10-23-2011, 09:02 PM | #51 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
There are different kinds of distinct energy. Distinct meaning "not interchangeable, not the same, not even two sides of the same coin." For an example of non-distinct energies, you have electrical energy and magnetic energy which together constitute what we know as electromagnetic energy. (See the Maxwell-Faraday equation for how E the electric field and B the magnetic field are intrinsically linked.) There is no such transformation relating the following energies to one another. That is to say, they are different properties which must separately be taken into consideration to reach a full picture for a given system:
So no. -_-; You sound very uninformed when you say "photon = energy, energy = heat, photon = particle, therefore heat = particle." The photon is the elementary particle for light. It is not the elementary particle for any other form of energy -- not heat, not mechanics, and not chemical bonds. To think of this in very straightforward terms, not all chemical reactions generate or consume light, yet all chemical reactions generate or consume a form of energy. One we call (duh) chemical energy. This chemical energy, not only is it distinct from light, it is also distinct from heat. If you take some courses in chemistry, you will learn aaaaaall about the differences between heat and chemical energy as most chemical reactions naturally affect changes in both. But for now, suffice you to be convinced by the equation for Gibbs free energy: ΔG = ΔH + TΔS Gibbs free energy, G, is one of several energies one can discuss, but it is particularly relevant in reaction chemistry. (Other energies include U, the total system energy, and A, the Helmholtz free energy.) It conveys the information, "What is the change in energy following a chemical reaction?" And as you can see, it is determined in part by changes in thermal energy (ΔH, the enthalpy of the reaction) but also in part by changes in entropy (ΔS) linked with a fixed temperature T.Digression. The point is ... no. -_-; And that point has been established.
__________________
|
|
10-23-2011, 09:17 PM | #53 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
heat = Δthermal energy
Suppose the system has thermal energy X and the surroundings a thermal energy Y. Suppose the system then has a thermal energy X' and the surroundings a thermal energy Y'. The "heat" lost by the system to the surroundings would be given by X' minus X or -(Y' minus Y). So when I say "thermal energy (i.e. heat)", I'm trying to speak in unownmew's very lay terms so that he gets it. I am not splitting hairs as to which is the Δ and which is the absolute value.
__________________
|
10-24-2011, 02:10 PM | #54 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
DON'T MAKE TURN THIS THREAD AROUND!
AND I DON'T CARE WHO STARTED IT, I WILL FINISH IT! Please no arguing. Let us just be friendly and try to use this thread for IDEAS, not for arguing over thermodynamics and physics.
__________________
|
10-24-2011, 04:49 PM | #55 |
Night Man
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,371
|
i don't know why you're all bickering. the cheapest and most effective form of heat on this planet are dutch ovens.
__________________
I'm an old school Poke-BALLER. ”Fee, fie, foe, fum the End are Near at thou Bobbum. Time me open Bobbum Van trunk, for ruin Bobbum wif Equipmunk.” |
10-24-2011, 05:05 PM | #56 | |
Banned
|
Clearly missed the " " in my post. It was entirely an un-serious remark, and never meant to be discussed, nor taken seriously.
Quote:
Back on topic.. I'd support floating electric wind farms, and really support kinetic windmills for applications. Solar-Thermal to steam engine electricity generation. And Hydrogen. Many companies could really cut down on manufacturing costs by using kinetic wind/water wheels for certain applications instead of paying for electricity, at least IMO, I haven't studied it really. |
|
10-24-2011, 05:22 PM | #57 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Clearly failed to realize I wasn't even talking to you. Good lord.
Please, let's not be dumb. Addressing someone's thermodynamics ignorance in a thread about steam engines is about as on-topic as you can possibility get. It's akin to addressing someone's genetics ignorance in a thread about GMOs or someone's general relativity ignorance in a thread about faster-than-light travel. You may prefer it if kids are allowed to wallow in the filth of their own ignorance but I don't.
__________________
|
10-24-2011, 07:34 PM | #58 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Regardless of the validity of the topic, the way it was being discussed is detrimental to the thread as a whole, and all he was trying to do was restore the civility. Anyway.. I'd love to have an airship powered by steam, hydrogen, and wind power, and propelled mostly by cloth sails. |
|||
10-24-2011, 07:42 PM | #59 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
As for your thermodynamics ignorance ... "heat particles," man.
__________________
|
|
10-24-2011, 08:05 PM | #60 |
Dragon's Tears
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Searching for light
Posts: 6,453
|
Talon, unownmew pointed out that he only used the word "particle" since he couldn't think of a better descriptor word at the time, and that he at least knows heat is a form of energy. He was only making the semantics argument in jest. As he said, this whole argument is a result of miscommunication. End of story.
Please, let's not all act like children - if not trolls. It was going well before, I liked the direction the thread was taking. You may point out others' mistakes, but try to be polite about it. That goes for you too, unownmew. Just a reminder, your tone towards Loki for a simple oversight was bordering on accusatory. (Fortunately our Raptor Jesus is such a gentleman. <3)
__________________
|
10-24-2011, 08:07 PM | #61 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Heat particles. They're totally legit. |
|
10-25-2011, 06:50 PM | #62 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
I was thinking.
What if we could power a airship on solar power. Higher up means more sunlight to harness for energy. And when he hit the strato, we can use the winds to propel us forward if need be. Especially the Jet Stream.
__________________
|
10-25-2011, 06:52 PM | #63 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Blimps can't normally fly that high. They can't even fly over Denver, CO because the city is already 1 mile above sea level.
|
10-25-2011, 06:56 PM | #64 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
Also, I heard about a plan to make the glass in solar panels able to use the energy from multiple spectrums of light. This would include infared, ultraviolet, maybe even X-rays and gamma rays. Hell, we could live off the damn radio. Well, other than the fact that radio waves make sod-all electricity.
__________________
|
|
10-26-2011, 06:42 AM | #65 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Zeppelins can overcome this problem with set lift height, by pressurizing and unpressurizing lifting gas inside various balonets to alter lifting capacity and thereby altitude. There are some balloons that are designed to be able to be flown in the stratosphere, but they require a HUGE, but only partially filled envelope, because of the lack of pressure up there, if your lifting gas expands beyond your envelope's capacity, it pops. (say "goodbye"). (You'll also need oxygen masks to breathe) A solar powered plane would work somewhat, but you'll be flying through clouds a lot, and won't be able to fly at dawn, dusk or night. A solar powered zeppelin would work better, since you can have a much larger surface area for electricity gathering then an airplane. Some companies have actually proposed building one, but most are start-ups and there doesn't seem to be much progress last I checked. (Zeppelins are Expensive, and so is Helium) |
||
10-26-2011, 09:45 AM | #66 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
In 2007, Congress cut funding for a high altitude airship, which was planned to be a military defense against cruise missiles. It was planned to hold a 500 lbs payload and fly 60,000 feet in the air. With only 6% of the normal sea level atmospheric air pressure, the helium expansion was rather ridiculous and the weight to lift ratios just weren't good enough yet.
The current highest altitude for an airship was just under 20,500 feet with a very strict spherical design, which is just under 4 miles. |
10-26-2011, 05:02 PM | #67 |
Banned
|
Well, that sucks, congress should do more to support airships. 4 miles is still pretty high though. (nowhere near stratosphere though).
I think there was some balloons that could get quite high, I don't remember if they were helium or hot air, but they had a very minimal payload and reached heights where oxygen was required to breathe. Obviously not useful for heavy duty military application. Though, there were the USS Akron and the USS Malcom, which were quite incredible ships. It's a pity they were lost in storms and the program discontinued. Flying aircraft carriers would have been the most awesome things in the world, and quite useful. |
10-27-2011, 01:23 PM | #68 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
That reminds me of 1984, where they were creating the Dreadnought. It was supposed to be the worlds largest air military unit.
Either that, or, I am getting it mixed up with FF2. Airships are cool, but the funding needed for research could be pretty steep. We should try to use the models of airplanes today and make them more green than what we already have.
__________________
|
10-28-2011, 08:39 AM | #69 | |
Banned
|
Hmm?
I thought you were talking about this, or this, though there an HMS Dreadnaught as well, but apparently you meant this: Dreadnaught Quote:
Anyway, research isn't all that expensive we know most of what airships can do already, what's expensive is building the prototype for proof of concept. Airships get BIG real fast, and materials and helium don't come cheap. I think a green aircraft was already made (Spruce Goose), not in that it uses clean fuel, but, a LOT more of the "ungreen energy sources" are required in manufacturing, then in locomotion. A better thing to do to head towards "green," (IMO) would be to reduce the necessity of fossil fuels in manufacturing. (which we can do with Kinetic Wind Energy, and Solar Thermal Energy) Edit: New research into seeing if there is a modern steam car, lead to this interesting paper on the steam engine, pros and cons, and the alternative energy market. [tongue-in-cheek] It's all a conspiracy! [/tongue-in-cheek] Last edited by unownmew; 11-01-2011 at 12:59 PM. |
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|