Overclock.net banner

281 - 300 of 319 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,973 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophobe View Post

Wow.... you're completely brainwashed aren't you?
rolleyes.gif
That's the best you can come up with? If you're going to use ad ad hominems at least use one that's not blatantly transparent.
Quote:
What peer studies have shown that there hasn't been massive waste in climate research spending? All the research is fairly conclusive.
Then why are you arguing?
Quote:
We need to spend more money doing than paying the climate change industry for a whole lot of unnecessary redundancy. Your political idealism is blinding common sense.
You have no idea what is involved in my political ideals. Don't kid yourself. More ad hominems. Stop it. It's bad form and it invalidates your argument, regardless if you're right or not.
Quote:
People like me denying what? You're an ..... yeah. Global pollution is one of the largest issues humanity will ever face. Where did I deny anything?
I'll give you that, I read through your posts. It wasn't you who was doing the denying. It was a different user. Sorry.
Quote:
There are blood sucking leeches wasting government grant money on redundant and pointless studies. Thank you for being part of the problem of excessive waste.
tongue.gif
You know, I was going to be nice and just tell you to stop attacking me personally. But after the obvious and purposeful implication that I'm a blood sucking leech, I'm just going to report you. You're an adult and you know better. And so do I which is why I'm ending this converastion here.

I don't think anyone likes having someone essentially call them a blood sucking leech. That's totally not cool.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Any life that we find before they find us will more than likely not be able to receive our communication attempts and any that found us first will already know what we're doing.
smile.gif
 

·
Otherworlder
Joined
·
7,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueristic View Post

Any life that we find before they find us will more than likely not be able to receive our communication attempts and any that found us first will already know what we're doing.
smile.gif
it'd be amusing if we were seeded by aliens in the past, and acted as a test subjects for observation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
We need green energy.. solar cells are perfect and work on batteries technology.. possibly ones that doesn't pollute and use materials that can be recycled, now tell me, the governements know that, why aren't more ressources allocated into research in this field ? and other alternative green technologys..
 

·
Not New to Overclock.net
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongForce View Post

We need green energy.. solar cells are perfect and work on batteries technology.. possibly ones that doesn't pollute and use materials that can be recycled, now tell me, the governements know that, why aren't more ressources allocated into research in this field ? and other alternative green technologys..
They do invest in green technology. At the moment solar isn't that efficient so it isn't used much (and as you said, panel pollution, eventual battery replacement, and cloud cover are drawbacks). Hydro and geothermal work great in the right areas, and wind power is okay but has it's faults (such as non-windy weather, windmill noise, and environmental impact). I think the reason more money doesn't go into green energy research is because of poor results in improving the technologies and very little of the money is recovered. We always hear about breakthroughs in solar technology, but efficiency is still relatively low (from a quick lookup about 15% on average) with low power output and I think the news coverage is mostly to get investors. They are getting better quick, but it's not a great solution for replacing plants yet because of low output. But apparently some experimental panels in an ideal scenario have hit a world record 46% efficiency! Also I forgot to mention, tidal technology is also looking quite interesting for the future.

Keep in mind that I'm by no means an expert, but over time I've come to like hydro and geothermal... but am still slightly skeptical of other green technologies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,973 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablosbud View Post

They do invest in green technology. At the moment solar isn't that efficient so it isn't used much (and as you said, panel pollution, eventual battery replacement, and cloud cover are drawbacks). Hydro and geothermal work great in the right areas, and wind power is okay but has it's faults (such as non-windy weather, windmill noise, and environmental impact). I think the reason more money doesn't go into green energy research is because of poor results in improving the technologies and very little of the money is recovered. We always hear about breakthroughs in solar technology, but efficiency is still relatively low (from a quick lookup about 15% on average) with low power output and I think the news coverage is mostly to get investors. They are getting better quick, but it's not a great solution for replacing plants yet because of low output. But apparently some experimental panels in an ideal scenario have hit a world record 46% efficiency! Also I forgot to mention, tidal technology is also looking quite interesting for the future.

Keep in mind that I'm by no means an expert, but over time I've come to like hydro and geothermal... but am still slightly skeptical of other green technologies.
On the other side 2 guys in Vancouver made a net gain fusion reactor that they refer to as a "deisel fusion engine".

Essentially the concept is to have rods compress plasma until the extreme temperatures create fusion.

They have a working version but it doesn't generate enough power to do much other than power itself currently. It's also safe enough that it's being housed in a office building in downtown Vancouver.

http://www.generalfusion.com/

The technical process name they use for the fusion is "magnetized target fusion".

There's lots of alternate energy projects out there with promise and a few of the more viable ones don't cost billions of dollars, like the one I mentioned which costs in the tens of millions.
Quote:
The prototype reactor will be composed of a metal sphere about three meters in diameter containing a liquid mixture of lithium and lead. The liquid is spun to create a vortex inside the sphere that forms a vertical cavity in the middle. At this point, two donut-shaped plasma rings held together by self-generated magnetic fields, called spheromaks, are injected into the cavity from the top and bottom of the sphere and come together to create a target in the center. "Think about it as blowing smoke rings at each other," says Doug Richardson, chief executive of General Fusion.

On the outside of the metal sphere are 220 pneumatically controlled pistons, each programmed to simultaneously ram the surface of the sphere at 100 meters a second. The force of the pistons sends an acoustic wave through the lead-lithium mixture, and that accelerates into a shock wave as it reaches the plasma, which is made of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium.

If everything works as planned, the plasma will compress instantly and the isotopes will fuse into helium, releasing a burst of energy-packed neutrons that are captured by the lead-lithium liquid. The rapid heat buildup in the liquid will be extracted through a heat exchanger, with half used to create steam that spins a turbine for power generation, and the rest used to recharge the pistons for the next "shot."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/414559/a-new-approach-to-fusion/
 

·
Not New to Overclock.net
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

On the other side 2 guys in Vancouver made a net gain fusion reactor that they refer to as a "deisel fusion engine".

Essentially the concept is to have rods compress plasma until the extreme temperatures create fusion.

They have a working version but it doesn't generate enough power to do much other than power itself currently. It's also safe enough that it's being housed in a office building in downtown Vancouver.

http://www.generalfusion.com/

The technical process name they use for the fusion is "magnetized target fusion".

There's lots of alternate energy projects out there with promise and a few of the more viable ones don't cost billions of dollars, like the one I mentioned which costs in the tens of millions.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/414559/a-new-approach-to-fusion/
I'm aware that there's a lot of different, very good technology in the works. I was mostly talking about technology that is currently viable and relatively proven. Hopefully we can get fusion working well, but like current reactors, politics and money will likely hold back overall advancement. It doesn't help that many people are against nuclear power altogether and will vote against it. I'm not saying nuclear hasn't advanced, but I think it could be better were it not for politics such as continuing to use less safe/efficient reactor models because conventional ones produce weapons-grade plutonium (not that this is the sole reason of course).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,973 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablosbud View Post

I'm aware that there's a lot of different, very good technology in the works. I was mostly talking about technology that is currently viable and relatively proven. Hopefully we can get fusion working well, but like current reactors, politics and money will likely hold back overall advancement. It doesn't help that many people are against nuclear power altogether and will vote against it. I'm not saying nuclear hasn't advanced, but I think it could be better were it not for politics such as continuing to use less safe/efficient reactor models because conventional ones produce weapons-grade plutonium (not that this is the sole reason of course).
That's the thing, most of this is just eductaion. There's a massive difference between a nuke or a hydrogen bomb and a fusion reactor. Especially when we start talking about a fusion reactor who's fusion reaction would immediately cease if there was a malfunction and the machine stopped working.

I'd be sad if the population considered a firecracker a missile just like I'd be sad if the public considered that contraption as a nuke.
 

·
Not New to Overclock.net
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

That's the thing, most of this is just eductaion. There's a massive difference between a nuke or a hydrogen bomb and a fusion reactor. Especially when we start talking about a fusion reactor who's fusion reaction would immediately cease if there was a malfunction and the machine stopped working.

I'd be sad if the population considered a firecracker a missile just like I'd be sad if the public considered that contraption as a nuke.
Some people can't be convinced and have minds like steel traps
wink.gif
. Some tiny units on nuclear energy in high school environmental science and physics convinced me it's mostly cut corners, poor decisions, and old reactors that cause meltdowns. I don't think many environmentalists or closed minded people could ever believe it's worth the negatives though. They have their opinion and that's fine since there truly are some cons to nuclear energy (at least with fission reactors, I don't know anything about fusion beyond it using hydrogen and being immensely powerful).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,973 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diablosbud View Post

Some people can't be convinced and have minds like steel traps
wink.gif
. Some tiny units on nuclear energy in high school environmental science and physics convinced me it's mostly cut corners, poor decisions, and old reactors that cause meltdowns. I don't think many environmentalists or closed minded people could ever believe it's worth the negatives though. They have their opinion and that's fine since there truly are some cons to nuclear energy (at least with fission reactors, I don't know anything about fusion beyond it using hydrogen and being immensely powerful).
Fusion is basically taking multiple atomic nuclei and crashing them together at high speeds and under extreme pressure. This causes a new atomic nucleus to be formed and some of the matter is converted into pure energy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,536 Posts
As far as Fusion goes - most people, in my opinion have spent far to much time staring at Marvel comic books instead of figuring out how it really works
wink.gif
At least thats the impression I get when whenever there is fission, fusion or genetic engineering mentioned resulting in overly hysterical reaction. I mean sure, none of these are the pure white Saviour of the mankind, but the risks are reasonably well understood and in some cases they are better than using existing tech - but because of the hysterical reaction of "the public" there is major political obstacles.

About climate change - cooling Earth is in essence relatively simple
wink.gif
What is a hard nut to crack is to figure how much exactly is enough so you do not end up with winter lasting few hundred years. All you need, in essence, is strong enough cloud cover to reflect most of the incoming energy from sun back out. Which you can achieve by strapping a large box to every commercial airplane out there and dumping few tons of fine dust over your flight path every flight. Or couple dozen strong enough nukes would do the trick as well
wink.gif


Granted, as atmosphere is highly nonlinear system there might be also some unforeseen consequences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,973 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniflex View Post

Granted, as atmosphere is highly nonlinear system there might be also some unforeseen consequences.
Remember what the sky looked like in The Matrix? Yeeeeah, lol. xD
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniflex View Post

Which you can achieve by strapping a large box to every commercial airplane out there and dumping few tons of fine dust over your flight path every flight. Or couple dozen strong enough nukes would do the trick as well
wink.gif
Isn't the 'box of dust' what chemtrails are?

Nukes will help the atmosphere and ozone now? There are theories that say the nuke testing helped make huge holes in the first place.........and therefore aiding global warming.

I'm probably sounding like an idiot because maybe your whole post is just a joke?
 

·
Totally New to OCN
Joined
·
10,627 Posts
this went from Finding Alien Life forms, to human induced Ice Age
thumb.gif


really didn't see that one coming haha
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

it'd be amusing if we were seeded by aliens in the past, and acted as a test subjects for observation.
Considering we have no clue where our dna came from it is not completely impossible.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,720 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradleyW View Post

Not just the grays. Several different races since the early days of Earth.
If only there were proof...

And don't misread my underlying tone for something it's not! I am by no means a disbeliever in existence.

What I mean is... for x's sake....... let's get some damn evidence (conclusive)!

The reality is with the sheer and incredibly vast amount of galaxies, stars, planets, etc - there is absolutely no way we're the only intelligent creatures (a term which I use loosely, because we're really not all that intelligent as a species...) in this universe. Seriously. Impossible it's just us.
 

·
Master of Black Snow
Joined
·
19,338 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophobe View Post

$100m will be huge money for SETI. I wish some of that Climate Change industry money could be funneled to SETI... probably one of the most worthwhile projects that nobody really cares about.
Climate Change money shouldn't be diverted anywhere. Greenland and Western Antartica are melting at exponential rates and in turn is flooding countries like Bangladesh. We need to stop that process as of yesterday so we have enough time to adjust to the changing climate since scientists are no longer certain we can even reverse the process at this point.
Explain how it floods Bangladesh but California in in a major drought.
mellowsmiley.gif


And we cannot "change" or reverse these things. We don't yet have the technology to halt climate change. We can focus on our personal habits and alter how we interact with Nature. But nothing more tbqh.
smile.gif


~Ceadder
smil3dbd4e4c2e742.gif
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,032 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

To be quite honest, I'm not up for a discussion about global warming with someone who isn't fully up to speed on the situation. Greenland's ice sheets are becoming polluted, which is increasing the rate of ice melt. Western Antartica is metling so fast scientists don't even know that the process can be reversed. All that extra water is flooding our coast lines and is killing millions of people.

There is no debating this. It's fact.
proof.gif

offtopic.gif
 

·
Master of Black Snow
Joined
·
19,338 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmuckley View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DIYDeath View Post

To be quite honest, I'm not up for a discussion about global warming with someone who isn't fully up to speed on the situation. Greenland's ice sheets are becoming polluted, which is increasing the rate of ice melt. Western Antartica is metling so fast scientists don't even know that the process can be reversed. All that extra water is flooding our coast lines and is killing millions of people.

There is no debating this. It's fact.
proof.gif
Untrue. Don't sweat it. Fear not, Chicken Little will be drowned soon if he doesn't find his water wings. India and California are on opposite sides of the Pacific. If this were indeed true, my Cali homies would be building an Ark and stocking up 420 for the appocolypse.
thumb.gif


~Ceadder
smil3dbd4e4c2e742.gif
 
281 - 300 of 319 Posts
Top