View Full Version : co2 gas whats the big idea to save us all!!!
Cold fusion is the name for effects supposed to be nuclear reactions occurring near room temperature and pressure using relatively simple and low-energy-input devices. When two light nuclei are forced to fuse, they form a heavier nucleus and release a large amount of energy.
Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is properly called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), part of the field of "condensed matter nuclear science" (CMNS).[1] Cold fusion was brought into popular consciousness by the controversy surrounding the Fleischmann-Pons experiment in March 1989. For the next 17 years, efforts to replicate the effect had mixed success and panels organized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), the first in 1989 and the second in 2004, did not find the evidence convincing enough to justify a federally-funded program. They recommended further research. More claims of experimental success were reported, primarily in non-mainstream publications.
In 2006, Mosier-Boss and Szpak, researchers in the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, developed a new experimental technique, a key feature of which is the electroplating of probes to a set ratio of palladium and deutrium. These experiments have produced evidence of high-energy nuclear reactions concentrated near the probe surface.[2] Based on this work, two other teams have reported similar findings at the American Physical Society meeting of March 2007 (sessions A31 and B31) although interpretations vary.
boozehound420
2007-05-30, 04:05
a fusion reaction is the combining of atoms. A nuclear reaction is the seperation of atoms.
Fusion technology is advancing fast. In europe the next generation fusion reactor is being built. The goal is for it to be the first one releasing more energy then what was put into it. After that the skies the limit.
MasterPython
2007-05-30, 05:40
a fusion reaction is the combining of atoms. A nuclear reaction is the seperation of atoms.
A nuclear reaction is any reaction tha involves the nucleous. Fision, fusion and another one all count.
boozehound420
2007-05-31, 23:35
A nuclear reaction is any reaction tha involves the nucleous. fission, fusion and another one all count.
ya that makes sense, my bad. I was thinking since we call it a nuclear reactor, and a fusion reactor. l
deus-redux
2007-06-01, 11:30
I'm starting to think that CO2 emission isn't going to be our problem.
Running out of fuel is what's gonna cripple the Western world.
-deus-
boozehound420
2007-06-01, 23:10
I'm starting to think that CO2 emission isn't going to be our problem.
Running out of fuel is what's gonna cripple the Western world.
-deus-
its true. Fuck global warming, thats just an added insentive to start switching. Economies will crumble.
My employment for example. We rely on truckers, like almost everything in the fucking world. Without them nobody can bring us wood. And we have nobody to ship are fucking shitloads of cabinets we produce. Plus for the people buying our cabinets they cant build unless they have truckers bringing them material.
If we dont find an alternative for the big rigs were all FUCKED. The average joe driving to work can adapt to what ever comes out way, bus, bike, walk, alternative fuels etc. But if these truckers cant get from point a-b, its fucked.
Chemical Eudaemonia
2007-06-02, 02:59
lol, pussies. get on with your lives and stop being paranoid pansies
deus-redux
2007-06-02, 08:08
lol, pussies. get on with your lives and stop being paranoid pansies
I think you'll find it hard to get in with your life, at least as you know it, if you don't have petrol (gas for you yanks) in your car.
This isn't a doubtable thing like global warming. Anyone who says fossil fuels aren't going to run out is fucking dumb.
-deus-
its true. Fuck global warming, thats just an added insentive to start switching. Economies will crumble.
My employment for example. We rely on truckers, like almost everything in the fucking world. Without them nobody can bring us wood. And we have nobody to ship are fucking shitloads of cabinets we produce. Plus for the people buying our cabinets they cant build unless they have truckers bringing them material.
If we dont find an alternative for the big rigs were all FUCKED. The average joe driving to work can adapt to what ever comes out way, bus, bike, walk, alternative fuels etc. But if these truckers cant get from point a-b, its fucked.
especially with todays 'Just in time' Delivery service where supermarkets, shops, petrol stations etc all recieve deliveries just as they are about to run out. Any delay would be catastrophic and cause a mass panic.
Fossil fuels - or more precisily the declining production of them - are going to be THE definitive issue of this century. If we cannot find a solution - which seems very unlikely considering we are at peak oil production now - then say good bye to the 'modern world' as we know it.
i thought europe was moving to ban all nuclear power?
i think wee need to make it mainstream. a small amount of nuclear waste that can be sealed in a cask or shot into space is better than years of fossil fuel emissions and possible oil spills.
i thought europe was moving to ban all nuclear power?
i think wee need to make it mainstream. a small amount of nuclear waste that can be sealed in a cask or shot into space is better than years of fossil fuel emissions and possible oil spills.
ban nuclear?? considering 80% of France's electricity comes from nuclear. It's likely that the UK will replace or expand it's exisiting nuclear facilities. Some countries are against nuclear and pushing towards renewables in a big way (Holland, Belgium, Germany, Norway etc) but i have heard of no ban?
The british labour party arn't big fans of nuclear, they were at one point going to make the new subs deisal powered.
Iv been reading up on the so called green house gasses. CO2 is in fact one of the least harmful "greenhouse gas". And then there was a page I found and hand links to others that back it about the fact the Carbon Dioxide will always absorbe the same amout of radiation to "warm" the planet no matter how much of it there is.
Then there was an interesting realization, the earths atmosphere has warmed 0.6. But most the ice caps are under water, and the sea up there is very cold. so how can 0.6 degreas increase in the air warm up enough sea to start melting the ice. The point continued to explain that it is in fact the sea the warms the atmosphere because of the thinner crust hot spots warm the ocean from the mantle underneath.
I don't have the url with me so I can't post it but I will get it tommrow and drop it by for you lot to rip the shreads... I mean debate...
Chemical Eudaemonia
2007-06-04, 03:43
I think you'll find it hard to get in with your life, at least as you know it, if you don't have petrol (gas for you yanks) in your car.
Cool, I'm hoping for it. Life is already too idiot-proof for my liking. I'd love to see some of these dumbshit new-age angsty faggots die like fishes out of water.
BTW, Gasoline is the correct term. Petrol is an ignoramus term for petroleum, which is the base material that yields gasoline, naptha, kerosene, petroleum ether, and other distillates.
The british labour party arn't big fans of nuclear, they were at one point going to make the new subs deisal powered.
Iv been reading up on the so called green house gasses. CO2 is in fact one of the least harmful "greenhouse gas". And then there was a page I found and hand links to others that back it about the fact the Carbon Dioxide will always absorbe the same amout of radiation to "warm" the planet no matter how much of it there is.
Then there was an interesting realization, the earths atmosphere has warmed 0.6. But most the ice caps are under water, and the sea up there is very cold. so how can 0.6 degreas increase in the air warm up enough sea to start melting the ice. The point continued to explain that it is in fact the sea the warms the atmosphere because of the thinner crust hot spots warm the ocean from the mantle underneath.
I don't have the url with me so I can't post it but I will get it tommrow and drop it by for you lot to rip the shreads... I mean debate...
yes, they haven't been big fans in the past and still aren't really but with the problems of North Sea gas depleting, reliability of improts and then the climate change agenda it's one of the only viable options.
True there are greenhouse gases greater in 'power' than CO2, methane for example has 23x the strength as CO2 if i remember correctly.
Not sure about the other stuff you have said, will have to view the link. Remember stuff like a change in temperature doesn't affect just the temperature, also affects precipitation so less snow may fall, and the rain may melt existing ice, cloud formation etc...
yes, they haven't been big fans in the past and still aren't really but with the problems of North Sea gas depleting, reliability of improts and then the climate change agenda it's one of the only viable options.
True there are greenhouse gases greater in 'power' than CO2, methane for example has 23x the strength as CO2 if i remember correctly.
Not sure about the other stuff you have said, will have to view the link. Remember stuff like a change in temperature doesn't affect just the temperature, also affects precipitation so less snow may fall, and the rain may melt existing ice, cloud formation etc...
Ye methane is a very, I supose you could say effective, greenhouse gas. As for the link Its on my school account and their stupid RM remote login system: 1)dosn't work in firefox and 2) dosn't give me proper access to me favorets.
But Im going to make it my mission to get the link on here for tomorrow.
If cold fusion where possible than it would occur in nature.
I have it, I have the link. Well one of them anyway, Iv lost the others. But this covers most of it. It babbles slightly, but there is some good stuff in there.
Why CO2 Isn't The Cause Of Global Warming (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html)
Iv read most of it, not all. I only have so many boring lessons a day;).
urmm cold fusion is the replacement for fuel. The Past 10,000 years: Glacial Retreat, Agriculture and Civilization
As glaciers and icecaps melted at the end of the last Ice Age, sea levels rose and dramatically changed the world, perhaps nowhere more dramatically than in what is now the Black Sea, where, according to some researchers, a flood 7600 years ago filled the basin.
Evidence for the flood was confirmed in 1996 when Columbia University marine geologists William B.F. Ryan and Walter C. Pitman proposed a solution to the mystery that archeologists and paleoclimatologists have wrestled with since the early 1800s with the story of the deluge that appears in the Book of Genesis was found to exist in other cultures not associated with the Judeo-Christian Bible such as the Epic of Gilgamesh (Ryan, et. al., 1997).
As sea levels rose, the waters of the Mediterranean began to flow into the basin that is now the Black Sea. According to the National Geographic, "funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded." (See Ballard and the Black Sea).
Not all researchers support the conclusions of Ryan and Pitman, however. In an article entitled "Persistent Holocene Outflow from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean Contradicts Noah's Flood Hypothesis" (Aksu, et. Al., 2002), researchers suggest a progressive reconnection between the two water bodies over the past 12,000 years, and that there was no catastrophic event, but rather ongoing inflow and outflow from the Black Sea Basin. Nevertheless, the controversy continues with explorer Robert Ballard discovering evidence of a flooded settlement 95 meters beneath the modern day sea level off the north coast of Turkey.
If a massive flood did occur, it may have played a role in the migration of people away from the region, possibly helping to spread the Indo-European languages-- from which Sanskrit and many European languages including English evolved-- to India and Europe. Linguists who study the origin of languages note that migrations of people from the eastern part of the Black Sea around 6,000 years ago include three eastern branches-- going toward Iran, India and Central Asia respectively-- and two western migrations-- the first going directly towards Greece while the second went around the Caspian Sea towards Europe where many Western languages emerged from. For more, see the article "The Early History of the Indo-European Languages" by Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov that appeared in Scientific American, March 1990.
It was in the centuries following this period that major civilizations began to develop around irrigation systems that allowed agricultural cities to form in the semiarid regions of the Middle East in what Peter Drucker (1966) has called the "First Technological Revolution." According to Drucker, the domestication of water through irrigation led to formal writing and number systems as people began to systematically document history and commerce, and even the concept of individuality and citizenship evolved from this technological revolution. (See "The First Technological Revolution and Its Lessons", Technology and Culture, Spring 1966. First presented on December 29, 1965, as the presidential address to the Society for the History of Technology, San Francisco.)
Paleoclimatologist J.P. Steffensen in the January 7, 2002 issue of The New Yorker Magazine (Kolbert, 2002) comments on how paleoclimatic research may help provide perspective on the development of civilization: "Now you're able to put human evolution in a climatic framework. You can ask, Why didn't human beings make civilization fifty thousand years ago? You know that they had just as big brains as we have today. When you put it in a climatic framework, you can say, "Well, it was the ice age. And also this ice age was so climatically unstable that each time you had the beginning of a culture they had to move. Then comes the present interglacial-- ten thousand years of very stable climate. The perfect conditions for agriculture. If you look at it, it's amazing. Civilizations in Persia, in China, and in India start at the same time, maybe six thousand years ago. They all developed writing and they all developed religion and they all built cities, all at the same time, because the climate was stable. I think that if the climate would have been stable fifty thousand years ago it would have started then. But they had no chance."
good post^ did you write that your self or is it quoted?
stories of 'the great flood' at the end of the last ice age are repated all over the world. In the UK alone most of the english channel, north sea and irish sea wasn't flooded but then filled with water. Another similiar story in the Med is when a land bridge formed accross the straights of gibraltar creating a damn. This caused the level of the med to start dropping and it eventually dried out almost entirely. Then the land bridge dropped and the sea flooded in, in what must have been the most spectacular flood ever. Apparently they think it's happened 5 or 6 times in the last million years or so.
g... Another similiar story in the Med is when a land bridge formed accross the straights of gibraltar creating a damn. This caused the level of the med to start dropping and it eventually dried out almost entirely. Then the land bridge dropped and the sea flooded in, in what must have been the most spectacular flood ever. Apparently they think it's happened 5 or 6 times in the last million years or so.
Cool, If only I could have been around those many many many years ago to see it. But really, a flood like that would be so cool to see.
Galgamech
2007-06-09, 13:09
If cold fusion where possible than it would occur in nature.
It probably does. Its a big universe
Its a big universe
Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which established the relationship between matter, space, time and gravity, governs modern cosmology's view of the universe. But when Einstein began to apply his theory to the structure of the universe, he was dismayed to find that it predicted either an expanding or contracting universe--something entirely incompatible with the prevailing notion of a static universe. In what he would later call "the greatest blunder of my life," Einstein added a term called the cosmological constant to his equations that would make his calculations consistent with a static universe.
Einstein admitted his mistake in 1929 when Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were, indeed, receding from the earth, and the further away they were,the faster they were moving. That discovery changed cosmology.
Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which established the relationship between matter, space, time and gravity, governs modern cosmology's view of the universe. But when Einstein began to apply his theory to the structure of the universe, he was dismayed to find that it predicted either an expanding or contracting universe--something entirely incompatible with the prevailing notion of a static universe. In what he would later call "the greatest blunder of my life," Einstein added a term called the cosmological constant to his equations that would make his calculations consistent with a static universe.
Einstein admitted his mistake in 1929 when Edwin Hubble showed that distant galaxies were, indeed, receding from the earth, and the further away they were,the faster they were moving. That discovery changed cosmology.
Ye, I read that in Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything. Its a good book in my opinion.
The bit that interests me is the comprehension of the shape of space and the theory of what will happen at the end. Weather the Universe will continue to expand until everything falls apart because it covers a too vast area for gravity to hold it together. Or if it will slow until it starts to shrink again, until it crushes back to pre-big bang(or what ever you would call it). I think there are some other theory's (other than religions ones) but I'm can't remember them...
alexgmcm
2007-06-14, 12:55
I think you'll find it hard to get in with your life, at least as you know it, if you don't have petrol (gas for you yanks) in your car.
This isn't a doubtable thing like global warming. Anyone who says fossil fuels aren't going to run out is fucking dumb.
-deus-
Indeed. And that is when they run out. Prior to that happening the West will be almost held to ransom for the oil as it becomes more and more valuable. Coal isn't paticuarly reliable either especially after Thatcher and the Miner's strike killed off all of the UK's coal mining industry.
I think we need Nuclear Fusion, not just because of Global Warming, which some people refuse to believe, but because of the scarcity of other fuels.
Indeed. And that is when they run out. Prior to that happening the West will be almost held to ransom for the oil as it becomes more and more valuable. Coal isn't paticuarly reliable either especially after Thatcher and the Miner's strike killed off all of the UK's coal mining industry.
I think we need Nuclear Fusion, not just because of Global Warming, which some people refuse to believe, but because of the scarcity of other fuels.
fusion ey? yes it would cure most of our energy woes and infact it would cure most problems if it's as good as some people say. Sadly (or not sadly?) it won't ever get of the ground fully. Once climate change/FFdepletion gets into full swing the investment/resources etc needed for a project on this scale would just not be there.
On another note peak oil/gas is probably going to create atleast in the short-medium term a much worse environment than today. As soon as people can't buy fuel for there homes they are going to go out and find whatever they can to burn. Environmental regulations will be ignored as we try to maintain the 'status quo'. It's going to get a lot worse before its going to get better.
thizz all day
2007-06-22, 06:34
Who gives a flying fuck about your cabinets, and fuck all those other corporations.
Billion dollar companies yet none of them even bother to help the rest of the world, I'm greedy too but goddamn not like that. Why are you even worried about gas? Are you fucking retarded? The way this planet is going it doesn't look like we're going to last much past 2050 and all you care about is shipping cabinets? Get real
We are far enough into the future where we should of done discovered a much better alternative to fossil fuels.
Revolution
2007-06-26, 06:25
We are far enough into the future where we should of done discovered a much better alternative to fossil fuels.
you can thank capitalism for that, oil is just too profitable
Glasgowsweeman
2007-07-03, 16:12
:rolleyes:
Something to break to you.
Global warming is BULLSHIT!
The polar ice caps need to melt for us to get out of the last ice age.
This is scientific fact.
It is also scientific fact that, whilst some land will be lost, more land will be habitable.
So, lets just ride it out.
:cool:
Dark_Magneto
2007-07-14, 20:50
Why CO2 Isn't The Cause Of Global Warming (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html)
Then we drill some ice cores and what do we find?
400,000 years of positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/images/CO2_and_Temp2.gif
CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas, temperature goes up as CO2 concentrations increase, 'nuff said.
It is also scientific fact that, whilst some land will be lost, more land will be habitable.
Habitable in the sense that the Gobi is habitable because there are chinese nomads living out there.
Then we drill some ice cores and what do we find?
400,000 years of positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/images/CO2_and_Temp2.gif
CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas, temperature goes up as CO2 concentrations increase, 'nuff said.
Habitable in the sense that the Gobi is habitable because there are chinese nomads living out there.
just a comment on that graph, is it only me that notices the temperature peaks then the CO2 conc peaks? (ie the co2 level rises after the temperature does and starts falling after the temp does?
Just a comment,
Dark_Magneto
2007-07-15, 00:20
There are time delays involved in climate shifts. While CO2 isn't the only factor, it is a large one nontheless.
just a comment on that graph, is it only me that notices the temperature peaks then the CO2 conc peaks? (ie the co2 level rises after the temperature does and starts falling after the temp does?
Just a comment,
its not just you, thats one of the greatest failings in the theory. It has been noted that not only is CO2 levels following not leading the change, but water vapor is by far more of a problem than CO2. What next, water vapor tax. Thats why the theory gets so much support, people make money off it.
Generic Box Of Cookies
2007-07-25, 20:56
Instead of trying to change the habitat, we should change the humans.
Genetically engineered people that can flourish from car exhaust and plastic products, anyone?
:p
:rolleyes:
Something to break to you.
Global warming is BULLSHIT!
The polar ice caps need to melt for us to get out of the last ice age.
This is scientific fact.
It is also scientific fact that, whilst some land will be lost, more land will be habitable.
So, lets just ride it out.
:cool:
it is true that weather spikes have happend in the past, i dont really car ewhat happens to this earth if i die next year i don't care. life is life, easly given easly taken. trust me i know.
Instead of trying to change the habitat, we should change the humans.
Genetically engineered people that can flourish from car exhaust and plastic products, anyone?
:p
then the people who get high off exaust fumes will be sniffing air... the future folks. drugies sniffing air. whats next getting pissed on water
Tch! we may save or asses this time but the suns gonna blow up then we are fucked. If we make it to another planet over time we would fuck that one and if we kept moving (and didn't become extinct) we would run out of time other galaxies are expanding into ours and black holes are forming then the whole big bang looses speed and we get REALLY fucked.
mindovermusic
2007-09-08, 19:11
whats the big deal with global warming? Move to colder higher land? Its going to end up being just another population regulator now that we've out smarted pandemics. I say bring the heat, new heat tolerant species will emerge, land that was too cold to be used will become prime real estate. Why are we so adverse to neutral change?
whats the big deal with global warming? Move to colder higher land? Its going to end up being just another population regulator now that we've out smarted pandemics. I say bring the heat, new heat tolerant species will emerge, land that was too cold to be used will become prime real estate. Why are we so adverse to neutral change?
This is exactly what i think of the situation and human mortality. People dont have enough faith in the universe's perpetual push for higher states of matter.
Imagine some of the first organic molecules forming and decomposing before a state of entropy is reached. A urea molecule calls out "we're fucked! we're going to die!" and they die. Meanwhile elsewhere, more are created and eventually the chemical balance of the earth allows large carbon chains with all sorts of functional groups.
Evolution not only describes the nature of cellular based matter to increase in complexity, but the overall nature for matter to increase in complexity according to its enviroment. Why do quarks combine to form boson and muons which form x particle which form x larger particle? We call it a "force" and describe how it works, but dont be fooled into thinking we understand the essence of the force(s) that ultimatly drive the universe. Have faith it will all work out so long as we're trying. Faith may be illogical, but it feels good.