Accelerator on a Chip

William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:21:03 AM UTC+12, jacob navia wrote:
Le 06/08/2016 à 16:30, William Mook a écrit :
Consider a sheet of glass near the solar surface that operates up to

1 800 K (1 527 C) and is 99% transparent. So, 62 megawatts of light is

flowing through each square meter.

Yet only 0.62 megawatts is being absorbed by each square meter.

Now each sheet of glass has a front and a back totalling two square

meters of emitter area per square meter of collector area. This

is 0.31 megawatts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann law,

we can see that the operating temperature of the glass with this

transparency is 1 529 K (1 256 C).


OK. After that figures I can even imagine that a 99% transparent glass
can resist at 1256 C.

Again, that doesn't at all mean that a working machine or structure can
be done with the 1% mass that rests. 1256 C is quite hot reaally, and I
do not know any electronics that can resist 200 C to be optimistic,
maybe 500 C OK?

A lens is a machine. A mirror a machine as well. An optical fibre is a machine.


Please buy a dictionary and look up 'machine'. Those are not
machines.


Optical fibres, lenses and mirrors routinely operate at power levels that vaporise steel without absorbing any heat themselves and are used to control intense beams light at intensities far greater than that found on the solar surface.


That would seem to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

snip remaining MookSpew


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:21:03 AM UTC+12, jacob navia wrote:
Le 06/08/2016 Ã* 16:30, William Mook a écrit :
Consider a sheet of glass near the solar surface that operates up to

1 800 K (1 527 C) and is 99% transparent. So, 62 megawatts of light is

flowing through each square meter.

Yet only 0.62 megawatts is being absorbed by each square meter.

Now each sheet of glass has a front and a back totalling two square

meters of emitter area per square meter of collector area. This

is 0.31 megawatts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann law,

we can see that the operating temperature of the glass with this

transparency is 1 529 K (1 256 C).


OK. After that figures I can even imagine that a 99% transparent glass
can resist at 1256 C.

Again, that doesn't at all mean that a working machine or structure can
be done with the 1% mass that rests. 1256 C is quite hot reaally, and I
do not know any electronics that can resist 200 C to be optimistic,
maybe 500 C OK?

A lens is a machine. A mirror a machine as well. An optical fibre is a machine.


Please buy a dictionary and look up 'machine'. Those are not
machines.

I suggest you actually look up the definition of a word before ranting cluelessly about it. It saves you heaps of embarrassment! lol.

ma·chine
məˈSHēn
noun
..
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

synonyms: apparatus, appliance, device, contraption, contrivance, mechanism, engine, gadget, tool

Lenses, mirrors, optical fibres, are tools. When applied to the task of making something invisible, they become machines - an invisibility machine for example;

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6254/1310




Optical fibres, lenses and mirrors routinely operate at power levels that vaporise steel without absorbing any heat themselves and are used to control intense beams light at intensities far greater than that found on the solar surface.


That would seem to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Obviously your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is on par with your understanding of the English language. That is to say, not apparent to the casual observer! haha..

You wrongly believe that laser welding systems somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. They do not. Today, laser welding and cutting is a part of the metalworking industry, routinely producing welds for common items such as battery and pacemaker cans, fuel injector nozzles, razor blades, medical tools, aircraft engines, and even car bodies! Despite this wide use unfamiliarity with the operation and capabilities of laser systems is commonplace. So, people often wonder how can a laser light be generated that is so intense as to weld or shape metal and ceramics and not be a hazard to the machinery that controls this intense light?

The answer comes from recalling that to have any effect laser energy must first be absorbed by an object. Energy that is reflected or transmitted is not absorbed. So creating optical machinery in the light path that does not absorb the intense energy provides reliable efficient control.

Obviously optical machinery that passes light around an object in such a way as to render it invisible, leaves that object in the dark regardless of the intensity of light flowing around it. Optical fibres and lenses, mirrors and diffraction gratings that are 99.999% efficient easily handle huge flows of optical energies without overheating. Objects behind invisibility cloaks are heated even less!

snip remaining MookSpew


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:21:03 AM UTC+12, jacob navia wrote:
Le 06/08/2016 à 16:30, William Mook a écrit :
Consider a sheet of glass near the solar surface that operates up to

1 800 K (1 527 C) and is 99% transparent. So, 62 megawatts of light is

flowing through each square meter.

