insane_alien

just because the topic isn't interesting to you does not meanit isn't interesting to anyone else. if you want to discuss something you're interested in then you are welcome to start your own thread.

its ver hard to make a semiconductor junction to generate electricity out of IR. besides, the sun emits most of its light in the visible spectrum.

yeah, we're the trolls. good one. least you have some sense of humour. have fun not getting anywhere.

oh i can go another hundred pages if its necessary. i'm just a bit frustrated that he has stooped to low tactics to try and win an arguement(not that it makes his idea any more right). cyclonebuster, i am willing to have a civil arguement if you are, but you need to stop going round in circles, it gets you nowhere.

i don't agree with you so i'm being disruptive?

this isn't a blog. this is a forum. and the mods are more likely to get rid of you as you are the one breaking the rules.

you were the one who said 10's of thousands. so the lol is on you mate. you obviously don't understand basic physics(or even mathematic or logical arguement) you're being moronic. grow up and prove to me that there is something resembling intelligence on your side of the arguement.

because you are just handwaving the reasons why it won't work away and going it works it works it works. your arguements(if you can even call them that) would be considered crap even by politicians standards.

well, with regards to the tens of thousands of ships, 1/ the have nowhere near the surface area of the pipes being proposed here. your proposal would cause several orders of magnitude more drag than all the ships in the world combined. 2/ the ships are not anchored to the sea floor so have a much smaller drag force 3/ there are just as many ships going in the other direction which cancels out the effect. read my post above. follow the advice. maybe learn something.

it will not speed back up to its origional speed though. because as it speeds up by viscous mixing with the rest of the stream it slows the rest of the stream down. not only that but the rest of the stream has been slowed down by viscous friction with the outside of the tunnels. and the fact you are extracting energy in the form of electricity just worsens the problem. and you expect this to increase the speed of the current? it really is ridiculous. this is why i asked if you are being deliberatly obtuse as it is quite inconcievable that you are unable to understand what is being said. you haven't even got a consistent idea first you want to cool down a massive volume of water, then it turns out you want to speed up the gulf stream and then you introduce generating energy from it as well. heres what you should do before you post again. 1/draft a consistent and coherent idea 2/think about what i have said to you in this thread 3/ rethink your idea 4/ redraft it. 5/ make a post. because so far i haven't seen anything other than 'it'll work it'll work' and if thats the limit of your arguements then its pointless as your not going to listen to anyone.

i never called you any names. and yes, all the water that enters them will come out the otherside but that doesn't change the fact that it will slow the current down. you can't avoid it. but you seem determined just to wave it off (even saying that the stream will get faster without you putting more energy in). there isn't much more to say and this is just degenerating into you saying 'it'll work' and me repeating the reasons i have gave for why it won't. there isn't anything left to say, you have been give plenty of reasons for why this won't work at all like you think it will but you haven't came up with a single arguement to support your claims. its ridiculous.

that will only result in it becoming even slower. are you being intentionally obtuse?

there are so many ways i can explain this to you. i'm going to make it as simple as possible. you have a current or water, you put a big massive barrier in its way(the pipes), you take a lot of energy out of the flow, the flow slows down. it isn't going to go at the same speed it was before the barrier. it just isn't going to happen. i don't get why you can see this. especially with your point of trying to increase the velocity of the gulf stream. to use an analogy, say the gulf stream is a car. you are suggesting we speed up by putting the brakes on. see how this seems like a really bad idea for speeding it up? thats because it is. same thing in your proposal except the car slowing down has more severe consequences than just the car gets slower. kind of like in the movie speed., the bus slows down and KABOOM! people die.

yes, but when it exits the tube the velocity will decrease drastically. the end result is you end up with a lower volumetric flowrate than before you put in the tunnels. you either put energy into the system to speed up the flow of water or you take energy out the system by slowing the flow of water. you can't do both.

no, you won't. you can't extract energy AND increase flow. these are exact opposite scenarios.

you want to speed up the gulf stream but you want to force it through giant tunnels (which will cause immense viscous drage forces) AND you want to extract eenergy from its motion. have you been listening? your disrupting one of the main cooling systems of the planet, not only that but what you want to do with it is paradoxical. do you want to speed it up or extract energy from it? either way there will be potentially catastrophic variances in weather patterns. not only that but you completely ignore the CAUSE of the heating. you aren't treating that so the earth will continue to heat up. can you really not see the constant paradoxes you're throwing up?

yeah, i always thought humans were social creatures. you, know how we tend to form groups, live in cities, have networks of friends, socialise in clubs and bars etc. if we weren't social creatures then social networking sites wouldn't work at all as they are primarily for being sociable. if we were all loners then we wouldn't see this sort of stuff. certainly not cities.

capn, by stopping the gulf stream(which is what would happen) he's actually preventing the redistribution of heat on a larger scale and focussing solely on a local redistribution.

1/ tunnels will slow the gulf stream down, and as you want to bring the water to the surface in order to cool it , it will have the effect of stopping it entirely. they will not speed up the gulf stream at all. 2/ but there is a chance it can be averted, your solution does for sure. 3/ that won't happen with what you propose.

we don't see abiogenesis every day because we have an oxidising atmosphere(compared to the reducing atmosphere present when life first formed). so organic molecules decompose before they can form complex organic molecules outside of a biological system. not to mention bacteria and other organisms eat the simple organic molecules.

1/ stopping the gulf stream will not cause global cooling, it will cause global heating. the gulf stream does this by carry heat from the equatorial regions to the north pole. where it cools, this cool water goes back south and cools the equatorial regions. 2/ the earths weather system is a very complex system. small changes can cause major distruction. disrupting the gulf stream is a MAJOR disruption. global weather patterns would become erratic until the currents settled into a new stable pattern which would take decades. 3/ it isn't okay to cause the mass migration of millions of people just to stop a few states from encountering some bad weather.

yes, but the cause of the catastrophic climate change is due to the disruption of thermohaline circulation. which is exacly what you would do in this scenario. not only that but you would also have to disrupt other currents in order to get the quantity of water necessary. not tomention that your plan wouldn't fix global warming at all. do you really think you can disrupt the largest oceanic current in the world and have no effect on the climates of other parts of the world?

umm, how did you get 'don't learn thermodynamics' from a suggestion to get a stronger foundation in the basics before adding in extra factors?

it should probably be noted that swansont did not give himself the physics expert title but it was the admins. they gave him the title because (appart from being a proffesional physicist) he has repeatedly shown himself to have expert knowledge in one or more fields of physics. so he does actually know what he's talking about. i've taken a few classes in (non-relativistic) thermodynamics and its clear to me that you don't have sufficient knowledge of it to start introducing complicating factors such as relativity.

so basically you are saying we should abandon accuracy for something more easily remembered. and the large calculations are not incomprehensible to the people who study it (or even just mathematics). i don't see the point. surely accuracy is more useful than it being easily understandable by a layman.