Ways to clean up pollution and live in a good climate.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
May 11, 2008
20,132
1,319
126
How can 1.5kg of hydrogen drive a car over 2000km? Liquid hydrogen energy density is only 8MJ/L. It weights about 72KG/M³. So each litre is 0.072KG. so about 21L of the stuff and about 168MJ.

In contrast 87 octane gas is 32 MJ/L.
I am interested in how it all works, but i am not at my best at the moment so i do not have the energy to dig deep into this matter. Even though i am very interested in the subject. Unfortunately as added energy draining problem, i have a huge list of externally caused problems to solve.
According to the website , the energy density is 120 MJ/kg.
Perhaps it is best to contact them to see where the difference comes from. When i am able i certainly will do the same.

See fun fact #8 for the 120 MJ/kg.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
96,368
15,853
126
Also where is the energy to keep the liquid hydrogen liquid? -241C is not cheap.
 
May 11, 2008
20,132
1,319
126
Also where is the energy to keep the liquid hydrogen liquid? -241C is not cheap.
Here are some of my thoughts about it, based on past knowledge and some quick gathering of information.

I watched some promo videos. And i am not certain that the hydrogen is kept at -241 degrees celcius. Cryogenic storage it is often called, it seems.
By a quick glance, it seems either pressure based or storage material based.
My assumption based on the promo video is pressure based.

Material based storage is well on its way and in my opinion the best way.
Cryogenic storage and pressure based storage is what is currently used to transport grey hydrogen. Grey hydrogen is hydrogen created by use of the proces of natural gas reforming AKA steam methane reforming, the methane in the natural gas is broken down into hydrogen atoms and carbon atoms and some other left over elements.
This is because of the Fischer–Tropsch process, developed in Germany around 1925.

My guess would be that in the near future something like methane or another by us humans created molecular construct would be used as material based storage.
Thinking of all current research about material based storage like for example the ammonia storage based hydrogen fuel cell tractor with an electrical drivetrain, described in post #6 of this thread, see weblink to exceptional and original article from arstechnica :
Excerpt from the text :
"
Amogy's system can power the tractor for several hours on a 60-gallon tank of ammonia. But it's not used directly in the fuel cell; instead, the ammonia is cracked in a reactor to make hydrogen on-demand, which is then used to power the fuel cell. While there are inefficiencies in the system, Amogy says that the higher energy density of ammonia in the first place means you can easily carry enough fuel to compensate, coming out ahead of a normal hydrogen fuel cell in terms of both energy and power density.
"

My idea and thoughts about it in the event of disaster on the highway or just on the road. We know how real life goes, how everyday people are and how reckless people can be in automobiles and on motorcycles, we have to take this into account , much needed standards and certification :
  • Pressure based is not favorable, danger because of high pressure, think for example freeze spray if it goes wrong. Fast gas expansion makes for very cold temperatures. We do not want freeze burns or material falling apart. This has something to do, those gas specialized scientists already figured out : Boyle, Poisson, Gay Lussac, Dalton.
  • Cold storage is also not favorable, needs power to stay cool for longer periods of time and turns into high pressure when the temperature of the gas rises. Which also presents itself as a very dangerous situation.
  • In both cases, you lose a lot of very volatile hydrogen gas in a oxygen rich environment and all you need is one electrostatic discharge for things to go BOOM !. For a very awful example , read about the historical disaster about the hydrogen filled airship(blimp) called LZ 129 Hindenburg and how it burned up and exploded in 1937.
  • Also, just watch the numerous youtube videos about exploding hydrogen oxygen mixes. Even today, when building windturbines at sea or near the sea, the buildup of hydrogen inside the closed tubular tower carrying the nacelle and rotor because of hydrogen producing bacteria is a real problem and is something that is always taken into account when designing windturbines.


I prefer material based. Based on a catalyst to release the hydrogen, so biological based :
But if you think really wel about the subject, you will find that hydrocarbons are a very good storage of hydrogen.
One wants a high hydrogen to carbon ratio. To increase the amount of available stored hydrogen.

It seems there are aliphatic hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons.
My guess would be that aliphatic hydrocarbons are favorable because of the high hydrogen to carbon ratio.


Think of Decane for example , which after a quick glance looks good, or at least it seems good. See this Kekule structure.



decane01.png



Image property of :
General website :https://www.chemistry.ucla.edu/

My guess would be that this is the way to go. Hey... How natural of me...

