Comments for Earth 4 Energy

Comment on Will This Be Part Of Obama’s New Energy Plan? by Man

Man — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:19:42 +0000

Assuming your reference to solar power was 10%-30% in efficiency, the guy from England who wrote the article needs to learn about solar power. (Lowest efficiency possible is 10% which is what solar calculators use and solar panels use 15%-17% efficiency solar cells.) I’m not dissing renewable energy, but I have to say Obama is sort of an idiot. He perfectly knows that nuclear power is WAY more practical than almost all renewable sources except for geothermal and biomass now English scientists have dug deep into fusion power research.

Comment on Will This Be Part Of Obama’s New Energy Plan? by Amadeus

Amadeus — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:43:16 +0000

All i can say is obama sucks mccain should have won palin is more advanced with this stuff obama is gonna cause the world to end

Comment on Will This Be Part Of Obama’s New Energy Plan? by Return of Bite My Shiny Metal

Return of Bite My Shiny Metal — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:28:42 +0000

Your link to http://www.telegraph.co.uk is broke. Therefore, exactly what is the technology you are referring to? Wave action?

Comment on Will This Be Part Of Obama’s New Energy Plan? by Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:02:01 +0000

our next source of energy and fuel will be gas cooled nuclear reactors.
Also Known as Generation IV nuclear power plants.
They produce hydrogen fuel in large amounts from the energy lost during the nuclear reaction as it also produced electrical power.

Comment on Will This Be Part Of Obama’s New Energy Plan? by ☼Solar☼

☼Solar☼ — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:19:25 +0000

It appears that the American voters were wise in the select of President elect Obama as the next POTUS. Green Energy production in this country needs to unfold, to present to our nation and world the great possibilities that lay ahead regarding recycle and renewable energy process.

Comment on Will This Be Part Of Obama’s New Energy Plan? by Charlie Chaplin

Charlie Chaplin — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:04:15 +0000

In honor of all the NEO CON’s on yahoo answers I’m just gonna go ahead and say that Obama is an idiot without actually reading what you said or clicking the link and reading it as well because it is beyond my intelligence level to pursue anything besides war and oil.

Comment on Where Can I Find An Online Source For Building A Cabin And Alternative Energy To Power It? by hdandb20

hdandb20 — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:38:35 +0000

Search for “off-grid” living or self-sufficient living and you will plenty to choose from.http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0ge…

Comment on Where Can I Find An Online Source For Building A Cabin And Alternative Energy To Power It? by Orlando5

Orlando5 — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:05:01 +0000

or go to the public library they have these in books in the B&T section i know i borrow them in How to’s col huh or go to the this old house sites or popular mechanics cool okok by the way i’ve built three log cabins and several daub and wattles and about 30 habitat houses

Comment on Where Can I Find An Online Source For Building A Cabin And Alternative Energy To Power It? by R P A

R P A — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:40:29 +0000

Here are a couple of good links:

Comment on How Much Mechanical Energy Is Lost Due To Friction? by w1ckeds1

w1ckeds1 — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:13:49 +0000

a) Ei – Ef = W
mv^2/2 – m(0)^2/2 = W
69.0 * 4.1^2 / 2 = W
W = 579.9J lost
b) Friction force = N*u = 69.0 * 9.8 * 0.70 = m*a = 69.0 * a
a = 6.86m/s^2
so with decceleration above we can do
v^2 = v0^2 + 2ax
0 = 4.1^2 + 2(-6.86)x
x = 1.23meters

Comment on How Much Mechanical Energy Is Lost Due To Friction? by Nowaitin

Nowaitin — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:55:08 +0000

yeps that’s right.

Comment on What College Major Would Be Best For A Future Career In Developing Alternative Energy Sources? by falling.

falling. — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:48:35 +0000

The best major would be Environmental Engineering, which deals with the environment, natural resources, consumerism, etc. Your second bet is Chemical Engineering, which has to do with detailed analysis of harmful chemicals, how to get rid of them, etc.

Comment on Are These Answers To My Earth Science Lab Report Good? by JOHNNIE B

JOHNNIE B — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:12:42 +0000

Very true.

Comment on Earth Science Homework? by Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:06:10 +0000

13.-its how the earths crust pieces move along the core.

