studiot

Of course there is overall conservation of energy, so I don't know what you mean, or why you are speaking of energy, conservation or otherwise. But more to the point neither I nor anone else can understand you so called diagrams. You have been asked by others to clarify these and write them properly. I have asked you to clarify your wording since it suggests you don't know or understand enough electrical theory to pose the questions properly. What do you know about voltage sources and internal resistance ?

Not doe I trust politicians. Does anybody ? But your response to my suggestions was disappointing. Plants need carbon dioxide and they first appeared (in the oceans) about 1 billion years ago. Without atmouspheric carbon dioxide there would be no plants and therfore no us. The fossil record shows plants back to at least this age ago. So ther must have been atmouspheric carbon dioxide to at least that time. That is an example of non mathematical scientific reasoning that you need to employ to get a starting grip on your enquiry. Polictical reasoning (is there such a thing ?) is irrelevant.

How much hydrogen ? 5 molecules or 5 x 1023 molecules ? The problem is one of energy density, not of energy per se. If you have enough gas (eg a big enough star) The probability of a local collision achieving the necessary energy density is sufficient to iginite the process. As the volume gets smaller the probability drops so you have to wait longer, maybe longer than the age of the universe. So you supply some energy (not necessarily heat) to increase that probability to an acceptable level. But you then run into the second and bigger problem. Containment. Gravity does this in a star. But if you use a solid container the temperatures are so high that the walls would vapourise. One alternative is to use the electromagnetic force instead of gravity. Up to recently most efforts have been directed this way. Another alternative is to use the fusing material itself and use kinetic or laser energy to create a collision somewhere within the body of the target material. This is now being tried more often. But the problem with this then becomes keeping the reaction going until it can become self sustaining. So the amount of energy required depends upon exactly what you are trying to do.

If you really want to study this, The subject is called paleoclimatology. Here is a graph of the C02 levels compared with temperature levels over the last 10,000 years. You can see the timestamp from the video lecture by Roger Palmer. The whole video is the first in a series and is 1 hour and forty minutes long. However it is really excellent and I heartily recommend it. If however you would prefer a book, The Emerald Planet by David Beerling provides a different perspective. Good luck but it is up to you to do some work to get up to speed on what scientists have found out and how they found it. Data comes from ice cores, tree samples, rock analysis, deep sea sediments.

gosh I never heard this before. Thanks. +1 And there was I ready to argue that hydrogen can also be considered a metal !

Luckily for me I don't know that one, but probably. Do tell

Indeed so. But the OP has chosen to pour scorn on my explanations and the engineering community in general and gone searching the dark web for free electricity. Yes I have already said I would expect a much lower yield when operating at low voltage. When i was first at University it was all the rage to contruct one's own HI Fi amplifier. This endeavour demonstrates two separate effects mentioned. Firstly the dreaded 'earth loop' reducing the output from HIFi to unlistenable. Secondly in the detailed layout of the amps the requirement that the low power input signals did not use the same supply return path as the signals in the high power output stages, leading to significant signal quality degradation as the supply zero shifted up an down with the heavy currents.

If you are an occupier of land that is crossed by the higher voltage power grid you can physically obtain a'free' supply of electricity by running a cable in or on the ground beneath a phase wire. Doing this with the standard mains supply will not yield much power. Of course this quibble comes from thinking that grid engineers are fools.

A word of warning. I am not happly with the author's use of the word 'delamination', although I will accept it is better than the geologist's standard use of the word. I do wish experts in one discipline would refrain from pinching a word already well established in other disciplines and redefining it.

Really ? https://www.123elec.com/equipement_mise_a_la_terre I think masse means bulk or lump of or body of. I think I understand the process being referred to and it is illegal in most, if not all, countries. Every year in the UK a handful of farmers think they can get away with it and are prosecuted. It certainly does work, but as you say the energy comes from the supply, not from the ground, although the ground is involved in the theft.

Here is a long discussion, from 2009, started by someone else who wanted to either not do the work or hide the fact that he could not do it. It started off with parallel ac generators and ended with parallel DC batteries. https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/two-pm-alternators-in-parallel-query.17892/page-4 I'm sure we have had this same question here at SF since 2009, but I haven't been able to find it at the moment.

Excellent advice. +1

I can understand the question you have asked, but I don't know where to start with an answer to a standard electrical engineering problem, faced and solved every day all over the world. That is because your diagram is flawed. How can we proceed since I don't know your level of electrical circuit knowledge? But this shows a misunderstanding of rectification.

What you have said is pointless. If you want help say so and cooperate with others. Otherwise please stop wasting their time.

You were asked what your diagram meant. What you have drawn is meaningless. If you want help say so and cooperate with others. Otherwise please stop wasting their time.

No. Let's not 'say' ie guess. Let's use the actual value, whcih is so easy to obtain these days. So the Moon is 7.4 x 1019 Tonnes. Your guess is 2 x 1013 T or a factor of 3.5 x 106 out ie it is more than 3 million times too small! There are many good sources of data these days, here is an extract from The Cambridge Handbook of Earth Science Data. Another good source is The Cambridge Guide to the Solar System, which is much bigger and includes lots of discussion and colour plates. And if you really want to go for broke then you need chapter 9 - Lunar Theory of Orbital Motion By A E Roy Adam Hilger pub. Or you could just ask the internet.

We most certainly can. I posted the mathematics of this a couple of years ago, last time this was asked. I will try to find it for you, when I have time.

No erosion. +1 Such as ? Did you really mean to say that or something else ? What process of logic leads to that conclusion ? How does this square with the gravitational theory of accretion ? Even today impactors bypass the Moon and head for Earth. We have just been treated to the regular meteor showers by the perseids https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/perseids/

Good start, although you need a good answer if they already have it. You'd be suprised how much of their time you can waste with unexpected responses like yours or mine. I do like to put as big a spoke as possible into their machinations.

But it certainly stimulated further discussion.

I usually have a nice chat with those nice people from Microsoft, British Telecom, British gas, etc whcih runs along the lines of Them "We're from British Bullshit dot com abbout you router, pc, telephone......" Me "Oh good when's the engineer coming to fix it?" Them " Uh What" Me " your are calling to make an appointment to fix the fault right? It's over week since I reported it." yada yada

Thanks for that. There is a simpler version in Appendix appendix C p465 of Elmore and Heald 'Physics of Waves' but along similar lines. @Michael McMahon ou could profit from viewing things from an energy flow POV. Here is a short extract from A P French's Vibrations and Waves (MIT) I would be interested in any elaboration on this.

This is a Science discussion site and technically 'renewable energy' is a contradiction in terms since it contravenes the laws of thermodynamics. All ' higher' forms of energy degrade to heat with deployment.

Yes there are several alternate hypotheses. Each one has its own difficulties to overcome and proponents that prefer to ignore these. Whilst this is true for some elements, there is about four times the % of Titanium and 10 times the % Magnesium on the Moon and 5 times the Sodium on Earth. Core or not, the Moon has no magnetising dipole field like Earth. Yet some of the rocks brought back by Apollo are found to be magnetised. The large object hypothesis need to explain where the object came from and how it came to collide with the Earth. It also need to explain how, if it was the precursor of the Moon, the Moon has ended up with its present composition. Forecasting is as uncertain as hindcasting. The Sun is not due to got to the next stage for another 8 billion years, nearly twice the current age of the Earth and Moon. The alleged impact must have occurred early in Earth's history, particularly the gob theory.

I agree entirely with the underlined statement so you can well imagine my frustration having a one sided discussion with you. I also agree that the above post is the first time what you have said is mostly in accord with engineering electrical theory. Pity you were not listening when I told you exactly this back on page 1 and so did not ask to take this further.