BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Stupid Science Questions 2

 
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)1011121314... 15

 
 
grant
13:25 / 26.07.06
Look again. Really. Tell me where orange stops and red starts.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
14:12 / 26.07.06
It's weird when I look at it, but it seems obvious that the green is certainly the gradiated overlap of the yellow and blue, but I don't "see" that yellow is the overlap of green with orange. Instead it seems like the orange is the overlap of yellow with red.

Is this primary/secondary color effect entirely psychological or does it have some physical component?

I wonder if the effect sharpens with more intense light? Such as with prisms?
 
 
Joggy Yoghurt
20:43 / 26.07.06
I've always wondered this especially when Drunk and pissing in a field but since I know practically nothing about the worlds processes or science it always just remained a funny little thought but could someone maybe give me more information on this.

In the past when people took a shit or a piss it went into the land because we just did it outside. But now dont all First world countries pump all their piss and shit into the ocean? considering this isnt the place its supposed to go could this be affecting the world in any way?
 
 
Henningjohnathan
22:14 / 26.07.06
I've wondered that as well, but I don't think it is a simple contrast. People in the past also grew and ate their food in that local area whereas we get our food from all over - sometimes from hundreds of miles away. Also, in the past, there wasn't the same organization of livestock, fertilizer and agribusiness concerns which have probably had a lot more to do with ecological effects than the toilet.
 
 
Dragon
23:24 / 26.07.06
Grant, actually I was concentrating on the red area, only.
 
 
Dragon
23:32 / 26.07.06
Paranoidwriter had posted a think tank link. This article caught my eye, in which: Every day the sun in North African and the Middle East alone would provide 2,000 times more energy than current world-wide energy consumption. The required technology to utilise at least 10 percent of the available solar energy already exists. A desert area as small as the total area of Hamburg and Berlin would be sufficient to generate enough electricity for all of Germany.

I thought that was an interesting idea if it is workable.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:40 / 27.07.06
The price of producing photovoltaic cells is dropping on a yearly basis. So theoretically we are approaching a time when "solar fields" could be developed to help produce power.

Still, covering an area the size of Hamburg in solar cells would be a mammoth task. Bear in mind that establishing such a facility in a desert does mean that the cells would need some way of being constantly kept clear of wind-blown sand particles. Maintenance of the solar panels would also be difficult (but not impossible).

Placement of the facility would also have to be well thought out so as not to displace indigenous desert societies or damage desert ecology.

It's a nice idea though.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
13:47 / 27.07.06
Since greenhouse gases heat the earth by trapping energy from the sun reflected from the earth, could vast "deserts" of black solar panels, or just non reflective panels, conceivably reduce global warming this way while at the same time reducing our dependency on fossil fuels?
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:59 / 27.07.06
Since greenhouse gases heat the earth by trapping energy from the sun reflected from the earth, could vast "deserts" of black solar panels, or just non reflective panels, conceivably reduce global warming this way while at the same time reducing our dependency on fossil fuels?

A lovely thought, but not really. It's heat energy which is being trapped and is causing global warming. Photovoltaic cells produce electrical energy from light energy.

The only way "solar fields" would help to reduce global warming would be that they would reduce reliance on other more harmful forms of energy production. But we still come back to the impracticality of covering the deserts with photovoltaic cells at our current level of technology.
 
 
*
15:49 / 27.07.06
There's no actual science to this, right? I heard about it years ago from someone who was pretty excited about it, but looking at it now it seems sort of ridiculous, mostly because of the author's wild textual gesticulations.
 
 
grant
17:32 / 27.07.06
That's *really* hard to read. The gist of it seems to be this part:
As recalled earlier, underwater electric arcs between carbon-base electrodes are quite efficient in the separation of water into its atomic constituents and the vaporization of the carbon-base electrodes, resulting in a plasma of mostly ionized atoms of H, O and C at about 7,000 degrees F. Since the H and O atoms remain in the presence of the arc, they recombine into water via a locally implosive process, thus implying a very low efficiency in the production of a combustible gas, as indicated earlier. Moreover, the great affinity between C and O implies the formation of CO that, when remaining in the presence of the electric arc, is oxidized into CO2, thus implying a decrease of the calorific content of the gas (since CO2 is not combustible), as well as a prohibitive content of green house gases in the combustible gas itself prior to combustion.

These problems have been resolved by b>Santilli's PlasmaArcFlow™ Recyclers that are based on the in flowing of the liquid feedstock through the electric arc, thus continuously removing the plasma immediately following its formation. This process evidently prevents H and O to recombine into water thus implying an increase of the efficiency that, as we shall see, can be of a factor of ten under proper technological requirements. The flow of the liquid through the electric arc also prevents the oxidation of CO into CO2, with consequential increase of the calorific content of the gas as well as the elimination of the green house gas.The above new process has been used for the construction of two recyclers:

TOTAL PLASMA-ARC-FLOW™ RECYCLERS (patented and international patents pending). They are based on the principle of continuously recirculating the liquid feedstock through the electric arc until the entire liquid is transformed into a clean burning combustible gas, plus a small amount of solid precipitates. in addition, the chemical reaction underlying the formation of H2 and CO are very esoenergetic, as we shall see. Therefore, Santilli's PlasmaArcFlow™ Recyclers produce 'two' forms of energy: a combustible gas and heat acquired by the liquid feedstock..


I'm not chemist enough to know whether this would actually work as it says, but if it does, it's still producing a lot of carbon monoxide (CO), which is a pollutant. Maybe the system has some way of converting that to something else, but I'm not up to reading it to find out.
 
 
Dragon
23:40 / 27.07.06
I was more interested in the thermal part of it than direct sunlight. The sand and soil of a desert tends to absorb a lot of energy. The problem of solar panels degrading wouldn't be a concern.
 
 
Dragon
23:42 / 27.07.06
I was wondering recently if we used a different kind of gas, one with larger molecules than ordinary air, then we wouldn't have to worry about our tires going flat nearly as often.
 
 
Evil Scientist
06:32 / 28.07.06
I was wondering recently if we used a different kind of gas, one with larger molecules than ordinary air, then we wouldn't have to worry about our tires going flat nearly as often.

Here in the UK you can get the air in your tires replaced with nitrogen which does maintain the pressure for longer.

Of course an easier way to do that is to check your tire pressure on a regular basis, which achieves much the same effect and prolongs tire life. It also means you don't have to worry if the next garage up the road supplies nitrogen.

Sometimes you don't need ubertech to solve these problems. Common sense is your ally.
 
 
Evil Scientist
06:58 / 28.07.06
I was more interested in the thermal part of it than direct sunlight. The sand and soil of a desert tends to absorb a lot of energy. The problem of solar panels degrading wouldn't be a concern.

Well, this being the question thread, it might aid you to frame that as a question rather than a vague statement.

Here's a link to the wiki on uses of solar thermal energy.

Basically there are a number of technologies either in use or in the experimental stage which utilise solar thermal energy. The ones which produce electricity do it in much the same way as your basic power station (ie to run a steam turbine which actually generates the power).

Now arguably a desert region would be a good place for such solar thermal energy stations to be implemented. But damage to the highly reflective surfaces needed would still be a factor. It should also be recognised that a steady water supply would also be required to create the steam.

So, in answer to the question "Can we panel off the deserts of the world and live the life of Riley on the power generated?": Not yet.
 
 
*
06:59 / 28.07.06
Air is 78% nitrogen anyway.
 
 
nameinuse
20:01 / 31.07.06
The point is the nitrogen in air is a big, heavy, stable molecule, with easy, predictable thermal expansion properties (they use it in racing-car tyres, too).

For a road car, it is indeed massive overkill. It might make a noticable difference if you lived somewhere as extreme as a desert with a 50 degree daily temperature range, but in a temperate zone? No. Better to save the money in the first place and buy new, better tyres when you can.
 
 
lekvar
22:41 / 31.07.06
Is there such a thing as Time Theory? I know that a lot of current thought in physics, string theory for example, gives cursory attention to how time interacts with the rest of... well, everything, but is anybody outside of the Time Cube guy working on a Unified Time Law or something equivalent?
 
 
Saturn's nod
12:36 / 01.08.06
The question I have about photovoltaics is whether the embodied energy that goes into one is repaid over the panel's working lifetime. Considering the assembly costs, refining ores from all over the world, etc, isn't there a huge investment cost currently supplied via fossil fuels which is close to wiping out the energy recouped via the photovoltaic reaction? I would love to be convinced otherwise (and of course once we get the blimps and modern ocean-going sail-ships in production I'm expecting the realcosts of moving stuff to get a bit more sensible.)
 
 
grant
12:59 / 01.08.06
id -- on that plasma energy thing, I'm just reading a bit in May's Scientific American on an old technique for getting diesel fuel (liquid petroleum) out of coal.

It rang a bell because of this bit:
To create the fuel, coal is first mixed with oxygen and steam at high temperature and pressure to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The second step, referred to as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, uses a catalyst to transform the gas into a liquid synthetic crude, which is further refined. Along the way, mercury, sulfur, ammonia and other compounds are extracted for sale on the commodities market.

Which sounds similar to the process on your plasma site. The article also says that the liquid fuel obtained this way is much cleaner than ordinary diesel (although it doesn't compare it with biodiesel, which I'm guessing is WAY cleaner).
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
21:07 / 13.08.06
I was wondering about the Holographic Universe hypothesis as part of an ongoing essay on Philip K Dick's ,ah, less lucid writings (my own hypothesis, that maybe Dick was less crazy than previously thought, isn't exactly standing up to scrutiny).
Having no background in Physics I can't verify its conclusions for myself, but my gut is telling me it's psuedoscientific speculation. What is the consensus on this idea?
 
 
astrojax69
23:08 / 13.08.06
freaky, phex... i just a week or so ago brought my demanding lover's copy of talbot's book, holographic universe, to my work to read through lunches and other breaks. and just yesterday we were both in here and she said 'hey, my book!'.

sadly, i've not managed a lot of breaks in all this time, but my gut reaction (my gladwell's 'blink' reaction) is as yours: pseudo-science. but the idea is soooo broadly fantastic that there is probably something in it that articulates a real problem and points at some sort of direction of an answer...

but no firm opinions yet. anyone else read this?
 
 
Henningjohnathan
20:48 / 14.08.06
I don't know much about holographic theories in general, BUT fairly recently (a couple years ago) there was an article in Scientific American about the mathematics of Black Holes that implied the universe is actually two-dimensional and the concept of volume was a sort of illusion created by the way the information in the universe is processed.

Essentially, I think this particular conclusion came about when physicists were trying to determine theoretically what happens to an object's "information" when it falls into a black hole. The conclusion was, in part, that the information would be recorded as an increase in surface area (2-D) rather than volume (3-d).

Essentially, it would seem that the base reality of the universe is 2-dimensional, from this result, and that 3-dimensions as not so much reality as they are information processing.

This corresponds to the metaphorical idea that the flat holographic plate that contains the information is in some ways more real that the image, the hologram, that results.

Warren Ellis used this idea in Planetary and Ultimate Fantastic Four comparing parallel universes as flat hard drives set on top of each other.
 
 
Saturn's nod
10:44 / 15.08.06
I like the article linked to above on holographic universe hypothesis, especially the bits that are more sciency. Something about that view of reality seems robust to me, although I'm not a physicist. The hypothesis seems consistent with the kind of 'laws' of systems that von Bertalanffy and co in the systems science movement write about.
 
 
Quantum
14:40 / 16.08.06
Can anyone explain the Poincare conjecture to my mathematically challenged brain? Gregori Perelman is probably refusing a million dollars for solving it and may refuse the Nobel math prize too, in the news today.

Links;
Loosely speaking, the conjecture surmises that if a closed three-dimensional manifold is sufficiently like a sphere in that each loop in the manifold can be shrunk to a point, then it is really just a three-dimensional sphere. The analogous result has been known to be true in higher dimensions for some time. Wikipedia article I can't quite grasp due to a lack of topological understanding.
Meet the cleverest man in the world TehGrauniad article.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
16:51 / 28.08.06
Stupid science question:

From an organic, biochemical perspective, what is life?

What are the basic chemical processes, energy exchanges, that make the human body work on the cellular level?
 
 
Red Concrete
19:34 / 28.08.06
You want to know all the chemical reactions, and all the chemicals and enzymes? Here's a picture of some of the known ones.

You're either going to have to narrow down exactly what you want to know, or dedicate your life to studying biochemistry. I don't mean to be pedantic or condescending about it.

What's your angle? Why the interest? If you would like a paragraph overview of what the most essential stuff is, perhaps I, or someone else could rustle something up.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
13:45 / 29.08.06
Essentially, what is the primary defining element of life? What particularly distinguishes a living from an unliving chemical process? Is DNA "alive" or is it just a molecule? Are the functions of DNA the basic component of the process of life?
 
 
Red Concrete
15:29 / 29.08.06
Well, maybe carbon is the primary component of life. But we can't get by without hydrogen and oxygen, and we need nitrogen, and phosphorus... and a lot of other things.

I don't think anyone would define a single chemical or reaction as "alive" or not. Life [wikipedia] is a property of a system. As I was taught it in school (and now reminded.. heh...), life should involve:

- Organization
- Metabolism (generating enegry)
- Growth / development
- Adaptation to environment
- Response to stimuli (I remember my bio techer mentioning "movement", but that excludes a lot of clearly living things)
- Reproduction - probably the most important one.

I would also tentatively mention Death. Of course if something never dies, that's not to say that it isn't alive, but everything that lives does seem to die...

If you take it that something to be alive, has to have those properties, then it's pretty hard for a single, or even a few molecules to be classed as "alive". DNA for example can't really do any of those, at least not on it's own - it needs other molecules even to replicate itself.

So while DNA, or RNA, is at the center of one of the key processes of life (replication), it is itself (or has evolved into) a pretty fragile and dependent molecule. In terms of cellular life, you could say that DNA replication and transcription is essential, but so is RNA translation, ATP and glucose metabolism, and the most of the things the lipid bilayer (cell membrane) does.

Many people hesitate to call viruses "alive". They are essentially just DNA (or RNA) in a protein capsule, and need help (i.e. other molecules) from other living cells in order to replicate. There seems to be a range of entities that get closer and closer to 'just molecules', and further and further from what you might consider life.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
15:49 / 29.08.06
- Organization
- Metabolism (generating enegry)
- Growth / development
- Adaptation to environment
- Response to stimuli (I remember my bio techer mentioning "movement", but that excludes a lot of clearly living things)
- Reproduction - probably the most important one.

That's a pretty good list for the definitions. I guess I'm most interested in the metabolic functions. How is living energy chemically acquired, produced and utilized? It would have to be primarily a cellular process, right?
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
18:27 / 29.08.06
ATP is a biggy.

(edit)As Red Concrete mentioned above! But specifically to answer your question, as far as I understand it, when we gain energy we cycle ADP into ATP, and when we spend energy we take it from the ATP and change it back into ADP.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
20:11 / 29.08.06
Yes, the more I look into it, the more the energetic process seems to be a lot about the interchange of ATP and ADP. Is this is a universal process for all carbon-based life? Theoretically, could there be a non-carbon version - silicon-based for example?

Also, could fuel cells be developed that utilize this process to create electrical energy?
 
 
spectre
18:17 / 30.08.06
ATP:
Interestingly enough, there are people out there trying to use ATP for a variety of energy projects - the trouble is, ATP very rarely exists outside of cells - think of the ADP-ATP systems more as energy storage than energy production. Production, in terms of raw materials --> energy, would be cellular respiration. ATP is simply the energy currency.

That being said, I read a paper a while back about a miniature motor that ran on ATP-ADP. It was a large protein with a spinning metal "propeller" (nickel? dont remember). Not useful, per se, but pretty cool.
 
 
Red Concrete
19:15 / 30.08.06
Henningj, I imagine there could be a silicon based version, but I'm not so much a chemist. Since carbon is the basis of DNA, proteins, fats, carbohydrates... all that would have to be rewritten. I'm not sure if you could get an 'equivalent' system using silicon instead of carbon.

That's interesting about artificial uses for ATP. I would imagine that getting a protein to use ATP for energy is much easier than getting electrical energy itself out of it. As in electrical current, I mean. The only use of actual life-generated electricity that I can remember is in electric eels, which yes, would be driven by ATP. I'm not sure how efficient it is, or how it discharges, or how much useful current you might be able to get out of them...
 
 
Henningjohnathan
20:17 / 30.08.06
Henningj, I imagine there could be a silicon based version, but I'm not so much a chemist. Since carbon is the basis of DNA, proteins, fats, carbohydrates... all that would have to be rewritten. I'm not sure if you could get an 'equivalent' system using silicon instead of carbon.

It would be interesting to see if, theoretically, the same chemistry would work with silicon or another element. I once heard that silicon is capable of every molecular that carbon allows EXCEPT Silicon Dioxide is a solid at normal temperatures where Carbon Dioxide, obviously, is a gas. So a silicon based lifeform would have to excrete a brick with every exhalation. Unless the temperature of the planet was thousands of degrees hotter, but then the other chemical combinations may be made impossible.

Nevertheless, other than silicon microchips, I wonder if there is potential for complex technology from silicon chemistry.

That is cool about the ATP/ADP motor - I wonder if nanomachines could take advantage of something like that?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 45678(9)1011121314... 15

 
  
Add Your Reply