Community > Forum > Technology & Science > The views of Physics, Engineering, Economics etc. compared

The views of Physics, Engineering, Economics etc. compared

Posted by: Ekkehard Augustin - Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:26 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 46 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
The views of Physics, Engineering, Economics etc. compared 
Author Message
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:44 pm
In the ninth post back from here I mentioned that those energies that don't enter the economy of themselves have to be gone for and that this means that energies are consumed to go for energies. The energies consumed are real costs and opportunity costs.

The energies consumed are kinetic energy for transportation - the energy consumed by the movement od trucks, lorries, cars. Kinetic energy also is consumed my the machines used for mining, refining etc.

In particular I mentioned the energy the bodies of workers are consuming. I smiled a bit about what I was saying - but really this point most directly of it all points to one of the most important aspects and arguments here.

As is known from Biology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Medicine beings including Humans die if and when they run out of energy. This is the case if the beings don't eat sufficient food, drink too few potables or get too few sleep. At work now - in particular at mining or in a fabric - energy is consumed to a higher degree than in the case that human doesn't work. This means that even a larger amount of energy needs to be refreshed or replaced - else the worker(s) would die. This also is experienced as being tired.

Conscious and aware intelligent beings - those beings developing an economy - know that this is the case and actively do the best they can to get back the energies consumed in favour of the energies to be gone for or to get what they would have preferred to consume their energies for. This is nothing else than trade and exchange.

This means that all the energies consumed for a certain additional amount of energy to be gone for is included into... - the price(s) to be paid for energies that have been gone for.

To enable this as best as possible the consumed energies are accounted on - and work is refused if the workers doesn't get back the energies of his body he consumes to go for energies. He only works if he gets money which enables him to refuel his body by buying bread, meat, potables and the like.

At this point another comparison to Physics is possible. WannabeSpaceCadet, in another thread you compared the efficiencies of two fuels. There are other threads also where that has been done. The efficiencies were calculated as energy output per unit of fuel.

First of all this definition of efficiency is NOT the one used in Economics. In Economics this merely is called productivity. And it is NOT what's called "Wirtschaftlichkeit" in German.

Next in Economics the output has to be related to all the ressources consumed to produce that certain amount of output (amounts of a product, a service etc.).

Regarding energy this means that the energy output mustn't be calculated per unit of fuel but per unit of consumed ressources - which include all the energies consumed to get that fuel beginning at mining.

In Economics that's quite easyly enabled by accounting and prices - a price per unit of fuel includes all energies consumed per unit of fuel that are no energies entering the economy of their own.

In Physics it seems to be extremely complex - units of fuel mostly are kilograms, liters and the like while energies are measured in Joules, Newtonmeters, Watthours, Coulombvolts, Electronvolts or Calories. So to do what Economics do the energies consumed to get the fuel need to translated into kilograms of mass by calculation and hten to be added to the kilograms of fuel.

This sum then instead of the kilograms of fuel only must be used to calculate what's called efficiency in Physics. This means that the result is a smaller value than those got up to now.

But this only needs to be done in the case of energies (fuels...) to be gone for - because to get the energies entering the economy of their own didn't require the consumption of energies.

To compare wind power, solar power and watercraft to energies to be gone for the kinetic energies of wind or water simply need to be translated into kilograms and the energy of photons need to be translated into kilograms also - without adding any consumed energies (which are all zero).

One of the best hints to that is the concept of the solar sail using sunlight as fuel to propel a space vehicle.

Sunlight, wind, watercraft are the fuels of equipments like wind turbines, solar sails, solar arrays, water turbines etc. while oil, carbon, cerosene, uranium, americium, Hydrazin, UDMH, N2O4, HTPB etc. etc. are the fuels of cars, oil power plants, carbon power plants, nuclear reactors, rocket engines and so on: all these are the equipments required to make use of energies.

These equipments have a productivity calculated as the ratio of (energy) output to equipment. In Economics this also is enabled and simplified by prices and so on. And in economics als the productivity of labour (workers) is calculated that way.

These are some of the reasons why Economics can get different results than Physics while fitting compeltely into what Physics say. Even the order of fuels by "efficiency"/productivity can be quite different in Economics than in Physics while not contradicitng Physics.

This does mean no way that Physics are wrong or so - it simply marks limits of Physics. To understand how a physical phenomenn is caused by energies or what amounts of energies are required to cause a phenomenon desired it is completely irrelevant how much energy has been consumed to get thse amounts of energies there where the phenomenon is observed or desired to be caused - so regarding something like that the physical definition of efficiency is completely sufficient.

The physical definition of efficiency also is completely sufficient to develop a working space vehicle, to develop technologies etc.

What the physical definition of efficiency is not sufficient for is to find out the optimal technology, power plant, space vehicle to be applied by an economy, the world economy, the american economy etc.. And no globally valid result can be found because the distances between the mining location and the location of consumption are differing extremely. And a large amount of additional factors is involved also.

It all means a third step closer to DeltaV.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

To list the aspects I mentioned up to now:

Local Availability
conscious and aware intelligent beings
free commodities vs. economic commodities
energy becoming available of its own vs. energy to be gone for
energy as cost of energy
death
...


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:55 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
...Everything that can't be accessed at what you call negative "efficiency" thus is defined as "outside the economy".
This is why Economics can get results that are different to the results Physics etc. can get. I never said that Physics aren't involved - I say that Physics don't consider all facts, circumstances etc. that need to be considered.


Ah! But then surely it is Economics not Physics that is excluding things, that isn't considering all facts, circumstances etc. that need to be considered.

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
To say "everything is Physics" and then to ignore what other sciences say is inscientific and injustified (I am avoiding harsher terms here...). And the concept behind "everything is Physics" can be applied by Economics also by saying "everything is Economics". Most if not all things have several aspects and combine physical aspects with economic aspects, engineering aspects and much more - so no such Pan-Physics, Pan-Economics, Totalitarims-similar or Fundamentalism-like claims are acceptable.


But Economics has a concept of 'Outside the economy'. Physics can not have such a concept because Physics is literally "The study of everything". All other sciences are "special cases" or "simplifications" of Physics. What most people see as "Physics" is simply those parts of Physics that haven't been spun off into a speciality.

This is not totalitarianism, just reallity. I'm not trying to force my opinion on others, just educate to a broader viewpoint.

I have no doubt that it is entirely valid to examine any human enterprise from an Economics viewpoint. It is just as valid to use a political, cultural, artistic or environmental viewpoint. However, I humbly submit, none of these can be evaluated sensibly without reference to the basic Physics of the situation.

An example: JFK wants to send a man to the moon. Von Braun says spend $100 billion over 10 years on an Apollo program. Joe American says spend $1 million over 1 year on his anti-gravity device, powered by his perpetual motion machine. Economically, politically, culturally, environmentally, Joe American is the way to go, UNLESS the Physics of each solution is evaluated, and the second discarded as impractical.

Unfortunately the above (ludicrous) scenario is not that far from reallity, witness the Space Shuttle. Insufficient weight was given to the Physics of the situation, so many of the Economic predictions were off by a factor of 20 or more.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:12 am
Hello, WannabeSpaceCadet,

your issue

Quote:
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Quote:
...Everything that can't be accessed at what you call negative "efficiency" thus is defined as "outside the economy".
This is why Economics can get results that are different to the results Physics etc. can get. I never said that Physics aren't involved - I say that Physics don't consider all facts, circumstances etc. that need to be considered.



Ah! But then surely it is Economics not Physics that is excluding things, that isn't considering all facts, circumstances etc. that need to be considered.


is a complete misunderstanding and perhaps a distortion of what has been said.

"Outside" the economy does have nothing to do with "not considered by Economics". What's outside the economy simply can't be traded, consumed or used by the economy, by the conscious and aware intelligent beings that are members of that economy.

Being outside the economy means that it can't be considered by Economics like planets that are orbiting stars in galaxies billions of parsecs away can't be observed, investigated and analyzed by Physics - up to now only planets within our local galaxy can be observed and analyzed by Physics. And 30 years ago Physics and Astronomy explicitly said that they doubt much that those exoplanets exist - they did so because those planets are that far away that the telescoped and instruments available that time couldn't see them...: meaning that they don't exist.

Those planets couldn't be accessed that time by instruments and thus didn't exist to Physics. And among them in the last few years some have been detected that no astronomer or physicist imagined before - not even theoretically.

In this sense energy outside the economy doesn't exist to Economics - of course Economics know that they exist to Physics.

You simply tend to neglect some points in the list of aspects I posted - it is (even scientifically) to neglect them in favour of one particular aspect. There is NO economy without conscious and aware intelligent beings - this means that Economics have no access to things that are where no conscious and aware intelligent beings have access to them... - like Physics have no access to objects that are where no instruments can see or measure them.

Physics on the other hand really have access to all the energies not considered by Physics in the efficiency concept you used but neglect those energies Physics have access to.

It's a difference if a discipline neglects something it has access to or if it neglects something it does NOT have access to.

This also means that the issue
Quote:
Physics is literally "The study of everything".
is wrong - plus the fact that Physics do NOT study what Economics are studying since 230 years or more.

Thus the claim that Physics are the study of everything is arrogant and pretentious.

I have no problem to accept that Physics have the intention and the goal to study everyting - but I can't and do NO WAY agree that Physics really do that. Like I said - Physics do explicitly NOT consider what Economics consider. On the other hand Economics have the intention to consider everything Econimcs can consider because of having access to it like Physics have access to Mars but NOT to planets billions of parsecs away.

And obviously the physical concept of efficiency is neglecting the circumstance that humans would die if the energies they consume at working on mining uranium as source of energy aren't replaced.

It's well known that the death of humans is considered by the science medicine - but not considered by Physics. It's well known also that medicine uses Physics as a tool only.

You also neglect that I already mentioned a bit the cicumstance in this thread that workers have dreams etc. - and everyone can dream things that are impossible physically. So these dreams can't be considered by Physics - Physics can consider things only that are possible physically.

Sorry - but the claim
Quote:
All other sciences are "special cases" or "simplifications" of Physics.
is waayyy too arrogant to accept it without complete mathematical proof and deep philosophical investigation. Both are (far) beyond this thread and thus deserve another one. :D

Another hint - Economics by fact and indeed is not a special acse of Physics because the roots of Economics are directly in Philosophics and thus Economics can be considered as a special case of Philosophics but no way of Physics. So if required Economics can meet arrogancies of Physics. So simply everyone should cease claims like quote]All other sciences are "special cases" or "simplifications" of Physics.[/quote]. :D

The topic is meant to compare views - and it is in danger to lose that focus.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

PS: Suggestion: Start a thread to prove your issue and claim which begins with considering the Physics of the english language - explain the english language by energies, forces etc. ...


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:13 am
I would have to say that IMO Physics can not be seen as "the study of everything" and while it has obvious effects on all of us every day it is wrong to consider other sciences as sub-sets of physics.

For instance the rules of Chemistry evolved separately over a similar period of time and were originally called Alchemy hundreds of years ago.

While a rocket engine relies on physics to contain and direct the combustion it also uses the chemical reaction of the fuel/oxidiser to work, without either it would not exist so to give a higher importance to one science is not correct.

Economics is also a separate discipline and should be treated in the same way. One of the problems I have with economics is when it tries to predict what will happen in the future based on extrapolations of current technology. It assumes that things will change in a particular way over a period of time based, in part, on the premis that there will be technological advances. I do not see how this can be correct given that some of the technologies involved are in their infancy and may not pan out in the future, I would give space elevators as a example of this.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:27 am
hello, Andy Hill,

your remark about how Economicsbase eaxtrpolations etc. on technology a bit sounds as if you have in mind Kondratieff and his long run cycles that last several decades at least according to him.

These Kondratieff-cycles aren't accepetd in Economics except for a few scientists that are that left that even marxian economists have problems to accept their thoughts.

In the theories of Economics technologies are considered as something abstract only - to analyze the mpacts on profits the change of economic structures etc. and so on.

What can be read in newspapers and journals like Wirtschaftswoche doesn't have to do with the science Economics that much. In those cases it's a trial to apply it so that non-Economists and journalists understand it a bit - partially it's speculation by Gurus. But it is not accepted by the science.

The problem might be that most scientific economic publications are several pages long and hard to understand by most people - Economics is a science that can't rely on mathematics but can use them as a tool only.

If someone looks on the mathematics used in Economics only then he doesn't see Economics.

Oh, and - Thank You Very Much for posting your view of it.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:50 pm
Andy,

Chemistry did indeed evolve from Alchemy into a descriptive science of observation and experimentation. But that led to observations on a smaller & smaller scale, and eventually to atoms. Now all chemistry is firmly grounded on the various properties and interaction of atoms, derived from their sub-atomic structure. i.e. Physics.

'Chemistry' is just a very handy set of tools and shortcuts for predicting & describing matter interactions at the atomic and molecular level, without having to derive everything from sub-atomic theory.


Ekkehard,

Lack of knowledge of say a planet in a distant galaxy, does not make it of no concern to Physics, indeed much of Physics is rampant speculation. The universe is the next best thing to infinite, and the multiverse probably is. It is not possible to study everything. Yet there is no need to exclude anything either.

English, poetry, philosophy, dreams & even human conciousness are all the result of material interactions in space & time. Of incredible complexity, I'll grant you. Thus all Physics. :wink:


My point is that when we compare different views, they should all be the same. If they are not, then somewhere a mistake has been made, or there is a flaw in logic or understanding. This is the value in comparison.
Unfortunately, being human, often an incorrect, emotive view is considered to be the correct one.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:27 pm
Hello, WannabeSpaceCadet,

Quote:
Lack of knowledge of say a planet in a distant galaxy, does not make it of no concern to Physics


is valid for Economics also.

Both in Physics as well in Economics theory needs to be distiguished from reality. Unknown planets that really zero evidence is of are planets assumed by theory for theoretical purposes - this is possible in Economics as well. An amount of energy billions of parsecs away that Physics has eveidence of is for Physics is reality not theory - but for Economics simply its theory because it can't be traded or used which consequently means that it remains unknown how the conscious and aware intelligent beings would do by it if they had it. It remains unknown if they would transform it into another form, store it, trade it, use it to launch a rocket or to power a car and so on. This that energy remains theoretical to Economics.

Quote:
English, poetry, philosophy, dreams & even human conciousness are all the result of material interactions in space & time
: You are missing the point - regarding the dreams I am speaking about the contents of the dreams themselves. Physics never can find out what physically not allowed things may be going on in such a dream - Physics only can measure physical activities in the brain that is dreaming but Physics never can tell what the dreamer is seeing to go on.

Quote:
My point is that when we compare different views, they should all be the same
- this sounds like a normative principle that predetermines results. This would turn all what's based on it into ideologies like Islam, Socialism and the like - political ideologies or even religions.

If instead you are talking about something you suppose then you need to investigate the other disciplines and their views without no predeterminations and prejudicements - which in the most extreme case would mean that you need to get university degrees in those other disciplines.

Oh - and it would hurt the principles of science to conclude from the results and effects and impacts to the causes and reasons.

Regarding chemistry I would like to read what Stefan Sigwarth thinks - he is an expert in that discipline like I am in Economics. I personally have the impression that Chemistry is getting resuts Physics never would have found. And the findings about atoms a around the beginning of the 19. century are got my chemists. :wink:



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:08 pm
My high school chemistry teacher voiced the opinion that all students should first study physics. After learning physics they should study chemistry because chemistry is a subset of physics. After studying chemistry they should study biology because biology is a subset of chemistry. This is exactly the opposite of the order these classes are offered. The school made you take biology first, chemistry second and physics last. I think this is because physics is considered hardest and biology easiest, although in my opinion, chemistry is the hardest subject. Also, physics uses more math than the other sciences, so maybe the school doesn't want people who have not yet completed enough math classes in a physics class.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:13 pm
Eight posts ago I started to speak about fuels while up to that post I have been speaking about energy only.

If the energies entering an economy of their own are compared to the energies that have to be gone for, worked for etc. it turns out that the first ones are radiation energy, kinetic energy or - in the case of Earth's warmth - warmth from beginning on while the other ones - those that need to be gone for - seem to be a bit tricky. The kinetic energy of a car never has been put onto the car as energy which also holds for rockets and space vehicles or even power plants.

What's put to cars only is gasoline, Diesel, hydrogen, methanol or the like and rockets also get chemicals into their tanks. Power plants get carbon, uraniumoxide, oil etc.

Obviously cars, rockets, power plants are getting their energies from matter and chemicals somehow.

I consciously say "somehow" and "obviously" because in Economics the way and method is irrelevant at this point and become relevant at other points later or previously - the point here is that not the amounts of energies themselves are put to cars etc. but sources of energies.

Because of this for an economy as economy, as subject of Economics it doesn't make no sense to distinguish that what is energy in Physics from chemicals like oil, methanol etc. or from elements like carbon, hydrogen or uranium. The oil market is a segment of the enrgy market, the gas market is a segment of the energy market, the market of currents is a segment of the energy market.

The only one of these markets where really physical energy is traded is the market of currents ("Strommarkt" in German) where electrical energy is traded. Oil not neccesaryly is used to transform it into electrical energy or kinetic energy - it also is transformed into warmth to heat a home in winter. Gas is transformed into warmth for heating - I am doing that at home for example.

For such reasons Economics identifies fuels as energies - economically they really ARE energies - please note: economically, Economics don't say that they are energies physically but of course know that they are matter there, elements, molecules, fuels.

This now was a fourth step towards DeltaV.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:47 pm
The fuels need to be gone for -like already mentioned and considered.

This means that e nergies are consumed to get them. But different fuels are of different density and thus different weight per unit of volume. For different weights different amounts of energy are needed to transport them and so on.

Because of this different fuels tend to have different prices because at least some of their costs are different - if the same amount of units of volume are considered.

DeltaV is got by a fuel. Of course a DeltaV of 4 km/s and another DeltaV of 4 km/s allways are the same by number and thus identical - but because of what I say above this no longer is valid if the fuel is considered also: It is a difference if there is a DeltaV of 4 km/s got by one fuel of price X or a DeltaV of 4/km/s got by another fuel of price Y.

There is at least one example in reality: LOX/cerosene and N2O4/ADMH have very similar Isps - www.bernd-leitenberger.de lists them as 2945 and 3040 if I remember correct. But the prices are at quite different levels - LOX/cerosene $ 0.01/$ 0.65 but N2O4/ADMH $ 6.00/$ 17.00.

Because of this required DeltaVs never can be used as indicators of costs - DeltaV literally is no costs. It is impossible to conclude from DeltaV to costs - and vice versa.

To achieve a certain DeltaV energy is required - and up to here Physics are involved. But there are several alternatives how and where to the energy - and beginning here the economy and Economics are involved.

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:58 am
campbelp2002 wrote:
My high school chemistry teacher voiced the opinion that all students should first study physics. After learning physics they should study chemistry because chemistry is a subset of physics. After studying chemistry they should study biology because biology is a subset of chemistry...


And anthropology is a subset of biology, and economics is a subset of anthropology? :wink:


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:15 pm
WannabeSpaceCadet wrote:
And anthropology is a subset of biology, and economics is a subset of anthropology? :wink:
And my checkbook is a subset of ecconomics. A very small subset. :wink:


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:41 pm
Posts: 34
Location: California
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:00 am
campbelp2002 wrote:
WannabeSpaceCadet wrote:
And anthropology is a subset of biology, and economics is a subset of anthropology? :wink:
And my checkbook is a subset of ecconomics. A very small subset. :wink:


Here's my even smaller subset of economics.

My $ 0.02 worth.

PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD.

It should die and go to the the place where all the Not-So-Flyin Brian threads go.

Please, Lock it!

Please?

My $ 0.02 worth.

Buck.Bunny


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:10 am
Hello, Buck.Bundy,

there is no need and no reason to block this thread.

I started it to simply compare several views - this is a good way to improve the understanding between posters with different scientific and/or even non-scientific backgrounds.

Of course this also requires that those posters with different backgrounds are willing and able to respect each other - if they do not then it's a problem of the posters but not a problem of this thread.

Regarding the view of Economics there are still clarifications required - what seems to be the view of Physics to me has not been opposed to or corrected yet and I still would like to here (more) about theviews of Engineering, Chemistry, Medicine, Biology etc.

At present it looks to me a bit as in engineering energies are viewed as something that can be used to get technologies working - even if that energy is not evailable to an economy. The example of the twin rovers on Mars seem to indicate that - the energy they are using is not available to an economy but to those two rovers.

But I have doubts if I really can keep that idea.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Trainee
Spaceflight Trainee
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:36 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Texas
Post    Posted on: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:29 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
The fuels need to be gone for -like already mentioned and considered.

This means that e nergies are consumed to get them. But different fuels are of different density and thus different weight per unit of volume. For different weights different amounts of energy are needed to transport them and so on.

Because of this different fuels tend to have different prices because at least some of their costs are different - if the same amount of units of volume are considered.

DeltaV is got by a fuel. Of course a DeltaV of 4 km/s and another DeltaV of 4 km/s allways are the same by number and thus identical - but because of what I say above this no longer is valid if the fuel is considered also: It is a difference if there is a DeltaV of 4 km/s got by one fuel of price X or a DeltaV of 4/km/s got by another fuel of price Y.

There is at least one example in reality: LOX/cerosene and N2O4/ADMH have very similar Isps - www.bernd-leitenberger.de lists them as 2945 and 3040 if I remember correct. But the prices are at quite different levels - LOX/cerosene $ 0.01/$ 0.65 but N2O4/ADMH $ 6.00/$ 17.00.

Because of this required DeltaVs never can be used as indicators of costs - DeltaV literally is no costs. It is impossible to conclude from DeltaV to costs - and vice versa.

To achieve a certain DeltaV energy is required - and up to here Physics are involved. But there are several alternatives how and where to the energy - and beginning here the economy and Economics are involved.

...

Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


I kind of see what you are trying to say here, but you are kind of missing some of the language framework to be able to explain it.

Such is the problem of second languages. Our ability to think far exceeds our ability to express ourselves in languages that we don't know very well.

Habe ich aehnliche probleme auf Deutsch. ;^)
Leider, deine Anglisch ist veil besser als meine Deutsch, deswegens schreib ich (auf?) Anglisch.

I have come to some thinking about economics and energy myself, and have mostly followed what you are saying here. You make some very valid points.

_________________
I hope to leave the world better off for my having been here.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use