The thing is to strip those hydrogen atoms from that molecule by use of an catalyst like for example an enzyme.
And that is i think where bacteria are good at. And we end up once again with methanogens or a specific family.
In my opinion, the specific methanogen families that have been flared of for decades now by natural gas flaring or methane flaring...
Because it is known that oil is converted by methanogens into methane but as syntrophic bacteria.

I remember that some biologist did research near the deep water horizon offshore oil drill platform.
And that biologist rediscovered something that is known for years, the hydrocarbons from the leaked oil is broken down into methane and hydrogen and CO2 by bacteria very similar to methanogens.

So, either use the enzyme alone or another solution that breaks the atomic bonds between the hydrogen and the carbon atoms and allows for the hydrogen to be captured and used for a fuel cell.
And then we have electricity and we are happy. Because then, us electronic designers come in and we know what to do. We have known for almost 200 years (Think Michael Faraday, 193 years ago) ... And probably longer perhaps in past civilizations... But the gadflies and the voodoo people came in and still exist today. (Cargo cult cultures, see Richard P. Feynman in a future post).
Anyway, i am drifting off... The advances when it comes to electromotors and the electronics that drive them are amazing.

One more thing, why these aliphatic hydrocarbons ?
Although the vapor can be dangerous, i do remember seeing people sticking burning matches in for example gasoline and nothing happens. That is a big plus. And we know how to build gastanks.

Highest hydrogen to carbon ratio :
One more thing, the best hydrogen to carbon ratio can be found in methanegas = CH4. 4 hydrogen atoms for every one carbon atom. Second best is ammonia = NH3, three hydrogen atoms for every one nitrogen atom.
So perhaps we either end up as hydrogen with a methane gas tank or a ammonia tank or a decane tank. A catalyst, a fuel cell and then the electronics to move us around.
Imagine that, still having a gas tank, but with a catalyst , fuel cell and electromotor+driver electronics.

That would mean hardly any change to the current gasoline infrastructure ! If that is not a huge positive, i do not know what is... :blush:

The produced pure carbon would have to be stored and be recycled. But that is not a biggy.
And the biggest plus : We can just create methane and hydrocarbons from CO2 and water as hydrogen carriers.
And create ammonia and thereby use the polluting nitrogen that is spilled over into nature to produce ammonia.

As a sidenote, We also have a nitrogen pollution problem.
This causes unbalance in the microbial communities in local waters like ditches, rivers and lakes and perhaps even seas.
This unbalance can cause increased methane production and reduced methane consumption by microbial life.
We can use the gathered nitrogen together with green hydrogen or blue hydrogen as a basis for the ammonia as a hydrogen carrier.

See this article form hackaday as an informative article about capturing Co2 and produce methane once again :

The advances thereafter :
When we have portable matter to electricity power supplies we can drop this again... Something like a specific radiation to free electrons, something similar to photovoltaic energy conversion or more advanced thermophotovoltaic energy conversion (see future posts, over 40% efficiency IIRC) but with more powerful radiation and i would guess an easy to replace scintillator, all for consumer use : Direct radiation to electricity : Radiation -> Scintillation -> Photovoltaic Element -> electricity - > Feeling Irie ! Celebration ! All this by making really smart use of scintillation and the photoelectric effect.

The advances when it comes to electromotors and the electronics that drive them, just read the robotics : state of the art technology thread :

Something to think about.
Now i have to rest, because my head is killing me.


Information about : Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) :
Small excerpt from the text :
"
When gas is cooled to -162°C (-260°F) it forms a liquid, shrinking the volume of the gas by 600 times, making it possible to store and ship safely. In its liquid state, LNG will not ignite.
When LNG reaches its destination, it is turned back into a gas at regasification plants.
We have continued to innovate and improve the technology behind LNG and have worked hard to expand the availability of LNG around the world. For instance, we developed Prelude FLNG, the world’s largest floating LNG production facility, which accesses gas resources from underwater fields too uneconomic or challenging to reach from land.
"


As a last sidenote : Background literature about natural gas flaring and methane flaring (Which in essence is the same subject...) :

