An unknown source of planetary energy?

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Moreno said:

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 chemic composition or yet unknown form of matter which is one of the constituents which serves under specific physical conditions as an energy generation catalyst.

 

Now I understand, you should understand that cherry picking data and dismissing anything you cannot imagine as made up will get none of us anything. While I agree that such a thing would be wonderful, suggesting that others must be wrong doesn't make your ideas anymore likely. 

Look at it this way, YEC, young earth creationists often think that disproving evolution it proves that yec is true. Nothing could be further from the truth. If they could disprove evolution, and this would seem to be highly improbable, would not by default mean they are correct. You have to find evidence that supports your idea, not try to cast doubt on the ideas of others. The idea that the heat production of planets is not well understood in no way supports your assertions. 

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, Moreno said:

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.

Whew!! That's a sigh of relief, as I just came across some silly link from creation ministeries that these assumed mysteries, are implications for special creation. I won't even give them nuts the satisfaction of giving that link.

[Moreno]

59 minutes ago, beecee said:

Whew!! That's a sigh of relief, as I just came across some silly link from creation ministeries that these assumed mysteries, are implications for special creation. I won't even give them nuts the satisfaction of giving that link.

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

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Moreno said:

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

Yes and this isn't it. 

PS; Even there though it needs to undergo proper scientific scrutiny.

[Area54]

@Moreno - I would welcome a direct response to any of the refutations to your alleged anomalies that have been provided by myself or other members. Your failure to do so thus far is against the spirit of this discussion forum. Throwing out further supposed examples without completing discussion of the intial ones is not an acceptable means of making an argument. I trust you will correct this deficiency in your next post.

[Moreno]

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

@Moreno - I would welcome a direct response to any of the refutations to your alleged anomalies that have been provided by myself or other members. Your failure to do so thus far is against the spirit of this discussion forum. Throwing out further supposed examples without completing discussion of the intial ones is not an acceptable means of making an argument. I trust you will correct this deficiency in your next post.

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...

Edited March 3, 2018 by Moreno

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

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...

If the emboldened sentence is what you wished to know then you should have opened with that enquiry. Instead you produced a series of statements relating to the thermal characteristics of the planets that were inaccurate, either through misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation.

These inaccuracies were dealt with by myself and other members. At no time, that I could see, did you address our corrections. Instead you piled in with other, similar statements that were also misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or misrepresentations. This technique, when used by creationists, is called a Gish Gallop. It is not a sincere method of discussion.

We've moved on quite a way since the time of Lord Kelvin. He was unaware of radioactive decay. There is no issue to account for the current heat budget of the solid Earth. Sure there are details to be worked out, but details are exactly that - details. They are not matters of fundamental uncertainty. What makes you think there is an issue?

And you are right - it should not be too difficult to work out the numbers. It's so basic that you should be able to find it in any relevant textbook. Have you looked? I mean, you've come up with all these links that supposedly represent a problem for the conventional view (all of which are misunderstandings, misinterepretations, or misrepresentations) , yet you can't find this basic information. That strikes me as peculiar.

Moreno, if you sense a tension in my posts you would be correct. I don't feel you are dealing honestly with the membership with your style of presentation> I apologise if this is a faulty impression, but that's how you are coming across. You say you want a concrete discussion. So do I. It's time for you to deliver.

[Moreno]

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

[Essay]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

The problem of anomalous heat production ...a star needs to have 13 Jupiter masses in order for ...nuclear fusion reaction to start.  Yet ...some brown dwarfs with 7 ...are nonetheless quite warm.

What anomalous heat production?!?   Does my edit of your post change some extra meaning that you are trying to convey, which I have missed?

Do you see any contradiction in those two descriptions (of the limits for a “nuclear fusion reaction to start”)?  “Quite warm” temperatures are very different from nuclear fusion temperatures, in somewhat the same way that single digits are different from double digits, aren’t they? 

...and now for a non-rhetorical question:

If you could prove (or even plausibly suggest) the existence of, and/or any mechanism for, some new source of energy that heats massive objects, do you think it could be used as a new source of energy for civilization, or are you just wondering for academic reasons?

~

[Moreno]

1 hour ago, Essay said:

1) What anomalous heat production?!?   Does my edit of your post change some extra meaning that you are trying to convey, which I have missed?

Do you see any contradiction in those two descriptions (of the limits for a “nuclear fusion reaction to start”)?  “Quite warm” temperatures are very different from nuclear fusion temperatures, in somewhat the same way that single digits are different from double digits, aren’t they? 

...and now for a non-rhetorical question:

2) If you could prove (or even plausibly suggest) the existence of, and/or any mechanism for, some new source of energy that heats massive objects, do you think it could be used as a new source of energy for civilization, or are you just wondering for academic reasons?

~

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...

Edited March 4, 2018 by Moreno

[Area54]

4 hours ago, Moreno said:

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

So, I take it from this that you have absolutely no intention to engage in an honest discussion. You refuse to address those posts that have refuted your faulty assertions, or explained your misunderstandings. Instead of acknowledging these explanatory posts you pile in with further misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations. (For convenience, I shall refer to these in future as lies.) It seems clear to me your approach is fundamentally dishonest and the persistent manner in which you are applying it is no more than trolling. Consequently I have reported your behaviour in this thread.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moreno, if you don't understand something about mainstream science, please ask questions.

If you want to speculate based on mainstream science, with supportive evidence and a minimum of assertions, please post in Speculations.

And if you want to make up your own assertive guesswork as to what's being observed in nature, please do it somewhere else. This is a science discussion forum.

Please address the points other members have made regarding your idea, or the thread will be closed. Remember, questions help us learn.

 

[swansont]

On 3/2/2018 at 5:56 AM, Moreno said:

 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.

I'm not sure I understand the objection here. Earth's volcanic activity is with rock, which has a far higher melting point than ice does. Which means it is not clear that is has to have to have a higher concentration of radioactive elements in order to account for the effects.

[beecee]

22 hours ago, Moreno said:

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.

Sure you do! You have been given many links that list valid explanations to the perceived problems you imagine, yet you seem to ignore them. And while at this time there maybe some gaps within our knowledge, you are offering no alternative.  And one is certainly taken aback by some of the precise figures you mention in supposed support of the anomalies you imagine. Again, one observing your confusing style, could be forgiven for imagining you trying to insert a "god of the gaps" type of scenario. I hope I am wrong with that and apologise if I am.

 

[Moreno]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I'm not sure I understand the objection here. Earth's volcanic activity is with rock, which has a far higher melting point than ice does. Which means it is not clear that is has to have to have a higher concentration of radioactive elements in order to account for the effects.

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. 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Moreno, if you don't understand something about mainstream science, please ask questions.

If you want to speculate based on mainstream science, with supportive evidence and a minimum of assertions, please post in Speculations.

And if you want to make up your own assertive guesswork as to what's being observed in nature, please do it somewhere else. This is a science discussion forum.

Please address the points other members have made regarding your idea, or the thread will be closed. Remember, questions help us learn.

 

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.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Moreno said:

You forgot that Pluto's temperature is -233 C

I did not. (It's not a good bet to try and deduce such things) And that's surface temperature.

3 minutes ago, Moreno said:

and ice at that temperature would behave like rock.  

"behave like rock" refers to mechanical effects, not thermal ones. Ice will still melt at the same temperature, assuming the same pressure.

Rocks melt at at least 600ºC (some require higher temperatures), IOW, at least 550 degrees hotter than the surface.

Ice melts at 0ºC. So do you want to argue that ice takes a larger temperature swing to melt than rock? i don't see how the math is going to work in your favor.

[Moreno]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I did not. (It's not a good bet to try and deduce such things) And that's surface temperature.

"behave like rock" refers to mechanical effects, not thermal ones. Ice will still melt at the same temperature, assuming the same pressure.

Rocks melt at at least 600ºC (some require higher temperatures), IOW, at least 550 degrees hotter than the surface.

Ice melts at 0ºC. So do you want to argue that ice takes a larger temperature swing to melt than rock? i don't see how the math is going to work in your favor.

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

[Sensei]

On 1.03.2018 at 6:34 PM, Moreno said:

There are mountain picks peaks on Pluto which are estimated to reach 3500 km.

?? Mountain peaks with 3500 km?

Diameter of Pluto is ~2376 km..

 

[Essay]

14 hours ago, Moreno said:

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...

I don't see what any of those facts and figures mean, in terms of anomalous heat, but is anybody saying "never?"

Whatever discrepancies you might wonder about …there are enough ways to generate heat, between gravity and pressure and the Coriolis effects of rotation as well as chemistry and turbulence, to account for a lot of ways to imagine generating some extra heat—or at least retaining and recirculating some of the heat of formation.  Just think about how complex are the thin handful of atmospheric and oceanic layers here on Earth—and the tectonic layers have their own complexities as well.

There is a lot of energy around to capture, here on Earth, but it’s tricky; just like it would be on any planet, it is hard to get a good return for your efforts and investment.  And in the long run, whatever you extract from the system is going to weaken the system you extract it from.  In a sustainable biosphere that is likely to become a problem, in the long run.  But thinking about ways to become less dependent on fossil fuels (reservoirs of chemically stored sunlight), or to offset the negative consequences of their usage, is a worthy goal; so if that is what you’re doing, keep it up!

~

[Moreno]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

?? Mountain peaks with 3500 km?

Diameter of Pluto is ~2376 km..

 

A mistyping. Farther reads 3500 meters. 

2 hours ago, Essay said:

I don't see what any of those facts and figures mean, in terms of anomalous heat, but is anybody saying "never?"

Whatever discrepancies you might wonder about …there are enough ways to generate heat, between gravity and pressure and the Coriolis effects of rotation as well as chemistry and turbulence, to account for a lot of ways to imagine generating some extra heat—or at least retaining and recirculating some of the heat of formation.  Just think about how complex are the thin handful of atmospheric and oceanic layers here on Earth—and the tectonic layers have their own complexities as well.

There is a lot of energy around to capture, here on Earth, but it’s tricky; just like it would be on any planet, it is hard to get a good return for your efforts and investment.  And in the long run, whatever you extract from the system is going to weaken the system you extract it from.  In a sustainable biosphere that is likely to become a problem, in the long run.  But thinking about ways to become less dependent on fossil fuels (reservoirs of chemically stored sunlight), or to offset the negative consequences of their usage, is a worthy goal; so if that is what you’re doing, keep it up!

~

Possibly. I remember a decades ago some researchers were in hunt of the "cold fusion" and some of them still are. 

[Moreno]

3 hours ago, Essay said:

 And in the long run, whatever you extract from the system is going to weaken the system you extract it from.  

Not necessarily if we regard entire universe as a system. If this is infinite, we can extract something from it infinitely.

[Essay]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

Not necessarily if we regard entire universe as a system. If this is infinite, we can extract something from it infinitely.

If you can find something like gravity or an aether that is connected to that infinity, then sure ...it is part of your local system, but in reality....

All you need to do is tap into the unlimited supply of gravititational waves washing over us daily from every corner of the universe.  It's already started (plus the new reports about how "scientists have detected gravitational waves from merging neutron stars"), but as with radio waves, it is hard to collect enough energy to be useful as a power source.

~

edit: but with the expanding universe, I'm not sure how infinitely long you could do that. 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Essay

[Moreno]

17 minutes ago, Essay said:

If you can find something like gravity or an aether that is connected to that infinity, then sure ...it is part of your local system, but in reality....

All you need to do is tap into the unlimited supply of gravititational waves washing over us daily from every corner of the universe.  It's already started (plus the new reports about how "scientists have detected gravitational waves from merging neutron stars"), but as with radio waves, it is hard to collect enough energy to be useful as a power source.

~

edit: but with the expanding universe, I'm not sure how infinitely long you could do that. 

We are still not in the state of "heat death". Possibly it means some forces in Universe reverse entropy. 

[Essay]

Possibly, or possibly not. 

Either way, here and now there are many ways to leverage the forces around us to create and store energy.  We could build houses to extract energy from the daily cycle of expansion and contraction the materials go through as temperatures change.  They even have expansion/contraction joints in bridges, but those aren't designed as power capturing devices.  Our shoes, with every step we take, could be charging up our devices.  Maybe someday....  

~

Edited March 5, 2018 by Essay
add links

[Moreno]

4 hours ago, Essay said:

edit: but with the expanding universe, I'm not sure how infinitely long you could do that. 

Can we harness the very expansion of Universe? For example if we capture some light from stars that became violet shifted relative to us, doesn't it mean we harness it?