Neutrino Power

Belz... said:
Physically impossible. The only reason why we've detected neutrinos is because, once in a blue moon, one of them hits something. There's no way to generate enough of them to have any useable impact without creating a whole bunch of planet-busting radiation in the process. And if you're going to heat up water for turbines anyway, just use the damned nuclear reactions.
Click to expand...




For an interesting look at the science and engineering of neutrino detection, read The Telescope in the Ice, by Mark Bowen.
 
Belz... said:
Now, tachyons actually do go faster than light. The only problem with using them as a source of power is that, currently, we're unable to properly store them
Click to expand...



Shows what you know. I've got a device that packs tachyons into convenient 1-liter containers. There's only one problem. When you slow them down enough to keep in bottles, they stop being tachyons.
 
catsmate said:
It's garbage.

Banks Will No Longer Finance Fossil Fuels
Click to expand...

Is a lie.

The rest is a fixture of distortions, half-truths, lies and pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


It reminds me of a book I read in which is was posited that the development of cheap and efficient fusion power would lead to the abandonment of petroleum and the collapse of the economies of the Middle East. People seem to have an inaccurate impression of the amount of fossil fuels used for energy production compared to motor vehicle fuel and other applications.
New power source -> Global abandonment of internal combustion vehicles in favor of electric vehicles -> Abandonment of fossil fuels is a little more plausible, on a longer timeframe, but the middle step is usually left out.

EDIT: It's also been mentioned here that large amounts of cheap power would make manufacturing petroleum practical, but that doesn't get mentioned in these scenarios either.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
Shows what you know. I've got a device that packs tachyons into convenient 1-liter containers. There's only one problem. When you slow them down enough to keep in bottles, they stop being tachyons.
Click to expand...

You can't fool me. They're FTL because of their negative mass, and negative mass objects can't drop to c.
 
Belz... said:
Now, tachyons actually do go faster than light. The only problem with using them as a source of power is that, currently, we're unable to properly store them, due to the fact that they are fictional.
Click to expand...
Hang about, I've a Klein bottle about somewhere....
 
hmmmmmmmmm, maybe they plan to blind the neutrinos so they run into things?
 
To get serious ....

For some supernovae, it’s the neutrinos which ensure there is an explosion. When the core of a massive star goes endothermic, it collapses. Seems odd, but it’s as if it’s in a vacuum, the infalling material rapidly picks up speed. Then a baby neutron star forms, at the centre. The incoming crashes onto its surface. Vast quantities of neutrinos are produced. The density quickly becomes so great that the neutrinos collide with the neutron-proton soup, providing a counter pressure. This becomes part of a shock wave that eventually makes it to the star’s surface and thus the visible supernova.

In some models, the shock wave stalls, and you get a black hole and an extremely wimpy supernova.
 
JeanTate said:
To get serious ....
Click to expand...

Shut up. We were having fun, here.

For some supernovae, it’s the neutrinos which ensure there is an explosion. When the core of a massive star goes endothermic, it collapses. Seems odd, but it’s as if it’s in a vacuum, the infalling material rapidly picks up speed. Then a baby neutron star forms, at the centre. The incoming crashes onto its surface. Vast quantities of neutrinos are produced. The density quickly becomes so great that the neutrinos collide with the neutron-proton soup, providing a counter pressure. This becomes part of a shock wave that eventually makes it to the star’s surface and thus the visible supernova.

In some models, the shock wave stalls, and you get a black hole and an extremely wimpy supernova.
Click to expand...

Relatively speaking.
 
Hmm. The OP link connects to a company which is run by one Holger Thorsten Schubart.

From https://www.presseportal.de/pm/134350/4251755, we get

For about 1,000 days, the Berlin-based entrepreneur Holger Thorsten Schubart was imprisoned in southern France and Germany. The charge: heavy fraud with real estate transactions. Schubart reluctantly reports about this time of humiliation and violence. Quote: "To this day, my body is scarred." Drained by pressure from a public prosecutor, Schubart subscribed to a pre-formulated confession in 2003. One of many mistakes Schubart regrets today.
Click to expand...

In other words, he did three years for fraud.
 
Armitage72 said:
... It's also been mentioned here that large amounts of cheap power would make manufacturing petroleum practical, but that doesn't get mentioned in these scenarios either.
Click to expand...
I've read somewhere that it would make possible the production of methanol as motor fuel using industrial, or even atmospheric, sources of CO2. That would be great in terms of reducing fossil fuel use. Is it true that this industry has already commenced in Iceland, where volcanoes supply both abundant energy and plenty of CO2?
 
"Your father's neutrino saber. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age. It goes through anything, even another neutrino saber, but completely harmlessly."
 
Craig B said:
I've read somewhere that it would make possible the production of methanol as motor fuel using industrial, or even atmospheric, sources of CO2. That would be great in terms of reducing fossil fuel use. Is it true that this industry has already commenced in Iceland, where volcanoes supply both abundant energy and plenty of CO2?
Click to expand...


See these links:

http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/turning-co2-into-renewable-methanol-at-a-geothermal-plant-in-iceland/


https://www.wired.co.uk/article/methanol-from-iceland-added-to-british-gasoline




Edit: Ignore the first one, it's a partial paraphrase of the second one.
 
Last edited:
I think the site is aimed at distorting your view into something else entirely, perhaps discrediting alternative sources. This is from the article:

While concerns over fossil fuels are well-founded, it isn't so simple to deny that humanity is fully dependent on oil, coal, and natural gas. Recently, the American progressive platform has put forward a suite of policies called the "Green New Deal," but this ultra-strict environmental policy has been thoroughly lampooned. Among other things, the Green New Deal calls for the banning of all commercial air travel that uses jet fuel, and there's no viable clean energy alternative to this fossil fuel product that keeps every plane in the world alight.

In addition to suggesting that Americans tear down every building and rebuild it with "green" materials, the Green New Deal proposes a variety of policies that could easily cause humanity to plummet back into the Dark Ages. It's undeniable that we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels, but doing so without having a reliable source of clean energy at hand would make us lose almost all the hard-won benefits of the industrial age.

Em, yeah. Add a dozen spelling and ten grammatical errors, dumb down the sentence structure and you have something out of Trump's Twitter.

Or this garbage:

http://www.globalenergyworld.com/ne...orsen-fires-deforestation-dehumanizing-amazon

How The EU, Greenpeace, And Celebrities Worsen Fires And Deforestation By Dehumanizing The Amazon

(...)
But telling Brazilians that they must not cut down the Amazon because of its role storing carbon only strengthens the sense in which Europe’s supposed concern with the Amazon and climate change are really a form of neo-colonialism.

Rallying against EU, Greenpeace and celebrities? Protecing the Amazon is neo-colonialism? Please. The site is not about energy at all, it is about pushing right-wing propaganda points on impressonable (or retarded) youths.

McHrozni
 
Belz... said:
Physically impossible. The only reason why we've detected neutrinos is because, once in a blue moon, one of them hits something. There's no way to generate enough of them to have any useable impact without creating a whole bunch of planet-busting radiation in the process. And if you're going to heat up water for turbines anyway, just use the damned nuclear reactions.
Click to expand...

Just to expand on this, neutrinos are fundamentally physically incapable of interacting more than that, no matter what one makes the collectors or reflector stones or whatever from.

The reason is that each interaction is carried over through a particle in QM. So for example when an electron "bounces" on another electron, a photon is involved in between them.

In the case of the weak force, the corresponding particle has orders of magnitude more energy than the neutrino that created it. Which sounds like it would violate conservation of energy -- and it does, sorta -- but the uncertainty principle also says you have an upper cap on ΔEΔt. That is, if you know exactly when something happens, you have a huge uncertainty (at QM scales) about the energy involved, and viceversa. You can't know both energy and time with arbitrarily high precision. So a particle can be created which has a massive ΔE compared to what it should have, if it only lives for an infinitesimal Δt before it interacts with anything.

And therein lies the problem. It being so hugely off the centre of the bell curve already makes it fundamentally a very improbable event. But then comes the fact that it only lives for an infinitesimally short time, so it has to be pretty much already right on top of an atomic nucleus for it to live enough to smash into it.

This, as you'll notice, has nothing to do with what nucleus that is. Some are chosen for detectors for being more stable or bigger or whatnot, but ultimately that's just fine-tuning out the false positives and whatnot. That interaction physically and fundamentally can't happen more often than once in a blue moon with anything whatsoever. (*)

(*) ... well... that is, anything we can make here on Earth. Neutron stars for example will be just one huge nucleus, so that makes the whole star a bloody huge target for that interaction to happen. But we can't exactly make neutronium here on Earth.
 
Last edited:
McHrozni said:
... this fossil fuel product that keeps every plane in the world alight.
...
Em, yeah. Add a dozen spelling and ten grammatical errors, d
Click to expand...



I particularly like that one, as it's pretty much the exact opposite of "aloft", which is what they were clearly going for.


a·light1

verb
verb: alight; 3rd person present: alights; past tense: alighted; past participle: alighted; gerund or present participle: alighting

descend from a train, bus, or other form of transport.
"he was the only passenger to alight from the train"
synonyms: get off, step off, get down; More
dismount, disembark, descend, exit;
detrain, deplane;
informalpile out
"he was the only passenger to alight from the train"
antonyms: get on, board
(of a bird) descend from the air and settle.
"a lovely blue swallow alighted on a branch"
synonyms: land, come down, come to rest, touch down, light, arrive, descend; More
Click to expand...

a·loft
adverb
adverb: aloft

up in or into the air; overhead.
"the congregation sways, hands aloft"
synonyms: upwards, up, high, higher, into the air, into the sky, skyward, on high, heavenward More
"he hoisted the Cup aloft"
in the air, in the sky, high up, up, high, up above, on high, overhead, above
"the airships were able to stay aloft for many hours"
antonyms: down
up the mast or into the rigging of a sailing vessel.
"Tom went aloft with the bosun"
Click to expand...


And these guys are going to upset the entire world energy economy. Right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom