+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 28

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,309

    Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    FREE HEAT!? this scam just will never go away i guess!? 1 guy said in comment after much debate about the possibilities said, why would scientists risk their REP on a scam!? and i thought, it's in the air these days!? think bernie madhoff!? :cwm2: : :spin2: :

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...-breakthrough/

    bunch a bologna!? :rasta:
    Last edited by lexx; 01-30-2011 at 01:17 AM.
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Wow... and commercially available within three months?

    Let's see...

    Anyone want to bet $10 that we hear absolutely nothing about that three months from now? :cwm2:

    The set-up in the video looks very cool, though, very scientific and all!

  3. #3

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    Wow... and commercially available within three months?

    Let's see...

    Anyone want to bet $10 that we hear absolutely nothing about that three months from now? :cwm2:

    The set-up in the video looks very cool, though, very scientific and all!
    Another question. Hope it isn't stupid. Is ther any possibility of using cold fusion to power space travel or perhaps even naval ships as we already have nuclear subs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    Another question. Hope it isn't stupid. Is ther any possibility of using cold fusion to power space travel or perhaps even naval ships as we already have nuclear subs.
    Of course.
    Cold fusion is just another source of energy. Use it for any application requiring energy. Car, space ship, naval ship... you name it.

    The tiny problem is that nobody has proved that it exists.
    Unless these Italian gentlemen are correct, of course. Which I seriously doubt!

  5. #5

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    Of course.
    Cold fusion is just another source of energy. Use it for any application requiring energy. Car, space ship, naval ship... you name it.

    The tiny problem is that nobody has proved that it exists.
    Unless these Italian gentlemen are correct, of course. Which I seriously doubt!
    I fali to understand that if it fails to exist how could this information be known.
    Hypothetically (and broadly) speaking, the process involves fusing two smaller atomic nuclei together into a larger nucleus, a process that releases massive amounts of ******. If harnessed, cold fusion could provide cheap and nearly limitless ****** with no radioactive byproduct or massive carbon emissions

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    I fali to understand that if it fails to exist how could this information be known.
    Hypothetically (and broadly) speaking, the process involves fusing two smaller atomic nuclei together into a larger nucleus, a process that releases massive amounts of ******. If harnessed, cold fusion could provide cheap and nearly limitless ****** with no radioactive byproduct or massive carbon emissions
    What is described in your quote is nothing strange or unknown.
    You can fuse two light atom nuclei together to a heavy atom nucleus. By doing that, energy is produced. Nothing strange there.

    However, the only known way to do that is at extreme conditions: high temperatures and high pressure. Like the sun. Or a hydrogen bomb. Doing it at room temperature is a theory. There is no theoretical evidence that it works. There is no practical evidence that anyone has done it.

    Unless these Italians can show it, of course. I'm not going to hold my breath.

  7. #7

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
    What is described in your quote is nothing strange or unknown.
    You can fuse two light atom nuclei together to a heavy atom nucleus. By doing that, energy is produced. Nothing strange there.

    However, the only known way to do that is at extreme conditions: high temperatures and high pressure. Like the sun. Or a hydrogen bomb. Doing it at room temperature is a theory. There is no theoretical evidence that it works. There is no practical evidence that anyone has done it.

    Unless these Italians can show it, of course. I'm not going to hold my breath.
    Please forgive my ignorance in these matters and also my curosity if you will. But I have a friend that has just had all of his teeth removed and dentures made. Now they have drilled down into his gums and implanted posts there and when that has healed they will them screw the dentures into the posts and will only need to trmove them once a year for cleaning. Now they at first used super high speed drilling into the bone for the implants. They soon found out that it was killing the cells around the posts and an infection soon took place. They then went to a much slower and steady drill speed with much more sucess.

    Now my next question based on that is it possible that using a lower but steadly applied pressure could possibly achieve the desired effect. An example might be the more you jack the handle on a hydraulic jack the more pressure is excerted to lift a car.
    Last edited by Old Timer; 01-30-2011 at 09:38 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    Please forgive my ignorance in these matters and also my curosity if you will. But I have a friend that has just had all of his teeth removed and dentures made. Now they have drilled down into his gums and implanted posts there and when that has healed they will them screw the dentures into the posts and will only need to trmove them once a year for cleaning. Now they at first used super high speed drilling into the bone for the implants. They soon found out that it was killing the cells around the posts and an infection soon took place. They then went to a much slower and steady drill speed with much more sucess.

