This is relevant to the recent Lorath QNC power source:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#hafnium
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#hafnium
-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
QNC = BS?
- Thread starter Wes
- Start date
- Status
Zack
Inactive Member
The QNC: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=lo ... nology:qnc
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to point out with the article. (Edit: nvm, I'm an idiot. I stopped reading after the first line break thinking it was a different article afterwords)
Though, yes the QNC wouldn't work, it is basically a nuclear reactor and Hafnium is used as a control element in nuclear reactors so logically that means that this process would cost more power to use than it generates. It'd be like trying to burn water as fuel. Or at least that is my understanding of it.
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to point out with the article. (Edit: nvm, I'm an idiot. I stopped reading after the first line break thinking it was a different article afterwords)
Though, yes the QNC wouldn't work, it is basically a nuclear reactor and Hafnium is used as a control element in nuclear reactors so logically that means that this process would cost more power to use than it generates. It'd be like trying to burn water as fuel. Or at least that is my understanding of it.
OsakanOne
Retired Member
http://doinasblog.com/Downloads1/ricPap ... ans-en.pdf
Refutes most of your points, stating stabilization is the most difficult part of the process (Page 29, Table 10)
It's also worth noting that DARPA were only measuring in the range of seconds. If the delayed trigger states outlined in fig. 9 and the decay constants outlined on page 39 (equal to 0.1724/sec) then there's a fairly decent chance they didn't detect anything.
The DARPA article published also implies they used a more powerful device expecting a more powerful return. I'm not entirely clear on everything in this paper but the decay pulse seems to have a lot to do with the initial charge presented and further pulses to stabilize the decay process.
It's also worth noting NATO ARW began THEIR research in 1995 and reported positive results but refused to publish their material in 1997 (two years before Collins). Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger also has a quote from Chantal, Briancon indicating that Collins' stole data whereas DARPA's Texas team has come out in saying that the data doesn't match theirs, then there's the goddamn drama between Weinberger and Collins (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/2006_06.html) which seems to further bury any chance this has of being true.
One of NATO's core values include the nuclear disarmament of nations and publishing these findings would have been counter-productive to their cause.
NATO follow a similar structure to DARPA in terms of their research so it's quite plausible this isn't the first project they've scuttled (DARPA's famous parallel being John Hutchinson and the rather scary parallels with Project Philadelphia's presented axioms of the antigravity and energy ideas in the pursuit of stealth via the use of high frequency electrical devices)
The best way to scare people off a trail is to introduce a Hutchinson type character which is exactly what they've done.
This is one hell of a lot of drama for something that has been disproven.
Now it's just slander and mockery which is unscientific. Noone will want to get involved because it could jeopardize their own credibility.
Don't you find that a bit fishy?
Some other interesting reading:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/24/2427/A242703.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k ... awler=true
Anyway, to hell with conspiracy stories. I'll just remind you that the public have always been lied to and that science is always changing. You dismiss QNC, you dismiss the notion of electromagnetic impulses messing with the fabric of spacetime and therefor the notion of gravitational manipulation (superfluid ferrofluid centrifuges using angular momentum to distort spacetime, something NASA took one shot at, grumbled at the very positive results with their tiny poorly engineered example then packed the whole thing in because Government 'said so').
You open a huge can of worms bringing this up: Aether = BS? I could go on, but I really don't want to. I'm not interested in drama. At the very least we created coherent rules based on the laws of nature and physics.
If you really want to freak out, look up Gödel's work with incompleteness and Chatin's work with in-computability and Goldbach's Conjecture.
Mathamatics, the language of physics, is a very very strange thing.
Then of course there's the chance I've just discredited myself in your eyes, which may have been the whole purpose of this thread but to be honest, I don't really care.
Refutes most of your points, stating stabilization is the most difficult part of the process (Page 29, Table 10)
It's also worth noting that DARPA were only measuring in the range of seconds. If the delayed trigger states outlined in fig. 9 and the decay constants outlined on page 39 (equal to 0.1724/sec) then there's a fairly decent chance they didn't detect anything.
The DARPA article published also implies they used a more powerful device expecting a more powerful return. I'm not entirely clear on everything in this paper but the decay pulse seems to have a lot to do with the initial charge presented and further pulses to stabilize the decay process.
It's also worth noting NATO ARW began THEIR research in 1995 and reported positive results but refused to publish their material in 1997 (two years before Collins). Imaginary Weapons by Sharon Weinberger also has a quote from Chantal, Briancon indicating that Collins' stole data whereas DARPA's Texas team has come out in saying that the data doesn't match theirs, then there's the goddamn drama between Weinberger and Collins (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/2006_06.html) which seems to further bury any chance this has of being true.
One of NATO's core values include the nuclear disarmament of nations and publishing these findings would have been counter-productive to their cause.
NATO follow a similar structure to DARPA in terms of their research so it's quite plausible this isn't the first project they've scuttled (DARPA's famous parallel being John Hutchinson and the rather scary parallels with Project Philadelphia's presented axioms of the antigravity and energy ideas in the pursuit of stealth via the use of high frequency electrical devices)
The best way to scare people off a trail is to introduce a Hutchinson type character which is exactly what they've done.
This is one hell of a lot of drama for something that has been disproven.
Now it's just slander and mockery which is unscientific. Noone will want to get involved because it could jeopardize their own credibility.
Don't you find that a bit fishy?
Some other interesting reading:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/24/2427/A242703.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/k ... awler=true
Anyway, to hell with conspiracy stories. I'll just remind you that the public have always been lied to and that science is always changing. You dismiss QNC, you dismiss the notion of electromagnetic impulses messing with the fabric of spacetime and therefor the notion of gravitational manipulation (superfluid ferrofluid centrifuges using angular momentum to distort spacetime, something NASA took one shot at, grumbled at the very positive results with their tiny poorly engineered example then packed the whole thing in because Government 'said so').
You open a huge can of worms bringing this up: Aether = BS? I could go on, but I really don't want to. I'm not interested in drama. At the very least we created coherent rules based on the laws of nature and physics.
If you really want to freak out, look up Gödel's work with incompleteness and Chatin's work with in-computability and Goldbach's Conjecture.
Mathamatics, the language of physics, is a very very strange thing.
Then of course there's the chance I've just discredited myself in your eyes, which may have been the whole purpose of this thread but to be honest, I don't really care.
Zack
Inactive Member
There have been scientific conspiracy on par with the one described, like global warming and the mess with cold fusion but these tend to be resolved in favor of the disprovers rather than the provers. Bad methodology is also far more likely than an international conspiracy to hide the truth.
There is also the possibility that the data was falsified to get funding from the military, which is a more common occurrence than I care to admit.
The majority of the articles also seem to conform to the same viewpoint, which is the one most consistent with my understanding of physics. Hafnium works well as an energy sponge, preventing radiation from inside a reactor leaking out. This is because it is good at absorbing energy. However you'd still have to pump it full of energy before it can be used as a power source. For that you would need another power source that isn't Hafnium.
And regardless of which science paper you look into, you're stuck with the same problem. You have to pump this stuff full of energy for it to give off energy. Your device uses x-rays and the like to pump the energy level of the Hafnium to get it to put out power. It will always take more energy to pump this stuff up than you will get out of it. This in turn means it wouldn't work as described in the article.
Again, even if you agree with the paper that is being questioned, you can't get around the problem of this material requiring more energy to make than to use. Great for a nuclear hand grenade, not so much for powering a star ship. There is of course also no way this could even compare to the power output of an aether device.
There is also the possibility that the data was falsified to get funding from the military, which is a more common occurrence than I care to admit.
The majority of the articles also seem to conform to the same viewpoint, which is the one most consistent with my understanding of physics. Hafnium works well as an energy sponge, preventing radiation from inside a reactor leaking out. This is because it is good at absorbing energy. However you'd still have to pump it full of energy before it can be used as a power source. For that you would need another power source that isn't Hafnium.
And regardless of which science paper you look into, you're stuck with the same problem. You have to pump this stuff full of energy for it to give off energy. Your device uses x-rays and the like to pump the energy level of the Hafnium to get it to put out power. It will always take more energy to pump this stuff up than you will get out of it. This in turn means it wouldn't work as described in the article.
