1

The Environment / Permanent Solution to the Energy Crisis?

« on: 05/07/2006 06:23:42 »

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Is this for real? Because if it is than mankind's salvation has arrived in the form of algea!

-able to produce up to 15,000 barrels of bio-diesel,(carbon neutral renewable fuel)/acre/year!

-Can be fed waste water from human sewers and animal farms

-can produce highly nitrogen rich fetilizers, no petro-chemicals needed!

What does this mean for the UK?

Well according to the CIA world factbook, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

the UK consumes 1.722 million barrels of petrol/day, (15th in the world, good for you UK).

That is 6.2853 billion barrels/year.

Now the UK is not a terrible sunny spot of land, so let us assume a conservative 5,000 barrels/acre/year, (1/3 of max in sunny climes like the Sonoran Dessert).

so 6.2853 billion barrels/year would require 125,706 acres of land, or 316.1003075687559 square kilometers!

Now according to the CIA world fact book, 23.23% of UK land is arable.

That means that only .5632% of arable land on the emeral isle can replace all the petrol in the UK!

Now imagine what you could do with hybrid-bio diesels, with plug in options, that utilize wind and tidal energy!

Or carbon fiber cars that weigh half as much as current models and reduce consumption even more!

Am I wrong in my glee? Is a hydrogen economy still the future? If so why? With bio-diesel 14 times as energy dense as H2.

Any thoughts?

Adam Andrew Galas

2

General Science / Science Fact or Fiction: Online Version Part 3

« on: 01/07/2006 04:16:23 »

Yet more interesting questions. Hopefully, no ambiguity in these. Answers to follow in 48 hours.

1. Olympus Mons, the tallest volcano in the solar system is located on Mars and is 20 km high at its peak. True or False?

2. Solar winds slam into earth’s magnetic field at an average velocity of 400 km/second. True or False?

3. A Kepler strip is a 3-d shape who’s surface has only 1 side. True or False?

3.

Adam Andrew Galas

3

General Science / Science Fact or Fiction: Online Version Part 2

« on: 30/06/2006 03:09:29 »

Here are some more fascinating questions. I provide answers in 27 hours.

1. Although the meter was originally defined as 1/10,000,000th of 1/4th the circumfrence of the earth at the equator, it is today defined, officially, as the wavelength of Krytpon-86 radiation. True or False?

2. Saturn's density is so low that it would float in a pool of water, assuming one could find one large enough. True or False?

3. While AM radio waves can be as short as 10 Meters, FM radio waves can be as long as 193-580 Meters. True or False?

Adam Andrew Galas

4

General Science / Science Fact or Fiction: The Online Version Part I

« on: 29/06/2006 08:53:04 »

Here are some interesting queries for all you science buffs. Lets see if any one can get all 3 questions correct. I will reveal the answers in 18 hours. Bonus points will be awarded for those who can answer False questions and give the real answer.

1. The longest living animal on earth is the Giant Tortoise: True or False?

2. The December 26, 2004 Mega Thrust Earthquake that generate the Great Indian Ocean Tsunamai was estimated to have released the equivalent of 50 gigatons (5,000 Megatons or 3,000 Hirishimas) of TNT. True of False?

3. The Earth is the densest planet in our Solar System. True or False?




Adam Andrew Galas

5

General Science / What is god: an answer

« on: 26/06/2006 08:32:08 »

Lets us first attempt to prove or disprove, and then determine what "god" is, by examining the basic tennents of this being.

-omnipotent
-omnitient
-omnipresent
-omnitemporal

There is one thing in existance that humans know for a fact to fit all these criteria: The Laws of the Universe.

From these flow all of the sciences.

Astronomy, dominated by gravity.

Chemistry, the study of the movement of electrons, which follow certain unbreakable principles.

Biology: Governed by Organic Chemistry

Geology: governed by the grand forces of thermodynamics, and astronomy, ie gravity and its numerous consequences on smashing matter together

The list goes on to include all the sciences.

And is it not true that that laws of the Universe are everywhere? That they have existed since the dawn of time? Possibley before time itself? Are they not all powerfull, in that nothing can break them? And does not their very nature allow them to predict what will happen in the universe?

Even in quantum mechanics, the laws of said science are omniscient to the fact that chaos and uncertainty exist, because of the existance of the quantum state.

In summary, the laws of the Universe are all that god is cracked up to be in the modern theological sense of the world.

-They created our solar system, fused H2 into He to give warmth to the planets and then gave rise to organic chemistry and life.

-The Laws of the Universe are all powerfull, yet care about the actions of man, in that they demand we not violate them.

-The Laws of the Universe maintains perfect balance in the universe, and has created a universe of unimaginable buety and magesty.

-The Laws of the Universe are fair in that those take the time of strive for the truth of science are rewarded with preferential treatment, such as the marvels of medecine, space travel and modern civilization.

-The Laws of the universe are strict, in that those that fail to understand them are smitten. Such as the Numbian Kingdom that cut down all its trees and destroyed itself by dessertifiying their lands.

-The Laws of the Universe offers mankind, its most promising creation, as far as we know, everlasting life in the form of computer/mind data transfer and storage in the form of molecular and quantum computers.

Once mankind outgrows its physical form and learns to exists as pure energy, we can attain a state of enlightement,(we will be able to share all knowledge with all people) and continue on our quest to learn ever more secrets of the universe.
If one thinks about it, the Laws of the Universe, in their fairness, efficiency, and beuty are perfect, and to be worshipped.

How does one worship such awe inspiring and nearly unimaginable forces as the Laws of the Universe? By studying them, by striving to understand them.

Perhaps we may never know why the laws of motion exist, or thermodynamics, or quantum mechanics, ECT. But we can learn enough about how these magnificient laws effect the universe to predict, and control many aspects of it.

In this way we can become demigods in our own right. By bending the universe to our wills while never disobeying the truely devine, the all powerfull laws of the Universe, the true god.

ALL HAIL AND PAY HOMAGE TO THE GREAT AND POWERFULL L.O.U!

PS. Through multi-verse tunneling, powered by Zero point energy, it may be possible to learn why the laws of the unviverse are as they are. If this can ever be discerned, than perhaps even such laws can be manipulated and mankind, can surpase the Laws of the Universe as god.

Adam Andrew Galas

6

General Science / New batteries make fuel cells obsolete, today?

« on: 27/06/2006 20:54:34 »

I just read on the Motley Fool about a company called !123Systems that claims that its new M1 Lithium-Ion battery has a charge density of 3,000 KwH/kg. I can't find the density of a lead acid battery, but I know that current Lithium-Ion batteries have 5 times the energy density of Lead-Acid batteries, and so the M1 Li-Ion should be 25 times as energy dense.

In addition to being the most energy dense battery yet devised, the M1 is also claimed to have a life span of 1000 cycles, and can recharge in 5 minutes.

This info peaked my interest because, if true then it would be possible to retrofit a GM EV-1 with M1 batteries and get a range of 1,250 miles, (the first generation of this wonderfull electric car was 50 miles).

In addition, by building the entire thing out of Carbon Fiber one would cut the weight in half, and thus double the range to 2,500 miles, or 4,000 kilometers.

And the thing could be recharged in 5 minutes!

Now, assuming that my rational isn't completly bonkers, wouldn't such a vehicle make fuel cell cars obsolete?

Hydrogen is nothing more than a very energy intensive battery for vehicles to run on, and here we have batteries that allow us to go from renewable energy straight to a super efficient battery power car. Why play around with hydrgoen at all?

Hydrogen dosn't make sense for one's home, as the amount of energy needed to electrolyse water is 10 times what you can get out of the fuel cell itself.

And now it makes little sense for vehicles, with the rapid advances in batteries.

With Jet engines capable of running on bio-diesel or ethanol,(derived from wild growing switch grass, or lawn clippings) why go the hydrogen route at all?

I know that bacteria can produce H2 more cheaply than electrolysis, but with zero emission cars and carbon neutral planes around the corner, do we really need to invest trillions in a hydrogen infastructure?

Is there something I am not considering, that would make a hydrogen economy more beneficial than a renewable electric/ethanol mixed one?

Adam Andrew Galas

7

Physiology & Medicine / Can you go directly into REM sleep?

« on: 27/06/2006 07:29:31 »

I just finished reading Saving Cascadia by John Nance, (a terrific book by the way that deals with the Cascadia Subduction Zone of the West Coast of America and the devestating effects of an earthquake and Tsunamai) and it contained a mention of self hypnosis inducing instant REM sleep. It also claimed that REM sleep is all one needs to function.

Is this true? Could REM sleep be induced by hypnosis? And if you could, would only 2-3 hours/night be sufficient to keep a person healthy and functional?

As someone who is hoping to go to medical school in a few years, I am interested in anything that could give me an edge in terms of studying. Could this be it? Or is this just Pseduo-Scientific quakery?

Adam Andrew Galas

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How does a gravity tractor work to pull colliding objects out of Earth's path?

« on: 23/06/2006 18:00:00 »

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8291&feedId=online-news_rss20

So If a 20 ton ship can deflect a 200 meter asteroid in 20 years at a distance of 1.5 radii, does this mean that moving the gravity tractor a mere 37.5 meters away would allow you to deflect it in 1/16th the time.

I know that the force of gravity is dependent on the inverse square of the distance between bodies, so why do these scientists want to be so far away from the asteroid?

With the asteroid weighing 3 million times more than the tractor wouldn't you want to be as close as possible.

I imagine that it would require more fuel to move the two, but wouldn't this be a means of deflecting NEO that are only 1-2 years away from impact with the earth?

On that note, what does everyone think of the concept of gravity tractors?

They aren't affected by the spin of an object, or its composition, and without contacting the surface they face less risk from damage.

But, it seems like this is only a solution for small NEOs.

Anything larger than 1 kilometer across would be so massive that a 20 ton craft may not be able to move it. Assuming it could, it would require all of its fuel and decades to do it. It may simply run out of fuel before work is accomplished.

Of course humans could always build an enourmous craft of 1000 tons, which carries 350 tons of Uranium as fuel. I imagine that such a craft, if positioned .3 radii from an NEO, (permiting it is not a cylindrical shape that spins rapidly) could, perhaps in 10 years deflect an object as large as, perhaps 3 kilometers.

This leaves us with the obvious problem of dealing with some marge NEOs.

The dinosaurs were done in by a 10 kilometer sized object, which was the size and possible mass of Mount Everest.

If faced with such a threat a tractor would be useless, as the size of the damned thing would require a craft far to big for us to build and that probably couldn't carry enough fuel to stay the necessary time.

In that case there is the option of useing a space mirror to focus sunlight onto a singular point on the object, thus vaporising some material and creating a small jet effect that will slowly push the object away. Of course this would require the mirror to be syncronized to the spin of the object, and the jet effect would be marginalized by the lack of sunlight at certain points as well as the constant spinning altering the deflection path.

Tugs would face the same challenge, but would also face the danger of being damaged.

Nukes are a favorite option of miltary cowboys and hollywood, but unless the object is solid, as indicated by a faster spin, (conglomorations of rubble would fly apart if spinning to quickly.

A ruble pile has been tested in lab conditions and shown to absord the blast of a nuke.

On top of that, nuclear weapons in space are extremely inefficient. With no atmosphere to create a shock wave, the only thing a hydrogen bomb can do is unleash gamma rays and heat. Due to the cold nature of space and the laws of thermo dynamics, the fireball of a nuclear blast dissipates quickly and even if in contact with an object, will not fully vaporise it unless it is massivly engulfing the thing.

