RE: Stagflation looming?

RE: Stagflation looming? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 4:48:47 PM)
Reagans dream of Star Wars was not a shield, but a way to shoot down missles with Lasers. They did a lot of research into trying to make a plasma cannon work. Even though the goal was not reached, there was a lot of knowledge gained about Plasmas (and alternative energy, the idea of using diesel to power Lazer cannons is kind of stupid). Of which the Plasma (molecular) disassociation reactor is a spin off. Which doesn't negate the point that it in no way has anything to so with nuclear power, as you incorrectly alledged.

airborne92 -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 5:48:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 A question for all of the people talking about the use of plasma reactors, do you realize what plasma is? A superheated-excited gas (say nitrogen impurified with oxygen) surrounded by an inert gas shield (say argon, for example?) How'm I doin'? Ed Koch Close, and in some cases yes, but it is only ionized gas. It doesn't have to be superheated or even excited. Nor does it need to be surrounded by an inert gas shield. All that happens with plasma is the gas takes on a color based on it chemical composition. Nothing more.

Sinergy -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 5:48:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Energy self sufficiency YOUR stated goal, obtaining pretty quickly, at least on the electricity generating side, with nuclear power. Just like the "intelligent model" you referenced - Europe. My point was using the money to pay scientists to develop non-destructive energy technologies, not throw it away fighting for a limited and toxic resource in the sandbox. The intelligent model I referenced was Europe's dependence on rail infrastructure, not on Europe's use of nuclear power. I dont know exactly what % of Europe's energy is nuclear, and frankly, I dont care. My objection to nuclear is the waste products out the other end, and the fact that fissionable materials are a limited resource. People wont stop crapping and throwing things away, which is where my point about plasma reactors come in. Crap all you want, throw out as much as you want, get energy and hydrogen out the other end. Want energy for your rail system? If a rail system is put in place all the gas that would otherwise be wasted in people's Hummers could theoretically be used to generate energy. Wave power. Hydrogen (from your plasma reactors) Wind power. Hydroelectric. Geothermal. These are all options which other countries successfully use. Take off your petroleum colored glasses and think of the problem from a non-myopic perspective. Think outside the box. To answer your other question, the shipping companies want the US government to rebuild and expand the existing rail systems in the Los Angeles area. Why? So they can move more cargo off the docks. I suggest we figure out how much it will cost, what percentage the shipping companies will use of any infrastructure modifications, and have them shipping companies pony up that percentage of the cost. Their primary objection is this years losses, but looked at over 20 years they will far make up for those losses with increased cargo movement. It is called chunking. You generally, on these threads, seem to want "One Weal and Twue Sowution." This approach seems reminiscent of the Dipshit in Chief, and I find amusing as hell. I want to figure out solutions from a variety of different approaches and figure out a long-term and workable solution where nobody ends up getting hurt, screwed, killed, or whatever. If you would stop trying to insult me, which isnt working as well as you seem to think it is, and actually consider the issue from a perspective you were not given in your Dittohead download, this discussion might not be so upsetting for you. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 5:52:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 A question for all of the people talking about the use of plasma reactors, do you realize what plasma is? A superheated-excited gas (say nitrogen impurified with oxygen) surrounded by an inert gas shield (say argon, for example?) How'm I doin'? Ed Koch Close, and in some cases yes, but it is only ionized gas. It doesn't have to be superheated or even excited. Nor does it need to be surrounded by an inert gas shield. All that happens with plasma is the gas takes on a color based on it chemical composition. Nothing more. Waltz me thru a plasma cutting torch which is ancient or a plasma furnace which is old, or how you are gonna burn up pampers disposable diapers without some heat on 'em, using color, Mr. Einstein....I musta missed that lecture because they had fishsticks in the lunchroom. I am, Your acolyte and student,. Mr. D minus in the back row. BTW, how are we gonna solve stagflation with color when it doesn't work for shit in the terror levels, are you advocating the use of puce? muave? other sorts of pastels to fill in the cracks?

airborne92 -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 5:59:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 A question for all of the people talking about the use of plasma reactors, do you realize what plasma is? A superheated-excited gas (say nitrogen impurified with oxygen) surrounded by an inert gas shield (say argon, for example?) How'm I doin'? Ed Koch Close, and in some cases yes, but it is only ionized gas. It doesn't have to be superheated or even excited. Nor does it need to be surrounded by an inert gas shield. All that happens with plasma is the gas takes on a color based on it chemical composition. Nothing more. Waltz me thru a plasma cutting torch which is ancient or a plasma furnace which is old, or how you are gonna burn up pampers disposable diapers without some heat on 'em, using color, Mr. Einstein....I musta missed that lecture because they had fishsticks in the lunchroom. I am, Your acolyte and student,. Mr. D minus in the back row. BTW, how are we gonna solve stagflation with color when it doesn't work for shit in the terror levels, are you advocating the use of puce? muave? other sorts of pastels to fill in the cracks? You might want to try going back to school before opening your mouth again to prove your lack of intelligence and knowledge. How are you going to produce more energy from a process that is going to use an excessive amount of energy? Oh I forgot, you actually never graduated from any school.

Level -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 6:01:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I want to figure out solutions from a variety of different approaches and figure out a long-term and workable solution where nobody ends up getting hurt, screwed, killed, or whatever. *Nothing wrong with wanting that, as long as you realize it won't happen. Can't* happen, I suppose.**

luckydog1 -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 6:20:14 PM)
Airborn, plasmas, while they do not have to be hot, and can be contained in a variety of ways, do a hell of a lot more than just turn colors. http://www.startech.net/plasma.html Here is a link to a company that makes the reactors that Sinergy was refering to, I am sure they are not the only one. If you read it you will find that you can indeed use a plasma reaction to produce enrgy by feeding Garbage (or any hydrogen rich material) into the plasma, capturing the Hydrogen which is released and use some of the hydrogen in a fuel cell to power the plasma. It doesn't produce a huge amount of power, but it does completely render toxic and biological waste harmless (unless you are feeding it a lot of Arsenic), while producing power. The process is generally pushed as a waste disposal method, not as a power source. Though a full scale plant would be able to power a neighborhood. The reason it can produce excess power is that you have to keep feeding it fuel

mnottertail -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 6:20:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 A question for all of the people talking about the use of plasma reactors, do you realize what plasma is? A superheated-excited gas (say nitrogen impurified with oxygen) surrounded by an inert gas shield (say argon, for example?) How'm I doin'? Ed Koch Close, and in some cases yes, but it is only ionized gas. It doesn't have to be superheated or even excited. Nor does it need to be surrounded by an inert gas shield. All that happens with plasma is the gas takes on a color based on it chemical composition. Nothing more. Waltz me thru a plasma cutting torch which is ancient or a plasma furnace which is old, or how you are gonna burn up pampers disposable diapers without some heat on 'em, using color, Mr. Einstein....I musta missed that lecture because they had fishsticks in the lunchroom. I am, Your acolyte and student,. Mr. D minus in the back row. BTW, how are we gonna solve stagflation with color when it doesn't work for shit in the terror levels, are you advocating the use of puce? muave? other sorts of pastels to fill in the cracks? You might want to try going back to school before opening your mouth again to prove your lack of intelligence and knowledge. How are you going to produce more energy from a process that is going to use an excessive amount of energy? Oh I forgot, you actually never graduated from any school. It is a matter of exploiting the difference in density, but you seem to have a good handle on that. by example, we could eat coal, and in fact there are some good reasons to do that, in miniscule amounts, but in the majuscule, and in the interest of harboring and harnessing energies for our comfort and advancement e still got a long way to go on efficiency of use, Mother Earth some long time ago had a pretty good coal fired plasma furnace that never caught on. So we have today, and what is reachable and we have you who must have university credentials and I, much like Faraday haven't any. Yours must be in the metaphysical realm, since I don't know you and you certainly dont have any idea who the fuck I am. Cordially, Ron

Sinergy -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 6:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 How are you going to produce more energy from a process that is going to use an excessive amount of energy? [sarcasm] That certainly clarifies how a nuclear bomb works. [/sarcasm] Energy equals mass times the square of the constant C (speed of light) A plasma reactor starts the process with a superheated bolt of electrical energy, which then generates more energy as the atomic forces bonding molecules together split apart and release the energy contained in their mass. Energy equals the mass of a pair of used pampers multiplied by (10 meters / second / second)(10 meters / second / second) Releasing a greater amount of energy than initially used to start the reaction. DrSciencergy

mnottertail -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 6:36:07 PM)
thats the thing, why do the big input to change and increase efficiency when it is so easy to do like we do? Careful, now Sinergy---- he is a man of letters.........and knows you misspelled.... LOL

luckydog1 -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 7:36:29 PM)
No Sinergy, breaking the Molecular Bonds uses energy. It releases hydrogen which can be captured and used to generate power. If you feed sandstone into a plasma reactor, you will get no excess energy, because virtually no hydrogen will be released. This has nothing at all to do with Nuclear power or bombs. The output of a plasma reactor has nothing to do with E=MC^2.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 7:57:39 PM)
quote: It is called chunking. You generally, on these threads, seem to want "One Weal and Twue Sowution." This approach seems reminiscent of the Dipshit in Chief, and I find amusing as hell. I want to figure out solutions from a variety of different approaches and figure out a long-term and workable solution where nobody ends up getting hurt, screwed, killed, or whatever. If you would stop trying to insult me, which isnt working as well as you seem to think it is, and actually consider the issue from a perspective you were not given in your Dittohead download, this discussion might not be so upsetting for you. Sorry if using your words to generate a question upsets you and you thought insulting. Upsetting? Amusing and entertaining perhaps. Would love to also know where any one true way was represented other that your opinion that isn't your way; except when your way for the European model was suggested as a USA solution. I can't understand that, but understand your need to be one way in your negativity. How about if a Democratic liberal suggested the European model be employed here - would that work?

Sinergy -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 8:28:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Would love to also know where any one true way was represented other that your opinion that isn't your way; except when your way for the European model was suggested as a USA solution. I can't understand that, but understand your need to be one way in your negativity. In English, please? Sinergy p.s. I suppose my clarification was insufficient to penetrate the minds of the obtuse. p.p.s. The problem most One Twue Wayews have is in a system with multiply interacting variables of great complexity, a solution relevant to solving the energy needs of, say, Baton Rouge, LA, will not necessarily work in, say, San Francisco, CA. The trick is to tailor the solutions one comes up with to the individual requirements, as opposed to, say "Safe Words dont work at all," argue with anybody who has some differing opinion, and rest on one's self-appointed status as Legend In One's Own Mind. p.p.p.s. I apologize in advance if you think I am referring to you as a One Twue Wayew. My opinion, or not, of individual posters on this board is not relevant to the discussion.

airborne92 -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 8:41:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 A question for all of the people talking about the use of plasma reactors, do you realize what plasma is? A superheated-excited gas (say nitrogen impurified with oxygen) surrounded by an inert gas shield (say argon, for example?) How'm I doin'? Ed Koch Close, and in some cases yes, but it is only ionized gas. It doesn't have to be superheated or even excited. Nor does it need to be surrounded by an inert gas shield. All that happens with plasma is the gas takes on a color based on it chemical composition. Nothing more. Waltz me thru a plasma cutting torch which is ancient or a plasma furnace which is old, or how you are gonna burn up pampers disposable diapers without some heat on 'em, using color, Mr. Einstein....I musta missed that lecture because they had fishsticks in the lunchroom. I am, Your acolyte and student,. Mr. D minus in the back row. BTW, how are we gonna solve stagflation with color when it doesn't work for shit in the terror levels, are you advocating the use of puce? muave? other sorts of pastels to fill in the cracks? You might want to try going back to school before opening your mouth again to prove your lack of intelligence and knowledge. How are you going to produce more energy from a process that is going to use an excessive amount of energy? Oh I forgot, you actually never graduated from any school. It is a matter of exploiting the difference in density, but you seem to have a good handle on that. by example, we could eat coal, and in fact there are some good reasons to do that, in miniscule amounts, but in the majuscule, and in the interest of harboring and harnessing energies for our comfort and advancement e still got a long way to go on efficiency of use, Mother Earth some long time ago had a pretty good coal fired plasma furnace that never caught on. So we have today, and what is reachable and we have you who must have university credentials and I, much like Faraday haven't any. Yours must be in the metaphysical realm, since I don't know you and you certainly dont have any idea who the fuck I am. Cordially, Ron And your lack of any educational credentials, from a high school, shows everytime you open your mouth or type something here. I on the other hand have actually taught this stuff at the college level. As for knowing who you are, I could care less. You have shown yourself to be rude and extremely uneducated. quote: [sarcasm] That certainly clarifies how a nuclear bomb works. [/sarcasm] Energy equals mass times the square of the constant C (speed of light) A plasma reactor starts the process with a superheated bolt of electrical energy, which then generates more energy as the atomic forces bonding molecules together split apart and release the energy contained in their mass. Energy equals the mass of a pair of used pampers multiplied by (10 meters / second / second)(10 meters / second / second) Releasing a greater amount of energy than initially used to start the reaction. DrSciencergy Now it is time for DrSciencergy to go back school as well. Nuclear physics operates under a completely different set of laws. Like your sidekick mnottertail, you lack any understanding of what you are trying to talk about.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 8:50:35 PM)
I know how smart you all are but be so kind as to trim your quotes and keep the personal attacks to yourselves please. Thank you. XI

Sinergy -> RE: Stagflation looming? (2/29/2008 8:58:08 PM)
I have read a few magazine articles about it, but my expertise does not lie in nuclear physics or chemistry. I did find it interesting that the magazine articles pointed out that zapping a bunch of used pampers with an electrical charge and rendering them into a plasma state produced both electrical energy AND hydrogen. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-ultimate-garbage-disposal If I misread something, I apologize. DrSciencergy

mnottertail -> RE: Stagflation looming? (3/1/2008 6:43:26 AM)
You have discovered the exception that proves the rule, or what? LOL. Anyway the fulsome point is that it takes more energy to plasma burn the used pampers (or plasma displays) than it does to haul them offshore in a garbage scow world wide and dump them in the ocean or for us poor landlocked fools, to dump them in a wasteland spot so they can leach into the bonewater and run them over with a dozer a couple of times, no, it isn't worth exploring until the workings of perpetual motion machines are uncovered. But these are the sort of things, a slice of inventing a green economy that might wend our way out of stagflations and recessions and make a happier environment and so forth. Applied science will doom us all. Ron d'Imbecile

luckydog1 -> RE: Stagflation looming? (3/1/2008 10:22:14 AM)
Small point Ron (just because I found out about Plasma waste reduction several years ago, and think it is amazing). The plasma does not actually "burn" the Pampers. Burning is a chemical reaction of oxidizing. These Plasma reactors cause a process called "molecular disassociation". All of the Molercules simply fall apart into thier composite free atoms, ie they can't combine while inside the plasma. Then as you correctly pointed out, the difference in density seperates the materials, with the hydrogen floating to the top, where it can be captured and used for electrcity production. The ouput of the reactor depends on what you feed into it. The plasma does not generate energy, The hydrogen released from materials fed into the reactor does. Great way of reducing and nuetralising wate, while getting some electrcity on the side.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Stagflation looming? (3/1/2008 12:46:14 PM)
http://www.gatransfunding.com/documents/finalrpt/final%20report%20short%20version.pdf Studies definitively show the Georgia Translev line is more cost-effective than conventional rail. I'm looking forward to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train http://www.magnetbahn-bayern.de/ENGLISH/english.html http://www.transrapid.de/cgi-tdb/en/basics.prg

airborne92 -> RE: Stagflation looming? (3/1/2008 1:21:20 PM)
Sinergy, The amount of energy required to "zap a bunch of used pampers" and turn them into a plasma state is enormous, and the amount of electrical energy and hydrogen created from that process is less that what is used in the process. What you are talking about is taking matter, in solid form, and converting it into a gaseous form which is ionized. That requires a tremendous amount of energy to accomplish. My point to you and mnottertail is this, I am all for trying to create better sources of energy, but I want to hear realistic ideas and not politcal talking points about ideas that are not realistic in being implemented in 10 or 20 years. We have untapped oil fields up in Alaska that the environmentalists are peventing anyone from fully exploring and utilizing. Is this a long term solution? No, but it could very well be a short term solution until we as a country realize that some of the laws and "crusades" we have in this country concerning energy and fuel are hindering any progress, and set about working on finding a better energy production method. Once we find a reliable and cheap form of energy production that isn't harnful to the environment, then we can alleviate some of the economic problems in this country. Biofuels are not an option since they take away from food production. These electric cars that everyone touts as the greatest thing to be developed are a farce. They have giant batteries that have to be disposed of somewhere and they are extremely toxic, not to mention that lack of real infrastructure to support them. Nuclear plants have their own set of issues. Solar panels and wind turbines are helpful, but take up space and people complain that it ruins their view of nature. No matter what we do there will always be someone that doesn't like it for whatever reason and start a political crusade against it. I am not trying to take any side on the issue, just trying to point out the shortcomings of all of these so called "great" ideas that everyone seems to be latching onto these days. Some of these ideas are completely impractical in certain areas of not only this country but also in certain parts of the world. The bottom line is this, you are going to have make some concessions in your view of how we need to approach this, just as others are going to have to make some concessions in how they view a solution to the problem. Most importantly we have to get the politicians out of the process and work on improving our energy infrastructure. It will not happen overnight, and will take at least 20 years to accomplish this, if not longer. The biggest key is to get everyone to take responsibility for their own actions, instead of saying it is the government's job to deal with that. If you truly believe that the government needs to tell you how to live your life, what to spend your money on, or anything else, then you are not competant enough to considered an adult or live outside of a very controlled environment. Before you get upset at what I just said, I am not accusing you or anyone else of being like that. I am just making a comment based upon my own observations, and not directing it at anyone in particular. It is like saying that a criminal is not responsible for his actions because of mental health issues. If that is the case, then he should not be allowed to be roaming free on the streets. Each one of us has to take responsibility for our own actions or inactions, and hold those that are elected to a political office to an even higher standard than we are holding ourselves to, since they are the ones making decisions for all of us. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans, as well as any other political affiliation anyone has. I don't have the answers, but when a new idea is presented I want to find out about all of the benefits and drawbacks for it. The is no perfect answer to the problem at hand, just ideas.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875