Thermodepolymerization (making oil from anything!)

No, I'm not.

I'm saying it probably WON'T (read it again) be done, because the science doesn't support it.

Tell me your grand theory for bringing an energy source that currently only occurs in stars down to a practical level for our use.Imagine telling a top 1950s scientist that we'd have 6x4x.5" handheld computer that acted as a portable telephone you could take anywhere, could connect to the internet, then explain to him what the internet is, and it's also a calculator, can take pictures that you can send instantly to anyone in the world. Technology is crazy and we're just getting accustomed to it. No scientist in that time would've been able to imagine what we're doing 50 years later. Who knows what crazy shit's gonna happen in the next 50.

The process is efficient (it produces more than it uses)

The law of conservation of energy calls bullshit.

The laws of physics are slightly different than the laws of forseeable invention aScotia.

This tech has been around since the 50s, but before it's used more energy than it's made. He figured out how to make it use less than it makes.


and the scientific community is conspiring to sabotoge and gag him so that he doesn't disprove the laws of thermodynamics that they teach in 8th grade science class?

Imagine telling a top 1950s scientist that we'd have 6x4x.5" handheld computer that acted as a portable telephone you could take anywhere, could connect to the internet, then explain to him what the internet is, and it's also a calculator, can take pictures that you can send instantly to anyone in the world. Technology is crazy and we're just getting accustomed to it. No scientist in that time would've been able to imagine what we're doing 50 years later. Who knows what crazy shit's gonna happen in the next 50.

there are things which are possible using current theory, like going to mars or building a calculator, and there are things that are impossible using current theory, like building a perpetual motion machine by putting power generating wind turbines on your car

so a proper analogy is something which does not speak about technology and rather talks about changes in theory. like our quantum theories and atomic models could change.

the only problem is there haven't been many solid, empirically verified, widely recognized scientific theories that have been later disproven - they are pretty much exclusively expanded upon. So while newton's theory of gravitation was expanded on by einstein, it is still correct. And while einstein's relativity will eventually be expanded on and replaced, we still will not be able to move faster than light.

basically my problem is all the people who don't understand the difference between a technological advance, a theoretical expansion, and a theoretical impossibility

and the scientific community is conspiring to sabotoge and gag him so that he doesn't disprove the laws of thermodynamics that they teach in 8th grade science class?
Is it that complicated to understand? If you were to use 100 pounds of trash, you'd get 85 pounds of useable oil (gross simplification). There is no breaking of the law of thermodynamics or any other such nonsense.

so a proper analogy is something which does not speak about technology and rather talks about changes in theory. like our quantum theories and atomic models could change.
Except achieving cold fusion doesn't require any change in scientific theory. There is no scientific principle that says, "It is absolutely impossible for fusion to occur at temperatures below 15,000C." We have not observed it, and there is nothing that seems to suggest that cold fusion would be impossible other than we have not observed it. It's not theory, it is atomic interaction of which we know almost nothing about. Just a few years ago a new state of matter was discovered when an atom is lowered to within a few points of absolute zero. Atomic science is being written as we speak, and saying something can't be done because it isn't likely is short-sighted.

Is it that complicated to understand? If you were to use 100 pounds of trash, you'd get 85 pounds of useable oil (gross simplification). There is no breaking of the law of thermodynamics or any other such nonsense.


Except achieving cold fusion doesn't require any change in scientific theory. There is no scientific principle that says, "It is absolutely impossible for fusion to occur at temperatures below 15,000C." We have not observed it, and there is nothing that seems to suggest that cold fusion would be impossible other than we have not observed it. It's not theory, it is atomic interaction of which we know almost nothing about. Just a few years ago a new state of matter was discovered when an atom is lowered to within a few points of absolute zero. Atomic science is being written as we speak, and saying something can't be done because it isn't likely is short-sighted.



BAM




ixt says everything I want to say and more

This was in the news a lot last year. Someone is building a factory to convert turkey guts into oil, and claims that his process is highly efficient (85%).

yeah but this would just fuck our Ozone in its ass, I have a feeling when we run out of oil it'll be time for a new alternative to fossil fuels or the sun will be melting us after 30 minutes of being outside

Don't believe me? Just move to Texas for a summer and you'll get a nice preview :)

Doesn't this alternative energy source require more input energy (oil, gas, whatever) than the final amount of product? If so, that's a waste and it's a pipedream.
how about you read the shit before commenting on it?

The law of conservation of energy calls bullshit.

I think they are saying it takes less energy to process the fuel-material than is produced as a result. Nothing wrong with that, as matter is essentially stored energy.

15 units of energy + 200 tons of bird shit = 85 units of energy.

I don't think anyone had big plans for the turkey droppings otherwise, so this technology is win.

seems too good to be true.. why hasnt it been in the news? =\

I've seen it discussed on TV at least twice, the plant in missouri specifically.

I think that basically the thing is still relying a bit on theory I do not think it's operational yet. The media stories are also usually basic because the media have no fucking idea what the thing is honestly.

Hardly. Fusion is useless unless we can get it to occur at reasonable temperatures.

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~koeth/pix/sono.jpg
Original http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040303080222.htm

By pumping sound through a closed container of heavy water (heavy water contains deuterium, a isotope of hydrogen) microscopic vacuum bubbles form and implode with enough force for fusion to take place.

We don't need to make oil through ridiculous schemes like this. Stop government subsidies of farmers and the oil industry, and we can make ethanol and biodiesel for very little $$$.

If we HAVE to go to a "100% clean" fuel source, then we need a shitload of nuclear power plants to separate hydrogen out of water, and then that can be burned in place of gasoline (with a few minor modifications).

The sum of human knowledge grows exponentially on the century-wise timescale.

I have hope that if we can avoid disaster as a species, we will eventually conquer the stars.

Starcraft style!

kekekekeke ^_________________^

what about pollution...the whole reason for not using as much oil (for me) is pollution.

what about pullution...the whole reason for not using as much oil (for me) is pollution.

I'd figure you'd think eliminating hundreds of millions of tons of garbage a bonus, yes?

yeah but what about the polution when you burn the oil?

you cant substitute one kind of polution for another...you just ahve to get rid of it completely!