World size questions

[vv3k70r]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

First of all, check your units. Nm/s is Watts - units of power.

I just checked. All inputs in machines I have in kN and transition rate. None I just asked about Watt get the point of changing it. No aplication. WE have high school technology.

21 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I recommend you study this article on proper acceleration to get you started.

I check it later for sure (after work).

What tanks does this have to keep accelerating for years?

Edited November 25, 2020 by vv3k70r

[K^2]

13 minutes ago, vv3k70r said:

I just checked. All inputs in machines I have in kN and transition rate. None I just asked about Watt get the point of changing it. No aplication. WE have high school technology.

 

[vv3k70r]

It is a blackboard. I have real machinery where is no point in using uneusefull units to program them. I solve issues that exist, all other are pointless. I left blackboard when I left phy&astr, there is no aplication for all I learned there in our highschool stone age industri. So when I write program for physical machinery I put there couple of kN and m/s. There is no point to compile it into another unit with no practical use - basic variables works and keeping in memory another variable that is compiled from two previous is a waste.

But I'm familiar with what You have on blackboard. I even have one to explaining exactly this for kids in factory, but then we go to workshop to see how we utilize it, and there is no use of this. It is good to know theory, but they gona use basic variables. Like You know - we do not put welding output in calories - we set curent, flow and traverse rate, we do not use pascals to shear steel - we use kN/mm^2. Me so sorry but it is how we do and how we think, and there are reason not to compile unit in tech just to please aestethic taste of those who teach.

I just found Your torchschip - it some fantasy ship converting matter to energy without any cosine losses? There is no such ship to consider, there is no such ship to test. There is no acceleration for years with 10m/s^2. It is all numerical fantasy, intresting but pointless.

When I left school I also were complicating everything, but I'm cured. Keep it simple. If it works - dont fix it. I really would end up this pointless discusion before we get to another personal inputs kinda "who can - do, who cant - teach" or something like this high school and tvshows.

When I see this "momentum" with none time there is nothing more to check.

[K^2]

44 minutes ago, vv3k70r said:

So when I write program for physical machinery I put there couple of kN and m/s. There is no point to compile it into another unit with no practical use - basic variables works and keeping in memory another variable that is compiled from two previous is a waste.

This is particularly ironic, given the theme of this forum, that the most infamous example of this exact attitude going disastrously wrong is the Mars Climate Orbiter.

Perhaps if you're just cutting metal with CNC, you don't need to know the difference between power and momentum, but then you might not be quite qualified to discuss nuances of propulsion at relativistic deltas?

50 minutes ago, vv3k70r said:

some fantasy ship [...] no such ship to consider

And I challenge you to make adjustments for a non-fantasy ship. Feel free to use any literature you like. I'll patiently await your results.

[vv3k70r]

37 minutes ago, K^2 said:

This is particularly ironic, given the theme of this forum, that the most infamous example of this exact attitude going disastrously wrong is the Mars Climate Orbiter.

In KSP we have engines in kN - but do not hesitete to give results of deltaV in watts.

38 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Perhaps if you're just cutting metal with CNC, you don't need to know the difference between power and momentum, but then you might not be quite qualified to discuss nuances of propulsion at relativistic deltas?

If I designing them and manufacturing running bussines on my own and some other R&D projects in other areas? Propably I have some background? Just this all elaborate stuff I had on university is not aplicable to make for living? Guys that stay in observatory barely do.

43 minutes ago, K^2 said:

And I challenge you to make adjustments for a non-fantasy ship. Feel free to use any literature you like. I'll patiently await your results.

We do not have any engine that can even touch relativistic niuances. Just because it should give 10m/s^2 for months to even notice something worth of measurement. It is completly pointless. Our engines are counted in seconds.

[K^2]

5 hours ago, vv3k70r said:

In KSP we have engines in kN - but do not hesitete to give results of deltaV in watts.

Should definitely hesitate there. Then look up definitions of delta-v and of Watt and prbably watch that video on units one more time. Because if you don't hesitate about dV in Watts, there's a problem.

 

[vv3k70r]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Should definitely hesitate there. Then look up definitions of delta-v and of Watt and prbably watch that video on units one more time. Because if you don't hesitate about dV in Watts, there's a problem.

Why not? Engine have output in watts - there is force, there is path, there is timeframe - everything You like for watts. But existence of unit is not compulsory to use them if they are not usefull. Becausre they are proportions like watts. You can make up whatever proportion from what we call basic variables and call it Your name. But beneath there still be same, basic var.

[K^2]

7 hours ago, vv3k70r said:

Why not? [...] But existence of unit is not compulsory to use them if they are not usefull.

Great. Please, explain to me how you would put five seconds of water into a jar. They're just proportions, so you ought to be able to measure out exactly five seconds of water.

[vv3k70r]

2 hours ago, K^2 said:

Great. Please, explain to me how you would put five seconds of water into a jar.

I knew we get to this. So it is how it is solve in real - for example if You pour a blackboard given amount of calories to heat exchanger for industrial proces You can find that somhow nobody on the blackboard have figured out that we do not have callories measurment sensor (same as we have ampere and volt sensors, but watts or other horsepowers are procesed data that go to display). First guys on blackobrds make lots of model how the stuff gonna work, then we make a test unit and see which models are more or less relevant in which cirmusctances. Then we make a table of results that are more or less consistent with given model if att all (there are many fields in flow that we do not have reliable models to compute like fase transition in turbulent flow on heatexchangers), and the result is "to deliver given amount of calories to process valve of given type in given plumbing must get opening signal of given power for a given time" - at the end You get a given amount of time to put in the machine that operator can handle. More complexity and it would not gonna work. Beneath it we have another process that use tested working curve for signal for valves servo because it dosent work linear and have many points outside the curve, breakpoints and other noise. Then over it You put an active counterbalance to keep the heat under control if excsessed.

It is why we have corection in every process that looks smooth on blackboard - relevant for this forum are for example corection burns.

And do not even argue that this seconds we call a flow. We have exactly same problem with heat, curent or even signals. It is why we always overshoot or undershoot target and corect it when is near the expected result. It dosent work any other way. Because if You start arguing about it we came to the point that You are actively controling power inputs (what we do when we build new things working on direct, raw current which also is not so consistent from its source).

So if we get back to the topic, and we expect some unusual efects from dilation and other unruh blackboard - if we get to those energy level there be many other trouble to refine process inside controls, electronics and other things we are familiar with. These statistical models are pure numerology - it works only on blackboard, then You have to solve it in practice and all of these is not aplicable att all. Then You get to the complexity for operator to handle and at the control panel You put seconds in the panel and the jarr is filled. If it works - dont fix it. So if You have in any eqution time=none it is not to be handle by dynamics because in dynamics we refere to time always and we do not have any degree of freedom in that direction. If kids ask me for time travel I closing them in the room with notice that he can leave it in the future. Welcome in the real world.

[K^2]

53 minutes ago, vv3k70r said:

at the end You get a given amount of time to put in the machine that operator can handle

And if the next week input parameters changed, you start the entire process completely from scratch? Or do you have an engineer work out a new estimate to start with based on the previous settings and information on the changes?

I get that you understand nothing about how the estimates are made in the first place, but if you really think you'd do just as well starting from a guess and dialing in all the numbers by hand until things work, you obviously know less about your work than you should.

 

I come from academia background, but my area of expertise was particle physics, and I have worked at particle accelerator facility and with people who are responsible for keeping it all operational. Do you have any idea how much more complex a particle accelerator is compared to any industrial process? The particles in a beam move so fast, their mass is thousands of times higher than normal. At the same time, they still refuse to behave as pure particles, and you have all the quantum mess to account for. Temperature of the residual plasma surrounding the beams is comparable to that in the core of a star, and tiniest misalignment of the beam will result in disaster. The beams are controlled by superconducting magnets, which are submerged in pools of liquid helium kept at a pressure bellow that of atmospheric to keep the temperature even lower - almost as cold as vacuum of space. If a magnet's cooling or field strength are mismanaged, it will quench, and that will result in an explosion. And all of that is set up in underground tunnels running many kilometers long and has to be synchronized to a precision that makes GPS look bad.

