Say what now? Was that in English or are you just so emotionally distraught you can't type straight?
Tell you what, let's make it easy for you. Just read the "Luddite" link. If you can cope with that, beware.
Last edited:
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Tell you what, let's make it easy for you. Just read the "Luddite" link. If you can cope with that, beware.
That was an english sentence trying to teach logic to someone who clearly lacks it.
Tell you what, post something relevant for me to read before asking me to read it.
The speed at which you're responding indicates you're not reading the links. It suggests a knee-jerk reaction to something you don't like, and are probably getting angry about, making you even easier to manipulate. How would you know if it is or isn't relevant to your behaviour if you don't go and read it?
It also seems you're ignoring the golden rule: "They who hath the gold, make the rules!"
Logic would dictate there's little point investing money in something that isn't going to make more profit than what you're already doing, even if its not particularly efficient, and is making a mess of the planet. If you want to continue up and cross selling your product, make it consumable, finite and exclusive.
J.P. Morgan is said to have withdrawn funding from Nikola Tesla because you can't put a meter on free.
You can read a title to deduce if it's relevant or not, hint, we are talking about science and it's confidence, not about protests and social fear.
You are falsly equivocating "rule" as in a law in a country with a "rule" as in a physical rule. Your quote uses the first definition of "rule" not the second, hence, you are talking bonkers.
And how's that relevant to a physical law? They are not a product and they are priceless (because they cannot be sold or bought and they aren't copyrighted).
What does that even mean? That when something is worth $0 it can't be quantified (which is false)?
At this point you are rambling about topics not relevant to what I had said, non sequitur at it's finest.
You've never heard it said that "money makes the world go round" or "money talks and [fertiliser] walks"? Unfortunately money, and the decisions made by those who have lots, not those who don't tend to be the deciding factor in what is researched, developed, refined and finally brought to market for the consumer.
Everything you rely on today was once considered impossible, until someone funded better research.
Actually, before money existed, the "world" was already going round and no, no matter how much R&D you put into a physically impossible project, you won't get around it, hell, there are things not physically impossible that we still would never be able to do.
Wait, since you don't seem to read links I'm guessing you neglected to read the Forbes article or the US Navy patent under scrutiny? If not, why did you barge into the discussion (unprepared) to argue about it?
Quote: "[0008] It is a feature of the present invention to provide a plasma compression fusion device that can produce power in the gigawatt to terawatt range (and higher), with input power in the kilowatt to megawatt range."
Proving the veracity of the claim is not up to me, that's up to the inventor and the organisations funding it.
Quote: "[0008] It is a feature of the present invention to provide a plasma compression fusion device that can produce power in the gigawatt to terawatt range (and higher), with input power in the kilowatt to megawatt range."
Proving the veracity of the claim is not up to me, that's up to the inventor and the organisations funding it.
Last edited:
That you introduce less energy than you get out in a process doesn't imply you are violating thermodynamics, hell, that's the definition of an exothermic reation, you input less energy than the energy "produced" by the reaction, example:
The "trick" here is that you use a little bit of energy to extract the latent or stored energy in the object, in this case, mere chemical energy.
From the patent document:
Oh wait, that's a fusion powered device, fusion has been know for decades and surprise, surprise, it doesn't break thermodynamics...
Oh wait, that's a fusion powered device, fusion has been know for decades and surprise, surprise, it doesn't break thermodynamics...
Last edited:
If you take a jerrycan, lift it up and pour the gasoline into your cars gas tank, you use energy, but I think, per intuition, that we can both agree that you use less energy than you would use running 100 miles at 50 mph dragging the car along. So where does the "emerging" energy making the car move come from? Isn't that perpetual motion?
No. You move the gasoline from one place to another, but it's the gasoline itself that contains the energy that makes the car move. Where did the energy in the gasoline come from? You didn't put energy into the gasoline by pouring it into the tank. The energy in the gasoline came from the Sun. Sunlight hit a plant doing photosynthesis many millions of years ago, and some of the sunlight was chemically bound in sugar molecules made by the plant. That is the exact same energy you can extract in a combustion engine hundreds of millions of years later. THAT! is a perfect example of the conservation of energy.
