h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
| |
That is an excellent idea. The vast amounts of heat coming from the cooling units can presumably be used to .. ah, to...? |
|
| |
[MB] The vast amounts of heat coming from the
cooling
units can be cooled with another set of even vaster
cooling units, obviously.
I assume that the
windmills, through some gearbox mechanism, directly
and mechanically drive the refrigerant pumps of the
cooling systems (rather than converting wind to
electricity and using this to drive refrigeration
systems) to minimise the generation of 'waste'
heat. |
|
| |
Given the very high winds in these areas, and the
theoretical suitability of wind energy for energy production,
I doubt very much that excess heat from refrigeration
should be a problem. |
|
| |
But perhaps the excess heat can be used to heat the
maintenance crew's cabin :) |
|
| |
//I doubt very much that excess heat from refrigeration should be a problem// The thermodynamic point was that for every tonne of ice you make, you generate at least enough heat to melt another tonne of ice. And that's the best-case scenario, if your entire system has 100% efficiency. |
|
| |
As a simple proof of concept, try leaving your freezer door open overnight. |
|
| |
//Heat pumps generally have 300% efficiency in thermodynamic terms.// |
|
| |
Yes, you're right. But what I meant (as opposed to what I may have said, which is often unreliable) is that _because_ they are heat pumps, all the heat that you pump out of the water to freeze it, will have to go somewhere else. |
|
| |
If your heat pump has an efficiency of 300%, then if you freeze 3 tons of water, you will generate enough heat to melt (I think) 4 tons of ice. If your heat pump had an efficiency of Infinite%, then freezing 3 tons of water would still generate enough heat to melt 3 tons of ice. |
|
| |
In other words, all the heat you take out of the water to melt it, has to go somewhere - in addition to the heat generated by the system itself. |
|
| |
radiative, right into the 4 Kelvin of the night sky. |
|
| |
Why can't you use radiative cooling? |
|
| |
[MB] has me half convinced that I could set this up to melt
the ice :) |
|
| |
High-efficiency lasers or masers. When there's no cloud cover, eject the energy directly into space. |
|
| |
If that's the case, then just use the windmills to spray water into the air. |
|
| |
You all seem very confused. The windmills drive //cooling units// not heating units. Really it's quite simple. |
|
| |
Ah yes. That, then, is why the back of a freezer always feels cold, from all the coolth that leaks out. |
|
| |
[pocmloc], a "cooling unit" is a heat pump; it moves the heat from one place to another. The "300% efficient" is a relative measure, based on comparing what a heat pump is capable of (as a heater) with what power it would use if it was just a (100% efficient) heater.
Because the cooling unit is moving heat away from the water (to freeze it), that heat needs to go somewhere. THAT is the problem. |
|
| |
There is (I believe, from my tenuous grasp of dermothynamics) that you can never make coolth. You can move it around, but only at the expense of making hotth. This may, however, be fake news. |
|
| |
It is. Black holes can absorb more energy than they radiate. |
|
| |
Put Bugs Bunny's portable Black Hole directly over/behind/near the heat produced as the big DQ fan cools the poles. |
|
| |
The back of my freezer always feels cold (on the inside at least) |
|
| |
[Max] //you can never make coolth// I thought you had
a demon who could do this? |
|
| |
Comets from outside our bomb calirometer? A slow acquisition of ice cubes for this long tall drink we call Earth. |
|
| |
//Comets from outside our bomb calirometer?// Notwithstanding that you generally don't make something cooler by adding loads of superheated steam, I fail to see what octopi have to do with it. |
|
| |
Comets are, supposedly, made of ice. If their kinetic energy is less than the total coolth of the ice, they would increase the net coolth of the planet. |
|
| |
Would this be the case? According to the OnLine, comets are typically moving at tens of miles per second. Let's be conservative and assume about 50,000 m/s. |
|
| |
Given that both KE and coolth will scale with mass, it doesn't matter what mass we assume for the comet, so let's put it at 1kg. In that case, its KE will be about 1GJ. |
|
| |
In contrast, the energy needed to melt 1kg of ice is only about 300kJ, and the energy needed to boil that 1kg of water is about 2500kJ. So, the kinetic energy in even a fairly slow comet is way, way more than enough to melt it, boil it, and superduper-heat the steam. |
|
| |
Comets, therefore, will not cool the Earth. They will actually make it a bit hotter. |
|
| |
Shoot a laser with it at a collector in space to
charge a satellite battery. |
|
| |
Enough of this pseudo-science, everyone knows cold objects just have a preponderance of negative-charged phlogiston particles. |
|
| |
"... scientists have hatched a crazy plan to 'refreeze' the Arctic, by installing some 10 million wind-powered pumps over the ice cap to spray sea water over the surface and replenish the sea ice.....lead researcher and Arizona State University physicist, Steven Desch, told The Guardian.! |
|
| |
Hmm.....theircompetitor, you did patent this, didn't you? |
|
| |
gtfo, [not_m] unbelievable :) |
|
| |
// pointing your heat into the blackness of the universe but its going to hit the atmosphere first// |
|
| |
Not if the heat is sufficiently concentrated |
|
| |
"Heat pumps generally have 300% efficiency in
thermodynamic terms" |
|
| |
Use the perimeter of the arctic circle where there is
water, and it is almost cold enough to glaciate. |
|
| |
Use a heat pump or some other refrigerator to make ice
at the surface causing the arctic ice to spread to warmer
ocean areas. |
|
| |
Walk from Alaska to Russia with ease. |
|
| |
//The vast amounts of heat coming from the cooling units
can be cooled with another set of even vaster cooling units,
obviously.// |
|
| |
My father always cautioned me: "Don't start vast projects
with half-vast plans." |
|
| |
// pointing your heat into the blackness of the universe but
its going to hit the atmosphere first// |
|
| |
Not if the heat is sufficiently concentrated// |
|
| |
Or really high up. Being near Vostok station will get you
above about 50% of the atmosphere. Then you just need to
build a ~10km Ice pyramid <link> to get you above the rest. |
|
| |
//the heat// //it, has to go somewhere// //It's all very
well pointing your heat into the blackness of
the universe but its going to hit the atmosphere first//
//you can never make coolth. You can move it around// |
|
| |
I'm amazed no one appears to have suggested just installing
humongous cooling fins on the equator before now, some
really big ones, straight up through the atmosphere &
into space, the internal maintenance lifts mean they can
double as space elevators. |
|
| |
//Don Quixote Global Cooling// |
|
| |
Even more surprised some never appear to connect the
essential fruitless nature (due to conservation of energy) of
the proposal with its title? |
|
| |
Or am I giving [TC] too much credit? |
|
| |
Or is everyone up there just really (really) good print actors
& were really (all) being totally ironic? |
|
| |
a bit late in the day perhaps but |
|
| |
//As a simple proof of concept, try leaving your freezer door open overnight. |
|
| |
Well, it did get colder, but that's because I turned it off in November. |
|
| |
Why not just move your planet a bit further from your primary, while still staying in the Goldilocks zone ? |
|
| |
Obviously your calendar would need adjusting, but if you did it right you could just have 12 months with 32 days each, and dispense with leap years. Calculating the new orbit is trivially easy, so we leave it as an exercise for the class. |
|
| |
"What would the mean radius of the Earth-Moon system's solar orbit need to be to give a year of exactly 384 days ?" |
|
| |
If it's still too warm, go for 14 months of 28 days, for a 392-day year. Much neater, and the solar and lunar calendars can then be brought into synchronicity. Naming the new months will be easy, because by public acclaim one of them will doubtless be called Monthy McMonthface ... |
|
| |