This is the kind of complexity I'm used to dealing with, while you are trying to convince me that non-linear actuation of a solenoid valve is complicated. I can solve the problem of mechanical response of a valve to a given control pulse in my sleep, and you wouldn't need to put in any fudge factors, because I'm perfectly capable of accounting for both electrical and mechanical impedance of the system. You know why? Because if you were to try and just dial in the numbers at a particle accelerator, you'd end up driving a beam through the pipe, shutting down facility for months of repairs, and it'd be a good day if you don't injure anyone in the process. It has to work on the real machine EXACTLY as it does on the blackboard, and that's why we were taught how to make it work CORRECT on the blackboard.

 

And if we have taken approach of guessing numbers to dial in to rocketry, we'd still be trying to figure out how to prevent rockets from exploding on the launch pad. Heck, that exact attitude of, "I just put numbers into machine," is how we got Mars Climate Orbiter, which I've already mentioned. You are explicitly arguing for an approach that led to one of the better known accidents in space history on a rocketry forum while talking about space travel.

Real physics is complicated. More complicated than most people understand. But the idea you seem to be operating under, that just because you don't understand the real physics, that the equations and theory don't apply to the real world, is absolutely asinine.  We've spent centuries working out mathematical models not just so that they work on the blackboard. They exist to make concrete predictions and they work. Only absolute luddites claim otherwise.

[vv3k70r]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

And if the next week input parameters changed, you start the entire process completely from scratch?

How do You think we are building infrastructure? It is made for working in given circumstances with given load. If it do the job its done.

If You get outside the specification - order new part, new testing and of course - pay^^

It is why tehre are many similiar products on the shelv with different specs. Cars for moving people, cars for moving cargo, cars for moving raw materials around mine, cars for moving in difficult terrain - there is no one car taht has universal, interchangable values. Same with ships, roads, bridges, aeroplanes, buildings, pumps, electronics - everything.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Or do you have an engineer work out a new estimate to start with based on the previous settings and information on the changes?

This depend on how can I cut the costs in most profitable manner.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

I get that you understand nothing about how the estimates are made in the first place, but if you really think you'd do just as well starting from a guess and dialing in all the numbers by hand until things work, you obviously know less about your work than you should.

I accept that with experience I know less and less about it.

When I left the school I knew everything in the manner You describe. Then I had to forget all of this and learn how we do this in real, not on the blackboard. Even diference between cable manufacturing proces lead to a diferent charachteristics on coils so... we started to make coils on our own because market cant deliver what we need to measure induction as we like. And we do not measure its directly - we measure time until it get a given load. Just because precise clocks are cheaper then other solutions.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

I come from academia background, but my area of expertise was particle physics, and I have worked at particle accelerator facility and with people who are responsible for keeping it all operational. Do you have any idea how much more complex a particle accelerator is compared to any industrial process?

I know - I were involwed in manufacturing parts for cooling magnets and test leakage under pressure.

And in such a case they call me to see what can go wrong and what could be missed. Just to point flaws in procedure so You not get the products that dosent meet Your specs. Guys that sell this to You are very stressed about it, because most of them dosent understund what they sell att all. They just know it is very importnat and they loose contracts if anything goes wrong.

I have stocks of expensive parts for advanced industri (like farmaceuticals) that excessed order (to many were produced corect) and I give it for free to labs that dosent have acces (because of economy) to such parts. One of those phd using exact same white mouse picture as You (I think I should get info what is this for important mouse).

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

If a magnet's cooling or field strength are mismanaged, it will quench, and that will result in an explosion.

It is why You have more cooling units that is necessary. Because helium have a nasty behaviour of finding any sprick coroded by hydrogen.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

This is the kind of complexity I'm used to dealing with, while you are trying to convince me that non-linear actuation of a solenoid valve is complicated.

Yes - because You have parts that we produce in thousends and we send You few that meet the specs best. All the rest of series go on discount to other process. It is why they are so expensive, tehre is lot of economical responsibility. It is why Your parts do the job extraordinary well, but for all other aplication You cannot waste that recources to get to this sigma expected for Your aplication. It must be cheap, mass produced, avilable on shelv. You do not have any product without a bunch of certificates.

It is why Your job is even possible.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

I can solve the problem of mechanical response of a valve to a given control pulse in my sleep, and you wouldn't need to put in any fudge factors, because I'm perfectly capable of accounting for both electrical and mechanical impedance of the system

If You get the parts that meet Your specification. It is quite expensive, but You do not have to worry about cost efectivnes of Your job, because it is not producing mercantile results. All other industri live in the economy, not outside like science.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

It has to work on the real machine EXACTLY as it does on the blackboard, and that's why we were taught how to make it work CORRECT on the blackboard.

It is extraordinary testing machine, not a frequent aplication You have to deal with market price of workforce to keep books above 0. There are resons why we have another aproach to products if they are ordered for guys like You, because when You (or nuclear facility) send specs they are extraordinary good and thinked throu. It seems that someone experienced spend time on this and I apriciate this spending excessive amout of time to meet these specs whatever it takes. But the rest of industri do not have guys like You (or Grabowska - not to refer just to guys) and they send specs that are simply #^&@.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

And if we have taken approach of guessing numbers to dial in to rocketry, we'd still be trying to figure out how to prevent rockets from exploding on the launch pad. Heck, that exact attitude of, "I just put numbers into machine," is how we got Mars Climate Orbiter, which I've already mentioned.

It is how we do - we test and we see what goes wrong. When I test something I do not expect corect result. I expect to get know about factors that I didnt consider.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

You are explicitly arguing for an approach that led to one of the better known accidents in space history on a rocketry forum while talking about space travel.

More complexity - more things that can go wrong. And it is guaranted they go wrong so we gonna know what we have to do another way.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Real physics is complicated. More complicated than most people understand. But the idea you seem to be operating under, that just because you don't understand the real physics

I grow up from trying to understund women and physics. I aplicate it. I'm no longer intrested how and why it works if it does because every decade enother generation of blackboard theoretics have different explanation why, but things still dosent want to meet specs from blackboard.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

that the equations and theory don't apply to the real world, is absolutely asinine

Sure - but instead of explaining why parts dosent meet they own specs blackboard I have to use what we have, with the people that handle given complexity. Or I can choos not to use technology. It is very narrow choice.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

We've spent centuries working out mathematical models not just so that they work on the blackboard.

I apriciate that. But still my sensors and controlers dosent give results from blackboard, there are always some noises. I live with that. I cant aford Your quality.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

They exist to make concrete predictions and they work. Only absolute luddites claim otherwise.

More or less they work and I'm happy with that. Most of predictions You are trashing Yourself because they dont. It is why You have a whole facility for testing - to see what predictions dosent work.

 

To get back to the topic - more rockets we gonna build, more gonna fail and sigma will fall. If we start sending people we account some of them will die for sure. If we build power plant - we accept that there be some disasters. If we build more accelerators (more then we have cleaver and responsible people to work there) we expect accidents. It is the price we pay. I accept the price.

Edited November 26, 2020 by vv3k70r

[Corona688]

17 hours ago, vv3k70r said:

Why not? Engine have output in watts - there is force, there is path, there is timeframe

No.  No there is quite definitively not.  You are confusing and conflating the concepts of force, work, and energy.  The blackboard is still relevant because physics haven't ceased to exist.

I'll give you a hint:  You do not receive your power bills in watts.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Corona688

[KerikBalm]

Please tell me how much dV is equivalent to 1000 watts... I want to know

[Entropian]

Probably this ought to help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantity

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

EDIT: Conversion ratio of meters to tesla?

Edited November 26, 2020 by Entropian

[vv3k70r]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

You do not receive your power bills in watts.

Sure - in $/km. It is why You get hp and kW in cars paper with registration.

And those new car, electric You know - You get bill in kwh directly from Your power suplier.

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Please tell me how much dV is equivalent to 1000 watts... I want to know

Flea has output power of 12.288MW and will deliver around 108.75MW during its lifetime giving You change in velocity 1948. So for flea can You derive it from given numbers to get something around 17mm/s. And same way for every engine You have in game? And for every designed vessel?

Is this somehow usefull for You to get this info in watts? Or You just looking for another proportion that is thrust/weight and then what will it do to Your speed?

These are just basic proportions, everything is in the game. What proportion You like is up to You. But they always come from basic variables. You can make up Your own variables in what proportion You like even using cost and Jebs age.

Edited November 26, 2020 by vv3k70r

[Corona688]

5 minutes ago, vv3k70r said:

And those new car, electric You know - You get bill in kwh directly from Your power suplier.

Yes.  KWH.  Not KW.

There is a difference.

[vv3k70r]

7 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Yes.  KWH.  Not KW.

There is a difference.

If You like You can ask them for how caloric value of fuel and power output of generator to get it.

Because I have some diesel power generators I know how to do that, and I know the bill for starting machinery on site (customers are intrested only how much $ and why so expensive, they do not care about watts, I do not know why - if I start to many machine on low output is starting to be somehow important). How to count it (and what is this value for diferent fuel, even for acetylene, coal and biomases) is in book about technical gas for trade school (I do not know propper name of school that tech You basic trades like welding, not in technical or engineering level, but this lowest). So for sure anybody that has to do anything with power outputs know where to look fo formula.

Edited November 26, 2020 by vv3k70r

[Corona688]

That is your answer?  Consistently state the wrong units to an entire forum of rocketry enthusiasts and, when called on it, it's not "whoops, my bad"?  Just ten pages of pointless mansplaining industry blather and "this is how we do it in the real world" (no you don't, not if it's still working, not if you're avoiding constant miscommunication).

I mean, sheesh, I have my blind spots but I admit them when called on it.  It's not going to kill you to admit a mistake.  You've embarrassed yourself many times more by defending and obfuscating it.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Corona688

[vv3k70r]

16 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

That is your answer?  Consistently state the wrong units

Really You do not have W in kWH? So joul per second per hour is harder than joul per second? You can count it even per kilogram. But when You load battery or fuel or whatever W storage You get inside cosW, You do not storage them in flow You had to load it. Is this really level of problems troubling enthusiasts?

It took me a while before I found where this game is displaying everything, I counted it in memory from given mass and thrust. I do not have problem that is stated here so hard how to get proportions.

What would be next? That W output on hydraulic is important for force I get on press? Is this also a problem with converting units?

Edited November 26, 2020 by vv3k70r

[Corona688]

13 minutes ago, vv3k70r said:

Really You do not have W in kWH?

I'm not going to assume you meant West when you consistently say East.

I'm not going to assume you meant Energy when you consistently say Power.

I'm not going to assume you meant Mass if you consistently say Weight.  (That one is my bad - I have to watch that).

It is a mistake.  Words mean things.

It is not pedantic.  It is as different as East from West.

Admit your mistake and move on

Edited November 26, 2020 by Corona688

[dave1904]

1 hour ago, vv3k70r said:

Really You do not have W in kWH? So joul per second per hour is harder than joul per second? You can count it even per kilogram. But when You load battery or fuel or whatever W storage You get inside cosW, You do not storage them in flow You had to load it. Is this really level of problems troubling enthusiasts?

It took me a while before I found where this game is displaying everything, I counted it in memory from given mass and thrust. I do not have problem that is stated here so hard how to get proportions.

What would be next? That W output on hydraulic is important for force I get on press? Is this also a problem with converting units?

I have read this 3 times and have no idea what this says. I'm honestly confused right now. 

[vv3k70r]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

Admit your mistake and move on

Sure - You refer to t axis on folowing derivates and do not get the point that it is made up unit. Do You have clock that measure t^2?

So whatever You refer fo x/t^n You are referinng to same t axis all the time.

I have a clock that measure plain t, if You have a clock that measur t^2 - great. If You have clock that measure cubic time - even better.

But I do not see any point to refer to made up units if there are basic. So I do have a clock that measure plain t and something to measure distance. Square distance is counted, square time is counted. For sure my Watt meter is measuring path traveled by spining whell or any electronic substitute for that in time axis. It is not measuring anything in cubic time even if I have this stated on bill.

If You enthusiast do not get it so there is no point in continuing this shstorm.

Discusion started from cos t between two timlines of slightly diferent g, but I see that concept how we construct these proportion is to hard to grasp.

I see same problem here with file construction (mighty Kraken, its a bug!) that is hard to grasp or even that game save storage t not t^2. I do not want to argue with enthusiasts that have this game for years and didnt solve basic Kraken problems.

So I wish good luck with clocks measuring cubic time. Same as storaging work in battery or fuel is confusing here - no problem, W can store dV in the jar, whatever.

 

 

15 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

I have read this 3 times and have no idea what this says. I'm honestly confused right now. 

 

What exactly is confusing?

force*path/time/time   *path /time?

adding a /time is confusing?

Ask the blackboard guys why they call diferent name for this just by using same variable in derivates again and again. They have cubic clock so they use t^3.

Edited November 26, 2020 by vv3k70r

[Entropian]

Hold on, we don't need calculus here.  This is simple algebra.  For the m/s vs watts thing, here:

Watts are joules/second and a joule is a kilogram meter squared per second squared.  Substitute and you get a (kilogram meter squared per second squared) per second.  After some cancellation, you get a kilogram meter squared per second cubed, or kgm^2/s^3.

A meter per second is the best it gets.  Fundamental units, yay! 

If watts are convertible to meters per second, they must have a conversion ratio (not constant) that we will call A:

A * kgm^2/s^3=m/s

Cancellation:

A*kgm/s^2=1

Hold on, now, that 1 has no units, but the other side of the equation does!  Unequal!  Therefore, watts cannot be converted to meters per second.  What I just did is called dimensional analysis and it's a critical component of physics in general.

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, vv3k70r said:

Sure - You refer to t axis on folowing derivates and do not get the point that it is made up unit. Do You have clock that measure t^2?

Did you respond to me by accident?  Nothing in this is what we were talking about.

You are obfuscating your error again.  Move on.

 

[vv3k70r]

46 minutes ago, Entropian said:

A meter per second is the best it gets.  Fundamental units, yay! 

And we can easily measure both.

47 minutes ago, Entropian said:

Hold on, now, that 1 has no units, but the other side of the equation does!  Unequal!  Therefore, watts cannot be converted to meters per second.

For sure You can measure time & length directly.

Anything else dosent describe anything real. It is just usefull in same cases but made up.

By the way You didnt get what was calculated. There is no point of explaining this further if You cant calculate delivered force to output whatever output it is (even backed bread). So You took some made up unit and they do not match to directly measurable variables.

It is very easy question - how did You measure something, disasemble this proces and tell what You really has measured. So even for measuring force by any mean we refer to this two basic values from the tool that indicate force. If we measure temperature we refer to exact same two variables even if disasembling up to movement of spearate particles.

But if You see something else when disasembling measurment proces - its ok for me.

16 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Did you respond to me by accident?  Nothing in this is what we were talking about.

You missed topic.

16 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

You are obfuscating your error again.  Move on.

Thank You - I do not have any plan to change my mind about disamebling to what is exactly measured and how.