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: nuny on 29 Dec 2009 15:13 On Dec 29, 4:26 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > 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. Nice hipshot there, asshat. I tire of your hypocritical habit of accusing others of your own behaviors. You accuse others of "gunning" for you while you eschew discussion in favor of spewing vitriol. You still have not answered the question, and obviously never will. > >>>>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning > >>>>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. It's blatantly obvious from your reliance on insults and your confrontational, accusative tone that you're not interested in any exchange of ideas. I am uninterested in an exchange of insults, ao our interaction is ended. Now, go ahead and have the last word and consider yourself the "winner". Mark L. Fergerson
From: purple on 29 Dec 2009 20:23 nuny(a)bid.nes wrote: > On Dec 29, 4:26 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Nice hipshot there, asshat. > > I tire of your hypocritical habit of accusing others of your own > behaviors. You accuse others of "gunning" for you while you eschew > discussion in favor of spewing vitriol. > > You still have not answered the question, and obviously never will. > >>>>>>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning >>>>>>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. > > It's blatantly obvious from your reliance on insults and your > confrontational, accusative tone that you're not interested in any > exchange of ideas. > > I am uninterested in an exchange of insults, ao our interaction is > ended. > > Now, go ahead and have the last word and consider yourself the > "winner". > > > Mark L. Fergerson The difference between a rational argument (with perhaps some emotions involved) and talking to you is extreme. The big difference is that while BAH was at one point gunning it is clear that she's "got it" and we're just arguing, perhaps for the sake of it. In your case you've not got it and you never will, probably never can. In this discussion with you there are no winners, just one loser, you. BAH, it is your turn to have your say in order to close out this little subtopic if you feel the need. Do as you wish.
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Dec 2009 09:36 purple wrote: > 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? > Not yet. I am becoming extremely cynical because I'm encountering fewer and fewer people who want to learn. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Dec 2009 09:38 Gill Smith wrote: > 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? It's certainly beginning to look that way. > > a side-serving of Mushroom Power (growing stuff in the dark) > > enrol Asia's millions in pedal-power? In case you haven't noticed, Asia's billions are going from pedal power to petroleum power which is why the demand is high. /BAH >
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Dec 2009 09:42
purple wrote: > nuny(a)bid.nes wrote: >> On Dec 29, 4:26 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Nice hipshot there, asshat. >> >> I tire of your hypocritical habit of accusing others of your own >> behaviors. You accuse others of "gunning" for you while you eschew >> discussion in favor of spewing vitriol. >> >> You still have not answered the question, and obviously never will. >> >>>>>>>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning >>>>>>>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. >> >> It's blatantly obvious from your reliance on insults and your >> confrontational, accusative tone that you're not interested in any >> exchange of ideas. >> >> I am uninterested in an exchange of insults, ao our interaction is >> ended. >> >> Now, go ahead and have the last word and consider yourself the >> "winner". >> >> >> Mark L. Fergerson > > The difference between a rational argument (with perhaps > some emotions involved) and talking to you is extreme. The > big difference is that while BAH was at one point gunning > it is clear that she's "got it" and we're just arguing, > perhaps for the sake of it. > > In your case you've not got it and you never will, probably > never can. In this discussion with you there are no winners, > just one loser, you. > > BAH, it is your turn to have your say in order to close out > this little subtopic if you feel the need. Do as you wish. I've forgotten what I was trying to learn about. Patterns are fascinating. I spent my lifetime trying to control bit flows and bit patterns. the only applications, where Chaos theory methods have been useful, is in geology to find new pools of oil in spent wells. /BAH /BAH |