insane_alien

well, we would look really silly if we switched over to solar power and didn't have a way to store it to use it at night. or if entire cities needed to shutdown because it was a calm day. we can always use extra storage.

are you talking about distributed production perhaps?

you don't needto keep bumping it. we know about it. have done for years if you had bothered searching.

you would have to know whether these people actually measured the brightness using instruments or if they just fenagled it with sight or even compared pictures. if the former, then you would have to find out about atmospheric conditions. if the latter then it means nothing as human eyes can adapt to adjust apparent brightness and cameras can have different exposure lengths and even the response time of the film/sensor chip would affect it.

fission is very viable intermediate towards fusion you know. just bury the waste a kilometer down in some mountain and we'll be sorted.

exactly. we just called them catapults over here. but yeah, they mean the same.

do none of you kids have a hand catapult? they can easily produce 65mph and more. they're not too fussy about what you fire with them either. [edit] jeez that makes me sound old. but still, hand catapults are cool.

0.2 micron filter will be the finest one. this is a measurement of the space between the mesh fibres. the smaller this size the finer the filter.

well, technically it is the hydration enthalpy. a couple of water molecules will form stronger than average intermolecular bonds with the methanol molecules. the formation of these bonds releases energy which we detect throuhg the temperature rise.

water and methanol are mutually soluble. essentially it is the same thing that happens when you add sulphuric acid to water but with a liquid instead.

yes. that would be a fair description though in reality no electrons are produced, just shuffled around in an interesting manner.

and if there is this magical superfluid helium that manages not to freeze or evapourate and has the most massive liquid range ever observed(and i'm sure if i look up the phase diagram for it i will see that it doesn't) why don't we see more of it in volanic outgassings? this stuff will leak through anyhting. especially rocks. we detect helium4 for sure because that is produced by radioactive decay but we see no helium-3 which is specified in the 'article' which isn't even peer reviewed.

This does not explain it. if it were a convection cell, then it still wouldn't explain it as the heat input would be at the wrong part of the cycle. this actually makes your position weaker. but then has to be further compressed when it reaches the top to be feasible as a refrigeration loop. if it were a refrigeration loop is would be at its lowest pressure at the core to be effective. Ah, but didn't you say radioactive particles were forced outwards by the centrifuge effect? if they have time to percolate down that far then so does the rest of everything and wew would be in the situation the scientific consensus says we are in. this does not make sense, pressure and temperature are not interrelated like you are implying they are.(i'm not saying there isn't a relationsip hough, i know full well there is but it doesn't work like you imply it does) i realise this but context does not negate the laws of physics and chemistry. do you have any peer reveiwed articles on the subject? i suspect they will be easier to read and actually contain some maths that i can peruse. The article seems to be freely interchanging passive and active cooling cycles. this IS NOT ACCURATE. you cannot have a convection cycle working backwards and the active cooling has no possible mechanism(it requires at least a pump).

okay, so not only do we have sensible heat we need to transfer but we have the latent heat of a phasechange that needs to be carried away by a miraculous refrigeration network of helium three that still manages to cool the very center of the core and manages to remain liquid despite the enormous pressures under which it would freeze solid? this helium three is also at thousands of degrees centigrade and gets compressed as it moves outwards by some unknown action(certainly not pressures as a result of depth) and forms magma. now, forgive me if i seem a little skeptical about this but WHAT THE FRIKKIN HELL? this stuff is incoherent. it shows both a non understanding of thermodynamics, hydrostatic pressures, mass and energy balances, gravity and mechanical stresses. also, where is the energy input to drive this refrigeration cycle? we are not talking a simple convection system here but active cooling. seriously, read up on thermodynamics, it is only one of the many areas where this thing is utter tosh on.

okay, i gave reading the article a go. it starts off with the assumption that everything we know is wrong, throws in a few conspiracies abot experiments with diamond anvils saying they produced persisting hydrogen metal and so on and so forth. it would take me days to read through them all and weeks to sift out any bits of proper knowledge from the trash. please, quote specific parts of the article you think are relevant to the issues at hand. this does not mean the entire document but a few paragraphs and equations that describe the point. i still have seen no mechanism put forward for getting the core to near absolute zero without some sort of magical energy sink at the center. spontaneous heat transfer from a cold area to a hot area just does not happen. it violates several well founded theories in science. principles that i use nearly every day and that model reality to within the error range of my measurements. for heat to flow the wrong way in any case would cause these to be invalid and they shouldn't work at all.

i don't need to read an article to know when the laws of thermodynamics are being violated. in a solid system(which is the case here as we are dealing with metallic hydrogen) there is NO WAY to transfer heat from a cold place to a hot place. even if there was a way it would not be able to occur without considerable energy input(and seeing as the we are dealing with the core here, that one HELL of a lot of energy.) its both actually. forces are vectors. we know the net force would have to be outwards as stratification is happening upside down so that means gravity is overpowered and we know it has to have happened in a short timescale(at most a billion years) so it probably going to be a couple of g outward acceleration(and it will be because the earth would not hold together.

get yourself a laser(a laser pointer will work, consult a teacher to make sure it's okay) and a diffraction grating. shine the laser intothe grating and it will make a cool pattern that shows both constructive interference and destructive interference by bright and dark patches. maths and more info can be found on wikipedia.

ahh, the thermodynamics be damnd response. how exactly does heat flow from a colder region to a hotter region? well it would do wouldn't it as there is no way the hydrogen came together first and the solid stuff would fall through the hydrogen(which would still be gaseous) during formation. as to your big explanation of the centrifuge, you are forgetting the concept of net force. if the net force is outwards it will fly appart as the iron would not have the tensile strength to hold itself together(not to mention the pressure from the internal hydrogen) and the force of gravity would already be more than countered by the centrifugal force. also, big spinning spheres undergo MASSIVE stresses which would probably be sufficient to break the 'crust' of iron where it would be flung off into space. you seem to be picking and choosing when and where gravity and the centrifugal force act. they are always acting everywhere. without some sort of external inwards force the earth could not spin fast enough to act as a centrifuge AND stay together. not to mention in the early life of the planet where it was spinning somewhat faster it was mostly if not completely liquid due to bombardment and gravitational collapse.

my room is now entirely lit by LED's geek heaven. and only about 10W for the entire room. battey+ solar panel covers all my lighting needs. even up here in scotland. rest of the house is slowly going over to CF's

i'll start reading soon. It is not kept constant, it is in equilibrium. for the centrifuge effect to throw heavy stuff to the outside the centrifugal force will exceed gravitational attraction. thus forcing the system out of equilibrium and destroying the earth. go on, calculate the forces involved if you don't believe me. so, your saying that first the gravitational force is dominent and then centrfugal force is greater and the thing doesn't fly appart? please explain how this is physically possible. ??? explain further. totally didn't get that analogy. ahh but you have the issue of what happened to the heat of formation of the earth. all those collisions kept the entire earth liquid for quite a while. it also poses the question of how we accumulate so much hydrogen(or at least how it stayed unbonded) during the early stages of formation. which require centrifugal force to be greater than the gravitational force which makes the planet want to fly appart. so, ehh where is the evidence of these hydrogen ruptures, they should be pretty devastating and cause massive geological upheval as the entire crust collapses a bit. we're not talking the tiny little gnats sneeze that are volcanoes here. why is hydrogen not THE prevalent gas given off by volcanoes then, why don't we see an astoundingly massive hydrogen flame? also, this would still result in the core being far above absolute zero. it would be at hydrogens boiling point at that pressure minimum. probably on the order of a few hundred degrees c EDIT: okay, i wrote a little explanation of stratification for you. it explains why i am opposed to your centrifuge idea. right, so its obvious i'm going to have to explain in a little more detail. i have some time now so here goes: for stratification to occur there needs to be a force acting on all particles where denser particle will sink. If there are multiple forces acting onthe particle then they will move in the direction of the net force(combination of the two forces). do you get this? right so, normal situation on earth just now: outwards forces(centrifugal): negligble. inwards forces(gravity): dominant so, denser material ends up on the bottom. situation you are proposing requires heavier stuff to go outwards therefore the net force direction must be outwards.which would give rise to the conditions outwards forces: dominant inwards forces: overpowered so, this means that the general acceleration is outwards. if you placed a ball on the surface of this earth then it would be launched into space. the earth would NOT retain an atmosphere and would form a disk which ould fly appart on short order. do you get this? and remember, although on the short scale the crust seems fairly solid, it was not always her and it is very very flexible, infact on the global scale it acts like a plastic bordering on liquid. infact, it slowly rises and falls by about 3 metres due to the gravitational attraction of the moon pulling on it. it would not be able to hold the earth together in the event that centrifuge acction became apparent.

good luck on the exams dude. you'll be back though. this place is more addicitve than well, everything else.

i have read the wikipedia links, i have not read the cthisspace links as i could not find anything remotely realting to the discussion. yes, i know, gravitational force decreases with radius(makes it easier to chuck bits of the earth away) and the centrifugal effect increases with increased radius(making it easier to chuck bits away). i don't see how this supports you. could you provide some of the mathematics behind this, maybe you are trying to explain it in a way i can't comprehend. i understand the mathematics behind both gravitational attraction and the centrifuge effect, that would leave me in absolutely no doubt. feel free to apply relativistic maths to this if you need to, i am some what well versed in those as well. Also, you still haven't explained your claim that the earths core is near absolute zero in temperature.

so where does the heat that forms magma and lava come from. even if this is produced in the mantle the heat would transfer to the core. unless there was some sort of magical infinite heatsink at the core? uhh, no. the centrifuge effect will counteract gravity. for there to be inverse stratification the effect has to supecede gravitational attraction roughly on the same order as g. meaning, its going to fly appart unless you have it zipped up inside a rigid bubble. think about what you are saying, please, it'll help keep things scientific.

the temperature of the earths core, roughly 5000*C. the higher the temperature, the more pressure needed to sustain metallic hydrogen. gravitational force would have overcome the centrifuge effect. otherwise the earth would have destroyed itself literally by throwing itself appart. yes, please do some further reading. [EDIT] just another bit here while i was thinking. if the earth were somehow acting as a centrifuge(which is impossible) the pressure at the core would be a whole lot lower, depending on conditions, possibly even zero. this would cause the hydrogen to remain gaseous. and as the earth is slowing down(which it would do gradually) the solid matter would fall through the hydrogen to the centerand the hydrogen would be forced outwards where it would escape into space. again leading to what we have observed with seismic data. heavier stuff in the center and lighter stuff on the outside.

hydrogen makes you sound like a castrati too you know.