Great Discussion, Everyone! - Nov 09 2:11PM
Hi Everyone at [...], [...], and [...]:
It was great talking to all of you these past three weeks. Thanks for all the excellent questions and discussions. Good luck with the rest of your school year, and future endeavors.
Best Regards,
-Mike
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Alternative Fuels
Alternative fuels - Nov 01 9:50PM
Dr. Syhpers,
My name is Brendan. I have been into cars for as long as i can remember and I especially enjoy working on them. With the future of hydrogen fuel cells, do you think they will still make working on cars as enjoyable as before? I just have to assume they will be more complex to tinker with, but do you think the avid mechanic would still be able to take part in repairing them?
Thanks,
Brendan
Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 12:27AM
Hi Brendan,
I can only guess, of course, but I suspect that anything that moves at high speed and weighs a ton or so will always have things that can be worked on. Though the engines (motors, actually?) of electric cars and hydrogen fueled cars might be very different than standard gasoline powered vehicles, the new cars will still go at top speeds and have lots of interesting moving parts -- should still be a lot of fun, I would think!
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 7:35AM
Thank you for replying to my last post. Have you done any extensive research on any of the alternative fuels? Any great finds and experiences you would like to share?
Thank you for your time,
Brendan
Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 8:09PM
Hi Brendan,
I haven't done any research on fuels for automobiles. I have, however, been interested in the possibility of a new type of nuclear reactor, using a particle accelerator. People are studying how to use an accelerator to make nuclear fuel "on demand" by bombarding Thorium, for instance, with a proton beam which can turn it into nuclear fuel. People often worry about having a dangerous condition where a pile of Uranium fuel, say, gets out of control in a nuclear reactor and starts to melt down. However, if a problem develops with the Thorium system, you just turn off the accelerator and everything stops and the fuel is no longer even generated. It also has much, much less radioactive waste to deal with, plus Thorium is much more abundant on earth and easier to obtain than is Uranium. The major problem we face right now is how to make the very expensive particle accelerator(s) to run the power plant. If we can develop a system that is economical enough, it should be able to pay for itself in a reasonable time and thus be of interest to the power industry. Who knows, someday…
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 04 10:50AM
That sounds very interesting. Who will run these reactor's? What kind of qualifications would one need to be successful in this industry? It sounds like a very viable way to alternatively produce energy, but it still sounds very dangerous when talking about particle accelerators.
Thanks,
Brendan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 04 4:03PM
Hi Brendan,
It's not totally known yet exactly what combination of personnel would be required, but it will be a combination of physicists (nuclear, accelerator) and engineers (nuclear, mechanical, electrical, civil) plus a whole lot of support people of all types. It's still very much in the early stages of development.
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 07 8:15PM
Dr. Syphers,
Thank you for replying. I actually considered majoring in mechanical engineering for this fall, not knowing this could have been an occupational possibility in the near future. I will yet again re-evaluate this. Thank you for taking all of the time to explain this to me.
-Brendan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 08 12:16AM
Thanks, Brendan. I hope you continue to enjoy your physics course and good luck with everything.
All the best,
-Mike
++++++++++++++
Dr. Syphers,
Thank you so much for answering all of my questions and being so helpful. I truely have learned a great deal.
Best Regards,
Brendan
Dr. Syhpers,
My name is Brendan. I have been into cars for as long as i can remember and I especially enjoy working on them. With the future of hydrogen fuel cells, do you think they will still make working on cars as enjoyable as before? I just have to assume they will be more complex to tinker with, but do you think the avid mechanic would still be able to take part in repairing them?
Thanks,
Brendan
Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 12:27AM
Hi Brendan,
I can only guess, of course, but I suspect that anything that moves at high speed and weighs a ton or so will always have things that can be worked on. Though the engines (motors, actually?) of electric cars and hydrogen fueled cars might be very different than standard gasoline powered vehicles, the new cars will still go at top speeds and have lots of interesting moving parts -- should still be a lot of fun, I would think!
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 7:35AM
Thank you for replying to my last post. Have you done any extensive research on any of the alternative fuels? Any great finds and experiences you would like to share?
Thank you for your time,
Brendan
Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 02 8:09PM
Hi Brendan,
I haven't done any research on fuels for automobiles. I have, however, been interested in the possibility of a new type of nuclear reactor, using a particle accelerator. People are studying how to use an accelerator to make nuclear fuel "on demand" by bombarding Thorium, for instance, with a proton beam which can turn it into nuclear fuel. People often worry about having a dangerous condition where a pile of Uranium fuel, say, gets out of control in a nuclear reactor and starts to melt down. However, if a problem develops with the Thorium system, you just turn off the accelerator and everything stops and the fuel is no longer even generated. It also has much, much less radioactive waste to deal with, plus Thorium is much more abundant on earth and easier to obtain than is Uranium. The major problem we face right now is how to make the very expensive particle accelerator(s) to run the power plant. If we can develop a system that is economical enough, it should be able to pay for itself in a reasonable time and thus be of interest to the power industry. Who knows, someday…
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 04 10:50AM
That sounds very interesting. Who will run these reactor's? What kind of qualifications would one need to be successful in this industry? It sounds like a very viable way to alternatively produce energy, but it still sounds very dangerous when talking about particle accelerators.
Thanks,
Brendan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 04 4:03PM
Hi Brendan,
It's not totally known yet exactly what combination of personnel would be required, but it will be a combination of physicists (nuclear, accelerator) and engineers (nuclear, mechanical, electrical, civil) plus a whole lot of support people of all types. It's still very much in the early stages of development.
-Mike
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 07 8:15PM
Dr. Syphers,
Thank you for replying. I actually considered majoring in mechanical engineering for this fall, not knowing this could have been an occupational possibility in the near future. I will yet again re-evaluate this. Thank you for taking all of the time to explain this to me.
-Brendan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Alternative fuels - Nov 08 12:16AM
Thanks, Brendan. I hope you continue to enjoy your physics course and good luck with everything.
All the best,
-Mike
++++++++++++++
Dr. Syphers,
Thank you so much for answering all of my questions and being so helpful. I truely have learned a great deal.
Best Regards,
Brendan
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Specification
specification - Oct 29 12:06PM
How are Superconducting Super Collider and the Large Hadron Collider similar, different and what specifically do they do?
Re: specification - Nov 01 12:21AM
Hi,
The SSC and LHC were/are both very large accelerators that are designed to give beams of protons lots of energy and then smash them head-on into each other. The energy from the collisions creates new particles that were likely only formed during the Big Bang of the creation of the universe. So, we use these machines to try to understand just what are the fundamental forces of nature, the fundamental particles of which everything is made, and how it all works together.
The LHC accelerates particles through a total of about 7 Trillion Volts of electrical potential (you'll probably talk about electricity and magnetism later this year in physics class). The SSC was going to be bigger than the LHC -- up to 20 Trillion Volts -- but the project was canceled in order to balance the U.S. budget, back in 1993.
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: specification - Nov 05 11:16AM
Out of curiosity, how much would the LHC have put the US over the budget? Also, if you could go back and redo an event that got you to where you are today, would you?
Thanks
-Phil
Re: Re: Re: specification - Nov 07 4:31PM
Well, the US's SSC project, as it was called, was to cost about $8 Billion and was to take about 10 years to complete. The U.S. budget is debated every year in Congress, so project funding always has the possibility of going away in favor of other projects. That's what happened with the SSC. It was decided to spend the money on the International Space Station instead, where it was assumed that the U.S. couldn't afford to do both in 1994. By the time it was canceled, the SSC had already spent $2 Billion out of the 8.
I must say that it's different in Europe. There, the various countries have an agreement to build projects like the LHC, and they commit to do it for the next 5 years or so and then review progress. Thus, though there were often debates in Europe and it was never totally certain until the end, it was a bit easier to get a large project started and funded to completion over there.
As for regrets and redo's, I don't think I'd change anything. We've always got choices to make, typically while we don't have all the facts in front of us. We often see things differently years later with hindsight, but I don't think any decisions "on the spot" would be much different for me.
Cheers,
-Mike
How are Superconducting Super Collider and the Large Hadron Collider similar, different and what specifically do they do?
Re: specification - Nov 01 12:21AM
Hi,
The SSC and LHC were/are both very large accelerators that are designed to give beams of protons lots of energy and then smash them head-on into each other. The energy from the collisions creates new particles that were likely only formed during the Big Bang of the creation of the universe. So, we use these machines to try to understand just what are the fundamental forces of nature, the fundamental particles of which everything is made, and how it all works together.
The LHC accelerates particles through a total of about 7 Trillion Volts of electrical potential (you'll probably talk about electricity and magnetism later this year in physics class). The SSC was going to be bigger than the LHC -- up to 20 Trillion Volts -- but the project was canceled in order to balance the U.S. budget, back in 1993.
Cheers,
-Mike
Re: Re: specification - Nov 05 11:16AM
Out of curiosity, how much would the LHC have put the US over the budget? Also, if you could go back and redo an event that got you to where you are today, would you?
Thanks
-Phil
Re: Re: Re: specification - Nov 07 4:31PM
Well, the US's SSC project, as it was called, was to cost about $8 Billion and was to take about 10 years to complete. The U.S. budget is debated every year in Congress, so project funding always has the possibility of going away in favor of other projects. That's what happened with the SSC. It was decided to spend the money on the International Space Station instead, where it was assumed that the U.S. couldn't afford to do both in 1994. By the time it was canceled, the SSC had already spent $2 Billion out of the 8.
I must say that it's different in Europe. There, the various countries have an agreement to build projects like the LHC, and they commit to do it for the next 5 years or so and then review progress. Thus, though there were often debates in Europe and it was never totally certain until the end, it was a bit easier to get a large project started and funded to completion over there.
As for regrets and redo's, I don't think I'd change anything. We've always got choices to make, typically while we don't have all the facts in front of us. We often see things differently years later with hindsight, but I don't think any decisions "on the spot" would be much different for me.
Cheers,
-Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)