UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > The Misc

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-23-2011, 09:02 PM   #51
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
For the sake of argument though, Photon = Energy? Energy = Heat? Photon = particle?
*groan*, NO. -_-; It's comments like this that make me think you are just a troll. You insist otherwise, though, so ...

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:
  • electromagnetic energy (includes light, radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, gamma rays)
  • thermal energy (i.e. heat)
  • chemical energy
  • mechanical energy
This is just a partial list. But the point is that any one of these energies, while it can in theory be transformed into any of the others, is a distinct form of energy. It's like saying "I can turn your hand into your foot," but hands and feet are still not miscible. They are not the same thing. They are not the same in the sense that left hands and right hands are both hands, or that black hands and white hands are both hands.

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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2011, 09:08 PM   #52
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
I thought heat was a way to transfer energy, not actually a type of energy.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2011, 09:17 PM   #53
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 02:10 PM   #54
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 04:49 PM   #55
GrJackass
Night Man
 
GrJackass's Avatar
 
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.”
GrJackass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 05:05 PM   #56
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
[Lots of stuff about heat and energy]
Clearly missed the " " in my post. It was entirely an un-serious remark, and never meant to be discussed, nor taken seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
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.
Thank you again. *sigh*

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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 05:22 PM   #57
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Clearly missed the " " in my post.
Clearly failed to realize I wasn't even talking to you. Good lord.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Please no arguing. Let us just be friendly and try to use this thread for IDEAS, not for arguing over thermodynamics and physics.
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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 07:34 PM   #58
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Clearly failed to realize I wasn't even talking to you. Good lord.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
[snip my quote]
*groan*, NO. -_-; It's comments like this that make me think you are just a troll. You insist otherwise, though, so ...
Certainly looked like you were addressing me here. My apologies if you were trying to call someone else a troll.


Quote:
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.
I thought we already established that my knowledge on thermodynamics was not as ignorant as you first supposed, and was merely a product of miscommunication. Considering you seemed not to have anything else to call me on..
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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 07:42 PM   #59
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Certainly looked like you were addressing me here. My apologies if you were trying to call someone else a troll.
In the quote of mine you edited down to "[Lots of stuff about heat and energy]", I thought that you were referring to my reply to Tyranidos.

As for your thermodynamics ignorance ... "heat particles," man.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 08:05 PM   #60
lilboocorsola
Dragon's Tears
 
lilboocorsola's Avatar
 
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)
lilboocorsola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2011, 08:07 PM   #61
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
In the quote of mine you edited down to "[Lots of stuff about heat and energy]", I thought that you were referring to my reply to Tyranidos.

As for your thermodynamics ignorance ... "heat particles," man.
I see, sorry for the confusion then.

Heat particles. They're totally legit.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2011, 06:50 PM   #62
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2011, 06:52 PM   #63
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
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.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2011, 06:56 PM   #64
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
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.
Oh....okay. Did not know that. Maybe an airplane? It could be a way to make commercial airplanes more "green."

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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2011, 06:42 AM   #65
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by YUKI.N View Post
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)
Thank you Blue. I apologize for my tone towards Loki, and I'll try to be more polite from now on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
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.
Blimps can't normally do so, because they require pressure against the envelope to keep it structured, and helium has a set lifting ratio. If the blimp were made bigger, it would be able to fly higher, but both are forced to a set altitude once inflated. To go much higher, would pop the envelope (which certainly wouldn't be very fun)

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)
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2011, 09:45 AM   #66
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
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.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2011, 05:02 PM   #67
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2011, 01:23 PM   #68
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
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.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2011, 08:39 AM   #69
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Hmm?
I thought you were talking about this, or this, though there an HMS Dreadnaught as well, but apparently you meant this:
Dreadnaught
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikepedia
Dreadnaught, a giant airship used by the Palamecian Empire in Final Fantasy II
Dreadnaught Leviathan, the flagship of the 8th Fleet of the Western Armada of the Archadian Empire in Final Fantasy XII
And wow, thanks, since I was looking stuff up, I found something else interesting too. the "Spruce Goose"

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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > The Misc


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.