Excerpt from text :
"
The oil and gas industry has some of the best and most cost-effective opportunities to reduce methane emissions. The potential to do so is clear. Some countries and companies have already demonstrated that achieving near-zero emissions from oil and gas operations is technically and economically possible. There are a growing number of initiatives, policies and regulations aiming to reduce emissions globally, and many reductions can be realised while saving money. However, overall progress has been much too slow, despite the record profits that the oil and gas industry saw in 2022. This report looks in detail at the investment requirements to deliver a sharp reduction in oil and gas methane emissions to 2030, and how these could be financed. The analysis is intended to inform discussions in the runup to COP28 and help prompt the necessary actions to accelerate the pace of change.
"

About Amogy and ammonia cracking :

About the University of Utrecht(The Netherlands) and using ammonia as a hydrogen carrier. (In dutch, use google translate to translate to your native language)
And for the fun of it, the translated to English version :
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
20,132
1,319
126
Hydrogen to other atoms ratio suggestion when thinking about hydrogen carriers :
As addon, i was thinking how methane can be turned into methanol, but i do not know how much larger a methanol molecule is in size or volume with respect to methane.

Methane is 4 hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom.
Methanol is 4 hydrogen atoms and one carbon atom and one oxygen atom. One hydrogen atom is bound to the oxygen atom.

Methane is a gas, methanol is a liquid. Unfortunately, both molecules are highly flammable. Methanol is an alcohol that evaporates easily , it becomes a gas.
That is why ammonia as hydrogen carrier is much more popular. If i recall correctly, ammonia needs to be heated substantially and boil first before becoming volatile enough to burn violently : The hydrogen atoms are released.
 
May 11, 2008
20,132
1,319
126
Let us have a short post about solar cells AKA photovoltaic energy conversion :

This is old knowledge for me, i posted at another place a few years only to be ridiculed by jealous idiots : "Cracker jack, the smoking gunman".
Only because they are too dumb, too arrogant and too egocentric, lack empathy. And that is why such people fail to understand the matter and are never serious because of too much alcohol and drugs.
And i decided to withdraw all information i wrote there and feel pure loathing hate ever since for those people.

A word of advice to young and old scientists, engineers and technicians :
Never do anything for free or those greedy awful for example AYN RAND supporters will just use and abuse your good nature !
Always make a clear agreement, a contract if you will, bound by law if you have to.



Anyway, now that that is off my chest, let us return to the subject :

It's going in the right direction.

Solar cells with a higher efficiency are coming.
There are still some some technological challenges, but these challenges are being successfully addressed.
We all know about Narcissus who loved his/hers mirror image, luckily for us normal people, mirrors come in handy every day.
And even the newest solar cells setups use mirrors to reflect photons back that did not participate in generating electricity through the photoelectric effect in the active material.

When it comes to solar cells and the photoelectric effect, subjects like valence bands and bandgap are must knowns.
Basic knowlegde of atoms , electron shells, valence bands, the weird spooky effect of atoms to have a desire for 8 electrons in the outershell the valence band called the octet rule.
Conduction bands, valence bands, ionization. Weird stuff like noble gasses that refuse to mix with other atoms under most "normal" conditions.
These subjects we got in the 1980s - 1990s as common subjects at school.
For basic material understanding of electronic components , like for example transistors, why do transistor breakdown if you connect a too high voltage or let a too large current flow... Important subjects..
A small mugshot of one of my self chosen internship assignments around 1994 -1995, we had to write about subjects we proposed and our intership mentors would agree or deny beforehand of course.

atoms.jpg

As intermezzo about noble gasses :
"
Think of why the old incandescent lamps are filled with a low pressure noble gas. The heated atoms of the electrically conducting wire often called a filament do not react with the gas.
Because the bulb is partially vacuum, but not 0 bar. The glass bulb of an incandescent lamp bulb is filled with a noble gas to have some counterpressure against the outside of the glass bulb.
That has to be done, otherwise the bulb would have to be of very thick glass or the glass bulb would collapse. That is why noble gasses are used, these gasses are inert, they do not prefer to react with other atoms from other elements.
That was what i learned once long ago about noble gasses, about 32 years ago. I am pretty sure that these days in the 2024, a lot more knowlegde about atoms is discovered and proven to be useful.
"
End intermezzo.


The solar cells that are now very common and often to be found on roofs are made of silicon, but since 2009 research has also been conducted into Perovskite.
This mineral named after the Russian Count and mineralogist L.A. Perovski.
And great advances are being made :) :
Read about it at the Technical University of Eindhoven (Netherlands) technical and research news site from 27-09-2022.

Small excerpt from text :
"
TNO, TU Eindhoven, imec and TU Delft, partners in Solliance, joined forces to further push the conversion efficiency of tandem solar cells to beyond the limits of today’s commercial photovoltaic (PV) modules.
For the first time, four-terminal perovskite/silicon tandem devices with certified top cell pass the barrier of 30%. Such high efficiency enables more power per square meter and less cost per kWh.
The result is presented during the 8th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (WCPEC-8) in Milan, and it has been achieved by combining the emerging perovskite solar cell with conventional silicon solar cell technologies.
The perovskite cell that features transparent contacts and is part of the tandem stack has been independently certified.
"
and
"
Tandem devices can reach higher efficiencies than single junction solar cells because of a better utilization of the solar spectrum. The currently emerging tandems combine commercial silicon technology for the bottom device with perovskite technology: the latter featuring highly efficient conversion of ultraviolet and visible light and excellent transparency to near infrared light.
"

Something think about after reading , the text below !

And lets write about a special kind of solar cell, the thermophotovoltaic cell :

In post#53 i mentioned about thermophotovoltaic cells, these cells convert infrared radiation into electricity.
To do this efficiently , the temperatures have to be really high, like above 1000 degrees celcius.
That seems a big problem but smart people found good solutions. Read about it at nature.

Small excerpt from the text :
"
Thermophotovoltaics (TPVs) convert predominantly infrared wavelength light to electricity via the photovoltaic effect, and can enable approaches to energy storage1,2 and conversion3,4,5,6,7,8,9 that use higher temperature heat sources than the turbines that are ubiquitous in electricity production today. Since the first demonstration of 29% efficient TPVs (Fig. 1a) using an integrated back surface reflector and a tungsten emitter at 2,000 °C (ref. 10), TPV fabrication and performance have improved11,12. However, despite predictions that TPV efficiencies can exceed 50% (refs. 11,13,14), the demonstrated efficiencies are still only as high as 32%, albeit at much lower temperatures below 1,300 °C (refs. 13,14,15). Here we report the fabrication and measurement of TPV cells with efficiencies of more than 40% and experimentally demonstrate the efficiency of high-bandgap tandem TPV cells. The TPV cells are two-junction devices comprising III–V materials with bandgaps between 1.0 and 1.4 eV that are optimized for emitter temperatures of 1,900–2,400 °C. The cells exploit the concept of band-edge spectral filtering to obtain high efficiency, using highly reflective back surface reflectors to reject unusable sub-bandgap radiation back to the emitter. A 1.4/1.2 eV device reached a maximum efficiency of (41.1 ± 1)% operating at a power density of 2.39 W cm–2 and an emitter temperature of 2,400 °C. A 1.2/1.0 eV device reached a maximum efficiency of (39.3 ± 1)% operating at a power density of 1.8 W cm–2 and an emitter temperature of 2,127 °C. These cells can be integrated into a TPV system for thermal energy grid storage to enable dispatchable renewable energy. This creates a pathway for thermal energy grid storage to reach sufficiently high efficiency and sufficiently low cost to enable decarbonization of the electricity grid.

41586_2022_4473_Fig1_HTML.png


"

Perhaps one day it possible to use scintillation and use different materials with different bandgap values .
As i mentioned before in post #53 :
"
When we have portable matter to electricity power supplies we can drop this again...
Something like a specific radiation to free electrons, something similar to photovoltaic energy conversion or more advanced thermophotovoltaic energy conversion (see future posts, over 40% efficiency IIRC) but with more powerful radiation and i would guess an easy to replace scintillator, all for consumer use.
Direct radiation to electricity : Radiation -> Scintillation -> Photovoltaic Element -> electricity - > Feeling Irie ! Celebration ! All this by making really smart use of scintillation and the photoelectric effect.
"


The most commonly known kinds of radiation, but the good people working at CERN and other famous research facilities around the world have discovered a lot more and quantized that radiation into for us humans useful names : (Too much to mention and look up, feel free to add those research facilities in a post in this thread), but here is a basic explanation :
This is more like particles or nuclei flying around. Like for example :
Alpha radiation.
Beta radiation.
Gamma radiation.
Cosmic radiation.

And of course the for us common electromagnetic radiation :
From radio waves to gamma radiation.

If we look well, we perhaps can find something to better understand scintillation , be able to better reflect photons and be able to better use multiple materials with different bandgaps tuned to different wavelengths to harvest as much as electromagnetic radiation as possible.
To be able to better absorb and emit at the desired wavelengths.
All for the desire to have very powerfull batteries that last long and gives us a clean mother Earth and a means for space travel and to learn to about other planets and asteroids.
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
20,132
1,319
126
As follow up to post#55

Another post about perovskite based solar cells and a lot of detailed background knowledge from the Technical University of Eindhoven (Netherlands) technical and research news site:
Small excerpt from text :
"
Metal halide perovskites attract considerable attention for application in photovoltaic cells. These materials have an ABX3 crystal structure where A is a monovalent cation, B is metal dication, and X a halide anion. The first perovskites used for solar cells consisted of methylammonium, lead, and iodide (CH3NH3PbI3) but in the meantime many more complex metal halide perovskites have been developed in which other organic or inorganic cations, different metals, and multiple halides are used. These perovskites can be processed from solution into thin films in one- or two-step procedures and afford very efficient solar cells. The highest reported efficiencies already exceed 23%. However, the materials pose several scientific and technological questions, regarding their operational mechanism, stability, and opportunities to further increase the efficiency.
"
and
"
Multi-junction solar cells
To eventually surpass the 33.7% Shockley-Queisser limit for single solar cells junctions a well-knows strategy is to stack multiple cells with different band gaps. Obviously this requires absorber layers with different band gaps. We investigate both perovskite-perovskite and perovskite-silicon tandem cells in two-terminal or four-terminal device configurations. To maximize light absorption and power conversion efficiency, we perform optical simulations on to design stack in order to reduce parasitic absorption and reflection losses. Especially for a two-terminal configuration a challenge is achieve current matching but also to fabricate the cells. Sometimes ten or even more layers must be stacked on top of each other. In case of solution processing this requires careful optimization and design of materials a processing steps.
"


And something to think about !
The heat from concentrated sunlight and thermophotovoltaic cells :

And those interested, can think about how the gemma solar tower works (Like for example the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station present in Noor , Morocco) and how a similar construction could operate with thermophotovoltaic cells and a heated up a tungsten IR emitter element by concentrated sunlight.
The material tungsten, melting point temperature is 3422 degrees celcius. Handy to know. Would this be viable or not ? Who has thoughts about it ?

About the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station present in Noor , Morocco :
Small excerpt from text :
"
Januari 31, 2023

The Noor Ouarzazate Solar Complex is a 580MW solar power project located 10 kilometers north of the Moroccan city of Ouarzazate. It’s the world’s biggest concentrated solar power facility.
The construction of a 160MW concentrated solar power (CSP) plant, dubbed Noor I, was phase one of the Ouarzazate solar power plant project, while phase two featured the construction of the 200MW Noor II CSP plant and also the 150MW Noor III CSP unit. In phase three, a 70MW.
"
For a video see :


This is a concentrated solar power facility. The top of the tower is filled with a special molten salt that can be heated up to 500 degrees celcius. The heat storage cpacity of the molten salt is enough to still be able to generate electricity through conventional (for example steam turbines and generator ) means during the night.
See this link for more information :

Small excerpt from text :
"
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Defined
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) is a rapidly growing form of solar energy that harnesses the power of the sun to generate thermal energy and electricity. It uses mirrors to concentrate and focus sunlight onto a specific area, where it is converted into heat.
"
and
"
CSP uses mirrors to focus and concentrate large amounts of sunlight onto a small area.
When heat is converted from concentrated sunlight, it is generated into electricity or other applications such as water desalination and heating.
"
and
"
Power Tower Systems
Power tower systems take advantage of sun-tracking heliostats that focus sunlight onto a central receiver at the top of a tower.
The heat is then converted from the concentrated sunlight, which drives a turbine generator to produce electricity.
"
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
20,132
1,319
126
Datacenter energy consumption versus practical use and real world benefits.
Do not just generate "green"energy, also reduce energy consumption when needed.


Short post , to think about. We got all these people, that are soooo into saving the world and nature.
So much, we are no longer allowed to eat meat, we must eat sushi or some other seaweed based dish. :rolleyes:
"We shall not wash, because we must be dirty to get stronger immunesystems ? " :rolleyes:

And they are all into so called AI Artifical Intelligence.
"ChatGPT, it does everything for you, it will even f@ck your partner for you ! " :rolleyes:
The rapband Public Enemy had a rapsong once where the chorus fits again even though at the time the subject was very different : "Don't believe the hype !".

Anyway, back to the subject in a serious way :
But never think how mucht the training and inferencing costs when it comes to energy consumption.
Those are a lot of gas fired, coal fired powerplants and even nuclear plants to run those systems.
Of course there are windparks and solar panel fields that luckily supply power as an offset, but there is stable power required and these kinds of sources are only reliable near the tornado alley near Texas USA , not tornado alley directly but somewhere near where the wind always blows but the wind turbines remain standing and functional.
And it is desert with rock ground too, so lower cost maintenance with respect to saltwater rich, sea coast based windturbine parks. This all, if i recall correctly.

The accelerator itself in a common household.
As long as it can run locally on a system through accelerators, that is oke.
Most people dream for example using ChatGPT to write code, for it would be more efficiënt. Reality is that a human costs about a few sandwiches of joules and when not stressed can write perfect code at an extremely lower energy cost.
I mean programming can even be done on a Raspbery Pi these days. The compiling and linking takes time but that also depends on the preprocessor, the coding style and the compiler /linker itself of course.

That huge datacenter, can consume Gigawatts of power doing the same thing, writing that code for you. As example.
There is not just chatGPT, there is also LLaMA, OPT, BLOOM. And many more i would suspect.
Something to think about.

Tensor Processing Units (TPU).
I read an article in the Dutch version of c't magazine (Heise magazine) about accelerators like for example the H100 hopper from Nvidia. Although the device is extremely fast and an incredible peace of technology, current AI algorithms need many of those H100 hoppers.
A datacenter with 2 million of those H100 hoppers would consume more than 1.6 Gigawatts combined. About 700Watt per H100 hopper.
This is not a situation for H100 hoppers alone, this situation is a reality for every accelerator out there with a lot of oomph, from every large manufacturer not just Nvidia !
To name a few other names : Apple, AMD, Qualcomm, Intel.

One modern rack with accelerators, processors, memory, storage and network glue logic can easily consume just over 10 kilowatts. If that rack runs at full power for one hour, that is 10kWh. For one rack. And there are a lot of racks in such a datacenter.
Think thousands and more...
Add all the cooling requirements. The added infrastructure, the additional network nodes.
Lot of power... But for what goal ?


So, the big question is, is it really necessary ?

  • Sometimes yes, for serious issues like solving the math problems to be able to make perfect vaccins or medicins preferably without sideffects against almost undefeatable pathogens.
  • Or to solve the issues about how to control the uncertainty with atoms in plasma while trying to accomplish fusion.
  • Or the perfect MOX fuelmix for the perfect amount of neutrons needed with sub critical fission, to be able to get rid of those unreliable weapongrade plutonium warheads and to get rid of those spend fuelrods known as nuclear waste from current critical fission reactors we have been using for the last 60 years at least.
  • To be able to transmutate radioactive material with a long lifetime (half life value) to radioactive material with a shorter life time (half life value).
  • Or how to make the perfect proton exchange membrane from easy to gather and cheap source materials for fuel cells for everything that needs power.
  • Or how to make even better catalysts for removing hydrogen from for example ammonia to be able to efficiently supply fuelcells with hydrogen.
  • Or to simulate the complex simultaneous behavior of all those proteins and enzymes inside a living cell , or bacteria or how a bacteriophage operates.
  • Or how complex magnetohydrodynamic systems work.
  • The many body problem, or N-body problem or three body problem : Do we start form the beginning or do we just synchronize with the system while tracking a very large set of variables to be able to synchronize on a particular moment in a running event system. This all to synchronize and as end result be able to do predictions, see how deepmind is succesful with the control of the magnetic coils of an experimental fusion setup, adjusting the magnetic field strengths to counter the behavior of the particles in the plasma (think outside disturbances (like for example high energy cosmic rays) next to the electrical behavior of many charged particles at the same time.
That is what it is necessary for ! Not for deepfaking shit or useless overabundant commercials or just to tell plain lies !

Of course, local accelerators inside smartphones, computers or consoles can when programmed correctly be a great assistant and actually reduce power when the request of the end user are followed or only frustration remains and a desire to remove AI accelerated features.

Do we really need those accelerators in such large numbers ?
We start to think about subjects like bloatware. Like most of our software is bloatware, the last few and latest generations of game consoles have shown this to be true.
Sometimes abstraction layers are a necessity and impossible to remove.
But most of the time people just love them these wrappers on existing API and code.
See website creation software for example.

But badly written software because of extreme work pressure and deadlines and and code obfuscation are another important matters.
We can improve a lot to reduce energy consumption while at the same time improve performance.
We can see this with the software updates for games or drivers for common graphical cards where algortihms are replaced by faster ones without reducing any visible quality.
Sort of free performance improvements.

Forum software like we know for years, just works. Stuff like facebook, too much interactive garbage that is a real root cause for a lot of cyber security holes and problems.
we all know how often third party commerical ads servers have leaks and problems and are known vectors to infect innocent users with all kinds of malware.

Something to think about...🧐

Some Background information :
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
20,132
1,319
126
An explanation about MYRRHA, The ADS !
Also known as Accelerator Driven System. A subcritical nuclear reactor where a linear accelerator produces a protonbeam that through spallation produces the required neutrons to momentarily make the moxfuel critical. Critical means there are enough neutrons to create a cascading effect of fission reactions.
But as soon as the accelerator is turned off, and the protonbeam stops : The spallation for neutron generation stops and there will be no more fission because once again the mox fuel (partially from existing current nuclear waste) or thorium fuel turns into a subcritical nuclear fuel.



See post #1 of this thread.
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2008
20,132
1,319
126
This text is from the late and great Richard P Feynman.
It explains how necessary it is to do research and create experimental setups that are possible to be repeated for that many people can perform the experiment to continuously verify the results and to make even better experimental setups. These days as life becomes more complex experimental setups become more difficult to create.

It reminded me of something : How do you know who is the real deal and who is horny for attention ?
The horny for attention people love to be praised and cheered to...
The real deal will respond like this while having a speech : "Shut the Fork up, you motherforkers ! I am talking here !".

Quality of life:
Many people want to work, to work is to have a degree of freedom because we have money to spend as we desire in a responsible way while thinking of the future : Determinism is so much more important than fatalism. You want to be in control , you also have to take responsibility for your actions.
Many people often fall for the fatalism demon : Faith ,future or destiny is fixed... That is constantly recited. And that recitation is not why life like for example us humble humans exist... Determinism is what gives a spirit strength. But only if you are willing to think and feel at the same time in harmony, and take responsibility : Use that corpus callosum.

Anyway back to subject :
Think of for example, when it comes to global pollution which causes accelerated global warming (and in the aftermath accelerated global cooling. Both a hazard for us humans.) , global pollution is difficult to solve because of so many companies and countries are financially dependent on creating bubbles to be able to create markets while not cleaning up after production, dumping waste to maximize net profit.
Or presenting solutions for real problems. Even though the problem is real, the solution is far from ideal even if a near ideal solution is possible while gaining a lot more but the short sighted "Short term profit demon" pops up its ugly head in the mind of political decision makers. In addition to the last sentence, add the common way of thinking : "We will leave that for the future generations to solve...". :rolleyes:

Another example is proving how complex multi pathogens diseases like for example Burn-out, Long Covid or for example fibromyalgia or dementia actually happens.
Because we have different people with slightly different DNA, different lives, different lifestyles. Different events happened to each of them. Different entries to the body with respect to pathogens.
Different pathogens. The sequence the pathogens invaded the body is important. Stress levels, sleep patterns. Already using medicines that may alter the functionality of the immune system. The environment, like chemical waste that may have an influence on the immunesystem.
So in order to make reliable medicines and vaccines is not that easy. Or to prove that a given pathogen causes a given pattern of symptoms and in the result a disease or even an autoimmune disease. This to be able to think, design and produce treatments to heal patients of their ailments and give them back quality of life.
I am just explaining here why some people who have real sickness but live a moderate lifestyle, never seem to be bothered by the often mentioned side effects.While others do have issues.

A given receptor that has function A for a specific celtype A for one person, might have a different function for celtype A of another person and have the same function for celtype B of that latter person. Is this true ? It is very likely. Seen as how there are enormous amounts of studies done about the SARS-CoV2 virus with respect to the ACE-2 receptor and that spike protein and there are so many weird results and so many weird situations. Again, i am just explaining here why some people who have real sickness but live a moderate lifestyle, never seem to be bothered by the often mentioned side effects.While others do have issues.

Another example is the unreasonable fear for electromagnetic radiation without doing any background studies or using simple formulas. It is all about field strength, so power level and the wavelength of the signalwave. Harmonics tend to be always weaker than the ground wave. Some weird law of nature which luckily for us exists or we would not exist...


Anyway, here is the great text about Cargo Cult science.

RPF1.jpg


https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
Text from link :
"

Cargo Cult Science​


by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN

Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address.


During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. (Another crazy idea of the Middle Ages is these hats we have on today—which is too loose in my case.) Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas—which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact, that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked—or very little of it did.

But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFO’s, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.

Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I found so much junk to talk about that I can’t do it in this talk. I’m overwhelmed. First I started out by investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences. I went into isolation tanks (they’re dark and quiet and you float in Epsom salts) and got many hours of hallucinations, so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a hotbed of this kind of thought (it’s a wonderful place; you should go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn’t realize how much there was.

I was sitting, for example, in a hot bath and there’s another guy and a girl in the bath. He says to the girl, “I’m learning massage and I wonder if I could practice on you?” She says OK, so she gets up on a table and he starts off on her foot—working on her big toe and pushing it around. Then he turns to what is apparently his instructor, and says, “I feel a kind of dent. Is that the pituitary?” And she says, “No, that’s not the way it feels.” I say, “You’re a hell of a long way from the pituitary, man.” And they both looked at me—I had blown my cover, you see—and she said, “It’s reflexology.” So I closed my eyes and appeared to be meditating.

That’s just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mind reading and bending keys. He didn’t do any mind reading that succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was unable to investigate that phenomenon.

But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you’ll see the reading scores keep going down—or hardly going up—in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There’s a witch doctor remedy that doesn’t work. It ought to be looked into: how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress—lots of theory, but no progress—in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way—or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn’t do “the right thing,” according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t science.

I tried to find a principle for discovering more of these kinds of things, and came up with the following system. Any time you find yourself in a conversation at a cocktail party—in which you do not feel uncomfortable that the hostess might come around and say, “Why are you fellows talking shop?’’ or that your wife will come around and say, “Why are you flirting again?”—then you can be sure you are talking about something about which nobody knows anything.

Using this method, I discovered a few more topics that I had forgotten—among them the efficacy of various forms of psychotherapy. So I began to investigate through the library, and so on, and I have so much to tell you that I can’t do it at all. I will have to limit myself to just a few little things. I’ll concentrate on the things more people believe in. Maybe I will give a series of speeches next year on all these subjects. It will take a long time.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. But it would he just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school—we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson Oil doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will—including Wesson Oil. So it’s the implication which has been conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what we have to deal with.

We’ve learned from experience that the truth will out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.

A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the subject. Nevertheless, it should be remarked that this is not the only difficulty. That’s why the planes don’t land—but they don’t land.

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that kind of a disease.

But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing—and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of result. For example—let’s take advertising again—suppose some particular cigarette has some particular property, like low nicotine. It’s published widely by the company that this means it is good for you—they don’t say, for instance, that the tars are a different proportion, or that something else is the matter with the cigarette. In other words, publication probability depends upon the answer. That should not be done.

I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would he better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.

Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When I was at Cornell. I often talked to the people in the psychology department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this—I don’t remember it in detail, but it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do, A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person—to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A—and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time. This was in about 1935 or so, and it seems to have been the general policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but only to change the conditions and see what happens.

Nowadays there’s a certain danger of the same thing happening, even in the famous field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his heavy hydrogen results to what might happen to light hydrogen he had to use data from someone else’s experiment on light hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked he said it was because he couldn’t get time on the program (because there’s so little time and it’s such expensive apparatus) to do the experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there wouldn’t be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are destroying—possibly—the value of the experiments themselves, which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific integrity demands.

All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on—with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.

The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and, still the rats could tell.

He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.

Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A‑Number‑l experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat‑running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using—not what you think it’s using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat‑running.

I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The subsequent experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn’t discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of Cargo Cult Science.

Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms—and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments—they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated—that you can do again and get the same effect—statistically, even. They run a million rats—no, it’s people this time—they do a lot of things and get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don’t get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?

This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology. And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent—not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a policy in teaching—to teach students only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific integrity.

So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. May I also give you one last bit of advice: Never say that you’ll give a talk unless you know clearly what you’re going to talk about and more or less what you’re going to say.
"
 
Last edited: