insane_alien

yeah, i second YT. it will actually heat up the air (not really noticable in a room with an average fan). I done an experiment on this back in high school where there is a small box with a fan in it (the motor is outside the insulated box to stop it heating it up) and if you turn it on and watch the temperature, it rises. although, if you scaled it up to a 5m by 5m by 5m room your looking at a 4m diameter fan spinning at mach 2 at its edges.

well, start of with the molecular formula of arsenic oxide. <biggest hint in the universe then think about what a gas is.

For the falling object, first the potential enrgy would be turned into kinetic energy(and its mass would stay the same) but if it hit something to make it stop it would lose energy as heat (or something) and would decrease in mass according to m=E/c^2 however, there would still be the same number of massive particles, just in a lower state.

chernobyl was a combination of bad design and stupid operators who removed a bunch of safety measures in order to carry out a test. then, they moved the control rods the wrong way and made the reactor unstable. if they left the safety measures in place it wouldn't have went kaboom.

i think its faked. when he's on the wave it looks like its not actually part of the river. plus, if someone actually flung that amount of dynamite into a river in a town don't you think it would have been plastered over the news . also, the amount of dynamite used for that looks suspiciously small for the amount of water it threw up.

yeah, its a plasma. but i was assuming jaques meant that if you had a tank/block of one of the elements, could you extract energy. so jaques, elaborate. make everything crystal clear.

kind of, it does work in that you can transfer power without wires (transformers are a prime example) but its really not practical the way tesla wanted to implement it.

well, i was kind of assuming that the elements would be in their natural state rather than monatomic.

using compressed air to do work.

if you only have a single element you will not get any energy out of it (except in extreme conditions where the pressure is great enough for fusion.

you can't compare quantum computers and normal computers, they have totally different architectires and basic principles(not that there is anything basic about quantum computing) also, the current largest supercomputer works ona clock of 800MHz i believe. clockrate has zilch to do with how much raw data it can process. The fact that it has several thousands of these processors is what gives it the oomph. Super computers should be entering the PFLOP range next year(maybe this year) which is a huge amount. we won't be able to work out quantum computers like this since they can already do things these ones can't in a few clock cycles.

chemistry breaks down at those temperatures, there is already oxygen in the sun its just a few hundered thousand kelvin too hot to form molecules.

okay, if something was producing 1W/s (just to keep the math simple) at time=0 s it would produce 0 W at t=1 it would produce 1 W at t=2 it would pruduce 2 W and so on. if it produces 1 W at t=0 it would produce 1 W at t=1 , 1W at t=2 , 1W see the difference. The fact you don't understand the basic units(in either imperial or metric) shows that you proably don't have that good an idea of what you're implying. stick to what it said in the article. minto wheels are impractical, to get any really usefull power out of it you need it to be big, very big. and its really really not that efficient. most of the vapour condenses in the pipe and runs back to the origional container.

i also said if there, hypothetically, was a surface to land on. its still going to take more energy to get there.

You would think that wouldn't you. okay, first of all, assuming that the spacecraft is in orbit around the sun (like the earth, we're just ignoring it for simplicity) it requires less of a change in energy to move an orbit out than it does to move it in closer, look at a potential energy diagram and you'll see this. This means that it requires more energy to land on the sun than it does to get to pluto. and then you have to slow down to land. thats a whole 273 km/s delta-V right there, thats going to need a few big rockets. for pluto it would only be a few km/s which is very achievable. If you add in the earth then you add on about the same energy for each one. look up hohmann tranfers as well.

can you please use proper units, i didn't see any mention of the power output of a minto wheel increasing over time. also, the definitions of free energy and unlimited energy in this case have been defined. Free energy in this case means that work can be genrated without the expenditure of energy. unlimited, means that the free enrgy device will run for ever.

its still, not unlimited energy. it requires an energy source to work. It is still more efficient to use a solar panel.

its not really a free energy device. its a form of solar power. the energy you get off it comes from the sun. it doesn't move very fast and has a very low efficiency. solar panels work a lot better for ther same purposes. You could at least make sure you know what your talking about before you start claiming things are what they aren't. You can't get energy from nowhere, it just doesn't happen.

does it? i've never seen anything about that. can you post a link? I always seen it as an electrostatic version of newtons laws of gravity, in that they can work for large charges and spheres.

okay, jacques, you cannot land on the sun, there are more than a few reasons for it. 1. its damn hot 2. there is no surface to land on 3. its really damn hot 4. it actually takes a hell of a lot of energy to get there. its more difficult to get to the sun than pluto 5. we don't have any rockets with enough power to land on the sun even if there hypothetically was a surface.

umm, if you actually look at the laws of thermodynamics you'll see that there is no way to turn 300W of heat into 300W of electricity. its just not possible.

okay, 1. the sun is gaseous(okay, plasma) there is no surface. 2. passive cooling could work but not for as long. 3. getting back out is a big problem 4. you would be in contact with the solar systems biggest power source, lack of power is NOT going to be a problem.

ceramic would vapourize, the only way would be some sort of active cooling.

yes, there is. in order for the noble elements to form liquids, there must be some form of molecular(atomic in this case) attraction. if there is an attraction, then the surface atoms are pulled preferentially towards the rest of the liquid. Granted in the case of the noble gases this firce hapens to be very very weak but it IS there.

i didn't say absorb i said adsorb. its a different thing. most metals will adsorb a lot of chemicals just with different packing ratios. i don't think lead adsorbs much very well, hence that lack of lead catalysts.