Again, even if you agree with the paper that is being questioned, you can't get around the problem of this material requiring more energy to make than to use. Great for a nuclear hand grenade, not so much for powering a star ship. There is of course also no way this could even compare to the power output of an aether device.
OsakanOne
Retired Member
This I have no problem with but then you have to remember the numbers which were stated in the initial article and those are the ones I'm running with (the 30x gain return). Surely there's a way to improve this ergo efficiency gains since the xrays which enters the system are not lost in the system immediately. Perhaps by using a particularly well engineered lattice or carefully crafted surface area, the return can be used as a sort of chain reaction to get the thing to keep itself going and provide an output.
That seems entirely reasonable.
The purpose of this thing is a battery anyway. I expect it *'costs' more to manufacture one than the output is physically worth. What you buy is the incredible reliability, the lifetime and the capacity. Obviously, you can't just take "any hafnium", drop it in and expect it to work.
*In terms of manufacturing costs, we're only looking at materials since a large enough settlement can make use of aetheric systems anyway which completely destroys the whole idea of cost if you use energy to matter based systems
That seems entirely reasonable.
The purpose of this thing is a battery anyway. I expect it *'costs' more to manufacture one than the output is physically worth. What you buy is the incredible reliability, the lifetime and the capacity. Obviously, you can't just take "any hafnium", drop it in and expect it to work.
*In terms of manufacturing costs, we're only looking at materials since a large enough settlement can make use of aetheric systems anyway which completely destroys the whole idea of cost if you use energy to matter based systems
Zack
Inactive Member
30x gain means that you are getting 30x the number of energy carrying elements out that you are putting in.
It follows that this energy must be coming from somewhere.
To get it out of this you would need to physically break down the atom in an anti-matter style event or release energy that is already there using your x-rays.
Since you are going with the latter, and this element does not have any energy to release for you unless you put that energy there in the first place to be released. This means that it is indeed physically impossible to get energy out of the element in the manner you described. The hafnium you need to power this thing doesn't occur naturally often enough to be used for a power source and the hafnium you create to power this will require more power put into it than it will release.
So at this point it isn't an efficiency or a cost issue, even if you have 100% efficiency that energy has to come from somewhere which in turn means you would have to put the energy there that you are taking out.
Right now I can't find anyone who has been able to reproduce the experiment that produced the energy gain and the original guy has pretty much been discredited. Reproducibility is key in science, and this just doesn't have it.
It follows that this energy must be coming from somewhere.
To get it out of this you would need to physically break down the atom in an anti-matter style event or release energy that is already there using your x-rays.
Since you are going with the latter, and this element does not have any energy to release for you unless you put that energy there in the first place to be released. This means that it is indeed physically impossible to get energy out of the element in the manner you described. The hafnium you need to power this thing doesn't occur naturally often enough to be used for a power source and the hafnium you create to power this will require more power put into it than it will release.
So at this point it isn't an efficiency or a cost issue, even if you have 100% efficiency that energy has to come from somewhere which in turn means you would have to put the energy there that you are taking out.
Right now I can't find anyone who has been able to reproduce the experiment that produced the energy gain and the original guy has pretty much been discredited. Reproducibility is key in science, and this just doesn't have it.
Wanderer
Inactive Member
I wonder if anyone 100 years ago ever thought that computers would be as fast as they were today, or that man would get into space, or any one of the major advances in technology that happened in just 100 years. I bet a lot of them would have said it was impossible then what we know to be true now.
How far into the future is this board suppose to be? Yes it is a science fiction setting so you have to have some basis in science, but with that much time who knows what would have been discovered. It sounds a lot like you're trying to put a limitation of what we know today on what happens in the far future. It might be impossible, it might not be. But who knows, maybe in the future they figure out a way to do it
How far into the future is this board suppose to be? Yes it is a science fiction setting so you have to have some basis in science, but with that much time who knows what would have been discovered. It sounds a lot like you're trying to put a limitation of what we know today on what happens in the far future. It might be impossible, it might not be. But who knows, maybe in the future they figure out a way to do it
Zack
Inactive Member
Yeah, they did. A lot of computer science is based on knowing how fast our technology will improve(look up: transistor density predictions). Sending a man to the moon was predicted a long time ago (107 years at least: Voyage to the moon). The majority of our technological advances were predicted well in advance by science (See: scientific method).
But this has nothing to do with that. Things act in a certain way, we understand that they act in this way regardless of the theory that explains it. The website Wes linked to even has an entire section devoted to junk science ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... checklist/ ) and the exact argument you are bringing forth about 'you can't know the future'. ( http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html#refute )
Science can tell us how things will work, regardless of how much technology you have. This piece of tech runs into an issue with the law of conservation of energy.
Soresu
Well-Known Member
So, what is the point of this thread exactly? -Would also like to fore go "Mega Super Ultra Laws of Physics can't be broken" thingamabob considering this is a role play and not hard science land.-
-And would also prefer to get back to the more important things, catgirls in bikinis on a beach playing volleyball for example, (Was thinking on that earlier today...No comment it just came to mind... *Coughs*), Nep awesomeness, trouts being used to slap people in the face, and random IRC shenanigans then what would appear to be a brewing physics jihad.-
-And would also prefer to get back to the more important things, catgirls in bikinis on a beach playing volleyball for example, (Was thinking on that earlier today...No comment it just came to mind... *Coughs*), Nep awesomeness, trouts being used to slap people in the face, and random IRC shenanigans then what would appear to be a brewing physics jihad.-
Zack
Inactive Member
Perhaps but just to summerize:
The QNC would be cut down to half output after the first seven minutes because once the hafnium decays meaning it would need to be replaced fairly often, in turn making it a terrible battery.
Also considering what Aether power can do, there is no way this could get near that level of output. Matter just can't store that much power.
As for use in a power armor, a device the size of a human heart would also irradiate everything in the area.
And also the first real mention of this as a battery is just in this thread. It is referred to as a reactor in name and in how it operates in the QNC wiki article. Normally you can't say this but that means the fluff is wrong too. As an example:
Also this one:
And of course the big issue is that it is based on dis-proven junk science. You can't get useful energy out of hafnium in this manner.
The QNC would be cut down to half output after the first seven minutes because once the hafnium decays meaning it would need to be replaced fairly often, in turn making it a terrible battery.
Also considering what Aether power can do, there is no way this could get near that level of output. Matter just can't store that much power.
As for use in a power armor, a device the size of a human heart would also irradiate everything in the area.
And also the first real mention of this as a battery is just in this thread. It is referred to as a reactor in name and in how it operates in the QNC wiki article. Normally you can't say this but that means the fluff is wrong too. As an example:
which would be untrue because this device would have to be entirely dependent on aether or aether like systems.
Also this one:
Because radioactive material is radioactive. If the material isn't dangerous it also isn't able to produce power.
And of course the big issue is that it is based on dis-proven junk science. You can't get useful energy out of hafnium in this manner.
Soresu
Well-Known Member
While we all know Uso loves pointing things out, is it necessary to mess with this in such a way? I know the man loves him some physics but this, to me, is fine as is. Realism aside, I could go on a triade on Hyperspace Taps, cold fusion reactors, anti-matter and so on and their lack of facts. So can we please leave this alone, and not gimp something that works just fine already when this is rp, and not college physics class? Considering we make energy into matter and everything else, Preasu? I'd like to keep it fun and not pick on Osa as seems to be the status quo between the two of them lately in regards to his work, not a bore fest and not the drama llama train.
Please, Wes?
Please, Wes?
DocTomoe
Well-Known Member
Can we also request that all other unfeasible technologies have a nice little amendment to them stating that they're highly improbable? Most likely not. This is science fiction, everyone who is mature enough to be posting here knows well enough that the majority of what technological-props we have here are not realistic. If we're expected to produce perfectly realistic technologies, then we should be zipping around with jetpacks IRL and I should be the next commander and chief.
No, the fact of the matter is, we're playing with fiction, and if one fictional technology is discriminated against for being on shaky ground, then I don't see why all the other technologies we have in the setting should be exempt from such scrutiny. Fact of the matter is, the QNC is a well written article, which blows the socks off of most technology submissions which we see go through just fine without a bat of an eye, and for that it gets scrutinized even worse, that's just wrong, its a terrible unfair standard which I find only hampers our RP experience, and does not improve it.
How about this, ignore Uso's prattle and carry on, we were fine before this fuss.
No, the fact of the matter is, we're playing with fiction, and if one fictional technology is discriminated against for being on shaky ground, then I don't see why all the other technologies we have in the setting should be exempt from such scrutiny. Fact of the matter is, the QNC is a well written article, which blows the socks off of most technology submissions which we see go through just fine without a bat of an eye, and for that it gets scrutinized even worse, that's just wrong, its a terrible unfair standard which I find only hampers our RP experience, and does not improve it.
How about this, ignore Uso's prattle and carry on, we were fine before this fuss.
Maybe I'm just not getting the QNC, I'll be the first to admit that the science behind some of this isn't my forte, but isn't aether similar to the theory of a Dirac Sea? Where they're just opening a small hole to this other energy-filled dimension and letting it stream forth?
Revolver is correct and Aendri seems misinformed.
This thread is for discussing the QNC, not aether. Aether is a well-established setting element and is unrelated to the new QNC. Anyone who brings up aether again in this thread will be warned/banned for off-topic posting. Don't do it.
This thread is for discussing the QNC, not aether. Aether is a well-established setting element and is unrelated to the new QNC. Anyone who brings up aether again in this thread will be warned/banned for off-topic posting. Don't do it.
OsakanOne
Retired Member
Well, that's clarified in the name: Quantum Nucleonic Cell.
A voltaic cell IS a battery
The QNC is just a battery with a high output and a long life. It's ideal for backups because of it's efficiency or it can be used in place of ultra-capacitors for disposable ops making it an ideal jump-starter for energy based weapons.
A lot of stuff can run on this power-source for extended periods of time for the full seven years, then just swap out the old cell for a new one.
This is why we have variable rates. It can either run as a slow system for 7 years (ideal for very light starships and backup systems) or go for the full 7 minute run and completely deplete itself. I've already stated this.
How many tests have been done since it was disproven? If some interesting behavior has been seen, it should be fully explored and a model appropriated for it. Funny Hafnium would become a controlled substance right after they disproved it. If it was harmless before, why ban it now?
It's also worth noting that conservation of energy has loopholes and clause issues if you take a look at situations which violate it such as over-unity.
Over-Unity is basically just means putting in a little energy to derive energy from another system then getting more back from that which is contained within the system, some of it being used to keep the derivation process going and the rest to other tasks with typical examples being based around magnetics or momentum engines.
We're not pulling any energy from outside sources, just the hafnium itself by exciting the electron shells into giving up the booty.
A voltaic cell IS a battery
The QNC is just a battery with a high output and a long life. It's ideal for backups because of it's efficiency or it can be used in place of ultra-capacitors for disposable ops making it an ideal jump-starter for energy based weapons.
A lot of stuff can run on this power-source for extended periods of time for the full seven years, then just swap out the old cell for a new one.
This is why we have variable rates. It can either run as a slow system for 7 years (ideal for very light starships and backup systems) or go for the full 7 minute run and completely deplete itself. I've already stated this.
Why? I can manufacture it without aether and it's an ideal non-volatile starship power-source. The worry was that a nation could be weaned off aether in exchange for something like this which is much cheaper and easier to maintain.
How many tests have been done since it was disproven? If some interesting behavior has been seen, it should be fully explored and a model appropriated for it. Funny Hafnium would become a controlled substance right after they disproved it. If it was harmless before, why ban it now?
It's also worth noting that conservation of energy has loopholes and clause issues if you take a look at situations which violate it such as over-unity.
Over-Unity is basically just means putting in a little energy to derive energy from another system then getting more back from that which is contained within the system, some of it being used to keep the derivation process going and the rest to other tasks with typical examples being based around magnetics or momentum engines.
We're not pulling any energy from outside sources, just the hafnium itself by exciting the electron shells into giving up the booty.
- Status
