Margarita Ma Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 Wot no sense of humour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 One factor not taken into account is that the panels reflect more heat energy than the ground/roof they replace. Therefore cooling the Earth down and warming the Sun up. The consequences of warming the Sun up could be disastrous. Well, the effect of the Sun on the Mirror has been disastrous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 Well, the effect of the Sun on the Mirror has been disastrous! As it has been on our Star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarniwoop Posted August 28, 2018 Share Posted August 28, 2018 One factor not taken into account is that the panels reflect more heat energy than the ground/roof they replace. Therefore cooling the Earth down and warming the Sun up. The consequences of warming the Sun up could be disastrous. I'm sorry but that is utter rubbish, heat reflected from solar panels does not heat up the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 29, 2018 Share Posted August 29, 2018 I'm sorry but that is utter rubbish, heat reflected from solar panels does not heat up the sun. Whooooosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fill Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 No, we can't build cars that run on water or CO2. They are the waste products of a chemical reaction which produced energy to drive the car; they don't contain any useful energy themselves. well that is one of the most absurd replies i've ever read. i do appreciate replies to any of my posts but only by those asking questions or alternatively thos offering suggstions that come from an INFORMED position please. wild an inaccurate speculation like the above is not welcome i think we all except those whose ability to understanding is challenged know that oxygen is used whenever we burn things and that we can burn Carbon. but for the lesser witted i also include this a simple internet search with would you believe the first result Q. Can we burn Carbon? A.Carbon is most often is present in incompletely burned ashes. Carbon itself burns, combining with oxygen to make CO2 (and sometimes carbon monoxide). https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1548 SO in theory it is possible to burn carbon dioxide and more easily so if we first split the carbon and oxygen atoms from the co2 molocule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 SO in theory it is possible to burn carbon dioxide and more easily so if we first split the carbon and oxygen atoms from the co2 molocule. How do you burn CO2? I mean without using energy to split it first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_the_m Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 well that is one of the most absurd replies i've ever read. i do appreciate replies to any of my posts but only by those asking questions or alternatively thos offering suggstions that come from an INFORMED position please. wild an inaccurate speculation like the above is not welcome. I have A-levels in both physics and chemistry, so I come from an informed position. A normal combustion cycle - such as that occurring in a car engine - takes carbon compounds such as CxHy (for various numerical values of x and y) and atmospheric oxygen, O2, and rearrange the atoms into a less energetic arrangement, namely CO2 and H2O. The excess energy is given off as heat, which is converted by the engine into mechanical motion. Given CO2 and H2O as starting points, there is no excess energy which can be extracted by a further rearrangement of those atoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fill Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 I have A-levels in both physics and chemistry, so I come from an informed position. A normal combustion cycle - such as that occurring in a car engine - takes carbon compounds such as CxHy (for various numerical values of x and y) and atmospheric oxygen, O2, and rearrange the atoms into a less energetic arrangement, namely CO2 and H2O. The excess energy is given off as heat, which is converted by the engine into mechanical motion. Given CO2 and H2O as starting points, there is no excess energy which can be extracted by a further rearrangement of those atoms. I find it incredulous that you claim you have those qualifications then use the alleged possession of them to justify not understanding that carbon can be burned in oxygen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads36 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 (edited) except that's not what he said. splitting CO2 into carbon and oxygen would require more energy than could be recovered by combustion. no excess energy which can be extracted Edited September 3, 2018 by ads36 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now