The energy and the money

Well there are lots of ideas about different types of values/goods and the common medium among them – the money.
There were tons of debates on gold standards and pure fiat types of money.
But what about something very simple and able to convert to everything we need – the energy ?

This substance is conserved due to the very heavily tested and solid fundamental conservation of energy principles in modern physics.
Also it can be generated, stored, transported and converted to any kind in any possible scenarios – mechanical movement of objects or thermal.

To make things simple let’s take a look at its form of electricity – it can be easily generated and converted to all we need – constructions/food/heating/transport/communications/applied goods.
It cannot be inflated/deflated and its cost doesn’t grade with time.
The energy couldn’t be destroyed or made from nothing – it is a basic physical phenomena.

So to make it a kind of a money we just need to create common effective converters and transport system with minimized transport costs.
This can be easily made with superconductors – the loss of energy on transportation is about zero.

So the question is – why not using energy (for example in form of electricity) as a kind of really universal money ?

Feel free to add some meaningful comments for this topic in our Economics StackExchange discussion.

Electron vs proton currents

So lets get back to the basics in electricity.
As everyone knows, electric current is just a flow of charged particles, so there is no special about it.
But what about the type of particles and the differences of produced currents.

To make things simple let’s take a look at 2 basic charged particles – protons and electrons.
They have the same charge, but with the opposite sign. Also electron weights about 2000 times less compared to proton.
As far as I understand, in electric appliances we use only electron currents. They originate as flow of electrons in the crystallic structures of atoms in conductors between protons (just like Dirac’s concept, it is an ocean of electrons).

But what happens if we choose protons as a charge carrier ?
Since it is much heavier with the same charge, it’s current flow will produce much more work – just about proportionally the weight ratio.
And also it is quite ineffective to use light electrons in heating elements and appliances like electric transport devices (cars, scooters, planes, helicopters and drones).

So my guess is that electrons currents are good at communications with low losses. But when it comes to heavy work or heating, protons currents are about 2000 times more effective as much more massive particles.

So the question is – why aren’t we still using proton currents – are there some technical difficulties about generating or transporting it ?

Also is it possible to generate the opposite flows of particles with the same charge value, but much differences in weights ?
That would allow us to create devices to get 2000 times increasing force just by generating small amounts of electrons with no problems with energy conservation laws.

Feel free to add some reasonable comments for this topic in our Physics StackExchange discussions.

Advanced wind electricity generation

Well, when it comes to electricity generation it is important to design units to be scalable enough.
With wind turbines becoming popular nowadays it is very important.
As you know, currently wind turbines are placed on surface, mostly at hills and small mountains.
But why placing it on surface, where the wind speed is very limited ?
Why not placing it in some cloudy heights, where the wind constantly flows at really large speeds 24 hours a day ?

One can argue that it is technically difficult to get heavy turbines at heights and costly transport energy to the land via cables.
But what about using wind kite farm cell structs ?
These kind of units can be easily scaled via structs attachments and are capable of carrying huge amounts of generating fans.

Moreover, in this case there is no need of placing heavy generators in kites and send them to air.
You can easily transfer the torque moment from fans in the air to the generators on land using the cords, connecting the kite to the land.
That means it is easy to create really large generating volumes in the air and transfer huge amounts of useful work to the land.

Also kites and fans are very cheap in mass production and can be easily installed almost anywhere.
If you think that wind power is just not enough – think about heavy hurricanes and typhoons that deal really a lot of damage to civilians all around the world.
This scalable devices can easily dissipate all that energy and convert it to useful electricity.
I guess an array of 10-50 small cheap generating cubes like 100-400 meters in length can easily handle small hurricanes.

So why are we still using ineffective heavy structures with generators instead of this kind of structs ?

For more discussions on this topic – take a look at stack physics

Going from 2d to 3d in plants cultivation

As you know, currently grown organic plant food (like rice and wheat for example) is grown using flat 2d approach with just one floor of seeds on surface.
Using that lots of people start to talk about lack of food due to the population increase on the limited surface of our planet.
It also produces other harmful events like deforestation and wildlife problems due to the increasing surface for food plantations.

But what about going 3d production instead of current 2d surface cultivation to handle it ?
Since plants are the basis of ecology chains, that looks like really important.
Just imagine simple 3d cell frame structures with plants growing in volume in it nodes.
One can argue to the problems with light, but it can easily be handled with artificial additional lightning.

Problems with soil can be handled with artificial substrats and hydroponics.
So let’s define a simple model, applicable almost everywhere and try to estimate its costs.
If we want to grow plants almost everywhere, let’s start with hydroponics compact 3d frames using artificial soils and artificial phyto lights.
To make things really simple and reasonable we will assume large autofilling tank of water above this structure that drop water using controlled cranes to all nodes of frame via tubes.

Let’s estimate costs, using mass production.
Well, the structure frame and nodes are really cheap – node costs you about one 5 liter plastic bottle, as well as frame structs.
So basically all you need is artificial light and water pumps transfer from bottom to top with reuse cycle.

