Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 14-11-2016, 01:30 PM
julianh72 (Julian)
Registered User

julianh72 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
I doubt that very much given that his calculation for the energy to lift 28 Gl of water is based on the formula for gravitational potential energy
PE= mgh.
I'm pretty sure he had the same idea in mind with rain drops otherwise changing the subject from rest mass energy to gravitational potential energy midstream in a thread seems quite unusual to me.

But then again what do I know....
Eratosthenes' first post was simply a claim about the amount of energy in a single raindrop, with no other context:
...and yet a single rain drop at rest can potentially unleash about 9,000,000,000,000 Joules in energy

I took it as self-evident that this referred to the potential fusion energy, as this is a totally unfeasible amount of kinetic or gravitational potential energy for a single raindrop. (But my later "back-of-the-envelope" calculation suggests a more credible figure is actually about 9 GJ not 9 TJ.)

I then made the comment that the useful stored energy of 18 TJ in the Wivenhoe Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme is "about the same" as Eratosthenes' figure for a single raindrop - and yes, the stored energy of Wivenhoe pumped storage is simply the gravitational potential energy of 28 GL of water sitting 100 metres higher than the main dam reservoir.

However, it seems that it would actually take the fusion of the hydrogen in about 1,000 raindrops to liberate the same amount of energy - so it's actually a one-shot espresso cupful (50 mL), rather than a single raindrop ....

Even with these "back-of-the-envelope" figures, it's pretty obvious why nuclear fusion of hydrogen is such an attractive source of energy for the future.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 14-11-2016, 04:30 PM
sjastro's Avatar
sjastro
Registered User

sjastro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by julianh72 View Post
Eratosthenes' first post was simply a claim about the amount of energy in a single raindrop, with no other context:
...and yet a single rain drop at rest can potentially unleash about 9,000,000,000,000 Joules in energy

I took it as self-evident that this referred to the potential fusion energy, as this is a totally unfeasible amount of kinetic or gravitational potential energy for a single raindrop. (But my later "back-of-the-envelope" calculation suggests a more credible figure is actually about 9 GJ not 9 TJ.)

I then made the comment that the useful stored energy of 18 TJ in the Wivenhoe Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme is "about the same" as Eratosthenes' figure for a single raindrop - and yes, the stored energy of Wivenhoe pumped storage is simply the gravitational potential energy of 28 GL of water sitting 100 metres higher than the main dam reservoir.

However, it seems that it would actually take the fusion of the hydrogen in about 1,000 raindrops to liberate the same amount of energy - so it's actually a one-shot espresso cupful (50 mL), rather than a single raindrop ....

Even with these "back-of-the-envelope" figures, it's pretty obvious why nuclear fusion of hydrogen is such an attractive source of energy for the future.
If you believe that is what he meant I respect your decision.

On a different subject your own calculations are wrong.
It looks as if all you have done is to take p-p reaction mechanism for solar fusion and simply assumed it applies here on Earth.
It's not that simple.
A parameter used in nuclear physics is the scattering cross section for fusion which is the probability that two colliding nuclei will undergo fusion.
This depends on conditions such as temperature, pressure and density.
The fact is that none of these conditions can be replicated on Earth so your figure of 0.7% conversion is rather fanciful.

Secondly the source of the protons are from your rain drops, so it has no relevance to the p-p chain mechanism.
You need to use energy to completely ionize the water in order to minimize the Coulomb barrier, then there is the complication of how the Coulomb barrier from O nuclei will effect the scattering cross section of the protons.

Do you know, does anyone know?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14-11-2016, 05:21 PM
julianh72 (Julian)
Registered User

julianh72 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Kelvin Grove
Posts: 1,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro View Post
Do you know, does anyone know?
Well, according to the pundits, we're "about 20 to 50 years" from cracking the problem of commercial nuclear fusion as a viable energy source. (Of course, we've been "about 20 to 50 years" away for at least the last 50 years!)

EuroFusion reckons that they are on track for a commercial demonstration multi-hundred megawatt grid-connected fusion reactor by about 2050 - we'll just have to wait and see if they accomplish that goal!
https://www.euro-fusion.org/programme/

Even allowing for the enormous "parasitic losses" required to create the temperatures and pressures required to sustain the plasma, pump the coolants, etc, such a plant would only need to "burn" a few grams of hydrogen per hour for a net usable energy output of say 1000 MW.

Last edited by julianh72; 14-11-2016 at 05:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 15-11-2016, 12:29 AM
Eratosthenes's Avatar
Eratosthenes (Peter)
Trivial High Priest

Eratosthenes is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
....this morning it was raining quite heavily....I am not clear as to how many raindrops there were in total, but there seemed to be quite a few of them coming down at very similar angles and velocities
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 15-11-2016, 03:13 AM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
interesting paper on grid stabilisation http://link.springer.com/article/10....565-015-0143-x

hadn't clicked that wind turbines can have a stabilising potential through both the rotor inertia and possibly by keeping a reserve of extra wind power available through the use of conservative blade pitch settings. this requires AC/DC/AC, but it seems that is common these days.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement