Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum free energy in the gulf of mexico

good news for all of you who enjoy a good shrimp barbeque

if you are fortunate enough to be able to buy gulf shrimp
you will soon be able to just toss these self ignighting shrimp into the barbeque grill , as the oil companies have found a way to produce shrimp that have a generous coating of crude oil marinated into the shrimp before the shrimpers catch them.

this means that no longer will you need to purhase charlcoal for your barbeque !!!

now unlike monsanto the oil companies will not be charging extra for their free oil coating that the shrimp bathe in , and
it is rumored that the free fish and sea life that will soon be available on the beaches and in the gulf and on the beaches of western florida will also be free of any type of cost to the general public these will also fry up in a barbeque and will be free for the picking!!!

in these hard economic times free fish ready to fry that comes packaged in its own cooking oil is not a bad deal , you just cant beat it.

and the greatest outflow of generosity will be evident as the currents deliver these free fish to the beaches along the east coast of the united states.

so blessed

it doesnt seem as though they are going to shut down the free energy that they are dumping into the gulf at a rate of apx 200,000 gallons of crude a day but you better hurry because fish and sea life eat dead fish and sea life also.

the one thing that I couldnt believe was that the oil companies now must admit that free energy is a fact.

they are proving it every second.
and every day it cost them millions.
of course they can handle the cleanup cost simply by
increasing the cost of their barbeque sauce.

Update:

this just in , the above 200,000 gallons was based on old news and facts and data and such , it is now being reported that the volume of free energy being dumped into the gulf is 5000 barrels a day , there are 42 gallons of crude in a barrel of crude.

so its 210,000 gallons a day.

GREAT NEWS !!! thanks oil companies.

Free alright. But free energy is old news. BP has been promoting free energy for years. They even changed their logo to look like the sun - representing the source of this free energy.

Of course free from $ isn't the same as free from energy input, which isn't the same as free software, which isn't the same as free love. Hehe well it is for some people :P

LOL

I dont call using a energy source that is the reason of
such great cost a free energy source.

pollution
climate change
wars

not to mention the dumming down of intelectuals for the
purpose of continuing its use.

no way , its not free when you use it.
and for decades after you use it it will cost you.

and the fake green image that BP advertises probably only
represents less than 1% of their energy sources.

they should have a single tiny green dot on their logo that
would truthfully represent their green impact on the world.

and the rest should be in blood red and smutt colored

the earth and the people of the earth have been paying dearly
for decades for the oil itself , and the results of using that oil.

finaly heres something we can do to show our appreciation.

SUE THEIR PANTS OFF

Dunno about you, but I haven't been paying dearly for oil. It's cheaper than food. The environment? Really? Where? Sure there's predictions of problems in the future, but for now everything's very fine.

Not only that, but the predicted future problems of climate change are quite manageable, they're bad, but not the end of the world.

Estimated global cost of climate change, last I heard, was $4 trillion over the next hundred years. So what? How much was the American bank bailout?

Believe it or not, we actually do have the proven capacity to move cities, build seawalls, and install air conditioners, all on large scales. Much better than sacraficing all the progress we've made because of oil.

The central business district of my city is built on what used to be sea. They created a huge area of new land just to put buildings and streets on.

UPDATE:

the cofferdam as they call it that they placed over the oil
leak in the gulf ... did not work.

now they are thinking of pumping golf balls and tire shards into the cofferdamm to try to stop the leak.

my obvious question is why didnt they put a valve
on the top of the cofferdamm when they built it?

the leak could have been stopped last friday when it was
installed.

why do I ask such a stupid question when I already know the stupid answer , they wanted to be able to pump oil out through the cofferdamm.

thats really all they were concerned with , otherwise they would have installed a valve that could have been shut off
when their plan failed.

what they should have done is install a valve to close the flow of oil , this would solidify the crude due to the temperatures , then they could place a larger cofferdamm over the first one and then pump concrete into it.


problem solved , but lets see if they really want to solve this problem , not olny would this solve the leak problem
but they could then pump the oil out if they choose.

The funniest thing is all this oil it totally natural. It's organic, it's recycled, and it's being forced out of the ground by natural pressure. It's actually nature causing all the trouble. Lucky they're releasing it now instead of leaving those time-bombs ready to burst open on unsuspecting future generations!!

well you betcha it is , why Im sure that BP didnt even have to
drill holes in the sea floor.

they just park their big oil rig over the top of the oil
and put a pipe into the ocean and let nature do the rest.

and your right this oil has been down there just laying around
for millions of years waiting for a oil platform to park above it
so it could spew oil out like a spore.

amazing how inteligent oil actually is.

better than a magic carpet , its magic oil.



you know I cant figure out why there is so much pressure
building up inside the earth , its like something is heating up the earths inerds more and more.

certainly this couldnt be global warming so what else could
it be?

could it be the removal of oil and replacement with water?

water absorbes heat faster than oil , but it doesnt hold heat as long as oil does.

the ground absorbs heat faster than oil but it doesnt
hold heat as long as oil does.

oil holds heat longer than water or the earth.

so by removing the oil you are removing a natural heat sink
that provides heat durring cold seasons.

this could cause sea life to die off in the gulf.

because in winter months the sea life would rely on warmth rising up from the oil below.

Nothing to figure out. Pressure's not building up. Nor is it heating up, heat is generated inside by radioactive decay and released at the same or higher rate through the surface.


If the effect was significant at all, it'd be the opposite. Water conducts heat better than oil so there'd be hot spots above where water was put in. The animals can just swim a little deeper to get back to their preferred temperature.

It's easy to imagine damage to the environment because of human activity, but often good things happen too. I'd expect higher temperatures would increase sea life.

radioactive decay , why would you say that?

have you or anybody else sent a probe to the earths core to
measure its radioactivity?

can you prove that?
or is it just some other theory you have read in some
book by someone else.

it makes much more sense to describe the earths heat
by using pressure and friction.

because the earths inner core spins faster than the earth , still does I hope , and to claim that the earths heat is due only to or mostly because of radioactve decay and not the heat generated from friction tells me that you also know of a planet or moon that has a inner core rotation speed as fast as its planet or moon that also generates large amounts of heat via radioactive decay.

can you show me an example of this?

if you are saying that radioactive decay is the result of pressures and friction and the accompanying temperatures then that use is ok I suppose.

heres a example , the pressure and friction
of the earths outer core against the inner core is like the armature of a electric motor , electrical current flows through the magnetic field which turns the inner core faster than the outer core and the rest of the earth.

the earths inner core


anyway , theres still nothing natural about a oil spill due to some company drilling holes in the ocean floor.

Sorry, it's just some theory that I read in some book by someone else.

I don't know where you got all these crazy ideas about rotation, pressure, friction, magnetic fields and electric currents. Not from a book I hope. Inner core? What's that? Have you sent a probe down there and detected an 'inner core'? Why should there be any kind of core at all. The Earth's obviously flat. I've never seen a round Earth with a core, except in books.

Yea I know the spilling of the oil isn't natural. I was just trying to see it from another point of view.


That's the one use that isn't OK! There isn't a thermonuclear reactor going on down there.

yea I got that crazy stuff from physics books.
sorry.



the solid part of the core.



not me but the link I provided above tells of some who have
probed the core and found that the data gathered shows that the inner core spins faster that the outer core and the remaining earth.



how do you know?

we dont know whats under the inner cores shell.
there could be a tiny sun there.

Sorry but the internet isn't more reliable than books. Still doesn't count.



We know there's an inner core, and we know it's solid iron, but we don't know what's inside it? Curiously inconsistent set of knowledge we have. I wonder how scientists manage to study these things when they have to discard any information that an armchair obvserver doesn't like, and have to allow the possibility of things that would be impossible according to other people's research.

yes , it counts , it is data gathered & observed by a team
of scientist over years.

that is scientific , the theories in books are theories.
it counts more than books.

to scientist that is.



no we only know it has a solid shell.
a solid shell that seismic waves do not penetrate.

just like the earths crust is a solid shell , mostly.
yet underneath the earths crust there is liquid rock or magma.

underneath the inner cores shell there may be another metal in a liquid form.

or there might be a small sun.
which would explain the magnetic fields of the earth.

we dont know.

Any experiment depends on theories.

Theories come from other experiments.

How do we know how seismic waves should behave in the earth? Only from theories. Maybe the whole inside of the earth is solid but has tubes of different substances connecting all the locations of earthquakes to other parts of the world. Or maybe earthquakes occur at just the right magnitude and time around the globe to give the illusion of waves travelling through the earth. Oh well, we have to accept even the most complicated and unlikely possibilites so we'll never have any idea. Better burn all the geophysics books and throw our hands in the air.

If you're going to say a theory might be wrong, you have to explain how the experiments that led to it could have been wrong. Or show a fault in the logic. It's meaningless to just randomly say "any theory could be wrong". Sure it could, and there could also be invisible flying monkeys living on the moon. The whole point of science is to eliminate the infinite number of wild speculations and find out with more certainty what's most likely to be happening in nature.

If there was a sun inside the earth either the earth would be heating up, or all the heat generated by the mini sun would have to exit through the earth's surface. Evidence suggests the earth is cooling, so if we assume it's not heating up, then since we have a tiny upper limit on the rate of heat flowing out of the earth, we also have an upper limit on the rate of heat generated by the internal sun. But all that depends on theories of heat flow so I suppose it's invalid.

Or you could use theories of how nuclear fusion and gravity work and require a mass of 13 times that of Jupiter to cause sustained gravitationally confined fusion of deuterium - the easiest element to fuse.

So which theories are we going to throw out the window? And is there any reason to do so? If not then it isn't science and has no place in this forum.

I think the point I'm trying to get at is you seem to be accepting every theory that you personally understand, and doubting every theory that you don't have a clear grasp on. That's a little bit arrogant.

you arrogantly stated that radioactive decay was the reason that
heat is generated inside the earth , all I did was point to
some data a few scientist happened to find after years of work.

I would much rather believe data than theory as theory
in this case has nothing to back it up.



if someone had a theory that flying monkeys were on the moon
and someone else was taking pictures of them with a telescope
which person would believe?

the one with the theory or the one looking through the telescope taking pictures.

as you could see the monkeys yourself with the pictures / data.

or you could read the theory and wonder if the theory is correct.

Actually the spinning core theory is just a theory too. Sure it's based on some indirect analysis of observations, but all theories are like that.

"The change in the waves' speed showed that the fast axis was in motion relative to the Earth, proving that the core is spinning faster than the Earth, they said."

Wow. Who would have thought that changing wave speeds proves it's rotating. What a big leap of faith. See how indirectly they measured it? Their conclusion depends on all sorts of assumptions being correct. Most likely they are, just as the assumptions leading to the radioactivity theory are probably correct too.

Then you took a further leap of faith to suggest that this motion was responsible for the Earth cooling slower than expected or perhaps heating up. That violates thermodynamics which is based on a huge volume of experimental data. It would be a perpetual motion machine generating heat from nothing but its own magnetic fields, electric currents and friction.

If someone had a theory that flying monkeys were on the moon, of course I wouldn't give them the time of day unless they also had experimental evidence to support it. Maybe not their own experiments, maybe a new analysis of existing results. But if someone took photos of them, I'd be equally critical. Of course photos can be faked.

I think if you look up the radioactive decay theory, you'll find it's very palatable. There's no wild assumptions there. In fact why do you even doubt it? We find decaying atoms on Earth all the time. We know that generates heat. What's the problem?

That's the power of theoretical work. There's no need to wonder, you can just work through their calculations yourself without having to trust anybody else's word.

wrong again kallog
I said it was responsible for the earths heat.
not its cooling or heating up.
ie... not a decrease or increase in temperature.

that will come after the ice melts.
sorry.



wrong again kallog
its the speed of waves that pass slower through the inner core.
but its the "fast axis" that shows it rotates faster.

--------------------
The core's "fast axis" would emerge at an imaginary point on Earth's surface up to 10 degrees from the north pole, where the spin axis would emerge.

The Earth and the core are rotating on the same spin axis, but because the inner core rotates just a bit faster than the planet as a whole, the "fast axis" through the core moves eastward. Over the years, it traces a circular path around the north pole and moves to different positions relative to the Earth's mantle and crust. This basic feature allowed the Lamont scientists to make their discovery.

----------------------

yes it spins faster , and their theory holds more water than
the radioactive decay theory.