Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

a couple of simple theories

Page 2 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

Species5618
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 55

12 Nov 2012, 7:57 am

Adamalone wrote:
now for the hard part
when i was talking about my thoughts of how lightning occurs i tried to suggest that it was the natural background energy that exists at all points in the universes that when combined with some atmospheric turbulence that caused the natural background energy to briefly manifest in our physical level and i was applying that to the solar panel experiment as well.

Lightning is far from mysterious. The conditions under which it occurs and how it propagates are well understood. There are some open questions left, but the core mechanism of creating a discharge arc that connects cloud and ground is understood and can be reproduced in theory, experiments and simulations (the latter of which is my focus of research).

Quote:
firstly i was suggesting that this theoretical panel was made of an element that does not occur naturally in all the universe, it would be something made purely in a lab and would be incredibly photovoltaic, so much so that that one square panel could collect just a small amount of light emitted from the bulb and its reaction would be so great that it would generate 90% of the bulbs required power and still leave enough space around the bulb for another 4 panels.
i suppose it was a bad example.

Conservation of Energy is one of the core theories of physics and related fields. You can't simply say that if you add some mystery-element ("that does not occur naturally in all the universe") you can suddenly draw extra energy from lalaland and create a Perpetual Motion Machine.

Quote:
try this one instead.
nuclear fission is when the nucleus of an atom is split which produces energy.
nuclear fusion is when two or more nuclei are fused together and this also produces energy.
that both produce energy should not work, only one should produces energy while it opposite should mealy consume energy as that is not happening where is the energy coming from if not by being drawn on to our physical layer from another by physical reaction.

That one's easy to explain with actual physics rather than hocuspocus.

Atoms have a binding force that keeps them together. This is the Strong Nuclear Force. This means that atoms have a certain amount of binding energy. As it turns out, for light atoms, the binding energy of 2 lighter atoms is higher than the binding energy of the combined (fused) atom. So fusing 2 of these light elements together results in a new atom with a binding energy that is lower than that of the 2 input-atoms, leaving some extra energy that is generated by the process. For heavy elements, it's the other way around: A heavy atom has more binding energy than the 2 lighter atoms that the heavy atom could break up into. So breaking up heavy atoms such as uranium and plutonium generates energy.

The breaking point between these 2 extremes happens with iron. Atoms that are lighter than iron can be fused to free energy. Atoms heavier than iron can be split to free energy. Many of these fusion and fission processes are not easy to achieve and/or produce very little energy, which is why we don't use them. In stars, hydrogen initially fuses to helium, but once the hydrogen runs out, the star partially collapses, increasing the pressure, allowing helium (and later heavier elements) to fuse. In the final moments of a stars life, elements heavier than iron are fused, because the pressure is so high. But since this process costs energy rather than producing it, it can't be sustained.

Quote:
i think i explained that badly but that's the best i can do except maybe if you went back to how i suggested lightning worked.
if it was possible to remove all the natural background energy and then just cause the atmospheric turbulence there would be no lightning if i am right.

No problem at all to remove the "natural background energy". All you need for lightning to start is charge separation (positive and negative charges away from eachother) and some free electrons to start things up. Both are easy to obtain.

I suggest that you read up on what we actually already know about our world and the universe before conjuring up your own theories. Even popular science texts will do, but if you want to propose alternative explanations, you'll have to have indepth knowledge of current theories, because you'll have to demonstrate why they are wrong and your theory is correct.