http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/ ... -revealed/
who knew?
water delivery
Re: water delivery
You can pick up any rock, crush it and place it in a test tube, and you will get water vapor inside the test tube by heating the bottom. It adsorbs the humidity in our air and releases it upon heating.
Basically, anything containing combined Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules will produce condensation in a closed environment, like the test tube experiment shown in the video. So no surprise there!
Basically, anything containing combined Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules will produce condensation in a closed environment, like the test tube experiment shown in the video. So no surprise there!
Re: water delivery
The surprise in the video is that there is water embedded in rocks from the asteroid belt. The experiment depicted in the video is flawed for reasons you state. Exactly how much of our water was home grown and how much came from outer space has yet to be determined.
-
Icey
Re: water delivery
Water can be found everywhere. If you go into an arid, desert area before dawn and turn over rocks and stones, you'll find that water droplets can be collected from each one. Once the sun comes up, these evaporate of course.
Whether earth's water came from asteroids crashing into us, or whether moisture formed naturally on our planet's rocky surface and eventually gathered into streams - it's the same principle.
Whether earth's water came from asteroids crashing into us, or whether moisture formed naturally on our planet's rocky surface and eventually gathered into streams - it's the same principle.
Re: water delivery
One other aspect to consider is outer space is supposed to be a vacuum.
How do you evacuate moisture from an AC system before recharging?
You use a vacuum to force the water molecules out of the system.
Also, water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen which combined into a molecule H2O.
Where in outer space is the Oxygen component coming from?
Yes I know there are solid ice meteors and asteroids, so it does exist.
The question is how?
For Icey:
If you are lost in the desert and have a plastic sheet like a drop cloth, and a cup, you won't die of thirst.
Same goes for if you are stranded in the ocean.
A 100 sq ft tarp (that's roughly 9 feet x 12 feet, or 10 feet x 10 feet) will produce 1 cup of water per hour in the desert during its lowest production time, from noon to 3 pm. About 2 cups per hour from an hour after sunrise, to an hour before sunset.
A fellow adrift in the ocean for over a week, managed to get enough water using nothing more than a split tube about the size of a hula hoop and a weather poncho held suspended over the side of the boat by an oar. If I recall, the split tube was the hand guard from off the sides of the boat, used to catch the distilled water as it ran down the inside of the poncho. It was in National Geographic magazine several years ago.
TTUL
Gary
How do you evacuate moisture from an AC system before recharging?
You use a vacuum to force the water molecules out of the system.
Also, water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen which combined into a molecule H2O.
Where in outer space is the Oxygen component coming from?
Yes I know there are solid ice meteors and asteroids, so it does exist.
The question is how?
For Icey:
If you are lost in the desert and have a plastic sheet like a drop cloth, and a cup, you won't die of thirst.
Same goes for if you are stranded in the ocean.
A 100 sq ft tarp (that's roughly 9 feet x 12 feet, or 10 feet x 10 feet) will produce 1 cup of water per hour in the desert during its lowest production time, from noon to 3 pm. About 2 cups per hour from an hour after sunrise, to an hour before sunset.
A fellow adrift in the ocean for over a week, managed to get enough water using nothing more than a split tube about the size of a hula hoop and a weather poncho held suspended over the side of the boat by an oar. If I recall, the split tube was the hand guard from off the sides of the boat, used to catch the distilled water as it ran down the inside of the poncho. It was in National Geographic magazine several years ago.
TTUL
Gary
Re: water delivery
Gary - you have answered your own question. The water talked about in the article I cited was found to exist in asteroid fragments, or meteors. The Asteroid Belt, as I'm sure you must be aware, is thought to be the remains of a former planet located between Mars and Jupiter. There could have been water on that planet and some of it could have found it's way to earth.
As far as I know there is nothing intrinsic about a vacuum that prevents atoms from forming molecules. It's how the universe was formed after all. All the elements we know about were formed from hydrogen; one proton and one electron. All of that precipitated out of the energy plasma we commonly know as the Big Bang.
As far as I know there is nothing intrinsic about a vacuum that prevents atoms from forming molecules. It's how the universe was formed after all. All the elements we know about were formed from hydrogen; one proton and one electron. All of that precipitated out of the energy plasma we commonly know as the Big Bang.
Re: water delivery
I thought the Big Bang theory died when they discovered the Universe is conical shaped?
