geothermal energy
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Duality makes it so that consistency must be a variable and not a constant #264: Correcting Math
Next: CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
From: purple on 29 Dec 2009 07:26 alien8er wrote: > On Dec 28, 6:40 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>>>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns. >>>>>>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns. >>>>>> Such as? > > I note no actual response to this question. The famous Mark L. Fergerson lunacy rears its ugly head once again. >>>>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning >>>>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. > > Nobody is "gunning for" you. A question was asked; why you would > take that as a personal attack is nonobvious. Because I've observed BAH over a long period in sci.physics. Non obvious eh? Lotsa luck with this one. >>>>> That >>>>> being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos >>>>> is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory >>>>> originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather >>>>> in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns, >>>>> you're on your own, and knock yourself out. > > What do you think Lorenz attractors *are*? They are diagrams of the > future states a system can evolve into. What do you think trigonometric functions are about? They are about the future possibilities of whatever it is you're analyzing, no? No! >>>> Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to >>>> be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting >>>> weather. >> It is useless for predicting the weather. > > Nonsense. It's useless for predicting long-term changes (climate), > but it's becoming more and more useful for shorter periods (weather). > > It makes much longer-range predictions than the previous linear > models. > > What it's completely useless for is retrodicting proof to support > the claim that human activities are a significant factor in long-term > climate change. You're now bringing a political issue in place of a vary basic and essential math/science discussion. >>> Thanks :-). > > Didn't mean to interrupt, but it does seem that an argument that > didn't need to exist was erupting. > Your understanding has always been rather limited. You've jumped in to champion BAH who has in so many ways, for so long a period, been looking after her own interests. >> Thanking him for leading you astray even further? What has >> this place come to? > > I have no idea what your "understanding" of chaos theory may be, but > I am leading no-one astray. I've told you what it is. Chaos theory is macroscopic where your view is quite obviously microscopic. > And for your information, you need not > worry about /BAH being gullible. Gullible, no. Why would you say such a thing? > >> The difference between .506 and .506127 is huge where it >> comes to chaotic systems. Just ask Lorenz. You can't measure >> weather conditions to that level of accuracy on an ongoing >> basis. We're lucky to measure weather to three significant >> numbers. > > That is quite correct, but does not support your contention that > it's "useless" for predicting weather. > Of course it is. The only portions of weather we can predict with some degree of accuracy appear to be more or less linear. That's the short term weather of one week or less. >> Lorenz said so, and our state of the art hasn't >> progressed significantly since his day. Check the predictions >> for your region against the subsequent reality over the longer >> term and report back in about a year. Where I live they're >> maybe about 40% correct. > > The existence of attractors in chaos theory are what makes it useful > for making predictions. A complex system like the Earth's atmosphere > can exist in many states, but not infinitely many. Filling up space by going off track with "discussion"? Where weather is concerned, Chaos theory attaches to real numbers and their fallibility based on the natural limits resulting from our inability to measure the actual initial conditions with accuracy sufficient to long term accuracy. That infinite variations are not possible is more the case, in studies we undertake, than not. Just what is it you're bringing to the discussion here? > Which states it can > transition to from a given state are _limited_ by chaos theory. Transitions are not limited by theory, but by nature. Unfortunately I find myself feeding into your side discussion. Like so many others you lose sight of the discussion in making the theory drive nature when theory is merely an attempt to describe natural events. > Trying > to predict the future behavior of the entire atmosphere is futile. > Small pieces of it are somewhat easier. You fail to understand Chaos theory at all. The entire purpose of the original Lorenz paper on this topic was to discuss the reasons for the impossibility of improving weather predictions based on having more data because we can never get to the necessary depth. Then we discovered, as an outgrowth, that most complex systems can be similarly described. > > Forty years ago in Southern California the temperature couldn't be > predicted for three days out to within five degrees, and the > probability of precipitation was a complete crapshoot. > > Currently the reliable range is about a week. > > Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? Yes. Gawd you're thick. Do you think that all that's gone on in the past 40 years is growth of Chaos theory? Do you also think that weather prediction is a science rather than a combination of science and art? I do. Chaos theory is one of many tools. Chaos theory itself, and the Lorenz attractors you hold in too high an esteem, have done nothing to actually model and predict weather. Chaos has, instead, gone off as a sub discipline with uses in many other fields of study. >> Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex >> nonlinear dynamic systems. > > Chaos theory is exactly about patterns. I ask you again; what do you > think Lorenz attractors *are*? I'll will tell you again that Lorenz attractors are one tidbit of the science, that Chaos is a study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. Of that study, attractors are a part, not the totality. >> This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you >> want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own, >> and knock yourself out. I'm finished. > > You certainly are, if that's what you know of chaos theory. Been looking in the mirror as you typed that line? > > > Mark L. Fergerson Precisely the problem with this discussion, superficiality.
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Dec 2009 08:23 purple wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> nuny(a)bid.nes wrote: >>> On Dec 27, 7:14 am, sometimers <sometim...(a)sometime.invalid.net> >>> wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> purple wrote: >>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>>>> purple wrote: >>>>>>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't >>>>>>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance >>>>>>>> their personal agenda. >>>>>>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda. >>>>>> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth. >>>>> Whose truth? >>>> Now you're just being picky. >>> >>> Seems like a reasonable question to me, in the context of *personal* >>> agendas. Or are you thinking of so-called universal truths? >>> >>>>>>> The key to >>>>>>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim >>>>>>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction >>>>>>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done. >>>>>>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are >>>>>>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that >>>>>>>> word is "Chaos." >>>>>>>> In short, we can never know. >>>>>>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate >>>>>>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word? >>>>>> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate. >>>>> I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete >>>>> that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond >>>>> of my time. >>>> The discussion was worth my time or I wouldn't have bothered >>>> responding. I can't say what's worthy of yours. >>> >>> I'd like to point out that both of you are on the same side of the >>> AGW "debate". >>> >>>>>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns. >>>>>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns. >>>>> Such as? >>>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning >>>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. That >>>> being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos >>>> is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory >>>> originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather >>>> in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns, >>>> you're on your own, and knock yourself out. >>> >>> Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to >>> be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting >>> weather. >>> > It is useless for predicting the weather. >> >> Thanks :-). > > > Thanking him for leading you astray even further? No. For taking the time to write the answer. > What has > this place come to? You were either wrong or too focused on a detail when you replied to my post about chaos theory studying patterns. > _ > The difference between .506 and .506127 is huge where it > comes to chaotic systems. So? What does that have to do with my comment about studying patterns? >Just ask Lorenz. You can't measure > weather conditions to that level of accuracy on an ongoing > basis. We're lucky to measure weather to three significant > numbers. Lorenz said so, and our state of the art hasn't > progressed significantly since his day. Check the predictions > for your region against the subsequent reality over the longer > term and report back in about a year. Where I live they're > maybe about 40% correct. > _ > Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex > nonlinear dynamic systems. Which are patterns and not one, and only one, solution. >Just because the trigonometric > functions can create patterns doesn't mean we consider > the trig functions to about patterns. We have other uses > for them. Those are repetitive patterns (I'm thinking in 2D now). They become very interesting when the pattern changes. I'm now thinking of scopes used to diagnose computer gear. > _ > This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you > want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own, > and knock yourself out. I'm finished. Oh, good. Now others can talk about interesting stuff. /BAH
From: purple on 29 Dec 2009 08:51 jmfbahciv wrote: > purple wrote: >> What has >> this place come to? > > You were either wrong or too focused on a detail when > you replied to my post about chaos theory studying > patterns. Nope. You indicated exclusivity, which was incorrect. >> Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex >> nonlinear dynamic systems. > > Which are patterns and not one, and only one, solution. Really? Are you incorporating wrong solutions into the realm, giving all solutions equal weight? Patterns can be used to describe narrowly focused solutions derived from a myrid of fuzzy input data. There are multiple solutions when the input data is fuzzy. And *that* was the point of the original Lorenz paper, and remains the point of Chaos theory. Where weather is concerned, how wide are the possibilities for a given day a month in the future? Somewhat rhetorical but I'll answer that. So wide as to be useless, as demonstrated by Lorenz. > >> Just because the trigonometric >> functions can create patterns doesn't mean we consider >> the trig functions to about patterns. We have other uses >> for them. > > Those are repetitive patterns (I'm thinking in 2D now). They > become very interesting when the pattern changes. I'm now > thinking of scopes used to diagnose computer gear. There you are, it is the differences that matter. >> _ >> This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you >> want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own, >> and knock yourself out. I'm finished. > > Oh, good. Now others can talk about interesting stuff. Has snideness become your hallmark?
From: Gill Smith on 29 Dec 2009 12:21 On 28 Dec, 05:13, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 8:16 am, "Gill Smith" <gill.smith....(a)googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > anyone else not entirely convinced that it is quite the advertised > > free-lunch? > > As others have mentioned, there are issues. But the big one is, > it will never produce any significant fraction of our energy needs. > > The heat flux from inside the Earth is round about 75 kW/km^2. > That's an average, and it's not all that precise. Depending on who > does the measuring it can be higher or lower. > > It's not evenly distributed, but concentrates at places where there > are things such as volcanoes, subduction zones, and so on. > > In such places, it is possible to get some local good out of > geothermal.If you live near a volcano, or a hot spring, or a > geyzer, or some other volcanic type activity, you may be > able to get your house heated using it. Iceland does quite > well doing this. So does New Zealand. So do a few other spots. > > But on a global level, it's not going to do much. Most places > get only 10 or 20 kW per square km. Or less. And you only > get a fraction of that as useful energy (electricity or whatever) > so you get maybe 5 kW per square km. > > So, to replace a 1000 MW electrical power station, you would > need 100s of thousands of square km of collector. It seems > quite unlikely. > Socks nuclear or nothing? a side-serving of Mushroom Power (growing stuff in the dark) enrol Asia's millions in pedal-power? -- http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
From: spudnik on 29 Dec 2009 14:55
Lorenz found that they were deterministic, not fuzzy, but every little bit counts; especially, when you consider the visicitudes of the manufacture of floating-point processors from the spec (IEEE-755, -855; the first is an article in Computer magazine, 1980 issue .-) > Where weather is concerned, how wide are the possibilities > for a given day a month in the future? Somewhat rhetorical > but I'll answer that. So wide as to be useless, as > demonstrated by Lorenz. thus: garbage up; garbage back down. like I said, Minkowski couldn't take-back his spiel about phase-space. thus: in California, primarily the gangs constitute the only militia, per the second amendment (you can look-up the case-law on that, a digest re the Constitution on Lexis-Nexis, where it is pretty clear that the "right to bear arms" includes the wearing of long-sleeved shirts; likewise, it exposes the liberal-media-owned-by-consWervatives silliness, where they always confuse "separation of church & state" with the foundational dysestablishmentarianism in A#1 -- yeah, they really, always do that, cuz TJ said the six words !-) so, what is this remarkable Madison/Marx patrimony, that we exist under?... of course, they were contemporaries, and Marx actually supported Henry Clay, for a while, til he was subverted by The Veiled Librarian at the British Library, in London. and, here, you can look-up the past publications where this stuff was put, in *The Campaigner* magazine (it is no-longer called that, since the goment forced a bogus ch.13 bankruptcy on it, and several other Larouchiac pubs.: http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners )). > I told her about the nutter web pages that keep posting bogus gun > quotes attributed to the founders. All it takes is five seconds to thus: I didn't know that Zeeman made such an experiment, although I had read of Fizeau's (using high-pressure & -velocity water in a tube of some sort; did Z verify that?) I woulnd't put in the terms of either SR or mpc, because it's really more akin to general relativity viz-a-vu the "curvature of space" -- not of time, the big PLONK from Minkowski-THEN-he-died -- and that is what surfer's cited essay & figures dyscuss. read it & sleep on the un-nullities of Michelson & Morley et al (small, but quite regular; and, you can say "entrainment," if you must, iff only to evoke Eisntein's gedankenspiel ... and, we'll just ignore, that "eq. (B)" was derived by Lorentz, firstly, if also from "the" theory .-) > > > > problem of Section VI again before us. The tube plays the part of the > > > > railway embankment or of the co-ordinate system K, the liquid plays > > > > the part of the carriage or of the co-ordinate system K', and finally, > > > > the light plays the part of the man walking along the carriage, or of > > > > the moving point in the present section. If we denote the velocity of > > > > the light relative to the tube by W, then this is given by the > > > > equation (A) or (B), according as the Galilei transformation or the > > > > Lorentz transformation corresponds to the facts. Experiment 1 decides > > > > in favour of equation (B) derived from the theory of relativity, and > > > > the agreement is, indeed, very exact. According to recent and most > > > > excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of the velocity of > > > > flow v on the propagation of light is represented by formula (B) to > > > > within one per cent..." > neither M&M or their successors incurred this nullity, > that proven by Einstein's say-so on DCMiller's article, at Caltech; > fig. 3, belowsville, puts these results together in one picture. now, > surfer's language may be peculiar but, so, is yours.... > http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 --l'OEuvre, http://wlym.com http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf FCUK Copenhagen free carbon-credit trade rip-off; put a tariff on imported energy! |