|
Post by Vene on Jun 25, 2011 9:18:55 GMT -5
I think you want this thread.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 25, 2011 10:46:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 25, 2011 14:18:33 GMT -5
Now why would I want to watch something so asininely stupid?
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 25, 2011 15:14:16 GMT -5
Now why would I want to watch something so asininely stupid? I'd say "for the lulz," but if it's as boring as the last one, it's kind of a cure for the lulz.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Jun 25, 2011 18:51:30 GMT -5
ALTHOUGH. If lightning generates antimatter particles, does that mean every time there's a storm the world gets a tiny bit smaller?
...
I mean, shouldn't we be trying to develop better ways to harvest and store lightning power?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 25, 2011 21:41:13 GMT -5
ALTHOUGH. If lightning generates antimatter particles, does that mean every time there's a storm the world gets a tiny bit smaller? Only if it only generates antimatter, which violates the first law of thermodynamics, so I can only assume it also generates a particle of matter as well. Which means the net change is 0. We harvest lightning? Seems like a bad idea, it's too unpredictable for where it would strike when and would probably fry any battery we got.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 25, 2011 21:52:44 GMT -5
ALTHOUGH. If lightning generates antimatter particles, does that mean every time there's a storm the world gets a tiny bit smaller? Only if it only generates antimatter, which violates the first law of thermodynamics, so I can only assume it also generates a particle of matter as well. Which means the net change is 0. We harvest lightning? Seems like a bad idea, it's too unpredictable for where it would strike when and would probably fry any battery we got. Also, the point of a lightning strike briefly exceeds the surface temperature of the sun, about 6000 degrees Celsius (or over 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit). It's kind of tough to engineer stuff to reliably handle that kind of temperature extreme, which is significantly hotter than the melting point of anything that could plausibly be used to build such a device.
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Jun 26, 2011 1:13:35 GMT -5
Only if it only generates antimatter, which violates the first law of thermodynamics, so I can only assume it also generates a particle of matter as well. Which means the net change is 0. We harvest lightning? Seems like a bad idea, it's too unpredictable for where it would strike when and would probably fry any battery we got. Also, the point of a lightning strike briefly exceeds the surface temperature of the sun, about 6000 degrees Celsius (or over 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit). It's kind of tough to engineer stuff to reliably handle that kind of temperature extreme, which is significantly hotter than the melting point of anything that could plausibly be used to build such a device. Just being a derp here, but if we have the capacity to contain and harness a nuclear reaction, shouldn't we be able to handle a little lightning? Houses have lightning rods that don't get melted when they're struck, it's just a matter of conduction.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 26, 2011 1:23:05 GMT -5
Actually, lightning rods *do* get melted. Quite regularly, in fact. But the melting there doesn't matter. Doing a little research, though, it looks like temperature only becomes a problem in the case of what's called "hot lightning," in which a substantial current - about 100 amps - lingers and builds up the heat. In most cases the current is too transient to cause much trouble. Neat site right here, suggesting that I may have been way off the mark if the contents are to be believed.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jun 26, 2011 1:56:52 GMT -5
ALTHOUGH. If lightning generates antimatter particles, does that mean every time there's a storm the world gets a tiny bit smaller? ... I mean, shouldn't we be trying to develop better ways to harvest and store lightning power? Remember that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, they can only change forms. The anti-matter that gets created comes from somewhere so when it annihilates there's still the same amount of energy+matter in the system.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 26, 2011 4:03:50 GMT -5
A little more about lightning as a power source, straight from NASA:
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 26, 2011 14:15:18 GMT -5
Now why would I want to watch something so asininely stupid? To understand references to self flagelating albino monks getting their arses kicked by Obi Wan Kenobi in his helicopter. What, you need a diagram?
|
|
|
Post by tygerarmy on Jun 28, 2011 15:22:10 GMT -5
ALTHOUGH. If lightning generates antimatter particles, does that mean every time there's a storm the world gets a tiny bit smaller? ... I mean, shouldn't we be trying to develop better ways to harvest and store lightning power? The only way I know of predictably harvesting and storing lightnings power
|
|
|
Post by A Reasonable Rat on Jun 30, 2011 17:25:03 GMT -5
Actually, lightning rods *do* get melted. ... They do?? I've never seen or heard of that. I totally believe you, I'm just really surprised. Well, go figure. I with my little cup of sand in the desert of knowledge, can only hold so much.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 30, 2011 23:14:34 GMT -5
It looks like it's less common these days than it used to be, although it does periodically occur. High-charge lightning mocks our petty "science".
|
|