• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion

You just said what I said. It's "Ohm's Law."

DC cannot be transmitted over long distances for that reason.

I use higher voltage solar panel (series) connections to save on copper wire even for runs of just dozens of FEET.
That is not exactly true. It can be transmitted, and there are countries in Europe that are experimenting with it. The higher the current though, the greater the power loss. Indeed when you daisy chain the panels, each panel increases the voltage drop, assuming they are all properly polarized. In AC, when the power reaches substations, the voltage is reduced because the windings on the source are greater than the windings output, IIRC, but the current also is increased in the process. The same thing happens at the transformer outside your home. Larger offices and industrial sites have their own transformers to get the right voltage levels for the equipment they are running. I don't believe they are using copper on high voltage power lines though!

The main issue with DC, is that getting the voltage to such a high level, is not possible through windings on a transformer. They have to daisy chain the DC voltage generators, much like you are doing with your solar panels. The other issue with DC voltage, is that the infrastructure in place has already been dedicated to AC power, as are virtually all existing appliances and equipment. Mobile devices OTOH are all DC based, and computers have to transform the power from AC to DC. Large appliances such as washers, dryers and AC units in addition to industrial equipment runs best on AC power because of the high voltage/current that they require and the fact that AC motors cannot switch the magnetism in the coils without some clock driven or brush driven circuitry, and there are rather large thyristors and other semiconductors involved in the switching to enable this to perform the switching with higher breakdown voltages. Brushless motors are used in server fans and computers, because they do not generate ozone, and because they last longer, whereas brushed motors appear in toys such as RC cars, which will likely get much less use than an every day appliance.

The main point I was making initially, was the Edison was right about the dangers of AC, because of the myriads of deaths we encounter when power lines break, and now that the infrastructure in place has been dedicated to AC, sharing excess DC power is much more complicated, since we have to have the conversion from DC over to AC at every point that DC power is generated, due to the dedication of the current infrastructure that is in place. When you generate DC power from your solar panels, either you need excess battery strorage capability, or you can "sell" the excess back to the power generating company, or else it will go to waste, in the form of supplying more voltage than your tools and appliances actually need to provide satisfactory power for your usage.

So without the expensive conversion equipment or additional batteries, that is lost power that you might have otherwise been able to use when there is less sunlight available. Even with the conversion equipment, there is still a tremendous loss of power, because the conversion has some lag or propagation delay, and just like if you had one of your solar panels oriented with the same polarity as its neighbors, the voltage drop you would see there is similar to what happens during intervals in the power conversion process. Remember that AC runs at approximately 60 Hz, so when you are near a power substation, you will hear what sounds like a low A# pitch (A is 55 Hz), as the magnetized rods vibrate at that rate. So if your equipment is off by a few microseconds, that delay will result in loss of power.
 
The big problem with DC, is high voltage generation for the purpose of transission. The electricity that runs through high voltage electric lines has very little current running through it. The high current is where the power loss occurs. By transforming the power from relatively low voltage, high current, to Very high voltage with low current, through the windings in the transformers, we can transmit the electricity long distances to the substations, which reduce the voltage and increase the current again through windings in the transformers, until it reaches industries, offices, commercial buildings, homes, churches, government buildings, etc. where various appliances, lighting fixtures, power hubs, etc. can reduce the voltage level to the level needed by those consumers. Transforming from high voltage to low voltage, is not so much of an issue. I experimented with a 47KΩ resistor, and inserted two tiny copper insulated wires into an outlet, using a diode for semi rectivication, and a medium sized capacitor, as a substitute for a 9V battery, and I was able to measure the results on one of those old Radio Shack 160 in one electronics kits. That's not the only stupid thing I did as a teenager, but at least I had the concept that 110 volts needed to have more resistance on the load to reduce the overall current, and the voltage drop across the resistor, was obviously much greater than the voltage drop across the remainder of the circuitry. I had not taken any physics courses at the time, but the concept of resistance had already been etched in my mind, from having toyed around with the kits that I had available.
Just so I can be a part of the conversation; I used to build high voltage transformers ( the only one who did at one of the only plants that built them in America) and high voltage transformers don’t have “windings” per se. They have long sheets of copper, paper and aluminum folded back over each other hundreds of times in a stacks that are then baked, subjected to an insane amount of vacuum and then submerged in a very stable but caustic (and stinky) oil.
 
Just so I can be a part of the conversation; I used to build high voltage transformers ( the only one who did at one of the only plants that built them in America) and high voltage transformers don’t have “windings” per se. They have long sheets of copper, paper and aluminum folded back over each other hundreds of times in a stacks that are then baked, subjected to an insane amount of vacuum and then submerged in a very stable but caustic (and stinky) oil.
Boy that sounds more like a huge capacitor than a transformer! If you can pull up any diagrams or cross cut photos, that would be a nice touch.
 
