Moreno

This is just some fortune telling. We don't even know what Pluto core composition is. Some theories suggest it does have only a tiny rocky core. The rest is the ice. What concentration of radioactive elements do you expect in the ice? Would water ocean be able to form due to radioactivity? And it still needs to rise temperature from -233 C to 0 C to make it molten. https://www.space.com/18562-what-is-pluto-made-of.html

You forgot that Pluto's temperature is -233 C and ice at that temperature would behave like rock. I agree that it has lower melting point though. But if it's true that Pluto has a thick ice mantle or water ocean under thin crust, I guess you don't expect it does have a high concentration of radioactive elements in ice or in water. I'm not sure I did any assertions. Can you give a citation? Mostly what I provide is a citations from other sources and attempts to do a calculations based on scientifically accepted data.

So, does it work well throughout the year on air alone?

1) Really? Do you know what is the temperature on the Jupiter "surface" (if there is any surface) ? Then try to calculate how much energy you need to heat body 7 times larger to +30 C at least... Temperature at the Sun surface is around 6000 C while inside (it is assumed), where fusion reaction occur, is around 15.000.000 C. Difference tree orders of magnitude. 2) I have no idea, but hypothetically, why not? People already harness geothermal, radioactivity and tides. So, whatever is there, never say never...

The problem of anomalous heat production relates not only to the planets, but also to some stars. According to modern theories a star needs to have 13 Jupiter masses in order for at least some (and a few) nuclear fusion reaction to start. Yet, there are some brown dwarfs with 7 Jupiter masses only, which are nonetheless quite warm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD_0806-661

Sorry, but I do don't understand what do you want exactly from me. What refutations? What arguments? Can you specify exactly? I prefer a concrete discussion. I wish to know if there is any modern detailed calculation which would allow to estimate how much of the primordial heat still left inside the Earth and how much it can contribute to geothermal heat? It seems Lord Kelvin did such estimation in 19-th century, but it was too long ago. According to his estimation the Earth would loose all the primordial heat during some few hundreds of millions of years. Modern researchers suspect that primordial heat still can contribute 25-50% of geothermal energy. Is it likely? I think it should be not to difficult to estimate knowing the age of Earth (5.5 bln. of years), its original temperature, heat flux, etc...

But it looks (according to diagram above) that even if Th is 40 C (which is 2 times above the room temperature we intend to have in a room) COP theoretical maximum is still above 5 at Tc -20 C, what is not that bad.

No it wasn't. It was a general question.

What do you think about heat pumps and air conditioners based on principally new technologies, such as optic or magnetic cooling? Can they ever become commercially viable and surpass the liquid-based refrigeration in all the principal accounts?

So, if we need raise room temperature to +20 C how efficiencies change than?

Do I understand it correctly, that if outside temperature is -20 C and we intend to heat premises to +20 C, using heat pump solely, the maximum theoretical efficiency going to be around 700%? https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-pump-efficiency-ratings-d_1117.html If yes, then why heat pump practical efficiencies are still much lower than theoretical values? What is the issues with technologies? Why Otto or Diesel engines work much closer to theoretical values than heat pumps? Also, how practical would be air-air heat pumps designed for apartments in buildings where use of ground waters is hardly an option? What would be their size and cost at temperatures -20 C and +20 C outside and inside? I can imagine they would need to process a giant amount of cold air to retrieve sufficient amount of thermal energy from it to heat a large apartment? What is actually the directions of development in this field? Could there be a heat pump which is brought in action by burning fuel rather than electricity? If yes, would it be still as efficient as an electric one?

Doesn't this forum has section "religion" to discuss creationism?

The agenda here could be to do a discovery which leads to harnessing of a new and cheap way of energy generation. Just like once it was radioactivity. Regarding to what could it be, I do not like to engage in a pseudoscientific speculations. But if you want a cautious assumptions, I may assume it could be a specific chemical composition or yet unknown form of matter which is one of the constituents which serves under specific physical conditions as an energy generation catalyst.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2926

The hypothesis about methane which converts to the diamonds and falls down to the planet center as a diamond rain is a wild hypothesis and can awoke only a smile, just by intuition... Which citations do you think, can I provide? The same is about liquid Helium rains on Saturn. How can I disprove something that is just a someone's wild imagination?

Do you think there is no major issue with Enceladus? According to some estimations gravitational flexing it experiences is around 100 times smaller to explain 15-20 GigaWatt it releases into the otter space. Those assumptions about Neptune heat origins almost awoke a smile, especially the one about diamond rains inside it... And Uranus got lot of methane too.

Can you explain why Neptune produces much more energy than Uranus? They are very similar in mass, size, age and should be in chemical composition. Is gravitational shrinking of both planets too different? 1) New close-up images of a region near Pluto’s equator reveal a giant surprise: a range of youthful mountains rising as high as 11,000 feet (3,500 meters) above the surface of the icy body. The mountains likely formed no more than 100 million years ago -- mere youngsters relative to the 4.56-billion-year age of the solar system -- and may still be in the process of building, says Geology, Geophysics and Imaging (GGI) team leader Jeff Moore of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.. That suggests the close-up region, which covers less than one percent of Pluto’s surface, may still be geologically active today. Moore and his colleagues base the youthful age estimate on the lack of craters in this scene. Like the rest of Pluto, this region would presumably have been pummeled by space debris for billions of years and would have once been heavily cratered -- unless recent activity had given the region a facelift, erasing those pockmarks. “This is one of the youngest surfaces we’ve ever seen in the solar system,” says Moore. Unlike the icy moons of giant planets, Pluto cannot be heated by gravitational interactions with a much larger planetary body. Some other process must be generating the mountainous landscape. “This may cause us to rethink what powers geological activity on many other icy worlds,” says GGI deputy team leader John Spencer of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. The mountains are probably composed of Pluto’s water-ice “bedrock.” Although methane and nitrogen ice covers much of the surface of Pluto, these materials are not strong enough to build the mountains. Instead, a stiffer material, most likely water-ice, created the peaks. “At Pluto’s temperatures, water-ice behaves more like rock,” said deputy GGI lead Bill McKinnon of Washington University, St. Louis. The close-up image was taken about 1.5 hours before New Horizons closest approach to Pluto, when the craft was 47,800 miles (77,000 kilometers) from the surface of the planet. The image easily resolves structures smaller than a mile across. https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-icy-mountains-of-pluto 2) It is assumed that Pluto's internal composition includes lot of ice, which make it lighter than Earth and unlikely makes it richer than Earth on radioactive elements (per mass unit). Probably even much less. 3) Pluto mass is just 0.22% of Earth. And its surface area is very approximately 1/30 of the Earth (17 mln. km2 vs. 510 km2.). Or 3.3%. It is well known that the larger the body is, the better it preserves heat inside, because its surface area to volume ratio changes when volume increases. Do you have any objections against it? This is why huge steam turbines and diesel engines have higher efficiency than a smaller ones just because they are huge. Therefore Pluto looses any internal heat energy much faster than Earth, before temperature can rise inside it and heat energy can accumulate in sufficient amounts to cause an eruption. Therefore Pluto needs to have a much, much higher concentration of radioactive elements or some other yet unknown energy sources. The same major issue seem to be with Enceladus.

At first sight it looks very unlikely. Compare the size of Earth and Pluto. There are mountain picks on Pluto which are estimated to reach 3500 km. We don't know exactly the composition of this mountains, but even if we assume it is the ice, it has to be as hard as a rock on Earth. Can you imagine how much energy is needed to erect mountains of that height compared to the size of this icy dwarf planet? There are indications that Pluto has to be poorer on radioactive elements than Earth, but even if we assume it is as rich as Earth, its internal heat flow per square area has to be much smaller than on Earth. Because of its relation of the total mass to the total surface area. It suppose to loose heat much faster than Earth.

Some sites state otherwise. I do not claim they provide a very reliable date, but still they still take it from somewhere? For example: https://www.simonhanmer52.ca/pluto-2015.html I think gravitational tidal interaction between Pluto and Charon is not that difficult to estimate, at least approximately. Could you provide a citation which claims it is sufficiently large?

Modern genetic analysis shows that ancestors of 90% modern British people came from Eastern Europe around 4500 years ago. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180221131851.htm

What is known about metals or materials which have two or more conduction bands? For example, is it true that lead has two conduction bands? Can a material can have to or more conduction bands separated by a band gap?

By the way, is powerful static electric field sufficient by itself to generate positron-electron pairs? If yes, how it doesn't violate energy conservation law?

But if space was originally empty and infinite why radiation will ever return to BB? Isn't it going travel out of BB infinitely? There suppose to be no reflection or re-radiation in empty space. How quantum fluctuations can play a role here?

Don't quantum fluctuations happen constantly all the same? Why part of energy will come back to BB? How exactly?

Let imaging we originally had the only blackbody in infinite and empty space. Then it will radiate into space infinitely and never reach equilibrium with surroundings.