I want to hear it.

a reply to: TaninimLong

Try supercritical carbon dioxide.

Suck the CO2 from the atmosphere to help the planet. Turn it supercritical and use to turn a turbine. Sell electricity back down the lines and use some to “crack” CO2 to CO and O2. React CO with H2 and create syngas.

ATS: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My friend, you are stuck in a box. The box of tempus.

It is not always true that the larger the wavelength the lower the energy. That is only the case when you limit yourself to time. Time is just an illusion.

Of course, if your measurement is based on a fixed length of time, low frequencies will result in less energy than high frequencies over the same amount of time. But ask yourself, is it really more energy, or is it just the same amount of energy in a smaller area?

With that said, you've missed the most important part of my post. Resonance.

I am sure you've heard of the kid on a swing analogy. If you push a kid on swing at a random rate you'd likely need to waste more energy trying to keep the kid moving in a manner that would be enjoyable to the kid, and might even push at a point that slows the kid down. Destructive interference.

However, if you push the kid at just the right frequency, it would take less energy to keep the swing in motion with long strides. That would be the resonant frequency.

So let me ask you... what is the most enjoyable part of riding on a swing? In my opinion, its getting the highest you can go at each point, and the amount of acceleration and speed achieved when falling back to the zero position. That kind of enjoyment requires a much lower frequency to obtain, especially if you are trying to push an adult...

The second most important part of my post was regarding octaves. In fact, its the key.

I didn't suggest building a super large antenna, I only said that to explain a concept. In the end its not about the size of the antenna, its about the motions inside the antenna.

Do you see what I am alluding to?

a reply to: TaninimLong

Taninim,

Self sufficiency sounds like only half of the pie you'll have to bake.

The other half is an economic organization that does not reward waste.

Consider: Rush Hour. Why? So bunches of office workers can show up in a common location and have their noses counted by a "boss"? Is there no more efficient way of getting the work done (VPN networks for example), with actual physical meetings of management and workers occurring once a week, or less?

What about the madness of the truck delivery empires that operate in N America and Europe? Does everything really have to be "just in time", or would a few warehouses cut down the "rolling warehouse" truck traffic? What about more delivery between cities using rail, and having trucks only perform delivery of goods to local destinations?

I know this isn't what you asked about, but it is another part of the solution. Current economic organization is wasteful and there may be ways to set up distribution, workplaces, etc. that lower the overall energy requirements.

Cheers

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: Arbitrageur

My friend, you are stuck in a box. The box of tempus.

It is not always true that the larger the wavelength the lower the energy.

I challenge you to show even one single scientifically verified counter-example to support this statement. You cannot, as no counter example has ever been observed to my knowledge. This is the equation which fundamentally relates frequency and energy:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Since the speed of light is always the same according to general relativity, that means the lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength, and thus the lower the energy.

How are frequency and wavelength related?

FREQUENCY OF OSCILLATION x WAVELENGTH = SPEED OF LIGHT

Again you will not be able to find any counter examples since the theory of relativity has been tested many times and experiments are consistent with the theory.

Do you see what I am alluding to?

You lost me at "It is not always true that the larger the wavelength the lower the energy.", because that is always true.

According to general relativity clock rates can vary so time is relative, but when we talk about frequency we are talking about using the applicable clock or passage of time. That is why light entering a gravitational field of say a neutron star can gain energy by getting blueshifted, the frequency of the light leaving the star is redshifted, because time is not constant in the gravitational field gradient, but this is already taken into account in the frequency which is a function of time. This is referred to as Gravitational Red Shift, and even as time varies, so does frequency and the energy of the photon according to the relationships explained.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Interesting!

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Those are very good observations and points. You are very much right, indeed; a more intelligent way to manage the available resource is most paramount, as important as the source itself. One can produce all the green electricity in the world; making good use of that energy should be given as much attention.