Energy v Information

[Bret Cahill]

If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you
ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work.

Period.

An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble
finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something
that had jack to do with energy.

The converse is just as true:

If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question
you can get a good measurement.

An excellent example of this was the idiot who suggested a 100 kg/sec.
flow rate would be difficult to measure::

21" OD riser would have a fluid velocity of 1.07 mph at 50,000 bbl/day
leakage (the consistent real world value).

That idiot who wrote that cannot even _swim_ 1 mph yet he thinks it
would be difficult to measure!

The two example above are common sense. Absolutely _no one_ claiming
to have any background in science or engineering should be making
these kinds or errors.

The ramifications of the above should be obvious:

It is a whole lot easier to instrument everything and save energy than
it is to generate more.


Bret Cahill

 

[Uncle Al]

Bret Cahill wrote:

If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you
ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work.

Period.

Detect nuclear binding energy re nuclear reactors to produce
electricity.

An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble
finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something
that had jack to do with energy.

The converse is just as true:

If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question
you can get a good measurement.
[snip rest of crap]

What is the energy/volume of the sun vs. radius?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

 

[Uncle Al]

Bret Cahill wrote:

If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you
ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work.

Period.

Detect nuclear binding energy re nuclear reactors to produce
electricity.

An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble
finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something
that had jack to do with energy.

The converse is just as true:

If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question
you can get a good measurement.
[snip rest of crap]

What is the energy/volume of the sun vs. radius?


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

 

[Bret Cahill]

If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you
ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work.

Period.

Detect nuclear binding energy re nuclear reactors to produce
electricity.

What significant source of energy are you finding difficult to detect?

An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble
finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something
that had jack to do with energy.

The converse is just as true:

If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question
you can get a good measurement.

[snip rest of crap]

An excellent example of this was the idiot who suggested a 100 kg/
sec.
flow rate would be difficult to measure::

21" OD riser would have a fluid velocity of 1.07 mph at 50,000 bbl/day
leakage (the consistent real world value).

The idiot who wrote that cannot even _swim_ 1 mph yet he thinks it
would be difficult to measure!

Is that person really that stoopid or was he just pulling out legs?

The two example above are common sense. Absolutely _no one_ claiming
to have any background in science or engineering should be making
these kinds or errors.

The ramifications of the above should be obvious:

It is a whole lot easier to instrument everything and save energy
than
it is to generate more.

What is the energy/volume of the sun vs. radius?

What is the problem measuring what?

Moreover, the issue was never energy for E.T.

It was for the 10 billion humans trying to stay alive on earth post
peak.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you
ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work.

Period.

An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble
finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something
that had jack to do with energy.

The converse is just as true:

If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question
you can get a good measurement.

An excellent example of this was the idiot who suggested a 100 kg/sec.
flow rate would be difficult to measure::

21" OD riser would have a fluid velocity of 1.07 mph at 50,000 bbl/day
leakage (the consistent real world value).

That idiot who wrote that cannot even _swim_ 1 mph yet he thinks it
would be difficult to measure!

The two example above are common sense. Absolutely _no one_ claiming
to have any background in science or engineering should be making
these kinds or errors.

The ramifications of the above should be obvious:

It is a whole lot easier to instrument everything and save energy than
it is to generate more.


Bret Cahill

Do you even own an oscilloscope?

John

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip babble>

Anyway you dodged the issue:

Is there any phenomenon that can be considered a significant source of
energy, i.e., something that will get the fat idiots down the road,
that is difficult to measure?


Bret Cahill

That isn't an issue, it is just jibberish.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <4C066475.6EDB2A53@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you
ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work.

Period.

Detect nuclear binding energy re nuclear reactors to produce
electricity.

An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble
finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something
that had jack to do with energy.

The converse is just as true:

If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question
you can get a good measurement.
[snip rest of crap]

What is the energy/volume of the sun vs. radius?

You may be more interested in ratio ofr power to volume. I hope I got
it right or close at .27 watt per cubic meter.

However, most of the world whether or not weighted by amount of
population gets anywhere from 100 to 280 watts per square meter of real
estate year-round average at ground level after atmosphere and clouds for
free. I would consider 180 watts per square meter to be fairly typical.
The Kiehl-Trenberth model says 168 watts per square meter worldwide
average for radiation from the sun, as in not including thermal infrared
from the atmosphere or clouds.

The thermally radiating nuclear fusion reactor 93 million miles from us
was built pro bono for free and there is little expectation of any need to
maintain or refuel it for the next 4-5 billion years.

Monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic devices are only around 10-11%
efficient, but they can be tilted southward or even deployed on
sun-tracking motorized mounts to get much more insolation than if they
are deployed horizontally. There are alternate and combination
photovoltaic schemes that are more efficient than silicon alone.
Non-photovoltaic solar energy collectors (such as for when low grade heat
is useful) are much more efficient still, and often cheap enough to make
bigger rather than tilted or sun-tracking.

The biggest problem I see is ruts of cloudy weather. For example, a bad
January in Philadelphia, which can get 12 hours of sunshine in 20 days.
State College PA is worse, with most winter and early spring days being
at least mostly cloudy in the PM, while also usually sharing Philadelphia's
cloudy ruts. And Seattle appears to me to have an average January and an
average December having maybe 15 hours (or less) of sunshine in each of
these months.

--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Bret Cahill]

If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you
ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work.

Period.

An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble
finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something
that had jack to do with energy.

The converse is just as true:

If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question
you can get a good measurement.

An excellent example of this was the idiot who suggested a 100 kg/sec.
flow rate would be difficult to measure::

21" OD riser would have a fluid velocity of 1.07 mph at 50,000 bbl/day
leakage (the consistent real world value).

That idiot who wrote that cannot even _swim_ 1 mph yet he thinks it
would be difficult to measure!

The two example above are common sense. Absolutely _no one_ claiming
to have any background in science or engineering should be making
these kinds or errors.

The ramifications of the above should be obvious:

It is a whole lot easier to instrument everything and save energy than
it is to generate more.

Bret Cahill

Do you even own an oscilloscope?

An old Protek P3502C.

If it has any Antiques Road Show value I'll sell.

Anyway you dodged the issue:

Is there any phenomenon that can be considered a significant source of
energy, i.e., something that will get the fat idiots down the road,
that is difficult to measure?


Bret Cahill

 

[Zerkon]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:48:30 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

you ain't got nothing

Now that's something!

 

[T. Keating]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 23:12:05 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <4C066475.6EDB2A53@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:

If you are having trouble detecting something then *a fortiori* you
ain't got nothing that can produce useful amounts of mechanical work.

Period.

Detect nuclear binding energy re nuclear reactors to produce
electricity.

An excellent example of this was the cold fusion idiots having trouble
finding a precise enough thermometer to prove that they had something
that had jack to do with energy.

The converse is just as true:

If you have significant amounts of energy then there is no question
you can get a good measurement.
[snip rest of crap]

What is the energy/volume of the sun vs. radius?

You may be more interested in ratio ofr power to volume. I hope I got
it right or close at .27 watt per cubic meter.

However, most of the world whether or not weighted by amount of
population gets anywhere from 100 to 280 watts per square meter of real
estate year-round average at ground level after atmosphere and clouds for
free. I would consider 180 watts per square meter to be fairly typical.
The Kiehl-Trenberth model says 168 watts per square meter worldwide
average for radiation from the sun, as in not including thermal infrared
from the atmosphere or clouds.

The thermally radiating nuclear fusion reactor 93 million miles from us
was built pro bono for free and there is little expectation of any need to
maintain or refuel it for the next 4-5 billion years.

Monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic devices are only around 10-11%
efficient, but they can be tilted southward or even deployed on

Bzzzt.. please get your facts straight..

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/suntech_pushes_pluto_technology_to_19_efficiency_on_monocrystalline_solar_c/
"Suntech pushes Pluto tech to 19% efficiency on monocrystalline solar
cells, 17% on multi cells"

Mono C solar cells/panels were doing better than 11% efficiency over
thirty years ago.. and technology marches on..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileVeff(rev100414).png

Note: The dark blue line with filled in square boxes. (Single Crystal
Si cells).

snip...