US Navy Makes Oil Obsolete
US Navy Makes Oil Obsolete
LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol
[+]
Bismarck.Magnuss said: »
So yes, you people know more about science than I do, but I bet I could analyze the ***out of James Joyce.
Anyhow, I just found the sharp contrast between who knew what and who supported what and who I would have placed in each camp rather enlightening. It certainly cleared up some confusion I'd put myself in. I do wonder, though, if this is because science education has gotten that bad or if it is because interest in science has gotten that low. For my part, I am a lackluster student of science at best, but I still understand it quite well since I always go digging when I want to know an answer. And I read lots of hard SF.
Cerberus.Halticus said: »
LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Specialization is the appropriate survival strategy for this modern life we lead, but I prefer the broad approach.
Bismarck.Magnuss said: »
Cerberus.Halticus said: »
LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol
Oh , you mean the realist? Mmmk thanks for keeping me that wway >.>
Cerberus.Halticus said: »
Bismarck.Magnuss said: »
Cerberus.Halticus said: »
LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol
Oh , you mean the realist? Mmmk thanks for keeping me that wway >.>
And the people who Irritate to keep things a-rollin are normally known as trolls
Cerberus.Halticus said: »
And the people who Irritate to keep things a-rollin are normally known as trolls
I wouldn't call you a troll Mag.
Halt, you've added nothing to the discussion.
Halt, you've added nothing to the discussion.
[+]
Well, crap. Now I have to try harder.
I don't wannnnnnaaaaaa...
I don't wannnnnnaaaaaa...
[+]
I never said that I added anything other then my own personal opinion that assuming the united states navy is the direct responisible part to making oil obsolete is completely ludicrous. Just sharing my voice on the matter. That is all.
Cerberus.Halticus said: »
I never said that I added anything other then my own personal opinion that assuming the united states navy is the direct responisible part to making oil obsolete is completely ludicrous. Just sharing my voice on the matter. That is all.
Cerberus.Halticus said: »
LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol
sorry, but despite what delusion makes you think someone else is a troll, you rolled in here acting like a complete *** ***. maybe learn some manners. one day when you learn about hyperbole, you'll understand the thread title, and wont get your panties in a twist.
tbh calling magnuss a troll when he's the most non-troll person on the forums is... as you would say, "completely ludicrous".
*edit* aka
[+]
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
Matter can neither be created not destroyed outside of a nuclear reaction.
E=MC2.
So I've done further research into what they've done and got the final numbers. It takes 23,200 gallons of seawater to produce enough carbon for 1 gallon of hydrocarbon fuel. The other 23,199 gallons of seawater are flushed back into the ocean in the same condition they were found in, minus 92~97% of their carbon.
Most of what they are taking out is the bicarbonate HCO3 which previously was incredibly hard to remove energy wise.
As for the insanely stupid argument of "we're using up the Oceans!!!". The Oceans have a mass of 1.4×10^21 kg (1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons). There are 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in those Oceans. And the Oceans hold most of the surface carbon supply, more then all the available Coal, Oil and Gas deposits by an entire order of magnitude. And finally, all the CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere ends up back into the Oceans as CO2 is heavier then air and doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long (geologically speaking).
We, quite literally, could not "use it up" unless we were built a giant garden hose to Mars and tried to water a planet sized garden.
And what's really sad is that so many of you idiots supported his comment....
Quote:
If we destroy it, it will be gone forever.
It's the one truly irreplaceable natural resource. Stop destroying it, you idiots.
The process destroys the water molecule at the molecular level which BIG SURPRISE we won't be able to reverse.
It's the one truly irreplaceable natural resource. Stop destroying it, you idiots.
The process destroys the water molecule at the molecular level which BIG SURPRISE we won't be able to reverse.
Hydrogen is not only the most abundant element on earth, it's also the most abundant element in the universe. It's not a scarce resource and putting O2 into the atmosphere is actually a very good thing, though the amount we're talking is so miniscule as not even be measurable on a global scale.
Diabolos.Raelia said: »
Wait, somebody thinks electrolysis of water destroys the molecules forever?
Yes ... someone actually made an passionate argument for exactly that, and that we shouldn't do it because it's all the water we'll ever have and if we burn it'll be irreversible. Then a bunch of people agreed with him.
Next he'll try to convince us on how bad dihydrogren monoxide is for us and why we should support a law banning the dangerous chemical.
I think it's just one of those myths that perpetuates because it's based on a particle of truth. Most of our water is thought to have come originally from comets at a time when those were much more plentiful so I can kinda see where the pseudoscience can wander in and take hold. The planet still gains and loses water on a regular basis, but it's such a slow process that we'll all be long, long dead before it could actually impact us \o/
Quote:
The planet still gains and loses water on a regular basis, but it's such a slow process that we'll all be long, long dead before it could actually impact us \o/
The sun would of gone red giant if not supernova before then. In fact that would probably be the event that would cause all the Ocean's to boil away while the intense solar radiation forces our entire atmosphere into space.
It's based on people refusing to think for themselves and actually learn how physics & chemistry work then blindly believing whatever rhetoric they are fed. The logic is "we burn hydrocarbon fuel and we can run out, so therefor if we burn ocean water we also risk running out" coupled with the false conclusion that someone is "burning" water.
Just to show how easy this knowledge is to find, I googled "gasoline" and within the top segment is this.
Code
2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
Which flatly says that burning any hydrocarbon fuel creates produces CO2 and water. Further googlefu produces the following atomic mass's for the involved molecules.
Code
Carbon 12.0107 Hydrogren 1.00794 Oxygen 15.9994
Simple grade school math produces the total mass of the various components.
Code
192.1712 AU worth of Carbon 36.28584 AU worth of Hydrogen 399.985 AU worth of Oxygen
Assuming your getting your O2 from the atmosphere, that leaves only 15.8% of the reaction mass coming from Hydrogen, the rest is from the Carbon. We can then see exactly how little Hydrogen we are actually using vs the Carbon. And I was under the belief that most people here though taking CO2 out of the Oceans / Atmosphere was a good thing since we're putting so much into it?
Filled my Jeep up with saltwater yesterday. So effing pissed.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
You do know what E=MC2 means right? It means basically that matter and energy are proportionally equivalent and can be converted back and forth. To be precise:
Quote:
A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another.
The equation lost mass? So what... When you burn a paper towel roll you loose mass too... but that doesn't mean you destroyed matter, it means it was converted in to energy. In most cases, the lost mass was converted to heat or light energy. (do note that I'm including the mass of the gases and particles that fly off when burning when I say it looses mass)
It wouldn't be called the LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS if you could break it with a bit of nuclear power. In the first law of thermodynamics, there is a principal called the law of Conservation of energy. I recommend going back to your high school science books and having a look.
It states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. You are stating that this law is incorrect in the case of nuclear fission/fusion reactions.
If you'd like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
So I've done further research into what they've done .
and it takes a gallon of water to make a gallon of fuel....
so now your argument is "don't worry, we have plenty"
>.>
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
You do know what E=MC2 means right? It means basically that matter and energy are proportionally equivalent and can be converted back and forth. To be precise:
Quote:
A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another.
You are trying to describe the difference between chemical reactions (not involving changes to the nuclei of atoms) and nuclear reactions (involving changes to the nuclei of atoms). Or in another way, inter-atom bonds, rather than intra-atom bonds.
That's not to say that performing this conversion will make us run out of water; we certainly won't. On a large enough scale/small enough water source/sink, you may have some small localized changes in the acidity of the water, but I would doubt that it would be of any significance.
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
So I've done further research into what they've done .
and it takes a gallon of water to make a gallon of fuel....
so now your argument is "don't worry, we have plenty"
>.>
For one, the water itself is hardly being touched. For two, even if it was, the process of combustion of hydrocarbons creates water. For three, water is neither a limited nor scarce resource. Some water molecules might have been bouncing around unadulterated for 65,000,000 years, but most of them have been through multiple billions of chemical reactions changing them into other molecules and back again.
Seriously, this is ***they teach 15-year-olds.
Umm your kind of making a strawman here in an attempt to argue.
And you definitely DO NOT lose mass when your burn a paper towel. You still have the exact same matter in the exact same elemental configuration. Some of it has been turned into a gas, but it still exists and the total mass has been conserved. Classic physics says you can neither create nor destroy matter or energy. Einstein modified it to say that nuclear reactions could convert from one to another and provided the equation for it. He also proved that space and time where not separate and that gravity effected both, but that's not what we're discussing.
So yeah go troll elsewhere.
Huh. This thread is still going on.
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Shiva.Nikolce said: »
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
So I've done further research into what they've done .
and it takes a gallon of water to make a gallon of fuel....
so now your argument is "don't worry, we have plenty"
>.>
For one, the water itself is hardly being touched. For two, even if it was, the process of combustion of hydrocarbons creates water. For three, water is neither a limited nor scarce resource. Some water molecules might have been bouncing around unadulterated for 65,000,000 years, but most of them have been through multiple billions of chemical reactions changing them into other molecules and back again.
Seriously, this is ***they teach 15-year-olds.
Not only that, but even if the reaction didn't create water, according to one source I found there are an estimated 343,423,668,428,484,681,262 gallons of water in the ocean. Do you have any idea how long it would take us to use that up? According to another estimate based on how much gas the world uses in a day, it would take over 1 billion years.
If you would go back and read what I wrote and not what someone else is trying to say that I wrote, I said exactly that. And prior to Einstein there wasn't any understanding of nuclear reactions. Classic physics said they couldn't happen and treated matter and energy as two distinctly separate components of the universe. Einstein unified them as an expression of the same component (Mass-Energy). That concept is very important when dealing extremely large or extremely small amounts of either.
And yes in a nuclear reaction matter is destroyed and converted into it's ME equivalent of energy.
eslim said: »
If (hypothetically speaking) earth were to lose it's ozone layer, would water evaporate into space or would earth's gravitational force keep it from escaping our planet? Since water has an electric current I'd assume the water wouldn't travel that far out?
Not sure what you mean about an electric current. Water has an assymetrical structure that makes it magnetically interesting, but H2O doesn't generate electricity.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.