Thus, some in the miltary have proposed building a bomb so big that the amount of energy released would vaporize any and all objects as large as 10 kilometers.

They claim that a 1000 megaton bomb, atop a 150 meter long rocket would be sufficient to save us from a large object.

In this sense they are correct. The trouble is that such a device would be incredibly expensive, and if accidentally detonated on earth, would generate a fireball large enough to melt the earths crust, as well as generate a nuclear winter that would most likely kill us all.

Another issue is this. What if we discover a 5 kilometer wide asteroid that is only 1-2 days or even hours from impact with earth?

We may have to detonate the bomb 2-3,000 kilometers above the earth. This would generate an EMP that would likely destroy an entire hemisphere's worth of electronics.

Any thoughts on this most interesting and pressing of matters? All replies are greatly appreciated.

Adam Andrew Galas

9

General Science / Can anyone help name this metal/substance?

« on: 23/06/2006 08:14:26 »

I recall in my senior year of high school my physics professor mentioning a metal that is nearly indestructible.

It was discovered by accident, although the name of the inventor escapes me. The strength of the metal comes from its unique semi-liquid crystal structure.

Applying pressure to the metal causes crystals to form within its structure that reinforces the structure.

The greater the pressure the more crystals form and the more they reinforce the structure. I realize that at some point it would have to collapse as there would have to be a limit to the amount of crystals that the metal could generate. However preliminary tests were unable to come close to finding this pressure threshold.

According to my professor this metal is already being used for such things as replacement knee caps.

Can anyone tell me the name of this metal? I have tried google but only find sci-fi rubish about adamantium, impervium and unobtanium, all from films, comics or magical RPGs.

I am confident that I have not remembered the basics about this metal, so info must be available somewhere. Can anyone help with this?

All replies are greatly appreciated.

Adam Andrew Galas

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can hydrogen be fused without a nuclear explosion?

« on: 22/06/2006 06:04:07 »

I know that a hydrogen bomb works by useing a fission explosion to generate enough heat and pressure to fuse duterium and tritium into helium and generate massive amounts of energy.

But I am curious as to whether hydrogen could be fused by simply sorrounding a sphere of compressed hydrogen with shaped explosive charges, (these aim the explosion inward generating pressures of 100,000 psi and sometimes used to generate fission explosions).

Would compressing hydrogen to 100,000 psi cause it to fuse? What if the hydrogen had been ionized before hand? Then the electrons would not attempt to keep the hydrogen atoms apart and only the proton would stand in the way of fusion?

The reason I am asking is that I fear that if such fusion is possible then building an hydrogen bomb becomes incredibly easy.

Any tin pot dictator in a third world nation could afford to generate hydrogen, and ionizing it is probably not too difficult. Then all they would need would be some plastic explosives such as C1, (the instructions for making this can be found on the internet) and someone with the skills to shape the charges and sincronize the electronic trigger.

Whats more, many terrorist groups could do the same.

I have nightmares about a Ryder moving truck pulling into New York with a 30 megaton hydrogen fusion bomb in it. The authorities have radiation monitors around the city, but the bomb dosn't release any. Suddenly in the middle of the work day a 15 mile fireball engulfs the city and creates a blast wave that reaches Boston. Tens of millions are killed and because no fissonable material is used, there is no means of tracking the unique radiactive signature to the reactor it was generated in.

Several such attacks could occur in major cities around the world and no one would know who was causing them. Western civilization would be braught to its knees by madmen who only neeed a few million dollars to bring about the apocolypse.

Am I incorrect in my rational? Is the world safe from fussion bomb proliferation? Or have I just revealed to some terrorist how to destroy the world?

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

                                                       Sincerley,
                                                       Adam A. Galas

Adam Andrew Galas