Boy that sounds more like a huge capacitor than a transformer! If you can pull up any diagrams or cross cut photos, that would be a nice touch.
I wasn’t any kind of a technical person. I built them and baked them and filled them, about 10-20 a week for a little over a year. They told me that they were high voltage transformers and that they were used somehow in the metering of electricity. I see them frequently in what I’ve always heard call “transfer stations”. They’re the tall things ones with all of the fins.
 
I wasn’t any kind of a technical person. I built them and baked them and filled them, about 10-20 a week for a little over a year. They told me that they were high voltage transformers and that they were used somehow in the metering of electricity. I see them frequently in what I’ve always heard call “transfer stations”. They’re the tall things ones with all of the fins.
Image Source : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-substation-transformers-work-prasun-barua-rpbof/

1734727588373.png

Interestingly enough, the article mentions cooling fans, so there is still some energy loss, in the form of being transferred from electrical energy to heat energy. Add some water and some turbines, and perhaps some of that loss could be recaptured!
 
Last edited:
I am hearing more and more about the "wireless transmission of energy" and they don't necessarily mean electricity.

I suspect our world is going to deeply change in the next few years.

AI is here and a few years ago anyone who talked about it was treated like they were talking about UFO's.

Heck, UFO's are being discussed seriously as of this year.

Quantum computing is expected to go to market by 2029. Now imagine AI running over quantum computing. :oops:

Wireless transmission of energy would revolutionize everything that uses energy and especially transportation. Vehicles would not need batteries.
 
Image Source : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-substation-transformers-work-prasun-barua-rpbof/

View attachment 9338

Interestingly enough, the article mentions cooling fans, so there is still some energy loss, in the form of being transferred from electrical energy to heat energy. Add some water and some turbines, and perhaps some of that loss could be recaptured!
They’re not cooling fins, they’re actually designed to disrupt the flow of water off them so that a complete circuit can’t be formed during rain storms.
 
I am hearing more and more about the "wireless transmission of energy" and they don't necessarily mean electricity.

I suspect our world is going to deeply change in the next few years.

AI is here and a few years ago anyone who talked about it was treated like they were talking about UFO's.

Heck, UFO's are being discussed seriously as of this year.

Quantum computing is expected to go to market by 2029. Now imagine AI running over quantum computing. :oops:

Wireless transmission of energy would revolutionize everything that uses energy and especially transportation. Vehicles would not need batteries.
Well that was the ambition of Nikota Tesla, and it has been purported that the energy companies sabotaged his efforts. I have to wonder why we don't just use magnetism to literally pull and push vehicles like they do with Mag trains. Granted that would be expensive infrastructure. The Vehicle Battery system currently in use, is an evolution from the laptop and smart phone industry. The demand was there, for smaller batteries capable of storing more charge. There are in fact efforts underway to make these batteries last longer, to enable this form of energy to be economically sustainable. Then again, if fewer vehicles need gasoline, the price of oil drops, making it difficult for the EV fleet to compete against.
 
EV's are simply NOT, repeat NOT, 'competitive' in anything approaching a free market. Charging, distribution, batteries, even road use (via other tax breaks) have all been subsidized.

If people had to pay the actual cost of the batteries, or their replacement, or the 'environmental costs' - they'd never sell one.

But the real issue is charging infrastructure. The grid simply can't handle it - not by a factor of five.

The math says Big Brother doesn't one 'everyone' to have one. Take a guess what that means.
 
EV's are simply NOT, repeat NOT, 'competitive' in anything approaching a free market. Charging, distribution, batteries, even road use (via other tax breaks) have all been subsidized.

If people had to pay the actual cost of the batteries, or their replacement, or the 'environmental costs' - they'd never sell one.

But the real issue is charging infrastructure. The grid simply can't handle it - not by a factor of five.

The math says Big Brother doesn't one 'everyone' to have one. Take a guess what that means.
True, but with Elon deciding which cuts to make, I doubt the subsidies for EVs will go away any time soon. I am seeing employers who are trying to hire, to fill the need to solve the battery problems.
 
Elon has said Tesla doesn't need subsidies anymore. His competition does.
Yes, and it seems GM is getting bailed out again by the USA tax payers because their ICE vehicles are not profitable and they can't compete with Tesla in EV's. Many of the legacy ICE vehicle companies in Europe, Japan, and the USA are in financial trouble now. And it looks like your new president will put tarrifs in place to help protect the US automakers from foreign competition.
 
Yes, and it seems GM is getting bailed out again by the USA tax payers because their ICE vehicles are not profitable and they can't compete with Tesla in EV's. Many of the legacy ICE vehicle companies in Europe, Japan, and the USA are in financial trouble now. And it looks like your new president will put tarrifs in place to help protect the US automakers from foreign competition.
I would say Davos is trying to bankrupt GM.

Regular people don't need cars in their visions of progress.
 
Great. And the hydroplate theory falls short on that ample evidence.

One piece of simple evidence that is lacking is Brown posits a Great Lake that drained and caused the Grand Canyon.

Where is its shoreline? Is that shoreline consistently demonstrated in several locations where the lake would have been? (Hint: No.)

Other historic great lakes have shorelines we can readily identify and visit such as Lake Lahontan, Lake Bonneville, and Lake Missoula.

Lake Bonneville and Lake Missoula caused catastrophic damage when they emptied and they created erratics, boulders who were carried along by the flood waters and deposited miles and miles away from their origin.

There are no such erratics to be found at the mouth of the Colorado River or on its alluvial plain. The kind of flood Brown's theory requires would necessarily create erratics as evidence of such a massive flood. Yet there are none.

Like I said, Brown's theory is lacking evidence.
I came across this audio with Bryan Nickle. You should listen. Actually, you should have listened before you posted this, but better late than never.


You know, before I came out in favor of polygyny, I listened to both sides of the argument, and I in particular paid close attention to objections. There is an entire objections page on the Real Science Radio podcast that you would do well to listen to:

 
- Sediments deposited west of the Canyon to the Gulf include fields of large boulders

Large boulders can be found all through the Mojave Desert but they're easily traced to nearby mountains. What's needed here to prove a massive flood are the erratics that are found downstream from Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville.

- 3,000 cubic miles of energetic water begin carrying sediment to the Gulf of California

The alluvial fan of the Colorado River begins just downstream of Laughlin, Nevada. For whatever reason this easily observed fact is conspicuously not acknowledged by either Brown or Nickel. The alluvial fan of the Colorado includes the majority of the California Imperial Valley which was once open to the Gulf of California.

- 3,000 cubic miles of energetically dispersed sediments hit the northern Gulf of California

Math is a problem here.

One cubic meter of water weighs 1,000kg.
One cubic meter of rock weighs 2,500kg to 3,000kg.

The required flow intensity of water to suspend a weight of rock 250% to 300% of the water weight requires the water to be moving at a relative energy exceeding it's weight and potential velocity.

~200kmh is the fastest potential velocity of liquid water in free fall in the Earth's atmosphere. ~50kmh is more typical of even catastrophic floods across land.

Regardless of the volume of water (stated as 3000 cubic miles) in the Grand Lake it still does not contain enough energy to scour and then move rock that weighs 2.5 to 3 times the weight of the water.

Again, the hydroplate theory is a conclusion chasing an explanation. Its bits and pieces do not withstand scrutiny.
 
Large boulders can be found all through the Mojave Desert but they're easily traced to nearby mountains. What's needed here to prove a massive flood are the erratics that are found downstream from Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville.



The alluvial fan of the Colorado River begins just downstream of Laughlin, Nevada. For whatever reason this easily observed fact is conspicuously not acknowledged by either Brown or Nickel. The alluvial fan of the Colorado includes the majority of the California Imperial Valley which was once open to the Gulf of California.



Math is a problem here.

One cubic meter of water weighs 1,000kg.
One cubic meter of rock weighs 2,500kg to 3,000kg.

The required flow intensity of water to suspend a weight of rock 250% to 300% of the water weight requires the water to be moving at a relative energy exceeding it's weight and potential velocity.

~200kmh is the fastest potential velocity of liquid water in free fall in the Earth's atmosphere. ~50kmh is more typical of even catastrophic floods across land.

Regardless of the volume of water (stated as 3000 cubic miles) in the Grand Lake it still does not contain enough energy to scour and then move rock that weighs 2.5 to 3 times the weight of the water.

Again, the hydroplate theory is a conclusion chasing an explanation. Its bits and pieces do not withstand scrutiny.
The Grand lake eroded the dam that held back the Hopi lake which had even greater potential. Can we at least agree that the argument that the Grand Lake is missing a shoreline, was a bogus argument, before we proceed further?

EDIT: It seems you are arguing against Michael Oard's theory, that the flood caused the Grand Canyon. The Hydroplate Theory argues that the flood caused the formation of the Kaibab Plateau, which formed the lakes, which led to the formation of the Grand Canyon.

EDIT EDIT: I think you owe us an explanation of the alluvial fan and how it is even relevant to this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Math is a problem here.
So it physics.

One cubic meter of water weighs 1,000kg.
One cubic meter of rock weighs 2,500kg to 3,000kg.

The required flow intensity of water to suspend a weight of rock 250% to 300% of the water weight requires the water to be moving at a relative energy exceeding it's weight and potential velocity.

~200kmh is the fastest potential velocity of liquid water in free fall in the Earth's atmosphere. ~50kmh is more typical of even catastrophic floods across land.

Regardless of the volume of water (stated as 3000 cubic miles) in the Grand Lake it still does not contain enough energy to scour and then move rock that weighs 2.5 to 3 times the weight of the water.
I don't have a dog in this hunt. HOWEVER, weight is a force, normal to the horizontal.

Elementary physics says (f = un) that to move something against a frictional force, don't ASSUME THAT the force is 'normal' (perpendicular) to the surface, unless you 'know it's on-the-level.'

IOW, it's a LOT easier to move a boulder DOWNHILL. And the greater the slope the easier. (It's a trig function.) If the slope erodes away, the boulders will EVENTUALLY follow...
 
The Grand lake eroded the dam that held back the Hopi lake which had even greater potential.

You're not really thinking this through, are you? Because that dam of yours has to be over 120 miles thick.

Can we at least agree that the argument that the Grand Lake is missing a shoreline, was a bogus argument, before we proceed further?

No. All lakes have shorelines or high water marks. Period. Or else there was no lake.

It seems you are arguing against Michael Oard's theory, that the flood caused the Grand Canyon.

Nope. It's not my theory and I don't need to attack it or defend it. The people who hold this theory need to make sense and it's their job to make their case. And they have not which is why this is only discussed in a non-standard manner on relative fringe sites and by people who've never used a garden hose to wash down anything.

I think you owe us an explanation of the alluvial fan and how it is even relevant to this discussion.

We're discussing the removal of THREE THOUSAND CUBIC MILES OF ROCK AND SEDIMENT by a river. Unless you think aliens carted it away to their home planet then it had to be deposited in an alluvial plain or other alluvial deposit. If you read back in this topic you'd see I've already addressed this. The Imperial Valley of California is the alluvial fan for the Colorado River. Case solved.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. HOWEVER, weight is a force, normal to the horizontal.

Elementary physics says (f = un) that to move something against a frictional force, don't ASSUME THAT the force is 'normal' (perpendicular) to the surface, unless you 'know it's on-the-level.'

IOW, it's a LOT easier to move a boulder DOWNHILL. And the greater the slope the easier. (It's a trig function.) If the slope erodes away, the boulders will EVENTUALLY follow...

Daniel's post says that 3,000 cubic miles of water scoured and removed 3,000 cubic miles of rock that weighs 2.5 to 3 times as much as the water does. Nonsense. And I'm being polite by not saying bulls#it. You're welcome. ;)

Here's an experiment for both of you and I am going to give you both an unfair advantage here:

1. Take a marble and put it on a flat surface. Like glass. Very low friction, right?
2. Then take an amount of water in equal volume to the marble and then find a way to move the marble with the water by pouring it. You can't use an artificial instrument like a syringe to amplify the force. But you can use a slope, a hollow tube, or anything else that does not use human energy to amplify the force of the water.

How far did you move the marble? Not far. Even with the unfair advantage of a glass marble on a glass surface an equal volume of water is all but useless in moving the marble.

Now take a rock. Use your garden hose to move it. How much water must you use to move even a small rock a short distance? Was it a lot more than a volume of water equal to the volume of your rock? Of course it was.

Put a grain of sand in your kitchen sink. How much water must you use to wash that grain of sand down the sink? Even a single drop of water will be easily a hundred times the volume of the grain of sand yet that won't be enough.

But I'm supposed to just blithely accept that a volume of water blasted its way through an equal volume of solid rock?


WFB.gif
 
Daniel's post says that 3,000 cubic miles of water scoured and removed 3,000 cubic miles of rock that weighs 2.5 to 3 times as much as the water does. Nonsense. And I'm being polite by not saying bulls#it. You're welcome. ;)
Good spotting, however it means most likely that whoever wrote that article made a typo. They're quoted from a previous source, and probably just misquoted - it's easy to quote the same number twice. It's obvious the volume of water would always be larger than the volume of sediment. There's no point doing any maths on numbers that were simply a mistake.

@Daniel DeLuca, can you trace back through the sources and check what the figures actually were in the original? Almost certainly, either the water volume or the sediment volume is wrong. Then Megan can do her maths again on the real numbers once you find them.
 
Back
Top