Moreno

One of the ways to increase energy density of a capacitor is to increase dielectric permittivity of the dielectric. Some sources claim that when some materials (for example some ferroelectrics) approach Curie point their dielectric permittivity start to approach infinity.

What happens to dielectric strengths and energy density then? Metals demonstrate infinite dielectric permittivity. What if we take a metal plate completely embedded in dielectric (for example a ceramics) and place it between two capacitor plates?

Another way to increase energy density is to increase capacitor plates surface area. What if we use cermet for electrodes in a dielectric capacitor? Cermet is a composite material made of finely meshed metal and ceramic particles. Or we could use MOFs (Metal organic frameworks). How much could it help to increase electrodes surface area and their energy density?

Supercapacitor development is improving faster than battery development, and estimates are that supercapacitors can replace batteries within ten years. Driverless cars may be replacing driven cars by that time frame. These two technologies will revolutionize transportation. What it means for consumers is not yet clear. I suspect various countries will improvise different laws and corresponding changes to their transportation systems. For example, an integrated mass transit system consisting of Musk's hyperloop or rail, bus and autos might pick up customers at their home, office, or other location, deliver them to a nearby destination, which could be final or interim, e.g., the bus or hyperloop station, and other scenarios. The cost reduction from driverless cars may make mass transit both economical and convenient. Even if personal ownership of cars continues as it is now, the merger of supercapacitors or improved batteries will endanger the oil industry.

Possibly. However, I don't think it is going to be any kind of a supercapacitor we saw up to date. Rather it may be some kind of electric energy storage which involve no chemical reactions. I don't think it will have carbon based electrodes or liquid electrolyte.

 

The oil industry is not endangered it is ultimately doomed, as are most current industries. In fifty years at most mobile phones will be a museum pieces.

 

 

Ultimately yes, because it's non replenishable. however electric transport will not bring the end to it as lot of oil is used in chemical industry.

If I may add my tuppence:

 

It seems to me that hybrid cars don't help they actively damage what they claim to provide.

You don't build 1 engine you build 2.

2 sets of components sourced, mined, transported and manufactured on 2 production lines

to install in an extra complex car requiring increased electronics, parts and control

all of which needs manufacturing with additional maintenance and spares all round.

If I had my way they would be outlawed.

 

My belief is that these cars only exist because the oil industry is trying to delay

any change over to full electric for as long as possible.

Full electric means not just less petrol/diesel consumption - it also means less maintenance

and less need for fuel pumps.

Fewer spares, less complex maintenance, less lubrication - in a phrase - an entire

industry devastated from top to bottom and the share price of oil companies

falling through the floor.

 

The only thing stopping that is insufficient electrical production by other means.

We just couldn't power all our transport by current or projected generation.

Fracking is a totally desperate and seriously dangerous red herring.

 

Nuclear fusion will not be running anytime in the next 50 years and in practice

is not much "cleaner" than fission anyway. Just a little safer to run.

At least it will be if anyone can be bother to build and operate them safely

which - given the history of fission even to this very day - seems unlikely.

 

Hybrid cars seem like the worst possible thing to buy into to me.

An average American driver makes 50% of trips on less than 5km distance and 90% of trips on less than 50km distance. Therefore plug-in hybrid with 100km battery range and brake recuperation could cut fuel consumption up to 10 times. Subsequently as gasoline part of it is used 10 times less frequent, there is fewer oil changes, expenses for spare parts are smaller etc. Also plug-in hybrid opens an interesting possibility for free-piston generator which is even smaller, lighter and possibly cheaper and more fuel efficient than a common engine. I don't think this is a tricks of Oil Industry.

The only alternative to ICE and hybrid cars at near future technology is metal-air fuel cell car. But it would require to create completely new immense infrastructure in comparison to hybrids.

I believe Yellowstone is protected by law.

Should it be restricted from geothermal power plants construction? If yes, why?

You didn't cite anything.

 

There is a world of difference between what you first said " Wind generates 140% of Denmark electricity demand." and what you actually meant

Denmark's power consumption once fell so low that it was producing 40% more wind-power than the electricity grid needed.

 

"If US will build just a few more nuclear, hydro and wind power plants it would be sufficient to transfer most of transport to electricity."

Until that happens hybrid cars don't help much.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=140%25+denmark&ie=&oe=

What do you think about "Thorium power" perspectives? Or Yellowstone caldera geothermal potential?

I presume the bit about Denmark is a typo; the figure is 40% not 140

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

 

At the moment fossil fuels generate about 70% of the US electrical power.

And what I said was "for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel."

Why are you arguing?

OK, so I should have put "etc" after solar power but...

My point remains; if you run cars on electricity derived from fossil fuels then the change from cars running directly on those fuels isn't great.

This citation was used by many sources:

"On unusually windy day Denmark generated 116% of its electricity needs by wind power alone, and at 3 AM when demand fell - 140%".

What happens to the energy produced overnight by the rest of non fossil fuel electric power? For example nuclear or hydro? France currently produces 80% of electricity on nuclear power plants. If US will build just a few more nuclear, hydro and wind power plants it would be sufficient to transfer most of transport to electricity.

Are you sure about that?

What about the fuel used at the power station?

If that was all solar or wave power you would have a better point but, for the moment a lot of it is fossil fuel.

What about nuclear, hydro, geothermal? Especially overnight? Wind generates 140% of Denmark electricity demand.

According to US energy information association, transportation consumed 29% of total US energy production in 2007. I do not know which units are used for stats, but EVs suppose to consume just 1/3 of gasoline/diesel cars energy? 29/3 = 9.7.

9.7% of total energy should be realistic load demand for carbon free electricity power?