Expanding only in one direction faster than it is width wise.
What would cause hydrogen molecules to combine with oxygen molecules to form water?
The properties of water have always amazed me. It works entirely opposite of any other substance on earth.
Neat stuff that water, hi hi...
TTUL
Gary
Expanding only in one direction faster than it is width wise.
What would cause hydrogen molecules to combine with oxygen molecules to form water?
The properties of water have always amazed me. It works entirely opposite of any other substance on earth.
Neat stuff that water, hi hi...
TTUL
Gary
Re: water delivery
My understanding is that the so called Big Bang is still a valid theory along with others. I don't think there is a consensus about whether the universe is expanding or contracting either, but it seems to be leaning in the expansion direction.
Way back in the beginning when the universe as we know it could fit in the palm of your hand there was a lot of pressure and fire going on. Physics was invented back then along with the elements that compose matter. A lot of the same kind of fusion is going on locally in our own sun, and other stars, even today.
Water on earth came about at it's inception. The earth was created wet and the water we see today has been there for billions of years. The alternate theory is that we were rained upon by wet meteors and asteroids such as was demonstrated in the video cited above. Exactly how it happened is not proven, but National Geographic published a pretty good article on the topic.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a-science/
Way back in the beginning when the universe as we know it could fit in the palm of your hand there was a lot of pressure and fire going on. Physics was invented back then along with the elements that compose matter. A lot of the same kind of fusion is going on locally in our own sun, and other stars, even today.
Water on earth came about at it's inception. The earth was created wet and the water we see today has been there for billions of years. The alternate theory is that we were rained upon by wet meteors and asteroids such as was demonstrated in the video cited above. Exactly how it happened is not proven, but National Geographic published a pretty good article on the topic.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... a-science/
Re: water delivery
but if the water arrived billions of years ago, wasn't the earth just a lump of molten lava without much of an atmosphere - and any water would have just hissed and blown off?
Re: water delivery
Interesting article.
I think whatever was on and in the planets when they formed is what is still there today.
Impacts from meteors and asteroids could add or take away from what was here originally, but only in a small way.
I don't think much escapes the gravitational pull of each planet. Leastwise not enough to cause a major change in the contents of what that planet had when it originated.
Planets are getting slightly larger due to space dust and debris being attracted and drawn to the surface of the planets, but even this is negligible.
I read an article a couple of years ago that talked about water loss (escaping our atmosphere) vs water gain (elements containing water being attracted to our surface). The way the article read, it made it appear we are gaining more water than we are losing, however, it is at the expense of losing other more rare elements, which can escape our atmosphere more readily. One example given was Helium, an an element that can escape our atmosphere and be lost forever.
When compared to Oxygen which is a renewable element, and other heavier gasses, our planet has no "belts" where the noble gasses are saved from being entirely lost to space.
The article then drifted off toward gasses used as fuels, or combined for use in manufacturing.
What we use for fuels is continually changing, and the changes often come about long before the source of any particular fuel is spent.
How we heat our homes is one such example.
Wood, a renewable resource was used for thousands of years, along with Peat and other organics.
Wood gave way to Coal as the major source of home heating, for a couple of hundred years, but was later used primarily in industry and the generation of electricity.
Coal gave way to Fuel Oil for home heating, and was the primary fuel for home heating for over a century.
Fuel Oil gave way to Natural Gas in many areas, and also Electricity used for home heating was gaining momentum.
Natural Gas was first used primarily for lighting, while coal and fuel oil still provided the fuel for heating.
Compared to how long wood was used, and later coal, natural gas is a relative newcomer on the scene, and already alternatives to natural gas are in use in many areas.
Higher efficiency electric heating devices, such as heat pumps in warmer climates, have almost forced natural gas out of business in those areas.
Some electric comes from coal fired steam plants, but for years the majority of electric was from water over the dam, powering hydroelectric generators.
Today, much of our electric is provided by nuclear power plants, with a little bit from wind and solar panel sources.
As technology moves forward, the sources of what we use for fuels keeps changing.
We have not run out of wood. We have not run out of coal, and little is used today. We have not run out of Fuel Oil, or Natural Gas, although both are now used heavily in industry in the manufacture of products, such as plastics. Not so much is used for heating purposes or for powering devices.
Cars are evolving from the gasoline engine to running on renewable ethanol and electric.
Just as we have moved away from Wood, Peat, and Coal, we are also moving away from Fossil Fuels.
Long before we have spent the resources, just as with Coal, we will be using something else and there will be plenty left for other things.
Who knows what is on the horizon as our next source of fuel or power?
Could it possibly be Anti-matter?
TTUL
Gary
I think whatever was on and in the planets when they formed is what is still there today.
Impacts from meteors and asteroids could add or take away from what was here originally, but only in a small way.
I don't think much escapes the gravitational pull of each planet. Leastwise not enough to cause a major change in the contents of what that planet had when it originated.
Planets are getting slightly larger due to space dust and debris being attracted and drawn to the surface of the planets, but even this is negligible.
I read an article a couple of years ago that talked about water loss (escaping our atmosphere) vs water gain (elements containing water being attracted to our surface). The way the article read, it made it appear we are gaining more water than we are losing, however, it is at the expense of losing other more rare elements, which can escape our atmosphere more readily. One example given was Helium, an an element that can escape our atmosphere and be lost forever.
When compared to Oxygen which is a renewable element, and other heavier gasses, our planet has no "belts" where the noble gasses are saved from being entirely lost to space.
The article then drifted off toward gasses used as fuels, or combined for use in manufacturing.
What we use for fuels is continually changing, and the changes often come about long before the source of any particular fuel is spent.
How we heat our homes is one such example.
Wood, a renewable resource was used for thousands of years, along with Peat and other organics.
Wood gave way to Coal as the major source of home heating, for a couple of hundred years, but was later used primarily in industry and the generation of electricity.
Coal gave way to Fuel Oil for home heating, and was the primary fuel for home heating for over a century.
Fuel Oil gave way to Natural Gas in many areas, and also Electricity used for home heating was gaining momentum.
Natural Gas was first used primarily for lighting, while coal and fuel oil still provided the fuel for heating.
Compared to how long wood was used, and later coal, natural gas is a relative newcomer on the scene, and already alternatives to natural gas are in use in many areas.
Higher efficiency electric heating devices, such as heat pumps in warmer climates, have almost forced natural gas out of business in those areas.
Some electric comes from coal fired steam plants, but for years the majority of electric was from water over the dam, powering hydroelectric generators.
Today, much of our electric is provided by nuclear power plants, with a little bit from wind and solar panel sources.
As technology moves forward, the sources of what we use for fuels keeps changing.
We have not run out of wood. We have not run out of coal, and little is used today. We have not run out of Fuel Oil, or Natural Gas, although both are now used heavily in industry in the manufacture of products, such as plastics. Not so much is used for heating purposes or for powering devices.
Cars are evolving from the gasoline engine to running on renewable ethanol and electric.
Just as we have moved away from Wood, Peat, and Coal, we are also moving away from Fossil Fuels.
Long before we have spent the resources, just as with Coal, we will be using something else and there will be plenty left for other things.
Who knows what is on the horizon as our next source of fuel or power?
Could it possibly be Anti-matter?
TTUL
Gary
-
Icey
Re: water delivery
The UK seems to be going mad on wind turbines at the moment. Ugly, monstrous things.
Re: water delivery
Those bird killing wind vanes should be outlawed, not promoted.
Besides, not a one has proven to be efficient yet.
They appear so because of the subsidies the government gives to the owner/operators, which is not shown on the books.
Besides, not a one has proven to be efficient yet.
They appear so because of the subsidies the government gives to the owner/operators, which is not shown on the books.
-
Icey
Re: water delivery
Well our local Councils benefit from the money they get from the operators for being able to site these hideous things on their land. Turbines're basically a good idea, but the savings aren't passed on to many people. My friend now looks out of her window and instead of rolling hills, she's faced with a 300ft. behemoth that stands quite close to her property.
Re: water delivery
The number that sticks in my mind, but I cannot quote a reference, is 70% of the water we have now came with the planet. The remaining 30% is from external sources. Water, like many other elements, was formed early on but obviously not inside a volcano. It took some cooling before conditions were right for water to form. The current thinking is that it happened a couple billions of years ago.
We are not losing water vapor to outer space, but Gary is right to point out that some of the lightest elements may be evaporating from our atmosphere. I also doubt that we are gaining in size from space debris. The cooling of the planet continues to this day, and along with that comes some shrinkage. The total mass may be increasing, but not so much the size. As far as total energy consumption goes, our rate of use is increasing at an alarming rate. Available sources of energy will be what determines who survives on an over populated planet. The use of turbines and solar panels is helping to meet the expanding need for energy but nobody at the moment is thinking seriously that it will replace our existing fuels. Our best hope is that they find a cheap and efficient way to extract energy from ocean water.
We are not losing water vapor to outer space, but Gary is right to point out that some of the lightest elements may be evaporating from our atmosphere. I also doubt that we are gaining in size from space debris. The cooling of the planet continues to this day, and along with that comes some shrinkage. The total mass may be increasing, but not so much the size. As far as total energy consumption goes, our rate of use is increasing at an alarming rate. Available sources of energy will be what determines who survives on an over populated planet. The use of turbines and solar panels is helping to meet the expanding need for energy but nobody at the moment is thinking seriously that it will replace our existing fuels. Our best hope is that they find a cheap and efficient way to extract energy from ocean water.
-
Icey
Re: water delivery
It'd be an excellent solution, and probably easier for little islands like ourselves, who're surrounded by water.
Re: water delivery
Just food for thought here.
If the sun striking the planet helps us to keep warm.
And dust from volcano's and fallout can block the sun, causing an artificial winter.
Would not covering our planet with solar cells to provide electric reflect the sun away from the earths surface and cause basically the same thing, our planet to cool down, thus ushering in another ice age faster?
Also, in most cities, you are FORCED BY LAW to be connected to the Public Utilities. If you disconnect from the Electric Company, the city can condemn your home for not having service from the Electric Company, even if you have ten times more electrical power than you need, generated on site by yourself.
I know for certain because I've been there, done that, after a fight with Union Electric.
I bought a China Diesel and powered my house for an entire year, up until the time the city was going to condemn my house if I didn't reconnect to UE (Now Amron UE).
My generator was big enough, if I was allowed to power only two neighbors homes, I would have made a profit AND got my electric for free. But it was illegal to supply electric to others. Even so, at the end of an entire year, my cost for fuel and maintenance was within only a few dollars, of what my utility bill would have been during the same time frame. Not counting the purchase and installation cost of the dynamo.
Now, if I could generate electric for the same cost as I paid for it from UE. Why was our utility bills so high?
Back when I maintained my records during this time period. If I could have sold electric, and if I bought the next size larger dynamo, I could have powered four houses, which would have paid for the dynamo in only four years, eight months. At the time, one that ran on Natural Gas would have been cheaper to operate than a Diesel unit, but there were no tax breaks as with Diesel not used in vehicles. When used for stationary items, it was even cheaper than for in farm machinery use. No road taxes when for farm use, and no taxes when for stationary equipment use.
FWIW: Although a Diesel is not truly quiet, there was no perceived noise fifteen to twenty feet away, so it did not disturb our neighbors. We also had shrubbery placed around it which kept the noise to a minimum in our own yard.
It did set up a vibration you could feel due to its size, but it didn't hamper our sleep after the first week or so.
I hate to say it, but newer generators are no where near as efficient as those old China diesels. I've checked out several to install for emergency use, and they are virtual fuel hogs in comparison, and none are designed for continuous usage 24/7 either.
OK, off my soapbox, hi hi...
If the sun striking the planet helps us to keep warm.
And dust from volcano's and fallout can block the sun, causing an artificial winter.
Would not covering our planet with solar cells to provide electric reflect the sun away from the earths surface and cause basically the same thing, our planet to cool down, thus ushering in another ice age faster?
Also, in most cities, you are FORCED BY LAW to be connected to the Public Utilities. If you disconnect from the Electric Company, the city can condemn your home for not having service from the Electric Company, even if you have ten times more electrical power than you need, generated on site by yourself.
I know for certain because I've been there, done that, after a fight with Union Electric.
I bought a China Diesel and powered my house for an entire year, up until the time the city was going to condemn my house if I didn't reconnect to UE (Now Amron UE).
My generator was big enough, if I was allowed to power only two neighbors homes, I would have made a profit AND got my electric for free. But it was illegal to supply electric to others. Even so, at the end of an entire year, my cost for fuel and maintenance was within only a few dollars, of what my utility bill would have been during the same time frame. Not counting the purchase and installation cost of the dynamo.
Now, if I could generate electric for the same cost as I paid for it from UE. Why was our utility bills so high?
Back when I maintained my records during this time period. If I could have sold electric, and if I bought the next size larger dynamo, I could have powered four houses, which would have paid for the dynamo in only four years, eight months. At the time, one that ran on Natural Gas would have been cheaper to operate than a Diesel unit, but there were no tax breaks as with Diesel not used in vehicles. When used for stationary items, it was even cheaper than for in farm machinery use. No road taxes when for farm use, and no taxes when for stationary equipment use.
FWIW: Although a Diesel is not truly quiet, there was no perceived noise fifteen to twenty feet away, so it did not disturb our neighbors. We also had shrubbery placed around it which kept the noise to a minimum in our own yard.
It did set up a vibration you could feel due to its size, but it didn't hamper our sleep after the first week or so.
I hate to say it, but newer generators are no where near as efficient as those old China diesels. I've checked out several to install for emergency use, and they are virtual fuel hogs in comparison, and none are designed for continuous usage 24/7 either.
OK, off my soapbox, hi hi...
-
Icey
Re: water delivery
That was very good Gary, but over here, no one can sell their electric to anyone else unless they have an excess from using solar panels and can then sell it back to the National Grid.
Unfortunately, the government's come up with a new plan now. For whatever measured unit of excess electricity a person had, they're soon going to receive just over a penny (yes, you read correctly) for each unit, instead of the 12-point something pence they're getting now.
The government didn't realise that back when the initial costs of installation were really high, that these panels'd be so popular. The energy companies're now moaning at a drop in profits, which I assume means that the government're receiving less out of it. They say they're going to give "incentives" to those who buy their electricity from metered sources direct to the suppliers, and to those who pay their bills on time. The best "incentive" would be to reduce the cost of it all, but instead, they'll probably leave it a while longer before the next hike. There's one of those coming into force before the New Year. You can't win with them.
Unfortunately, the government's come up with a new plan now. For whatever measured unit of excess electricity a person had, they're soon going to receive just over a penny (yes, you read correctly) for each unit, instead of the 12-point something pence they're getting now.
The government didn't realise that back when the initial costs of installation were really high, that these panels'd be so popular. The energy companies're now moaning at a drop in profits, which I assume means that the government're receiving less out of it. They say they're going to give "incentives" to those who buy their electricity from metered sources direct to the suppliers, and to those who pay their bills on time. The best "incentive" would be to reduce the cost of it all, but instead, they'll probably leave it a while longer before the next hike. There's one of those coming into force before the New Year. You can't win with them.
Re: water delivery
If everyone cut their electric usage in half, regardless of how, the electric company would have to double their rates to make up for the income shortfall.
Even though they may be producing half the amount of electric as before, they still have investors who expect a certain return on their investment. So, in the process of saving operating expenses, they must still meet their bottom line in dividend and interest payments.
In other words, it has nothing to do with their cost of generating electric, the price we pay is based on the number of people they have invested in the company, and how much they are promised in dividends. It's not how much electrical units they sell, as much as how much they charge per unit to keep the bottom line up where they want it.
A con game actually.
Even though they may be producing half the amount of electric as before, they still have investors who expect a certain return on their investment. So, in the process of saving operating expenses, they must still meet their bottom line in dividend and interest payments.
In other words, it has nothing to do with their cost of generating electric, the price we pay is based on the number of people they have invested in the company, and how much they are promised in dividends. It's not how much electrical units they sell, as much as how much they charge per unit to keep the bottom line up where they want it.
A con game actually.
-
Icey
Re: water delivery
Oh of course I understand the economics of it really, but our energy bills're colossal over here. There's no need for it, although obviously investors expect a good return. I have nothing at all against people making money, but my views've become somewhat socialist when I listen to how many people have to struggle, just to line the pockets of the money-men. Our MPs've been calling for Ofgem to crack down on energy network costs, but it's just to appear sympathetic to the plight of folk struggling to pay their bills. They're worried really, because the energy policy 'uncertainty's' deterring investors, which in turn has an effect on how much revenue the government rake in from it.
The Conservative party's failing to stand up to energy companies properly because its election campaign's reliant on donations from the industry, from which they recently received £2.5m. You scratch my back, etc.
The Conservative party's failing to stand up to energy companies properly because its election campaign's reliant on donations from the industry, from which they recently received £2.5m. You scratch my back, etc.