Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Here's an idea that I once discussed many years ago with a fellow who identified himself on Twitter as Quantum G.
The idea was that you do not need a net energy production from fusion in order to use it as a propulsive device.
The fusion reaction does occur. Modern devices ARE capable of producing fusion reactions. But they are NOT capable
of getting positive net energy out of them.
Therefore, an onboard device that can generate the necessary energy to produce the fusion reactions will get you
the reaction mass that can propel a ship. In this case, the proposition is to use a fission reactor to produce the
energy that drives the fusion reactions.
The result would be an ISP of 10-15 times the best devices available today.
The Angry Astronaut did not specify the downsides enough. The trouble with these kinds of devices is 1) the high
energy requirements will produce a lot of heat. How to cool it down? and 2) What kind of thrust can this device
produce? Ion engines do not produce much thrust. You would need to produce a lot of reactions in order to get a lot
of reaction mass.
The VASIMIR proposed spacecraft can also produce a high ISP, but it doesn't have an energy device either.
ISP is like MPG for automobiles. The higher the ISP, the further you can go on a tank of fuel. The ISP mentioned
here could be around 30-45k. That's several orders of magnitude better than chemical engines. But there's no mention
of thrust capacity on this video. Nor heat management.
What's the vision? What's the reason to vote for these guys? If it is there, I don't see it. If it is somewhere,
it should be repeated every day.
Being against the "other guys" is not a vision. But that is what the Democrats are "offering". If the GOP mirrors
that, then what's the difference? Besides, it is "class conflict" mode that the communists adhere to. If you
are going to adopt their premises, then you are well on your way to becoming one of them.
If it takes something to trap heat in order to produce AGW, does carbon dioxide do the trick? It is compared to a
greenhouse, is it not? A greenhouse is made of translucent materials, which are solids. A solid can hold heat inside,
but can carbon dioxide?
The solid is also more massive. The entropy would pass through the solid on its way to expanding into the universe.
It isn't stopped, it is just slows down the old entropy thing. On the other hand, with a gas, it will expand outward
into the universe without anything to slow it down.
Evidently the energy is kept on the carbon dioxide molecule. However, for ANY gas, there would be a jump to a higher energy state, and the entropy within would send on its way EVEN FASTER. After all, what's holding it back? On Earth, the gravity well holds it back. But it would continue anyway on up to the upper levels of the atmosphere, and release the heat up there. It would be released because that is entropy doing its thing. Even black holes cannot hold up the energy
forever. Entropy most always wins.
Wouldn't the upper atmosphere get hotter? Maybe, but not for long. The same thing will happen until it gets into space.
That's where the entropy will take it. It is always so. For now and forever into the future.
So it is a matter of how long, then? It could not be long. Gases dissipate very quickly. It takes a lot more than
the ability to hold on to heat a bit longer than other gases. Since they are all gases, the entropy will be carried
out, and the universal gas law implies it as well. Gas will expand forever if it is not constrained. Gravity will
constrain it. A solid will. But another gas will not. If it does, you'd better package it and sell it, because it
would be worth a lot.
the last update was on 7-10-23, below:
Update of post of July 9th, 2023:
This post ties things together. In order to find a lot of my posts on AGW, type it into the search box on the left
side bar. There was one about mass and gravity. It so happens that this meshes well with the entropy discussion
here. There was one about the universal gas law ( PV=nRT ). That also meshes well with the entropy discussion
in the video.
Therefore, in order to slow down entropy ( and bring about warming), you need to invoke something like gravity. Well,
a gravity well ( the Earth's gravitational pull is compared to a well), is nothing more than a large mass in space.
That meshes well with the universal gas law, but the variable "n" in the equation is directly proportional to mass.
As with the universal laws involving gravitation, the more mass, the more gravitational pull there is.
You won't come anyone near the amount of mass in the atmosphere that it will impact gravity very much. But gases have
the quality of compression, which invokes the "p" in the gas law. Stack up a lot of gas in a planetary system, and
you'll get atmospheric pressure.
So to connect it all, before you can get heat in the atmosphere, you'll need "n" to be very large. The variable "n"
is referring to the number of molecules of gas. In terms of the equation, it is expressed as "moles", which is a
constant. That constant is a very large number: approx 6 times 10 to the 23rd power. Given that molecules are very
small, it takes a lot of them to make a mole of a substance. In terms of gas, at standard conditions, a mole of a gas
is most always 22.4 liter. A mole of a gas is its molecular weight. Therefore, hydrogen gas is 2 grams per mole,
since hydrogen bonds with itself into a molecule, and the molecular weight of hydrogen is 1 g per mole.
If the reader is still with me on this, you'll see the connection between gravity and mass, and the weight of the
atmosphere.
It stands to reason that in order to get conditions that will allow a star to start burning its hydrogen, there needs
to be sufficient amount of mass. The entropy is trapped there, and escapes as the star starts to produce its energy
from fusion. That process allows entropy to begin to increase again. For awhile it is delayed by the gravitational
pull. Once the gravitation pull gets strong enough, because the mass has accreted enough, then the star begin to give
off its energy, and entropy increases again.
In other words, you cannot get entropy to slow down until you have enough mass. Once it slows down, the mass begins to
heat up. The process that forms stars must also be the process that would cause global warming, if that were the case.
But it isn't because we're not talking about anywhere near enough gas to make any kind of a difference in entropy and
therefore any kind of difference that would change the climate.
the original post follows:
Let's consider themisunderstood conceptof entropy for now. The narrator asked "What do we get from the sun?". The
answer was energy. But energy "spreads out". Consequently, we get entropy from the sun. As the sun uses up its
energy, it is becoming more disordered, which is what entropy is. When the sun's energy reaches us, it will heat
the environment, and then the environment releases the energy back into the universe. What goes in most go back
out in equal measure. Otherwise, the heat will build up. That is, unless something else slows it down.
But energy can be captured for a time. When photosynthesis creates the chemical energy we depend upon as food, this is
potential energy being stored as chemical energy. Is this stored energy, known as potential energy, an increase
in order then? That would mean a decrease in entropy. This use of word is troublesome, as an increase in
order means the decrease of entropy. Anyway, heat flows from where it is to where it isn't. Entropy spreads at
the same time that heat spreads. A heat exchange is an increase in entropy then. Or is it?
Referring to the video again, it was gravity that created the stars. As the Big Bang spread out matter in all directions,
and the universe expanded, matter began to coalesce into clumps of matter that grew larger and larger until they became
stars and galaxies. Consequently, gravity wells can be considered a storehouse of energy. It collects the matter that is
expanding ever outward, and thus slowing down entropy. Gravity then acts as a brake upon the expenditure of energy.
Star and galaxy formation creates a vast amount of potential energy.
Black holes do not emit very much energy, and it was thought that they emitted no energy at all. Steven Hawking discovered that they did emit a very small amount of energy, which is now called Hawking Radiation. Black holes must
be the ultimate storehouse of energy then. The energy released at such a slow rate will go on until the end of time.
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in the universe tends to a maximum. It makes sense that there
is such as thing as Hawking Radiation, for it is the confirmation of the second law of thermodynamics. As the black
hole emits such a small amount of radiation, it will nevertheless run out of radiation to emit at some point. This will
be eons and eons into the future, but it must happen eventually.
Everything in the universe might be considered as a storehouse of energy that is getting depleted all the time. Eventually the energy will be fully expended as entropy reaches it maximum. This will be the end of the universe.
So what does it all mean, Basil?
Could it mean that entropy is decreased as energy is concentrated? Order is being brought to the system. Think of that
as the stars condense and start shining. Planets are formed as well, as they orbit the new stars. This is how own
sun was formed, and how the Earth formed. Here's a question: Can entropy EVER be reversed? A hunch would posit that it
can't. Perhaps it would be like Hawking Radiation, in that it can be trapped for awhile, but energy will always escape, and entropy increases.
I said that I wanted to prove that man-made climate change is bunk. For it not to be bunk, you'd have to show that an
increase in magnitude of potential energy is being created. This would be similar to the process of planet, star, and galaxy
formation. Nothing can increase the energy in a system. It all tends towards maximum entropy. Therefore, the accretion
of energy means that the entropy is being held up by something. If you wish to believe that carbon dioxide can do
that, you have to believe that it is preventing the increase in entropy in the system.
The video says that is not impossible, but very unlikely. This modest essay wasn't proof, but it may be a beginning.
Something that happened today that reminded me of this principle. Not only in terms of this blog, but in how I organize things in general.
last posted on Apr 28, 2019
One of the organizing principles of this blog is to build up on past posts. It is good practice not to go around and around in circles, and make progress on a topic or subject. Thus, by having thing well linked and categorized, I don't repeat myself unless it is drive home a point that I made previously. If I link to old posts, it isn't necessarily as a means to add "filler". The re-posted post will serve to fit in with the current discussion. If I were to make an entirely new post on it, it would be like reinventing the wheel.
To summarize the procedures:
links to previous posts are in boldface.
links to pdf files are in green
italicized links are mostly to an Amazon link, but not always
There were other conventions, but I forgot them already. So much for being well organized. Come to think of it, this post said the same things. I could have re-posted it instead of this. Point made, I would think.
If you watch a lot of videos on YouTube, you might notice that many of the comments say that the older music is
better than the newer music. Having seen that comment so many times, and seeing this video up by Rick Beato, I decided
to put this video up on a post.
He looks a little un-well here. It was a bit hard to watch. But I stuck it out mostly. The video comes from the
heart, I believe, so it is definitely worth watching.
My reaction is that the internet has a dark side. It has ruined a lot, but it has also created a few things. One
thing it may have ruined is the music industry. It looks like Beato is trying to save some portion of it. I would
buy his stuff, especially when I was young, I would have loved to have his stuff. But I'm too old now.
On the larger side, music is part of the culture, and all of the culture is going to the dogs. It would seem
congruent to see what is happening to the music industry.
The trouble is this: once the older generation dies off, there will be no one to teach these things to the young. That's
how cultures die off. Just like the way ours is dying off. Beato said something like what John Kutsch said about his
audience---they are all gray beards. That's not good.
I don't like to be a downer, so hopefully there's a silver lining to this dark cloud...
