New idea; Use Nukes to cool Earth down

[HawkII]

11 hours ago, exchemist said:

"Kinetically charged" is meaningless, by the way. What do you mean by kinetic charge, and what is it that you think would be "kinetically charged"?   

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Now you need to explain what “kinetically charged” means.

The emitted Neutrons would be going fast.

I suppose things transfer their energy to things they interact with. So if a fast thing interacts with something, it would transfer its Kinetic charge. That was my line of thought  on that matter

Edited May 29, 2023 by HawkII

[Bufofrog]

26 minutes ago, HawkII said:

Kinetic charge

I think you mean kinetic energy, there is no such thing as a kinetic charge.

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

keep coming back to building as much clean energy as our most effective - and cost effective - climate change response.

It got a laugh from me, as one more of those gosh isn't that really doing it the hard way sorts of fixes.  (all the thermodynamic, ecological, and basic physics problems aside)  

One starts to marvel at how averse some folks are to clean energy technology.  The Right-Wing media seem to have decided that green innovation and tax incentives is some kind of Satanic conspiracy that may include the use of babies and pets as fuel. 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

One starts to marvel at how averse some folks are to clean energy technology.  The Right-Wing media seem to have decided that green innovation and tax incentives is some kind of Satanic conspiracy that may include the use of babies and pets as fuel. 

They will not accept that which they’ve been paid to reject. Shocking.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

The Right-Wing media seem to have decided that green innovation and tax incentives is some kind of Satanic conspiracy that may include the use of babies and pets as fuel. 

Sorry, no. We need to use babies to produce vaccines.

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, HawkII said:

The emitted Neutrons would be going fast.

I suppose things transfer their energy to things they interact with. So if a fast thing interacts with something, it would transfer its Kinetic charge. That was my line of thought  on that matter

OK but that would just heat the air up, surely?

[HawkII]

On 5/29/2023 at 4:06 PM, mistermack said:

 But how many neutron bombs would it take to make a significant dent in the CO2 level of the atmosphere? The OP quoted only 1 to 2 km radius for high energy neutrons. And CO2 is very thinly dispersed in the air, so it's doubtful if there would be a high-efficiency of conversion of CO2. 

So it's likely it would take a huge number of bombs, to make a noticeable difference to the CO2 level, even if it did work. I think it's likely that the heat released would outweigh the effect of any CO2 reduction.

I'm glad you asked. I actually ran the numbers. According to my Maths, the answer would be 454 + 1 per Year to make Carbon emissions at net 0. Any additional firing would start reducing the overall amount. So that's more than 1 per Day a Year.

16 hours ago, exchemist said:

OK but that would just heat the air up, surely?

Yes. But. I achieved my goal. I presented a new idea. Saw it had validity. Shown the floors. Have come up with an idea to address the room for improvement

Proton bomb

Star Wars weapon

 

 

Resistance bombers carry more than 1,000 proton bombs in racks that fill a modular magazine beneath the hull. On a bombardier’s signal, the bomb-bay doors open and the magnetized charges are drawn towards the target below.

Edited May 30, 2023 by HawkII

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, HawkII said:

I actually ran the numbers. According to my Maths

Let’s see the maths

[HawkII]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Let’s see the maths

1 ton = 907.185 kg

1 Litre = 1 cubic metre

PPM = mg/L

Current CO2 in Atmosphere = 421 PPM

Blast radius of Neutron Bomb 1000m

421 PPM * 1,000m = 421,000mg

                                         1000g /

                                              421 g

One mole of Carbon dioxide has a mass of 44.01g

421g * 44.01g = 18,528,21g

18.5kg * (Volume of Sphere) 4.18879*10⁹ = 77,492,615,000kg

77,492,615,000kg / 1 ton = 85,438,384 Tonnes of CO2

Each Neutron bomb removes 85,438,384 Tonnes of CO2

 

Quote

How many tonnes of CO2 are in the atmosphere per year?

Annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions worldwide from 1940 to 2022 (in billion metric tons)

Characteristic	Emissions in billion metric tons
2022*	37.49

37,500,000,000 / 85,438,384 =438 Neutron Bombs + 1 per Year

Wow; That's less than last time and that's only using 1000 metre blast radius instead of 2000 metre. Not bad. Not bad at all.

Edited May 31, 2023 by HawkII

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, HawkII said:

1 Litre = 1 cubic metre

No. 1 liter = 0.001 m³

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, HawkII said:

1 Litre = 1 cubic metre

A liter is 1000 cm^3. 1 m^3 is 10^6 cm^3

So right off the bat you’re off by three orders of magnitude

 

Quote

PPM = mg/L

no

Quote

Blast radius of Neutron Bomb 1000m

Source?

 

Your maths are atrocious

 

 

[mistermack]

The CO2 in the atmosphere is present in a tiny concentration, 0.04 %. You can't assume 100% efficiency in converting it when a bomb goes off. Have tests been done on that aspect? Do the neutrons only interact with CO2 ? There's far more nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. What happens when neutrons hit those molecules? 

[exchemist]

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The CO2 in the atmosphere is present in a tiny concentration, 0.04 %. You can't assume 100% efficiency in converting it when a bomb goes off. Have tests been done on that aspect? Do the neutrons only interact with CO2 ? There's far more nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. What happens when neutrons hit those molecules? 

In the course of this thread we have I think established that a neutron flux will not convert C12 to C14 to any significant extent. But it will indeed be produced from 14N and apparently 17O.

So what one would get is a net increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, created from N and O. Brilliant, eh?   

[HawkII]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Quote

Blast radius of Neutron Bomb 1000m

Source?

https://www.britannica.com/technology/neutron-bomb

Quote

Its blast and heat effects would be confined to an area of only a few hundred metres in radius, but within a somewhat larger radius of 1,000–2,000 metres the fusion reaction would throw off a powerful wave of neutron and gamma radiation.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

  Quote

PPM = mg/L

12 hours ago, swansont said:

no

 

Quote

parts per million

 

This is an abbreviation for "parts per million" and it also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L).

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

There's far more nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere. What happens when neutrons hit those molecules? 

Quote

The element oxygen has three stable isotopes: ¹⁶O, ¹⁷O, and ¹⁸O.

 

Quote

What are the isotopes of nitrogen?

 

 

Nitrogen has two stable isotopes, ¹⁴N and ¹⁵N, whose relative abundances in nature are approximately 99.64% and 0.35%, respectively.

It's all good; The Nitrogen and Oxygen Isotopes are mostly stable.

 

 

[mistermack]

29 minutes ago, HawkII said:

It's all good; The Nitrogen and Oxygen Isotopes are mostly stable.

That's not the point. Do they take energy from energetic neutrons? Considering that there are 2,390 parts of O2 and N2 to every one part of CO2 . So a neutron is that much more likely to hit something other than CO2. Does that slow the neutrons and reduce their energy? 

[HawkII]

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's not the point. Do they take energy from energetic neutrons? Considering that there are 2,390 parts of O2 and N2 to every one part of CO2 . So a neutron is that much more likely to hit something other than CO2. Does that slow the neutrons and reduce their energy? 

Quote

https://ehss.energy.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_9_4.html A more efficient approach is to artificially manufacture radioisotopes. This can be done by firing high-speed particles into the nucleus of an atom. When struck, the nucleus may absorb the particle or become unstable and emit a particle. In either case, the number of particles in the nucleus would be altered, creating an isotope.

Only mentions absorbing or emitting. So, Any singular Neutron hitting a target would slow down to a stop.

[TheVat]

 

[swansont]

“This is an abbreviation for "parts per million" and it also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L)”

This is true statement the does not imply that the two numbers would be equal. You would have to convert between them.

It’s like saying that an amount of money given in US dollars could be expressed as Japanese yen.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, HawkII said:

https://www.britannica.com/technology/neutron-bomb

 

 

It's all good; The Nitrogen and Oxygen Isotopes are mostly stable.

 

 

No it isn't. N14 can react with a neutron to generate C14 plus a proton. That is how C14 is generated in the atmosphere from the effect of cosmic rays. So your bomb is going to convert nitrogen into carbon, which will probably eventually form CO2 with some of the oxygen in the air.  

So it seems to me that - aside from all the other issues with this preposterous idea - your bomb is going to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere rather than decrease it. 

 

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, HawkII said:

https://www.britannica.com/technology/neutron-bomb

 

 

It's all good; The Nitrogen and Oxygen Isotopes are mostly stable.

 

 

Why would you believe they stay stable when bombarded with highly energetic neutrons ? 

[HawkII]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Why would you believe they stay stable when bombarded with highly energetic neutrons ? 

The research I have read doesn't mention otherwise

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

No it isn't. N14 can react with a neutron to generate C14 plus a proton. That is how C14 is generated in the atmosphere from the effect of cosmic rays. So your bomb is going to convert nitrogen into carbon, which will probably eventually form CO2 with some of the oxygen in the air.  

So it seems to me that - aside from all the other issues with this preposterous idea - your bomb is going to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere rather than decrease it. 

 

Ahhhhh... there's a but. A man made cataclysmic explosion is a brief moment. Whereas. Cosmic rays happen over time. As in. The bomb makes more Carbon Isotopes. Cosmic rays makes N14 into C14

Edited May 31, 2023 by HawkII

[swansont]

1 hour ago, HawkII said:

The research I have read doesn't mention otherwise

You need better - i.e. technical - resources. You cited and encyclopedia earlier. This topic is more advanced than a high-school report. Perhaps you’d be better served by asking questions than making a proposal that’s not really based on solid science.

[HawkII]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

You need better - i.e. technical - resources. You cited and encyclopedia earlier. This topic is more advanced than a high-school report. Perhaps you’d be better served by asking questions than making a proposal that’s not really based on solid science.

This Thread is pretty much finished. I'm just sticking around to answer peoples questions. This is the Encore phase