Watching the DB science interview, the thought arose of an alternative to ejectable heat sinks.
He mentions that radiative emissions are about the only option, and that gave me pause for thought..
Not for a replacement to heat sinks, mind. Despite the apparent ubiquity of passive superconductivity in the world of the background simulation, heat management is now a thing, so, here's an additional method of getting rid of it, in space..
Non-dissipative asymmetric EM interactions!
___________________________________________
So, convert a heat difference into a linear force, performing mechanical work in pulling two magnets apart. A basic heat engine, doing EM work.
One of the magnets is a high grade NdFeB (or some superior prospective sci-fi compound).
The other is an old lump of pig iron.
These two magnetic samples attract together, then get pulled apart, cyclically, over and over, like a piston engine.
When the magnets attract together, the force is low.
Later, after the force between them has grown, they get pulled apart again.
This effectively destroys classical energy.
Explanation:
Any high grade permanent magnet has high remanance, coercivity, permeability etc., but negligible entropy viscosity (Sv).
Any old lump of iron has much lower thresholds of the first three properties, but significant Sv.
Sv was the subject of Rutherford's first paper, in 1885/6, in which he designed and built apparatus for measuring its effects in a variety of samples.
Its effect is analogous to that of the exposure time of photographic paper - just as a slight exposure causes a trace impression, and full saturation causes full blackness (or whatever the pigment hue), likewise, when a magnetic sample has appreciable Sv, then its degree of induced magnetisation (denoted by the letter B in Maxwellian terms) is a function of its exposure time in an applied magnetic (H) field, and not just the strength of that field (magnitude of the H vector).
The magnetic response curves of natural materials are usually non-linear, due to the natural irregularity and amorphous disposition of the crystal / granular structure, and hence the non-uniformity of domain wall pinning - as more holdout domains pop into alignment with the applied field, this induced magnetisation raises the peer pressure on any remaining stragglers (causing the characteristic trail-off when amplifying a magnetising sample to listen in on the Barkhausen avalanches).
Additionally, these internally-evolving, progressive changes in domain alignments, all induce counter-EMF's, courtesy of Faraday's law of induction (AKA Lenz's law in the inverse case - fulfilling the EM equivalent of Newton's 3rd law), which act to brake the speeds of the domain flips inducing them.
The net result of this inter-reactive complexity is that induction times for rough iron samples are a significant factor in determining induced B for a given applied H.
In high grade magnetic materials such as permanent magnets and EMF sheilding, the domain structure is more uniform, more closely described by a Stoner-Wohlfarth single-domain model - unlike natural magnetic materials, the B/H response curves for such fabricated materials tend to be very linear.
But this time-dependent non-linearity is the key to leverging a thermodynamic input to output asymmetry - a 'closed-loop loss mechanism'.
Usually, we only encounter losses in terms of dissipation - real displacements under real-world conditions are subject to entropic losses due to conversion inefficiencies, and all work is ultimately dissipated as low-grade heat (at or near ambient temperature and pressure).
And similarly, engineers usually only encounter Sv in terms of something undesirable, to be designed out of a system, since it too is usually associated with entropic losses and inefficiency.
For example, significant Sv in an electric motor would limit the max speed that the magnets could respond to the coils. All else being equal, further raising the input power would only serve to increase the rate of energy being dissipated by Joule heating via resistance losses, since no further mechanical acceleration is possible. Likewise, Sv in a transformer coil is just going to cap the response frequency and thus usefulness of the material, beyond which efficiency nosedives.
However, we can also apply the effect to harness another kind of loss - a 'non-dissipative' loss, that doesn't convert the drained energy to heat, by app[lying it differently to input vs output strokes of an otherwise closed-loop interaction:
- If we simply let a passive permanent magnet attract itself over some small displacement onto a high-Sv material, this mechanical 'output stroke' can occur in much less time than is required for the internal domain structure to adapt and thus for B to rise in response.
So we can let two magnets attract together physically, before the force actng between them has had time to rise accordingly..
Normally, as two magnets attract together, they induce complimentary magnetisation in one another, mutually pulling each other up their B / H curves, and net magnetisation (M), rises. In repulsion, they push each other down their curves, and M goes down. If this happens instantaneously, with no time delay, then the net force is at its corresponding maximum at every divisible increment of the displacement.
But with Sv in play, these induced magnetisation chages can take anything from microseconds to hours, depending on the specific material details.
As such, if we allow two magnets to attract together before M can peak, and then pull them apart after it has peaked, then our input work integral plots a higher net force than the interaction's (premature) output work intergal over the same distance. In other words, we have a closed-loop deficit, due to the passively time-varying forces.
We haven't input "too much" energy, but simply not collected the full available compliment of output energy, had we restricted the speed at which the magnets physically moved closer together. As such, they pulled together under a weaker force, performing less mechanical work than we subsequently have to perform in pulling them apart again.
The energy spent has, by definition, been categorically sunk into displacement against a force - ie. "mechanical work", which is all present and accounted for. But if the force conditions change passively midway through input and output halves of an interaction, then energy is not conserved, consistent with Noether's theorem.. As such, time-dependent passive magnetic interactions can be under-unity, and in principle, this non-dissipative loss mechanism can sink any amount of energy, over successive cycles, without converting any to heat - calorimetry would indicate complete energy destruction.
A unit capable of performing this trick could be the size of a matchbox (or much smaller, of course), but its negative-power density (how much energy it can destroy per unit time) would be a function of the EM force differential and thus Sv rate in relation to the mechanical displacement speeds. So a smaller, higher speed unit with more powerful permanent magents could sink equal or more energy than a larger, slower one with bigger, weaker magnets, and so on and so forth..
Even greater negative efficiencies could be achieved by going the active route, and substituting solenoids for permanent magents..
The ultimate sink of the sunk energy is simply the ambient virtual-photon exchanges manifesting the magnetic field against which we're performing our surfeit of unreciprocated mechanical work.
-------
But none o' yuz lots need worry about all that, scientifically unassailable classical symmetry break though it is - all i'm sayin' is, we could have, like, a little gadget what takes the heat away by winding down the window between our thermodynamic realm and that of the vacuum potential, converting waste heat directly into ambient quantum momentum, phonon for h-bar, type stuff. Technically feasible, takes up a unit slot, size and density-dependent cost / benefit and efficiency of their inefficiency, with the most efficiently inefficient comprising the 'A' grade kit.
-- Or else --
- we could just actually use the passive superconductivity tech we're always hauling around, as an upgrade on our own ships, precluding unnecessary heat generation in the first place.
But my way's more.. 'steam punk', i think. Especially, invoking Victorian science over sci-fi.. just gives it that 'retro' edge?
He mentions that radiative emissions are about the only option, and that gave me pause for thought..
Not for a replacement to heat sinks, mind. Despite the apparent ubiquity of passive superconductivity in the world of the background simulation, heat management is now a thing, so, here's an additional method of getting rid of it, in space..
Non-dissipative asymmetric EM interactions!
___________________________________________
So, convert a heat difference into a linear force, performing mechanical work in pulling two magnets apart. A basic heat engine, doing EM work.
One of the magnets is a high grade NdFeB (or some superior prospective sci-fi compound).
The other is an old lump of pig iron.
These two magnetic samples attract together, then get pulled apart, cyclically, over and over, like a piston engine.
When the magnets attract together, the force is low.
Later, after the force between them has grown, they get pulled apart again.
This effectively destroys classical energy.
Explanation:
Any high grade permanent magnet has high remanance, coercivity, permeability etc., but negligible entropy viscosity (Sv).
Any old lump of iron has much lower thresholds of the first three properties, but significant Sv.
Sv was the subject of Rutherford's first paper, in 1885/6, in which he designed and built apparatus for measuring its effects in a variety of samples.
Its effect is analogous to that of the exposure time of photographic paper - just as a slight exposure causes a trace impression, and full saturation causes full blackness (or whatever the pigment hue), likewise, when a magnetic sample has appreciable Sv, then its degree of induced magnetisation (denoted by the letter B in Maxwellian terms) is a function of its exposure time in an applied magnetic (H) field, and not just the strength of that field (magnitude of the H vector).
The magnetic response curves of natural materials are usually non-linear, due to the natural irregularity and amorphous disposition of the crystal / granular structure, and hence the non-uniformity of domain wall pinning - as more holdout domains pop into alignment with the applied field, this induced magnetisation raises the peer pressure on any remaining stragglers (causing the characteristic trail-off when amplifying a magnetising sample to listen in on the Barkhausen avalanches).
Additionally, these internally-evolving, progressive changes in domain alignments, all induce counter-EMF's, courtesy of Faraday's law of induction (AKA Lenz's law in the inverse case - fulfilling the EM equivalent of Newton's 3rd law), which act to brake the speeds of the domain flips inducing them.
The net result of this inter-reactive complexity is that induction times for rough iron samples are a significant factor in determining induced B for a given applied H.
In high grade magnetic materials such as permanent magnets and EMF sheilding, the domain structure is more uniform, more closely described by a Stoner-Wohlfarth single-domain model - unlike natural magnetic materials, the B/H response curves for such fabricated materials tend to be very linear.
But this time-dependent non-linearity is the key to leverging a thermodynamic input to output asymmetry - a 'closed-loop loss mechanism'.
Usually, we only encounter losses in terms of dissipation - real displacements under real-world conditions are subject to entropic losses due to conversion inefficiencies, and all work is ultimately dissipated as low-grade heat (at or near ambient temperature and pressure).
And similarly, engineers usually only encounter Sv in terms of something undesirable, to be designed out of a system, since it too is usually associated with entropic losses and inefficiency.
For example, significant Sv in an electric motor would limit the max speed that the magnets could respond to the coils. All else being equal, further raising the input power would only serve to increase the rate of energy being dissipated by Joule heating via resistance losses, since no further mechanical acceleration is possible. Likewise, Sv in a transformer coil is just going to cap the response frequency and thus usefulness of the material, beyond which efficiency nosedives.
However, we can also apply the effect to harness another kind of loss - a 'non-dissipative' loss, that doesn't convert the drained energy to heat, by app[lying it differently to input vs output strokes of an otherwise closed-loop interaction:
- If we simply let a passive permanent magnet attract itself over some small displacement onto a high-Sv material, this mechanical 'output stroke' can occur in much less time than is required for the internal domain structure to adapt and thus for B to rise in response.
So we can let two magnets attract together physically, before the force actng between them has had time to rise accordingly..
Normally, as two magnets attract together, they induce complimentary magnetisation in one another, mutually pulling each other up their B / H curves, and net magnetisation (M), rises. In repulsion, they push each other down their curves, and M goes down. If this happens instantaneously, with no time delay, then the net force is at its corresponding maximum at every divisible increment of the displacement.
But with Sv in play, these induced magnetisation chages can take anything from microseconds to hours, depending on the specific material details.
As such, if we allow two magnets to attract together before M can peak, and then pull them apart after it has peaked, then our input work integral plots a higher net force than the interaction's (premature) output work intergal over the same distance. In other words, we have a closed-loop deficit, due to the passively time-varying forces.
We haven't input "too much" energy, but simply not collected the full available compliment of output energy, had we restricted the speed at which the magnets physically moved closer together. As such, they pulled together under a weaker force, performing less mechanical work than we subsequently have to perform in pulling them apart again.
The energy spent has, by definition, been categorically sunk into displacement against a force - ie. "mechanical work", which is all present and accounted for. But if the force conditions change passively midway through input and output halves of an interaction, then energy is not conserved, consistent with Noether's theorem.. As such, time-dependent passive magnetic interactions can be under-unity, and in principle, this non-dissipative loss mechanism can sink any amount of energy, over successive cycles, without converting any to heat - calorimetry would indicate complete energy destruction.
A unit capable of performing this trick could be the size of a matchbox (or much smaller, of course), but its negative-power density (how much energy it can destroy per unit time) would be a function of the EM force differential and thus Sv rate in relation to the mechanical displacement speeds. So a smaller, higher speed unit with more powerful permanent magents could sink equal or more energy than a larger, slower one with bigger, weaker magnets, and so on and so forth..
Even greater negative efficiencies could be achieved by going the active route, and substituting solenoids for permanent magents..
The ultimate sink of the sunk energy is simply the ambient virtual-photon exchanges manifesting the magnetic field against which we're performing our surfeit of unreciprocated mechanical work.
-------
But none o' yuz lots need worry about all that, scientifically unassailable classical symmetry break though it is - all i'm sayin' is, we could have, like, a little gadget what takes the heat away by winding down the window between our thermodynamic realm and that of the vacuum potential, converting waste heat directly into ambient quantum momentum, phonon for h-bar, type stuff. Technically feasible, takes up a unit slot, size and density-dependent cost / benefit and efficiency of their inefficiency, with the most efficiently inefficient comprising the 'A' grade kit.
-- Or else --
- we could just actually use the passive superconductivity tech we're always hauling around, as an upgrade on our own ships, precluding unnecessary heat generation in the first place.
But my way's more.. 'steam punk', i think. Especially, invoking Victorian science over sci-fi.. just gives it that 'retro' edge?
![[VR] Marrs](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/79/79007.jpg?1634042868){kind=avatar}