AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → The Future of Energy?

41 20135
crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

Ladies, gentlemen, I give you the best option for future safe, efficient nuclear energy: Thorium Power. Everything that needs to be discussed is in the link. Wind power is inefficient and expensive, solar power isn't durable, it's expensive, inefficient. Oil pollutes and causes border disputes, coal is just unsafe. Uranium is unstable and creates waste. Thorium energy is the answer to all these problems.

Thoughts and critiques?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ac/ac2d655cebd931468f9d48ea1290286e3bc33d772de9b2eae93161ca31d1a7ed.jpg

  • 41 Replies
09philj
offline
09philj
2,825 posts
Jester

If this were true then why would there be "5 speed" gears if the collective energy is the same hmm... O.o

A 250cc motorbike can only produce 50 horsepower (average) yet it can reach a top speed of 100mph (average). How is this possible? It has to do with reaching a comfortable speed, then switching gears to move faster. The output of the motor is the same amount of energy in all gears, it does not change.


@weirdlike Imagine you have a bicycle. In both gear one and gear six, transferring the same amount of energy to the pedals will result in the same amount of energy going to the wheels. However, gear six operates at a higher power than gear one; more energy is transferred in a given time using it. (Yay GCSE physics!)
weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,299 posts
Prince

Nope, if that were true everyone would ride their bikes in the highest gear, But they don't. because the initial take off would require "much more energy". Which is why they start at the lowest gear then switch as they speed up. Why don't you try jumping in your car and start off in 5th gear. It would be a very slow take off.

09philj
offline
09philj
2,825 posts
Jester

Nope, if that were true everyone would ride their bikes in the highest gear, But they don't. because the initial take off would require "much more energy". Which is why they start at the lowest gear then switch as they speed up. Why don't you try jumping in your car and start off in 5th gear. It would be a very slow take off.


@weirdlike

Starting to pedal on a bicycle from a stationary position is harder in a higher gear than a lower gear, as more energy must be transferred to meet the power requirements of the higher gearing than the lower gearing. Once the bicycle is accelerating, however, it will gain momentum, meaning that once you switch to a higher gear, the acceleration you must cause to occur to the bike is lower.
weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,299 posts
Prince

Exactly! The reason for the gears is to put less energy (in a lower gear) until the gradual buildup of momentum then switch gears to maintain the energy output of the rider while increasing speed. The rider does not need to release any extra energy.

crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

Yet you have only managed to produce one pro for thorium in practical applications: It is extracted as a pure single isotope. Everything else you mentioned only detracts from its usefulness.


What is this? I am not fighting you. This is a DISCUSSION. I already validated your claims and told you I respect your opinion. My belief that Thorium holds the future of energy production is not a personal affront to you and your beliefs, it is an opinion based on facts and observation.

If I have said or done something to offend you I will gladly discuss it with you, and a mediator if you so choose. But a discussion forum is the wrong place to bring your feelings in on a SCIENTIFIC subject.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

The future lies not in nuclear fission, of any type. The future lies in nuclear fusion. We're not there yet, but boy if we ever get there...

@weirdlike I don't know if maybe I misunderstood something in your proposition, and I didn't follow every post between you and 09philj. But, you don't create energy out of nowhere. What you are proposing sounds like a perpetuum mobile, and we all know this is physically not possible.

Consider this. To make the generator turn, you have to invest energy. You will get energy, but less than you invested, because of friction and other things, in short: your machine has an efficiency factor. By putting in gears, you will make your machine more efficient. What does this mean? It means you will lose less energy. But you will not make more energy than you invest. Not even as much as you invested. If you really know a way to make a machine run with near 100% efficiency, then go patent this idea and you will become the richest person on Earth.

weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,299 posts
Prince

I was waiting for the friction comment

Still, I feel perpetual motion is still debatable YOUTUBE

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

I already validated your claims and told you I respect your opinion.My belief that Thorium holds the future of energy production is not a personal affront to you and your beliefs, it is an opinion based on facts and observation.


You haven't encountered my opinion yet. Opinion has no place here. Only the facts are relevant, and they refute your conclusion.

But a discussion forum is the wrong place to bring your feelings in on a SCIENTIFIC subject.


Indeed. You therefore have no justification for playing the hurt card. Save that for the theology threads.

Still, I feel perpetual motion is still debatable YOUTUBE


Um...you know that thing slows to a stop in less than 3 minutes, right? You can debate it, but it is quite clear that perpetual motion mechanics is an impossible ideal. No Newton's cradle will ever increase its kinetic energy by its own movement alone.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

Still, I feel perpetual motion is still debatable YOUTUBE

You still lose energy at each step, simply in other ways than friction.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,825 posts
Jester

Still, I feel perpetual motion is still debatable YOUTUBE


The newton's cradle loses energy through sound and heat, for example.
weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,299 posts
Prince

Yes. This is true.

Tho, if you put energy into the ball on the left and count the number of times that the ball (on the left) returns the energy. If it hits 100 times then you only applied 1% of the energy used. This is what I was getting at with the gears. Eventually it breaks down but the possibility of energy gained is there.

09philj
offline
09philj
2,825 posts
Jester

the possibility of energy gained is there.


A perpetual motion machine isn't possible. To work, it would need to be frictionless, make no noise, generate no heat, encounter no air resistance, or transfer energy to it's surroundings in any other way.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Tho, if you put energy into the ball on the left and count the number of times that the ball (on the left) returns the energy. If it hits 100 times then you only applied 1% of the energy used. This is what I was getting at with the gears. Eventually it breaks down but the possibility of energy gained is there.


No. The energy applied at the start is partially conserved throughout the entire operation, not multiplied 100 times. There is no energy gain.

A perpetual motion machine isn't possible. To work, it would need to be frictionless, make no noise, generate no heat, encounter no air resistance, or transfer energy to it's surroundings in any other way.


That would only be an ideal machine. A lone atom at absolute zero could possess all of these qualities and break no laws, but could not produce any work. A perpetual motion machine doesn't have to be ideal, but must perform some amount of work without consuming energy to do so. That is why it isn't possible.
weirdlike
offline
weirdlike
1,299 posts
Prince

And what is impossible to science?

We've all heard it before. Might as well tell the Wright brothers to stop wasting their time. Sorry Nikola everything that can be invented has been invented.

But THIS is actually pretty interesting to me, I wonder if it could be achieved using a smaller motor with gears.

crazyape
offline
crazyape
1,606 posts
Peasant

You haven't encountered my opinion yet. Opinion has no place here. Only the facts are relevant, and they refute your conclusion.


That's an opinion.

Indeed. You therefore have no justification for playing the hurt card.


Think about this: Is there anything I can say that will make you feel satisfied that your point has been made without someone else applauding your attacks on my attempts at being civil?
Showing 16-30 of 41