Difference between revisions of "Scaling of speeds"
m (→More realistically but less accurately - some slowdown: remuled leading "But…") |
(→More realistically but less accurately - some slowdown: added relatuon to the mist important scaling law) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
As a slowdown needs to be compensated with more machinery | As a slowdown needs to be compensated with more machinery | ||
in order to keep the same throughput one only gains a | in order to keep the same throughput one only gains a | ||
| − | linear drop in friction losses rather than a quadratic one. | + | linear drop in friction losses rather than a quadratic one. |
| − | See: [[Lower friction despite higher bearing area]] | + | (See: [[Lower friction despite higher bearing area]]) |
| + | This tradeoff of more of nanomachitery for running it slower is enabled by the all important scaling law of | ||
| + | [[higher throughput of smaller machinery]]. | ||
As this is not a clear cut scaling law | As this is not a clear cut scaling law | ||
| Line 36: | Line 38: | ||
The problem is that friction in nanoscale bearings and | The problem is that friction in nanoscale bearings and | ||
| − | + | friction in macroscale bearings are quite different in scaling | |
and it's difficult | and it's difficult | ||
Revision as of 09:01, 16 January 2023
Q: What is the most natural scaling for speeds ascross scales when it comes to macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale?
Constant speeds as a very crude first approximation
A crude first approximation as a starting point seem to be same relative deflections across scales. This leads to keeping speeds constant across scales and acccordingly to linearly rising frequencies.
Despite actual parctical systems will not adhere to this scaling, this is still good to look at first as it gives a clear-cut scaling law as a startingvpoint for further thinking.
More realistically but less accurately - some slowdown
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 low 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) This tradeoff of more of nanomachitery for running it slower is enabled by the all important scaling law of higher throughput of smaller machinery.
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 friction 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.
