Christopher Colombus (Split from Taekwondo isn't from Karate...thread)

[Dirty Dog]

Natural gas burns pretty clean but is not easily renewable.

I never understood why you see gas being burned off from oil wells. Is there some technical reason why this gas cannot be captured and used?

And, given the huge amounts of empty land you see around every pumpjack, I've always thought they should diversify and stick a wind turbine there as well.

Nuclear is also clean but the byproduct is an issue.

I honestly think the answer to this is load it on a rocket and shoot it into the sun. Since the sun is nothing more than a monster fusion reactor, you'd just be adding a minuscule amount of fuel.

Only problem with solar, wind, or hydro is storage so that you can increase supply in high demand times.

Well, there are some relatively small problems. Things like wind turbines chopping up birds (some of which are protected species).

 

[JR 137]

I never understood why you see gas being burned off from oil wells. Is there some technical reason why this gas cannot be captured and used?

And, given the huge amounts of empty land you see around every pumpjack, I've always thought they should diversify and stick a wind turbine there as well.



I honestly think the answer to this is load it on a rocket and shoot it into the sun. Since the sun is nothing more than a monster fusion reactor, you'd just be adding a minuscule amount of fuel.



Well, there are some relatively small problems. Things like wind turbines chopping up birds (some of which are protected species).

Sending a rocket towards the sun would be quite expensive. Sure it’s all momentum once you escape earth’s gravity, but it’s expensive getting to that point. Factor in the price of the rocket and fuel. Then add the cargo capacity isn’t all that great.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Sending a rocket towards the sun would be quite expensive. Sure it’s all momentum once you escape earth’s gravity, but it’s expensive getting to that point. Factor in the price of the rocket and fuel. Then add the cargo capacity isn’t all that great.

It's a lot cheaper than safely storing it on earth for the thousands or millions of years it takes to decay.
And, as with any other technology, it's reasonable to think that space launches will become cheaper over time, as technology improves. Especially when you can eliminate the need to protect fragile humans.

 

[jobo]

I never understood why you see gas being burned off from oil wells. Is there some technical reason why this gas cannot be captured and used?

And, given the huge amounts of empty land you see around every pumpjack, I've always thought they should diversify and stick a wind turbine there as well.



I honestly think the answer to this is load it on a rocket and shoot it into the sun. Since the sun is nothing more than a monster fusion reactor, you'd just be adding a minuscule amount of fuel.



Well, there are some relatively small problems. Things like wind turbines chopping up birds (some of which are protected species).

no only economic ones, its a waste product in very small amounts, capturing it isn't worth the trouble, unless its a gas field where there's lots of it,

I never understood why you see gas being burned off from oil wells. Is there some technical reason why this gas cannot be captured and used?

And, given the huge amounts of empty land you see around every pumpjack, I've always thought they should diversify and stick a wind turbine there as well.



I honestly think the answer to this is load it on a rocket and shoot it into the sun. Since the sun is nothing more than a monster fusion reactor, you'd just be adding a minuscule amount of fuel.



Well, there are some relatively small problems. Things like wind turbines chopping up birds (some of which are protected species).

???? the sun uses hydrogen for fuel and makes ( amongst other things) uranium as a byproduct, it really doesn't need anymore

 

[Dirty Dog]

???? the sun uses hydrogen for fuel and makes ( amongst other things) uranium as a byproduct, it really doesn't need anymore

It needs it more than we need it here.
The point was (since you apparently missed it) that there is no reason to think that dumping nuclear waste into the sun could hurt anything. Dumping it here, on the other hand...

 

[jobo]

It needs it more than we need it here.
The point was (since you apparently missed it) that there is no reason to think that dumping nuclear waste into the sun could hurt anything. Dumping it here, on the other hand...

we'll_ no, it has more than we do it doesn't need it any more than we do.

the flaw with your plan apart from the cost of sending more than a few pounds of the stuff. well a few pounds would be outrageous. a few tons mind blowing. is what happens when the rocket blows up in earths atmosphere. which you may have notices happens from time to time. then it sweeps round the globe and kills everyone eventually. you may as well just post a bit to everyon e. it would have much the same effect

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's a lot cheaper than safely storing it on earth for the thousands or millions of years it takes to decay.
And, as with any other technology, it's reasonable to think that space launches will become cheaper over time, as technology improves. Especially when you can eliminate the need to protect fragile humans.

I've sometimes wondered if it wouldn't be possible to make a huge rail gun for that purpose. No need for a rocket - just encase the spent fuel in a protective shell (could be cast around it) and fire it out of the atmosphere, then let momentum and Sol's gravity do the rest.

 

[jobo]

I've sometimes wondered if it wouldn't be possible to make a huge rail gun for that purpose. No need for a rocket - just encase the spent fuel in a protective shell (could be cast around it) and fire it out of the atmosphere, then let momentum and Sol's gravity do the rest.

I think you may need to do some calcs on the viability of that, ! there's a quarter of a million tons of the stuff lying about, your going to cast it in steel, so we can times that by 100? so 250 million tons, and you have to break that down by the technology we have to fire an object at 25,000 mph, to determine how long it would take to reduce it by say 50% and most importantly how much energy it would take to move that mass out of orbit, I suspect they would need to build some more nuclear power stations to do that, which then began the question of are you removing it faster than your making it, with each power station producing 27 tons a year, 270 tons armfter you've cast it

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think you may need to do some calcs on the viability of that, ! there's a quarter of a million tons of the stuff lying about, your going to cast it in steel, so we can times that by 100? so 250 million tons, and you have to break that down by the technology we have to fire an object at 25,000 mph, to determine how long it would take to reduce it by say 50% and most importantly how much energy it would take to move that mass out of orbit, I suspect they would need to build some more nuclear power stations to do that, which then began the question of are you removing it faster than your making it, with each power station producing 27 tons a year, 270 tons armfter you've cast it

I read an article some years ago (more than a decade, probably closer to two) about the viability of rail-gun-type launches for spacecraft. Apparently, it's something that's actually technologically feasible. A long launch rail, at the right angle, was said to be capable of a more gradual acceleration that would still be sufficient for reaching orbit. Given the density of spent uranium (it's much denser than lead, for instance), a cast steel capsule around it won't add 100X the weight - likely something closer to 25%.

But, yeah, it's a question whether it would even be feasible to launch at the rate it's produced. Still, something worth wondering.

 

[jobo]

I read an article some years ago (more than a decade, probably closer to two) about the viability of rail-gun-type launches for spacecraft. Apparently, it's something that's actually technologically feasible. A long launch rail, at the right angle, was said to be capable of a more gradual acceleration that would still be sufficient for reaching orbit. Given the density of spent uranium (it's much denser than lead, for instance), a cast steel capsule around it won't add 100X the weight - likely something closer to 25%.

But, yeah, it's a question whether it would even be feasible to launch at the rate it's produced. Still, something worth wondering.

if you out it in a steel cylinder yiul just have a radioactive steel cylinder, youl need to encase it so its safe to handle,
how long is this rail gun, it will have to be doingg 25 , 000 mph by the time it reaches low earth orbit or at best youl have a radio active satalite, looking for an excuse to fall to earth
as there's no propulsion after its left the rail gun, then it needs to be doing more than that as it leaves the muzzle,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

if you out it in a steel cylinder yiul just have a radioactive steel cylinder, youl need to encase it so its safe to handle,
how long is this rail gun, it will have to be doingg 25 , 000 mph by the time it reaches low earth orbit or at best youl have a radio active satalite, looking for an excuse to fall to earth
as there's no propulsion after its left the rail gun, then it needs to be doing more than that as it leaves the muzzle,

As I recall, the article talked about using a mile-long rail to keep the acceleration gentle. In this case, that wouldn't be necessary. I have no idea how long a rail would be needed to launch a mass out of orbit.

As for the radioactive steel, that's a good point. Probably would need some shielding. I don't know how much it would take, though, since we're not talking about making it safe to live beside - just containing the material during the exit from the atmosphere.

 

[JR 137]

As I recall, the article talked about using a mile-long rail to keep the acceleration gentle. In this case, that wouldn't be necessary. I have no idea how long a rail would be needed to launch a mass out of orbit.

As for the radioactive steel, that's a good point. Probably would need some shielding. I don't know how much it would take, though, since we're not talking about making it safe to live beside - just containing the material during the exit from the atmosphere.

They can make the rocket out of those black boxes they use for airplane communications.

Then again, why didn’t anyone think to make the whole plane out of the black box instead of a small part?

 

[JowGaWolf]

As a point of order here...

Old sources aren’t always accurate. Facts handed down aren’t very accurate either.

George Washington wasn’t the first president of the United States. John Hanson was.
Articles of Confederation, US Constitution, Constitution Day Materials, Pocket Constitution Book, Bill of Rights

And Columbus didn’t discover America. Actually, I don’t think he stepped foot on American soil. He landed somewhere in the Caribbean Sea.

And the Vikings were here before he was.

And practically everyone accepted the earth was round before his ship sailed.

And no one truly knows his actual name nor where he was born.

Sure, read a single book and accept that as scholarly fact. Read a newspaper and accept that as scholarly fact. Or look at a picture and accept that as scholarly fact. Or listen to old wives tales and accept them as scholarly fact.

How about actual legitimate evidence beyond what a few guys with an obvious nationalistic pride agenda are pushing? And even if the nonsense you’re pushing is genuinely correct, what difference does it make in your and anyone else’s training? ZERO.

They only way we learned that history was incorrect, is that we began to walk history backwards from different perspectives. History becomes more accurate as different cultural perspectives are added. It's becomes less about "Who discovered America first" and more about what other things were going on around that time.

Something occurred to me a few mornings ago that was really simple. I looked at the moon and saw that it had a round shadow. The only thing that makes a round shadows are round objects. It didn't take a lot of math to make sense of it. For me it was the first non-scientific rationalization that the earth is round. The simplicity of it was also my first realization of how easy other people could have figured that out. If you use the sun and the shadows to measure time, then you would be pretty good with reading shadows. And the theory of "the earth is flat" just became propaganda.

Contrary to what history as told us. More people probably accepted that the earth was round before it became a christian controversy. To my knowledge only Christians thought and advertised that the world is flat. I can't find that same argument from other cultures. This just shows how important it is to look at history from a much bigger view sometimes than to try to determine "who was first."

 

[jobo]

They only way we learned that history was incorrect, is that we began to walk history backwards from different perspectives. History becomes more accurate as different cultural perspectives are added. It's becomes less about "Who discovered America first" and more about what other things were going on around that time.

Something occurred to me a few mornings ago that was really simple. I looked at the moon and saw that it had a round shadow. The only thing that makes a round shadows are round objects. It didn't take a lot of math to make sense of it. For me it was the first non-scientific rationalization that the earth is round. The simplicity of it was also my first realization of how easy other people could have figured that out. If you use the sun and the shadows to measure time, then you would be pretty good with reading shadows. And the theory of "the earth is flat" just became propaganda.

Contrary to what history as told us. More people probably accepted that the earth was round before it became a christian controversy. To my knowledge only Christians thought and advertised that the world is flat. I can't find that same argument from other cultures. This just shows how important it is to look at history from a much bigger view sometimes than to try to determine "who was first."

the Christ ian churCH were not advocating the world was flat, they were advocating the earth was at the centre of the universe, which as far as anyone can actually measure it, that's exact ly where it is, so they were right all along,

 

[JR 137]

the Christ ian churCH were not advocating the world was flat, they were advocating the earth was at the centre of the universe, which as far as anyone can actually measure it, that's exact ly where it is, so they were right all along,

By the earth being the center of the universe, they were also saying everything revolves around the earth. Except for the moon, they were wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

the Christ ian churCH were not advocating the world was flat, they were advocating the earth was at the centre of the universe, which as far as anyone can actually measure it, that's exact ly where it is, so they were right all along,

They weren't precise enough. I am the center of the universe.

 

[JowGaWolf]

the Christ ian churCH were not advocating the world was flat, they were advocating the earth was at the centre of the universe, which as far as anyone can actually measure it, that's exact ly where it is, so they were right all along,

Thanks for the correction. It was the center of the universe and that everything revolves around the earth, not flat. I got it mixed up.

They weren't precise enough. I am the center of the universe.

Since you are the center of the universe. I think we need 3 day weekends.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Since you are the center of the universe. I think we need 3 day weekends.

I don't control things. Everything just revolves around me.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I don't control things. Everything just revolves around me.

Very good response Sir. I yield lol.

 

[JR 137]

I don't control things. Everything just revolves around me.

Damn it, I had a few requests too. Nothing too complicated. Just having enough money to never have to worry about money again and enough be able to buy and do whatever I want whenever I want. Within reason, of course.

Is that really too much to ask?