Since in common cultivation the main asset is land surface, in mass production all the costs can be reduced to the economy on surface.
Also this approach allows us to grow indefinite amounts of plants on the limited surface just increasing floors amount.
That means we can get 10x output with 10 floors and roughly 100x output with 100 floors on the given amount of surface.
So the question is – why are we still using ineffective 2d cultivation instead of more productive 3d approach ?

Feel free to add some reasonable comments for this topic in our Biology StackExchange and Economics StackExchange discussions.

Common problems concerning progress

So in science fiction movies and books the future of mankind is commonly described as inefficient, dark and even apocalyptically deadly.
We believe it is mostly due to the attempts to attract attention of customers in order to increase sales and well known human love to tragedies, which is viewed as a common genre through basic education via religion in early stages of culture development.
Using these patterns, novelists describe tons of undesired events and some people start to think that it is really inevitable and may even lead to civilization self-destruction.

This is really funny, since most of this problems are really simple to solve.
To our point of view, the main difficulty with civilization is just maintaining a simple discipline and keeping it organized.
That is because lots of modern people didn’t went too far from stone age (that ended just 10k years ago) savages or even monkeys in their personal progress.

Here are some details on most common problems concerning the population growth and progress :

lack of food
lack of water
lack of mineral resources
problems with living space
diseases and mutations
great apocalyptic wars
ice ages climate problems
asteroid impacts
rise of the machines against humans
poor ecology
nuclear wastes

We will try to explain how it is easy to handle all these problems with just a reasonable approach.

ReUse Inc Educational initiative started

Since most recent common cultural educational efforts were not very clear and effective, we decided to try our best at making it really reasonable.

Even it 21 century with internet and info available, there are lots of misunderstandings and misconcepts about even common ideas of progress.
That is due to the inability to find trusted sources of information in the ocean of info around us.

Well, we will try to sort that out and start our ReUse Inc Educational initiative.
Through the series of blogs and informational resources we will try to make even the most complex matters really simple and clear to everyone.

ReUse Inc Training initiative

Well, in contrast to other educational resources, we in ReUse Inc don’t believe in training through artificial examples and trying to remember something that is not important.

Instead of that, we offer training and education using real production problems and efforts.
It doesn’t matter how skilled you are and how much education you received earlier – just try your best in common real world qualification prove.

Don’t worry if you don’t know some complicated matters or specific technical details.
Start with some simple tasks and progress to really complex ones, including planning, sales, estimates and even not clearly defined research studies as well as you start to get higher qualification.

As you progress, it depends only on your efforts, basic skills of understanding common terms and time investment to become an expert in almost any area of work.
If you are already well trained – just try yourself in complex projects and prove it.

The correlation between scales of time and space

I guess it is quite well known that there is an empirical correlation between scales of time and space.

That means that small things are usually move / rotate relatively (compared to its sizes) faster then the large ones.

For example ants move relatively really fast, compared to large animals.
The bacterias are much much faster.
Atoms and electrons live in quite short times, in about 10e-7 seconds scale.

On the other side of scales planets move relatively slow (day or year), stars and galaxies are quite static for our time scale.

In general it looks like the scale of time is almost proportional to the scale of space.

How to explain that using standard physics ideas ?

Is it a kind of inertia properties or something like that ?

For more discussions on this topic – take a look at stack physics

Rotation and common absolute coordinate system

Got an interesting observation a couple of days earlier, could you please comment it or point to some mistake.

As everyone knows, there are lots of stars in our universe.
Stars are in common just big amounts of self-gravitating collapsed spheres of hot gas and plasma.

If this kind of sphere is rotating, then its rotation can be measured by its poles collapse. It means we can easily make a photo of it, calculate difference between equatorial and polar radiuses and get its rotation speed.

So a rotation of any star can be easily detected.
This rotation is measured relative to some kind of absolute inertial non-rotating coordinate system, same for all stars.

Since a rotation can be detected, then a simple line movement can be detected also (just speed, correlated with rotation of a closest star).

That means that there is a common absolute inertial coordinate system (a kind of a base one), in which every star is rotating.

But getting this special base system is not common to physics and it is a little bit confusing to me.

Is there really that kind of special absolute coordinate system, or it is just some logical paradox type of stuff ?

For more discussions on this topic – take a look at stack physics

Variable spectrum common visors/cameras

I guess almost everyone knows about the really small area of electromagnetic spectrum that humans are able to see.

Well, it is just not fair :-).

Why there is still no multi spectral (means with variable spectrum) visors available on the market ?
The idea is to get an predefined by device settings spectrum area (can be changed at any time by user) and map it to common RGB palette in order to visualize all the spectrum.

Are there any unsolved technological problems or restrictions with that ?
What areas of spectrum are still difficult/unavailable to observe ?

As far as I understand this kind of device is quite simple and is just a simple modification of common cell phone camera (so it is cheap for mass production).

No doubt, this kind of device will reveal a lot of great hidden info on EM interactions from the world that will be easy to observe in dynamics and will be quite useful for lots of people in all areas from science to applications. I guess it will be a revolution in technics/biology related areas or natural sciences (and also a good device to common use).

For more discussions on this topic – take a look at stack physics