Doesn't matter the size of the difference. You flat out said conservatives were against progress. I showed you the exact opposite and proved you to be a liar. Instead of saying....."Oops I guess liberals were on the wrong side of history regarding nuclear power" You quoted a dictionary definition that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Tell me how does a dictionary defintion change the fact that you lied about something. You also then accused me of making broad statements about people when you said and I quote "Conservatives are the morons that hold back progress. ie.... you think, that you have the answers but actually have no clue what you are posting." I posted two links including a source from a liberal blog showing that your statement was false. Your response was a dictionary definition. That is bar none one of the lamest responses I have had in a very long time. I even mentioned other areas were conservatives were the ones moving for change and the left were the ones defending the status quo and yet in your little fantasy bubble world conservatives are ALWAYS opposed to change and liberals are ALWAYS for change because of a dictionary. Your posts are illiterate, ignorant, lame and obtuse and fill in any other word that comes to mind. You lied I called you out on it simple as that and your response was a complete joke. Other people have also mentioned that you are looking more and more foolish. Are you drunk?.......No wait I have had better arguments with drunk people.
it is what the word 'conservative' means. I know that it bugs to you learn. ie... must be conservative the debate on conservative versus liberal is not the topic but you are too conservative to learn or admit being wrong. You are conservative and unwilling to evolve. ie.... you are evidence of my quote the thread is on fusion, your rant is on fission my definition represents people like YOU; discounting what is real try reading your own posts Ooops, i m sorry, I should just acknowledge that you choose to be conservative (unwillingness to change) did i use the word 'always' or are you having the reading comprehension issue again You forgot, with empathy, love, truth and compassion for others over my own self when I lie, i admit it the conservative MAY OFTEN have a tough time with evolving thank you as i find that it is ooosually the selfish sob, that does not like to evolve, grow, learn, develop with the progression of knowledge as they are too conservative to improve that's a good idea I am awake, so why waste the time being sober I am sure, that you feel like a winner, arguing with something that cant walk straight. Do you wear a helmit when you walk? Which one is your favorite color?
Your tiny little ranting post is hilarious. You keep referring to a dictionary definition. Conservatives tried for and successfully got school reform which was consistently opposed by liberals. In the 90s conservatives pushed thorugh welfare reform which liberals opposed. Conservatives tried for financial reform and that was stymied by liberals. Conservatives attempted to do Social Security reform and that was stymied by liberas.The fact that you keep using a dictionary definition when clearly in today's politics liberals are the ones resisting change and conservatives are pushing for it shows that you are either completely disingenuous or you are completely illiterate on the topic. The topic was directly related to fission and fusion because that was the subject matter of the previous post. "Uh.........Conservatives are the ones that support nuclear power and by extension fusion. Liberals are the ones that actually think the world can run on wind and solar. There is a 100% guarantee that liberals will find some reason to object to fusion even if they have to make something up. I fully expect the "But it doesn't work now, so why should we pursue it" argument just like they did years ago with missile defense. Now that missile defense is a proven technology and liberals have egg on their faces about it I intend to remind of them their phobia about science and technology at ever chance I can get. Liberals HATE progress, liberals hate technology unless it involves sunshine. Liberals are the luddites of the world today." Your response was "What a stupid post. Conservatives are the morons that hold back progress. ie.... you think, that you have the answers but actually have no clue what you are posting. " I then posted these links which proved you were wrong. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...-are-liberals/ http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php...s-for-nuclear/ You lied I proved you wrong with two links that took me about 5 seconds to google. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-liberals-war-on-science The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past. There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.” Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs—genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil” or an 11 (“f—ing evil”? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people. Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change. Pace Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty may not be a vice, but it is in defense of science, where facts matter more than faith—whether it comes in a religious or secular form—and where moderation in the pursuit of truth is a virtue.
so you prefer learning of creation versus evolution? I supposed you think your still in kansas, toto? wrong thread This is a science section and unless you need your head examined, I suggest you try and focus. was the OP on fission? How about your liberal study, did that have fusion? great quote and i bet you aint got a reallybigjohnson. Does that make every one of your posts as being from a liar? ps.... i didnt read your post, because i know it is just cut n paste ranting by a little man with an inferiority complex. Perhaps i should say something like....."homosexual intercourse cannot procreate" now lets see what kind of crack pot reply you come up with.
No no no. Its the right thread. You posted a dictionary definition and said that it was the definition of conservatives in the political process today. I proved you wrong on several issues where it is in fact conservatives who are leading the charge for reforms and were liberals are defending the broken status quo. The question was nuclear power. Fusion is nuclear.....just like fission. Whether or not people were thinking about that is not stipulated in the study. If you oppose nuclear though you by definition are most likely going to oppose fusion because some people are religious fanatics about renewable energy to the point of fanaticism and excluding everthing that is not renewables as a viable energy source. Accusing me of being a creationist is amusing coming from someone who blames the Jews for everything. Even if I was a creationist that belief would be a lot less harmful than your paranoid rantings.
that's a lie that's a lie what fusion nuclear POWER? your assumption is stupid Another tangent based on a stupid assumption
Did you just say that conservatives were NOT the ones attempting welfare, SS and education reform? Show me one article that says that liberals were the ones that were pushing for either of those. There was a huge fight among conservatives and liberals especially when it comes to welfare and education reform.
I said, in so many words that you're trolling heck, i actually dont think that you even knew what the word conservative meant, until i showed you, and apparently it hurt your feelings i am pushing your mind to think but you're too conservative OK, i could care less what politicians like to argue about, unless it is a policy of oppression. ie... i hate israel, is that liberal or conservative to make such a claim? As for welfare; i could see that being important to you. As for education reform; heck,... read through this section, as i am reforming how mankind understands itself (nature). ie.. i am enabling a paradigm shift, personally.
RBJ Please do us a favor and just ignore the troll. In the last 5 pages he has completely changed the discussion and now you are talking about right/left crap. He is a troll, ignore him. I have a couple questions, I studied Mechanical Engineering with an emphasis in thermal system design so I can at least follow the basics and keep up. I had a teacher back in the day theorize that solar panels could become a 3D "box" in the future through light accelerators. Basically it would multiply the amount of sun per m^2 by 5 because the surface area would become a "surface volume", if you will. The top as the accelerator, then four side panels and a bottom to collect. Could you not see this as a possibility to expand the use of solar energy? Again this is his theory, I have zero background into it and his "accelerators" sounded fishy to me ... Can you go a bit into the differences between the CERN reactors and the one you initially posted being created in the US? What do you see as the biggest problems fusion faces in its ability to create commercial energy? There seems to be a disagreement with the feasibility of cold fusion. What side do you take?
I am only a junior so some of that is beyond me too but I love puzzles like this if nothing more than exercises. Ultimately it doesn't matter how much you bounce it around with mirrors (I assume he is talking about mirrors and using a noble gas like lasers use, correct me if I am wrong) as the solar panel itself will only convert so much of the light into energy. At high noon you can potentially get 1,000 w/m^2 assuming a clear sky. The theoritical maximum of sunlight conversion is 86% so that you will never get all solar energy no matter what and we aren't anywhere near that efficiency today. I have read that it averages out to around 250 w/m^2 during the day because the sun isn't at its high point for very long so on a clear day you will get at most around 200 w/m^2 because of the theoretical limit. Since most solar panels are in the 20%-30% range today that means that we now get around 40-60 watts if I did my quick math right. Of course at night you get nothing at all since the giant wolf Skoll chased the sun away for the night. This is why I wish they would build more of the molten salt solar facilities like in Fallout New Vegas. The heat that is stored in the salt overnight can continue to turn the turbines and keep producing power overnight. They still don't produce nearly the equivalent energy per m^2 that a nuclear or fossil fuel plant does but its way better than those stupid solar panels. What I have been unable to find though is how the solar molten salt plants work if you get a string of cloudy days. Will the salt hold the heat in for more than one night? If you get a series of cloudy days does that mean that the first clear day is pretty much wasted because the salt has to be heated up again as it cooled over the previous days and nights? This is stuff that I would be interested in but as of yet couldn't find any answers for. I am not an expert on CERN or any of the other proposals, you probably know about as much as I do from google. I am hopeful for fusion but honestly........its a HUGE undertaking and everything I have read indicates that we are decades away from it being economically feasible. Maybe if they have some sort of Manhattan project where they spend hundreds of billions of dollars and the worlds greatest minds drop everything and focus on just fusion we could get it sooner but good luck with that in today's world economic mess. This is why I much prefer Thorium reactors over any other power sources for a main generation needs. Nuclear is the only other energy source outside of fossil fuels that produces alot of energy for the amount of land it uses. Your typical solar facility only produces a few MW and that of course is only when it is sunny out. Meanwhile your typical nuclear reactor produces over 1000 MW and some of them go over 3000 MW and it produces it consistently day and night, cloudy skies or clear skies and doesn't matter if its windy or calm. There simply is no comparison between renewables and nuclear. I am a believer in solar power for residential home use though and am especially excited about the new organic solar panels which don't require massive strip mining or hydrometalurgical mining which uses chemicals to get rare earth metals or metals like zinc for current solar panels. Imagine the explosion in mining and the resulting stripping of land and the resulting pollution if we decreed that everyone had to have a solar panel on their rooftops using current technology. The damage to the environment would be catastrophic as you are talking about hundreds of millions of new solar panels. However, if they do get the organic solar cells to work I would love to see those on residential rooftops as I believe that they could power most homes at least in areas of the country that see lots of sun. Solar, wind and geothermal simply will not, cannot power the world or a majority of the worlds power and half the power in this country goes to commercial use. Many factories use the equivalent power of a small town. From what I have read cold fusion simply does not happen. There was some guy who said he found out how to do it but other people looked into it and came to other conclusions. It has something to do with the weak interaction of particles or something and not actual fusion of any kind. I will see if I can find the link that I read on it. http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm However I just found this link so maybe not all is lost even if it isn't actual "fusion" could it be a power source nonetheless? http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgib...device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ I would love for that to be true but until someone can replicate it independently I will not hold my breath. Edit: I found something about 3d solar panels so my first assumptions about what he was talking about were probably wrong. This is what I found when I googled it. http://www.solar3d.com/ http://www.solar3d.com/technology.php They claim a 200% increase in power because it captures more sunlight than conventional panels. So he might have been right.
There is also this from MIT http://www.digitaltrends.com/green-...roduce-20-times-more-energy-than-flat-panels/ although the firs obvious issue is that you can't but alot of these close together. Great for rooftops though.
Interesting, I will have to do some of my own research on this 3D idea. He wouldn't answer any of our questions, but my hand shot up asking how they could "accelerate" the source energy economically as well as without another energy source to do so. I think this is why I am so in the middle, while trolls will come and try to turn science into some partisan argument, he does have a point. There are more than likely secrets of photovoltaic energy we do not know yet, just like there are with fusion and nuclear. I would like to see the market drive this and see what comes out on top. Sadly when things like Solyndra come out people on the right develop an "anti solar" attitude instead of correctly having an anti-government attitude. Thanks for the info, give me some good stuff to research tonight!
The main problem with photovoltaic energy is the simple observation of the maximum amount of energy from the sun per square meter. It's just not that much.
Right, which was my argument to my teacher. He seems to be under the impression that we can accelerate and therefor magnify light. Just was curious what the forum thought of his theory.
I would be happy to trade in our drug war for a federal research university system that can be tasked with finding solutions to our modern social and technological dilemmas.
the student should surpass the teacher or what a waste So are you wanting to cook ants or are you just too lazy to look into what he meant? His theory? wow, nice tangent. nice trolling
It seems like effective way of maximizing solar output..Were you able to achieve that? Waiting for reply thanks in advance
All magnifying does is concentrate the light from a larger area to a smaller area. It doesn't change the amount of energy per square meter.
