DavidJames

Y'al are great. I wonder if there is any information available regarding the hyperthermophillic bacteria being used to nutritionally sustain themselves through cannibalizing each other, thereby expanding their metabolic abilities.

I know I'm late on an answer here, but a course file will produce a powder like product when lightly rubbed over solid aluminum. As you get the little powder pile build up a bit, you keep taking it up with like a piece of paper and sprinkle it over the area you are filing, and it breaks it down even further as you continue to do it.

I'm not so sure this would show anyone that they were being sustained by nutrition from the rock though. Thanks Dave DNA existed before any cells formed? Is this an absolute fact, or conjecture? Okay then, regarding sulfur compounds etc, you're saying that the cells consumed these? Thanks, Dave So, I guess the 20th century bacterium that is sustained by nylon would be a moot issue, if nylon is an organic compound, right? David

Is there a well versed researcher here that can explain if there is any known living organism that consumes inorganic material as its only source of nutrition in today's world. I've heard it said that inorganic material had to be the only likely source of nutrition available to the first living cell, eons ago. Following are two answers I received from another part of SF. Can anyone add to it or comment on the answers?: Thanks, David James Chemoautotrophs (or chemotrophic autotroph), (Gr: Chemo (χημία) = chemical, auto (αὐτός) = self, troph (τροφιά) = nourishment) in addition to deriving energy from chemical reactions, synthesize all necessary organic compounds from carbon dioxide. Chemoautotrophs use inorganic energy sources, such as hydrogen sulfide, elemental sulfur, ferrous iron, molecular hydrogen, and ammonia. Most are bacteria or archaea that live in hostile environments such as deep sea vents and are the primary producers in such ecosystems. Evolutionary scientists believe that the first organisms to inhabit Earth were chemoautotrophs that produced oxygen as a by-product and later evolved into both aerobic, animal-like organisms and photosynthetic, plant-like organisms.[citation needed] Chemoautotrophs generally fall into several groups: methanogens, halophiles, sulfur oxidizers and reducers, nitrifiers, anammox bacteria, and thermoacidophiles. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Chemotroph Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #3 Today, 02:36 AM LawfulBlade Quark DavidJames, on 22 September 2011 - 10:50 PM, said: If by only source of nutrition, you mean that they have no source of carbon, then, no, that doesn't exist. All living things require carbon in their diets, as they, their proteins that they create, and all of their offspring, will be carbon-based as well. Many things (collectively called lithotrophs) can readily consume inorganic compounds, however, and some extremophiles can only live in inorganic evironments, like the boiling sulfur springs at Yellowstone. One such thing, an archaea called Thermus aquaticus, has attained fame as being the creator of an enzyme used in pcr, so you may already be familiar with them. Not sure if you've done this, but I think this question will gather more answers if you repost it in the biology section. Microbiologists work a lot with archaea, and they're of interest to geneticists as well, as well as anyone using pcr. Thank you [quote)

Hello, I live in the country in central Florida. The temperature drops to as low as 24 degrees F, maybe 15 nights during the winter months, and daytime temperatures are generally between 45 and 60. I'd like to build a greenhouse with plastic film that would be good for year round service, without using any electric or gas heating during the mild winters. I was thinking about driving a number of galvanized conduit pipes, with capped ends on the bottom of each pipe to keep them from filling with dirt, into the ground to allow heat to rise from the ground during winter months. I need to know if I'm deluded on this idea or if it's possible to do so. If it's possible, I'm wondering how deep I'd need to drive the pipes and how many I'd need per square foot of garden space. Would I have to dig a hole and take soil temperatures at different levels and compare them as I dig down, in order to get an idea of how deep the pipe would need to go? Thanks, David James

Hello, Does anyone know if there is any known living organism that consumes inorganic material as its only source of nutrition in today's world. I've heard it said that inorganic material had to be the only likely source of nutrition available to the first living cell, eons ago. Thanks, David James

Hi Y'al, Just wondering if anyone knows anything about the bright star in the eastern sky. I have only noticed it over the past ten years, but it is large and many others have noted its brightness too. Any info would be helpful

Thanks, I used them in an attempt to separate the two sides of conversation. Now that you say that, I know I'm not the only one who hates it when people write like that. Wow, what a concise overview of the issues! Everything is correct above, but I'm the one who would want to pay an engineer to do a preliminary assessment of the potential operation. Once I get a preliminary assessment I can approach them with it, since only rough cost numbers would be essential for them right now, and an engineer could do a rough workup, where the project would not likely have cost overruns by a million dollars. But yes, indeed, you hit z nail on z head. Thank you for your overview, and for showing me that the reverse system of conveyor lift buckets is already in place. I do think, however, that maybe I was thinking the steadily descending massive weight would produce more energy than what the other gentlemen are figuring on, and I'm not sure more than one has actually comprehended the same issues as you have concisely explained above. But what the hay, that's why I came here first to have y'al kick it around, and see if I'm altogether wet on my thoughts. Cheez - thanks again Chris. PS - Generally, you don't need to use your cap-lock or bold letters. In forums, typing in capital and bold letters is interpreted as yelling out your reply (the people you're replying to think you're yelling at them). Also, if you plan to use the forum very much it would be a good idea to figure out how to use the "quote" button at the top of your post box to separate what someone else has said from what your reply is. Edited to improve clarity Sorry that it sounds like I'm shouting. I am not shouting. I was using caps in place of the (quote), and I didn't pick up on this until just a while ago. No offense meant. Further, this is not a perpetual mobile, since it is being constantly fed by a finite energy source and only for a period of 10 to 12 years. I had not been responding in sequence to others' responses either, since there were so many responses and I did not expect it. Are you still angry and mad and upset and ready to kick me into elementary school? I probably couldn't blame you. My sister says she'll never again write an email to anyone, because of the lack of properly intended voice inflection that does not come out in writing, and she got someone so mad at her when no such issue should have come to fruition, had voice inflection tempered her statements. Thanks.

I GUESS EVERYBODY IS CONFUSED. I'M TRYING TO CAPTURE THOUSANDS OF TONS OF POTENTIAL GRAVITATIONAL POWER/FORCE, WHICH IS NOW BEING DUMPED OFF THE SIDE OF A MOUNTAIN AND THEREBY BEING WASTED. I WANT THE TOWER TO BE OPERATING ON THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF TONS OF ROCK THAT SLOWLY, SLOWLY DESCENDS IN BUCKETS ATTACHED TO A PERPENDICULAR CHAIN TOWER THAT HAS A CHAIN SPROCKET AT THE TOP OF THE TOWER AND A CHAIN SPROCKET AT THE BOTTOM. THE SPROCKET AT THE BOTTOM WOULD BE ATTACHED TO A DRIVE SHAFT GOING THROUGH IT AND INTO A GEARBOX THAT MULTIPLIES THE SPEED FAST ENOUGH TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY, ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE AS THE WIND TURBINE (12-18 RPM CONVERTED INTO 1600 - 1800 RPM). WE WANT TO SEE THE REVOLVING CHAIN AND BUCKETS PURPOSELY REVOLVE AS SLOW AS POSSIBLE, AND THE SLOWNESS MUST BE THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE RESISTANCE FROM DRIVING THE GEARBOX AND GENERATOR. AN ENGINEER ONCE TOLD ME THAT EVEN IF YOU HAVE A DRIVE SHAFT THAT ONLY TURNS 1 RPM, BUT IS AN ALMOST UNSTOPPABLE POWER, THAT POWER CAN BE HARNESSED BY MULTIPLYING IT THROUGH A SYSTEM OF GEARS. AGAIN, IT'S ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE AS A MODERN WIND TURBINE THAT CAN ONLY TURN THE MAIN DRIVE SHAFT AT 12 TO 18 RPM, AND THIS LOW, LOW RPM IS MULTIPLIED A HUNDRED TIMES BY THE SHAFT GOING THROUGH A MASSIVE GEARBOX AT THE TOP OF THE WIND TURBINE. MY PROBLEM IS BASICALLY THIS: WE HAVE NEARLY UNLIMITED STORED GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY AT THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN, BUT WE MUST INVENT A PRACTICAL METHOD OF CONVERTING IT INTO ELECTRICITY. BILLIONS OF TONS OF KINETIC ENERGY IS BEING WASTED BY THROWING IT OFF A CLIFF. I WANT TO CAPTURE THIS ENERGY ON THE WAY DOWN, AND THE BEST WAY I SEE TO DO IT IS ON A REVOLVING CHAIN TOWER WITH BUCKETS ATTACHED TO THE CHAIN AT ABOUT 20 FEET APART. WE MUST SLOW THE CHAIN TOWER DOWN AS SLOW AS POSSIBLE, BY USING THE RESISTANCE WE'D RECEIVE FROM A MASSIVE GEARBOX AND GENERATOR, SIMILAR TO THE SYSTEMS USED ON WIND TURBINES. I GUESS MY ANSWER MIGHT BE FOUND BY DISCOVERING THE AMOUNT OF WIND FORCE NECESSARY TO TURN THREE 150 FOOT BLADES ON A 2 OR 3 MW WIND TURBINE. THEN I NEED TO FIGURE OUT A SYSTEM THAT CAN GENERATE ELECTRICITY WITH THE LOWEST POSSIBLE RPM TO GIVE US ADEQUATE LOADING TIME AT THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN. I KNOW IT CAN BE DONE, BUT MOST EVERYBODY IS COMING UP WITH THESE CALCULATIONS THAT RELY ON A VERY FAST REVOLVING TOWER, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EMPLOY HERE. THINK "GEARBOX WITH LOW, LOW RPM INTAKE"

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT CALC MEANS TIL I GET THE "S", BUT BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE TRUCKS CAN UNLOAD AT A PRETTY FAST RATE, EVEN FOUR AT A TIME, SO THEIR LOADS WOULD GO INTO A HORIZONTAL "CONVEYOR BELT WELL" AND ALLOW US TO MANAGE WEIGHTS GOING INTO THE BUCKETS. USING YOUR CALCS (I think), JUST ROUGHLY SPEAKING, WE'D HAVE ABOUT 2.5 MINUTES TO LOAD A BUCKET (building a unit only 10% the size of the 2MW), WHICH WOULD BE ALMOST A MINUTE MORE THAN WE'D NEED FOR A SMALLER UNIT. ANYWAY, THIS IS WHERE THE SPECULATION HAS TO BE TURNED INTO ACTUAL CALCULATION BY AN ENGINEER, IN ORDER TO ADDRESS YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. NOT SURE WE'RE ALTOGETHER ON THE SAME TRACK, BUT WE'RE CLOSE. IF THE BUCKETS ARE 18 TO 20 FEET APART, AND I WANT ONLY 18RPM ON THE SHAFT, AND SAY THE SHAFT IS 2 TO 4" diameter (the shaft drive sprocket teeth being turned by the chain should be close to a non-factor with diameter, and the bigger the shaft size needs to be, we'd have to space the fewer buckets further apart on the chain drive and make them carry a heavier load), since I need at least one minute to load a bucket. ANYWAY, THE DRIVE SHAFT GOES THROUGH THE BOTTOM AND/OR TOP CHAIN SPROCKETS (which means the drive shaft is at right angle to the tower, - WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, SINCE EVERY REVOLUTION USES A FOOT OR LESS OF THE CHAIN DRIVE, GIVING ME 18RPM between bucket dumps. BUT, THESE ARE ALL SUCH A SPECULATIVE CALCS AT THIS POINT ANYWAY, AND THERE'S LIKELY SOME CONFUSION BETWEEN WHAT EACH IS RECEIVING IN UNDERSTANDING OF THE OTHER'S STATEMENTS. I NEEDED SOMEONE TO GIVE ME A DOSE OF REALITY BEFORE EVEN VENTURING OUT TO GET PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FROM AN ENGINEER ON SUCH A STRANGE IDEA. HEY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR THE NEXT DAY OR TWO? ANYWAY, YOU'VE SHOWN ME THAT A POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF TIME BETWEEN DUMPS MIGHT POSE A PROBLEM, SO MAYBE PART OF THE ANSWER WOULD INCLUDE USING A UNIT THAT CAN OPERATE ON THE LOWEST POSSIBLE RPM WITH A BIGGER GEAR BOX TO GIVE US THE MINIMUM 1500-1800 RPM TO RUN A GENERATOR. ANYWAY, IF YOU DON'T ANSWER THIS, THANK YOU EVER SO MUCH FOR ALL THE INFO. WISH I HAD HALF YOUR EDUCATION. JUST GREAT. I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAPPENS ONCE AN ENGINEER PERFORMS SOME SPECIFIC PRLIMINARY CALCS THIS YEAR OR NEXT? THANKS AGAIN, David James

The maximum energy you generate will be mgh, i.e. for each kilogram and each meter it drops, you generate 9.8 Joules. If it's dropping at constant speed (e.g. because it's turning a turbine) the power will be mgv. 1 kilogram falling at 1 m/s generates 9.8 Watts, for as long as it can fall. THE CHAIN TOWER WILL BE CONSTANTLY TURNING WITH A CONSISTENT TOTAL WEIGHT OF ALL THE LOADED BUCKETS ON THE DESCENDING SIDE WHICH WILL SLOWLY TURN A DRIVE SHAFT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TOWER AT A STEADY 18RPM (SAME AS A WIND TURBINE OPERATION THAT GOES TO A GEARBOX). WE WILL KEEP THE BUCKETS LOADED WITH THE SAME WEIGHT CONSTANTLY, WITH WHATEVER CONSTANT TOTAL WEIGHT DISTRIBUTED EVENLY IN EACH OF THE BUCKETS TO CREATE TREMENDOUS GRAVITATIONAL POWER TO DO THE REQUIRED WORK OF TURNING THE DRIVE SHAFT. ONE BUCKET WILL BE LOADED AT THE TOP OF THE TOWER (AT THE TOP OF THE CLIFF) WHILE ONE BUCKET WILL BE DUMPING ITS LOAD INTO A TRUCK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE 100 FT CLIFF AS THE BUCKET GOES UP THE ASCENDING SIDE OF THE TOWER. The speed of the buckets will be dictated by the mechanics of the turbine, but for simplicity let's assume 2 m/s and round up g from 9.8 to 10. The mass you want on the descending side is m = P/gv or 100,000 kg, i.e 100 metric tons. A faster drop means less mass. I WANT THE SPEED OF THE DRIVE SHAFT/SPROCKET TO MATCH THE SPEED OF A WIND TURBINE (ONE TURBINE I SAW ONLY REQUIRES 18RPM ON THE DRIVE SHAFT THAT GOES INTO A GEARBOX AND THEN TO A GENERATOR). BUT, OUR PROJECT WILL ALLOW A CONSTANT SPEED WITH NO VARIATION IN RPM AS WITH A WIND TURBINE, BECAUSE THE CHAIN WILL BE CONSTANTLY TURNING THE DRIVE SHAFT/SPROCKET UNDER THE SAME WEIGHT OF THE TOTAL DESCENDING LOAD OF ALL BUCKETS COMBINED. Of course, all of this ignores the energy you expend bringing the rocks in and dispersing them at the bottom. IOW, there's a reason we do this with water and not rocks. ACTUALLY, THIS WILL SAVE TIME AND MONEY, SINCE THE TRUCKS NOW DUMP THEIR LOADS OVER THE CLIFF AND THEN THE ROCK HAS TO BE RELOADED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CLIFF FOR TRANSPORT TO PROCESSING. THIS IS ALL BEING DONE PRESENTLY IN ORDER TO KEEP ALL THE TRUCKS AT THE TOP OF THE CLIFF FROM HAVING TO TAKE A VERY SLOW 10 MILE ROUND TRIP THROUGH WINDING HILLS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM LEVEL OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE ROCK IS TRANSPORTED OUT TO PROCESSING. I'M AN AMATEUR, SO YOUR CALCS ARE TOUGH FOR ME TO FIGURE OUT. CAN YOU SAY IT IT DUMMIE LANGUAGE. WE CAN BUILD THE PROJECT WITH ANY SIZE BUCKETS AND WE COULD LOAD THEM WITH ANY SIZE LOADS NECESSARY, SO YOU CAN FIGURE OUT A SCENARIO USING YOUR OWN NECESSARY CONSTANT TOTAL DESCENDING WEIGHT THAT TURNS THE SHAFT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TOWER AT 18RPM. WE NEED TO KNOW IF IT WOULD GENERATE ENOUGH ELECTRICITY OVER A 10 OR 12 YEAR PERIOD TO MAKE IT WORTH WHILE. THAT'S WHY I GAVE THE TORQUE INPUT NECESSARY TO RUN A 2 MEGA WATT TURBINE AT 18RPM. THE SPECS ON THE WIND TURBINE SAID 980 - 1,250 kNm and RATIO 40:1 - 125.1 tHANK YOU, David James

I want to consider an idea for a rock mine operation to generate electricity for 10 or more years. There's a constant row of trucks that dump loads off a cliff about a 100 foot drop to a lower level. Would it be possible to build a chain driven tower with huge buckets on the chain drive that are spaced apart around the chain drive so that each truck dumps its huge load into a shoot that slides rock into the bucket at the top of the cliff, and about 7 full buckets would be full at all times on the desending side (empty buckets would be returning on the other side), and the chain drive would be turning a drive shaft at about a steady 18 rpm (same as a large wind turbine) and the drive shaft would be connected to a wind turbine type gearbox, which drives a large generator @ 1600 - 1800 rpm? As an example, a 2 MegaWatt wind turbine "input torque says 980 - 1.250 kNm" (whatever that is), so I'm wondering how much tonnage of rock would have to be on the desending side of the chain tower at all times to match that? I'm seeking a common denominator to be able to roughly estimate, for now, how big a generator we could install to serve the mine operations and feed back electric into the grid. I know a 2 Mega Watt wind turbine might require much more tonnage to turn it, but any size system would be better than wasting all this tremendous kinetic energy (thousands of tons daily). I know this is tough, since this is a new concept, and it may be out of your line to roughly estimate, but if you can't help me, who in the forum might be able to help? Thanks, David James