Global warming... sick of hearing about it, but how about a non BS version?

[Jusatele]

So if I take a 5 pound piece of wood and burn it, and end up with less than an ounce of ash, did I just rearrange the molecules of the wood?, where did the Mass go to?
now, if I take enough water to create 5 pounds of hydrogen, and burn it and get 2 table spoons of water, what happened to the rest of the hydrogen, was itnot consumed such as the wood?
Scientist can come up with a lot of stories to support theories, but in order to make energy something gets consumed, and a by product gets rearanged

 

[AGWAN]

AGWAN, about 17 years ago, millions of people were spending their fortunes on beanie babies, they would sell out the day they were released.
Why?
Because they were suppose to be what you invested in to quadruple your money. It seemed they sold for more than you could buy them for. and guys bought every one they could, till everyone figured out that they were only collectible to collectors. and no one else cared, then suddenly they were not worth 25 cents each, and some guys owned thousands of them. The guys who bought in lost fortunes.
You can now buy sacks full of beannie babies for a 1/4 of what you paid for just 1 15 years ago, most guys have to pay to get rid of them.

Yep, YOU JUST CROSSED A LINE.


:icon_jokercolor:

 

[richship]

So if I take a 5 pound piece of wood and burn it, and end up with less than an ounce of ash, did I just rearrange the molecules of the wood?, where did the Mass go to?
now, if I take enough water to create 5 pounds of hydrogen, and burn it and get 2 table spoons of water, what happened to the rest of the hydrogen, was itnot consumed such as the wood?
Scientist can come up with a lot of stories to support theories, but in order to make energy something gets consumed, and a by product gets rearanged

The missing mass was released as gas. No mass is consumed in combustion or any other chemical reaction. Nuclear reactions are another matter.

To separate Hydrogen and Oxygen takes energy (pretty easy to do). The separate Hydrogen and Oxygen are at a higher energy state than they were when combined. When they are recombined, the energy level of the water molecules is lower and the energy is released. Nothing is created or destroyed, just put into different forms.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

To separate Hydrogen and Oxygen takes energy (pretty easy to do).

It's true.  Fish do it.

 

[Jusatele]

DO not let them pull the wool over your eyes
The by product of burning hydrogen is the use of all the hydrogen,
because of the reaction,some hydrogen recombines with oxygen and water pours out the tail pipe, but in reality they are burning hydrogen.
Now as we burn hydrogen, do we not use up 2/3ds of the molecule that makes water?

No we do not. Burning is just a chemical process. No atoms are destroyed, just rearranged.

ok  lets ask a few questions

solar energy, is not the energy supplied by the sun consuming itself? not just rearranging its molecules?
burning a 5 pound log, when we are finished we saw the energy and felt the heat, what is left is ash and polluted air, are they not just rearranged atoms? but was not the Wood consumed? and if it had not been then where would the energy come from?
5 pounds of gasoline, we burn it, have air pollution and carbon in the engine  we went 12 miles so we know how the energy was used, and saw the tank is empty, so we know it was consumed, but it still was consumed, with out the consumption of a fuel source we cannot extract the energy.
So we use a hydrogen fuel cell, FUEL, which is HYDROGEN FUEL, and get 5 pounds worth, ho a few miles on it, (hydrogen does not contain the energy reserves of petroleum) and it is gone, we have some water (rearranged atoms from burning hydrogen, it is the waste that combined with the oxygen we we needed to combustion of the hydrogen, ) we claim it is clean because the by product is water, although a very small amount, and as you could not see the hydrogen in the first place, we say we just rearranged the molecules.

Now, how did we produce the energy if we consumed nothing?
How come we cannot make energy any other way with out consuming something except hydrogen?
why do we need to extract the energy from water if it water is it's by product, would we not just use the water and still have water just with rearranged molecules after we used it?

now, if we are destroying water, and useing the hydrogen we get from it and it is all okay once finished, are we getting the 5 pounds of hydrogen from the 2 teaspoons of water we end up with, or does 2 teaspoons of water contain 5 pounds of hydrogen.

truth of the mater is, we need a source of energy to consume to create energy, and if we use the hydrogen from our water supplies, we end up with no water.

 

[Jusatele]

do we just recall all the hydrogen cars in the end and say, opps we have no water?

I love recalls, hey guys, we made a mistake and now we want the stuff back so it will all be better

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

A great fictional work called Fight Club taught me all I need to know about recalls....but I can't talk about it.

 

[Jusatele]

and finally, how big of a machine using what source of energy will we have to build to rearrange all these hydrogen atoms we modified so we have water again?

or do we not discuss this and put that problem onto our grand kids?

I just want these questions answered, so far every source of energy MAN has ever tried either caused pollution or kills something, How in the world do you think using up our water will be a good thing?


in other words, if it takes 10 gallons of water to get me 5 pounds of hydrogen, after going a few miles down the freeway, do I have 10 gallons of water back? or do I need to change more water into hydrogen and oxygen,  What happened to that hydrogen and is it in a condition to be water again? Or do I need to separate it from the atmosphere, capture it, and use more energy to get the water back that all life needs on earth to live.