Where did the energy in the sunlight come from then? It came from fusion reactions inside the Sun. The Sun is a star, and such a thing is basically a big cloud of hydrogen being held together by "gravity". In the middle of the star the pressure and temperature is so high that the hydrogen smashes into hydrogen, and sticks together turning hydrogen into helium. Because the resulting helium atom is lighter than the two hydrogen atoms, that "loss" of mass is turned into energy.
E=mc2
Energy is conserved. Mass is conserved. This is also the basics of how we should perceive Earth. We can't create energy here on the planet. We can use the energy that we have available, being the energy we receive from the Sun and the remaining energy that is stored in the oil, coal and gas. Nuclear power plants? They split atoms into two, thereby removing mass from the atoms in the "fuel" and turning the mass into energy in a process "opposite of" fusion called fission.
Apart from the problems with nuclear power plants in general and the waste, the discovery of how fission worked was a major milestone in physics, but notice that fission wasn't invented, it was discovered. You can't discover something which physics already tells is impossible. If you sit under an apple falling from the tree it will hit you. It will never fly up to the sky. Fusion has already been discovered. The problem is recreating the temperature and pressure inside the Sun, which causes the hydrogen to fuse. ~100 million Kelvin or ~180 million Fahrenheit. That is enough to melt/vaporize anything you try to contain it with.
A. Grandma already knows how to suck eggs, thanks...
B. You missed a bunch of posts, scroll up and try again.
C. Split atoms for bombs, not controlled fission reactors.
D. Radioactive isotopes throw off their excess electrons.
E. How stars work is a theory, we've never been up close.
F. Gravity is also a theory, predictable but not understood.
If there was an error in the equations, then what happens?
a. I know
Or maybe grandma is stubborn.b. I read the posts, and your links.
c. ???
d. You got that one wrong. Electrons is not the same as neutrons.
e. Yes, "everything" is a theory in science. A scientific theory starts as a hypothesis (an idea), and then you try to make experiments trying to verify/reject the hypothesis. If you can prove your hypothesis, then it becomes a theory, meaning that that "model" is the best one we have to describe a certain part of reality. In the case of stars and fusion, that proces has been reproduced here on Earth. Just not for very long, due to the temperature needed. Fusion is real, and it's the process going on inside the Sun. It's the energy created by that process that keeps everything running here on Earth. Fusion inside stars has also been proven in several other ways.
f. Gravity is not what Newton thought it was. It is curvature of spacetime, but that doesn't mean the equations Newton came up with are "wrong". They still work pretty well in most cases. Newtons understanding of gravity was a step in the direction towards relativity theory. We know from physics that relativity theory can't be the complete story, but the apple will still fall to the ground
Last edited:
@Six6VI
Jason taught me that I have to end on a positive note, so here goes "nothing"
We have a lot of energy available here on Earth. The sunlight hitting Earth's surface contains 1,368 W/m2. Because Earth has such a large surface, that sums up to a lot of energy. "Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it!"
www.businessinsider.com
What we need to invent is a method to extract that energy, more efficiently than using wind turbines, and more importantly we need to invent a way of storing that energy.
Many years ago, I was part of a project where we turned methanol into gasoline. The energy density for methanol is 22 MJ/kg. Gasoline contains about 47 MJ/kg. We did that by turning methanol into DME, and then turning DME into gasoline. You need to add energy to have that process work (because conservation of energy), but the rationale was that we could get that energy from the Sun. Also we used different tricks like lowering the activation energy of the reaction "using" catalysts.
It turned out that we didn't need that second step, turning DME into gasonline. One of my colleagues tried pouring DME into his lawn mover and it ran! It was the top story on CNN. "Global energy crisis solved!". Since then the project was buried, mainly because of a patent, but also because burning gasoline (or DME) creates the dreaded CO2.
All in all it wasn't the best idea in the World, but it's ideas like that, that we need to invent, and when it comes to storing energy from the Sun, the possibilities are almost endless. Not all of them are feasible, but some might be.
Jason taught me that I have to end on a positive note, so here goes "nothing"
We have a lot of energy available here on Earth. The sunlight hitting Earth's surface contains 1,368 W/m2. Because Earth has such a large surface, that sums up to a lot of energy. "Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it!"
This incredible fact should get you psyched about solar power
So why don't we use more of it?
www.businessinsider.com
What we need to invent is a method to extract that energy, more efficiently than using wind turbines, and more importantly we need to invent a way of storing that energy.
Many years ago, I was part of a project where we turned methanol into gasoline. The energy density for methanol is 22 MJ/kg. Gasoline contains about 47 MJ/kg. We did that by turning methanol into DME, and then turning DME into gasoline. You need to add energy to have that process work (because conservation of energy), but the rationale was that we could get that energy from the Sun. Also we used different tricks like lowering the activation energy of the reaction "using" catalysts.
It turned out that we didn't need that second step, turning DME into gasonline. One of my colleagues tried pouring DME into his lawn mover and it ran!
It was the top story on CNN. "Global energy crisis solved!". Since then the project was buried, mainly because of a patent, but also because burning gasoline (or DME) creates the dreaded CO2.All in all it wasn't the best idea in the World, but it's ideas like that, that we need to invent, and when it comes to storing energy from the Sun, the possibilities are almost endless. Not all of them are feasible, but some might be.
Last edited:
Yeah, i'm sorry the thread became such a mess (which i suspect was intentional). The ignore button is kind of needed
Here is some on-topic stuff to digest
-------------------------------------------
Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’:
www.theguardian.com
Lots of info and some contentious issues in the article.
Here is some on-topic stuff to digest
-------------------------------------------
Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’:
Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’
Statement sets out ‘vital signs’ as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency
www.theguardian.com
Lots of info and some contentious issues in the article.
Yep, I linked to that article yesterday, but it "got lost". There's basically not much news in the article, but there was a couple of sentences that caught my attention, probably, because that is what I've been saying all along:Yeah, i'm sorry the thread became such a mess (which i suspect was intentional). The ignore button is kind of needed
Here is some on-topic stuff to digest
-------------------------------------------
Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’:
Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’
Statement sets out ‘vital signs’ as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency
Lots of info and some contentious issues in the article.
...untold suffering due to the climate crisis
Untold? I agree, but the question is why it has remained untold, when it was common knowledge in the scientific community? Partly because nobody likes to read about it in the news, and partly because there are economical interests in keeping it "secret", but could it also be that it ruins any scientific career saying it like it is?
Ripple said scientists have a moral obligation to issue warnings of catastrophic threats: “It is more important than ever that we speak out, based on evidence. It is time to go beyond just research and publishing, and to go directly to the citizens and policymakers.”
See above...
Today the article isn't on the front page of the Guardian website anymore. Instead the top story is about Jean-Claude Juncker dissing the British brexit process. The article is not among the 10 most read articles. The most commented article is about Emma Watson inventing another word for being single.
Edit: This while Guardian claims: "As the climate crisis escalates the Guardian will not stay quiet. This is our pledge: we will continue to give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention and prominence they demand. The Guardian recognises the climate emergency as the defining issue of our times."
Yeah right...
Last edited:
A. So when are we going to stop the one-up competitive banter and have a rational conversation hmm?a. I know
b. I read the posts, and your links.
c. ???
d. You got that one wrong. Electrons is not the same as neutrons.
e. Yes, "everything" is a theory in science. A scientific theory starts as a hypothesis (an idea), and then you try to make experiments trying to verify/reject the hypothesis. If you can prove your hypothesis, then it becomes a theory, meaning that that "model" is the best one we have to describe a certain part of reality. In the case of stars and fusion, that proces has been reproduced here on Earth. Just not for very long, due to the temperature needed. Fusion is real, and it's the process going on inside the Sun. It's the energy created by that process that keeps everything running here on Earth. Fusion inside stars has also been proven in several other ways.
f. Gravity is not what Newton thought it was. It is curvature of spacetime, but that doesn't mean the equations Newton came up with are "wrong". They still work pretty well in most cases. Newtons understanding of gravity was a step in the direction towards relativity theory. We know from physics that relativity theory can't be the complete story, but the apple will still fall to the ground
B. Thanks, might be a first? Forums aren't generally places where one actually reads what's been said.
C. Seemed you meant "splitting the atom" in an uncontrolled chain reaction not controlled reactor cores.
D. Radionuclides / nuclear waste can produce many harmful emissions including conversion electrons.
Let me see if I can come up with a better example of what I'm attempting to convey. Ptolemy came up with a reasonable model of the Solar system. It could be used to predict where planets would be with a fair amount of accuracy however, as it was a Geocentric model its founding assumption was incorrect.
So the question would be, what if another founding assumption is eventually obsoleted by better data?
Yay, a +1 I didn't have to retract on reading the next paragraph. Well done, you earned that one!@Six6VI
Jason taught me that I have to end on a positive note, so here goes "nothing"
We have a lot of energy available here on Earth. The sunlight hitting Earth's surface contains 1,368 W/m2. Because Earth has such a large surface, that sums up to a lot of energy. "Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it!"
This incredible fact should get you psyched about solar power
So why don't we use more of it?
What we need to invent is a method to extract that energy, more efficiently than using wind turbines, and more importantly we need to invent a way of storing that energy.
Many years ago, I was part of a project where we turned methanol into gasoline. The energy density for methanol is 22 MJ/kg. Gasoline contains about 47 MJ/kg. We did that by turning methanol into DME, and then turning DME into gasoline. You need to add energy to have that process work (because conservation of energy), but the rationale was that we could get that energy from the Sun. Also we used different tricks like lowering the activation energy of the reaction "using" catalysts.
It turned out that we didn't need that second step, turning DME into gasonline. One of my colleagues tried pouring DME into his lawn mover and it ran!
All in all it wasn't the best idea in the World, but it's ideas like that, that we need to invent, and when it comes to storing energy from the Sun, the possibilities are almost endless. Not all of them are feasible, but some might be.
Now you're thinking, and putting forward possible solutions, which is awesome! Instead of trying to store Solar derived energy, and yes I realise there is currently (pun intended) significant loss during transmission, it's always light on one side of the planet. Why can't power be sent to the dark side?
Yeah I know, may seem like a dumb question but this was a serious consideration in the AC/DC war.
As some philosophers say:Yay, a +1 I didn't have to retract on reading the next paragraph. Well done, you earned that one!
Now you're thinking, and putting forward possible solutions, which is awesome! Instead of trying to store Solar derived energy, and yes I realise there is currently (pun intended) significant loss during transmission, it's always light on one side of the planet. Why can't power be sent to the dark side?
Yeah I know, may seem like a dumb question but this was a serious consideration in the AC/DC war.
The solution is in the problem.
Most of the many civilization-threatening problems we face can be solved if we have exergy. That is another word for available usable energy. When Clausius invented the term "entropy" he deliberately chose a word that was as close to energy as possible. We don't use energy. We use exergy. That creates entropy. Entropy can be understood as dispersion of energy. Von Neumann claimed that you could win any discussion by using the word entropy, because nobody knew (knows) what entropy really is. It's in the understanding of entropy that you'll find "the holy grail" if it's even there. It's not in perpetual motion, but that shouldn't keep anyone from trying, if they want to. They just have to prove that it works, and my personal opinion based on physics, is that looking for it is a waste of precious time.
I never had you pegged as a poster who couldn't handle diverting opinions.
- Status