Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 03/06/2023 20:45:18
-
So asking a question in regards to my patent which I'm about to let expire, it was granted in Canada. Anyhoo the idea was if you recall to bury a cannon 500 feet deep, shoot the balls up to the surface into a loop on the ground, take them out and lower them in an elevator. The cons of the system are converting hydrogen fuel, elevator's currently are 60 70% efficient, the pros are for the enviroment. 50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere. The other 50% is heat that mostle stays deep in the ground. Some hotshot mentioned that the heat would eventually make its way to the surface and into the atmosphere.
So my question is how well known is it that vibrations of the atom is what causes heat? Is it just an effect of heat passing through a substance? Wouldn't some of the energy from the canon to the surface be lost, if not all of it, through mechanical vibrations of the atoms?
-
So asking a question in regards to my patent which I'm about to let expire, it was granted in Canada. Anyhoo the idea was if you recall to bury a cannon 500 feet deep, shoot the balls up to the surface into a loop on the ground, take them out and lower them in an elevator. The cons of the system are converting hydrogen fuel, elevator's currently are 60 70% efficient, the pros are for the enviroment. 50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere. The other 50% is heat that mostle stays deep in the ground. Some hotshot mentioned that the heat would eventually make its way to the surface and into the atmosphere.
So my question is how well known is it that vibrations of the atom is what causes heat? Is it just an effect of heat passing through a substance? Wouldn't some of the energy from the canon to the surface be lost, if not all of it, through mechanical vibrations of the atoms?
What is the point of your 'patent'?
-
If the atoms are not in thermal equilibrium with their environment, then yes, their vibrations will cause them to lose energy over time.
-
What do you mean by this?
50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere.
-
What do you mean by this?
50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere.
Are you just heckling me over semantics again? I don't really care its explanation is easy enough. What are YOU asking me?
-
If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.
-
If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.
Ah yes! I totally forgot about lasers.
-
its explanation is easy enough.
Then explain it.
What are YOU asking me?
I'm asking what you mean by this
50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere.
In what way can you "hurt" the atmosphere?
But I'd also echo The Spoon's question.
What is the point of your 'patent'?
-
I totally forgot about lasers.
What lasers?
-
If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.
Ah yes! I totally forgot about lasers.
Lasers? What are you talking about?
-
It's my opinion that it doesn't matter so much the greenhouse gasses that are causing a warm up, but rather the way we burn fuels, pouring a could amount of heat straight into the air.
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-fusion-60-minutes-2023-01-15/
-
It's my opinion that it doesn't matter so much the greenhouse gasses that are causing a warm up, but rather the way we burn fuels, pouring a could amount of heat straight into the air.
Do you have some math to support that?
-
It's my opinion that it doesn't matter so much the greenhouse gasses that are causing a warm up, but rather the way we burn fuels, pouring a could amount of heat straight into the air.
Do you have some math to support that?
its just a theory of pfft....mine I guess that all the heat from 24 hour burning of fossil fuels straight into the atmosphere is causing at least some of the warming. If we absorbed more of the heat with water spray in smokestacks....I guess I'm ahead of evrybody 'gain tho.
-
If you don't have evidence to support it, that would just make it a hypothesis, not a theory.
Also, what would you do with the water in the smoke stacks once it absorbed the heat? Remember, heat can't be destroyed.
-
It's my opinion that it doesn't matter so much the greenhouse gasses that are causing a warm up, but rather the way we burn fuels, pouring a could amount of heat straight into the air.
Your opinion has been shown to be wrong.
-
I guess I'm ahead of evrybody 'gain tho.
In what sense have you ever been ahead of everybody?
-
If you don't have evidence to support it, that would just make it a hypothesis, not a theory.
Also, what would you do with the water in the smoke stacks once it absorbed the heat? Remember, heat can't be destroyed.
This is why I asked if oscillations of the atom's in the hot water release energy. I guess the question is when you pour boiling water on the ground does 100% of the heat re-enter the atmosphere? or does it dissipate downwards? into the denser cooler earth?
-
If you don't have evidence to support it, that would just make it a hypothesis, not a theory.
Also, what would you do with the water in the smoke stacks once it absorbed the heat? Remember, heat can't be destroyed.
This is why I asked if oscillations of the atom's in the hot water release energy. I guess the question is when you pour boiling water on the ground does 100% of the heat re-enter the atmosphere? or does it dissipate downwards? into the denser cooler earth?
Do you understand that the deep earth is very hot?
You can't expect heat to soak into it because heat is always coming up from it.
That's why geothermal energy is a thing.
And now, once again.
What do you mean by this?
50% of the energy of an explosion iss converted into blast energy which is further divided into seismic, sound, and weight displacement. None of that hurts the atmosphere.
-
Do you understand that the deep earth is very hot?
You can't expect heat to soak into it because heat is always coming up from it.
That's why geothermal energy is a thing.
That heat is caused by pressure, not a running tap of energy in the earth somewhere. It's trapped for the most part in the earth.
My explanation of the energy conversion from an explosive i feel is quite obvious. 50% of the energy released is in the form of blast energy. Blast energy is divided into seismic, sound, and weight dissplacement. None of those will hurt the atmosphere. I don't have anything else to add to that statement. Did it conjure up something?
-
This is why I asked if oscillations of the atom's in the hot water release energy. I guess the question is when you pour boiling water on the ground does 100% of the heat re-enter the atmosphere? or does it dissipate downwards? into the denser cooler earth?
It will eventually end up in both the Earth and the Earth's atmosphere. Heat spreads until it finds an equilibrium.
As for your idea of heat released from powerplants causing the Earth to heat up, let's take a look at the numbers. The Earth receives more solar energy from the Sun in a single hour (173,000 terawatt-hours) than humanity consumed in an entire year (160,000 terawatt-hours in 2017: https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/
To find out how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a year, we multiply that number by 24 hours in a day, times 365.25 days in a year to get 1,516,518,000 terawatt-hours. So humanity's energy consumption in 2017 was only 0.0105% of the total solar energy reaching Earth. This means that the amount of heat we are adding to the environment is on about the same order of magnitude, about 0.0105% of how much the Sun is already heating the Earth up (or less, since solar energy itself already accounts for some of humanity's energy consumption).
The Earth's temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Kelvin since the late 1800's. Since the Earth's average surface temperature is around 288 kelvins, that means the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.35% over the last century or so. That's a temperature increase of more than 30 times what can be explained by humanity's heat emissions alone. So we know something else is the primary driver.
-
This is why I asked if oscillations of the atom's in the hot water release energy. I guess the question is when you pour boiling water on the ground does 100% of the heat re-enter the atmosphere? or does it dissipate downwards? into the denser cooler earth?
It will eventually end up in both the Earth and the Earth's atmosphere. Heat spreads until it finds an equilibrium.
As for your idea of heat released from powerplants causing the Earth to heat up, let's take a look at the numbers. The Earth receives more solar energy from the Sun in a single hour (173,000 terawatt-hours) than humanity consumed in an entire year (160,000 terawatt-hours in 2017: https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/
To find out how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a year, we multiply that number by 24 hours in a day, times 365.25 days in a year to get 1,516,518,000 terawatt-hours. So humanity's energy consumption in 2017 was only 0.0105% of the total solar energy reaching Earth. This means that the amount of heat we are adding to the environment is on about the same order of magnitude, about 0.0105% of how much the Sun is already heating the Earth up (or less, since solar energy itself already accounts for some of humanity's energy consumption).
The Earth's temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Kelvin since the late 1800's. Since the Earth's average surface temperature is around 288 kelvins, that means the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.35% over the last century or so. That's a temperature increase of more than 30 times what can be explained by humanity's heat emissions alone. So we know something else is the primary driver.
Alright how if greenhouse gasses are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, how and why is the heating mostly occurring over the north pole?
-
Alright how if greenhouse gasses are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, how and why is the heating mostly occurring over the north pole?
What's your source for that claim?
-
One way to use the idea of water spray in a car would be after you fire the piston, instead of using air to release the pressure, just spray water into the piston and drain the water. Bam! Hot water instead of straight into the atmosphere.
-
Alright how if greenhouse gasses are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, how and why is the heating mostly occurring over the north pole?
What's your source for that claim?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-global-warming-much-more-severe-in-the-North-Pole
-
instead of using air to release the pressure, just spray water into the piston and drain the water.
What are you going to do with the hot water afterwards?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-global-warming-much-more-severe-in-the-North-Pole
Here's your answer: https://www.npolar.no/en/themes/climate-change-in-the-arctic/#:~:text=This%20significant%20regional%20warming%20leads,of%20the%20Greenland%20ice%20cap.&text=The%20Arctic%20is%20warming%20three%20times%20as%20fast%20and%20the%20global%20average.,-This%20is%20mainly
-
instead of using air to release the pressure, just spray water into the piston and drain the water.