The widespred introduction of plug-in hybrides could reduce fuel consumption around 10 times. Regarding AF, consider natural gas/biomethane. The issue with these two is present state of technologies (storage).

If governments would widely implement positive eugenics, could we create such world: all people around us are highly moral, intelligent, polite, altruistic and prone to help each other?

No, mainly it means they are bigger. Had you not spotted that?

Yes. But I thought that BOTH parents and fetuses are bigger.

Golden hamster pregnancy lasts 15-17 days. Elephant pregnancy 510-730 days. Does it mean elephants or humans are dozens of times more complex than hamsters?

Just a guess, but: Bamboo doesn't have to develop a nervous system, or internal organs, like a brain. That peobably help with the growth speed

So, what? Are you sure that bamboo cellular structure is simpler that of a human? Could you prove human brain and nervous system cannot "develop" sufficiently during a few weeks or even days (if sufficient amount of nutrients provided)?

Shell not evolution work in direction to make pregnancy as short as possible? In large mammals such as humans and elephants fertility lasts 9-18 month. In some smaller mammals it lasts much shorter.

There are some live creatures which could grow extremely fast. For example bamboo could grow 1 meter in 24 hr. In humans both pregnancy and period of infant growth takes too much time. Evolutionary reasons?

 

...[in other words if there is no heat input the system will eventually run out of energy to drive the perpetual motion so it will stop.

 

But the second law requires that in order to transfer heat there must be a temperature difference.]...

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

Maxwell's demon suppose to consume heat energy from the surrounding environment. So, there suppose to be a heat input.

​Yes, it is postulated that heat cannot transfer spontaneously from colder body to a hotter one. But why exactly? Sometimes it is said that it would reduce total entropy and therefore contradict to the tendency of entropy to increase or stay the same. But is it always a case? For example if we separate a container filled with gas by membrane and gather slow molecules in one part and fast molecules in the other, then entropy in the hot part of container suppose to increase, but entropy in the cold part of container suppose to decrease and total entropy of container suppose to remain the same? In this case heat transfer from colder body to hotter body doesn't necessarily suppose to reduce total entropy?

I was reading an article on the physics of the attractive force between electron and nucleus. It explained how physicist believe that the attraction is maintained by an exchange of positive and negatively charged photons between the nucleus and electron. Given this electromagnetic attraction my question is, what is the force that keeps these particles at such a vast subatomic distance and not collide because of this strong attraction? Is it the force generated by the collision between the oppositely charge photons or some other unknown force? I welcome your insight.

Electrons can't be compared to a planets which rotate around the star. They have dual wave-particulate nature. They can't be strictly visualised as a balls which rotate around something. "Orbits" of electrons is rather special quantum energy states they are capable to attain. Sometimes electrons can "collide" and "fuse together" with protons. What you get is neutrons or neutron matter (in big quantities). Search "neutron stars".

Can Klein tunneling take place between two slabs of graphene separated by sufficiently large distance?

Through meters of air?

Which country do you think is the most serious geopolitical and military rival of U.S. and who will be in 20 or more years? Which country should be the main concern of U.S. strategic institutions?

Earth's core and mantle have plentiful of unstable radioactive isotopes that are decaying and releasing energy.

Uranium-235, Uranium-238 are just examples. They produce short-living unstable isotopes that decay quickly to other also unstable isotopes, and so on, so on. Until reaching stable isotopes.

Also Sun is sending to us 1367 Joules of energy per second per each meter square area pointing at the Sun.

It's energy that we're using directly (photovoltaic cells) or indirectly (f.e. food).

So, how atoms or molecules gain kinetic energy by absorbing photons?

 

The motion and vibration occur because they have kinetic energy. That answer is not going to change, even if you ask the question again. If that doesn't satisfy your curiosity, then you need to come up with a new question.

But how they initially gain kinetic energy? You could say, of course, that atom A gains energy from atom B and atom B from atom C, but since amount of planet Earth atoms is limited and Earth is surrounded by deep space there should be some mechanism how they all initially gain energy.

 

Nothing is at absolute zero, and temperature is a measure of the motion of atoms and molecules. So there is thermal motion because we have energy.

 

Maybe you could be more specific?

But why atoms and molecules move chaotically? For example gas atoms have kinetic energy and move constantly, atoms and molecules in solid bodies vibrate. What is the origins of this motion and vibration?

What is the origins of thermal motion?

 

Interesting. Why do you think that?

If universe existed eternally, and the second law of TD worked eternally as well, then we suppose to be in the state of thermal death already.

Is presence of large thermal fluctuations sufficient to extract useful energy and produce useful work? For example, modern science doesn't put theoretical limit on size of atoms (or even elementary particles). If we would have a giant atom or elementary particle with 1 kg mass, will it experience Brownian motion similar to usual atoms? Atoms of air move with an average speed 500 m/sec at room temperature. If huge atom will behave in the same way, we could take a hollow tube, create an ideal vacuum inside and put only this one huge atom inside. Imagine a hollow tube inside which 1 kg of mass moves with speed 500 m/s. If huge atom would have some large magnetic moment we would be able to make AC generator out of it and generate AC current. Or not? (I do not really count on it) , but still...

I do not know, but common sense tells that if the universe exist in the form as we know it, then either first or the second law of thermodinamics supposed to be violated somewhere in the past. Or not?

What physical effect or device is capable to generate strong radio interference on relatively short distance (around 2-3 m) and in wide spectrum (30MHz-10 GHz or wider)?

Could some near-field effects work? Similar to those which work in transformers?

 

Please explain this sentence.

To be perfectly adiabatic doesn't seem to be sufficient to be a perpetuum mobile. But in any case you assumed it could only loose energy to environment, but never gain it.