Scientists burn water?

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Scientists burn water?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
MrGray
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3170
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 642428 - Posted: 16 Sep 2007, 17:02:46 UTC
Last modified: 16 Sep 2007, 17:04:10 UTC

I don't know guys,

Nuclear has always looked bad to me. Accidental melt downs aside, we have no way of getting rid of the waste produced, and it has one hell of a shelf life.

I believe there was a reference to the carbon emissions in the Freedom Fuels link:

http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1212732

Unless there's a better way of making/separating hydrogen using less energy, or a way of not using nuclear to make it, I'd have to lean towards bio fuels.


What do you guys think?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
ID: 642428 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 642443 - Posted: 16 Sep 2007, 17:15:01 UTC - in response to Message 642428.  

I don't know guys,

Nuclear has always looked bad to me. Accidental melt downs aside, we have no way of getting rid of the waste produced, and it has one hell of a shelf life.

I believe there was a reference to the carbon emissions in the Freedom Fuels link:

http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1212732

Unless there's a better way of making/separating hydrogen using less energy, or a way of not using nuclear to make it, I'd have to lean towards bio fuels.


What do you guys think?

The Sun should become our primary source of energy, but huge investments are needed. Prof. Carlo Rubbia, a Nobel prize physicist, thinks that Africa could provide solar energy for Europe. But who will pay?
Tullio
ID: 642443 · Report as offensive
MrGray
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3170
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 642472 - Posted: 16 Sep 2007, 17:38:17 UTC - in response to Message 642443.  
Last modified: 16 Sep 2007, 17:40:31 UTC

I don't know guys,

Nuclear has always looked bad to me. Accidental melt downs aside, we have no way of getting rid of the waste produced, and it has one hell of a shelf life.

I believe there was a reference to the carbon emissions in the Freedom Fuels link:

http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1212732

Unless there's a better way of making/separating hydrogen using less energy, or a way of not using nuclear to make it, I'd have to lean towards bio fuels.


What do you guys think?

The Sun should become our primary source of energy, but huge investments are needed. Prof. Carlo Rubbia, a Nobel prize physicist, thinks that Africa could provide solar energy for Europe. But who will pay?
Tullio


Amazing how the rich control us. The STS-75 tether incident showed just how much energy there is up there. I've seen speculations on systems to transfer that energy down to us but no actions yet. If Tesla was correct there is a massive amount of energy floating around us and no need to go up and get it.

:)
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
ID: 642472 · Report as offensive
MrGray
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3170
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 642473 - Posted: 16 Sep 2007, 17:39:20 UTC - in response to Message 642472.  

I don't know guys,

Nuclear has always looked bad to me. Accidental melt downs aside, we have no way of getting rid of the waste produced, and it has one hell of a shelf life.

I believe there was a reference to the carbon emissions in the Freedom Fuels link:

http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1212732

Unless there's a better way of making/separating hydrogen using less energy, or a way of not using nuclear to make it, I'd have to lean towards bio fuels.


What do you guys think?

The Sun should become our primary source of energy, but huge investments are needed. Prof. Carlo Rubbia, a Nobel prize physicist, thinks that Africa could provide solar energy for Europe. But who will pay?
Tullio


Amazing how the rich control us. The STS-75 tether incident showed just how much energy there is out there. I've seen speculations on systems to transfer that energy down to us but no actions yet. If Tesla was correct there is a massive amount of energy floating around us and no need to go up and get it.

:)


"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
ID: 642473 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 642474 - Posted: 16 Sep 2007, 17:47:44 UTC - in response to Message 642473.  

I don't know guys,

Nuclear has always looked bad to me. Accidental melt downs aside, we have no way of getting rid of the waste produced, and it has one hell of a shelf life.

I believe there was a reference to the carbon emissions in the Freedom Fuels link:

http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1212732

Unless there's a better way of making/separating hydrogen using less energy, or a way of not using nuclear to make it, I'd have to lean towards bio fuels.


What do you guys think?

The Sun should become our primary source of energy, but huge investments are needed. Prof. Carlo Rubbia, a Nobel prize physicist, thinks that Africa could provide solar energy for Europe. But who will pay?
Tullio


Amazing how the rich control us. The STS-75 tether incident showed just how much energy there is out there. I've seen speculations on systems to transfer that energy down to us but no actions yet. If Tesla was correct there is a massive amount of energy floating around us and no need to go up and get it.

:)


To play with lightning can be dangerous, as Benjamin Franklin experienced. Do you know that he was the first to map the Gulf Stream?
ID: 642474 · Report as offensive
MrGray
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3170
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 642484 - Posted: 16 Sep 2007, 18:01:30 UTC - in response to Message 642474.  

I don't know guys,

Nuclear has always looked bad to me. Accidental melt downs aside, we have no way of getting rid of the waste produced, and it has one hell of a shelf life.

I believe there was a reference to the carbon emissions in the Freedom Fuels link:

http://joox.net/cat/44/id/1212732

Unless there's a better way of making/separating hydrogen using less energy, or a way of not using nuclear to make it, I'd have to lean towards bio fuels.


What do you guys think?

The Sun should become our primary source of energy, but huge investments are needed. Prof. Carlo Rubbia, a Nobel prize physicist, thinks that Africa could provide solar energy for Europe. But who will pay?
Tullio


Amazing how the rich control us. The STS-75 tether incident showed just how much energy there is out there. I've seen speculations on systems to transfer that energy down to us but no actions yet. If Tesla was correct there is a massive amount of energy floating around us and no need to go up and get it.

:)


To play with lightning can be dangerous, as Benjamin Franklin experienced. Do you know that he was the first to map the Gulf Stream?


I did not know that!

Thank you!


.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
ID: 642484 · Report as offensive
jim little

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 112
Credit: 915,934
RAC: 0
United States
Message 646852 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 0:41:40 UTC

"

Unless there's a better way of making/separating hydrogen using less energy, or a way of not using nuclear to make it, I'd have to lean towards bio fuels.

"

If there is a lower energy method to make hydrogen from say water, then less energy would be released when it is combined into water whether in a fuel cell, combustion turbine, boiler or any other device.

Basic thermodynamics is you don't get something from nothing. At least in this part of the universe.

One earlier post on new house standards: Insulation pays big time. So does orientation of house.
Most developments are plotted into some street plan, frequently an rectangular or square grid. The one I am in was from the 50's and has curves and irregular street lengths. Most houses are poorly oriented as a result. If you would Google map of my house it would show a pair of solar water heater panels. And a Prius in the driveway. Thanks to the almost expired tax credit we got $3150 back on this years taxes.

duke
ID: 646852 · Report as offensive
jim little

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 112
Credit: 915,934
RAC: 0
United States
Message 646855 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 0:43:43 UTC

"

Unless there's a better way of making/separating hydrogen using less energy, or a way of not using nuclear to make it, I'd have to lean towards bio fuels.

"

If there is a lower energy method to make hydrogen from say water, then less energy would be released when it is combined into water whether in a fuel cell, combustion turbine, boiler or any other device.

Basic thermodynamics is you don't get something from nothing. At least in this part of the universe.

One earlier post on new house standards: Insulation pays big time. So does orientation of house.
Most developments are plotted into some street plan, frequently an rectangular or square grid. The one I am in was from the 50's and has curves and irregular street lengths. Most houses are poorly oriented as a result. If you would Google map of my house it would show a pair of solar water heater panels. And a Prius in the driveway. Thanks to the almost expired tax credit we got $3150 back on this years taxes.

duke
ID: 646855 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 646882 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 1:38:55 UTC

Basic question.

Which has the longer shelf life: Arsenic or Plutonium?

P.S. I do know the answer.
ID: 646882 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 646889 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 1:50:30 UTC - in response to Message 646882.  

Basic question.

Which has the longer shelf life: Arsenic or Plutonium?

P.S. I do know the answer.

When Emilio Segre' came back to his native Rome from the USA after the II World War, he went to a cemetery to visit his father's grave. Instead of bringing flowers he brought some plutonium which he had produced at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory."It will last longer than flowers", he told me when I published a book of his.
Tullio
ID: 646889 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 646895 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 2:07:26 UTC

In order to survive the end of crude oil mining, we are probably going to have to use a wide variety of technologies. Solar, Hydro (probably getting just about as much of this as we are going to get from dems), Nuclear, Wind, Bio Fuels (from the corn stalks please), and Conservation.

Each technology has problems and opportunities.

Solar only works where the sun shines (and it only works in daylight). It could be put on every roof however, and just imagine putting them over every mall and supermarket parking lot (think about not having to hunt for covered parking).

Wind only works where the wind blows and when it blows. The big ones kill birds. There are many places on earth where the wind blows fairly constantly.

Hydro kills fish and destroys rivers. In some places it can prevent flooding that will refresh the land.

Nuclear requires reprocessing of the fuel or burrying it. I would much rather reprocess it and burn it up (personal opinion). The only CO2 produced is that from the engines driving the mining and transport machines.

Bio Fuels from corn and other foods use almost as much or more energy during growth, manufacture, and transport as is produced in the end product. If we can get Bio Fuel from corn stalks it is a clear win as the energy that went into the growing of the corn was going to be used anyway. Of course using food scraps works as well (Bio Diesel from used vegatable oil comes to mind as an example).

Conservation can be done by buying more energy efficient machines to do the same thing, and in some cases using muscle power instead (bicycling to work instead of driving the Hummer), Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Electric Vehicles, and Fuel Cell vehicles. Flourescent and LED lighting. More insulation, better orientation of houses, better shading of houses (solar panels on the roof would even help with shade). Conservation has a higher up front cost than business as usual, but has lower long term costs.

PS For those that don't know, a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle is one that can be plugged into the grid and get a battery recharge. It can then be driven for several to many miles on that charge before the Internal Compustion Engine (ICE) cuts in. The ICE is sized to provide enough energy for cruise, but not for acceleration. The energy for acceleration comes from the energy retrieved from braking. These are not yet available on the mass market(2010?).

The problems with (most) Electric vehicles are range, speed, size and price. The only one that has acceptable range and speed (and IMHO the speed available is silly excessive) is about $100K. The rest are all either too slow (think golf carts) or have too short a range (I require at least 100 miles of range). Most EVs are either one seat or two (I require 5 minimum, I use 2 daily and 5 weekly).



BOINC WIKI
ID: 646895 · Report as offensive
MrGray
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3170
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 646903 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 2:39:37 UTC

Interesting and accurate discussions going on here.

In my humble opinion.



Discussioni interessanti ed esatte che accendono qui.

Nel mio parere humble.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
ID: 646903 · Report as offensive
MrGray
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3170
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 646956 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 3:48:20 UTC
Last modified: 23 Sep 2007, 3:59:15 UTC

True or false?

Don't try this. Let someone else tell us if it's real or not. Read the comments attached to the videos on the bottom of the video. Left side.


6 Volt and 9 Volt battery hacks?:

6V hack

9V hack


.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
ID: 646956 · Report as offensive
MrGray
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3170
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 646982 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 4:39:24 UTC
Last modified: 23 Sep 2007, 4:43:57 UTC

Data from Dune on this:

Dune says that the configuration may vary from brand to brand. See videos comments on youtube for data on brands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D13cvypYDI
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
ID: 646982 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 647202 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 15:57:58 UTC - in response to Message 646889.  

Basic question.

Which has the longer shelf life: Arsenic or Plutonium?

P.S. I do know the answer.

When Emilio Segre' came back to his native Rome from the USA after the II World War, he went to a cemetery to visit his father's grave. Instead of bringing flowers he brought some plutonium which he had produced at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory."It will last longer than flowers", he told me when I published a book of his.
Tullio

No dispute about Plutonium lasting longer tha flowers.

BTW Arsenic lasts longer than Plutonium as Arsenic is a non radio active element it does not decay into anything else and lasts forever.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 647202 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 790,712
RAC: 0
United States
Message 647204 - Posted: 23 Sep 2007, 16:02:30 UTC - in response to Message 646956.  

True or false?

Don't try this. Let someone else tell us if it's real or not. Read the comments attached to the videos on the bottom of the video. Left side.


6 Volt and 9 Volt battery hacks?:

6V hack

9V hack


.

SOme of the 6V batteries really have "E" cells in them instead ofthe stack of AA cells. Other than that, it should work. BTW, I meant "E" and not "D".



BOINC WIKI
ID: 647204 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 647597 - Posted: 24 Sep 2007, 2:07:11 UTC

JM7, excellent post on diversifying types of energy.
You touched on this a little, but I recall reading a bit on how focusing on ONLY a single one of these can be detrimental. Have anything more to add in this respect?
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 647597 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde C. Phillips, III

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 00
Posts: 1851
Credit: 5,955,047
RAC: 0
United States
Message 648026 - Posted: 24 Sep 2007, 17:52:26 UTC

Maybe they could use nuclear energy to electrolyze water. I don't know how much nuclear energy is available, but seems like it would be much more than coal, oil and gas combined. The amount of solar, seawave and wind energy is limited, I think. I don't know how long the soil would stand up to the constant production of corn, sawgrass (or whatever it's called), etc, even with crop rotation. I doubt it would be forever.
ID: 648026 · Report as offensive
Critter
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Dec 02
Posts: 17
Credit: 5,950,975
RAC: 9
United States
Message 648148 - Posted: 24 Sep 2007, 22:41:11 UTC - in response to Message 640245.  

Note that water is not listed as an element.

I just figured he was talking about Hydrogen.


If he was, Hydrogen is in the 1.5% all others. Hardly the most abundant element on the planet.


I don't know where you got the figures in your previous post, but hydrogen is THE most abundant of all elements in the universe.



ID: 648148 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 649511 - Posted: 27 Sep 2007, 2:43:32 UTC - in response to Message 648148.  
Last modified: 27 Sep 2007, 2:46:38 UTC

Note that water is not listed as an element.

I just figured he was talking about Hydrogen.


If he was, Hydrogen is in the 1.5% all others. Hardly the most abundant element on the planet.


I don't know where you got the figures in your previous post, but hydrogen is THE most abundant of all elements in the universe.




That did strike me as wrong.
Aren't the "lighter" elements the most abundant, generally speaking?

[EDIT]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Natural_occurrence
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, making up 75% of normal matter by mass and over 90% by number of atoms.[6] This element is found in great abundance in stars and gas giant planets. Molecular clouds of H2 are associated with star formation. Hydrogen plays a vital role in powering stars through proton-proton reaction nuclear fusion.

Throughout the universe, hydrogen is mostly found in the atomic and plasma states whose properties are quite different from molecular hydrogen. As a plasma, hydrogen's electron and proton are not bound together, resulting in very high electrical conductivity and high emissivity (producing the light from the sun and other stars). The charged particles are highly influenced by magnetic and electric fields. For example, in the solar wind they interact with the Earth's magnetosphere giving rise to Birkeland currents and the aurora. Hydrogen is found in the neutral atomic state in the Interstellar medium. The large amount of neutral hydrogen found in the damped Lyman-alpha systems is thought to dominate the cosmological baryonic density of the Universe up to redshift z=4.[7]

Under ordinary conditions on Earth, elemental hydrogen exists as the diatomic gas, H2 (for data see table). However, hydrogen gas is very rare in the Earth's atmosphere (1 ppm by volume) because of its light weight, which enables it to escape from Earth's gravity more easily than heavier gases. Although H atoms and H2 molecules are abundant in interstellar space, they are difficult to generate, concentrate, and purify on Earth. Still, hydrogen is the third most abundant element on the Earth's surface.[8] Most of the Earth's hydrogen is in the form of chemical compounds such as hydrocarbons and water.[9] Hydrogen gas is produced by some bacteria and algae and is a natural component of flatus. Methane is a hydrogen source of increasing importance.

[/EDIT]
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 649511 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Scientists burn water?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.