    Now my next question based on that is it possible that using a lower but steadly applied pressure could possibly achieve the desired effect. An example might be the more you jack the handle on a hydraulic jack the more pressure is excerted to lift a car.
    Unfortunately not.

    You know when you try to push two North poles of magnets together? Fusing two nuclei is kind of the same thing. As with magnets, if you want them to touch you need to push really hard. Pushing gently won't get them to touch, no matter how long you do it for.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    1,783

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Wouldn't the conservation of ****** prevent cold fusion? i.e., fusion works at high temperature and pressure because the environment acts as the activation ******?

    Kind of similar to the reason that hydrogen is a debatable form of ******. It takes more ****** to perform the hydrolysis of water to produce hydrogen than you get by burning the hydrogen? (and theoretically, in a perfectly efficient world, you would only get the exact same amount of ****** back?)

    I have a science background, but haven't researched this topic too much. Tell me if there's anything I'm misunderstanding :spin2:

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza View Post
    Unfortunately not.

    You know when you try to push two North poles of magnets together? Fusing two nuclei is kind of the same thing. As with magnets, if you want them to touch you need to push really hard. Pushing gently won't get them to touch, no matter how long you do it for.
    Exactly.

    Furthermore, you want a sustained chain reaction. You want the bi-products from the fusion to fuse with other nuclei, creating new bi-products and so on...

    To keep this going and to keep it self-sustained, you need to maintain a very high temperature and a very high pressure. For as long as you want to run your fusion reactor. This is the problem they are trying to overcome in the multi-billion dollar fusion projects that is going on.

    What the Italians are claiming here is that they are avoiding all those problems by doing fusion in room temperature, with a simple set-up on a table in the lab... That's the physics equivalent of finding the Holy Grail.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by naturefreak2101 View Post
    Wouldn't the conservation of ****** prevent cold fusion? i.e., fusion works at high temperature and pressure because the environment acts as the activation ******?

    Kind of similar to the reason that hydrogen is a debatable form of ******. It takes more ****** to perform the hydrolysis of water to produce hydrogen than you get by burning the hydrogen? (and theoretically, in a perfectly efficient world, you would only get the exact same amount of ****** back?)

    I have a science background, but haven't researched this topic too much. Tell me if there's anything I'm misunderstanding :spin2:
    Yeah, there's a certain ****** barrier that must be overcome before the atoms will fuse. For cold fusion to work you would need to obtain that ****** from something other than thermal ******. I don't know that that's possible, but I've never looked into the idea.

    The deal with hydrogen is that it's portable. It's not a source of ****** at all, but rather a way of transporting ****** conveniently (so that we can use it in transport). It's a nice idea, because we have dozens of ways of producing clean ******, just no way to use it in cars.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    1,783

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    I agree - so many people try to say everything about ways to increase ****** output, but if you treat the Earth as a single system, it has ****** coming in (mostly Solar radiation), and ****** going out (planetary radiation). Every other method of ****** usage (oil, natural gas, hydrogen, solar panels within the Earth's atmosphere, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc.) is only using the ****** the Earth already has, converting it between different forms. Oil is tapping reserves that have been created over thousands of years of ****** input. Same with natural gas. Hydrogen is a way of converting ****** (hopefully with minimal loss to heat), that doesn't create anything. The only thing we can do is convert it from one form to another.

    Theoretically, the only way to increase the ****** present on the Earth would be to set up some sort of solar panels in space, transmitting the ****** generated to the Earth, or perhaps bringing stored ****** sources from elsewhere to Earth, essentially increasing the input to the system.

    Thoughts?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by naturefreak2101 View Post
    I agree - so many people try to say everything about ways to increase ****** output, but if you treat the Earth as a single system, it has ****** coming in (mostly Solar radiation), and ****** going out (planetary radiation). Every other method of ****** usage (oil, natural gas, hydrogen, solar panels within the Earth's atmosphere, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc.) is only using the ****** the Earth already has, converting it between different forms. Oil is tapping reserves that have been created over thousands of years of ****** input. Same with natural gas. Hydrogen is a way of converting ****** (hopefully with minimal loss to heat), that doesn't create anything. The only thing we can do is convert it from one form to another.

    Theoretically, the only way to increase the ****** present on the Earth would be to set up some sort of solar panels in space, transmitting the ****** generated to the Earth, or perhaps bringing stored ****** sources from elsewhere to Earth, essentially increasing the input to the system.

    Thoughts?
    What you wrote is 100% true.

    However, some forms of ****** are so available that they are practically infinite. New forms of nuclear fission (such as breeder reactors and reprocessing) could likely support mankind for several thousand years, even if we keep increasing our ****** demands exponentially. Nuclear fusion could support mankind for millions of years, since it requires such a small amount of hydrogen and we have so much of it.

  14. #14

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    WOW!!!!

    I never realized that there was that amount of knowledge here. I have been reading all of these posts and I am not only amazed but impressed as well.

    On the news today I think there was a commercial that was talking about the oil industry and the millions of folks that was employed there in that field.

    It seems that there are many ways to make an auto run but that would put an awful lot of folks out of work and could ruin other countries that depend on oil for their income.

    Is there any forseeable chance that some of these ways will actually happen in the near future or will they put it off as long as they can?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    WOW!!!!

    I never realized that there was that amount of knowledge here. I have been reading all of these posts and I am not only amazed but impressed as well.

    On the news today I think there was a commercial that was talking about the oil industry and the millions of folks that was employed there in that field.

    It seems that there are many ways to make an auto run but that would put an awful lot of folks out of work and could ruin other countries that depend on oil for their income.

    Is there any forseeable chance that some of these ways will actually happen in the near future or will they put it off as long as they can?
    Hydrogen is a possibility. The real problem with hydrogen is that we don't have the infrastructure for transporting and storing it in large enough quantities. Hydrogen is the smallest, lightest atom, and so it tends to leak out of any container that you put it in. We would need to find a way of shipping it all over the world like we do currently with petroleum. It's also very explosive, so we need to manage that risk somehow

    Electric cars are also a possibility. All it will take is a breakthrough in battery technology and they will be feasible. However, you again need to build up the infrastructure. You'll need to recharging stations all over the country instead of petrol stations.

    Fusion won't become feasible for at least 50 years (assuming it ever becomes feasible), and then it will probably be some time after that before people are using it.

    More likely is that we switch back to nuclear power. The main obstacle here is political - when people think of nuclear power they think of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Modern reactors are actually safer than coal plants in the long run, so it's just people's perceptions that need to change.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    1,783

    Re: Here We Go Again(its that time of year?)

    {Basic Concept - "heat," or enthalpy, is the most primitive form of ******. In many cases of converting ******, the loss due to efficiency is in heat given off that is not captured in some other form. Enthalpy, in the form of radiation, would then leave the planet as planetary radiation. As heat is so hard to capture and make use of, giving off heat can be considered inefficient and "wasting" ******. Hc represents the heat of combustion (should have a delta in front too, but can't find the code for it and my character map is broken :P), and is the amount of heat given off, measured in kJ / g}

    The key is that ****** can be stored in many forms. Here's what I know about a few of them:

    Oil, Coal and Natural Gas

    Oil is a source of ****** because it can be used in a combustion reaction releasing ******, but in order to create it, ****** (in the form of heat and pressure) had to be applied over millions of years. It's plentiful (for the moment), although the combustion reaction releases large amounts of CO2 (not counting additives). All "hydrocarbons" (compounds made of only carbon (C), hydrogen (H), and oxygen (O), will, in the present of oxygen and a spark/heat source, combust to form water and carbon dioxide. If there is not enough oxygen present to fully drive the reaction, some deadly carbon monoxide (CO) will form instead of CO2. Take, for example, a component of gasoline "octane," which is a set of 8 carbons surrounded by hydrogens, with the formula C8H18. The final balanced equation for the combustion of octane would be:

    2C8H18 + 25O2 --> 16CO2 + 18H2O
    Ratio = 1 : 12.5 : 8 : 9
    Thus, for every molecule of octane burned, 8 molecules of carbon dioxide and 9 of water vapor are produced. Of course different molecules burn differently - ones with nitrogen in them may produce NO or NO2 (essentially the oxidation of N2), while sulfurous compounds (like coal) may produce SO2 or SO3. Oil (and gasoline) isn't made of pure hydrocarbons, and there are compounds that do produce these other compounds.

    One of the big arguments against oil (the terminology escapes me) use is that so much carbon was stored down in the Earth, and now that we're burning it, we are releasing those carbon atoms into the carbon cycle in the form of carbon dioxide.

    Natural Gas, largely consisting of methane and small amounts of ethane and larger hydrocarbons, burns cleaner than oil as is has fewer impurities. Also,

    CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
    Ratio = 1 : 2 : 1 : 2
    2C2H6 + 7O2 --> 4CO2 + 6H2O
    Ratio = 1 : 3.5 : 2 : 3
    Now of course, a bunch of methane will have more molecules than an equal mass of octane - to be discussed later in the post.

    Solar ******


    Solar ****** is a great idea with only a few drawbacks. Using the ****** that comes in from the Sun, it is extremely clean. It's output isn't as much as combustion can produce, especially on a cloudy day, but it is significant. The ****** from the sun, without the panels, would be largely absorbed by the Earth anyway - used by plants, or simply turn into heat/enthalpy. Utilizing our solar ****** is a great source of ****** - the only question I would have is whether or not, on a global scale, too many solar panels would prevent enough ****** from hitting the Earth, essentially causing cooling (a solution for ... AGW?). Of course, there would have to be panels over the oceans and whatnot before there's a significant change, but it's a thought - remember that whenever you obtain ****** from a source, it had to come from somewhere ... and if it's a source that would normally have a use elsewhere, then you're denying that source, and have to consider the effects.

    Hydrogen


    Hydrogen isn't really a source of ****** - as far as I know, there aren't large stockpiles of it on Earth (however, there are enormous sources of it deep in space). Hydrogen is mostly used as a source of clean ******, as it burns as so:

    2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O
    Ratio = 1 : 0.5 : {0} : 1
    No carbon dioxide produced, only water vapor. Let's take a look at some of the math here as well (MM = molar mass):

    Hc of hydrogen = 141.8 kJ/g ... MM of hydrogen = 2.01 g/mol --> 285 kJ / mol
    Hc of methane = 55.5 kJ/g ... MM of methane = 16.04 --> 890 kJ / mol
    Hc of ethane = 51.9 kJ/g ... MM of ethane = 30.06 --> 1560 kJ / mol
    Hc of propane = 50.35 kJ/g ... MM of propane = 44.08 --> 2220 kJ / mol
    You can see that given a certain mass of fuel, hydrogen is easily the most energetic per mass. But per mole (or molecule, for that matter), the more complex the hydrocarbon, the more ****** is released (because more bonds are broken).

    Take methane (natural gas) versus hydrogen. A molecule of methane burns about 3 times (890 versus 285) stronger than that of hydrogen. However, since hydrogen is so light, 1 kg of hydrogen will produce 3 times as much ****** as methane (141.8 versus 55.5). Let's set a goal of ****** output - 10000 kJ.

    Hydrogen:
    2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O
    Ratio = 1 : 0.5 : {0} : 1
    10000 kJ / 141.8 kJ / g = 70.52 g
    10000 kJ / 285 kJ / mol = 35.09 mol
    O2 consumed = 17.55 mol
    CO2 produced = 0 mol
    H2O produced = 35.09 mol

    Methane:
    CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
    Ratio = 1 : 2 : 1 : 2
    10000 kJ / 55.5 kJ / g = 180.12 g
    10000 kJ / 890 kJ / mol = 11.24 mol
    O2 consumed = 22.48 mol
    CO2 produced = 11.24 mol
    H2O produced = 22.48 mol
    You can clearly see that hydrogen burns mostly cleaner, although it does produce considerably more water vapor than other combustion reactions. Whether that water vapor offsets the carbon dioxide is a question I don't know (at least for now, we don't have a problem with too much water in the atmosphere).

    I did update more than just adding, and will probably make one more edit to this post, maybe concerning hydroelectric, wind, and other ideas. Also keep in mind that this is my own formed opinion, based on what I know. If someone knows more about this than I do, feel free to chime in.
    Last edited by naturefreak2101; 01-31-2011 at 04:56 AM. Reason: Adding additional content

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2014, 04:03 AM
  2. Pope Francis selected as Time's person of the year
    By Astdua in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 11:49 AM
  3. The Protestor - Time Person of the Year 2011
    By Administrator in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 12:35 AM
  4. It's That Time Of Year...
    By ianmatthews in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-20-2006, 02:29 AM
  5. Small-Time Crime With Hints of Big-Time Connections
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2006, 05:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •