solar power

duncan61 wrote:
Last week it was announced that the Western Australian state government was going to invest 50 Million on putting solar panels on the Airport.It is a good location as there are no buildings or trees to shade them out.Perth is possibly one of the sunniest places on the planet.Its a win all round with creating jobs and we have developed new technology locally that has improved the panels and the battery storage.It will create enough power to serve 136,000 local houses.The logic for doing it may be flawed but the end result is good

duncan61 wrote:
Last week it was announced that the Western Australian state government was going to invest 50 Million on putting solar panels on the Airport.It is a good location as there are no buildings or trees to shade them out.Perth is possibly one of the sunniest places on the planet.Its a win all round with creating jobs and we have developed new technology locally that has improved the panels and the battery storage.It will create enough power to serve 136,000 local houses.The logic for doing it may be flawed but the end result is good

duncan61 wrote:The idea was inspired by the new panels and storage batteries that have been designed and manufactured locally..

duncan61 wrote:
The idea was inspired by the new panels and storage batteries that have been designed and manufactured locally.I live in an affluent suburb and from the hill I can see a lot of houses with solar panels on the roof.A rebate was given for installing panels and any eccess power was purchased back.This was before this AGW/CC was getting to much traction.To upgrade Muja coal fired power station would cost way more and it is still at its shelf life.Money is not the issue our government has billions to throw around.When nothing bad happens to the planet over the next 20 years all the protestors will be able to claim they solved they saved the planet.

duncan61 wrote:
Work is a measurement of energy,

duncan61 wrote:
so it may seem odd to think that a work can be negative — but it can!

duncan61 wrote:
Work is how much energy is done by a force over a distance. Suppose we needed to set up ice hockey goal nets. Initially the nets are standing still with zero velocity at the edge of the ice hockey rink. When you push a net, it will start moving at some speed; it has velocity. If there is a velocity then the net now has kinetic energy. Because the direction of the push and the movement of the net are in the same direction, there is now positive energy: the goalie net went from zero energy to some amount of positive kinetic energy. This is an example of positive work.
Figure of person moving ice hockey rink
Figure of person moving ice hockey rink
Suppose at the end of an ice hockey game an assistant helps put the goalie nets away by shoving the nets towards you. If you try to stop the net from moving, you will apply a force in the opposite direction that the net is moving. But the goalie net may be moving so fast that you are not able to stay still on the ice, and you move backwards. Your force is in the opposite direction as the movement. This is the opposite situation from the one above: the moving goalie net has kinetic energy, but loses kinetic energy as you slow it down. In this case, work is negative as the force applied to the goalie net is in the opposite direction of the net's movement.

duncan61 wrote:
Remember when doing work calculations only the component of force parallel to the direction of movement is used in a work calculation.

duncan61 wrote:
For example, in this picture here as a person pushes the book across the table, neither the gravity force or the normal force do any work because there is no displacement in the y-direction, but the pushing force does do work because the pushing force is in the same direction as the movement of the book.
Figure of book being pushed across a table
Figure of book being pushed across a table
EXAMPLE
Let look as some examples of calculating work all involving this crate of snakes weighing 50kg.
Figure of a crate of snakes on rope and pulley system
Figure of a crate of snakes on rope and pulley system
What is the work done by gravity as this crate of snakes is hoisted up 10 meters?
W=Fd = (-mg)d = (-9.8)(50)10 = -4900 JW=Fd=(−mg)d=(−9.8)(50)10=−4900JW, equals, F, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, m, g, right parenthesis, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, 9, point, 8, right parenthesis, left parenthesis, 50, right parenthesis, 10, equals, minus, 4900, J
This is negative work! Gravity does negative work here because gravity goes in the opposite direction as the displacement.

duncan61 wrote:
If the crate is moving upwards at a constant velocity, what is the work done by the tension in the rope as it is hoisted up 10 meters?
The phrase "constant velocity" always translates to zero acceleration. From drawing a free body force diagram, we can see the tension force is equal the gravity force, so T=mg.
W=Fd = Td = (mg)(10) = 4900 JW=Fd=Td=(mg)(10)=4900JW, equals, F, d, equals, T, d, equals, left parenthesis, m, g, right parenthesis, left parenthesis, 10, right parenthesis, equals, 4900, J
This is positive work. The tension force is in the same direction as the movement.
If the crate is moving upwards at a constant velocity, what is the net work done on the crate as it is hoisted up 10 meters?
W=Fd = (F_g+T)d = (-4900 J+4900 J)d= 0W=Fd=(F
g
​
+T)d=(−4900J+4900J)d=0W, equals, F, d, equals, left parenthesis, F, start subscript, g, end subscript, plus, T, right parenthesis, d, equals, left parenthesis, minus, 4900, J, plus, 4900, J, right parenthesis, d, equals, 0
The net work is zero because there is no increase or decrease in kinetic energy: the crate is moving at a constant velocity.

I typed in Negative work and this was the first thing that came up.Pick the weevils out of this

duncan61 wrote:Work is a measurement of energy, so it may seem odd to think that a work can be negative — but it can!

duncan61 wrote: Work is how much energy is done by a force over a distance.

duncan61 wrote:Suppose at the end of an ice hockey game an assistant helps put the goalie nets away by shoving the nets towards you. If you try to stop the net from moving, you will apply a force in the opposite direction that the net is moving.

duncan61 wrote:Remember when doing work calculations only the component of force parallel to the direction of movement is used in a work calculation.

duncan61 wrote:Work is a measurement of energy, so it may seem odd to think that a work can be negative — but it can!

duncan61 wrote: Work is how much energy is done by a force over a distance.

duncan61 wrote:Suppose at the end of an ice hockey game an assistant helps put the goalie nets away by shoving the nets towards you. If you try to stop the net from moving, you will apply a force in the opposite direction that the net is moving.

duncan61 wrote:Remember when doing work calculations only the component of force parallel to the direction of movement is used in a work calculation.

duncan61 wrote:
If you stand on a spring and compress it it is positive force if you step off the spring it cannot be positive force again as the force has been removed.Ergo negative force.Simple stuff really

duncan61 wrote:If you stand on a spring and compress it it is positive force if you step off the spring it cannot be positive force again as the force has been removed.Ergo negative force.Simple stuff really

duncan61 wrote:795 million hits on the topic of negative work but you claim it does not exist.

duncan61 wrote:
I am happy with my understanding of ATE.

duncan61 wrote:
I have shared with a few people and it makes sense.

duncan61 wrote:
The Atmosphere has a mass which takes time to heat and cool from the energy radiated from the surface and gravity is making the Atmosphere thicker at ground level so it makes a difference.

duncan61 wrote:
The term thicker is from someone else but i like it.Thats it.

duncan61 wrote:
I am happy with my understanding of ATE. I have shared with a few people and it makes sense.The Atmosphere has a mass which takes time to heat and cool from the energy radiated from the surface and gravity is making the Atmosphere thicker at ground level so it makes a difference.The term thicker is from someone else but i like it. That's it.

duncan61 wrote:
I did not weigh in when Tmiddles was getting involved in the venus debate however apparently the atmosphere of Venus is mostly Co2 and a lot denser than our blue green rock.Different atmosphere different atmospheric thermal effect??

James___ wrote: We're going back to what proved Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: We're going back to what proved Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Actually, nothing Duncan was talking about involved Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but what you are talking about is Einstein's Energy-Mass equivalence, i.e. E=Mc^2

This says that all energy has mass, and the formula tells you exactly how much. Light, not being matter, was thought to not have any mass so the experiment with the light bending around a black hole was intended to falsify Einstein's equivalence and the light was not supposed to bend ... but it did, just as Einstein said it would.

The Theory of Relativity goes into complicated calculus showing that gravity is not an instantaneous acceleration but that gravitons travel at the speed of light and thus create a "curvature" in space-time.

was thought to not have any mass so the experiment with the light bending around a black hole was intended to falsify Einstein's equivalence and the light was not supposed to bend ... but it did, just as Einstein said it would.

duncan61 wrote:I am happy with my understanding of ATE.

duncan61 wrote: I have shared with a few people and it makes sense.

duncan61 wrote: The Atmosphere has a mass which [blah, blah blah, ... does not address any of the fatal flaws]

FATAL FLAWS of ATE

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

duncan61 wrote:I did not weigh in when Tmiddles was getting involved in the venus debate

duncan61 wrote:.. however apparently the atmosphere of Venus is mostly Co2 and a lot denser than our blue green rock.

duncan61 wrote: Different atmosphere different atmospheric thermal effect??

duncan61 wrote: You have created the FATAL FLAWS argument.

duncan61 wrote:I bullet pointed this before

duncan61 wrote:This is the Atmospheric thermal effect.

duncan61 wrote:Why do you have such a problem with this??You have imported it to this thread and other threads which is demonstrating your desire to dominate this forum.

List of FATAL FLAWS in the WACKY ATE dogma

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

List of FATAL FLAWS in the WACKY ATE dogma

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

duncan61 wrote: Back on the solar power situation our government has pledged over 500 million to upgrade our defence capabilities ... blah, blah, blah

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:I bullet pointed this before

You never addressed the FATAL FLAWS.

I know that I have pointed this FATAL FLAW out to you on multiple occasions as Pete Rogers made it and I don't see it in your bullet list. Where is it?

Quit trying to change the topic, moron. You are a liar and your attempts to bully me into changing the topic won't work. There is only one issue that you could have resolved LONG AGO but you insist on dragging out your total dishonestly and dominating this site with your PREACHING, you fuuúking lying moron.

I'm not going to let that happen without challenging you on it, that's for sure. You need to answer for every claim you make, for all dogma you assert and for all beliefs you demand other posters embrace on faith without question.

You need to start by reconciling the FATAL FLAWS of your fúukked-up religion, the one that targetted you because you are a gullible moron who can be made to believe anything and that has enlisted you to PREACH that religion here on this site.

For your convenience, I am posting the FATAL FLAWS below:

List of FATAL FLAWS in the WACKY ATE dogma

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

If you'd like, you can try again to bully me into changing the topic. You can also try to get me to forget that you have not yet addressed a single FATAL FLAW. Who knows, it might work, right?

Do you know how long it takes me to post a link to the list of the FATAL FLAWS

Let's see, set the timer. Go.

* Link to the FATAL FLAWS

Time! Thirteen seconds. Wow. Oh look, I can just copy-paste.

* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS
* Link to the FATAL FLAWS

Why don't you just address them? Really? I'm not the only one who is wondering why you are such a sniveling, craven coward on this topic. Shall I post them again for you, in case you missed the list a few lines up? Really, it's no trouble at all.

List of FATAL FLAWS in the WACKY ATE dogma

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

duncan61 wrote:The topic is solar power.I know .I created it.

duncan61 wrote: I surf the net and find interesting positive subjects and post them on here for public comment.

duncan61 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The question became "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it ... right here in this thread.

How does this work??.

duncan61 wrote:The question became "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it ... right here in this thread.
How does this work??.

duncan61 wrote:
The topic is solar power.I know .I created it.I surf the net and find interesting positive subjects and post them on here for public comment.My take on the State building solar power at the airport is positive.Even if it powers one light bulb it will stop the protestors blocking up the city.They will all feel good that they saved the planet win win al round.I would like to deal with the FATAL FLAWS topic I will open a thread.Regards Duncan the Moronic Liar

duncan61 wrote:
The question became "Why doesn't SWA implement your ATE and use the plentiful gravity to solve the energy problems you raised?" I know, I asked it ... right here in this thread.
How does this work??.

duncan61 wrote:I will ask again I do not know how this works and on what date did this energy start

duncan61 wrote:I always felt gravity was there since the earth was formed or are you claiming its a new thing

duncan61 wrote:
This shows your mind set ITN. the protests have stopped and the reason to protest has gone away.