RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (Full Version)

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



Message

Crush -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 4:26:27 AM)

I just checked all my suitcases.....I couldn't find a nuke in any of them...*PHEW*   



farglebargle -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 4:32:33 AM)

FWIW, I encourage R0 to experiment however he wants.

Who knows? Maybe he'll get lucky and experience a quantum leap in understanding the fundamental nature of the universe?





Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 6:47:13 AM)

yeh if you are talking about stanadrd electrolysis i agree, it wont work.



CuriousLord -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 9:53:27 AM)

I'm not the one trying to build it, silly.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 10:16:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm not the one trying to build it, silly.


just for kicks:

lets take the case of 100% efficiency.

at100%eff how much total energy does it take to create H and O from water?

at100%eff how much energy can be had from its recombination?

then what eff is your method running?



CuriousLord -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 10:27:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
just for kicks:

lets take the case of 100% efficiency.

@100%eff how much total energy does it take to create H and O from water?

@100%eff how much energy can be had from its recombination?


I can look up the exact number for you, if you'd like, but it's the same either way, just negative of eachother.

If there was no loss to inefficiency, you'd end up with the same amount every time.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 10:36:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
just for kicks:

lets take the case of 100% efficiency.

@100%eff how much total energy does it take to create H and O from water?

@100%eff how much energy can be had from its recombination?


I can look up the exact number for you, if you'd like, but it's the same either way, just negative of eachother.

If there was no loss to inefficiency, you'd end up with the same amount every time.


what are the bonding angles in your system model?



CuriousLord -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 10:39:48 AM)

Irrelevant.  This holds true for all bonding angles.

Edit:  Elaboration.

Matter in nature appears to seek states that require the least energy to sustain.  In this case..

H2 and 1/2 O2 vs. H2O.
(Hydrogen and Oxygen vs. Water.)

The state of water requires less energy to sustain than Hydrogen and Oxygen do.  So, when Hydrogen and Oxygen come together, the energy that's no longer needed to sustain the new form, water, is released.

When you perform electrolysis, you're shoving energy into water.  It becomes able to divide back up into Hydrogn and Oxygen again, using a part of the energy provided.  It drains as much energy as is stored- simply taking the energy that it needs to maintain the more inefficient elemental states from the electric current.

There's an amount of energy needed to maintain water.
There's an amount of energy needed to maintain hydrogen and oxygen.
The difference between these two amounts is how much energy it takes to change between these forms.
This energy is positive going from hydrogen and oxygen to water.
This energy is negative in going from water to hydrogen and oxygen.

In the end, though, it's the same energy.  Performing these conversions repeatatively will just lose energy due to the efficiency of each reaction.



kentaro1980 -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 11:07:50 AM)

quote:

lets take the case of 100% efficiency.
at100%eff how much total energy does it take to create H and O from water?
at100%eff how much energy can be had from its recombination?

from wikipedia (with follow up links and all that..it seems legit)
"The theoretical maximum efficiency (of electrolysis) is between 80–94%"

Either way...assuming there was a magical way to get 100% efficiency...what you want to do is..overcome the molecular bonding energy via electrolysis....and then bring them back together releasing that same energy that you just put in via electrolysis..how are you expecting to get MORE energy out of that?






Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 11:15:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Irrelevant.  This holds true for all bonding angles.

Edit:  Elaboration.

Matter in nature appears to seek states that require the least energy to sustain.  In this case..

H2 and 1/2 O2 vs. H2O.
(Hydrogen and Oxygen vs. Water.)

The state of water requires less energy to sustain than Hydrogen and Oxygen do.  So, when Hydrogen and Oxygen come together, the energy that's no longer needed to sustain the new form, water, is released.

When you perform electrolysis, you're shoving energy into water.  It becomes able to divide back up into Hydrogn and Oxygen again, using a part of the energy provided.  It drains as much energy as is stored- simply taking the energy that it needs to maintain the more inefficient elemental states from the electric current.

There's an amount of energy needed to maintain water.
There's an amount of energy needed to maintain hydrogen and oxygen.
The difference between these two amounts is how much energy it takes to change between these forms.
This energy is positive going from hydrogen and oxygen to water.
This energy is negative in going from water to hydrogen and oxygen.

In the end, though, it's the same energy.  Performing these conversions repeatatively will just lose energy due to the efficiency of each reaction.


Of course their are those who claim differently.  i do understand the conservation of energy and would have said the same things you are....until recently, now i am questioning it.

Do you have an explantion of cold electrolysis from tap water for instance?  that is no heating.  that is no alkylines added?



CuriousLord -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 11:16:25 AM)

His grasp on Chemistry's a bit weak, though his heart seems to be in the right place.

His reasoning, as I believe it to be was..

