Remember me
▼ Content

Gravity fed electrical generation system



Page 2 of 11<1234>>>
27-04-2019 15:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Seriously? You have a guy that claims that the hoover dam is a solar power plant and you call that science?

CFC's and F-gases are decreasing the amount of gases that contribute to the Chapman cycle.

CFC's and Fluorine do not decrease oxygen.
James___ wrote:
NOAA says that CO2 is preventing a further decline in the amount of gases in the Chapman cycle.

CO2 does not decrease oxygen.
James___ wrote:
And others say crop failure is possible if the amount of gases in the Chapman cycle are reduced.

Oxygen is not being depleted.
James___ wrote:
So what do you think?

I think you have a mental problem.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 15:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting if they discovered that the reason the ozone holes exist is that co2 fell so much during the last 50 million years.

CO2 has nothing to do with the ozone 'hole'. The sparse areas of ozone occur at the winter of that pole. They form because there is no sunlight to produce ozone.
dehammer wrote:
We never found out what the holes looked like before we put cfc's into the atmosphere.
Maybe they had nothing to do with the holes.

They don't. CFC's do not react with ozone at all. You can put the two chemicals in the same tank together and nothing happens.
dehammer wrote:
The holes have decreased in sizes at the same rate the co2 is going up.

The 'holes' are still the same. They vary in size from year to year depending on upper air winds at the pole that winter.
dehammer wrote:
We do know that co2 increase has caused an increase in the greening of the planet by 17% in 33 years and an increase in food production of 16% in the same period.

Food production increased largely due to better farming and ranching practices and even the production of better seed.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 16:33
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Not surprising, you seem to think you know more than all the scientist in the world.
27-04-2019 21:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
Not surprising, you seem to think you know more than all the scientist in the world.


I don't. But I do know science. You don't.


The Parrot Killer
27-04-2019 21:30
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Arent you the one that say hoover dam is a big solar power plant?
27-04-2019 21:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
Arent you the one that say hoover dam is a big solar power plant?

Yes. Because that's exactly what it is. Where do you think all that falling water comes from?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-04-2019 21:44
27-04-2019 22:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Arent you the one that say hoover dam is a big solar power plant?

Yes. Because that's exactly what it is. Where do you think all that falling water comes from?


Same as wind turbines....ultimately powered by the sun.
27-04-2019 22:53
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So all of those scientist that say dams are powered by gravity are wrong because you disagree with them.

So why do we not have dams on the great plains? Why don't they use them on ships to power the ships?

The sun is ultimately powered by gravity.
Edited on 27-04-2019 22:54
27-04-2019 23:02
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1316)
dehammer wrote:
So all of those scientist that say dams are powered by gravity are wrong because you disagree with them.
Who are all these scientists?? Can you name a few please?
So why do we not have dams on the great plains?

Um, we kinda do.
Why don't they use them on ships to power the ships?

What the hell are you talking about?
The sun is ultimately powered by gravity.

Really? Please educate me here.
27-04-2019 23:40
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.
28-04-2019 04:19
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(973)
dehammer wrote:
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.


I'm not in the third grade, and I didn't know it. But, third grade was a long time ago for me, still doing the moon landing stuff. I don't believe I'm a troll, don't think I'm always right. I learn, and remember many things, try to correct the mis-information I've collected over the years. Somethings I've come to understand pretty well, hard to convince me otherwise.
28-04-2019 04:40
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Then I recommend you do a little research in to how dams work. IF you can understand that, you can understand why my invention works. IF you cant understand that, you can not understand any science.

The entire message is that this system can work. Its been available since 1979, the early days of the global warming scam. IF global warming was real and a threat, this would have been the solution.

No one wants it. The fossil companies can not control it. The alarmist want socialism. Al Gore wants more money. The UN wants to take down America. None of them can get that from this. So it sets in the patent office gathering dust.
28-04-2019 16:41
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
dehammer wrote:
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.



Slight problem. The corona around the Sun is hotter, much hotter than the surface of the Sun . With me, I like to keep things simple and say things like quantum entanglement. This link gives possible sources of the corona's heat content. Of course those plasma jets might be the product of nuclear fission. https://www.zmescience.com/research/why-sun-corona-is-hotter-than-surface-03421432/
Edited on 28-04-2019 16:45
28-04-2019 16:46
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(973)
dehammer wrote:
Then I recommend you do a little research in to how dams work. IF you can understand that, you can understand why my invention works. IF you cant understand that, you can not understand any science.

