Remember me
▼ Content

The Current This woman won't have children because of climate change. She says she's not alone



Page 2 of 2<12
28-04-2019 21:26
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
dehammer wrote:
It wasn't a typo. It was a complete lack of understanding of the science of co2, convection, conduction, and infrared radiation.

What is worse, is a total lack of willing to accept what others say. He is trolling because he is deliberately trying to make people mad. He argues that anything that supports other people's argument, is magic.

Look at the fact he states that gravity does not exist.


Quit pretending that you know what is in the mind of someone else. CO2, water and sunlight energy convert to plant based hydrocarbons and free oxygen. Nightmare in his usual frenzy to call people stupid made a typo or perhaps more appropriately a series of typos. At least he knows the chemistry involved even if he want's to deny it.

The postings you made show a misunderstanding of radiation and conduction. Rather than correct yourself through simple study you want to argue about it.
28-04-2019 21:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
There is only one way the earth loses energy, radiation. While there is some energy that is lost in other frequencies, the majority of the energy from the atmosphere is lost in infrared radiation. Most molecules and atoms of the atmosphere are stable. This means they release energy very slowly.

Co2 is unstable. That means it releases infrared in microseconds, instead of minutes or even hours of some other molecules, such as water vapor.

The majority of the energy from the atmosphere is released when co2 impacts other molecules and atoms and releases that energy as infrared. Half of this energy goes towards the earth and half goes into space.

Increasing co2 increases the amount of energy that it released from the atmosphere. Satellite data shows this is true. They used to use this data as proof that co2 was increasing in the upper atmosphere, but then it was pointed out that this meant increasing co2 decreased the energy in the atmosphere.


While it is true that the Earth like all other objects in the Universe, can only lose energy via radiation, conduction is a slower means of moving heat into the upper atmosphere so that it can be combined with a portion of the incoming radiation to gain enough energy to radiate.

You can't slow or trap heat, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The core of the Earth is 5,700 K. Were that core radiating more than a couple of feet the radiation would kill all life on Earth.

The heat from the core gets all the way to the surface and out into space, Wake. It doesn't just 'radiate a couple of feet'!
Wake wrote:
Instead it is captured and conducted very slowly to the surface.

You cannot slow or trap heat, Wake. Thermal conductivity of material or the lack of it does not slow heat.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere acts in the same manner though far less efficiently.

No, the atmosphere is no different. It can't slow or trap heat either.
Wake wrote:
Almost half of the Sun's energy that makes it to the surface of the Earth is radiated away.

No, Wake. Most is reflected away. Only what is absorbed is radiated away. All of it.
Wake wrote:
The rest is used to heat the surface and the atmosphere

Heat is not contained in anything, Wake. Absorption of radiant energy from the Sun IS heat. Radiance from the Earth IS heat.
Wake wrote:
and the conduction into the upper atmosphere is a very slow process.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again, Wake. All materials radiate light. You cannot slow or trap heat.


The Parrot Killer
28-04-2019 21:38
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.
29-04-2019 16:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
dehammer wrote:
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.


So now you have proven you are in primary school. Heat conduction occurs through the atoms of all matter.
29-04-2019 18:02
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Energy conducts through 3 methods: conduction (solids), convection (gas) and radiation (mainly infrared). That is elementary science. Maybe you will reach that level next years.
29-04-2019 18:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.


Conduction can happen through liquids or gases as well. However, you are correct that radiance from the ground goes in to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface, not from the atmosphere (which also radiates).


The Parrot Killer
29-04-2019 18:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.


Conduction can happen through liquids or gases as well. However, you are correct that radiance from the ground goes in to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface, not from the atmosphere (which also radiates).


I thought most of the radiation is from the atmosphere, not from the ground. Do you have a source for your claim?
29-04-2019 18:56
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
29-04-2019 19:01
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.


Conduction can happen through liquids or gases as well. However, you are correct that radiance from the ground goes in to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface, not from the atmosphere (which also radiates).

There are three methods of energy transfer that we need to learn: conduction, convection, and radiation. 1. ... Heat is thermal energy, and in solids it can be transferred by conduction. Heat is passed along from the hotter end of an object to the cold end by the particles in the solid vibrating.
Fluids, that is both gases and liquids, can transfer heat energy by convection.

Edited on 29-04-2019 19:03
29-04-2019 21:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.


Conduction can happen through liquids or gases as well. However, you are correct that radiance from the ground goes in to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface, not from the atmosphere (which also radiates).


I thought most of the radiation is from the atmosphere, not from the ground. Do you have a source for your claim?


Only six percent of the Sun's emissions that reach the upper atmosphere reach the ground and are directly radiated back into space. But don't tell that to the morons.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=G%2b8A55J%2f&id=77C30AAFC3D30ACA6D31E67E2F5F7C2403A49279&thid=OIP.G-8A55J_OWUAOH-Fe4TNWwHaFi&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fupload.wikimedia.org%2fwikipedia%2fcommons%2f4%2f47%2fNASA_earth_energy_budget.gif&exph=556&expw=744&q=nasa+earth%27s+energy+balance&simid=607995165504570103&selectedIndex=2&ajaxhist=0
29-04-2019 21:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
dehammer wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation


What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Is that another magic code word you learned that you don't know the meaning of but think that just saying it magically makes you sound smart?
29-04-2019 21:42
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
He asked about proof that the earth emits infrared and that shows that it does.

Perhaps that was a little too advance for you.

here is a primer.
http://web.anl.gov/pse/solar/primer/primer1.html

89 out of 174k tw that hit the upper atmosphere reach the earth.
10 of the 174k is reflected by the atmosphere
35 of the 174k is reflected by clouds.
33 of the 174k is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back into space.
7 of that 89k is reflected, such as from ice.
10 of that 89k is absorbed and radiated to space. Most of this is frequencies that nothing can absorb.
12 of that 89k is absorbed by convection and is radiated into space.
40 of that 89k is absorbed by water and turns it into water vapor, and this is then radiated into space.
26 of that 89k is radiated, but then absorbed by the atmosphere and later radiated.
Edited on 29-04-2019 21:50
29-04-2019 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.


Conduction can happen through liquids or gases as well. However, you are correct that radiance from the ground goes in to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface, not from the atmosphere (which also radiates).


I thought most of the radiation is from the atmosphere, not from the ground. Do you have a source for your claim?


The Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface is more dense and hotter.


The Parrot Killer
29-04-2019 22:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.


Conduction can happen through liquids or gases as well. However, you are correct that radiance from the ground goes in to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface, not from the atmosphere (which also radiates).

There are three methods of energy transfer that we need to learn: conduction, convection, and radiation. 1. ... Heat is thermal energy, and in solids it can be transferred by conduction. Heat is passed along from the hotter end of an object to the cold end by the particles in the solid vibrating.
Fluids, that is both gases and liquids, can transfer heat energy by convection.


This site is wrong.

There is no such thing as 'heat energy'. Heat is not energy. Neither can you transfer it.
Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself.

It is just as a current in a river. It is the current of the water, not the water itself.

Gases and liquids do have convection heating, but they also have conductive heating and radiative heating. One does not preclude the another.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-04-2019 22:12
29-04-2019 22:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Conduction is through solid objects. Transfer through a gas is convection or radiation. Energy does not have to go to the top of the atmosphere to leave. It can leave from the ground.


Conduction can happen through liquids or gases as well. However, you are correct that radiance from the ground goes in to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface, not from the atmosphere (which also radiates).


I thought most of the radiation is from the atmosphere, not from the ground. Do you have a source for your claim?


Only six percent of the Sun's emissions that reach the upper atmosphere reach the ground and are directly radiated back into space. But don't tell that to the morons.


Dead wrong, Wake. Most of the light emitted from the Sun is infrared. Most of that reaches the ground. Infrared light is absorbed by water, vegetation, dirt, CO2, and most other materials. It is not reflected. It is absorbed as well as radiated.

It's what warms the Earth, Wake.

Most visible light reaches the surface too, Wake. That's why we can see the Sun, and that's why it's bright outside. Most of that is reflected and not absorbed. What is absorbed generally causes chemical reactions instead of heating. You DO know what a plant is, right, Wake?

Blue light, which is scattered, still reaches the surface. You DO know why the sky is blue, right, Wake? You DO realize we can SEE that blue sky, right, Wake?

Gawd you are clueless.


The Parrot Killer
29-04-2019 22:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
AND your proof is.....?
29-04-2019 22:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
He asked about proof that the earth emits infrared and that shows that it does.

Perhaps that was a little too advance for you.

here is a primer.
http://web.anl.gov/pse/solar/primer/primer1.html

89 out of 174k tw that hit the upper atmosphere reach the earth.
10 of the 174k is reflected by the atmosphere
35 of the 174k is reflected by clouds.
33 of the 174k is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back into space.
7 of that 89k is reflected, such as from ice.
10 of that 89k is absorbed and radiated to space. Most of this is frequencies that nothing can absorb.
12 of that 89k is absorbed by convection and is radiated into space.
40 of that 89k is absorbed by water and turns it into water vapor, and this is then radiated into space.
26 of that 89k is radiated, but then absorbed by the atmosphere and later radiated.


Wake denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That's why he didn't understand your reference.


The Parrot Killer
29-04-2019 22:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
AND your proof is.....?


The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which defines the word 'heat', and specifies the direction of it's flow. This also happens to be one of the laws you seem to have real trouble with understanding.

At least you correctly referenced the Stefan-Boltzmann law, though you failed to describe why the surface emits more than an atmosphere, even though a portion of that atmosphere may be hotter than the surface.

Radiance is by square meter of surface. A gas has less radiant 'surface' per square meter.

If you could see the infrared, the surface would appear the brightest, while the atmosphere would be a very thin fog.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-04-2019 22:30
29-04-2019 22:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So you have the term and you think you can throw it around as if it proves anything.

Where is your proof.
29-04-2019 22:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
So you have the term and you think you can throw it around as if it proves anything.

Where is your proof.


Void question. Proof of what?


The Parrot Killer
30-04-2019 00:15
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Proof that 2nd law of thermodynamics proves you are right. You can prove it. All you can do is throw that name out and say it proves something. That proves nothing, except you are an internet troll.
30-04-2019 00:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
Proof that 2nd law of thermodynamics proves you are right. You can prove it. All you can do is throw that name out and say it proves something. That proves nothing, except you are an internet troll.


So you actually deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and believe that it's possible to decrease entropy in a closed system.


The Parrot Killer
30-04-2019 01:05
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I don't deny the law exist, or what it says. What I deny is you have any clue how it works. All you have is a bunch of baloney and throwing out terms you do not understand.

My system is not a closed system, but your mind is.
30-04-2019 02:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
I don't deny the law exist, or what it says. What I deny is you have any clue how it works. All you have is a bunch of baloney and throwing out terms you do not understand.

My system is not a closed system, but your mind is.


Your machine is a closed system. All you need to declare a system closed is to not consider anything from outside that system. Any boundaries for your system will do.

You cannot decrease entropy in any closed system. It must increase or stay the same in any system.

You cannot just discard this law. You must falsify it to discard the law. There is no 'how it works'. You simply cannot decrease entropy in any system.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-04-2019 02:29
30-04-2019 02:37
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It is not closed because it uses gravity, just like an electric generating dam does.... oh, yea, you think gravity is a magical fantasy. I guess you just get around on your wings.
30-04-2019 02:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
It is not closed
It is closed.
dehammer wrote:
because it uses gravity,
Immaterial. It is still a closed system.
dehammer wrote:
just like an electric generating dam does....
That is also a closed system, containing the Sun, the ocean, weather, and falling water.
dehammer wrote:
oh, yea, you think gravity is a magical fantasy.
No, it is a force of nature. Why do you keep trying to change what I say?
dehammer wrote:
I guess you just get around on your wings.

No bird or airplane can fly without the force of gravity.


The Parrot Killer
30-04-2019 02:56
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
IF it is a force of nature, it can be used in dams and if it can be used in dams it can be used in my invention. You say that the force that powers it is magical fantasy, and since this is powered by gravity YOU SAID gravity is a magical fantasy.

That is also a closed system, containing the Sun, the ocean, weather, and falling water.
So by YOUR definition, its a perpetual motion machine.
Edited on 30-04-2019 02:57
30-04-2019 03:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
IF it is a force of nature, it can be used in dams and if it can be used in dams it can be used in my invention.
Never said otherwise. Gravity, however, is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
You say that the force that powers it is magical fantasy,
Never said any such thing. Stop making stuff up. I said gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
and since this is powered by gravity
You can't. Gravity is not energy.
dehammer wrote:
YOU SAID gravity is a magical fantasy.
Never did. Stop making stuff up.
dehammer wrote:
That is also a closed system, containing the Sun, the ocean, weather, and falling water.
So by YOUR definition, its a perpetual motion machine.

Nope. The Sun will eventually run out of fuel. We are just making use of the power it produces to run the dam.

What you can't seem to get your head wrapped around is that the water for that dam doesn't just appear out of nothing.

That water comes from ocean. It is the Sun that evaporates that water, gives the energy to rise into the air, gives the energy to form a cloud, and gives it the energy for that cloud to drop it's moisture as rain. Without that, the dam cannot function. There is no water for it to fall into the turbine inlet tubes.

Hydroelectric power is solar power.

Your machine does not make use of the Sun. It attempts to make it's own fuel to power itself. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. That law states:
dU=Q-W
where: dU is the change in energy in the system
Q is the energy added to the system (you are adding zero, gravity is not energy)
W is the work performed (the energy you extract from the system)

If you add no energy, then dU MUST decrease in value, until there is no energy in the system and no more work can be performed.

According to you, it is possible to use a waterwheel (which uses falling water to power it) to turn a shaft with another water wheel that pumps water back up to supply the first wheel.

You are conveniently ignoring the 2nd wheel and just assuming it magickally puts the water back up there to power the 1st wheel.

You are just doing the same thing with your electrolysis and fuel cells.


The Parrot Killer
30-04-2019 04:07
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
And the mountains will erode into the sea, making the sea too shallow for this to work there too.

You cant have it both ways. Either the dam is a perpetual motion machine or my invention is not. My invention is BASED on nature. Its a copy of it, with a slight twist to make it useable everywhere and more efficient.
30-04-2019 10:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
And the mountains will erode into the sea, making the sea too shallow for this to work there too.

You cant have it both ways. Either the dam is a perpetual motion machine or my invention is not. My invention is BASED on nature. Its a copy of it, with a slight twist to make it useable everywhere and more efficient.


I am not trying to make it both ways. YOU are. Hydroelectric power is essentially solar power. It cannot work without the power of the Sun moving water to a position to power the dam.

Your machine is not using external power to operate. It tries to create it's own fuel to run itself. That is a perpetual motion machine. You are not copying nature. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. Laws of nature.


The Parrot Killer
30-04-2019 15:33
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
"It cannot work without the power of the Sun moving water to a position to power the dam." Not true. It will do it in nature that way, but it can be moved in other ways. Water can be raised in nature by volcanic activity. Or it can be done by burning hydrogen.

Once again, your only argument is to throw out the term "laws of thermodynamic" as if that is some kind of shield. You do not explain how it does so.

You are the one that ignores it because you do not have a clue how thermodynamics work. IF you expect to win any argument prove you know that. Words are meaningless. By throwing it out you admit you lost the argument.
30-04-2019 17:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
dehammer wrote:
He asked about proof that the earth emits infrared and that shows that it does.

Perhaps that was a little too advance for you.

here is a primer.
http://web.anl.gov/pse/solar/primer/primer1.html

89 out of 174k tw that hit the upper atmosphere reach the earth.
10 of the 174k is reflected by the atmosphere
35 of the 174k is reflected by clouds.
33 of the 174k is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back into space.
7 of that 89k is reflected, such as from ice.
10 of that 89k is absorbed and radiated to space. Most of this is frequencies that nothing can absorb.
12 of that 89k is absorbed by convection and is radiated into space.
40 of that 89k is absorbed by water and turns it into water vapor, and this is then radiated into space.
26 of that 89k is radiated, but then absorbed by the atmosphere and later radiated.


Please don't tell me that you think you're explaining anything with your Jr. High physics to people that actually work in physics?

You have actually gone to the trouble writing that down after telling us that only solids can conduct heat. And yet you wrote DOWN that heat is CONDUCTED through the atmosphere is several different ways.

You do not understand the mechanism from which conduction turns to radiation and are handing out a pile of crap as if this is some sort of recognition of your own genius!

Let me repeat, stupid, ALL atoms of matter can conduct heat - that is one of the basic properties of matter. And don't now try to pass off some quantum mechanics definitions that simply do not operate in the real world.
Edited on 30-04-2019 17:06
30-04-2019 17:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
dehammer wrote:
"It cannot work without the power of the Sun moving water to a position to power the dam." Not true. It will do it in nature that way, but it can be moved in other ways. Water can be raised in nature by volcanic activity. Or it can be done by burning hydrogen.

Once again, your only argument is to throw out the term "laws of thermodynamic" as if that is some kind of shield. You do not explain how it does so.

You are the one that ignores it because you do not have a clue how thermodynamics work. IF you expect to win any argument prove you know that. Words are meaningless. By throwing it out you admit you lost the argument.


Explain to everyone here how hydrogen is burned in nature. And while you're at it explain how much of the moisture content of the atmosphere on a water planet is derived from VOLCANOS.

Do you suppose acting like a fool somehow gives you some sort of position to argue from? Burning HYDROGEN??? Where does this free hydrogen come from?
30-04-2019 18:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
"It cannot work without the power of the Sun moving water to a position to power the dam." Not true. It will do it in nature that way, but it can be moved in other ways. Water can be raised in nature by volcanic activity.

Explain to me what volcanic activity has raised any water to power a hydroelectric power installation.
dehammer wrote:
Or it can be done by burning hydrogen.

Explain to me how burning hydrogen will produce enough water to run a hydroelectric power installation, and explain to me how the combined total produces usable power. You DO realize it takes energy to make all that hydrogen, don't you?
dehammer wrote:
Once again, your only argument is to throw out the term "laws of thermodynamic" as if that is some kind of shield.

Once again, you deny the laws of thermodynamics. They are not a shield. They are theories of science.
dehammer wrote:
You do not explain how it does so.

I already have. Argument of the stone.
dehammer wrote:
You are the one that ignores it because you do not have a clue how thermodynamics work.

They don't 'work'. They describe how work is done using thermal energy.
dehammer wrote:
IF you expect to win any argument prove you know that.

I already did. Argument of the stone.
dehammer wrote:
Words are meaningless.

No, words have meaning.
dehammer wrote:
By throwing it out you admit you lost the argument.

Using that logic, you lost the argument when you made your first post. It contained words.


The Parrot Killer
30-04-2019 18:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
He asked about proof that the earth emits infrared and that shows that it does.

Perhaps that was a little too advance for you.

here is a primer.
http://web.anl.gov/pse/solar/primer/primer1.html

89 out of 174k tw that hit the upper atmosphere reach the earth.
10 of the 174k is reflected by the atmosphere
35 of the 174k is reflected by clouds.
33 of the 174k is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back into space.
7 of that 89k is reflected, such as from ice.
10 of that 89k is absorbed and radiated to space. Most of this is frequencies that nothing can absorb.
12 of that 89k is absorbed by convection and is radiated into space.
40 of that 89k is absorbed by water and turns it into water vapor, and this is then radiated into space.
26 of that 89k is radiated, but then absorbed by the atmosphere and later radiated.


Please don't tell me that you think you're explaining anything with your Jr. High physics to people that actually work in physics?

You have actually gone to the trouble writing that down after telling us that only solids can conduct heat. And yet you wrote DOWN that heat is CONDUCTED through the atmosphere is several different ways.

You do not understand the mechanism from which conduction turns to radiation and are handing out a pile of crap as if this is some sort of recognition of your own genius!

Conductive heat does not turn into radiant heat, Wake. They are simply two forms of heat.
Wake wrote:
Let me repeat, stupid, ALL atoms of matter can conduct heat - that is one of the basic properties of matter. And don't now try to pass off some quantum mechanics definitions that simply do not operate in the real world.

At least you got this part reasonably right.


The Parrot Killer
30-04-2019 18:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
"It cannot work without the power of the Sun moving water to a position to power the dam." Not true. It will do it in nature that way, but it can be moved in other ways. Water can be raised in nature by volcanic activity. Or it can be done by burning hydrogen.

Once again, your only argument is to throw out the term "laws of thermodynamic" as if that is some kind of shield. You do not explain how it does so.

You are the one that ignores it because you do not have a clue how thermodynamics work. IF you expect to win any argument prove you know that. Words are meaningless. By throwing it out you admit you lost the argument.


Explain to everyone here how hydrogen is burned in nature. And while you're at it explain how much of the moisture content of the atmosphere on a water planet is derived from VOLCANOS.

Do you suppose acting like a fool somehow gives you some sort of position to argue from? Burning HYDROGEN??? Where does this free hydrogen come from?

He keeps forgetting that.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 00:08
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
"It cannot work without the power of the Sun moving water to a position to power the dam." Not true. It will do it in nature that way, but it can be moved in other ways. Water can be raised in nature by volcanic activity. Or it can be done by burning hydrogen.

Once again, your only argument is to throw out the term "laws of thermodynamic" as if that is some kind of shield. You do not explain how it does so.

You are the one that ignores it because you do not have a clue how thermodynamics work. IF you expect to win any argument prove you know that. Words are meaningless. By throwing it out you admit you lost the argument.


Explain to everyone here how hydrogen is burned in nature. And while you're at it explain how much of the moisture content of the atmosphere on a water planet is derived from VOLCANOS.

Do you suppose acting like a fool somehow gives you some sort of position to argue from? Burning HYDROGEN??? Where does this free hydrogen come from?
1) I did not say that there would be that much hydrogen in the atmosphere. I said it could be burned there to produce the water.
2)The earth is not a water planet. WE have land and that means volcanos.

You are PRETENDING that this can not produce hydrogen. As I have shown you it can be done and it will rise to the top of an enclosed container. They proved this in 1800 by Johann Wilhelm Ritter's , a German chemist and physicist. IF that container happens to be a 10000 foot pipe, that's what it will fill (eventually).

The pressure on the water from the atmosphere will keep it pushing up into the pipe, until the pressure on the inside exceeds the atmospheric pressure on the water. IF there is a pump at the top that is removing the hydrogen and oxygen at the same rate as is pushed into the bottom, that will never happen.

The point is, it does not require sunlight to cause the water to be at an altitude.
01-05-2019 02:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
Wake wrote:
dehammer wrote:
"It cannot work without the power of the Sun moving water to a position to power the dam." Not true. It will do it in nature that way, but it can be moved in other ways. Water can be raised in nature by volcanic activity. Or it can be done by burning hydrogen.

Once again, your only argument is to throw out the term "laws of thermodynamic" as if that is some kind of shield. You do not explain how it does so.

You are the one that ignores it because you do not have a clue how thermodynamics work. IF you expect to win any argument prove you know that. Words are meaningless. By throwing it out you admit you lost the argument.


Explain to everyone here how hydrogen is burned in nature. And while you're at it explain how much of the moisture content of the atmosphere on a water planet is derived from VOLCANOS.

Do you suppose acting like a fool somehow gives you some sort of position to argue from? Burning HYDROGEN??? Where does this free hydrogen come from?
1) I did not say that there would be that much hydrogen in the atmosphere. I said it could be burned there to produce the water.
Answer his question, dumbass. Where is the free hydrogen coming from?
dehammer wrote:
2)The earth is not a water planet. WE have land and that means volcanos.
The Earth is 7/10th's water. It is the only planet with large amounts of liquid water. Land formation does not require volcanoes. Volcanoes do not power hydroelectric power installations either.
dehammer wrote:
You are PRETENDING that this can not produce hydrogen.
Producing hydrogen from water requires energy, dude. More energy than you machine can generate by consuming hydrogen.
dehammer wrote:
As I have shown you it can be done and it will rise to the top of an enclosed container. They proved this in 1800 by ...deleted Holy Link..., a German chemist and physicist. IF that container happens to be a 10000 foot pipe, that's what it will fill (eventually).

Wikipedia discarded on sight. You cannot use that reference with me. Hydrogen in a pipe will only rise if the pipe is open to the atmosphere. That means you are losing hydrogen, dude.
dehammer wrote:
The pressure on the water from the atmosphere will keep it pushing up into the pipe, until the pressure on the inside exceeds the atmospheric pressure on the water.
Nope. The hydrogen leaks out into the atmosphere.
dehammer wrote:
IF there is a pump at the top that is removing the hydrogen and oxygen at the same rate as is pushed into the bottom, that will never happen.
A pump will not prevent leakage to the atmosphere. A pump also consumes power.
dehammer wrote:
The point is, it does not require sunlight to cause the water to be at an altitude.

Never said it did. That is what works for hydroelectric power though. Hydroelectric power plants are solar power.


The Parrot Killer
01-05-2019 05:23
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Anyone have any science based questions.
01-05-2019 21:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
dehammer wrote:
Anyone have any science based questions.


Yeah. Several.

1. Where are you getting the extra energy needed to run your machine?
2. Why do you ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics along with the conservation of energy laws?
3. Where are you getting the extra hydrogen to give away or sell to people?


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate The Current This woman won't have children because of climate change. She says she's not alone:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
UN climate chief warns current path leads to 'catastrophe'729-04-2019 17:57
UN climate chief warns of 'catastrophe' if planet continues on current path026-04-2019 15:34
Canadian children school adults about climate crisis317-03-2019 21:20
Want to Help Fight Climate Change? Have More Children014-03-2019 21:20
I am terrified of 'children's crusader' Greta Thunberg – and you should be too014-03-2019 16:22
▲ 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