What are you going to do with the hot water afterwards?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-global-warming-much-more-severe-in-the-North-Pole
Here's your answer: https://www.npolar.no/en/themes/climate-change-in-the-arctic/#:~:text=This%20significant%20regional%20warming%20leads,of%20the%20Greenland%20ice%20cap.&text=The%20Arctic%20is%20warming%20three%20times%20as%20fast%20and%20the%20global%20average.,-This%20is%20mainly
So the sun's heat keeps earth a steady temperature, then burning of fossil fuels is adding the heat moment to moment that is causing a warm up. Although the sun rains down a lot more heat then we are burning, without the sun it would probably be damn cold hence the large amounts of heat from the sun is not damaging, heat from burning fuels is?
Water would hold onto the heat longer and release it slower. Thermal conductivity between the hot water and the ground might heat up the earth below a pool of hot water faster then the at least a portion of the heat that will enter the atmosphere?
-
So the sun's heat keeps earth a steady temperature, then burning of fossil fuels is adding the heat moment to moment that is causing a warm up.
Only by an incredibly small amount (about 0.01% of the heat that the Sun is contributing).
Although the sun rains down a lot more heat then we are burning, without the sun it would probably be damn cold
Right.
hence the large amounts of heat from the sun is not damaging
Depends. It certainly can be damaging in hot, dry areas of the world.
heat from burning fuels is?
The math I just did suggests otherwise.
Water would hold onto the heat longer and release it slower. Thermal conductivity between the hot water and the ground might heat up the earth below a pool of hot water faster then the at least a portion of the heat that will enter the atmosphere?
The ground where you injected the water would continue to heat up until it reached an equilibrium. So if you are pulling a megawatt of waste heat from a powerplant, the ground where you are injecting the water will eventually start releasing heat at a rate of one megawatt anyway. I see no advantage to doing this.
-
The ground where you injected the water would continue to heat up until it reached an equilibrium. So if you are pulling a megawatt of waste heat from a powerplant, the ground where you are injecting the water will eventually start releasing heat at a rate of one megawatt anyway. I see no advantage to doing this.
What about dump the water into the drain or a stream? Anyways one trick to eliminate excess energy in the ground is increase the surface area over which you spread water. there's certainly enough of that.
-
So the sun's heat keeps earth a steady temperature, then burning of fossil fuels is adding the heat moment to moment that is causing a warm up.
It's causing "a" warm up; but not "the" warm up which, as has been pointed out is 30 times bigger.
Why do you persist in ignoring this simple fact?
-
Well Kryptid instead of a 24 hr direct current through the atmosphere of heat building in the north arctic, putting the heat into water and distributing it evenly through the oceans would at least cut down on the melting of the NORTH which I think is probably most important? Also I imagine the ocean would have to raise in temperature enough for the heat to be absorbed considerably or at least a portion of it back into the atmosphere? Water is denser then air and will absorb more energy?
-
Well Kryptid instead of a 24 hr direct current through the atmosphere of heat building in the north arctic, putting the heat into water and distributing it evenly through the oceans would at least cut down on the melting of the NORTH which I think is probably most important? Also I imagine the ocean would have to raise in temperature enough for the heat to be absorbed considerably or at least a portion of it back into the atmosphere? Water is denser then air and will absorb more energy?
Your argument hinges on heat from man-made sources being the primary cause for global warming. It isn't, as the math I did shows.
-
Well Kryptid instead of a 24 hr direct current through the atmosphere of heat building in the north arctic, putting the heat into water and distributing it evenly through the oceans would at least cut down on the melting of the NORTH which I think is probably most important? Also I imagine the ocean would have to raise in temperature enough for the heat to be absorbed considerably or at least a portion of it back into the atmosphere? Water is denser then air and will absorb more energy?
Your argument hinges on heat from man-made sources being the primary cause for global warming. It isn't, as the math I did shows.
I would say the north arctic is like a chimney for heat to escape into space. So what's your answer as to where all the heat from burning goes? or you think its irrelevant? though it is a fraction of the heat from the sun, how can you rule it out when its directly going into the atmosphere as heat?
-
I would say the north arctic is like a chimney for heat to escape into space.
It sounds like you are mistaking "north" for "up". Heat rises, but it rises against gravity, not towards the north pole.
So what's your answer as to where all the heat from burning goes?
It goes into the environment causing it to warm (very, very slightly).
or you think its irrelevant?