The entire message is that this system can work. Its been available since 1979, the early days of the global warming scam. IF global warming was real and a threat, this would have been the solution.

No one wants it. The fossil companies can not control it. The alarmist want socialism. Al Gore wants more money. The UN wants to take down America. None of them can get that from this. So it sets in the patent office gathering dust.


A dam works, because there is a huge volume of water behind it. The water is constantly replenished by rain and runoff from melting snow in surrounding mountains. Not all rivers and waterways can support a dam, or commercial scale hydroelectric plant. I believe the first hydroelectric plant was built at Niagara Falls, by Dr. Nikola Tesla, but could be wrong. It was most definitely the first to provide alternating current though, and long distant transmission of power, that we enjoy today. I don't have the engineering, to calculate the diameter of the pipe you would need, to provide enough water pressure needed to rotate a large enough turbine, to produce a useful amount of electricity. You want to separate the hydrogen and oxygen, to transport the water up the tube, instead of pumping, which would take a lot of power, and more time, than it takes the water to run through the turbine, when recombined. I don't recall any electrolysis done in a pressure container, the gas had been compressed, after collected though.

I don't know a lot about fuel cells, other than they are crazy expensive, and limited lifespan. It's an array of cells actually, each cell produces about 0.7 volts, current depends on surface area. Sort of like solar panels are made of individual cells, which produce 0.5 volts. Seem like if a hydrogen fuel cell could produce enough power, to separate the waste water, back into hydrogen and water to feed it, they'd be doing that. They don't, because it would use a lot of current, for too little recovery, lowering the efficiency, and no real gain. There are other ways to obtain hydrogen and oxygen, besides water electrolysis, which are more efficient.

Alternative energy has been a thing of interest for a long time, even before oil pumps and electric grids. People pour through those patents often, hoping to find something that just needs modern materials, newer technology, a little tweak. Most just look good on paper, but just don't workout in practice, missed a few key issues in the excitement. Even respected scientist get it wrong, which isn't a bad thing, since it's a search for the truth. Success or failure, something is still learned from the work done. Cold Fusion was one of the most recent, the scientists would have been fine, except they tried to hide the failure, to keep their research cash flowing, by claiming their observation was repeatable. It wasn't, no one else could, they couldn't demonstrate it to others either.

If this patent had some merit, it could have gotten funding. The two largest alternative energy, wind and solar, aren't that great, and take a lot of landscape. Anything that could compete, and take up less space, would be more appealing.
28-04-2019 17:39
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The reservoir behind a dam prevents it from losing power during winter when there is no snow melting or rain refilling the lake. It keeps the height high even during droughts. My design has constantly refreshed upper reservoir that doesn't care about weather. That means it doesn't have to have the huge reservoir.

What matters is the distance the water falls. THAT is the same for both nature and my system which copies nature.

Not all rivers and waterways can support a dam
And do you know why? Because most rivers and waterways do not have the drop that allows it. You cant have a dam in the high plains because there is no altitude to give it a drop sufficient to make it worth the effort.

What makes it possible to make electricity from water at dams is the altitude the water drops from.

I don't know a lot about fuel cells, other than they are crazy expensive
They used to be when they used platinum, but now they use nickel. Its a difference between a few hundred dollars a pound vs a few dollars a ton. Yes, they do have a limited lifespan, but that's called maintenance cost. The turbines in the hoover dam have a limited lifespan, but they are used.

Seem like if a hydrogen fuel cell could produce enough power, to separate the waste water, back into hydrogen and water to feed it, they'd be doing that.

PLEASE learn to read for comprehension. I have stated it only gets 40% to 60% of the electricity that it needs to run. That is why they do not do it.

It takes the entire system to make it work, not just parts of it. Do you think your car would run with JUST the battery? OF course your car can not run with just the gas either. It needs a pump to run the gasoline to the engine, it needs the engine to burn the gas and convert it to mechanical energy, then it needs the transmission to turn that into useable energy for the tires, then you need the tires to convert the mechanical energy to motion.

With all of that, you still need a battery to give the modern vehicles the spark to start.

With this SYSTEM, no part of it works without the rest. You need the electrolysis to get the fuel into the pipe. You need the motor/boiler/fuel cell to convert that back to water. Then you need the drop in altitude to give the system the power to run. If you have enough altitude, you do not even need to get the energy from the fuel cells. Using the fuel cells is just to lower the required altitude.

"missed a few key issues in the excitement."
In this case, that is more true than you know. This was stolen from me and the guy that patented it did not understand all of it. I deliberately left a flaw in it and he patented it with that flaw.

I have explained what that flaw was.
28-04-2019 18:18
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Even dams don't really work anymore you think THIS will?
28-04-2019 18:41
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So the hoover dam is not producing electricity?
28-04-2019 18:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
So all of those scientist that say dams are powered by gravity are wrong because you disagree with them.

So why do we not have dams on the great plains? Why don't they use them on ships to power the ships?

The sun is ultimately powered by gravity.


No, dude. The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 18:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.


So you are arguing that the Sun's gravity causes Hoover dam to function now?


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 18:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.


I'm not in the third grade, and I didn't know it. But, third grade was a long time ago for me, still doing the moon landing stuff. I don't believe I'm a troll, don't think I'm always right. I learn, and remember many things, try to correct the mis-information I've collected over the years. Somethings I've come to understand pretty well, hard to convince me otherwise.


He calls everyone a 'troll'. He has no idea what the word even means. To him, it means "someone that doesn't agree with my argument".


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-04-2019 18:45
28-04-2019 18:45
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:snip?

Let me know when you have something to say.
28-04-2019 18:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
Then I recommend you do a little research in to how dams work. IF you can understand that, you can understand why my invention works.

YOUR invention?? Did you invent this perpetual motion machine? Sorry, dude. Perpetual motions machines don't work. You are still denying the laws of thermodynamics, theories of science.
dehammer wrote:
IF you cant understand that, you can not understand any science.

It is YOU that doesn't understand any science.
dehammer wrote:
The entire message is that this system can work.

Yes, that IS your entire message, isn't it?
dehammer wrote:
Its been available since 1979, the early days of the global warming scam.

Then build it. Try to get it to work. Put your own money and time into it.
dehammer wrote:
IF global warming was real and a threat, this would have been the solution.

'Global Warming' isn't even defined. Buzzwords are no threat. Perpetual motions are not a solution to any threat, real or imagined.
dehammer wrote:
No one wants it.

WRONG. You obviously do. Build it. Try to get it to work.
dehammer wrote:
The fossil companies can not control it.

There are no fossil companies, other than the fake ones made for scientists in places like China.
dehammer wrote:
The alarmist want socialism.

First you thing you said that's right.
dehammer wrote:
Al Gore wants more money.

Also true.
dehammer wrote:
The UN wants to take down America.

The UN wants to be a world government. America stands in its way.
dehammer wrote:
None of them can get that from this.

You seem to think this machine is an ultimate solution. Build it. Try to get it to work.
dehammer wrote:
So it sets in the patent office gathering dust.

Most patents in the patent office do.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 18:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.



Slight problem. The corona around the Sun is hotter, much hotter than the surface of the Sun . With me, I like to keep things simple and say things like quantum entanglement. This link gives possible sources of the corona's heat content. Of course those plasma jets might be the product of nuclear fission. https://www.zmescience.com/research/why-sun-corona-is-hotter-than-surface-03421432/


You like to keep things complicated and use as many buzzwords as you can.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 19:04
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote: Build it. Try to get it to work.


I am a disabled vet on a fixed income. This would require the ability to climb mountains and that I can not do. A test could be built with perhaps $2000 IF you had access to a mountain and could climb it, but I do not have either. IF I could raise the money, and hire someone to do it AND could have access to a mountain with perhaps a 1:1 drop, I would do so.
28-04-2019 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Then I recommend you do a little research in to how dams work. IF you can understand that, you can understand why my invention works. IF you cant understand that, you can not understand any science.

The entire message is that this system can work. Its been available since 1979, the early days of the global warming scam. IF global warming was real and a threat, this would have been the solution.

No one wants it. The fossil companies can not control it. The alarmist want socialism. Al Gore wants more money. The UN wants to take down America. None of them can get that from this. So it sets in the patent office gathering dust.


A dam works, because there is a huge volume of water behind it. The water is constantly replenished by rain and runoff from melting snow in surrounding mountains. Not all rivers and waterways can support a dam, or commercial scale hydroelectric plant. I believe the first hydroelectric plant was built at Niagara Falls, by Dr. Nikola Tesla, but could be wrong. It was most definitely the first to provide alternating current though, and long distant transmission of power, that we enjoy today.

