jimmyhackers said:
"graphene" was descovered by some bored scientist in the lab who had some carbon and some celotape and decided to "play".
Yes, and? He then had the tools to figure out what it was.
but when you put on a path/rails theres more than likely a chance youll miss many things all together.
When the rails point in the generally established direction of physics, and the other directions point off up the mountains of "Currently against the laws of thermodynamics," I'm fine focusing down the rails. Feel free to look elsewhere, but stringing together "what if????" questions that may or may not even be meaningful doesn't really do terribly much.
forgive me about the whole not knowing eaxctly what ligntening is. i do know its about 100,000 volts per centimeter in air. so a real lightening strike is......."let me just get out my tape measure......" oh wait......i cant. either way its mega mega power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning
You clearly are capable of using the internet - I don't understand why you seem to revel in your ignorance of things that are easily discovered with a bit of reading.
Also, 30,000 V/cm (3MV/m), easily found a wide variety of places on the internet with a trivial search. You're within an order of magnitude, though.
The math about the energy and power present in a lightning strike is also very easily found - lots of people have done the back of the envelope calculations, and backed away muttering "Wow, that's radically more trouble than it's worth." The energy present is not that significant to make the complexities of harvesting it remotely feasible with anything we currently know.
Depending on who you ask, a bolt of lightning has between 5kwh and 50kwh worth of energy present - so not insignificant, but really not that substantial in the grand scheme of world energy use (or even home energy use). The trick is that the power plays around the TW levels - 1,000,000,000,000W - for very, very tiny fractions of a second. There's nothing we know of that can capture even a small fraction of that and store it, and even if you *do* succeed in storing it, it's simply not that much power for the size and complexity of the machinery required to play with multiple TW of power.
and we can only speculate on the volumes of air/cloud etc needed to make even a small strike happen.
I'm pretty sure if you did some research or found a climatologist/weather forecaster, they could do more than "only speculate" - it's a decently understood realm of weather. Especially given the damage it can cause.
i was merely using lightening as a way of pointing out water can potentialy make a lot of electrical energy.
Yes. It can. Generally by boiling it with some convenient heat source, running the steam through a turbine, and spinning a generator. Also in hydroelectric dams, by running it through turbines. Water is a low energy chemical state - it's the "ash" of hydrogen and oxygen combustion. It's already oxidized to hell and back. There's not much energy available, chemically, in water.
and what difference does electron flows vs conventional current make...... imagine the world/time is really running backwards.then that all humans perception of time is also "backwards". so the whole world is percived to be running "forwards" when it isnt. this could be happening right now but we will never know.
What difference would it make? You seem to think that inverting the sign of everything will somehow be significant. What would change if it really is "backwards" and everything else has a negative sign in front of it? The end result is the same.
as electricity as we know is is the flow of electrons. and every electrically minded person started out thinking backwards. its harder for them to percieve what is actually going on. and make more....."educated" guesses to the function of electrical components interations with electrons.
Again with the "What difference would this actually make?" question. I assure you, electrical engineers are mildly annoyed for about 30 seconds by the fact that the coin toss of history was wrong, and then move past it. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference for the vast majority of things involving electricity, and that you are posting on the internet argues that despite the fact that there's a sign error, the function of electrical components and how they interact with electrons is very, very well understood. New microchips have feature sizes that are measured in "atoms across," and we have power systems capable of dealing with quite impressive amounts of power. None of this is hindered by a sign inversion, and that you seem to think it hinders those who are actually doing the electronics work is just funny.
i.e. the "collector" plate in any transistor isnt really "collecting" hence any conventional current "conventional current" theory about electrical components is actually a "made up/half true" story of what is actually happening.
It's a set of terms, defined for convenience, that happen to be reasonably standard. The underlying behavior doesn't care if you call it a cathode, anode, collector, emitter, Sally, or Bob - it's going to do the exact same thing. I assure you, a transistor will behave the same if you call it's terminals different things.
kinda like only ever playing the game "operation" with only a mirrored view.
then when your proficient at "mirror operation" you have the mirror taken away and youd find it hard to adjust.
Except it's really not. It's more like programming a computer to play Operation with a mirrored view, then you take the mirror away, invert the direction for one axis, and the thing works just fine.
What you call things does not change what they are - electrons behave a certain way, regardless of what we call the direction they move. Seriously, swap everything, and you get to the exact same results.
temps were from the engine coolant which was about 10 - 5 degress C lower and the exhaisut manifold got tested a few time with my IR meter and that dropped about 100 degrees C withthe hho running.
... your thermostat may have been broken then, because most engines I'm familiar with will keep the temperature a whole lot more tightly controlled than that, and I assure you I can tell a huge difference if my engine EGTs are 180F different - it's the difference, at least on a diesel, between highway cruise and a pretty good acceleration. Where are you measuring the coolant temperature?
Anyway, if thinking about electrons "properly" is such a huge deal, feel free to make some shiny new device that was invisible to engineers who were thinking "backwards."
The laws of physics simply don't care what you call things. They work the same in any case. And we're pretty solid on our understanding of most of the ones that affect day to day life, chemical reactions, etc.
Good on you.