Energy made = Energy released - Energy used / (1 - inefficiency).
Assuming <energy released>  >  <energy used> / (1 - inefficiency), he'd make a net gain.

His misunderstanding was in that he didn't know <Energy released> = <Energy used>, and that <Energy made> could be 0, if inefficiency could ever reach 0.

I believe the information provided should be surficient for him to understand and revise his understanding with.



CuriousLord -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 11:25:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Of course their are those who claim differently.


Well, back not too long ago, there was the Conversation of Energy and the Conservation of Mass.  When nuclear physics was discovered, we learned that energy and mass are the same thing in different forms.. so now we just have the Conversation of Mass/Energy.

Instead of TotalEndingMass = TotalStartingMass and TotalEndingEnergy = TotalStartingEnergy, we now have TotalEndingEnergy + TotalEndingMass * c^2 = TotalStartingEnergy + TotalStartingMass * c^2.

However, in non-nuclear reactions, the orginial Conversation of Energy and Conversation of Mass theories hold true (as well as the Conversation of Mass/Energy).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Do you have an explantion of cold electrolysis from tap water for instance?  that is no heating.  that is no alkylines added?


Heat's one of the sources of inefficiency.  If you can prevent much thermal energy from going out, you reduce inefficiency.  Still, you have inefficiency from other sources, and none of this changes the fact that the two energy numbers are just negatives of eachother.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 11:31:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Heat's one of the sources of inefficiency.  If you can prevent much thermal energy from going out, you reduce inefficiency.  Still, you have inefficiency from other sources, and none of this changes the fact that the two energy numbers are just negatives of eachother.


its only a source of inefficiency if you cannot use it or convert it to something useful.

you may just talk me back into going with the reactor LOL  i should just build both and be done with it.



CuriousLord -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 11:43:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

its only a source of inefficiency if you cannot use it or convert it to something useful.


True.

Still, even at 0% inefficency, there's no gain, you know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you may just talk me back into going with the reactor LOL  i should just build both and be done with it.


Ack!  I hope you don't try the cold fusion thing.  It's really just electrolysis with mismeasured results!  As I said before, it might a good chemistry experiment, but it's not producing any energy.  =/

Now, if you get some solar panels, you can get free energy to use to conduct electrolysis on water to get that Hydrogen you want.  I'm all for solar energy.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 11:52:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Now, if you get some solar panels, you can get free energy to use to conduct electrolysis on water to get that Hydrogen you want.  I'm all for solar energy.


LOL yeh, now yer talking!

The way i see it, you do the hydrogen, with "small" solar panels to make up the differences rathern then a 40 acre field full of them.

Not everyone has been able to reproduce the fusion, however those who have all claim those who have not simply did not do it correctly.  That and the number of those who have are growing.   It is difficult for me to believe that everyones equipment and measure systems are faulty 

For fusion there is a sweet spot before it explodes where the heat generated is greater than its input power.

glad to see you took a peek at it.

Oh and energy from the sun isnt really free either tho we don not have to give it back, it too still plays into the laws of conservation. just on a larger scale.



CuriousLord -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 12:30:16 PM)

It's not really a .."sweet spot".. there's no risk of it blowing.. it simply doesn't do anything.


I'm glad you understand solar power isn't entirely free.  ;)  Then again, the stuff's, mostly, just going to bounce back off into space and out of our solar system, so it's best to use it while it's here on Earth.

I kinda wish we could take a fair portion of it without thermal radiation.. we could literally drain solar energy and counteract global warming.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 12:33:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's not really a .."sweet spot".. there's no risk of it blowing.. it simply doesn't do anything.


may want to take another look they do blow up.


how did you set yours up that it did nothing?



CuriousLord -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 12:42:03 PM)

No one's blew up, bud.  If you can find a source, feel free to show me.

Nothing happens in these reactions besides some electrolysis.

These reactions due produce Hydrogen and Oxygen, which, when combined, explode by mechanism of combustion.  But there's no "sweet spot" about it.  You just don't put something flammable in the presense of pure Oxygen and heat if you don't want it to explode.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/4/2007 2:24:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

No one's blew up, bud.  If you can find a source, feel free to show me.

Nothing happens in these reactions besides some electrolysis.

These reactions due produce Hydrogen and Oxygen, which, when combined, explode by mechanism of combustion.  But there's no "sweet spot" about it.  You just don't put something flammable in the presense of pure Oxygen and heat if you don't want it to explode.



hmm i think the japenese guy showed a pic on his abstract, they blkow up and there is a sweet spot, guess we will just agree to disagree then.



Real0ne -> RE: Ok So Suitcase Nukes Are Real After All? (5/5/2007 7:03:06 AM)



you might wat to watch this.  you are using entrenched theory.  this is a good watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834&q=zero+point+energy+-meyer&hl=en



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125