Difference between revisions of "Scaling of speeds"
(basic page) |
(extended headline) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
as a startingvpoint for furtjer thinking. | as a startingvpoint for furtjer thinking. | ||
| − | == More realistically but less accurately == | + | == More realistically but less accurately - some slowdown == |
But there is strong motivation to deviate from "keepingvspeeds constant across scales" | But there is strong motivation to deviate from "keepingvspeeds constant across scales" | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
This gives roughly/perhaps/maybe a scaling of speeds with the squareroot of scale. | This gives roughly/perhaps/maybe a scaling of speeds with the squareroot of scale. | ||
More insights may arise. | More insights may arise. | ||
| − | |||
== Related == | == Related == | ||
Revision as of 07:45, 16 January 2023
Q: What is the most natural scaling for speeds ascross scales whwn it comes to macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale?
Constant speeds as a very crude first approximation
A good crude first approximation as a starting point seem to be Same deflections across scales. This leads to keepingvspeeds constant across scales and acccordingly to linearly rising frequencies.
Despite actual parctical systems wil not adhere ro thos scaling This is still good to look at first as it gives a clear-cut scaling law as a startingvpoint for furtjer thinking.
More realistically but less accurately - some slowdown
But there is strong motivation to deviate from "keepingvspeeds constant across scales" coming from the desire to keep losses and heatup from dynamic friction low. Speeds at the macroscale do not incur much more friction with higher speeds. Rather deflections from accelerations are usually the limiting factor. Nanomachinery though incurs dynamic friction quadratically growing with speeds. Friction levels per area are quite significant at m/s scales. Thus proposed speeds for future gem-gum based advanced productive nanosystems are more down in the mm/s range.
As a slowdown needs to be compensated with more machinery
in order to keep the same throughput one only gains a
linear drop in friction losses rather than a quadratic one.
See: Lower friction despite higher bearing area
As this is not a clear cut scaling law this is not a good starting point for thinking despite being much closer to actually proposed systems.
The problem is that friction in nanoscale bearings and frictiin in macroscale bearings are quite different in scaling and it's difficult
The proposed slowdown is roughly a thosand x (from m/s to mm/s) aross a scale of a million x (from m to nm). This gives roughly/perhaps/maybe a scaling of speeds with the squareroot of scale. More insights may arise.