Compared to the heating caused by greenhouse gases? Yes.
though it is a fraction of the heat from the sun, how can you rule it out when its directly going into the atmosphere as heat?
I showed why with the math.
-
I would say the north arctic is like a chimney for heat to escape into space.
And you would be wrong, as is often the case.
-
Well good luck to you guys! pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.
-
Well good luck to you guys! pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.
It's obvious that you are wrong.
I didn't find it stressful pointing it out.
-
pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.
What's this obvious thing that you are talking about?
-
pretty stressful to be the first to say something so obvious.
What's this obvious thing that you are talking about?
Cite a single article or anything that has to do with the heat that rises up from burning fuels. I couldn't find one and we can't just rely on your maths without some experimentation done by a reputablle source. So its frustrating to be first.
-
we can't just rely on your maths
Can you point out what I got wrong with it?
-
without some experimentation done by a reputablle source.
The experiments have been done.
That's why Kryptid was able to cite evidence and data like this.
let's take a look at the numbers. The Earth receives more solar energy from the Sun in a single hour (173,000 terawatt-hours) than humanity consumed in an entire year (160,000 terawatt-hours in 2017: https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/
To find out how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a year, we multiply that number by 24 hours in a day, times 365.25 days in a year to get 1,516,518,000 terawatt-hours. So humanity's energy consumption in 2017 was only 0.0105% of the total solar energy reaching Earth. This means that the amount of heat we are adding to the environment is on about the same order of magnitude, about 0.0105% of how much the Sun is already heating the Earth up (or less, since solar energy itself already accounts for some of humanity's energy consumption).
The Earth's temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Kelvin since the late 1800's. Since the Earth's average surface temperature is around 288 kelvins, that means the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.35% over the last century or so
Did you not realise that?
Did you imagine that he might have made it up?
-
without some experimentation done by a reputablle source.
The experiments have been done.
That's why Kryptid was able to cite evidence and data like this.
let's take a look at the numbers. The Earth receives more solar energy from the Sun in a single hour (173,000 terawatt-hours) than humanity consumed in an entire year (160,000 terawatt-hours in 2017: https://explainingscience.org/2019/03/09/solar-energy/
To find out how much energy the Earth receives from the Sun in a year, we multiply that number by 24 hours in a day, times 365.25 days in a year to get 1,516,518,000 terawatt-hours. So humanity's energy consumption in 2017 was only 0.0105% of the total solar energy reaching Earth. This means that the amount of heat we are adding to the environment is on about the same order of magnitude, about 0.0105% of how much the Sun is already heating the Earth up (or less, since solar energy itself already accounts for some of humanity's energy consumption).
The Earth's temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Kelvin since the late 1800's. Since the Earth's average surface temperature is around 288 kelvins, that means the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 0.35% over the last century or so
Did you not realise that?
Did you imagine that he might have made it up?
oh hoho you make me laugh
-
What's funny about it?
Do you have any evidence that heat emissions by humans are the cause of climate change?
-
Kryptid, off topic but I sure admire your patience.
-
oh hoho you make me laugh
Then one of us is achieving something useful.
-
What's funny about it?
Do you have any evidence that heat emissions by humans are the cause of climate change?
Yes I believe I have a few arguements that go along with yours. For example, heat, can't cause warming, it causes cooling, like hot water freezes faster then cold, so heat burning INSIDE of something like a box is how we can look at it.
-
For example, heat, can't cause warming, it causes cooling
So if you stick your finger tip onto a lit match, it gets cooler? Besides, that would be against your argument that heat from powerplants is causing the world to warm up.
like hot water freezes faster then cold
That's not because heat makes things cooler (which it doesn't).
so heat burning INSIDE of something like a box is how we can look at it.
If I light a match inside of a grocery store (which is basically a really big box), it's not going to have any appreciable impact on the temperature of the air inside the store. That's a rough analogy for man-made heat in the Earth's atmosphere. I have calculations to back up my claim that man-made heating is an insignificant contributor to climate change. Could you provide calculations which show that I'm wrong?
-
That's a good analogy so lets say your grocery store is turned into a city of houses, each burning a match, of electricty, plumbing, HVAC, all these things and how hot is your 24 hr match? and your grocery store is full of matches burning continuously? it would be more like a store full of welding guns. In which case I imagine it would warm up more then a 10 second match.
-
For example, heat, can't cause warming,
It very clearly can.
-
I imagine it would warm up more
You can imagine what you like.
But the maths says the global warming is due to the greenhouse effect.
-
In which case I imagine it would warm up more then a 10 second match.
