/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2440600
It seems extremely likely that you are a troll who ought to be banned, but won't be.

For some reason I kind of agree with this. Even though it's kind of...I guess scientifically impropable I can't imagine us being this fragile when it comes to energy sources some hundred years into the future.

>>2440610
>It seems extremely likely that you are a troll who ought to be banned, but won't be.
lol..

>make topic regarding relating to energy in a forum for discussing scientific topics
>must be troll

you're a fucking idiot

>>2440609
> For some reason I kind of agree with this. Even though it's kind of...I guess scientifically impropable I can't imagine us being this fragile when it comes to energy sources some hundred years into the future.
The way we get energy at the moment seems very primitive. There is so much energy in the universe, we just need to find a way to tap it. Why is it improbable? Seems like it will take a while, but seems entirely likely to me.

>>2440600
it's called the SUN

Go away

Geothermal energy is kind of 'unlimited" and 100% clean.They should think about it more than they do.

>>2440629
>it's called the SUN
solar panels all over the earth wouldn't be enough.

>Go away
>asking science question in /sci/
>go away
oh you

>>2440631
> remove heat from the earth's core
> unlimited

>>2440641
>solar panels all over the earth wouldn't be enough.
Yes it would

>>2440647
OK, maybe for our current energy needs, but it's not exactly unlimited. It's limited by how much we can actually put down solar panels. It wouldn't allow very long distance space flight or stuff like that. It'll just keep us where we are at.

>>2440647

solar panels are horribly inefficient, so I doubt it

Well, once we find a way to convert mass to energy, we will have more than enough for an extremely long time.

>>2440610
>>2440629
why do /sci/ and /g/ get so mad about stuff? you all seem to be very angry and arrogant nerds, have no tolerance for anyone who isn't asking typical questions

>>2440641
>>2440647
>>2440665
>Implying we would put them on Earth and not orbiting the sun and sending wireless energy back to earth.

>>2440646
I guess you noticed the quotes.

>>2440682
Because he's posting with a typical image macro face, and then he's asking about perpetual motions machines, infinite energy, or other obvious bullshit.

>>2440682

We could burn infants. They're renewable, there's plenty of human women to make lots more. The infants are useless otherwise anyway.

>>2440693
>Because he's posting with a typical image macro face, and then he's asking about perpetual motions machines, infinite energy, or other obvious bullshit.
OP here. who cares what image I use. you want me to put a picture of the sun or something? will that make it less trollish?

why is it so obvious to discuss perpetual motion, or infinite energy sources? there's actually a cold fusion conference coming up soon in India. oh, but wait, they're scientists so them talking about exactly the same thing is respectable, but someone asking about in a /sci/ thread isn't..
arrogant twat

>>2440700

absolutely! after all, what good is a newborn infant, really?

>>2440712
>why is it so obvious to discuss perpetual motion, or infinite energy sources? there's actually a cold fusion conference coming up soon in India. oh, but wait, they're scientists so them talking about exactly the same thing is respectable, but someone asking about in a /sci/ thread isn't..
>arrogant twat
Cold fusion, if it exists, isn't a limitless energy supply, nor can it lead to a perpetual motion machine, nor is it infinite energy. False analogy.

>>2440700
>implying way more energy isn't used to host a fetus for 9 months

>>2440600
Energy will always be unlimited because it cannot be destroyed. The problem is channeling it - or rather converting potential energy into kinetic energy.

What you're probably thinking of is fusion power. It takes an energy level of about 40,000,000 Kelvin to get even the most fusionable isotopes to fuse. Understandably, the nuclear chemists are kind of having a problem with that at the moment. But once it's figured out the energy crisis will be more-or-less solved.

>>2440700
You must have already started to burn them to power your logic factory!

>>2440729
>Cold fusion, if it exists, isn't a limitless energy supply, nor can it lead to a perpetual motion machine, nor is it infinite energy. False analogy.
What is it exactly then?

>>2440738

Nuclear? But doesn't that mean radiation? I don't want my precious children to be turned into green mutants! I'm going to write my congressman to demand he oppose anything having to do with the word "nuclear."

>>2440751
A process for converting one form of mass or energy into another. It doesn't pull energy out of my ass.

If it does, then it's pseudo science, barring a shitton of citations which I know you don't have, because it's not all over every news network across the entire planet.

>>2440763
>A process for converting one form of mass or energy into another. It doesn't pull energy out of my ass.
False analogy yourself. If we're living in a closed universe, then all energy is merely converted. Harnessing that conversion in a means that can be done in an ongoing way would essentially be limitless.

>>2440780
That's nice. That's not what the OP said nor intended. He is a troll who meant to provoke us into talking about perpetual motion machines, or magic free energy pipedreams. And now you're trolling me because I replied.

>>2440757
Haha. Very funny. But just in case anyone here actually thinks like that I should probably explain that - while the reactants used for nuclear fusion are technically radioactive - fusion is nowhere near as dangerous as the nuclear fission we use today to get our 'nuclear power'. The problem with nuclear fission is that we need highly unstable, highly radioactive isotopes to get it to work at an efficient activation energy. That's why nuclear waste is such a huge problem; when the reactants for fission can no longer be used, they remain radioactive for like a bazillion years and need to be disposed of very carefully.

Also I skimmed this thread and saw the phrase 'cold fusion' being thrown around. The way I understand it, cold fusion is just like regular fusion but without the absolutely ludicrous activation energy. If cold fusion is ever discovered - and there's evidence to suggest it might be, I think - the energy crisis would DEFINITELY be solved.

>>2440790
Actually, I'm OP. Stop being so pessimistic. I just wanted to talk about this shit with some intelligent people. I'm not a scientist, I'm a philosopher, but I'm interested. I find this attitude pervasive throughtout the sciences, nobody is interested in knowledge sharing, it's such an arrogant and dismissive mindset.

>>2440807
Step 1: Don't start a thread talking about unlimited energy. At least say "effectively unlimited", or put it in quotes, to help differentiate you from the idiots who actually believe in perpetual motion machines.

>>2440740
Go be an annoying mommy somewhere else. "Baww I will rage if anyone ever talks about anything bad ever happening to a child of any age ever because my vagina expanded larger than my own head!"

>>2440811
As I said, I'm not a scientist. I don't know what's considered trolling and what's not. Perhaps be a bit more charitable next time, because I honestly just wanted to learn, and I'm sure there are lots of people who do but just miss some quotation marks and suddenly they're abused and ridiculed unnecessarily, when in fact I'm not stupid at all, I just am not knowledgeable about these things.

>>2440796

You seem pretty knowledgeable, so I'm going to hijack this thread for a minute.

What exactly is radiation? Like, if I go near a big pile of uranium, why exactly would it harm me? I know UV radiation causes point mutations in DNA. Is it something similar?

>>2440831
>It seems extremely likely that there is an energy source that is possible to tap that will provide us with unlimited energy. Discuss.
>making statements about scientific ideas without knowing anything about science
Sure is retarded up in here.

>>2440831
Also, there's a big difference between posting some troll physics picture of two people stepping on each others' feet and climbing into the sky, and missing saying "effectively unlimited" instead of "unlimited", when in actual fact, as I said, it could be unlimited since it's like pouring water from one glass to another.

the only we have knowledge so far is Fusion.

>>2440851
>arrogant nerd not wanting to play with the other children
sure is assburgers in here

>>2440859
By his own admission, OP doesn't know anything about science, but he comes in here saying "Well obviously this is possible". He's being an asshat.

OP here. thanks for a completely unstimulating, dismissive and frustrating discussion in which I learned nothing. i've had more insightful discussions on /b/.
in sum, go fuck yourself /sci/.

if I see any of you coming to /adv/ for advice about how you've been friendzoned, or what to do about that girl that you like, I'll be sure to call you trolls and tell you to fuck off.
out.

>>2440878
That's nice. Good riddance troll or arrogant prick.

>>2440868
>By his own admission, OP doesn't know anything about science, but he comes in here saying "Well obviously this is possible". He's being an asshat.
I didn't say that. I simply set it as a topic for discussion.
As I said above, go fuck yourself.

>>2440878
cry more faggot

>>2440847
There are three main types of radiation - alpha, beta, and gamma. Beta's kind of complicated and not very common so I won't go into that, but I can tell you about the others pretty quickly.

IIRC, uranium produces alpha radiation. You know how uranium's kinda heavy and has a high number on the periodic table? Well obviously its nucleus is pretty big - it's got a lot of protons and neutrons. But at a certain point a nucleus can get too big, and as a result unstable. So, to deal with its nuclear instability, uranium releases a bit of its nucleus in the form of an 'alpha particle'. This particle is kinda like helium - kinda, sort of, maybe not really - and it moves very fast in a lot of cases. Since the particle has a lot of energy, it can hit a molecule in one of your cells and transfer the energy into that. The cell then becomes damaged and you eventually get cancer.

Gamma radiation is a type of electromagnetic wave. It makes electrons vibrate REALLY fast. It also carries a lot of energy and can similarly cause cancer and do bad shit to you.

That's the basics, I guess. And I should mention that though I am a chemist I'm not exactly an authority on nuclear chemistry. If someone else knows more than I do I'd be happy to be corrected.

>>2440890
"It seems extremely likely"