Actually, the "gray goo" DOES eat carbon. If we say the gray goo is man-made technology (yes I know it usually means nanotech) than it could also mean engines. Since things eat to extract nutrients and energy, than car engines EAT gasoline, a carbon based chemical.
Carbon life extracts energy from non-carbon sources but can get very few nutrients. Nanotech life could extract energy from carbon sources even if it would have to eat other stuff to get nutrients.
Like lichens? There are lots of monocellular organisms that are lithotropic. The only reason they don't do better is because you don't get *much* energy when you convert complex rocks into simpler oxides, so it takes a long time to do a good job of it and in the meantime an animal comes along and eats you. But where I live, all the rocks are covered in lichens and they're slowly digesting them.
Lichens are a fungus and a photosynthetic organism working together. The fungus provides support and a bit of protection to the photosyntetic parts. The photosynthetic parts FEEDS the fungus.
The Lichen gets zero energy from the rock.
Typically they SPEND energy to dissolve the rock to create a foothold and a little for trace minerals. Lichens no more eat rocks than acid rain does.
Unless of course you couldn't get out and no air changed.
Even with just one person that air would get pretty rank after a few years. You may not notice because it is gradual but that doesn't mean it won't stink.
The atmosphere has a mass of over 5×10^18 kg (five billion billions). That's a fart in a stadium.
that 80 million barrels creates about 34,898,285,714 kg of CO2 a day, every day.
Since the atmosphere has about 2% CO2, every year you are adding about.001% and this is accelerating.
While one days CO2 is a fart in a stadium, it adds up. Remember, a stadium sits 50,000 people...and each one is farting away. Do you still want to sit in there?
But then you surround it by a sphere of an additional few million stars and you have a very significant mass (5-10% of the galaxy) that would slow down time in the area.
Then from our perspective, well outside the effect, the stars next to the core will appear to travel slower than they should which would make the fringe stars appear to move faster than they should in comparison.
Yes, I know that EEStor doesn't use en electrolyte. However is there any reason you COULDN'T use one?
EEStor's capacitance as you mentioned is based around the dielectric. It allows an exceptionally high voltage, 3,500 volts. Since typical supercaps don't have this dielectric they have a breakdown voltage of only a few volts.
But what if you used the barium titrate dielectric in a carbon supercap instead of the glass they typically use? You could then run up the voltage and get significantly higher capacitance.
The charge separation will be identical since the electrolyte is the actual charge carrier and the dielectric thickness will still be the same. The effectiveness of the dielectric shouldn't be changed by the presence of the electrolyte so the permittivity and dielectric constant will remain the same.
However since capacitance is integrated over the internal surface area (which is why graphene improves capacitance) the graphene/carbon SHOULD improve the effectiveness of the EESU by the same percentage as Supercaps to normal caps, or about 100 times.
Because the source of the energy density is the dielectric which can withstand significant voltages.
The graphite provides increased surface area which enhances the storage capacity.
Graphite/carbon supercaps are lower energy density BUT they provide about 100X the density of traditional capacitors. EEStor is creating a traditional capacitor that has an excellent dieelectric which allows high voltage with microns of seperation. Why wouldn't adding the carbon/electrolyte plates offer a 100X improvment over EEStor's current version?
The Lithium reserve is dropping rapidly and the known and expected reserves cannot provide enough lithium to provide a power source for all cars and other mobile devices. Even with 100% recycling there wouldn't be enough.
This violates the "cheap" condition.
As for lifetime, people don't typically allow for gentle cycles. This distinctly limits lifespan.
Litium Ion is an impressive technology and it will probaly increase the energy density by another 10 fold.
A variety of ultracapacitor technologies look like they will be able to compete with li-ion. Plus many of these technologies can be combined together which could distinctly increase the power levels.
Regardless, the world is desperatly looking for a really efficient electrical battery for a wide variety of reasons.
No, capacitors don't have to. In fact even the tiny capacitors you can get at radio shack hold enough power to fry most electronics if it were released at once.
Capacitors only release all the power they hold at once when they fail catastrophically...then they blow up.
However the output voltage of a cap is related to the energy they store so as the output voltage must be adjusted as the capacitor discarges to maintain usable voltage. By oncreasing the resistance in the circuit you can slow the discharge rate of a capacitor to usefull levels.
Or until we invent fertilizer (18th century)...for food Or until we invent pesticieds/herbicides...for food Or until we invent underground farming...for food Or until we invent land reclimation...for land Or until we invent skyscrappers...for land Or until we invent seasteading...for land Or until we invent lunar colonies...for land Or until we invent large dams...water, food and power (oil) Or until we invent water treatment...water Or until we invent reverse osmosis distillation...water Or until we invent atmospheric condensers...for water Or until we invent nuclear fission...for power (oil) Or until we invent fusion...for power (oil) Or until we invent photovoltaics...for power (oil) Or until we invent bio fuels...for power (oil) Or until we invent direct CO2 conversion to hydrocarbons...for oil (from power)
and a big one is:
Or until we invent a trully good electrical battery, one that stores a lot of energy, has high power density, does not wear out, does not use environmentally harmfull components and is cheap (something like these graphene supercapacitors will be under mass production)...for oil
My point is simple. Humanity ran out of resources about 20,000 years ago. We are designed to be hunter/gatherers. The earth can only support a few million hunter/gatherer human beings. It was only through the invention of agriculture and other technologies that we are able to continue. While we will probably ALWAYS have some resource limitation (probably power) there are technologies that exist now that if used can prevent any Malthusian collapse for the indefinet future.
As I understand EEStor's patent, they are creating a dielectric that they claim has an extremly high breakdown voltage. This allows them to make it micron's thick and still run the voltage up to 3500 Volts. They then sandwich this between two aluminum plates. So other than the dielectric, EEStore is creating a traditional capacitor.
Supercapacitors seem to provide about a 100-fold increase over traditional capacitors. By creating more surface area to store charge the activated carbon/electrolyte supercapacitors increase the energy they can store dramatically and these graphene type plates seem to provide a 2-fold increase over other supercapacitors.
So why can't these technologies be used together? EEStore is claiming 52 KWH per 400 lbs. Change EEStores traditional capacitor into a graphene plate system and get another 200 X boost for a total of 10.4 MWH in 400 lbs or 26 KWH per pound! At that energy density you could drive a sedan about 31,000 miles per charge.
Now I know EEStore hasn't produced a 52 KWH unit, but some aspects of the technology has been proven and even sceptics think they could acheive half that energy density...which is still a lot. Carbon supercapacitors are already on the market.
Does anyone with an approproate background know why this couldn't work?
Umm, look at Everest. Very close to the conditions you mentioned.
Plus you should look up "extremeophiles." These are bacteria that live in extreme conditions. They live in volcanoes, icebergs etc. Bacteria have been shown to survive quite well in vacuum on space probes.
I would also like to point out that a computer virus in many ways acts like a real virus...a real virus isn't alive. Look up the definition of life. The definition doesn't necessarily exclude silicon life but it DOES exclude everything we have come up with.
My point for saying how easy it is to kill is to point out that silicon life will almost certainly ONLY be found around intelligent organic life.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, all the time frames were quoted as from the point of view of the guy on the rocket.
He never said the rocket was traveling faster than light.
Question...
For the mass of fuel you mentioned, how much payload would you move to the target location?
Actually, the "gray goo" DOES eat carbon. If we say the gray goo is man-made technology (yes I know it usually means nanotech) than it could also mean engines. Since things eat to extract nutrients and energy, than car engines EAT gasoline, a carbon based chemical.
Carbon life extracts energy from non-carbon sources but can get very few nutrients. Nanotech life could extract energy from carbon sources even if it would have to eat other stuff to get nutrients.
That is my point!
The lichen does not get any energy from the rock. The lichen puts energy INTO the rock to break it up.
Like lichens? There are lots of monocellular organisms that are lithotropic. The only reason they don't do better is because you don't get *much* energy when you convert complex rocks into simpler oxides, so it takes a long time to do a good job of it and in the meantime an animal comes along and eats you. But where I live, all the rocks are covered in lichens and they're slowly digesting them.
Lichens are a fungus and a photosynthetic organism working together. The fungus provides support and a bit of protection to the photosyntetic parts. The photosynthetic parts FEEDS the fungus.
The Lichen gets zero energy from the rock.
Typically they SPEND energy to dissolve the rock to create a foothold and a little for trace minerals. Lichens no more eat rocks than acid rain does.
Unless of course you couldn't get out and no air changed.
Even with just one person that air would get pretty rank after a few years. You may not notice because it is gradual but that doesn't mean it won't stink.
The atmosphere has a mass of over 5×10^18 kg (five billion billions). That's a fart in a stadium.
that 80 million barrels creates about 34,898,285,714 kg of CO2 a day, every day.
Since the atmosphere has about 2% CO2, every year you are adding about .001% and this is accelerating.
While one days CO2 is a fart in a stadium, it adds up. Remember, a stadium sits 50,000 people...and each one is farting away. Do you still want to sit in there?
which has long bacon, long ham and of course the extras go into...
long sausage
But to be fair, the CO2 IS better than the Ethelene C2H4....
Now it's up to the NTSB to tell us why this happened, although, statistically, dollars to donuts it was engine/fuel-related.
Dollars to donuts the CRASH was gravity related...the engine/fuel is just a side problem!
But based on the "laws of Physics" time is NOT immutable. We knew both mass and speed affect the apparent rate of time.
All I am suggesting is that the local time frame may make it look like it is moving slower from the outside....using the "laws of Physics"
But then you surround it by a sphere of an additional few million stars and you have a very significant mass (5-10% of the galaxy) that would slow down time in the area.
Then from our perspective, well outside the effect, the stars next to the core will appear to travel slower than they should which would make the fringe stars appear to move faster than they should in comparison.
a 3 million sun heavy black hole...like the one in the center of many galaxies including our own?
If this was why the galaxies appear to rotate to quickly at the edges.
Would the greater density at the galactic cores cause time to go slower and effect the apparent speed as observed from the exterier of the system?
How much do they cost and when can I get some?
400 watts per meter would let me go solar without cutting usage at all!
Yes, I know that EEStor doesn't use en electrolyte. However is there any reason you COULDN'T use one?
EEStor's capacitance as you mentioned is based around the dielectric. It allows an exceptionally high voltage, 3,500 volts. Since typical supercaps don't have this dielectric they have a breakdown voltage of only a few volts.
But what if you used the barium titrate dielectric in a carbon supercap instead of the glass they typically use? You could then run up the voltage and get significantly higher capacitance.
But I did like your guinea pig analogy :-)
Why?
The charge separation will be identical since the electrolyte is the actual charge carrier and the dielectric thickness will still be the same. The effectiveness of the dielectric shouldn't be changed by the presence of the electrolyte so the permittivity and dielectric constant will remain the same.
However since capacitance is integrated over the internal surface area (which is why graphene improves capacitance) the graphene/carbon SHOULD improve the effectiveness of the EESU by the same percentage as Supercaps to normal caps, or about 100 times.
Do you have any links one way or another?
Because the source of the energy density is the dielectric which can withstand significant voltages.
The graphite provides increased surface area which enhances the storage capacity.
Graphite/carbon supercaps are lower energy density BUT they provide about 100X the density of traditional capacitors. EEStor is creating a traditional capacitor that has an excellent dieelectric which allows high voltage with microns of seperation. Why wouldn't adding the carbon/electrolyte plates offer a 100X improvment over EEStor's current version?
Actually I have another post on this topic that asked about EEStor.
I was wondering if the EEStor type supercap could be matched with these carbon supercaps.
Perhaps you ahve some insight?
Not more than once...
The problem with Li ion is scarcity.
The Lithium reserve is dropping rapidly and the known and expected reserves cannot provide enough lithium to provide a power source for all cars and other mobile devices. Even with 100% recycling there wouldn't be enough.
This violates the "cheap" condition.
As for lifetime, people don't typically allow for gentle cycles. This distinctly limits lifespan.
Litium Ion is an impressive technology and it will probaly increase the energy density by another 10 fold.
A variety of ultracapacitor technologies look like they will be able to compete with li-ion. Plus many of these technologies can be combined together which could distinctly increase the power levels.
Regardless, the world is desperatly looking for a really efficient electrical battery for a wide variety of reasons.
No, capacitors don't have to. In fact even the tiny capacitors you can get at radio shack hold enough power to fry most electronics if it were released at once.
Capacitors only release all the power they hold at once when they fail catastrophically...then they blow up.
However the output voltage of a cap is related to the energy they store so as the output voltage must be adjusted as the capacitor discarges to maintain usable voltage. By oncreasing the resistance in the circuit you can slow the discharge rate of a capacitor to usefull levels.
Or until we invent fertilizer (18th century)...for food
Or until we invent pesticieds/herbicides...for food
Or until we invent underground farming...for food
Or until we invent land reclimation...for land
Or until we invent skyscrappers...for land
Or until we invent seasteading...for land
Or until we invent lunar colonies...for land
Or until we invent large dams...water, food and power (oil)
Or until we invent water treatment...water
Or until we invent reverse osmosis distillation...water
Or until we invent atmospheric condensers...for water
Or until we invent nuclear fission...for power (oil)
Or until we invent fusion...for power (oil)
Or until we invent photovoltaics...for power (oil)
Or until we invent bio fuels...for power (oil)
Or until we invent direct CO2 conversion to hydrocarbons...for oil (from power)
and a big one is:
Or until we invent a trully good electrical battery, one that stores a lot of energy, has high power density, does not wear out, does not use environmentally harmfull components and is cheap (something like these graphene supercapacitors will be under mass production)...for oil
My point is simple. Humanity ran out of resources about 20,000 years ago. We are designed to be hunter/gatherers. The earth can only support a few million hunter/gatherer human beings. It was only through the invention of agriculture and other technologies that we are able to continue. While we will probably ALWAYS have some resource limitation (probably power) there are technologies that exist now that if used can prevent any Malthusian collapse for the indefinet future.
As I understand EEStor's patent, they are creating a dielectric that they claim has an extremly high breakdown voltage. This allows them to make it micron's thick and still run the voltage up to 3500 Volts. They then sandwich this between two aluminum plates. So other than the dielectric, EEStore is creating a traditional capacitor.
Supercapacitors seem to provide about a 100-fold increase over traditional capacitors. By creating more surface area to store charge the activated carbon/electrolyte supercapacitors increase the energy they can store dramatically and these graphene type plates seem to provide a 2-fold increase over other supercapacitors.
So why can't these technologies be used together? EEStore is claiming 52 KWH per 400 lbs. Change EEStores traditional capacitor into a graphene plate system and get another 200 X boost for a total of 10.4 MWH in 400 lbs or 26 KWH per pound! At that energy density you could drive a sedan about 31,000 miles per charge.
Now I know EEStore hasn't produced a 52 KWH unit, but some aspects of the technology has been proven and even sceptics think they could acheive half that energy density...which is still a lot. Carbon supercapacitors are already on the market.
Does anyone with an approproate background know why this couldn't work?
Umm, look at Everest. Very close to the conditions you mentioned.
Plus you should look up "extremeophiles." These are bacteria that live in extreme conditions. They live in volcanoes, icebergs etc. Bacteria have been shown to survive quite well in vacuum on space probes.
I would also like to point out that a computer virus in many ways acts like a real virus...a real virus isn't alive. Look up the definition of life. The definition doesn't necessarily exclude silicon life but it DOES exclude everything we have come up with.
My point for saying how easy it is to kill is to point out that silicon life will almost certainly ONLY be found around intelligent organic life.
You lose. Good day sir.