Non Footy Chat Thread II

[I'm a loser baby...]

He's literally been asking the whole time where the "extra" energy comes from.

Personally I think he's had too much chemical energy...

There is no extra energy.

There is only extra conversion of energy.

No different from having two water falls and two paddle wheels.

Anyways it's all actually solar powered because water won't go uphill by it's self.

But one waterfall is producing twice as much electrical energy, yet the water in both waterfalls has the same energy after it has exited the bottom wheel. No?

And I've only had a couple of codral and a few beers.

 

[Bazal]

But one waterfall is producing twice as much electrical energy, yet the water in both waterfalls has the same energy after it has exited the bottom wheel. No?

And I've only had a couple of codral and a few beers.

It's only producing more because you have added an extra way of converting the energy.

If you have one fishing rod in a river on one side of an island, and two on the other, does catching more on the side with two mean you are creating extra fish?

 

[Gary Gutful]

there will be environmental damage as a by product of their mining, there will be pollution of the water supply as they need lots of water for coal mining and it finds its way via the river systems to the reef, not to mention the increased shipping required to transport the coal

there is already damage to the reef from past mining, as much as the EPA monitor it, it still gets polluted

I get some of what you are saying but the reef linkage is really tenuous. In fact a lot of what you are suggesting re: the GBR is horribly misguided.

Read about Reef VTS. It's a world leading shipping system that is streets ahead of what happens in other parts of the world. It is incredibly well managed and the risk associated with ships is very low.

Read the Independent Science Panel's recommendations on the GBR. While you are at it, read the GBR outlook report. These reports will highlight the key threats to the GBR. You won't find the ones that you are listing anywhere in those reports.

Don't believe everything you get told by greenies with an agenda. Yes, mining undoubtedly has environmental impacts but some of the absolute horseshit that I have seen being asserted about mining and the GBR is unbelievable.

I understand why people put that shit out there. What I don't understand is why others don't even bother to check it.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

It's only producing more because you have added an extra way of converting the energy.

If you have one fishing rod in a river on one side of an island, and two on the other, does catching more on the side with two mean you are creating extra fish?

No because there are less fish on the side with two rods after you've caught them. But the water after the paddle wheels is identical.

 

[Bazal]

No because there are less fish on the side with two rods after you've caught them. But the water after the paddle wheels is identical.

Well if you want to get really technical there's less water after the paddles too, given that the force of hitting the paddles ejects water from the main flow.

The principle is the same. You catch more fish (in the hypothetical world) because you have two hooks. You only have twice as much energy because you have twice as many ways of converting it.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Oi @Bazal and @I'm a loser baby...

Knock it off you pair of f**ken poindexters!

 

[Bazal]

Oi @Bazal and @I'm a loser baby...

Knock it off you pair of f**ken poindexters!

View attachment 15527

Nah cos then I gotta do uni work and I'd rather not

Anyway he's not a poindexter he can't even understand primary school physics ffs

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Well if you want to get really technical there's less water after the paddles too, given that the force of hitting the paddles ejects water from the main flow.

The principle is the same. You catch more fish (in the hypothetical world) because you have two hooks. You only have twice as much energy because you have twice as many ways of converting it.

But let's assume no water is lost and it could all be redirected as it was before the wheel. What energy has the water lost? It would have the same effect on the bottom wheel as the second waterfall.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Nah cos then I gotta do uni work and I'd rather not

Anyway he's not a poindexter he can't even understand primary school physics ffs

Yeah, I have a feeling he is stringing you along just for shits and giggles.

 

[Bazal]

But let's assume no water is lost and it could all be redirected as it was before the wheel. What energy has the water lost? It would have the same effect on the bottom wheel as the second waterfall.

It's lost no energy, that's the point. It's just been converted more times.

 

[Bazal]

Yeah, I have a feeling he is stringing you along just for shits and giggles.

OMG really?

I have a feeling we're both having a bit of an empty discussion, tbh.

But I'm not far from 50k posts!

 

[Gary Gutful]

OMG really?

I have a feeling we're both having a bit of an empty discussion, tbh.

But I'm not far from 50k posts!

I hope for his sake he is.

No-one could possibly be that stupid.

 

[Bazal]

I hope for his sake he is.

No-one could possibly be that stupid.

Maybe he caught it from that Forrest Gimp fellow?

 

[Gary Gutful]

So @Bazal what if it wasn't water but instead it was Pepsi Max?

 

[Bazal]

So @Bazal what if it wasn't water but instead it was Pepsi Max?

It would get flat

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

It's lost no energy, that's the point. It's just been converted more times.

How do you convert the energy in the water to electrical energy and yet the water continues to have the same energy?

I'm actually serious.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I hope for his sake he is.

No-one could possibly be that stupid.

Yes they could.

 

[Bazal]

How do you convert the energy in the water to electrical energy and yet the water continues to have the same energy?

I'm actually serious.

Well because the electrical energy comes from the turbine not the water. The turbine converts the kinetic energy into electricity, all the water does is turn the turbine.

If you haven't got a turbine, all you have is water turning a paddle. Maybe a sweet ride.

 

[Bandwagon]

But one waterfall is producing twice as much electrical energy, yet the water in both waterfalls has the same energy after it has exited the bottom wheel. No?

And I've only had a couple of codral and a few beers.

The water will accelerate with gravity until such time as it reaches terminal velocity, terminal velocity is reached when the energy imparted by gravity is offset by the conversion of kinetic energy to heat energy via friction, and the transference of kinetic energy to the air

So, by having two wheels, you simply convert more energy into electricity than is converted to heat and or or transferred into kinetic energy in other matter.

Or there is this...........

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Well because the electrical energy comes from the turbine not the water. The turbine converts the kinetic energy into electricity, all the water does is turn the turbine.

If you haven't got a turbine, all you have is water turning a paddle. Maybe a sweet ride.

The water will accelerate with gravity until such time as it reaches terminal velocity, terminal velocity is reached when the energy imparted by gravity is offset by the conversion of kinetic energy to heat energy via friction, and the transference of kinetic energy to the air

So, by having two wheels, you simply convert more energy into electricity than is converted to heat and or or transferred into kinetic energy in other matter.

Or there is this...........

Yes so what is actually happening is that gravity is providing the energy? So ultimately the water's energy is not being converted, gravity's is. And this doesn't affect gravity?