnot efficiency of .012% (.00012x). This is much different than your claim of a Carnot engine being (supposedly...if my figures were right) 500,000x more efficient. Instead it is 8333x more...than this type of ion drive. This means your argument about NASA is much weaker, and maybe is ineffectual altogether. BTW, if the Carnot effect is ONLY as efficient as this MPDT ion drive, then (using my figures from before) instead of accelerating to 100 km/s in about a year (for a 1% efficiency), then it would take about 90 years to reach that speed. If it is one TENTH as efficient as this ion drive, then it would reach the K-belt in about 900 years. Still PLENTY of time to reach the K-belt within 4500 years.

If your NASA argument is right then I suppose they would have quit considering the solar sail long ago since an ion drive is more efficient. But they haven't. Perhaps the reason is because the ion drive requires fuel but the solar sail does not. And neither does Carnot.

#351 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 01 February 2017 - 09:24 PM

Can you explain/justify WHY you would say that the temp of the swarm/cloud would NOT be similar to the Moon's? I accept that the specific heat of the water vapor and ice portion would be different (a little more than 2x), but the rocky part would be the same...resulting in perhaps 75% or so of it being the same hot side temperature. I have not thought about what that may mean for the cold side.


I have thought about it now a little bit and what seems right to me is that the hot side would be cooler but the cold side would also be cooler due to the higher specific heat of the water portion. That means that in terms of a temperature differential, then the factor of there being a different specific heat for the water portion may have little effect.

#352 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 February 2017 - 11:05 PM

Pi>>My point stands.....The experts in space flight ....>>

 

I understand your point,

I hope so..... we'll see.

 

 

....., but you still have not told us what YOU think the Carnot efficiency site's number MEANS.  What is your answer? 

What do you want, a primer on Carnot?  Here's the short version.....Carnot engines basically work by heat exchange.  Carnot efficiency is measured by the difference (in Kelvin) between the high and low temperatures divided by the high temperature.  How's that?

 

 

If it means what I say then there is TONS of excess thrust.  But I could be wrong.  Even if the efficiency were .001% (.00001x) it would be much more than enough. 

In terms of thrust, which is really what matters here, if you're right, then all of the rocket scientists for the last 60 years are wrong.

 

 

I don't know if the only consideration NASA may have had was the weight of insulation...there could be many more.  I will concede that if Carnot does not add substantial thrust, then the idea of pushing stuff out to the K-belt fails.  But just because you have incredulity that Carnot has validity because you think if it did, then NASA would have used it...and that you have considered all the factors NASA may have...is not good enough reason.

Incredulity?  Seriously?

 

You have been provided with a number of reasons NASA would quickly abandon methods under development in favor of a Carnot effect as Brown claims.  Can you give me one reason NASA would not use such a simple inexpensive system of propulsion if it provided more thrust than the complex expensive systems under consideration?  Maybe the real rocket scientists are all just morons.

 

Does Brown give any actual supporting calculations to support his claim?   Brown merely asserts, based on a 70% Carnot efficiency of the moon and an arbitrary 28 day rotation period that a swarm of debris with the same rotation period will have the same efficiency totally without justification .... and you accept it.

 

IIRC, you quoted Brown as having told you that he thought the density of the swarm could be as low as 0.000001 and it would still work.  The density of air at STP is 0.0013 .... 1300x more dense than Brown's suggested value for the "swarm."   For all practical purposes, it would be so widely dispersed it would be invisible.  Yet you believe it would exhibit the same thermal properties as solid rock with a density 3.3 million times greater. 

 

You accept what Brown says without question.  I suggest your credulity is far more developed than my incredulity.

 

 

Pi >>inexpensive system that would produce 500,000x more thrust than the systems under consideration.  All of them.  No exceptions.  Not one.>>

As I mentioned before...I think your 500,000 factor is off by about 400x.  See my post previous to this one (#347). 

I've done a bit more research .... all previous calculations are withdrawn due to newer, more accurate information.



#353 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 February 2017 - 01:36 AM

Continuing to fact check you...

You wrote:

>>The thrust produced by Dawn was 0.009N... about equal to a sheet of paper.... from a solar array having an area of 36.4m2 with a system efficiency of 65-80% (similar to that claimed by Brown for the Carnot effect). >>

Your source was wiki, and I have no idea where that author got "65-80%." The source wiki has is THIS which does not give those numbers..... That is nowhere NEAR the idea that a square meter would convert the solar energy to newtons at 60% efficiency. Depending on how efficient the solar panel is..... A 100% efficient Carnot engine delivers 139 kg-m/s,.... This is much different than your claim of a Carnot engine being (supposedly...if my figures were right) 500,000x more efficient. Instead it is 8333x more...than this type of ion drive. This means your argument about NASA is much weaker, .....

Keeping in mind I've already done a bit more fact checking than Wiki and have withdrawn my earlier evaluation  (and, honestly at this moment, haven't yet done the new one) ......

 

 How like a YEC.... we've gone from 500,000x to only 8333x.  That would sure be enough of a difference to keep NASA from pursuing a Carnot process.  A mere 8333x the efficiency sure puts my argument in danger.

 

Let's go straight to the morons at JPL who designed the ion engine:

....each engine produces a total of 91 millinewtons—about the amount of force involved in holding a single piece of notebook paper in your hand....Each of the two solar arrays is 27 feet (8.3 meters) long by 7.4 feet (2.3 meters) wide. On the front side, 18 square meters (21.5 square yards) of each array is covered with 5,740 individual photovoltaic cells. The cells can convert about 28 percent of the solar energy that hits them into electricity.

 

Also, from the idiots at NASA:

... an ion thruster has a fuel efficiency of 10-12 times greater than a chemical thruster. The higher the rocket's specific impulse (fuel efficiency), the farther the spacecraft can go with a given amount of fuel.

 

OK.... now we have the data straight from the primary source..... the rocket scientists who flew the spacecraft to Vespa then on to Ceres.

 

So, they measure efficiency differently.  However, we do know the solar panels work at 28%, their area is 36 square meters and the thrust is 0.091N.  The thermodynamic efficiency of the xenon acceleration is probably similar to that of a chemical rocket which is in the high 90's.  Thrust per square meter at an efficiency of 28% should be about 0.0025N/m2. (You slipped a decimal.)  Your claimed 139 kg-m/s is still 55,600x more thrust per square meter than the ion engine.

 

If NASA could get just the same amount of thrust with Brown's proposal, let alone 56,000x more, they'd junk the ion engine in a heartbeat.  On a mission like Dawn, they could carry about 1000 kg of instrumentation instead of fuel and use the solar power made available by the discarded ion propulsion to power those instruments.

 

You have asked repeatedly what I think the Carnot efficiency of Brown's "swarm" would be.  Again, I have no way to calculate it, but my money is that it will produce less than 0.0025N/m2. thrust.

 

The rocket scientists at NASA, JPL, and AMES would jump on any process that would produce that much more thrust then the developing technologies.



#354 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 February 2017 - 11:27 PM

Brown's claim is there will be "swarms" of material that will collect additional matter by a process of aerobraking to form the asteroids.  According to Indy, Brown says the early density may be as low as 0.000001.  The claim is also made that these early swarms have an "atmosphere" and they will have a temperature range similar to that of the moon.

 

One of the things I've been claiming is that any water vapor in these swarms will quickly disperse.  The equation to determine dispersion velocity of a gas is:

μrms = (3RT/M)½

where
μrms = root mean square velocity in m/sec
R = ideal gas constant = 8.3145 (kg·m2/sec2)/K·mol
T = absolute temperature in Kelvin
M = mass of a mole of the gas in kilograms.

 

The minimum temperature at which water can exist as a gas is about -50C (-68F).  That's 223 Kelvin.  At that temperature, the dispersion velocity is 555.9 m/sec. 

 

In simple terms, water vapor will spread out at a speed of about 560 m/s (1250 mph) unless the "swarm" to which it belongs has an escape velocity greater than that. 

 

Higher temperatures mean higher dispersion velocities.  Remember, Brown uses the moon for comparison and claims his swarms will have similar thermodynamic properties, at least in terms of rotation rate and surface temperatures.  That means a daytime temperature of 250C and an escape velocity of 851 m/sec (over 3,000 mph).

 

The question then becomes what the minimum size of the "swarm" must be to hold the necessary water vapor to act as an atmosphere.  I realize Brown claims densities as low as 0.000001.  Rather than speculate on the density, I'm going to use solid rock (density 3.0) to calculate a minimum size object to hold water vapor.  Using a sphere volume calculator and an escape velocity calculator, I found a 100 km radius (125 mile diameter) rock has a surface escape velocity of only 129 m/sec.  Less than a quarter of the gravity needed to hold water vapor. 

 

Since Brown's claim is the maximum size of rocks launched is 200m and (from the Crater discussion) you wouldn't find even one of them in an object with a diameter of 70 km (IIRC), I stopped there.



#355 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 February 2017 - 02:55 AM

Summarizing.....

 

Is it my incredulity or the credulity of Brown's supporters?   Let's see......

 

In the "Fire and Brimstone" discussion, Indy claims only an insignificant percentage of the material launched is launched at velocities below escape velocities below 11.2 km/sec .... the velocity required to escape from Earth's gravity.  Some years ago, Indy had a recorded discussion with Brown in which Brown claimed the number would probably be less than 1/1000 (0.1%)  In this discussion, Indy has claimed only 1/33,000  (0.0033%) is launched above 11.2 km/sec.. 

 

That means over 99.8% of the material would be at 11.2 km/sec or very slightly above.  Yet, when we see similar eruptions, debris is launched with a very wide range of velocities.... and the more powerful the outburst, the greater the range of velocities.

 

Am I simply arguing from incredulity, or is Indy arguing from credulity?

 

 

 

Indy agrees that the consequences of even a miniscule portion of the energy sent to space leaking into the atmosphere would lead to unsurvivable temperatures.  Based on Faulkner's calculations, I came up with 3 millionths of the energy (0.0003%) increasing the temperature of the atmosphere to above the boiling point of water.  I think pretty much anyone would agree that life on Earth would be destroyed before the atmosphere got anywhere near that hot.  I have pointed out that steam processes usually operate at 40% or less efficiency.  Indy claims even one millionth (0.0001%) of the launch energy leaking to the atmosphere is unrealistically high.  Mainly because Brown says so.

 

Am I simply arguing from incredulity, or is Indy arguing from credulity?

 

 

 

For the formation of the asteroids,  Brown claims "swarms" of material form the asteroids by aerobraking and gravity.  In the previous post, I've shown the "swarm" would need to be hundreds of miles across to have any chance at all of holding any water vapor for aerobraking.  Earlier posts showed gravity wouldn't work either.  The inverse square law and "shotgun effect" demand the rocky material will spread out also.

 

Am I simply arguing from incredulity, or is Indy arguing from credulity?

 

 

 

In order to move the asteroids to a higher orbit, Brown points to a 70% efficiency based on the temperature difference between the day and night side of the moon.  Forget that the moon is made of rock with a density of 3.34 and Brown suggests a density of only 0.000001 .... 1300 times less than air.  Ignore the fact that the moon is many times larger and more massive than almost all of Brown's proto-asteroids.  Don't even consider if Brown is right on using the Carnot effect to achieve higher orbit, NASA could replace expensive heavy and complex propulsion systems with what is, by comparison, little more than a one meter square of coated Space Shuttle tile on a stick and get thousands of times more thrust.

 

Am I simply arguing from incredulity, or is Indy arguing from credulity?

 

 

 

I pointed this out before.....

Brown:

 

..... The Carnot efficiency (referred to on page 359) for producing outward thrust of Pluto’s slowly spinning swarm was about 15 times greater than that of Earth.176

The more massive an object, the less a given force can accelerate it. Earth is 460 times more massive than Pluto. Therefore, Pluto’s swarm early in its spiral received about 27,600 (4×15×460ª27,600) times more outward acceleration from solar energy than Earth. While this outward acceleration on the Earth is too small to be detected (and for most purposes is insignificant), it is some small number greater than zero. Soon after the flood, Pluto’s outward acceleration would have been 27,600 times greater than that small number. Because displacements grow exponentially over time from accelerations, Pluto and other TNOs moved great distances.

So, Brown has upped the ante from just the asteroids to Pluto and all the other TNOs.  The only thing he gives us is an outward acceleration "too small to be detected (and is for most purposes is insignificant), it is some small number greater than zero.....Pluto's outward acceleration would have been 27600 times greater than that small number."  Indy accepts that uncritically as not only an adequate explanation for Pluto but all the other TNOs far beyond Pluto as well.

 

Am I simply arguing from incredulity, or is Indy arguing from credulity?



#356 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 06 February 2017 - 10:27 AM

For the information of readers.....

 

Indy has advised me privately that he has important personal matters that he needs to deal with and will not be able to post for a week or so.



#357 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 February 2017 - 09:06 PM

There is one thing that needs to be pointed out about Brown's claims and his support of them....

 

Twice now, I have mentioned the vagueness of Brown's description for how objects beyond Neptune (Trans Neptunonian Objects or TNOs) reached such distant orbits.  (See post #355)

 

In this discussion, I have commented a number of times that Brown does not provide specifics essential to evaluation of his claims.

 

Jellison made a point of how difficult it was to get information from Brown:

Brown says he has a computer program that validates his theory of asteroid orbital enlargement. But his book provides no details, and he says he got his results using "arbitrary" values for parameters like gas density. What we need to know are the actual values! If he won't give a straightforward listing of his assumed parameter values, the best way to evaluate his claims would be to inspect and run his computer code. Unfortunately, my polite requests to him for more information resulted only in repeated statements that he is "not an answering service," along with challenges to a "telephone debate." He said his calculations were checked and approved by "a very capable astronautics professor," but refused to give this person's name. He said it would be too difficult to print out and send me the code he used to do the calculations, even though I offered to pay him for his time.

He claims to have made a great discovery, but refuses to disclose how he did his work.....

I've repeatedly told Dr. Brown that I'll be happy to engage with him if he wants to defend his book...... If he will provide information on his calculations, at a level of detail equivalent to what a scientist expects in a standard peer-reviewed research paper, .....

 

I think Indy can verify that Brown's lack of specifics would not pass muster for publication in a scientific journal.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: brown, hydroplate, flood, noah, meteorite, astronomy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users