Breeder reactors are a type of fast neutron reactor that produce their own fuel and a surplus. This allows them to sustain the nuclear reaction without adding more fuel and the surplus fuel can, in turn, be used to create other breeder reactors.
Are you sure that's right? Sounds like perpetual motion to me.
The coexistence of terrorism and increasingly powerful commercial technology is scary.
How many people have been killed by terrorism in the US? And how many have died in car accidents in the same period? How many have died from heart disease?
If you want to make yourself safer, eat healthy and take public transit. The benefits you'll get will far ourweigh the risk of terrorists flying a NASA scramjet into your bedroom.
...there are many inventions that are effectively self-disclosing: if you see that it is done, you know how it is done.
I wonder if it would be possible under U.S. patent law to challenge these patents on this basis? I strongly doubt it, but the very fact that such inventions are patented is a measure of how badly the patent system needs reform.
That makes no sense. Should the guy who invented the zipper not get a patent, just because it's obvious once you see it? What about the vacuum cleaner?
Keep business and software patents, but put the burden on the patent holder to prove it's valid (i.e., useful, novel and not obvious) in any subsequent trial or hearing.
And if the patent holder loses, it has to pay all of the challenger's legal costs.
Here's the reality: big companies get boatloads of patents because they can afford to file them. Then they sign deals with each other so they can use each others' patents. Result: big companies can freely use ideas without worrying about getting sued for the most part. Meanwhile, Joe Blow, who can't afford to make deals like this, must worry about every line of code he writes or every business process he devises, because it might be patented, and he can't afford a court battle.
So just what part of the patent problem does your scheme solve?
Kepler's 3rd law states that the square of the period of an orbit is proportional to the cube of the distance. More generally, p^2 is proportional to a^3/M where p is the period, a is the semimajor axis, and M is the mass of the system.
Plugging in the values for these two black holes, assuming they are in a nearly circular orbit, we find that the period is about 55,000 years. That sounds like a long time until you realize that this mammoth orbit is almost 20 light years in circumference.
That means that the smaller black hole is orbiting at a speed of over 100 km/s, which easily beats Earth's speed around the Sun (30km/s), even though the large distance between the black holes puts them at a 40 billion-fold gravitational disadvantage!
I level a legitimate criticism against an idea, and you respond by attacking me personally.
No, you call the idea "really, really stupid" accompanied by evidence that you didn't RTFA, and I point out that this behaviour makes you a jackass.
Then I look at your comment history and note that I disagree with most of what you say, and that you habitually engage in flame wars, and mark you as a Foe so I don't have to read your angry little rants any more.
Let's take a sampling of your recent comments, shall we?
I'll forgive you for not grasping his mathematical language...
How big of you.
What a shallow, empty life you must lead, if you can drop it all at any given moment in exchange for a few bucks.
Have fun waking up to reality when you're 50 and you realize you have no lifelong friends, no wife, no children, and no happiness. But hey, at least you got to work your ass off for someone else your entire life.
Why should I want to read any more comments written by the person who authored this little nugget?
Take the goddamn blindfold (or idiot hat, or whatever) off.
On the other hand... arbitrarily guaging sentences such as this just for the fear and shock value it will inflict on other would-be spammers is a negligent policy decision.
But one of the explicit reasons for the existence of prison terms is the deterrent value to other would-be criminals.
In the future, the Author will create a language that emphasizes speed and portability.
Aha. Join the club. Here's hoping you're one of those special few who actually succeed in creating a useful programming language that others actually use.
Each other out until the path becomes a circle, aka an orbit.
This is wrong. Ignoring air resistance, if you give the projectile enough speed, and it will cruise out in an elliptical orbit for at most one turn around the Earth. The best case scenario is that it will impact on the spot where it was launched. If you want a sustained orbit, you need to give a second boost somewhere off the ground to raise your periapsis and keep your orbit from intersecting the Earth's surface.
Dude, you're way, way off. Here is a good, cheap book that covers the fundamentals if you are interested.
To begin with, you seem to assume that all orbits are circular. In reality, they are conic sections, and can be circular, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic. Parabolic and hyperbolic orbits escape into space. Circular and elliptical orbits are the interesting ones.
With that in mind, let me address your statements...
First off, this isn't "ideal two-body gravitation".
Ok. Let's take this in the context of your earlier statement that "With a large enough slingshot, a vehicle that is shot out at 17,000 mph will settle into low Earth orbit." I was being generous in assuming perfect two-body gravitation, but let's do it your way and account for perturbations too. The first and most obvious one is air resistance, which slows the vehicle and only makes it harder (much harder) to get to orbit, making your statement that much more false. All other perturbations pale in comparison.
And even IN ideal two-body gravitation there is no gaurentee that a body will pass over the same point twice. (At least if you are modeling the system as two particles in a discrete time simulation.)
Wrong. In two-body gravitation, a satellite in an elliptical or circular orbit will follow the same path on every orbit, passing through exactly the same points. If your discrete-time simulation doesn't reproduce this behaviour, then your simulator is broken.
You fire a ping pong ball off at an angle in a vacuum with enough velocity to sustain orbit. At first the ball travels in a straight line.
Wrong. It follows a conic section from the moment the applied force stops. The ping pong ball would only travel in a straight line if it were travelling directly toward the center of gravity, or if there were no net gravity.
The "point of final impulse" is really the place in which we start traveling perpendicular to gravity vector.
Wrong. A satellite only travels perpendicular to the gravity vector at periapsis and apoapsis. There's no reason the final impulse must be applied at these points.
Oh I see what you mean. My guess would be that they are an American company that doesn't want the hassle of dealing with foreign companies (whatever hassle that might be).
Sorry, you're wrong, chief. Ignoring air resistance, and assuming only ideal two-body gravitation, all obrits pass through the point at which the final impulse was exerted.
As you say, you end up with a slippery slope that leads to AOT compilation, which would be fine, except that it makes you ask the question, why are we jitting in the first place? At that point, whatever answers you come up with often work against keeping persistent data between runs of the same application.
However, it's certainly not impossible in principle, and I'm sure there are profitable points on the JIT-versus-AOT spectrum that have yet to be explored.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to make yourself safer, eat healthy and take public transit. The benefits you'll get will far ourweigh the risk of terrorists flying a NASA scramjet into your bedroom.
You can even read the license plate on the car in the lower-left corner.
Ah yes, that is an excellent point.
Here's the reality: big companies get boatloads of patents because they can afford to file them. Then they sign deals with each other so they can use each others' patents. Result: big companies can freely use ideas without worrying about getting sued for the most part. Meanwhile, Joe Blow, who can't afford to make deals like this, must worry about every line of code he writes or every business process he devises, because it might be patented, and he can't afford a court battle.
So just what part of the patent problem does your scheme solve?
Plugging in the values for these two black holes, assuming they are in a nearly circular orbit, we find that the period is about 55,000 years. That sounds like a long time until you realize that this mammoth orbit is almost 20 light years in circumference.
That means that the smaller black hole is orbiting at a speed of over 100 km/s, which easily beats Earth's speed around the Sun (30km/s), even though the large distance between the black holes puts them at a 40 billion-fold gravitational disadvantage!
Nice. I like that answer. You are a Foe no more. :-)
Then I look at your comment history and note that I disagree with most of what you say, and that you habitually engage in flame wars, and mark you as a Foe so I don't have to read your angry little rants any more.
Let's take a sampling of your recent comments, shall we?
How big of you. Why should I want to read any more comments written by the person who authored this little nugget? 'Nuff said.Anyway, if spammers have that many zombies, then now they'll spend all their time generating stamps rather than sending mail. Sounds like a win to me.
This is already covered on the Frequently Raised Objections page.
Thanks for the interesting post. I wish there were more here like yours.
To begin with, you seem to assume that all orbits are circular. In reality, they are conic sections, and can be circular, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic. Parabolic and hyperbolic orbits escape into space. Circular and elliptical orbits are the interesting ones.
With that in mind, let me address your statements...
Ok. Let's take this in the context of your earlier statement that "With a large enough slingshot, a vehicle that is shot out at 17,000 mph will settle into low Earth orbit." I was being generous in assuming perfect two-body gravitation, but let's do it your way and account for perturbations too. The first and most obvious one is air resistance, which slows the vehicle and only makes it harder (much harder) to get to orbit, making your statement that much more false. All other perturbations pale in comparison. Wrong. In two-body gravitation, a satellite in an elliptical or circular orbit will follow the same path on every orbit, passing through exactly the same points. If your discrete-time simulation doesn't reproduce this behaviour, then your simulator is broken. Wrong. It follows a conic section from the moment the applied force stops. The ping pong ball would only travel in a straight line if it were travelling directly toward the center of gravity, or if there were no net gravity. Wrong. A satellite only travels perpendicular to the gravity vector at periapsis and apoapsis. There's no reason the final impulse must be applied at these points.Ok, and does this make Rutan less likely to build an orbiter?
Oh I see what you mean. My guess would be that they are an American company that doesn't want the hassle of dealing with foreign companies (whatever hassle that might be).
This is not a hidden agenda. It's the explicit goal of a company that wants to (gasp!) make a profit.
Sorry, you're wrong, chief. Ignoring air resistance, and assuming only ideal two-body gravitation, all obrits pass through the point at which the final impulse was exerted.
Because it's their money and they can do what they want. They can offer the prize only to freemasons if they want.
You know, this is HTML. You don't have to use plusses for emphasis.
How is kinetic energy relevant exactly? Does it make Rutan less likely to build an orbiter?
However, it's certainly not impossible in principle, and I'm sure there are profitable points on the JIT-versus-AOT spectrum that have yet to be explored.