OT: Why global warming will not finish us off

[Tom Mazanec]

Because Peak Oil and Peak Gas will force us away from fossil fuels first. My one caveat is if we switch to coal, tar sand and oil shale. Then we WILL be able to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to do it. But I think solar will turn out to be better and cheaper in the long run.

[Merry]

Having read quite a bit about the subject, and fearing global warming (who in his right mind wouldnt, seriously?), i seriously doubt it will "finish us off". Such a thing as wiping Man from the face of earth by a climate change is simply not possible.

Even if whatever happens to happen kills off half or two third of humankind directly or by proxy (wars about living space/the last ressources, radioactive fallout from nukes from the beforementioned wars, poisoning of the land/food/water/air etc.), there still would be billions of people on the earth, wich is more than enough to sustain our gene pool, and to even keep racial hate burning.
It might destroy the way we live at the moment (for heavens sake, the way we live kind of deserves it), but Mankind as a whole will survive.

[NydaLynn]

Because Peak Oil and Peak Gas will force us away from fossil fuels first. My one caveat is if we switch to coal, tar sand and oil shale. Then we WILL be able to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to do it. But I think solar will turn out to be better and cheaper in the long run.

I rather like the idea of solar power. Hope to mostly depend on it at some point. Maybe have a house that runs on it and such.

[Aurrin]

Because Peak Oil and Peak Gas will force us away from fossil fuels first. My one caveat is if we switch to coal, tar sand and oil shale. Then we WILL be able to pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to do it. But I think solar will turn out to be better and cheaper in the long run.

I rather like the idea of solar power. Hope to mostly depend on it at some point. Maybe have a house that runs on it and such.

Solar power is nice, but insufficiently abundant. (You can't use all of it that falls on the ground, because now you're competing with the food chain as well.) I'd like to see us master fusion power. Once we have that, our energy problems will have a permanent, relatively clean solution. Or, if we can get our solar conversion efficiency high enough, set up orbiting solar power farms. That might also do the trick.

[Jfries289]

I'd like to see us master fusion power. Once we have that, our energy problems will have a permanent, relatively clean solution.

Sono-fusion is totally the wave of the future.

Or, if we can get our solar conversion efficiency high enough, set up orbiting solar power farms. That might also do the trick.

Yay Diskworld!

[Shyal_malkes]

I've always wondered about alternate energy sources. I've wondered about stuff like accelerating hte half life of radioactive materials, if controlled right, we could accelerate it within a thick lead facility where the lead absorbs the radiation and converts it into heat. the heat is then transfered to some nearby water which transfers it's energy via steam engine into electricity. it'd not only provide an alternate (although not necessarily anything revolutionary) energy source but also allow us to turn stuff that would normally be radioactive for thousands of yeras and burn it off in a matter of only a few hours.

or maybe I'm just dreaming again...

[Axelgear]

In my manner of bringing up subjects that break the laws of physics (Which I do surprisingly often. I've been limited her though since I've rarely seen it discussed here in my short time), I should bring up magnetic power.

By keeping a magnet in a vacuum connected to a turbine with an electromagnet on the outside, power can be generated that causes the magnet to rotate and turn the turbine, generating power. The amount of energy produced by this effect is anywhere from 200 to 300% the input. You guessed it; it's over-unity. Ironically oil companies are trying to buy the company developing this, as it has already been proven capable of powering a car.

No, this does not break the laws of physics. How? Because it technically does not consume anything and therefore need not output anything. It's essentially the same process as pulling sand with a box that has a rope attached; you're not creating sand, you're just redirecting it how you want it, as you do with energy here.

And the best part is that there is NO exhaust, no emission, and very little upkeep. Me likey.

And even if this isn't accepted, Wind and Solar are useful. Solar panels on a houses roof (Essentially replacing shingles) can provide 80% or more of a houses power if it's tilted right, and there is enough wind force available in Calgary (A province in Canada for those of you unaware) to power both Canada and the United States indefinitely.

And Electric Cars DO work. They're just not made because the repair companies make almost no money on them. They're so cheap to maintain you don't need a check-up any less than every 5 years or so.

So... Yes. If humanity can ween themselves off the teat of big oil and gas, we have a bright future. Toronto now mostly runs on Hydro and Nuclear, and other, typically more high-tech nations like Sweden have about 20% of all public transit vehicles running on Hydrogen and the entire nation is powered by Geothermal energy. Lucky Swedes, 'eh?

[BrockthePaine]

And Electric Cars DO work. They're just not made because the repair companies make almost no money on them. They're so cheap to maintain you don't need a check-up any less than every 5 years or so.

They work in the manner that if you place any weight in the car, you can't accelerate (try fitting eight people into an electric car and then driving it - yes, it CAN be done, because I was one of those extremely uncomfortable eight people). We got that sick little puppy up to 15mph with that load. In that regard, I MUCH prefer my 300hp V8, even if it only gets 30mpg.

[Axelgear]

Actually, it's all about power use. You could increase the amount of speed by reducing the amount of battery storage and it'll end up equivalent.

[Jfries289]

By keeping a magnet in a vacuum connected to a turbine with an electromagnet on the outside, power can be generated that causes the magnet to rotate and turn the turbine, generating power. The amount of energy produced by this effect is anywhere from 200 to 300% the input. You guessed it; it's over-unity. Ironically oil companies are trying to buy the company developing this, as it has already been proven capable of powering a car....

Ok, before I jump to any conclusions and give myself and aneurysm, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and just ask a few questions.
So, you're putting a spinning magnet inside of a vacuum...to what end? The vacuum does exactly what for the mechanism? reduce air resistance? That's pretty negligible...

And you are using an electromagnet to rotate said magnet which in turn rotates the blades of your turbine, purportedly producing power (sweet consonance). Can you explain how this is significantly different from any other run of the mill electric motor? Yes, it is usually the electromagnet that is spun in the stator, but...the difference here iiiiis?...

And even if this isn't accepted, Wind and Solar are useful. Solar panels on a houses roof (Essentially replacing shingles) can provide 80% or more of a houses power if it's tilted right, and there is enough wind force available in Calgary (A province in Canada for those of you unaware) to power both Canada and the United States indefinitely.

You make some pretty wild, unsupported claims there. Even if those two statements were true, the cost of Solar panels is often prohibitive, not to mention a variety of potential weather related upkeep issues and possible unreliability of supplied power.
There are also environmental factors associated with massive windmill farms. Some bird populations have been decimated by the windmills of California, etc. Of course, again, you are dependent on the consistency of the weather conditions.

And Electric Cars DO work. They're just not made because the repair companies make almost no money on them. They're so cheap to maintain you don't need a check-up any less than every 5 years or so.

Yes, of course electric cars work, but in the past they have been severely limited by driving radius and initial investment costs. There was recently a breakthrough in the lithium battery department so that there is now a performance electric car being produced with a viable range of 250 miles (versus the 60-90 of previous generations) per charge. However, because of the nature of the technology, the car costs $100,000 (at this time. Who knows what increases in production efficiency the future will bring). I bring you the Tesla Roadster.

[Axelgear]

1. In this case, the Magnet is the only source of power. I can get you schematics if you like...

2. Solar Panels generally can provide most of the energy for most households. I admit, it's a general statement but...

3. Alberta, for the uninformed, is one of the flattest places in the WORLD. It has almost NO trees. The most common bird there lives underground. Other forms of Windmill power can form offshore though and eliminate the risk of harming bird habitats.

4. Yeah, the cost is entirely based upon supply and demand really; if you saw mass production, I imagine the price would fall.

5. I am tired. G'night all.

[TMLutas]

And Electric Cars DO work. They're just not made because the repair companies make almost no money on them. They're so cheap to maintain you don't need a check-up any less than every 5 years or so.

They work in the manner that if you place any weight in the car, you can't accelerate (try fitting eight people into an electric car and then driving it - yes, it CAN be done, because I was one of those extremely uncomfortable eight people). We got that sick little puppy up to 15mph with that load. In that regard, I MUCH prefer my 300hp V8, even if it only gets 30mpg.

You, my friend, need to take a look at Tesla Motors that's currently producing a 248HP 2 seat monster. The trick is that you can only drive it for 250 miles, not the normal 300 you'd get on a full gas tank and charging's slower than a fill up. A few years and they'll be out with something that can fit 8 and it'll be nice and zippy.

[Axelgear]

My bet would be simply using interchangable parts. It's problematic to be sure, but basically you make the battery easily removable. To fill up, you stop at a fill-up station, they remove the battery, replace it with a full one, and then take the old one and go to charge it.

Not the brightest system but it could work.

[Tom Mazanec]

The Racconans (to get this SLIGHTLY on topic) use lux which they get from hydroelectric power of a river in their own territory, How would they like it if theit main sources of lux were in parts of the human world that hated them and thir form of society?

[Timtitan]

In my manner of bringing up subjects that break the laws of physics (Which I do surprisingly often. I've been limited her though since I've rarely seen it discussed here in my short time), I should bring up magnetic power.

By keeping a magnet in a vacuum connected to a turbine with an electromagnet on the outside, power can be generated that causes the magnet to rotate and turn the turbine, generating power. The amount of energy produced by this effect is anywhere from 200 to 300% the input. You guessed it; it's over-unity. Ironically oil companies are trying to buy the company developing this, as it has already been proven capable of powering a car.

No, this does not break the laws of physics. How? Because it technically does not consume anything and therefore need not output anything. It's essentially the same process as pulling sand with a box that has a rope attached; you're not creating sand, you're just redirecting it how you want it, as you do with energy here.

And the best part is that there is NO exhaust, no emission, and very little upkeep. Me likey.

And even if this isn't accepted, Wind and Solar are useful. Solar panels on a houses roof (Essentially replacing shingles) can provide 80% or more of a houses power if it's tilted right, and there is enough wind force available in Calgary (A province in Canada for those of you unaware) to power both Canada and the United States indefinitely.

And Electric Cars DO work. They're just not made because the repair companies make almost no money on them. They're so cheap to maintain you don't need a check-up any less than every 5 years or so.

So... Yes. If humanity can ween themselves off the teat of big oil and gas, we have a bright future. Toronto now mostly runs on Hydro and Nuclear, and other, typically more high-tech nations like Sweden have about 20% of all public transit vehicles running on Hydrogen and the entire nation is powered by Geothermal energy. Lucky Swedes, 'eh?

I'm a physics student and I hvae to say WHA?!

I don't suppose you could point me in the direction of this design? I'd like to run Maxwell's equations over it

[Merry]

By keeping a magnet in a vacuum connected to a turbine with an electromagnet on the outside, power can be generated that causes the magnet to rotate and turn the turbine, generating power. The amount of energy produced by this effect is anywhere from 200 to 300% the input. You guessed it; it's over-unity. Ironically oil companies are trying to buy the company developing this, as it has already been proven capable of powering a car.

Uh, what? You where serious? No mate, whoever taught you this crap, its not gonna happen. Just because you ignore air resistance by using a vacuum, you dont magically tripple (or even double) the power you put into a system.

Its like saying a Hydropowerplant would generate infinite energy if you just pull out the energy it stores without letting the water out on the lower end, thus not using up the potential energy the water has.

[BrockthePaine]

You, my friend, need to take a look at Tesla Motors that's currently producing a 248HP 2 seat monster. The trick is that you can only drive it for 250 miles, not the normal 300 you'd get on a full gas tank and charging's slower than a fill up. A few years and they'll be out with something that can fit 8 and it'll be nice and zippy.

Base price: $92,000.

[Tom Mazanec]

What would the price of the equivalent of my laptop have been twenty years ago? How big would it have been? I admit that is a bit stretched, but with rising gas prices and progressing technology, electric cars could become competitive.

[Wanderwolf]

Axelgear:

If you've seen the video for the Sprain motor (which you've described), you'll notice that the wheel requires an initial investment of energy to overcome magnetic inertia.

Here's how it works, folks, according to the inventor's own description:

The central rotor has a permanent magnet on each end.

There is an incomplete ring of permanent magnets surrounding the rotor, placed in a spiral. These are placed in opposing polarity to the rotor magnets, and compose the stator.

At the point where the stator spiral draws closest to the rotor, an electromagnet is positioned.

Now: To start the Sprain motor, you must first push the rotor arm, as I said before. Once in motion, the rotor magnets are attracted to the closer magnets down the line, creating a magnetic gradient to accelerate the arm. When the rotor reaches to end of the stator spiral, the electromagnet activates briefly (28 ms in Sprain's setup), providing an extra "kick" to pull the rotor past the lockup point.

Now, here's where things get tricky:

According to Sprain, the electromagnet consumes 19.8V @ 1.9A. Since Watts, the power unit, are V*A, we get 37.62W. Now, watts are measured by the second, so we divide by 1,000 and multiply by 28 to get 1.05336W/pulse. The electromagnet pulses three times each second, so the final wattage is 3.16008W. (Without the "kick" from the electromagnet, the rotor would stop as it reached the end of the spiral, locking into position at its closest approach.)

Now, the reported torque of the device is 0.6 newton-meters. Sprain correctly multiplies this by his angular momentum figure of 10 radians/second, giving his output figure of 6W. Impressive. Almost twice as many Watts as the electromagnet uses.

I notice a small hole, however; it's nice that he measures the amount of power consumed by the electromagnet itself, but what about the digital encoder he mentions as controlling the electromagnet? He specifically did not include its wattage in the calculations.

For more info on the Sprain magnet motor, you can see the patent here, or the Wiki here. If anyone who knows more electromagnetics than I do can spot a flaw, let me know.

Yours truly,

The limited,

Wanderer

[Axelgear]

Not the machine I meant (For some reason that has dissapeared... Site must've been taken down), but either way, I've sort of lost interest. I just wanted to see peoples reactions to such a statement really.