I Wonder

[Elizabeth]

Soon we will buy next generation reactors from china. Current reactors in Japan and US are 60 times more inefficient generating 60 times more radioactive waste. Also they lack passive, inbuilt safety systems relying on outside active cooling and shutdown. China needs to solve its energy problems somehow. Oil isn't the answer.
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-Ne...r-Reactor.html

It may be next generation for them, but we built our first fast neutron reactor in 1946.

Elizabeth

[moi621]

I wonder

Is this the cause of Global Warming?
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/the-sun...334615999.html

And is fuel being used up too fast? <worry> <worry>
With accelerated fuel consumption, 5 billion years might be reduced to 4.9 billion years!

My self esteem requires that this is mankind's doing.

Moi
Got wonderment?

[moi621]

I wonder

And seriously would appreciate numerical analysis


What would the Eisenhower Tax Code look like adjusted for 2012 dollars?

Moi

[moi621]

In hardly a month, "wonderment" fell off the map.
Got wonder?

My newest source of wonderment is this new theory for the inorganic production of Earth's oxygen rich atmosphere. Way back in the snow ball earth days . . .
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...fuel-life.html
It is about peroxide in the ice reacting with sun light and voila, O2. Inorganic global oxygen.
Now, how did Earthers develop O2 resistance lest they burn away?

What next? An inorganic source of oil that will yield new fields to discover?

Moi
Oxygen. May be the best weapon in Earth's arsenal against aliens.
Let them suck methane.

[Cainanite]

In hardly a month, "wonderment" fell off the map.
Got wonder?

My newest source of wonderment is this new theory for the inorganic production of Earth's oxygen rich atmosphere. Way back in the snow ball earth days . . .
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...fuel-life.html
It is about peroxide in the ice reacting with sun light and voila, O2. Inorganic global oxygen.
Now, how did Earthers develop O2 resistance lest they burn away?

What next? An inorganic source of oil that will yield new fields to discover?

Moi
Oxygen. May be the best weapon in Earth's arsenal against aliens.
Let them suck methane.

Not only is that theory old, it is relatively debunked.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0525141540.htm

ScienceDaily (May 25, 2011) — There's a theory about how the Marinoan ice age -- also known as the "Snowball Earth" ice age because of its extreme low temperatures -- came to an abrupt end some 600 million years ago. It has to do with large amounts of methane, a strong greenhouse gas, bubbling up through ocean sediments and from beneath the permafrost and heating the atmosphere.

Permian-Triassic extinction event
The main physical evidence behind this theory has been samples of cap dolostone from south China, which were known to have a lot less of the carbon-13 isotope than is normally found in these types of carbonate rocks. (Dolostone is a type of sedimentary rock composed of the carbonate mineral, dolomite; it's called cap dolostone when it overlies a glacial deposit.) The idea was that these rocks formed when Earth-warming methane bubbled up from below and was oxidized -- "eaten" -- by microbes, with its carbon wastes being incorporated into the dolostone, thereby leaving a signal of what had happened to end the ice age. The idea made sense, because methane also tends to be low in carbon-13; if carbon-13-depeleted methane had been made into rock, that rock would indeed also be low in carbon-13. But the idea was controversial, too, since there had been no previous isotopic evidence in carbonate rock of methane-munching microbes that early in Earth's history.
And, as a team of scientists led by researchers from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) recently reported in the journal Nature, it was also wrong -- at least as far as the geologic evidence they looked at goes. Their testing shows that the rocks on which much of that ice-age-ending theory was based were formed millions of years after the ice age ended, and were formed at temperatures so high there could have been no living creatures associated with them.
"Our findings show that what happened in these rocks happened at very high temperatures, and abiologically," says John Eiler, the Robert P. Sharp Professor of Geology and professor of geochemistry at Caltech, and one of the paper's authors. "There is no evidence here that microbes ate methane as food. The story you see in this rock is not a story about ice ages."
To tell the rocks' story, the team used a technique Eiler developed at Caltech that looks at the way in which rare isotopes (like the carbon-13 in the dolostone) group, or "clump," together in crystalline structures like bone or rock. This clumping, it turns out, is highly dependent upon the temperature of the immediate environment in which the crystals form. Hot temperatures mean less clumping; low temperatures mean more.
"The rocks that we analyzed for this study have been worked on before," says Thomas Bristow, the paper's first author and a former postdoc at Caltech who is now at NASA Ames Research Center, "but the unique advance available and developed at Caltech is the technique of using carbonate clumped-isotopic thermometry to study the temperature of crystallization of the samples. It was primarily this technique that brought new insights regarding the geological history of the rocks."
What the team's thermometer made very clear, says Eiler, is that "the carbon source was not oxidized and turned into carbonate at Earth's surface. This was happening in a very hot hydrothermal environment, underground."
In addition, he says, "We know it happened at least millions of years after the ice age ended, and probably tens of millions. Which means that whatever the source of carbon was, it wasn't related to the end of the ice age."
Since this rock had been the only carbon-isotopic evidence of a Precambrian methane seep, these findings bring up a number of questions -- questions not just about how the Marinoan ice age ended, but about Earth's budget of methane and the biogeochemistry of the ocean.
"The next stage of the research is to delve deeper into the question of why carbon-13-depleted carbonate rocks that formed at methane seeps seem to only be found during the later 400 million years of Earth history," says John Grotzinger, the Fletcher Jones Professor of Geology at Caltech and the principal investigator on the work described. "It is an interesting fact of the geologic record that, despite a well-preserved record of carbonates beginning 3.5 billion years ago, the first 3 billion years of Earth history does not record evidence of methane oxidation. This is a curious absence. We think it might be linked to changes in ocean chemistry through time, but more work needs to be done to explore that."
In addition to Bristow, Eiler, and Grotzinger, the other authors on the Nature paper, "A hydrothermal origin for isotopically anomalous cap dolostone cements from south China," are Magali Bonifacie, a former Caltech postdoc now at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, and Arkadiusz Derkowski from the Polish Academy of Sciences in Krakow.
The work was supported by an O. K. Earl Postdoctoral Fellowship, by the National Science Foundation's Division of Earth Sciences and its Geobiology and Environmental Geochemistry program, and by CNRS-INSU (French research agency).

If that was too much to read, it boils down to;

The rocks the Snowball Earth Hypothesis were based on, turned out to be made from other processes.

The hypothesis was proven false on its testable predictions.

There is no doubt that the Earth has gone through some pretty dramatic shifts in temperature, but it looks like at no point was the Earth ever fully covered by ice.

Some elements of the hypothesis may yet survive, or possibly may even be revived, but for the scientific community, the idea is pretty much over.

Three rules to follow when looking up scientific articles.

1) Always check when it was written.

2) Always check to see if there is newer evidence available.

3) Always look for the source material. (Where did it originate?)

If you don't do the above, you risk re-posting things that are false, and/or grossly misleading.

Science is our current best understanding of the natural world based on the most up-to-date evidence and facts at our disposal. The important words there are, current and up-to-date.

Sorry to be a kill-joy.

[moi621]

That's just today's best Science.



BTW over decades I have won major. Regardless of what the "best" Science minds say at the moment.
1)You guys have witnessed my diss of the PSA tests, before it was popular.
2)Always felt Neanderthal was "us" even though all maternal/mitochondrial DNA is out of Africa. Somatic DNA proves Neanderthal is "us" and any of us who made it out of Africa not only have marker genes but, also an active immune gene. Out of Africa females were "monthly" so more available to breed. Does not create a different species as European and African goat populations demonstrate.
YOU heard the latter at EA first. My "composition" of the facts. No one else has said it, yet.
3)Cholesterol theory and new evidence for low carbohydrate diet.

I have not made up my mind on non organic sources of Oxygen.
And non organic sources of oil has yet to be proven

Moi
The ring of truthiness helps.


And furthermore I hear some doubt the Theory of Snowball Earth.

[Dave]

Moi,
Do you think that because you read the news faster than most of the EA members that you invented that news? That you can claim responsibility for it? And that you become the Omnipotent Authority on what is science?

really? Do you?

(crap!)
(I think he does believe that!)

There's no smiley or emoticon for crap.
http://syafiqazni10.files.wordpress....crap.jpg?w=614

[moi621]

Dave. To answer YOUR question, "No!".

I arrive at my own conclusions.
I never ever believed cholesterol in your mouth became cholesterol in your blood.
It's the bread. Not the butter.
That made life very rough though the 80's.

Can you remember any event you disagreed with the Science faith and over years YOU were proven right?
I can. Again and like deja-vu. I got witnesses.

Moi

[Cainanite]

That's just today's best Science.



BTW over decades I have won major. Regardless of what the "best" Science minds say at the moment.
1)You guys have witnessed my diss of the PSA tests, before it was popular.
2)Always felt Neanderthal was "us" even though all maternal/mitochondrial DNA is out of Africa. Somatic DNA proves Neanderthal is "us" and any of us who made it out of Africa not only have marker genes but, also an active immune gene. Out of Africa females were "monthly" so more available to breed. Does not create a different species as European and African goat populations demonstrate.
YOU heard the latter at EA first. My "composition" of the facts. No one else has said it, yet.
3)Cholesterol theory and new evidence for low carbohydrate diet.

I have not made up my mind on non organic sources of Oxygen.
And non organic sources of oil has yet to be proven

Moi
The ring of truthiness helps.


And furthermore I hear some doubt the Theory of Snowball Earth.

See, the way scientists define science, is exactly that. Today's best evidence and understanding. Not yesterday's or 5 years ago. Science can never give a definitive answer on anything. That's why they still call proven models "Theories".

Snowball Earth, was never a Theory. It was a Hypothesis. Check the source papers. Not only that, the hypothesis offered testable predictions. Those testable predictions failed their tests. It was a falsifiable hypothesis that was falsified.

Calling it the Theory of Snowball Earth, would suggest that it was subjected to tests and passed. Only a Hypothesis that is falsifiable, but has never been falsified by repeated experimentation, measurement, and/or observation gets to call itself a Theory, and only after intensive peer review. Snowball Earth failed the experimentation models, failed the Measurements, and failed the observations. That is very soundly NOT a theory.

It was also held up by peer review. As you said, there were serious doubts. Those doubts proved correct.

As to your own track record, congratulations. It's nice to be right about things. Just don't get complacent on me now, and start believing things that have already been disproved by solid science. Let's keep your track record intact.

[Dave]

Dave. To answer YOUR question, "No!".

I arrive at my own conclusions.
I never ever believed cholesterol in your mouth became cholesterol in your blood.
It's the bread. Not the butter.
That made life very rough though the 80's.

Can you remember any event you disagreed with the Science faith and over years YOU were proven right?
I can. Again and like deja-vu. I got witnesses.

Moi

Well my post was mostly silly.

I actually published the negative results of various research proposals I had in various papers. That was back in the 1980's and most of those journals are in special libraries maintained by the publishers. Some of them included the effects of unimodal and bimodal catalysts based on NiMo on Alumina, others were about pyrites and pyrhhotites (Fe-S crystalline defects) on the primary liquefaction of coal. Others were about heteroatom removal from coal-derived liquids. We (the researchers I worked with across the country) used to set up straw man theories and knock them down. We found lots of "negative" results.

I once had a boss (he's passed away now) who said that we could make a ground coal/oil/water slurry and feed it at high pressures into a reactor. Well, we couldn't and I was the engineer who had to design the experiments that kept failing and failing. There are sludge pumps (progressive cavity) that are true wonders but that mix of coal/oil/water wouldn't behave.

Other than that.
I really was being silly in that post. The link is not to a pile of crap but a set of "no turn" signs that are funny.

[moi621]

Why deal with such a sticky mess.
Meet "BioCoal".
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...s_for_130_mph/
Biocoal' fuels steam train comeback
Uni of Minnesota steampunks plot loco speed record
" . . .The university, along with Sustainable Rail International, are to restore a 1930s locomotive – 3463, a 4-6-4 Hudson-type loco built by Baldwin that’s spent its retirement at the Kansas Expocenter in Topeka – as a test bed for bio-coal. The locomotive has already been stabilized prior to the trip to Minnesota for restoration. . . ."
". . . Its biocoal – cellular material processed into a solid fuel – exhibits the same energy density and material handling properties as coal, the university says, but without coal’s heavy metals. The biomass is also carbon-neutral, and produces less ash, less smoke (sorry to those for whom the ‘magic of steam’ includes the smell of burning coal), and fewer volatile off-gases. . ."
What about CO2?

Moi

[Dave]

There's a logical explanation but tonight I'm sleepy.
I'll type it out tomorrow for you.

[Riverwind]

Moi, less ash and less smoke, is this like less Radiation? so let me see, its ok to pollute as long as its not nuclear? I don't care what its half life is, I am only here for 70 or 80 years maybe a bit longer if I am lucky. fewer volatile gasses?

What a joke,


Wind farms don't pollute at all, ZERO. Oh wait, thats what you keep wanting for a nuclear number, ZERO, but its really is ok for other kinds of pollutions, yea.


River

[Dave]

There's a logical explanation but tonight I'm sleepy.
I'll type it out tomorrow for you.

If you think in terms of the Carbon Cycle then the difference between short term carbon and long term carbon in the carbon cycle is apparent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

Growing a tree and then burning it and growing a replacement uses the same carbon over a period of years less than most of our lifetimes. The carbon is recycled on a short term basis. It is carbon that comes from the atmosphere and returns to the atmosphere -- or comes from wood and returns to wood.

Taking coal out of the ground or taking those tar sands out of the ground removes carbon from the ground that has been there for hundreds of thousands of years and puts it into the atmosphere. It will not return to the ground in less than geologic times. Therefore it adds to the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere never to return to the ground. This carbon increases the greenhouse gas effect.

[moi621]

That is as logical as
Obama has accomplished more drone kills and knocking off more Al Qaida #2 men
then any President.
but Bush, butt Bush , all the "but Bushies",( )0( ) Bush,
You see how there is a lack of logic? ?

By the same logic, farting methane is okay and not as bad as the release from the Siberian permafrost thaw.

CO2 is not always equal,
Why not methane. CH4
Sounds like so much political science.
So of course the farts required to grow my steak is evil per the fish eating & vegetable eating scientist.
But, (i won't do it) beans are ok.

Gives new meaning to
Political Science.
No doubt a most valuable degree in upcoming years.

Moi for Truthiness


I grant you ground level Ozone O3 is diff from high altitude O3.
Maybe we should collect ground level O3 & pipe it up and release it.
Terraforming starts with Terra Control.
PM investment interest.