Yet only 0.62 megawatts is being absorbed by each square meter.

Now each sheet of glass has a front and a back totalling two square

meters of emitter area per square meter of collector area. This

is 0.31 megawatts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann law,

we can see that the operating temperature of the glass with this

transparency is 1 529 K (1 256 C).


OK. After that figures I can even imagine that a 99% transparent glass
can resist at 1256 C.

Again, that doesn't at all mean that a working machine or structure can
be done with the 1% mass that rests. 1256 C is quite hot reaally, and I
do not know any electronics that can resist 200 C to be optimistic,
maybe 500 C OK?

A lens is a machine. A mirror a machine as well. An optical fibre is a machine.


Please buy a dictionary and look up 'machine'. Those are not
machines.


I suggest you actually look up the definition of a word before ranting cluelessly about it. It saves you heaps of embarrassment! lol.


Great advice. You should follow it.


ma·chine
m??SH?n
noun
.
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.


Note that under that definition neither a mirror, a lens, nor an
optical fiber is a 'machine'.



Optical fibres, lenses and mirrors routinely operate at power levels that vaporise steel without absorbing any heat themselves and are used to control intense beams light at intensities far greater than that found on the solar surface.


That would seem to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Obviously your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is on par with your understanding of the English language. That is to say, not apparent to the casual observer! haha..


Perhaps you need to be more than a "casual observer".


You wrongly believe that laser welding systems somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. They do not. Today, laser welding and cutting is a part of the metalworking industry, routinely producing welds for common items such as battery and pacemaker cans, fuel injector nozzles, razor blades, medical tools, aircraft engines, and even car bodies! Despite this wide use unfamiliarity with the operation and capabilities of laser systems is commonplace. So, people often wonder how can a laser light be generated that is so intense as to weld or shape metal and ceramics and not be a hazard to the machinery that controls this intense light?


I said no such thing. Your reading deficiencies are not my problem.
Your claim was that an optical system could be PERFECT, dissipating no
energy. That would make a loop of fiber optic cable with the
properties you claim would effectively be a perpetual motion machine
(if it was a machine).


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:09:32 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:21:03 AM UTC+12, jacob navia wrote:
Le 06/08/2016 Ã* 16:30, William Mook a écrit :
Consider a sheet of glass near the solar surface that operates up to

1 800 K (1 527 C) and is 99% transparent. So, 62 megawatts of light is

flowing through each square meter.

Yet only 0.62 megawatts is being absorbed by each square meter.

Now each sheet of glass has a front and a back totalling two square

meters of emitter area per square meter of collector area. This

is 0.31 megawatts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann law,

we can see that the operating temperature of the glass with this

transparency is 1 529 K (1 256 C).


OK. After that figures I can even imagine that a 99% transparent glass
can resist at 1256 C.

Again, that doesn't at all mean that a working machine or structure can
be done with the 1% mass that rests. 1256 C is quite hot reaally, and I
do not know any electronics that can resist 200 C to be optimistic,
maybe 500 C OK?

A lens is a machine. A mirror a machine as well. An optical fibre is a machine.


Please buy a dictionary and look up 'machine'. Those are not
machines.


I suggest you actually look up the definition of a word before ranting cluelessly about it. It saves you heaps of embarrassment! lol.


Great advice. You should follow it.


ma·chine
m??SH?n
noun
.
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.


Note that under that definition neither a mirror, a lens, nor an
optical fiber is a 'machine'.

Obviously you are not familiar with machines that possess mirrors, lenses and optical fibres as their parts having definite functions in the machine.

Here's one machine that consists primarily of a set of lenses and prisms to detect meteor spectra;

http://collections.ucolick.org/archi...d=35516&-find=

I'm describing the same sort of thing, a machine that exists happily near the surface of the sun.




Optical fibres, lenses and mirrors routinely operate at power levels that vaporise steel without absorbing any heat themselves and are used to control intense beams light at intensities far greater than that found on the solar surface.


That would seem to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Obviously your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is on par with your understanding of the English language. That is to say, not apparent to the casual observer! haha..


Perhaps you need to be more than a "casual observer".

Perhaps you need to actually understand the things you speak of.


You wrongly believe that laser welding systems somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. They do not. Today, laser welding and cutting is a part of the metalworking industry, routinely producing welds for common items such as battery and pacemaker cans, fuel injector nozzles, razor blades, medical tools, aircraft engines, and even car bodies! Despite this wide use unfamiliarity with the operation and capabilities of laser systems is commonplace. So, people often wonder how can a laser light be generated that is so intense as to weld or shape metal and ceramics and not be a hazard to the machinery that controls this intense light?


I said no such thing.

You implied as much.

Your reading deficiencies are not my problem.

Yet you are the one in constant error.

Your claim was that an optical system could be PERFECT, dissipating no
energy.

No, I said an optical system can be 99.999% efficient. That's far from perfect.

Optical fibres for example, have a 0.2 db loss per kilometre. That means 95.5% of the energy at one end appears at the other end of a fibre a kilometre long. It also means that 99.999% of the energy at one end of a fibre appears at the other end of a fibre 2,171.58 millimeters long.

That would make a loop of fiber optic cable with the
properties you claim would effectively be a perpetual motion machine
(if it was a machine).

A 0.2 db is loss is an incredible achievement. However, it is not a 0.0 db loss and its not a negative db loss. So, a perpetual motion machine it is not. That you think it is again demonstrates conclusively your lack of understanding of basic thermodynamics.

Consider that 0.2 db per km glass fibre. A cubic meter of the stuff illuminated by a 62 million watts per square meter light source, would absorb only 0.0046% of the energy - or 2855.2 watts of the incident radiation.

In a vacuum the cube would rise to a temperature that would cause it to radiate this much energy from its total surface area. In this instance, a cube one meter on a side, that surface is 6 square meters, so the specific radiance would be 479.9 watts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann its easy to see that the glass would stabilize at 303.3 K. (86.3 F) Warm, but not destructive! Moving 163,000 km above the photosphere, reduces light intensity to the point where the temperature falls to 273 K (32.0 F) the freezing point of water!


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:09:32 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:21:03 AM UTC+12, jacob navia wrote:
Le 06/08/2016 à 16:30, William Mook a écrit :
Consider a sheet of glass near the solar surface that operates up to

1 800 K (1 527 C) and is 99% transparent. So, 62 megawatts of light is

flowing through each square meter.

Yet only 0.62 megawatts is being absorbed by each square meter.

Now each sheet of glass has a front and a back totalling two square

meters of emitter area per square meter of collector area. This

is 0.31 megawatts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann law,

we can see that the operating temperature of the glass with this

transparency is 1 529 K (1 256 C).


OK. After that figures I can even imagine that a 99% transparent glass
can resist at 1256 C.

Again, that doesn't at all mean that a working machine or structure can
be done with the 1% mass that rests. 1256 C is quite hot reaally, and I
do not know any electronics that can resist 200 C to be optimistic,
maybe 500 C OK?

A lens is a machine. A mirror a machine as well. An optical fibre is a machine.


Please buy a dictionary and look up 'machine'. Those are not
machines.


I suggest you actually look up the definition of a word before ranting cluelessly about it. It saves you heaps of embarrassment! lol.


Great advice. You should follow it.


ma·chine
m??SH?n
noun
.
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.


Note that under that definition neither a mirror, a lens, nor an
optical fiber is a 'machine'.

Obviously you are not familiar with machines that possess mirrors, lenses and optical fibres as their parts having definite functions in the machine.


That does not make a mirror, lens, or fiber optic cable a machine. Do
you even speak English?

snip irrelevancies





Optical fibres, lenses and mirrors routinely operate at power levels that vaporise steel without absorbing any heat themselves and are used to control intense beams light at intensities far greater than that found on the solar surface.


That would seem to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Obviously your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is on par with your understanding of the English language. That is to say, not apparent to the casual observer! haha..


Perhaps you need to be more than a "casual observer".

Perhaps you need to actually understand the things you speak of.


Perhaps you should go study, since you're the one who has postulated a
system with constant enthalpy.


You wrongly believe that laser welding systems somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. They do not. Today, laser welding and cutting is a part of the metalworking industry, routinely producing welds for common items such as battery and pacemaker cans, fuel injector nozzles, razor blades, medical tools, aircraft engines, and even car bodies! Despite this wide use unfamiliarity with the operation and capabilities of laser systems is commonplace. So, people often wonder how can a laser light be generated that is so intense as to weld or shape metal and ceramics and not be a hazard to the machinery that controls this intense light?


I said no such thing.

You implied as much.


I'm not responsible for the really stupid voices in your head. I
neither said nor implied any such thing.


Your reading deficiencies are not my problem.

Yet you are the one in constant error.


Except, as we're about to see, as you once again try to move the goal
posts, I'm not.


Your claim was that an optical system could be PERFECT, dissipating no
energy.

No, I said an optical system can be 99.999% efficient. That's far from perfect.

Optical fibres for example, have a 0.2 db loss per kilometre. That means 95.5% of the energy at one end appears at the other end of a fibre a kilometre long. It also means that 99.999% of the energy at one end of a fibre appears at the other end of a fibre 2,171.58 millimeters long.


And the other 5.5% goes where, again?

Hint: Waste heat.


That would make a loop of fiber optic cable with the
properties you claim would effectively be a perpetual motion machine
(if it was a machine).

A 0.2 db is loss is an incredible achievement. However, it is not a 0.0 db loss and its not a negative db loss. So, a perpetual motion machine it is not. That you think it is again demonstrates conclusively your lack of understanding of basic thermodynamics.

Consider that 0.2 db per km glass fibre. A cubic meter of the stuff illuminated by a 62 million watts per square meter light source, would absorb only 0.0046% of the energy - or 2855.2 watts of the incident radiation.

In a vacuum the cube would rise to a temperature that would cause it to radiate this much energy from its total surface area. In this instance, a cube one meter on a side, that surface is 6 square meters, so the specific radiance would be 479.9 watts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann its easy to see that the glass would stabilize at 303.3 K. (86.3 F) Warm, but not destructive! Moving 163,000 km above the photosphere, reduces light intensity to the point where the temperature falls to 273 K (32.0 F) the freezing point of water!


So you change your tune and now agree that it DOES get warmer and
needs to cool somehow. So my 'constant error' isn't error at all.
Rather, you have once again made a statement and now need to back off
from it.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:27:31 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:09:32 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:21:03 AM UTC+12, jacob navia wrote:
Le 06/08/2016 Ã* 16:30, William Mook a écrit :
Consider a sheet of glass near the solar surface that operates up to

1 800 K (1 527 C) and is 99% transparent. So, 62 megawatts of light is

flowing through each square meter.

Yet only 0.62 megawatts is being absorbed by each square meter.

Now each sheet of glass has a front and a back totalling two square

meters of emitter area per square meter of collector area. This

is 0.31 megawatts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann law,

we can see that the operating temperature of the glass with this

transparency is 1 529 K (1 256 C).


OK. After that figures I can even imagine that a 99% transparent glass
can resist at 1256 C.

Again, that doesn't at all mean that a working machine or structure can
be done with the 1% mass that rests. 1256 C is quite hot reaally, and I
do not know any electronics that can resist 200 C to be optimistic,
maybe 500 C OK?

A lens is a machine. A mirror a machine as well. An optical fibre is a machine.


Please buy a dictionary and look up 'machine'. Those are not
machines.


I suggest you actually look up the definition of a word before ranting cluelessly about it. It saves you heaps of embarrassment! lol.


Great advice. You should follow it.


ma·chine
m??SH?n
noun
.
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.


Note that under that definition neither a mirror, a lens, nor an
optical fiber is a 'machine'.

Obviously you are not familiar with machines that possess mirrors, lenses and optical fibres as their parts having definite functions in the machine.


That does not make a mirror, lens, or fiber optic cable a machine. Do
you even speak English?

snip irrelevancies

Obviously you are not familiar with machines that possess mirrors, lenses and optical fibres as their parts having definite functions in the machine.

Here's one machine that consists primarily of a set of lenses and prisms to detect meteor spectra;

http://collections.ucolick.org/archi...d=35516&-find=

I'm describing the same sort of thing, a machine that exists happily near the surface of the sun.







Optical fibres, lenses and mirrors routinely operate at power levels that vaporise steel without absorbing any heat themselves and are used to control intense beams light at intensities far greater than that found on the solar surface.


That would seem to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Obviously your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is on par with your understanding of the English language. That is to say, not apparent to the casual observer! haha..


Perhaps you need to be more than a "casual observer".

Perhaps you need to actually understand the things you speak of.


Perhaps you should go study, since you're the one who has postulated a
system with constant enthalpy.


You wrongly believe that laser welding systems somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. They do not. Today, laser welding and cutting is a part of the metalworking industry, routinely producing welds for common items such as battery and pacemaker cans, fuel injector nozzles, razor blades, medical tools, aircraft engines, and even car bodies! Despite this wide use unfamiliarity with the operation and capabilities of laser systems is commonplace. So, people often wonder how can a laser light be generated that is so intense as to weld or shape metal and ceramics and not be a hazard to the machinery that controls this intense light?


I said no such thing.

You implied as much.


I'm not responsible for the really stupid voices in your head.

There are no voices in my head. Perhaps you're describing your mental condition?

I
neither said nor implied any such thing.

Yes you did.


Your reading deficiencies are not my problem.

Yet you are the one in constant error.


Except, as we're about to see, as you once again try to move the goal
posts, I'm not.

This isn't a debate.


Your claim was that an optical system could be PERFECT, dissipating no
energy.

No, I said an optical system can be 99.999% efficient. That's far from perfect.

Optical fibres for example, have a 0.2 db loss per kilometre. That means 95.5% of the energy at one end appears at the other end of a fibre a kilometre long. It also means that 99.999% of the energy at one end of a fibre appears at the other end of a fibre 2,171.58 millimeters long.


And the other 5.5% goes where, again?

Hint: Waste heat.

Well, its 4.5% but I think you've finally got it! You finally got it!

Think of it! Only 4.5% of the light that passes through a kilometre of fibre turns into waste heat over that entire length! Not much heating at all even at the power levels we're talking about!

So, take the 1/1000th root of 0.955 and you get 0.999953957121504 ~ 99.995% transmission per metre! Which is my point. These are exceptionally low levels of waste heat. So, a cubic meter of this material illuminated by a light source equal to that of the surface of the sun, barely gets warm at all!



That would make a loop of fiber optic cable with the
properties you claim would effectively be a perpetual motion machine
(if it was a machine).

A 0.2 db is loss is an incredible achievement. However, it is not a 0.0 db loss and its not a negative db loss. So, a perpetual motion machine it is not. That you think it is again demonstrates conclusively your lack of understanding of basic thermodynamics.

Consider that 0.2 db per km glass fibre. A cubic meter of the stuff illuminated by a 62 million watts per square meter light source, would absorb only 0.0046% of the energy - or 2855.2 watts of the incident radiation.

In a vacuum the cube would rise to a temperature that would cause it to radiate this much energy from its total surface area. In this instance, a cube one meter on a side, that surface is 6 square meters, so the specific radiance would be 479.9 watts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann its easy to see that the glass would stabilize at 303.3 K. (86.3 F) Warm, but not destructive! Moving 163,000 km above the photosphere, reduces light intensity to the point where the temperature falls to 273 K (32.0 F) the freezing point of water!


So you change your tune and now agree that it DOES get warmer and
needs to cool somehow.

I've always said that. In a vacuum it cools by radiant emission only. So, the waste heat you describe above must get out by radiation. The temperature rises until the heat flow from the warm surfaces equal the heat influx dissappated by the system. Stephan-Boltzmann has a handy equation for heat flux;

J = rho * T^4

Where J = watts/m2 and T=absolute temperature in Kelvin rho=5.67*10^(-8) -

So my 'constant error' isn't error at all.

No, you seem to still be of the mistaken impression after reading my calculation of temperature based on the rate of heat loss required using the Stephan Boltzmann relation that I said nothing whatever about heating - which is too bad, I thought you finally got it. You persist in this mistake even though I described precisely what causes heating at the outset.

Transmission and reflection of light does not cause heating - only its absorption. I've said throughout the absorption is quite low. This is the basis of many an optical machine today. Its quite within the realm of possibility to build a device that exists happily on the surface of the sun using these techniques.

Rather, you have once again made a statement and now need to back off
from it.

Nonsense. You are misreading things and making things up to shift the narrative into a baseless attack on what I'm saying. Problem is, anyone reading your commentary understands your shortcomings. I suppose you cannot change the horrific reality of the miserable ******* you are. Wouldn't want to be you.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 9:27:31 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:09:32 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:20:06 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:21:03 AM UTC+12, jacob navia wrote:
Le 06/08/2016 à 16:30, William Mook a écrit :
Consider a sheet of glass near the solar surface that operates up to

1 800 K (1 527 C) and is 99% transparent. So, 62 megawatts of light is

flowing through each square meter.

Yet only 0.62 megawatts is being absorbed by each square meter.

Now each sheet of glass has a front and a back totalling two square

meters of emitter area per square meter of collector area. This

is 0.31 megawatts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann law,

we can see that the operating temperature of the glass with this

transparency is 1 529 K (1 256 C).


OK. After that figures I can even imagine that a 99% transparent glass
can resist at 1256 C.

Again, that doesn't at all mean that a working machine or structure can
be done with the 1% mass that rests. 1256 C is quite hot reaally, and I
do not know any electronics that can resist 200 C to be optimistic,
maybe 500 C OK?

A lens is a machine. A mirror a machine as well. An optical fibre is a machine.


Please buy a dictionary and look up 'machine'. Those are not
machines.


I suggest you actually look up the definition of a word before ranting cluelessly about it. It saves you heaps of embarrassment! lol.


Great advice. You should follow it.


ma·chine
m??SH?n
noun
.
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.


Note that under that definition neither a mirror, a lens, nor an
optical fiber is a 'machine'.

Obviously you are not familiar with machines that possess mirrors, lenses and optical fibres as their parts having definite functions in the machine.


That does not make a mirror, lens, or fiber optic cable a machine. Do
you even speak English?

snip irrelevancies

Obviously you are not familiar with machines that possess mirrors, lenses and optical fibres as their parts having definite functions in the machine.


Obviously you're not familiar with the difference between "a mirror is
a machine" and 'machines can contain mirrors' and are actively
ignoring the definition for machine that you yourself provided.

snip irrelevancies







Optical fibres, lenses and mirrors routinely operate at power levels that vaporise steel without absorbing any heat themselves and are used to control intense beams light at intensities far greater than that found on the solar surface.


That would seem to violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Obviously your understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is on par with your understanding of the English language. That is to say, not apparent to the casual observer! haha..


Perhaps you need to be more than a "casual observer".

Perhaps you need to actually understand the things you speak of.


Perhaps you should go study, since you're the one who has postulated a
system with constant enthalpy.


You wrongly believe that laser welding systems somehow violate the laws of thermodynamics. They do not. Today, laser welding and cutting is a part of the metalworking industry, routinely producing welds for common items such as battery and pacemaker cans, fuel injector nozzles, razor blades, medical tools, aircraft engines, and even car bodies! Despite this wide use unfamiliarity with the operation and capabilities of laser systems is commonplace. So, people often wonder how can a laser light be generated that is so intense as to weld or shape metal and ceramics and not be a hazard to the machinery that controls this intense light?


I said no such thing.

You implied as much.


I'm not responsible for the really stupid voices in your head.


There are no voices in my head. Perhaps you're describing your mental condition?


So where did you get this idea that I implied something I never
implied?


I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Yes you did.


Liar. Show me. I said that YOUR CLAIM was a violation of the Laws of
Thermodynamics. You have since backed away from your claim.


Your reading deficiencies are not my problem.

Yet you are the one in constant error.


Except, as we're about to see, as you once again try to move the goal
posts, I'm not.

This isn't a debate.


No, this is you saying stupid **** and me pointing it out.


Your claim was that an optical system could be PERFECT, dissipating no
energy.

No, I said an optical system can be 99.999% efficient. That's far from perfect.

Optical fibres for example, have a 0.2 db loss per kilometre. That means 95.5% of the energy at one end appears at the other end of a fibre a kilometre long. It also means that 99.999% of the energy at one end of a fibre appears at the other end of a fibre 2,171.58 millimeters long.


And the other 5.5% goes where, again?

Hint: Waste heat.

Well, its 4.5% but I think you've finally got it! You finally got it!


In other words, your original claim of no heating was wrong.


Think of it! Only 4.5% of the light that passes through a kilometre of fibre turns into waste heat over that entire length! Not much heating at all even at the power levels we're talking about!


