Re: for the close of all fission nuclear reactor in the world


"Terence" <tbwright@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8e501979-e2d0-42c1-adfe-df9822734ad9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More answers:
Lightning is a by-product of a voltage differences between clouds and
Earth, caused by wind, itself caused by solar heating. If lightning
occurs, you get light and some photon loss to space, plus heat and
sound.
....
caused by wind

Driven by wind, but caused by friction...

The charge buildup is caused by friction between small and large ice
particles - although the particles are driven by wind... I couldn't locate
the article which stated it was friction between differently sized ice
particles, but I located another article claiming the friction is between
ice and water particles...:

From "Lightning Strikes High in the Clouds", by Kelly Malcolm
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2000/09/clouds908.html

"Ordinary lightning occurs when the friction of ice and water particles
bumping into each other build up negative charge at the bottom of a cloud,
creating an unstable electric field. The air between the cloud and ground
then breaks down, creating a path of electric current,"
Steven Cummer, Duke assistant professor in electrical engineering

If you USE the electricity you will get the same heat eventually, but
can do useful work first; if some of that also produces light or
sound, well, we'll get some more photon loss to space
You have to distinguish between what is available energy which will
end up as heat if not used zero net loss) and energy taken from the
system and never given back, like using tidal energy on a large scale.

Yes, let's say that the huge volume of electrons dumped into the Earth via
lightning are contributing to the magnetic field of the Earth, perhaps
because the some of the electricity eventually flows through a high
temperature molten conductor (Earth's outer core) as it is freezing onto a
magnet (Earth's inner core) due to high pressures perhaps from gravity while
also becoming superconducting, e.g., part of a geodynamo. I.e., if we
divert the electrons from this process for work, the net effect on the Earth
is not zero, nor is it heat related... and it'd be dangerous, if the
diversion of electrical energy to human uses causes a pole-flip. Since no
one knows what is generating the "heat" for the Earth's geodynamo, it could
be solar, wind, water currents, lightning, gravitational forces, etc.

If you shoot mass at the Moon directly you get action and reaction at
both bodies and increase in major orbital axis; but use back-of earth
to back of moon trajectories and you get the reverse. And you can
speed up or slow down the Moon with two other choices; it's workable
even for a purist.

So, now you not only still suggest the prohibitively expensive proposition
of sending the waste to the moon and onto the sun, instead of dumping it
encased in glass and steel into a paid for hole in the desert, but you also
suggest building multiple retrieval sites on the moon just to balance out
the forces of getting the product there? ROFL... Sorry to say this, but I
think the "high-energy physicist" needs a class in practical reality and
econ. 101... because this solution sounds like "job preservation." Hey US
Gov't., NASA wants $2.24 Trillion to get rid of our nuclear waste... I'll
get rid of your nuclear waste for $500 Billion. Now, I just need to find
some Italians who will dump the waste somewhere for only a $1 Billion. ;-)


Rod Pemberton

.

Relevant Pages