And this is a good source of energy because...

 

[Jusatele]

My last post on this
it is not the energy use that is the problem, ANY form of energy use has terrible reaction
dams destroy environments, collapsed fisheries are results  as is flooding of lands, and the re nourishing of flood planes down river
we burn fuels and create pollution
use water, hey we have no water to drink
our world is overpopulated and that is all there is to it
we could use our current energy sources we have, if our population was in millions and not billions. The problem is not energy, the problem is we are trying to support a population that demands more energy every day. If the level of our populations were those that were around 500 years ago, and stable, then all would be fine. We would have wide sweeping forest, old growth, we would have millions of acres of prairie with wild animals grazing. we would have rainforest so thick we have tribes that no one had ever seen. we would be sitting on oil reserves, not going out into dangerous waters to drill them and have such as the disaster in the gulf this summer.

the answer is, clean up what we have done, find ways to be more efficient, and lower the population till it becomes a sustainable number. Anything else is just fooling ourselves.

 

[richship]

ok  lets ask a few questions
solar energy, is not the energy supplied by the sun consuming itself? not just rearranging its molecules?

That is a nuclear process. Mass is being converted into energy.

burning a 5 pound log, when we are finished we saw the energy and felt the heat, what is left is ash and polluted air, are they not just rearranged atoms? but was not the Wood consumed? and if it had not been then where would the energy come from?

The energy comes from the chemical reactions putting matter into different forms with different energy levels. you can say that the wood is consumed, but all of the the atoms that made up the wood still exist. And many of them may be rearranged back into wood again at some point by the anti-entropic force we call life.

5 pounds of gasoline, we burn it, have air pollution and carbon in the engine  we went 12 miles so we know how the energy was used, and saw the tank is empty, so we know it was consumed, but it still was consumed, with out the consumption of a fuel source we cannot extract the energy.

You are actually putting 5 pounds of crap in the atmosphere. Really. If it just went away, we wouldn't worry about pollution. We would probably have other things to worry about.

why do we need to extract the energy from water if it water is it's by product, would we not just use the water and still have water just with rearranged molecules after we used it?

You need to use energy to extract the hydrogen from water. Burning the hydrogen just releases the energy. Fossil fuels were also created by processes that added energy to the system (life). Possibly the word burning is confusing you. It is just the common term for a rapid exothermic chemical reaction.

now, if we are destroying water, and useing the hydrogen we get from it and it is all okay once finished, are we getting the 5 pounds of hydrogen from the 2 teaspoons of water we end up with, or does 2 teaspoons of water contain 5 pounds of hydrogen.

More than 5 pounds of water is created (since oxygen is added), mostly in the form of water vapor.

truth of the mater is, we need a source of energy to consume to create energy, and if we use the hydrogen from our water supplies, we end up with no water.

I can see by your example that it is easy to be sceptical of everything when you know nothing.

Seriously, take a class or read a book.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

And there it is.  The personal attack.

Goodbye thread.

 

[Jusatele]

I have taken classes, and read books
I have a Masters Degree
and you want to know something
everything they taught me has been proved false
oh this drug is good, now we are suing
Asbestos?
tobacco was once pushed on us
so was nuclear fuels, way of the future remember
and have you been to the sun to see if it is nuclear or organic?
ok lets look at something, where does that mass go?
so you are saying energy is a tangible state?
energy is the consumption of a product. that is why thy call them fuel sources
hum, remember when we were going to farm the oceans, now we are finding out that is a mistake, the pollution, escapement of biologically altered fish
and how penicillin was the wonder drug, now we have to find new antibiotics every years as stuff is getting to where it laughs at the old stuff

you depend on science, every lie, every mistake, every non proved theory put in to production, and you will find out that we have never altered the world once, with out a problem that states us in the face a few years later. and as we get bigger and bigger ideas we destroy more with each one.

and that is why man will go extinct, he will never come to the mind set that it is him, not the world around him, that is the problem.

you can ague it all day long, but you can not disprove history, and history has proven that since the first time we got together and started trying to make our lives easier, we have done nothing but destroyed the natural balance. And this false sense of security you have that says we can separate out all the hydrogen from our water and not have some effect on our water supplies will have to be dealt with in 50 years when we find out we have 1/3 less water than at the turn of the century.

once again, what happens to that hydrogen, is it released as pure water again as we first started with it?  or will we have to turn it into water again in the future?

I find that scary, that it is up to man, who has done nothing but destroy, to find a way to make water in the future, and at what cost to the environment

 

[Jusatele]

do not destroy this thread because of his attack, it gave me a reason to answer him with out attacking back.

people attack because they have no answer, I still have plenty and his was so trivial it did not matter

 

[richship]

I have taken classes, and read books
I have a Masters Degree

I really hope not in any science.

and you want to know something
everything they taught me has been proved false

So let me get this straight - You are using a computer on the internet and you don't think scientists are ever right about anything?

once again, what happens to that hydrogen, is it released as pure water again as we first started with it?  or will we have to turn it into water again in the future?

One last time as simply as possible: It is the hydrogen combining with oxygen to produce water that creates the energy.

I'm not relying on anyone else to tell me this happens. I did the experiment myself in the 8th grade.

 

[CrackedPepper]

Getting away from the discussion on the law of the conservation of matter and energy for a moment, consider the following:

- When a study comes along that goes against the orthodoxy of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGCC) that AGCC proponents always point to the sources of funding of such studies as agenda driven while the sources of their own studies remain unassailable.  Follow the money on both sides of the argument and see what you find...

- Much of the science surrounding AGCC focuses on computer models that extrapolate weather and climate many years out into the future, yet the computer models that we use to predict the weather in the present cannot accurately predict what is going to happen in the next several days with any reliable accuracy.   Still, people accept a prediction of what will happen in 50 years as settled science and see nothing wrong with that.

- Why is there a certain segment of the population that finds no energy solution suitable for use by humankind?  It their view:
-- we can't use "fossil fuels" because they release CO2 into the atmosphere
-- we can't use nuclear power because there might be a meltdown and we can't dispose of nuclear waste.
-- we can't use wind power because the turbines chop up birds and ruin our scenic views
-- we can't use hydro power because it disturbs the waterways for aquatic life
-- we can't use large scale solar farms because it disturbs the habitat

 

[OzziePete]

A lot of the pros and cons of this debate goes way over the head of the average guy. Me included. What is bearing more obvious though, and has been something that environmentalists, greenies etc. have been yelling about for ages, has been the use of fossil fuels to provide energy. It is an old world attitude that has a finite answer to it. Only problem is, we are unsure when the world's coal, gas, uranium and oil supplies will end.

The issue of trying to produce non fossil fuelled energy is more important to me than say the argument over whether California will be inundated with a 6 foot tide rise.

What is also needed is a person who can match the ability of the Al Gores of the green movement to get the perfect quotable media grab against them..... at the moment the likes of Al Gore are easy media fodder but the scientists that may have opposing views all sound like crackpot cynics.

 

[Jusatele]

I have taken classes, and read books
I have a Masters Degree

I really hope not in any science.

I'm not relying on anyone else to tell me this happens. I did the experiment myself in the 8th grade.

actually yes it is in electrical engineering, I know more about math and science than most ever will. My own a company that goes into grocery stores and do complete do overs, when we walk out I guarantee a 40 % reduction in electrical use.

A 8th grade experiment does not have many base lines like a engineering experiment, I can guarantee you did not know how much mass in Hydrogen and Oxygen you started with and finished with, your total mass was not calculated at all. That is why they are still experimenting with the Hydrogen Fuel cell, it is no where near efficient enough to put on the market.

yes I use a computer, I am not a person who would refuse to use technology once it is here, that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. As are your attacks on me because you have no proof. I ask you for the proof that we will have the same amount of water we strarted with, and extracted more energy that we used to do the process. in total, it is not there.

If we could use the energy to combine the oxygen and hydrogen with out having to create energy to keep the process going, we would have no oil consumption as of the next year
as no one would use oil if they could get the air to propel their cars, Face it the technology is flawed and expensive to get to work

as I asked before, do you think it is a good idea to use up the water of the world, depending on man to turn it back?

 

[richship]

- Much of the science surrounding AGCC focuses on computer models that extrapolate weather and climate many years out into the future, yet the computer models that we use to predict the weather in the present cannot accurately predict what is going to happen in the next several days with any reliable accuracy.   Still, people accept a prediction of what will happen in 50 years as settled science and see nothing wrong with that.

It is a micro/macro difference. When I boil a pot of water on the stove, I can't predict where each bubble will go, but I know it will get hot.

- Why is there a certain segment of the population that finds no energy solution suitable for use by humankind?  It their view:

Because you can find someone that holds just about any view. The segment that believes everything you posted is small enough that you can ignore them completely.

 

[Jusatele]

Ozzie, I hear you

but that is not the answer, nor are looking for new fuels

the answer is to be able to use the resources of the earth in a sustainable way.

when we run out of trees, what do we use metals? and then when we run out of them, chemicals? oh no they went away when we used all the oil

problem is, as I have said a few times, we could continue with the resources we have today, we could use all our sources of energy we have today

all we need to do is recycle everything, clean up our messes and depopulate, if we only had 1 child per couple for the next 200 years, we would be at a population we could sustain, all of our problems today are not our usage of resources, it is the abuses we do to our lands because of our population and its demand to use resources up so fast.

 

[richship]

I ask you for the proof that we will have the same amount of water we strarted with, and extracted more energy that we used to do the process. in total, it is not there.

I ask you for proof that burning things destroys matter.

As for extracting more energy that is used, fossil fuels are just relying on previous processes that added energy. I suggested using solar to power the hydrolysis to get the hydrogen. That way, I can have a fusion powered car.  :glasses10: