calbiterol Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 This is becoming an ever frustrating discussio. Each time I lay down a concept or idea for a quick example that branches off from the main idea the response I get is corrections and lectures, and I find it likewise amusing! I will admit I don't have the time to read the second half of your post (plus I'm dead tired), but know this, at least: your overall concept of using everyday things where energy is wasted as a part of energy recycling is completely sound. There are many great ways to implement this principle. The only thing being picked apart are your specific examples. Other than that, there isn't really anything wrong, except for some practicality issues here and there.
bascule Posted October 5, 2005 Posted October 5, 2005 This is no solution for energy problem. But i agree that in some areas it's possible to lover energy loses There's a few, but we just aren't a point where they're technologically feasible. (Plasma) Fusion will likely get us there one day. If not, self-replicating nanorobots that transform the entire surface of the moon into an enormous photovoltaic array combined with microwave transmitting arrays which beam the power back to Earth could provide a permanent solution. Now imagine what kind of high energy physics you could do if those self-replicating nanorobots could help you build a particle accelerator the circumference of the moon... But yeah, all a dream for now
arkain101 Posted October 5, 2005 Author Posted October 5, 2005 ^^ Hahaha, I like that vision there! Yes, there are a few ways to lower energy loss and get some recycling going on. There is no time like the present to implicate this princible into dailey life. We are damaging our earth every second of everyday. The industrial revolution hasnt even been here that long at massive funcitoning scale. Less than a lifetime! Today, the industrial fossil fuel burning is a ever increasing problem. The problem will continually increase fold after fold shortening the outlook of safe time bit by bit. If we get a start happening soon as possible, maybe 1 generating power station per state as a start that would be enough to get the interest involved from the results. Then we are on the right track and this type of concept will get more interest and technologies aswell as ideas will flourish to better this princible in everyway. I can not see anything significant as an alternative source being implimented in a very short time scale. I understand there is funding and costs and politics and this and that, but we are going to have to make decisions sooner and sooner before we run into consequences. Which will most likely lead to some kind of depression and rebellion. Time is waisting and I am trying to get this interest spreading around. At this point I see it as the only option to offer time.
JonM Posted October 6, 2005 Posted October 6, 2005 What about nanotechnology? what can this do in the future to improve our sources of energy?
arkain101 Posted October 6, 2005 Author Posted October 6, 2005 Are you asking because you have no clue? or whats going on there.
JonM Posted October 7, 2005 Posted October 7, 2005 I am just wondering what the advancement of nanotech would bring, in relation to sources of energy...?
arkain101 Posted October 7, 2005 Author Posted October 7, 2005 Many many things! I was just reading the other day that through nano technology they figured out how to make computer chips very small that are able send instantanious messages or radio kind of frequency to their neighboring chips, this would elimate resistance and distance of information travel, immensly speeding up computers! I know it is more complicate than that but, nano tech is making some really interesting stuff. Like super tech Carbon Capacitors that can store tons and tons of electrical power and release it through low voltage and high voltage as a never ending instantanious rechargeable batter.
marklar Posted October 17, 2005 Posted October 17, 2005 What about people that go to the gym? I wonder if treadmills (not electric ones obviously), cycles, rowing machines and even weight machines could have generators fitted to produce a meaningful amount of power. Cycles / rowing machines are probably most suited but a weight machine is the easiest to calculate: if a 20kg weight is lifted 50cm every 2 seconds (1 up, 1 down) it could generate 200N x 0.5m / 2s = 50 watts as it falls (assuming 100% efficiency). Not brilliant, let's try a cycle. A cycle simulating a 1:100 gradient for a 75kg person travelling at 10m/s could generate 750N x 1m / 10s = 75W. Hmm, better and more sustainable. If it was enough, you could make gym membership free and just sell the power. Unfortunately assuming electricity costs of $0.08/KWh (the only figure I could find) you'd make 0.6 cents an hour cycling.
DV8 2XL Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Well I sill contend the only technology mature enough to come on line and scale in time to meet our energy needs is nuclear fission. Breeding reactor can produce the fuel we need from thorium if and when cheap supplies of uranium run out, and standard designs can lower the cost and time-to-market.
DV8 2XL Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Well I sill contend the only technology mature enough to come on line and scale in time to meet our energy needs is nuclear fission. Breeding reactor can produce the fuel we need from thorium if and when cheap supplies of uranium run out, and standard designs can lower the cost and time-to-market.
Apeofman Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Well I sill contend the only technology mature enough to come on line and scale in time to meet our energy needs is nuclear fission. Breeding reactor can produce the fuel we need from thorium if and when cheap supplies of uranium run out, and standard designs can lower the cost and time-to-market. Mankind is very clever at devising ways to satisfy it's desire to live in comfort. Unfortunately, Man's in built self interest is also clever at dismissing the need to tidy up the mess Man's ways make's. Some of mankind, are arrogant enough to believe that a God will come to clear up the planet, and provide their every need. Others believe God's angel, Nature; will resolve the planet's problems, the way it usually does when it is disturbed. Extinction! Ape numbers are like yeast to wine, nearly fermented. Latest news from "New Scientist" 21 Jan 2006. The nitrogen cycle is being disrupted. 70 percent of natural ecosystems are predicted to end by 2050.
lightwave Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 arkain is a dunce who comes into this forum to wind people up.
MattC Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Perhaps I am wrong about this ... but I don't think it takes 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food. In fact, I'd say it's way off, by 3 orders of magnitude. I have seen this before, but I think the problem is that proper grammer is not observed, and so they say 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food instead of: 10 calories of oil to produce 1 Calorie of food (notice the capital C in calorie) There are two terms spelled this way (calorie). The lower case one refers to a calorie. Capitalized Calorie, as is used in reference to food, is a kilocalorie, or 1000 calories. A Calorie is 1000 calories, and a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 gram of water by 1 degree Celcius or Kelvin. Not to say that large amounts of oil aren't the only thing between us and a much lower food production ability (not to mention distrobution). So really, it takes 10 calories of oil to produce 1000 calories of food - where the calories from the food come most from solar energy.
Apeofman Posted January 22, 2006 Posted January 22, 2006 Perhaps I am wrong about this ...but I don't think it takes 10 calories of oil to produce 1 calorie of food. In fact' date=' I'd say it's way off, by 3 orders of magnitude.[/quote'] MattC, are you suggesting that we should use more oil to produce more food. According to an article in "New Scientist" 21 Jan 2006. More nitrogen falls out of the air now than farmers put on their fields in the 1950's. It is claimed that this is due to the addition reactive nitrogen caused by the ways of man. It is also predicted that 70 percent of natural ecosystems will end by 2050. Ape numbers are like yeast to wine, nearly fermented.
Apeofman Posted January 22, 2006 Posted January 22, 2006 Can you source us with a link please?I'm confused as to what the article is suggesting. Stacks of nitrogen "falls out of the air" The point made by the article' date=' is that 70% of the anthropogenic nitrogen in the atmosphere is now due to man. This form of nitrogen IS disrupting the normal nitrogen cycle. Full info. is in this months issue of Newscientist (UK magazine). I've just had a quick look on their web site at this url http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925351.500.html which has minimal info. It costs money to get the full article that way so i can't look any deeper via that page. The printed article contains the opinions of quite a few scientists eg Mark Sutton head of atmospheric sciences at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Edinburgh,Uk. If you can't get a copy of the article where you live, let me know and i'll try to extract most pertinent details by hand. Ape numbers are like yeast to wine, nearly fermented.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now