Yes, but not enough to explain global warming,
-
For example, heat, can't cause warming
It is very difficult to have a rational discussion about science with someone who believes something that most 10 year old children know to be false.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/14/record-warm-ocean-temperatures/
Huh maybe they're trying out this idea? It is 8 months old since I posted it. Wouldn't be that hard to spray water up a smokestack. Most of the people I've talked bring up a carbon scrubber. You guys are the first to team up and bully me on it. kudos to you! haha.
On a more interesting note a geothermal plant that boils water deep underground at a certain rate in ratio to its storage size, and spinning a generator as you lower the weight of the water, would be a use of how waterr and steam. As the steam rises it provides more room for water that operates a turbine.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/06/14/record-warm-ocean-temperatures/
Huh maybe they're trying out this idea? It is 8 months old since I posted it. Wouldn't be that hard to spray water up a smokestack. Most of the people I've talked bring up a carbon scrubber. You guys are the first to team up and bully me on it. kudos to you! haha.
On a more interesting note a geothermal plant that boils water deep underground at a certain rate in ratio to its storage size, and spinning a generator as you lower the weight of the water, would be a use of how waterr and steam. As the steam rises it provides more room for water that operates a turbine.
Can you show us what part of the page you linked to is the part which you think means you might not be wrong?
(Or even what part you think is relevant)
-
Telling someone that they are wrong is not bullying.
-
If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.
Ah yes! I totally forgot about lasers.
Lasers? What are you talking about?
I suppose manufacturing explosives is so expensive because of safety making the patent useless. But what if we manufactured the explosives differently, manufacture small amounts at a time by robots, and also the energy used to manufacture the explosives to lift the cannonball and generate electricity isn't what causes the price to be so high and might actually be less then that of refining gasoline from crude oil.
-
Explosive manufacturing is not expensive. The most common blasting agent used today is ammonium nitrate emulsion which is almost completely inert unless initiated by a very powerful booster charge, with little safety requirements.
-
If I recall correctly, you were talking about using fusion to do this. A fusion powerplant isn't going to be hurting the atmosphere anyway.
Ah yes! I totally forgot about lasers.
Lasers? What are you talking about?
I suppose manufacturing explosives is so expensive because of safety making the patent useless. But what if we manufactured the explosives differently, manufacture small amounts at a time by robots, and also the energy used to manufacture the explosives to lift the cannonball and generate electricity isn't what causes the price to be so high and might actually be less then that of refining gasoline from crude oil.
You seem to be ignoring teh conservation of energy.
Adding more steps doesn't make it more efficient.
-
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/24/co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-global-temperature-says-leading-climate-scientist/
-
Forget 'settled' science or 'consensus' - that is a political construct designed to quash debate in the interests of promoting a command-and-control Net Zero agenda.
Conspiracy theory alert.
-
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/24/co2-has-almost-no-effect-on-global-temperature-says-leading-climate-scientist/
Citing conspiracy nut websites doesn't help anything.
-
Mining directly what is needed for black powder, salt peter I think it is? but the energy to mine it and the energy gained from using it as fuel to lift the cannonball could compete with gas power plants and all the refining and consumption. Getting the heat out of water so it its converted to to something useful may be impossible until lightning is understood.
-
Mining directly what is needed for black powder, salt peter I think it is? but the energy to mine it and the energy gained from using it as fuel to lift the cannonball could compete with gas power plants and all the refining and consumption. Getting the heat out of water so it its converted to to something useful may be impossible until lightning is understood.
Saltpeter is not a fuel
To make black powder you mix it with a a couple of fuels - typically sulphur and charcoal.
But, it's more sensible to just burn the charcoal in a seam engine than to mess about making gunpowder.
You seem to think that explosives are magic.
They are generally very inefficient ways to do things.
It really would be better if you tried learning science rather than pretending (to yourself) that you know better.
lightning is understood.
We have a pretty good idea how lightning works and have done for some time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_experiment
-
With all my patent inventions and ideas I think this is the only workable one to save the day in the north arctic where climate change is 6 times worse. and its not for profit that I share the idea. We can pressurize a lot of water into the earth's heat and cool it off like air conditioning where the steam it lets go generally radiates away and the earth but the earth absorbs heat locally in the spot that is cooled, like when a volcano goes off and the atmosphere cools for three years? so pump water in volcanoe's. Cooling the Earth pressure heat and radiating it out appears to cool the atmosphere.
-
Even if that could work, the shear scale would be infeasible with modern technology.