Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Is emission-less propulsion possible? I believe it is... [View all]mikelewis
(4,184 posts)Not to operate... well, some do still I guess. It's not the direct operation, in that you are correct, it's the construction and the systems that support the operation that is the current problem. All that cement and steel and all the transportation costs for all the workers to get back and forth to work... not to mention the mining of the elements themselves. I am just guessing here but I seriously doubt if China is forcing Africa to consider carbon emissions while it digs up all the elements we need create all this new technology. And the problem is only going to exacerbate as the population increases.
Right now... It's all built with Oil and Coal. That's what makes most of the electricity and definitely comprises most of the materials to some extent.... those wires need sheathing or they don't work. Bottom line is we aren't really ever getting away from Oil and Gas... coal might fall out of use but not hydrocarbons... those things are just packed with so much power, hate to tell you, we aren't getting rid of them. And until we can get 10x the power out of the renewable system, we're going to be reliant on them.
That's not to say things won't change and that we can't actually leverage that much power from these current technologies to achieve that goal. But our requirements are far surpassing our capability with 'clean' energy and without adding torque to each of those system, I don't see a solution in sight. Especially since our electricity demands are only going to climb. All these new electric cars are great and all but the electricity is primarily created by... and if any of you can remember this oxymoron... Clean Coal.
That being said, I do think we can get 10x more out than we are currently leveraging, I just think we lack the understanding of physics to do that. We are stuck in a Newton's cradle logic loop that states "You can't get more out of something than you put in" and we call them laws. However, that doesn't turn out to be quite true... we have levers that do that all the time. We put in x amount of force and get out x + leveraged force and we're fine with that. We can start a figure skater skating on ice and then when they retract their arms... we would find it way more difficult if not impossible to stop them.... grab one of those Olympic skaters while they're spinning with their arms tucked in.... LOL... I dare ya.
So that's the challenge. To get more out than we put in... and to do that... we need to really take a hard look at physics... which is what I have been doing and why my new books exist. To have this conversation right here...
I think my idea for this propulsion drive is that solution, just not in it's current form. I also don't think this is the solution for space travel either, as the ride would suck. There are many other ways to achieve this effect but this is the easiest way to explain it. You get the double barreled shotgun analogy... that's easily understood and makes logical sense. Even if you don't get the physics... the process is not hard. So that's why I start with that concept but honestly... gravity is almost a constant force... it's not really constant but it feels that way... If the gravity pulses were less or more intermittent... things like walking and being alive would become impossible or at least really uncomfortable. So that design... while clever, this form of propulsion would be very jerky and very uncomfortable to experience for the three and a half year trip to Alpha Centauri. Luckily... as I said, there are much better ways of leveraging this effect.