It was Tesla that showed the advantages of alternating current and built the first equipment for it, such as the Niagra Falls station. He had funding from General Electric to do it.
Meanwhile, Edison couldn't get his head wrapped around AC. All of his systems were DC. The War of the Currents was filled with propaganda, slimy tricks, insults, and all that Edison could muster against Tesla. Sort of like the Windows/Unix wars today.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't have the engineering, to calculate the diameter of the pipe you would need, to provide enough water pressure needed to rotate a large enough turbine, to produce a useful amount of electricity.
The diameter of the pipe makes no difference. All pipe has resistance to flow. dehammer is not allowing for that loss. As far as a 'useful' amount of electricity, that is immaterial. If you can demonstrate that you can generate even a mW beyond what it costs to produce it using this machine, it is producing useful electricity and can be scaled upwards.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You want to separate the hydrogen and oxygen, to transport the water up the tube, instead of pumping, which would take a lot of power, and more time, than it takes the water to run through the turbine, when recombined. I don't recall any electrolysis done in a pressure container, the gas had been compressed, after collected though.

The kicker is not the tube or the length of it. That's just additional loss. The kicker is that he is trying to convert the water generated by his fuel cell back into source gases to run that cell. He is doing the equivalent of powering a water wheel with water pumped up by another wheel mounted on the same shaft. It doesn't work.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't know a lot about fuel cells, other than they are crazy expensive, and limited lifespan.
You can think of them as a battery. The only difference is that you are replacing the electrolyte in the battery as it puts out power. They work using the same principles as any battery after that.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's an array of cells actually, each cell produces about 0.7 volts, current depends on surface area.
Just like any battery array.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sort of like solar panels are made of individual cells, which produce 0.5 volts. Seem like if a hydrogen fuel cell could produce enough power, to separate the waste water, back into hydrogen and water to feed it, they'd be doing that.
It will separate hydrogen from oxygen, but it's not enough to keep the machine running.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They don't, because it would use a lot of current, for too little recovery, lowering the efficiency, and no real gain. There are other ways to obtain hydrogen and oxygen, besides water electrolysis, which are more efficient.
They also require burning fuel to do it. No, the machine has to run without additional energy being supplied to it, or it is not producing usable power.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Alternative energy has been a thing of interest for a long time, even before oil pumps and electric grids. People pour through those patents often, hoping to find something that just needs modern materials, newer technology, a little tweak. Most just look good on paper, but just don't workout in practice, missed a few key issues in the excitement. Even respected scientist get it wrong, which isn't a bad thing, since it's a search for the truth. Success or failure, something is still learned from the work done. Cold Fusion was one of the most recent, the scientists would have been fine, except they tried to hide the failure, to keep their research cash flowing, by claiming their observation was repeatable. It wasn't, no one else could, they couldn't demonstrate it to others either.

Quite right. Even some scientists fall for this sort of thing from time to time.
HarveyH55 wrote:
If this patent had some merit, it could have gotten funding. The two largest alternative energy, wind and solar, aren't that great, and take a lot of landscape. Anything that could compete, and take up less space, would be more appealing.

There's always nuclear. Of course, some people consider that worse than coal, oil, or natural gas.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 19:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:snip
Let me know when you learn to actually read what other say.
28-04-2019 19:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
The reservoir behind a dam prevents it from losing power during winter when there is no snow melting or rain refilling the lake. It keeps the height high even during droughts.

That's called a 'ballast' in energy production. You are still ignoring where all that falling water is coming from.
dehammer wrote:
My design has constantly refreshed upper reservoir that doesn't care about weather. That means it doesn't have to have the huge reservoir.
So your system requires no ballasting. Fine.
dehammer wrote:
What matters is the distance the water falls. THAT is the same for both nature and my system which copies nature.
Where are you getting the water from? How are you getting it to height so you can produce power when it falls?
dehammer wrote:
Not all rivers and waterways can support a dam
And do you know why? Because most rivers and waterways do not have the drop that allows it. You cant have a dam in the high plains because there is no altitude to give it a drop sufficient to make it worth the effort.

Oh? What about Garrison dam? It's located in North Dakota. It produces about 2.2 billion kW each year.
dehammer wrote:
What makes it possible to make electricity from water at dams is the altitude the water drops from.

Not a lot of altitude drop in North Dakota. Did you know you can produce hydroelectric power in a sink using the faucet?
dehammer wrote:
I don't know a lot about fuel cells, other than they are crazy expensive

They used to be when they used platinum, but now they use nickel. Its a difference between a few hundred dollars a pound vs a few dollars a ton. Yes, they do have a limited lifespan, but that's called maintenance cost. The turbines in the hoover dam have a limited lifespan, but they are used.

Cost has certainly come down on these, but that isn't the problem with your machine.
dehammer wrote:
Seem like if a hydrogen fuel cell could produce enough power, to separate the waste water, back into hydrogen and water to feed it, they'd be doing that.

PLEASE learn to read for comprehension. I have stated it only gets 40% to 60% of the electricity that it needs to run. That is why they do not do it.

Your numbers don't mean what you think they mean.
dehammer wrote:
It takes the entire system to make it work, not just parts of it.

Wait...you just said you don't need the fuel cell, just the falling water!
dehammer wrote:
Do you think your car would run with JUST the battery?

Some cars do. They are called 'electric vehicles'. Golf carts, forklifts, and even full sized cars can run on nothing more than the electricity stored in a battery.
dehammer wrote:
OF course your car can not run with just the gas either.

Sure it can. They're called 'gasoline vehicles'.
dehammer wrote:
It needs a pump to run the gasoline to the engine,

That's powered by the engine.
dehammer wrote:
it needs the engine to burn the gas and convert it to mechanical energy,

That produces enough mechanical energy to not only move the car, but to power things like fuel pumps.
dehammer wrote:
then it needs the transmission to turn that into useable energy for the tires,

Transmissions don't create energy. Some cars don't have them.
dehammer wrote:
then you need the tires to convert the mechanical energy to motion.

Mechanical motion is already mechanical motion. You do not need to convert it. All the wheels do is convert rotary shaft motion to linear motion. They are both the same kinetic energy.
dehammer wrote:
With all of that, you still need a battery to give the modern vehicles the spark to start.

No, you don't. It's quite possible to start an engine by just spinning the shaft by hand.
You can start a lawnmower this way (pull start), an outboard motor, and even an aircraft just by spinning the propeller. These engines have no battery or starter motor.
dehammer wrote:
With this SYSTEM, no part of it works without the rest. You need the electrolysis to get the fuel into the pipe. You need the motor/boiler/fuel cell to convert that back to water. Then you need the drop in altitude to give the system the power to run. If you have enough altitude, you do not even need to get the energy from the fuel cells. Using the fuel cells is just to lower the required altitude.

You cannot generate enough fuel to power the machine that produces the water to generate the fuel to power the machine. You are still trying to create energy out of nothing. You are still trying to ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy doesn't just magickally appear out of nowhere, dude. Electrolysis does not produce enough to power your machine. You don't have enough power to keep the electrolysis going.

You are doing the equivalence of powering a water wheel from the water pumped up using a water wheel mounted on the same shaft. You can't reduce entropy in any system. You can't ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics either.
dehammer wrote:
"missed a few key issues in the excitement."
In this case, that is more true than you know. This was stolen from me and the guy that patented it did not understand all of it. I deliberately left a flaw in it and he patented it with that flaw.

I have explained what that flaw was.

No, you just continue to ignore the laws of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 19:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Even dams don't really work anymore you think THIS will?


Dams work. They produce electricity to this day.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 19:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Build it. Try to get it to work.


I am a disabled vet on a fixed income.

You are also a whiner. I have worked with disabled before. I knew one guy that started four companies, all of them successful. He had polio as a kid and lost the use of his legs and was on crutches. He was the fastest dude in the airport catching a flight!
dehammer wrote:
This would require the ability to climb mountains
Ever hear of a hot air balloon, or aircraft? They are a lot higher than any mountain.
dehammer wrote:
and that I can not do.
You don't have to. Hire someone.
dehammer wrote:
A test could be built with perhaps $2000 IF you had access to a mountain and could climb it, but I do not have either.

You're a whiner. You won't go out and get funding for the project. You just want to sit there and whine.
dehammer wrote:
IF I could raise the money,
Nothing is stopping you but yourself.
dehammer wrote:
and hire someone to do it
Nothing is stopping you but yourself.
dehammer wrote:
AND could have access to a mountain with perhaps a 1:1 drop, I would do so.

Whiner.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 20:03
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:snip.
Let me know if you ever learn to read for content.
28-04-2019 20:35
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.



Slight problem. The corona around the Sun is hotter, much hotter than the surface of the Sun . With me, I like to keep things simple and say things like quantum entanglement. This link gives possible sources of the corona's heat content. Of course those plasma jets might be the product of nuclear fission. https://www.zmescience.com/research/why-sun-corona-is-hotter-than-surface-03421432/


You like to keep things complicated and use as many buzzwords as you can.



Nah. You know gravity really doesn't put pressure on matter while it causes matter to compress itself. I mean when energy is being generated in a body like a planet or the Sun it might only be the result of fission taking place because of gravity.
That's pretty basic.
28-04-2019 20:44
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So your saying that a submarine can go 10 miles beneath the surface without the pressure getting worse?
28-04-2019 21:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:snip.
Let me know if you ever learn to read for content.


Can't handle the truth, can ya whiner?


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 21:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.



Slight problem. The corona around the Sun is hotter, much hotter than the surface of the Sun . With me, I like to keep things simple and say things like quantum entanglement. This link gives possible sources of the corona's heat content. Of course those plasma jets might be the product of nuclear fission. https://www.zmescience.com/research/why-sun-corona-is-hotter-than-surface-03421432/


You like to keep things complicated and use as many buzzwords as you can.



Nah. You know gravity really doesn't put pressure on matter while it causes matter to compress itself. I mean when energy is being generated in a body like a planet or the Sun it might only be the result of fission taking place because of gravity.
That's pretty basic.

It's also off topic. You fell for him moving the goalposts.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 21:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
dehammer wrote:
So your saying that a submarine can go 10 miles beneath the surface without the pressure getting worse?

No one is talking about submarines. Only you are. Redirection fallacy.

Submarines can't go 10 miles beneath the surface of the ocean. The ocean bottom gets in the way.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 21:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The point is submarines can only go a few hundred feet beneath the surface because the pressure increases the further you go down. That proves you know nothing of science.

Come back when you learn the first things about science, or you decide to stop trying to make people made enough to leave (trolling).

Until then, you aren't worth noticing.
Edited on 28-04-2019 21:37
28-04-2019 21:52
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
dehammer wrote:
So your saying that a submarine can go 10 miles beneath the surface without the pressure getting worse?



The density of steel is 7.9 g/cm^3. Fresh water is 1 g/cm^3. Theoretically at a depth of 78.4 metres water will be "denser" because it will have a pressure of 8 g/cm^2. Yet a chunk of steel will sink to the bottom of the sea floor.
This suggests that molar mass stays relative in a gravitational field. And with the submarine, it would be the same principle that allows a dam to work. Dams work because of a static head or column of water. It's the weight of the water doing the work. 2 different things.
28-04-2019 21:54
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
dehammer wrote:
The point is submarines can only go a few hundred feet beneath the surface because the pressure increases the further you go down. That proves you know nothing of science.

Come back when you learn the first things about science, or you decide to stop trying to make people made enough to leave (trolling).

Until then, you aren't worth noticing.



https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-deepest-depth-a-submarine-can-go.htm#didyouknowout
28-04-2019 21:57
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
The only reason the sun puts out energy is that the core is under so much pressure from gravity that the hydrogen is forced together.

Anyone that knew 3rd grade science knows this so either you aren't a 3rd grader graduate, or your a troll.



Slight problem. The corona around the Sun is hotter, much hotter than the surface of the Sun . With me, I like to keep things simple and say things like quantum entanglement. This link gives possible sources of the corona's heat content. Of course those plasma jets might be the product of nuclear fission. https://www.zmescience.com/research/why-sun-corona-is-hotter-than-surface-03421432/


You like to keep things complicated and use as many buzzwords as you can.



Nah. You know gravity really doesn't put pressure on matter while it causes matter to compress itself. I mean when energy is being generated in a body like a planet or the Sun it might only be the result of fission taking place because of gravity.
That's pretty basic.

It's also off topic. You fell for him moving the goalposts.



Nah, just having some fun with you guys. I also see your buzzword fallacy and raise you a redirection fallacy.


we're playing on the river (double entendre), right?
Edited on 28-04-2019 22:02
28-04-2019 22:48
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Notice that is talking about a bathyscape, not a true submarine, such as the US navy uses. It is strictly a specialty type vehicle. It was built for a one off type of mission.

I was not referring to this but REAL submarines that are rarely built for only 2 people.

Also note that this backs up what I said about pressure increasing, SO you defeated your own argument.

Nice going troll.
Page 2 of 11<1234>>>





Join the debate Gravity fed electrical generation system:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Removing plastic cards from the system306-07-2019 05:14
Wind, solar, storage and back-up system designer1605-07-2019 05:18
Fed researcher warns climate change could spur financial crisis027-03-2019 15:50
Climate is the Earth's Operating System(OS) and we definitely need to protect it.2423-12-2018 21:46
Define 'gravity'324-06-2018 18:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact