NUCLEAR DEBATE

WATCH THIS VIDEO ON NUCLEAR POWER.

WE HAVE A FAIR DEBATE BETWEEN A FAMOUS NUCLEAR SUPPORTER, STEWARD BRAND AND THE CRAZY MARK JACOBSON.

Go Nuclear !!!

ALL ABOUT FREIGHT TRAIN EFFICIENCY

Trains are efficient; very efficient, the ultimate public transportation system. For instance, a freight train can move 2000 lbs of freight, 457 miles on only 1 gallon of fuel. This is like a 457 mpg car.

Trains are efficient for a number of reasons. One example is a low rolling resistance.

• A rubber tire on pavement has a resistance is 6 to 10 times greater than a steel wheel on a track. This is because the rubber tires deform under load. This is a severe efficiency loss, imagine towing something on a semi circle wheel (exaggeration). As seen below in comparison to a steel wheel.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• There rubber tires generate a significant amount of friction too. Feel how hot a tire is after a run.

• Tires have a significantly smaller radius than a steel wheel and are wider, contributing to more rolling resistance. “The coefficient of rolling resistance is proportional to the width of a wheel and inversely proportional to its radius.”

• Also, railroad axles can handle 80,000 lbs. This Reduces rolling resistance by placing more mass on the wheels (counter-intuitive but true).

Air resistance is one of the main causes of inefficiency. And much R&D must go into improving this.

See the train on the left vs train on the right. As the left train approaches air hits it and collects in front of the train. A “vacuum” is created temporarily on the back and air rushes in. As the train moves air rushes into the side to fill the void. This is quite chaotic and results in efficiency losses.

The train on the right resembles a double airplane wing and creates no pressure extremes or inefficiencies, optimal for high speeds.

Air Resistance is one of the biggest factors that limit train speed. The relationship between air resistance and speed is exponential. Subways can use the advantage of their underground tunnels to create a vacuum, greatly increasing the potential for speeds and electricity savings.

Another factor is the spacing between cars vs train cars. The freight train cars have a very low distance in between them, decreasing air resistance. However, the distance between cars can be very high, resulting in inefficiency.

Now that we have cleared up some understandings, lets examine our goal.

Cooling Towers: Why all thermal power plants are 30% efficient ?

Did you know that a Nuclear Plant is just as efficient as a coal, gas, geothermal, and concentrated solar ? And that is around 30%.

We will be addressing how cooling towers are a necessary evil and how we can increase power plant efficiency. Coming Soon

misc

I had to remove, republicans selling off land from the blog. The images downgraded the https security. It will be reposted soon.

The Origin of Life part 2 - The Earth

COMING SOON

The Origin of Life Part 1 - Big Bang

The Universe is 13.73 +/- 0.12 Billion Years.

This was calculated like this:

We know that all matter and including galaxies originated from the time of the big bang. We find the oldest star clusters and galaxies that exist and measure their ages.

This is fairly accurate because the first stars formed only a few hundred years after the big bang. So we can pin point the age of the universe to 99% since a millions of years is nothing compared to a few billion years.

Scientists found the age of the star clusters by measuring their distance away from an object. Since we know that light travels at 186,000 miles per second. And that D=RT, thus solving for time would yield the age of the star clusters or the approximate age of the universe. It was found to be 13.3 billion years.




What is the Big Bang and Universe Expansion ?

Well first, many people think the Big Bang was an explosion. Not quite, it is an expansion: this should clarify.




The Big Bang was when all matter/energy was compressed in a space of 0 volume and thus, was really, really, heavy. It was also really hot, as mentioned and thus had infinite density. Since density is mass/volume and it's volume was 0 and mass extreme thus 100000000000000/0 is infinity.

It was so hot, that matter couldn't form. For instance, atoms would just instantly break apart into soup. However, as it expanded it cooled down. This is because the temperature was distributed over a larger volume and since temperatures is defined as when particles bump into each other. And particles don't bump into each other as much if the universe expands.

As the universe expanded and cooled down. Atoms formed, and gravity pulled them together. And over billions of years, stars, planets and asteroids formed as mass started getting attracted to each other by gravity. For instance, Earth was formed from dust and gas that clumped together.

As a result of the big bang. Electromagnetism, Weak and Strong Nuclear Force, and Gravity formed. Before, all these forces were unified. Physicist's are still trying to figure out exactly what this unified force was or how electromagnetism and gravity are related.

OVERPOPULATION: Going Deep part 1

Graph Notes: On the graph: at x=0, the year is 2000 and at x=300, the year is 2300. The y axis represents population of the world in billions. 

This Graph represents an example of  population growth. See, the world population grew at 1.13% in 2016. Sounds small, but over time, it can get really, really massive. So, I made an exponential function (above)  that stated if the world population grew constantly at 1.13% each year, indefinitely, this graph would depict our population. At just 2300, only 300 years: the population would go from about 6 billion to 300 billion. This would never occur because A: the World population does not stay constant for ever at 1.13% each year, it fluctuates and B: With this population, we would have reached our carrying capacity before we even reached the 20 billion mark.

-This is the jist of population growth.

And below is a graph if our population grew at 1 thousands of a percent each year. Even if our population grew that small, we would have a population of 1 Trillion in about 5000 years. (see graph below) So even a population growth rate of 1/1000 % is serious because it eventually could be catastrophic. The earth is 4.53 billion years old. Happy Birthday Earth! :) and 5000 years is nothing in comparison.



We need as a planet, to come up with our population limit, let's say: 8 Billion and then once our population reaches that magic number, we force 0% population growth. We can't let it even rise a fraction.

-Now, lets talk about Population in the short term, in our current society. The graphs above are to give you some background and awareness. Please like those epic cartoons I found of the web. No. I did not make them, but they should be as awesome as this info.



This is what the UN masters of statistics predicted. The graphs above were my 20 minute things. They did their research and found depending on certain population growth rates. Our growth. Being that the third world countries are developing, a that we are too timid to propose sanctions and deal with overpopulation seriously, (look at our crappy efforts to stop climate change), I would not be surprised that we might have a population of 16 billion in just 80 years from now. Our current population is around 7.5 billion, FYI.

What are the affects of overpopulation ?

-There is a limited amount of food that can be grown without deforestating everything. There is a limited amount of land that can be inhabited by humans without pollution and biodiversity issues and others. There simply isn't even enough resources to accommodate 16 billion without destroying our wilderness and polluting the land. Also, we tend to fight a lot. A resource shortage caused by overpopulation could lead to war and the world has thousands of nuclear weapons.  Until, we can be so technologically advanced that we can ship out excess population to Mars and other planets, overpopulation is going to be a real problem.

What are the affects of overpopulation morally ?

-A sustainable Ideology should treat Humans and Animals with equal respect. Monkeys share 99% of our DNA.... Humans evolved from small rat like insectivores and in only 160 million years evolution happened and bam! Humans existed. We are more related than you think. I will save this topic for a later post. Case in point: Overpopulation is a disrespect to the wilderness and the animals. They deserve a highly decent place to live too.

Trump's plan on Overpopulation: None and even help overpopulation grow out of control.
Everyone else's plan on Overpopulation: None
China's plan: "I think we have winner"

-Trump said he wanted to defund planned parent hood and even punish people who have abortions.
-Trump fails to recognize everything I've mentioned above and many Republicans too.
-Democrats are too afraid to even say it's a real thing because it's too controversial.
-However, of all governments. China has got it right. They realized that their population growth rate was unsustainable and issued a 1 child policy which would split their population in half quickly. However, it was too controversial and they issued a 2 child policy which is 0 population growth. Amazing ! This is the solution to overpopulation.

PART 2. NEXT WEEK.

Moving the U.S into the Burj Khalifa

I think that ideally, everyone should live in cities. The reason being is that it is the most effective solution to housing massive populations in small regions.

A): There are environmental damages when people spread out such as suburban areas. For instance, it takes 1000 acres of land to house 2000 people when a sky scraper can house them in a 10 acre plot. Think about the deforestation, in efficient use of resources, and consumption of space in a small planet with a growing population.

B): Skyscrapers can last for a thousand years, where a house usually deteriorates in a few hundred. Thus, resources can be preserved efficiently.

C): You can have massive forests and lots of land for farming and wilderness with the saved space.

The cost of Burj Khalifa is 1.5 billion USD. The Sq ft is 3.3 million. Thus, price/sq ft is 454 USD.
Assuming a person can live very comfortably in 500 sqft, it would cost 320,000,000 people x 500 sqft x 454 USD= $ 72 trillion to house us all.

And the amount of land it would use ? Unfortunately, I could not find the exact footprint so I am going to take a guess. At

* Not that bad. Look at our 20 trillion Nat. debt and I think that you could save excess gov't revenue for 100 years and come up with the 72 trillion. I also think that with scale and mass production and innovative techniques/engineering  costs will drop dramatically, so it would be more like 30 trillion.

Correlation vs Causation - Nonsense Political Statistics

Credits: Thank You Neilosoftware.com

Hi folks,

I would like to teach you a lesson regarding correlation and causation. 

I was visiting a blog that had some data that was like this. These are not exact numbers but will capture the spirit.

Pres A: 200 intentional police deaths

Pres Z: 80 intentional police deaths

Pres Y: 70 intentional police deaths

Pres W: 100 intentional police deaths

Obama: 62 intentional police deaths 

There conclusion was like this: The Republicans are making up nonsense about Obama being responsible for police deaths because police deaths are at an all time low under Obama. This could even convince some people that Obama was actually a benefit to police and that overall despite the shootings police are doing fine.

However, it is important to realize correlation vs causation.

Scenario A: If ice cream sales decrease and drowning decreases. Therefore not eating ice cream prevents drowning. This is not the case: Ice cream sales drop as the summer ends and swimming drops as well. (Who eats ice cream and swims in December ? ). It's the summer time not ice cream! Correlation does not imply causation.

This is where my point comes in. It is likely that Obama's lax efforts to confront the issue of police mistreatment and his failure to address radical movements properly have resulted in catastrophic police deaths. But they say look at the data, under Obama it's at an all time low.

However, it is possible that there is a 3rd party that is lowering police deaths not Obama. For instance, the media's harsh criticism of cops might have made them relax and not get involved in dangerous scenarios. This had made them get less involved and thus less intentional deaths. I am a strong believer in this theory that I created.

In conclusion, analyze claims by people who use statistics to throw you off tracks that lead to the truth.