Comment on Earth Science Homework? by AnthonyA

AnthonyA — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:23:53 +0000

To be honest? In the time it took you to write these questions down on the yahoo page, you probably could have answered half of them, and by now, all of them. It’s really to your own detriment not doing it yourself because when the test comes, you wont know any of it at all! Astronomy and Geology can be very interesting if you approach then with an open mind! give it a shot, I think youll do fine
Good luck from Australia

Comment on What Is The Best Type Of Alternative Energy To Invest In? by BettyBel

BettyBel — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:06:18 +0000

Solar energy, or Hydorpower, are the two best
energies to invest in .
Hydower power, converting salt water into engery .

Comment on What Is The Best Type Of Alternative Energy To Invest In? by eco20-20

eco20-20 — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 18:37:14 +0000

It is tough, the most promising is wind and solar as far as investment go. The biggest problem is that a lot of the more promising companies are all private. GE and some of the big guns have invested a lot of money in alternatives

Comment on What Is The Best Type Of Alternative Energy To Invest In? by Indiana Jones

Indiana Jones — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:55:53 +0000

I believe that wind and solar are the best way to go. They both have initially large costs, but then no cost to maintain the power that it gives you. In some cases, the electric company will even pay you as you are putting power back into the grid. It can pay for itself in almost no time at all. It is better for the earth and you can live off the grid.

Comment on What Is The Best Type Of Alternative Energy To Invest In? by LuapF2

LuapF2 — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:56:48 +0000

Heat recovery system as this will work with any other heating system and save you up to 40% off your annual heating bill, which means it pays itself off faster than any other type of system. Reduces dust and pollen inside your house and benefits asthmatics also. Can be installed in any house that has access to attic, 1st floor stud walls and under floors.

Comment on What Is The Best Type Of Alternative Energy To Invest In? by Natural Home

Natural Home — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:08:33 +0000

Great question, but there isn’t just one renewable energy that gains the title of “best”. Micro hydro, solar, geothermal, bio fuel and wind turbines are all great, but it really depends on your home, neighborhood and your needs.
Micro hydro:
- Ideal condition: access to year-round flowing water and a permit to build a system
- Positive: produces power 24 hours a day
- Negative: if too much water is diverted it may damage the ecoststem
Solar:
- Ideal condition: south-facing areas with no obstructions
- Positive: tax incentives are widely available
- Negative: not all roofs can hold the extra weight
Geothermal:
- Ideal condition: large yard space for digging
- Positive: cuts down on electricity bills as it uses 25-50 percent less electricity.
- Negative: difficult to find experienced contractors
Bio fuel:
- Ideal condition: access to soybean oil or recycled restaurant grease
- Positive: it is a domestic and renewable source
- Negative: it costs more per gallon than conventional oil
Wind turbines:
- Ideal condition: a home or building with at least an acre of property
- Positive: wind energy can lower electricity bills by 50-90 percent
- Negative: there are no federal tax credits for homeowners yet
Here are a few articles that may help you locate what energy is the best for your needs.
In the Market for Alternative Energyhttp://www.naturalhomemagazine.com/Inspi…
Energy Efficiency for the Home, Saving Money for Allhttp://www.naturalhomemagazine.com/2008-…
Do Your Own Energy Audithttp://www.naturalhomemagazine.com/Inspi…

Comment on How Long Does It Take An Olympic Size Swimming Pool (50 M By 25 M) To Receive 1 Megaton Of Solar Energy? by Faesson

Faesson — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:27:20 +0000

one megaton of TNT delivers 4.2 x 1015 joule
50 x 25 = 1250 sq m
4.2 x 10** 15 / 1360 J/s = 3.1 x 10**12 s
what is that? 98,000 years?

Comment on How Long Does It Take An Olympic Size Swimming Pool (50 M By 25 M) To Receive 1 Megaton Of Solar Energy? by DrAnders

DrAnders — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:31:19 +0000

The answer is in the question. Why can´t people learn to use their own calculators?
It´s about 74 years. (A 1 megatonne H bomb detonates with the force of about 3.9*10^15 joules of energy.)

Comment on How Long Does It Take An Olympic Size Swimming Pool (50 M By 25 M) To Receive 1 Megaton Of Solar Energy? by morningf

morningf — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:04:07 +0000

faesson, your number is for 1 sq. meter. It would take only 78.4 years for the whole pool to get 1 MT of solar energy. (Or 74.6 years at 4.2e15 J per MT).

Comment on Can The Vacuum Space In A Light Bulb Can Annihilate Earth Leaving A Cloud Of Particles? by Inquisitive guy

Inquisitive guy — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:26:14 +0000

stop reading sci-fi novels and come down to earth, channel your energies into main stream science. once you have mastered those, we’ll talk.

Comment on Can The Vacuum Space In A Light Bulb Can Annihilate Earth Leaving A Cloud Of Particles? by coast2co

coast2co — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:54:23 +0000

it’s impossible. impossible. don’t waste your time sir.

Comment on Can The Vacuum Space In A Light Bulb Can Annihilate Earth Leaving A Cloud Of Particles? by artman59

artman59 — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:21:00 +0000

I guess a great deal depends on your definition of contemporary, but by the equations put forward by James Clerk Maxwell in 1865 (not just the four commonly published “acceptable” ones, but the other sixteen that other scientists of the time found unacceptable) the background energy (or “zero point” energy) inherent in the “vacuum” of the universe available for work in scalar potentials, rather than vector potentials (”classical” electrodynamics) can in fact be tapped (the patents are on file with the U.S. Patent office), and theoretically could be used to create a “doomsday” weapon as you have postulated- however, such a device would be essentially pointless as it would involve the destruction of the entire biosphere- unless someone were a psychotic maniac the likes of which has never been seen it would be couterproductive in the extreme. The ones that would worry me are the types that would use such physics to create more “bounded” technologies which would have incredible potential for warfare in pursuit of domination and selective destruction for nefarious purposes- for example the enslavement of humankind.
As with any technology or tool however it is not the tool that is inherently evil rather it is the uses to which such things are put which are evil or good- such an energy source would be exceptionally beneficial to mankind if it were developed for peaceful uses- but wholly unlikely given the stranglehold that corporate/government interests have a vested interest in maintaining over the populace at large.

Comment on Can The Vacuum Space In A Light Bulb Can Annihilate Earth Leaving A Cloud Of Particles? by XMan

XMan — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:46:49 +0000

Gimme a sec, lemme just sum up my calculations.

Comment on Can The Vacuum Space In A Light Bulb Can Annihilate Earth Leaving A Cloud Of Particles? by Krustyar

Krustyar — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:23:31 +0000

Yea, light bulbs only have a slight negative pressure not even enough to call a vacuum.

Comment on Can The Vacuum Space In A Light Bulb Can Annihilate Earth Leaving A Cloud Of Particles? by D

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:07:44 +0000

Um, qua?
Ok, seriously…first, take some math.
Then take some more math.
Then some physics & a little chemistry for fun.
Then more math & a good year of physics…and really enjoy them.
Then, and here’s the tricky part…
…get into college and repeat the above.
Ok, now…what?
Dude, seriously. A perfect vacuum has the potential for massive distruction, of course…but what’s going to hold it together until it can interact with the earth? How would you create such an object? With what would you hold it?
So, avoiding those questions and focusing on your point about the potential for antimatter collisions…wouldn’t we see remnants of the energy released from this activity? Antimatter and matter interactions are (theoretically) not a zero sum game.
But lets say it could happen that we find out that antimatter actually can eliminate matter without any sort of energy release due to some kind of energy sublimation through an Einstein-Rosen bridge or something where it just goes somewhere else. Why would it be hard to understand that it would consume the mass of the earth? Antimatter particles are tiny. Not tiny like atoms, tiny like quarks. I mean TINY. So why wouldn’t an entire lightbulb of them (doesn’t seem like much, but then think of the scale of particles we’re talking about here…) eliminate a few trillion trillion tons?
It’s only confusing if you understand a little bit.
Ok?
Sorry for busting on you, but seriously, why ask a question on a forum like this about theoretical physics?

Comment on Can The Vacuum Space In A Light Bulb Can Annihilate Earth Leaving A Cloud Of Particles? by samsyn

samsyn — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:55:23 +0000

How many lawyers does it take to pull 1.27 gigajoules of energy out of a lightbulb?
—
ignoring vacuum, we KNOW how to pull huge amounts of energy out of a small amount of mass (boom!). Is it absolutely incredible to pull ‘reasonable’ amounts of energy out of microscopic amounts of mass?
That doesn’t sound like it has to violate any basic principles.
Unfortunately, this magic 9 volt battery than runs forever on one fingernail clipping will probably require a basic principle of science which will turn out to ALSO allow any disaffected teen to destroy the universe by smacking two bowling balls together ‘just right’ and has been discovered repeatedly though the ages (Tunguska?) and suppressed for our own good.
So you can’t get rich off of the idea without immediately having to look for a new universe to pollute.