Think of it! Your original claim was "no heating". You've now backed
off from that to "not much heating".


So, take the 1/1000th root of 0.955 and you get 0.999953957121504 ~ 99.995% transmission per metre! Which is my point. These are exceptionally low levels of waste heat. So, a cubic meter of this material illuminated by a light source equal to that of the surface of the sun, barely gets warm at all!


So from "none" (which I called bull**** on) to "exceptionally low
levels", which is a judgment call and depends on how much power you
shove in there.



That would make a loop of fiber optic cable with the
properties you claim would effectively be a perpetual motion machine
(if it was a machine).

A 0.2 db is loss is an incredible achievement. However, it is not a 0.0 db loss and its not a negative db loss. So, a perpetual motion machine it is not. That you think it is again demonstrates conclusively your lack of understanding of basic thermodynamics.

Consider that 0.2 db per km glass fibre. A cubic meter of the stuff illuminated by a 62 million watts per square meter light source, would absorb only 0.0046% of the energy - or 2855.2 watts of the incident radiation.

In a vacuum the cube would rise to a temperature that would cause it to radiate this much energy from its total surface area. In this instance, a cube one meter on a side, that surface is 6 square meters, so the specific radiance would be 479.9 watts per square meter. Using Stephan Boltzmann its easy to see that the glass would stabilize at 303.3 K. (86.3 F) Warm, but not destructive! Moving 163,000 km above the photosphere, reduces light intensity to the point where the temperature falls to 273 K (32.0 F) the freezing point of water!


So you change your tune and now agree that it DOES get warmer and
needs to cool somehow.

I've always said that.


Liar. You said "no heating" and then starting changing your position
when I called bull**** on your claim.

snip irrelevancies


So my 'constant error' isn't error at all.

No, you seem


I don't care how things 'seem' to you, what with you being a lying
nutter and all.

snip irrelevancies


Rather, you have once again made a statement and now need to back off
from it.

Nonsense. You are misreading things and making things up to shift the narrative into a baseless attack on what I'm saying. Problem is, anyone reading your commentary understands your shortcomings. I suppose you cannot change the horrific reality of the miserable ******* you are. Wouldn't want to be you.


Liar. You said what you said. Now you're saying something different.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

consists primarily of a set of lenses and prisms to detect meteor spectra;

http://collections.ucolick.org/archi...d=35516&-find=

I'm describing the same sort of thing, a machine that exists happily near the surface of the sun.

Optical fibres routinely achieve 0.2 db loss over a kilometre of length. That means over 1 meter the material transmits 99.995% of the light striking it. Amazing!

Now consider the size of micro-optical systems. A giant birefringent optical film is only a millimetre thick!

https://research.cems.umn.edu/macosk..._shows/gbo.pdf

Varying the thickness of each of the dozens of layers over an area, creates quite efficient diffraction effects that guide light similar to a hologram..

https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/ful...=ao-23-23-4309

These are assembled into arbitrary holographic metamaterials to implement holographic optics.

https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/abs...oe-21-22-26620

In combination with UHDTV laser arrays, they produce 3D images without glasses by monitoring view eye position and sending left and right images to each viewer's eye as they move around the room;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO0F1PYD3oM

Metamaterials can also be used to make things invisible, and for optical computing and all manner of stuff and is only a millimetre thick!

So, since 99.995% of the energy gets transmitted through one meter, 99.99995% of the energy gets transmitted through one millimetre!

So, optical machinery of this thickness can do a lot and remain cool on the sun's surface!

How much? Well, a big innovation of mine back in the 1970s was what I called 'hologon' - which was basically a hologram of an optical system. A hologram is taken of a complex optical device, and the light passes through the device just as it does through the hologram! That is if you take a hologram of a lens, that hologram will magnify objects just like the lens does! This was used by Xerox and others to reduce the size weight and complexity of copier machines back in the day! A great innovation!

WIth active meta-materials, this idea can be extended to changing images of optical elements within the hologram. So, not only do you get a 3D movie, but you can get a 3D movie of optical elements that process light that passes through it.

This is how the optical machinery that keeps things cool on the solar surface works!

William Mook wrote:

Mookie, chopping out all the context isn't 'clever', as you've already
agreed.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates