# Day after tomorrow a reality?



## Osiris (Jan 18, 2005)

http://www.10news.com/news/14904883/detail.html


----------



## flamingo (Nov 5, 2005)

I hope the day after tomorrow is a Tuesday


----------



## Mr.Buggy (Nov 6, 2006)

When Oklahoma gets a Tsunami, I'll worry. lol


----------



## Buggy (Oct 17, 2006)

EDIT: The above post was from BUGGY. Mr. forgot to sign out again. LOL I just noticed the mistake.


----------



## jones57742 (Sep 8, 2007)

Folks:

Please humor me here with this discourse.

Each of the last four Ice Ages* has been preceded by Global Warming.
The Nebraskian, Kansian, Indianian and Wisconsian (Never Kick Indian Women).

Are we accelerating the next ice age via the consumption of fossil fuel?

Absolutely! (and we if we are not careful we may become fossil fuel!)

What I absolutely do not understand is why controlled fusion (not fission) reaction has not been implemented (hundred of billions of $ could easily be funneled into this research and implementation!)

The simplistic definition of a controlled fusion reactor is the production of energy (electricity) from water (including but not limited sea water) with no radioactive byproducts.
This reaction is "big time stuff" and "way more potent than fission reaction (ie. a nuclear power plant)".

TR

What really bothers me is that (and this is pure speculation on my part) that with virtually zero energy cost that we could possibly be able to control "nature".


----------



## predator (Jan 28, 2005)

Wait.... your wondering y we dont just start using fusion to make power?

you make no sence... i mean hundreds of billions of dollars has already gon into it and the only thing useful you get trying to put atoms back together is a bomb...

y not just use hydrogen... we are alot closer to making that an everyday power producing item...

i dont get how you can just say... l"et's do it... duh! geez how could no one else have thought of this?..."

-me


----------



## flamingo (Nov 5, 2005)

I forsee another bear thread arising here, but, oh well.

Jones: Hold on.. my leg itches.. ok: wait...: hold on..: omg..: phone call: ok: TADA.
Final: we shouldn't even be able to control the weather. 
Billions of dollars- tell the public your going to do that. Will they agree?
What about the war were in, will they pay for that too?
Do we even have money to fix what's wrong already?
What about the people on the street?
Will the public keep approving the taxes everytime we "think" something will work? And most importantly, why does this taco taste like dirt?
No idea what I just said!


----------



## jones57742 (Sep 8, 2007)

predator said:


> i dont get how you can just say... l"et's do it... duh! geez how could no one else have thought of this?..."


I will respond without getting into the details of controlled thermonuclear fusion (which are very simplistic in their general concept) 
BUT
exactly how many times has someone postulated that that nature (as described by us via physics) is temporarily and spatially dependent in our universe?

TR


----------



## jones57742 (Sep 8, 2007)

flamingo said:


> I forsee another bear thread arising here, but, oh well.


fl: I hope not.



flamingo said:


> Jones: Hold on.. my leg itches.. ok: wait...: hold on..: omg..: phone call: ok: TADA.
> No idea what I just said!


Nor I.



flamingo said:


> Final: we shouldn't even be able to control the weather.


I did not intend to imply that the energy available from controlled thermonuclear fusion would allow weather control.
The "naysayers" of global warming have obviously neglected (or conveniently forgotten) to state the global warming which existed prior to the last four ice ages.
Having said that the rate of and acceleration in the consumption of fossil fuels "is in my brain" *not good*.



flamingo said:


> Billions of dollars- tell the public your going to do that. Will they agree?


fl: I can only respond to this one as follows:

If the spin doctors can convince most of the public that Slick Willy enjoying himself in a dark corridor emanating from the Oval Office is "perfectly OK" then several hundred billion funneled into controlled thermonuclear fusion research should not be a problem at all for these physicians.



flamingo said:


> What about the war were in, will they pay for that too?
> Do we even have money to fix what's wrong already?
> What about the people on the street?


My off the cuff answer is technology which in this scenario is very cheap energy.



flamingo said:


> Will the public keep approving the taxes everytime we "think" something will work?


This "something will work" just a sure as untested "Long Boy" worked.



flamingo said:


> And most importantly, why does this taco taste like dirt?


This is really a tough one but I can recommend Mrs. Rios taco shells, ground round beef, a mild cheese, good tomatoes and lettuce and a mild home made red sauce.



flamingo said:


> No idea what I just said!


fl: I guess that I am "losing it" with old age but I do.

TR


----------



## Osiris (Jan 18, 2005)

IMO I think hydrogen power is pointless if a new ice age is due upon us. Cuz umm duh water will be frozen, ding ding ding! 

But anyway, yea this was a very odd happening. WI believe we are having record snowfall and ice. More deadly storms, more intense hurricanes/typhoons. Somethings up, anyone email Mother Nature yet?


----------



## neilfishguy (Oct 7, 2007)

Osiris said:


> IMO I think hydrogen power is pointless if a new ice age is due upon us. Cuz umm duh water will be frozen, ding ding ding!
> 
> But anyway, yea this was a very odd happening. WI believe we are having record snowfall and ice. More deadly storms, more intense hurricanes/typhoons. Somethings up, anyone email Mother Nature yet?


Its not like we can just scoop hydrogen out of lakes  it does not matter.

its not an ice age though,not at all.


----------



## predator (Jan 28, 2005)

jones57742 said:


> I will respond without getting into the details of controlled thermonuclear fusion (which are very simplistic in their general concept)
> BUT
> exactly how many times has someone postulated that that nature (as described by us via physics) is temporarily and spatially dependent in our universe?
> 
> TR


What? I have a degree in nuclear technologies and i have no idea what you just said....

and alot of things are very simplistic in general concept... i mean perpetual motion for instance... but yeah try to pull that off...

-me


----------



## Osiris (Jan 18, 2005)

Did you know the smartest man in the world still doesn't know what a woman wants? lol


----------



## jones57742 (Sep 8, 2007)

predator said:


> What? I have a degree in nuclear technologies and i have no idea what you just said....
> 
> and alot of things are very simplistic in general concept... i mean perpetual motion for instance... but yeah try to pull that off...


Predator: I will try again.

We are fairly confident that nature is constant at least in our solar system (ie. planetary probes work). What if nature changes in the universe (ie. in nuclear words in other areas of the universe a positron/electron collision yields 10MeV instead of 0.51MeV as in our solar system)
This concept I term as spatial dependence.

We are confident (or fairly confident) that nature has been constant during recorded history. Once again what if nature changes throughout time. (ie. the red shift is really not a red shift at a previous time).
This concept I term temporal dependence.

If either of the above dependencies exist then our concept of nature is incorrect and physics/astrophysics is "in the toilet".


The best way that I can address this comment is with a question:
Does our Sun shine (and has been doing so for some [estimated] 4 billion years) due to some sort of perpetual motion or due to thermonuclear fusion?

Folks:

What Predator is saying is absolutely correct!

In the engineering world:
Envision a wind charger on the hood of a car connected to batteries and the car is propelled by gasoline and electricity.
Obviously the car will run out of gasoline.

In the physics world:
In equilibrium thermodynamics (the 2nd law) a system will decay to chaos without the input of energy.*

TR

*This is a very interesting concept with respect to "how an organized system such as us can exist".
If anyone is interested in a explanation of this concept I can at least partially explain but will not bore yall otherwise.


----------



## Ice (Sep 25, 2006)

Osiris said:


> Did you know the smartest man in the world still doesn't know what a woman wants? lol


ROFLMAO !!! I don't think any man would ever know what a woman wants ...


----------



## jones57742 (Sep 8, 2007)

Osiris said:


> Did you know the smartest man in the world still doesn't know what a woman wants? lol


Os:

I absolutely agree!!!

You posted before I completed my post but I also believe that the smartest man in the world does really not know himself.

TR


----------



## Osiris (Jan 18, 2005)

Very interesting. I've gandered at Quantum Physics forums in the past, don't understand it much but the theory/idea's that drive it are just awesome.


----------



## Buggy (Oct 17, 2006)

Trust us guys, if you are the smartest man in the world, you don't want to know what we want. lol


----------



## predator (Jan 28, 2005)

im done... it almost sounds like the way to solve the issue is to just move our planet to a time or place in which out physics dont apply... and once again... WTF

-me


----------



## jones57742 (Sep 8, 2007)

predator said:


> and once again... WTF


Folks:

Serious contemplation occurred prior to this post but I believe that this post is appropriate for elucidation.

The thread title is "Day after tomorrow a reality? ".

I was focusing on controlled thermonuclear fusion as a possible solution although I noted that we may be entering an ice age.

Who knows if fusion reactors can "control the weather".

What is known is that our Sun is substantially a controlled fusion reactor (with the exception of some periodic particle emissions).

The fusion in our Sun is controlled by gravity but this is not feasible for us and hence the concept of an electromagnetic bottle generated by superconducting materials.

I believe that "what I was trying to say" was that for the costs similar to the wars which we are into now research could produce controlled thermonuclear fusion reactors.

To address several previous assertions in that once the reaction is started (and in a simplistic form of explanation):
Yes!
Chunking sea water, glacial ice, polar ice, etc into the reactor will produce significant energy of insignificant cost with non radioactive byproducts*.

TR

*Please note that proponents of fission breeder reactor technology promote similar concepts but highly radioactive byproducts are generated which cannot be used in the reactor and must be disposed of without harm to the environment (which is not inexpensive).


----------

