I could see BOB send a post, most likely with another critique not improvement over ideas , so I will rather not read or respond, as promised ( to myself).

But something about my small experiment doing now on my farm land.
Terrain behind Toowoomba mountain ridge is considered permanent drought area, with rainfall half of that before ridge.
So dry land in short.

I have access to small well with some water in it and plenty of sun.
I did setup some time ago solar powered water pump to constantly pump small amount of water up hill to the dry , not improved piece of dirt. To observe after time what difference it may do, small amount of sprinkled water.

Another part of experiment is design to spray water for limited time only : say 5- 10 min but in several different places at different day time, If watering at night will be more efficient then morning or midday? Timer will open misting nozzle sprinkler at specific time only at each place.

Common sense suggest that during the night evaporation will be the lowest, but I don't know if plants will " drink this water" in absence of sun? if their internal pumps works to ingest water?

The main goal of experiment is how to use water in the most efficient way? When to irrigate, what size drops works the best. Big drops or small mist? dripper irrigation or underground soaking?

Obviously those questions were already asked and answered by millions of everyday farmers and scientist, so that serve as my personal curiosity only.



In our real world we have two kind of irrigation regimees:
a) commercial farmers that buy and pay to the water rigths to irriage without limits to excess


b) these less lucky not able to buy a water and relaying solei on Rain Fairy to deliver.

It would take enormous amounts of energy to pump ocean water inland. Maybe, in the future it could be done with fusion power.

But fusion power would have a waste problem from the He it must generate. If it got into the atmosphere everybody's voices would be like Mickey Mouse's

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
.....Another part of experiment is design to spray water for limited time only : say 5- 10 min but in several different places at different day time, If watering at night will be more efficient then morning or midday? Timer will open misting nozzle sprinkler at specific time only at each place.

Common sense suggest that during the night evaporation will be the lowest, but I don't know if plants will " drink this water" in absence of sun? if their internal pumps works to ingest water?

The main goal of experiment is how to use water in the most efficient way?

Hey Macro,

I irrigate my crop sometimes.

But what I find is that anything like 5-10 mins of watering is worthless. You need to get the water to penetrate the soil to plant root depth (25mm plus) for any effect. 1mm of 'rain' per day for 10 days will likely show nothing. The water will evaporate, just sit on the leaves and/or not get anywhere near the roots. 10mm once per 10 days is a far better way to go than 1mm daily, but even 10mm of irrigated 'rain' doesn't do much on its own.

My pump runs for just under 2 hours on a tank of fuel. If I run it for two hours and then dig holes in the soil to see how deep the water penetrated, then the answer it is almost zero, just a light crusting on the surface really. Mine only really becomes effective when used to supplement rain, or if I do several tanks of fuel in a row.

Seems dumb but running the pump and sprinklers when it is also raining (lightly) is way more effective than either rain or sprinklers on their own. 2 to 5mm of rain + 2 hours sprinklers running gets moisture into the soil way better than just the rain or just the sprinklers.


They say not to use sprinklers at night as it encourages mold and fungus diseases on the plant leaves and in the soil. I haven't found that to be true, and watering in the evening when it is cool and evaporation is much less seems a better idea, but what difference it makes I don't know.

They also say drippers or weeper hose is way more efficient use of water.

If you really want to try 10 minutes per day I'd suggest you go with weeper hose or drippers rather than sprinklers and try to get the hose below the vegetation cover and in direct contact with the soil (or lightly buried / mulched over if possible). But I'd also say go with 100 minutes every 10 days, not 10 minutes each day.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
It would take enormous amounts of energy to pump ocean water inland. Maybe, in the future it could be done with fusion power.

But fusion power would have a waste problem from the He it must generate. If it got into the atmosphere everybody's voices would be like Mickey Mouse's

Waste problem is actually the thing I wait and hope the most.
He - helium as byproduct of fusion power.
The greatest renaissance in our century will be return of airships/ Zeppelins as you like.
Hydrogen possibly do the role as safe filler already ,but thanks to few disasters nobody want it anymore.
Helium is safe but extremely limited supply shift the price to absurdly high level where airships could be more expensive then rocket to the Moon.
With fusion available in next 30 years , cheap helium will be in plentiful supply to fill modern airships.
I hope to cargo airships to replace most of container ships and serve all places on earth.





foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/29/blimps-hindenburg-flying-whales-airships/

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..

Macroscien said..

...other stuff....

PS. I really been reluctant to send any post because it instantly attract critics base not on any merits but personal heatred deeply rooted here on SB. So better ,please nobody comment on my post, unless counterarguments can be presented ,not just another abuse.
So lets assume my post a small record that don't need another FN like exchange.

for the record, you seem to get upset when anyone challenges your ideas and then go off on a tirade of strange responses. There is no 'hatred'. You have posted some offensive things in the past when someone has dared challenge your ideas.

I have only seen 'abuse' when you have stated something totally out of the world where someone then challenges it. If you think this is 'abuse' then clearly you are no scientist. A scientist would take onboard other opinions and suggestions not get all defensive.

You seem to think you are being bullied, but this is not it. Criticism of ideas is not bullying.

This criticism never actually touch the merits or present any contra arguments.
This is not criticism of my ideas even but straight forward personal attack.
As example above - several sentences with intention to damage like personal well being but nothing about ideas itself.
" clearly you are no scientist. "
not a world about presented idea.
I fall again into this trap of exchange , I promised myself to be more careful. Never respond to Bob already.By progressive's elimination I my soon stop responding to everybody and eventually finish on browsing weather forecast only on SB.BTW, Peer reviews of my ideas /or anybody else doesn't mean straight critics everything and negation of everything.
In science world criticism make sense if you could present better explanation, improved concept, closer equitation and better prediction of results.

As to yourself FN it is still not to late to consider everybody's wife careea . to remind the victims that everything they do in life is always wrong. FN= SB wife to everybody here.
To prove your case false I can only say that is statistically improbable to be always 100% wrong -as you suggest about Macro.

Do you not understand "If you think this is 'abuse' then clearly you are no scientist. A scientist would take onboard other opinions and suggestions not get all defensive" in context? Do you think scientists get all upset when someone challenges their ideas? No, they evaluate it and see if it has merit.

Here we go again, you don't understand the context and then pull out a personal attack while at the same time claiming a personal attack where there was none. I await your frenzied post of images that will surely follow.... or you could be a grown up and not get upset when people question your ideas. It's your choice.

Maybe you should ignore my posts. Yes, that's a good idea.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Macroscien said..
.....Another part of experiment is design to spray water for limited time only : say 5- 10 min but in several different places at different day time, If watering at night will be more efficient then morning or midday? Timer will open misting nozzle sprinkler at specific time only at each place.

Common sense suggest that during the night evaporation will be the lowest, but I don't know if plants will " drink this water" in absence of sun? if their internal pumps works to ingest water?

The main goal of experiment is how to use water in the most efficient way?

Hey Macro,

I irrigate my crop sometimes.

But what I find is that anything like 5-10 mins of watering is worthless. You need to get the water to penetrate the soil to plant root depth (25mm plus) for any effect. 1mm of 'rain' per day for 10 days will likely show nothing. The water will evaporate, just sit on the leaves and/or not get anywhere near the roots. 10mm once per 10 days is a far better way to go than 1mm daily, but even 10mm of irrigated 'rain' doesn't do much on its own.

My pump runs for just under 2 hours on a tank of fuel. If I run it for two hours and then dig holes in the soil to see how deep the water penetrated, then the answer it is almost zero, just a light crusting on the surface really. Mine only really becomes effective when used to supplement rain, or if I do several tanks of fuel in a row.

Seems dumb but running the pump and sprinklers when it is also raining (lightly) is way more effective than either rain or sprinklers on their own. 2 to 5mm of rain + 2 hours sprinklers running gets moisture into the soil way better than just the rain or just the sprinklers.


They say not to use sprinklers at night as it encourages mold and fungus diseases on the plant leaves and in the soil. I haven't found that to be true, and watering in the evening when it is cool and evaporation is much less seems a better idea, but what difference it makes I don't know.

They also say drippers or weeper hose is way more efficient use of water.

If you really want to try 10 minutes per day I'd suggest you go with weeper hose or drippers rather than sprinklers and try to get the hose below the vegetation cover and in direct contact with the soil (or lightly buried / mulched over if possible). But I'd also say go with 100 minutes every 10 days, not 10 minutes each day.

The problem I am having is that bore supply water at very slow rate,
Small 200W solar pump will dry pipe in several minutes and my main concern is now electronic circuit to switch the power to pump ON OFF on given MIN and MAX water levels.Actually I build and run electronic controller already and used most modern solid state relay instead of traditional electromagnetic relay. This solid state relay rated 5 x more melted , so now going back to traditional electromagnetic one.

You may be right . After several minute of watering soil is completely dry milliners below.

My first thought after farm purchase was to use water misting system at night.
Theoretically below DEW point any drop of water should now evaporate , but even attract more from air.
So any tiny droplet from misting nozzle should fall on ground 10 x bigger.
In theory.
After you realize the DEW point at my place could be -10 Celsius at occasions in the middle of summer night when air temperature is sill around 30.
So mist will disappear completely without even touching the ground.




my latest attempt is going the over way. Rotary sprinkler that shoot thick heavy stream of droplets. Those should drop of grass leaves and penetrate ground.
Under construction is now rotary mill like watering system at 100 meter radius.
But there is my dilemma.
Should I run this watering mill in the middle of the day, because all pumps are solar powered and motor running this mill also solar powered.
But water dropped on hot ground will evaporate in few seconds , for no effect at all.
If I run mill at night, I need to relay on battery power alone ...
My lead acid bank is completely died already after 2 years- capacity dropped front several kwh to half an hour now.
Replacement LiFePO4 bank now under construction but would rather save the power for domestic use only.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..

Macroscien said..

...other stuff....

PS. I really been reluctant to send any post because it instantly attract critics base not on any merits but personal heatred deeply rooted here on SB. So better ,please nobody comment on my post, unless counterarguments can be presented ,not just another abuse.
So lets assume my post a small record that don't need another FN like exchange.

for the record, you seem to get upset when anyone challenges your ideas and then go off on a tirade of strange responses. There is no 'hatred'. You have posted some offensive things in the past when someone has dared challenge your ideas.

I have only seen 'abuse' when you have stated something totally out of the world where someone then challenges it. If you think this is 'abuse' then clearly you are no scientist. A scientist would take onboard other opinions and suggestions not get all defensive.

You seem to think you are being bullied, but this is not it. Criticism of ideas is not bullying.

This criticism never actually touch the merits or present any contra arguments.
This is not criticism of my ideas even but straight forward personal attack.
As example above - several sentences with intention to damage like personal well being but nothing about ideas itself.
" clearly you are no scientist. "
not a world about presented idea.
I fall again into this trap of exchange , I promised myself to be more careful. Never respond to Bob already.By progressive's elimination I my soon stop responding to everybody and eventually finish on browsing weather forecast only on SB.BTW, Peer reviews of my ideas /or anybody else doesn't mean straight critics everything and negation of everything.
In science world criticism make sense if you could present better explanation, improved concept, closer equitation and better prediction of results.

As to yourself FN it is still not to late to consider everybody's wife careea . to remind the victims that everything they do in life is always wrong. FN= SB wife to everybody here.
To prove your case false I can only say that is statistically improbable to be always 100% wrong -as you suggest about Macro.

Do you not understand "If you think this is 'abuse' then clearly you are no scientist. A scientist would take onboard other opinions and suggestions not get all defensive" in context? Do you think scientists get all upset when someone challenges their ideas? No, they evaluate it and see if it has merit.

Here we go again, you don't understand the context and then pull out a personal attack while at the same time claiming a personal attack where there was none. I await your frenzied post of images that will surely follow.... or you could be a grown up and not get upset when people question your ideas. It's your choice.

Maybe you should ignore my posts. Yes, that's a good idea.

Discussion with you require completely different skills to mine.
PhD in sociological sciences.
If I attempt to defend myself vigorously- we finish with demolishing your selfestime.
You going to cut your veins, drown yourself or jump through closed window from skyscraper second level.
We manage to save poor Bobs life by quickly removing compromising material from our server.
His life hanged on single hair thin like fiber.
He is well now and safe for now, but I am not going to make this same mistake with you.
I wish you natural end not provoked. For my own concise FN consumed by sharks , covid or even car accident after long already and happy life sounds better then supoke due to social media misunderstanding.

Don't do this my friend FN, after every time you fail on SB . ( and FB and local dating sites responding, and while reading news, racing mates on water, trying gybe,)

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
It would take enormous amounts of energy to pump ocean water inland. Maybe, in the future it could be done with fusion power.

But fusion power would have a waste problem from the He it must generate. If it got into the atmosphere everybody's voices would be like Mickey Mouse's

There is also another interesting experiment on my mind.
What would happen if we shut the river outlet to the ocean COMPETELY !??
Could we do somewhere small experiment where WHOLE water from river will be used completely?
We still could keep the water level by series of dams to keep fauna and flora happy, Supply plenty of artificall air bubbles to airate
but not to release a single drop to the ocean;
We take care with all sediment's, truck them away.

Scenario that could shock and kill all Greenies by this unholy intervention into nature.
But where is the fault ?> What wrong could happen?

What we could do with all water that Brisbane river carry?

One day in the distant future when all greenies that refused vaccination die on COVID and remain only smart greenies living?If there is single scientist in world to enlighten us what could happen? If oceans dry out then?

www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2020/grand-ethiopian-renaissance-dam-egypt-nile/


constructionreviewonline.com/biggest-projects/africas-largest-dams/

Cut snakes are mmmaaaaddddd!

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Scenario that could shock and kill all Greenies by this unholy intervention into nature.
But where is the fault ?> What wrong could happen?

What we could do with all water that Brisbane river carry?

Macro's posts always give one inspiration to go googling and/or to do back of the envelope calculations.
Well the Brisbane river's annual discharge is 3 Sydharbs ie. 1400 X 10^6 cubic metres. I roughly calculated that, discounting friction, the old Yallourn power station at 1,500 megawatts could pump the water in Sydney harbour to a height of 500 metres in about 3 weeks. So that's about 9 weeks of the year operating at full power to return the outflow of the Brisbane river to 500 metres, which I suppose is a useful height above sea level where you might find plenty of places to build dams.

I read a book by the semi-green Tim Lowe - The New Nature. He points out that for everything we do there'll be winners and losers in the non-human world. Old bits of corrugated iron and car bodies disposed of in the bush make great refuges for certain creatures.

So blocking the Brisbane river would be great for species that make use of inland fresh water bodies but a disaster for estuarine species like bull sharks. Also in the long term the oceanic nutrient cycle incorporates the runoff from eroding mountains that were uplifted millions of years ago. You wouldn't want to muck around with that.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..

psychojoe said..
ople use more and more, and more energy and waste and polluti

Just try to remember that E=mc2.
So, no. The energy remains, we are not living on an anti- matter planet.

I'm neither a climate warming alarmist nor denier, but my warning bell does go off when I see a misapplication of science.

Firstly, it's not to do with the energy people produce that will warm the planet. The radiative heat from the sun each day eclipses anything we could produce. (See what I did there....eclipses....hahahaha). It's about the insulating blanket produced by so-called green house gases that may warm the planet.

Secondly, the whole point of E=mc2 is that the energy is not constant. That equation states that mass can be converted into energy, so that the total energy in the system actually does increases. That's why it was so revolutionary and initially denied by the science community at the time....actually destroying mass and adding energy to the system.....it went against everything that was known. However, I do love the double irony in this.....there's the reference to anti-matter when E=mc2 actually does result in mass disappearing forever, literally breaking the Newtonian 'conservation of mass' law, and then the fact that although any E=mc2 reaction actually does increase the energy in the system, it doesn't produce any green houses gasses so therefore is not relevant to global warming. (Except that it is a way to produce energy without producing green house gases.)

Ahh. I see we are both a little out of our lane here.
Anyway, I was merely attempting to point out that energy converts to matter and conversely matter converts to energy.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

Harrow said..

psychojoe said..
ople use more and more, and more energy and waste and polluti

Just try to remember that E=mc2.
So, no. The energy remains, we are not living on an anti- matter planet.

I'm neither a climate warming alarmist nor denier, but my warning bell does go off when I see a misapplication of science.

Firstly, it's not to do with the energy people produce that will warm the planet. The radiative heat from the sun each day eclipses anything we could produce. (See what I did there....eclipses....hahahaha). It's about the insulating blanket produced by so-called green house gases that may warm the planet.

Secondly, the whole point of E=mc2 is that the energy is not constant. That equation states that mass can be converted into energy, so that the total energy in the system actually does increases. That's why it was so revolutionary and initially denied by the science community at the time....actually destroying mass and adding energy to the system.....it went against everything that was known. However, I do love the double irony in this.....there's the reference to anti-matter when E=mc2 actually does result in mass disappearing forever, literally breaking the Newtonian 'conservation of mass' law, and then the fact that although any E=mc2 reaction actually does increase the energy in the system, it doesn't produce any green houses gasses so therefore is not relevant to global warming. (Except that it is a way to produce energy without producing green house gases.)

Ahh. I see we are both a little out of our lane here.
Anyway, I was merely attempting to point out that energy converts to matter and conversely matter converts to energy.

I'm not in centre lane either. But I did sort of read somewhere that E= mc2 is an alternative way of looking at energy. A set rat trap weighs more than one that's gone off. Or you could use Hooke's law to work out the energy stored in the spring and come up with the same answer. A charged battery weighs more than a flat one. But not by much. Not practical to try and directly measure the weight loss. Better to multiply the volts by the amp hours and divide by C^2, it's not much.

One famous scientist measured the electrostatic potential energy involved in squashing all those protons together in an atom. Lo and behold the combined mass of the pieces of a split atom are less than the whole one by the same E=mc2. Here's the book. it's pretty readable. I think that's sort of the general idea.

www.wob.com/en-au/books/david-bodanis/e-mc2/9780330391658?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzanzg4eY9AIVCH8rCh2Z8QJTEAQYBCABEgLgTvD_BwE#GOR001305641

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
I'm not in centre lane either. But I did sort of read somewhere that E= mc2 is an alternative way of looking at energy. A set rat trap weighs more than one that's gone off. Or you could use Hooke's law to work out the energy stored in the spring and come up with the same answer. A charged battery weighs more than a flat one. But not by much. Not practical to try and directly measure the weight loss. Better to multiply the volts by the amp hours and divide by C^2, it's not much.

One famous scientist measured the electrostatic potential energy involved in squashing all those protons together in an atom. Lo and behold the combined mass of the pieces of a split atom are less than the whole one by the same E=mc2. Here's the book. it's pretty readable. I think that's sort of the general idea.

www.wob.com/en-au/books/david-bodanis/e-mc2/9780330391658?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzanzg4eY9AIVCH8rCh2Z8QJTEAQYBCABEgLgTvD_BwE#GOR001305641

Okay, for some reason I always thought the E=mc2 only applied to nuclear reactions where you actually change the atoms from one element to another. Never knew about the compressed spring thing.

If I put my finger on this spring to load this trap, please disregard my finger as it's not part of the equation.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..

Macroscien said..

FormulaNova said..

Macroscien said..

...other stuff....

PS. I really been reluctant to send any post because it instantly attract critics base not on any merits but personal heatred deeply rooted here on SB. So better ,please nobody comment on my post, unless counterarguments can be presented ,not just another abuse.
So lets assume my post a small record that don't need another FN like exchange.

for the record, you seem to get upset when anyone challenges your ideas and then go off on a tirade of strange responses. There is no 'hatred'. You have posted some offensive things in the past when someone has dared challenge your ideas.

I have only seen 'abuse' when you have stated something totally out of the world where someone then challenges it. If you think this is 'abuse' then clearly you are no scientist. A scientist would take onboard other opinions and suggestions not get all defensive.

You seem to think you are being bullied, but this is not it. Criticism of ideas is not bullying.

This criticism never actually touch the merits or present any contra arguments.
This is not criticism of my ideas even but straight forward personal attack.
As example above - several sentences with intention to damage like personal well being but nothing about ideas itself.
" clearly you are no scientist. "
not a world about presented idea.
I fall again into this trap of exchange , I promised myself to be more careful. Never respond to Bob already.By progressive's elimination I my soon stop responding to everybody and eventually finish on browsing weather forecast only on SB.BTW, Peer reviews of my ideas /or anybody else doesn't mean straight critics everything and negation of everything.
In science world criticism make sense if you could present better explanation, improved concept, closer equitation and better prediction of results.

As to yourself FN it is still not to late to consider everybody's wife careea . to remind the victims that everything they do in life is always wrong. FN= SB wife to everybody here.
To prove your case false I can only say that is statistically improbable to be always 100% wrong -as you suggest about Macro.

Do you not understand "If you think this is 'abuse' then clearly you are no scientist. A scientist would take onboard other opinions and suggestions not get all defensive" in context? Do you think scientists get all upset when someone challenges their ideas? No, they evaluate it and see if it has merit.

Here we go again, you don't understand the context and then pull out a personal attack while at the same time claiming a personal attack where there was none. I await your frenzied post of images that will surely follow.... or you could be a grown up and not get upset when people question your ideas. It's your choice.

Maybe you should ignore my posts. Yes, that's a good idea.

Discussion with you require completely different skills to mine.
PhD in sociological sciences.
If I attempt to defend myself vigorously- we finish with demolishing your selfestime.
You going to cut your veins, drown yourself or jump through closed window from skyscraper second level.
We manage to save poor Bobs life by quickly removing compromising material from our server.
His life hanged on single hair thin like fiber.
He is well now and safe for now, but I am not going to make this same mistake with you.
I wish you natural end not provoked. For my own concise FN consumed by sharks , covid or even car accident after long already and happy life sounds better then supoke due to social media misunderstanding.

Don't do this my friend FN, after every time you fail on SB . ( and FB and local dating sites responding, and while reading news, racing mates on water, trying gybe,)

PhD in sociological sciences.
OOOH does that mean you are a sociopath?????

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Macroscien said..

Scenario that could shock and kill all Greenies by this unholy intervention into nature.
But where is the fault ?> What wrong could happen?

What we could do with all water that Brisbane river carry?

Macro's posts always give one inspiration to go googling and/or to do back of the envelope calculations.
Well the Brisbane river's annual discharge is 3 Sydharbs ie. 1400 X 10^6 cubic metres. I roughly calculated that, discounting friction, the old Yallourn power station at 1,500 megawatts could pump the water in Sydney harbour to a height of 500 metres in about 3 weeks. So that's about 9 weeks of the year operating at full power to return the outflow of the Brisbane river to 500 metres, which I suppose is a useful height above sea level where you might find plenty of places to build dams.

I read a book by the semi-green Tim Lowe - The New Nature. He points out that for everything we do there'll be winners and losers in the non-human world. Old bits of corrugated iron and car bodies disposed of in the bush make great refuges for certain creatures.

So blocking the Brisbane river would be great for species that make use of inland fresh water bodies but a disaster for estuarine species like bull sharks. Also in the long term the oceanic nutrient cycle incorporates the runoff from eroding mountains that were uplifted millions of years ago. You wouldn't want to muck around with that.

It is not the case we need to put a dam at Brisbane river mouth entering sea. Then pump the water all the way back, where it comes from. You will use the lot all the way , till last drop. Now the question could be how you could utilize such gigantic mountain of water? We don't been need that much for crops.
But we could flood some land and evaporate , humidify air.
Now interesting will be calculation what effect will be if whole river evaporate instead sinking into ocean.

I wouldn't worry about lack of nutrients in the ocean. Human activity stir the land that much, that total amount of solids and disolved elements is much bigger then before human age.
By how much one may ask? If we are worry about co2 only interesting will be to learn how much weight all material now released into air and water by humans on whole planet in comparison to pre human activity.

How it compare to big volcano eruption? How many pinotubes yearly we erupt as humans?

All of the mining and earthworks on the planet still moves less earth per day than volcanoes and landslides.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

psychojoe said..

Harrow said..

psychojoe said..
ople use more and more, and more energy and waste and polluti

Just try to remember that E=mc2.
So, no. The energy remains, we are not living on an anti- matter planet.

I'm neither a climate warming alarmist nor denier, but my warning bell does go off when I see a misapplication of science.

Firstly, it's not to do with the energy people produce that will warm the planet. The radiative heat from the sun each day eclipses anything we could produce. (See what I did there....eclipses....hahahaha). It's about the insulating blanket produced by so-called green house gases that may warm the planet.

Secondly, the whole point of E=mc2 is that the energy is not constant. That equation states that mass can be converted into energy, so that the total energy in the system actually does increases. That's why it was so revolutionary and initially denied by the science community at the time....actually destroying mass and adding energy to the system.....it went against everything that was known. However, I do love the double irony in this.....there's the reference to anti-matter when E=mc2 actually does result in mass disappearing forever, literally breaking the Newtonian 'conservation of mass' law, and then the fact that although any E=mc2 reaction actually does increase the energy in the system, it doesn't produce any green houses gasses so therefore is not relevant to global warming. (Except that it is a way to produce energy without producing green house gases.)

Ahh. I see we are both a little out of our lane here.
Anyway, I was merely attempting to point out that energy converts to matter and conversely matter converts to energy.

I'm not in centre lane either. But I did sort of read somewhere that E= mc2 is an alternative way of looking at energy. A set rat trap weighs more than one that's gone off. Or you could use Hooke's law to work out the energy stored in the spring and come up with the same answer. A charged battery weighs more than a flat one. But not by much. Not practical to try and directly measure the weight loss. Better to multiply the volts by the amp hours and divide by C^2, it's not much.

One famous scientist measured the electrostatic potential energy involved in squashing all those protons together in an atom. Lo and behold the combined mass of the pieces of a split atom are less than the whole one by the same E=mc2. Here's the book. it's pretty readable. I think that's sort of the general idea.

www.wob.com/en-au/books/david-bodanis/e-mc2/9780330391658?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzanzg4eY9AIVCH8rCh2Z8QJTEAQYBCABEgLgTvD_BwE#GOR001305641

I am not sure what the latest cosmological theory says about total energy and mass in our Universe.
Is it remain the same? If proportion mass to energy change? If Universe getting heavier or lighter when expanding?

If Universe is getting more organized or less? (Total entropy?) You always could prove both ways I am afraid.

Our worry about energy is possibly the same sort as one about what to do with all water in Brisbane river.
We have the greatest fusion reactor hanging above our had already and eventually human civilization is going to utilize the lot.

Cover whole Sun with solar panels and use every shining bit, all of it converted into useful electric energy.
What we could do with all energy manufactured by our Sun? I have got some ideas. We could obviously convert this energy back into mass. So hypothetically assuming 100 efficiency - how much mass we could create every year when all Sun energy will be converted into mass again? If it will be size of car? skyscraper? mountain ? small asteroid?

If futuristic teleporting humans means that you need to create whole body from energy. How many teleporting humans ( 75kg) you could create utilizing whole Sun energy p.a.? If that amount will be similar to transported every year by our airplanes? buses? trains?

I am afraid that at this moment we could not even teleport a single person, utilizing whole electric energy created every year on whole planet.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..
As soon as someone tells you that man-made climate change is 'undeniably' occurring, then you should question what they have to say. ...

It will be interesting to hire your wetland specialist friends brain for a few minutes to enlighten us a bit.

Considering even myself as a Greeny a bit, I am annoyed by constant cry about deforestation in Amazon. So the question could be if Amazon rainforest is more productive then same area covered with dense cultivated corn/maze?
If the total output is higher by natural and random mechanism , then sophisticated , tuned to perfection agriculture?

How total balance for planet summarize when:
a) you preserve 1 Ha of rainforest in Brazil region, not to grow grain
b) but at this same time you need to artificially stimulate 10 ha in cold Britain, to grow the same amount of grain, use 10 x more energy , water, minerals, machinery, funds/ money.

If the reason for west preventing developing countries from joining current civilization level is political / economic ( because cheap food production in those developing countries effect labor market in protected western world, read :farmers)
or protecting rain forest may have scientific explanation.

The same we could ask about marsh wetlands. Ok there are carbon sinks, but completely unproductive for human consumption needs. If those are planted with rice, consumed then by urban city; that could be double dip, to the planet and whole (?)

Not saying so with confidence, just having some doubts and asking questions....
PS. Do not misinterpret my post, Harrow.
I appreciate greatly work your friend did on the field of science , by collecting , compiling and analyzing the data.
But the question is : What we are going to do with all that? Send a Greenies with flags on the streets to shout : Save our marshlands and frogs?
No, I hope that we could hire his brain send to Australian outback 300 -5,000km from the sea and ask him to create marsh land in the middle of nowhere. Ask him What do we need to make 10,000 ha lake beaming with life in the place of hot, red desert!
What will be outcome effect for ecosystem if we scarify life of desert snake and replace with edible fish? replace cactus with algae and water plants?

www.ga.gov.au/news-events/features/navigating-australias-largest-groundwater-resource

I wonder if introducing seawater into inland areas would ruin the quality of existing aquifers?

2 years ago lake Eyre filled up , last year was the coldest summer i can remember and we've had the wettest winter in a long time in the Gippsland region , just sayin' . Lake Eyre is salt when it fills ,[ but i don't know the ppm .]

Select to expand quote

elbows said..
2 years ago lake Eyre filled up , last year was the coldest summer i can remember and we've had the wettest winter in a long time in the Gippsland region , just sayin' . Lake Eyre is salt when it fills ,[ but i don't know the ppm .]

Is it cause or effect?

Cover whole Sun with solar panels and use every shining bit, all of it converted into useful electric energy.
What we could do with all energy manufactured by our Sun? I have got some ideas. We could obviously convert this energy back into mass. So hypothetically assuming 100 efficiency - how much mass we could create every year when all Sun energy will be converted into mass again? If it will be size of car? skyscrape

Easy enough calculation. If I got all the terms right based on 1300W/sqm solar irradiation above earth's atmosphere, you get 1.29 exp11 tonnes per annum.
But I might be wrong by a factor of 1000. Checking by calculating solar output via mass defect, Google says 4M tonnes/sec. Over a year that's 1.26 exp 14.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
www.ga.gov.au/news-events/features/navigating-australias-largest-groundwater-resource

I wonder if introducing seawater into inland areas would ruin the quality of existing aquifers?

That will be quite valid concern
"the quality of existing aquifers"
if only we could prove that
anybody cares !
Fracking and pumping
toxic waste into millions years old
waterborne layers
while chasing fossil fuels ,
is not going
un noticed by nature.
Once poisoned , becomes poised forever.\
Once layer of rocks become cracked and converted
into permissible silk,
it is not going to seal itself
anytime sooner then few hundreds millions of years.
Unless our grand grand sons and daughters
will pump cement to repair cracked Earth crust.

BTW. It will be quite interesting question to geologist
how massive cracking effect thermal permeability of Earth crust??????
What if thermal Earth convection effect increase due do cracking
is greater then all CO2 produced and released ever?
What if our surface temperature depend more on
fission nuclear reaction inside Earth
then fusion reaction outside ??
What if fluctuation in our surface temperatures over millions of year
graph relate more to internal magma flow,
indicated by changes in magnetic field
then Sun radiation and albedo effect?

Returning to initial FN concern about salinity:
we could resolve that problem by capturing all solids
after salt water evaporation.\
Then selling those to Elon's Tesla to make more batteries !

PS.I am gladly surprised to see FN thinking not Macrospitting

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
The problem I am having is that bore supply water at very slow rate...

Macro

The answer to your realistic question (not the ones where you seem to rant on about like a lunatic with no grasp on reality), would seem to me to be to fill a tank from your bore.

Run the pump bore to tank on solar whenever it is sunny. You don't need transistors and circuits, just a single float switch to make it all work automatically.

Then irrigate when the tank is full, using a full tank load at a time of your choosing. Manual start is then fine because you only do it once a week or so.

A deep soaking once a week at a time of your choosing would be far better than spraying a tiny bit around daily on some sort of solar powered contraption.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Cover whole Sun with solar panels and use every shining bit, all of it converted into useful electric energy.
What we could do with all energy manufactured by our Sun? I have got some ideas. We could obviously convert this energy back into mass. So hypothetically assuming 100 efficiency - how much mass we could create every year when all Sun energy will be converted into mass again? If it will be size of car? skyscrape

Easy enough calculation. If I got all the terms right based on 1300W/sqm solar irradiation above earth's atmosphere, you get 1.29 exp11 tonnes per annum.
But I might be wrong by a factor of 1000. Checking by calculating solar output via mass defect, Google says 4M tonnes/sec. Over a year that's 1.26 exp 14.

yep, great detective work! But since scientists already categorized civilizations levels
at some stage sucking completely juices of native star,
one may wonder what they are doing with all this energy!???
Do they procreate so much that need feed themselves?
Use for hyper speed travel?
Run Bitcoin maining on galactic scale?
Gaming and powerful graphics card to create virtual reality for everybody eats all that?
One may ask why we ever need the whole power our Sun could give us?

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Macroscien said..
The problem I am having is that bore supply water at very slow rate...

Macro

The answer to your realistic question (not the ones where you seem to rant on about like a lunatic with no grasp on reality), would seem to me to be to fill a tank from your bore.

Run the pump bore to tank on solar whenever it is sunny. You don't need transistors and circuits, just a single float switch to make it all work automatically.

Then irrigate when the tank is full, using a full tank load at a time of your choosing. Maul start is then fine because you only do it once a week or so.

A deep soaking once a week at a time of your choosing would be far better than spraying a tiny bit around daily on some sort of solar powered contraption.

Great ! Once a week is enough? That may help a lot.
One of my bore pipe is only 10 cm in diameterThat is one where old style wind mill was standing and seems it works somehow for ages.
Until I decided to rid off wind mill and replace with solar pump,.
Because wind mill was working consistantly at slow pace,
I did not suspect that output is limited by poor bore not the wind turbien itself.
I had this concrete water tank constantly full of water on wind mill.
Now is standing empty, waiting for me to fix solar pump.
There are not many pumps that fit into 10 cm bore pipe.
and float switch also will not be hand in such tight place
So I need to run electronic circuit to detect water level.
Another problem , I suspect is a lot of rubbish falling into the bore pipe
between old joints.
So my next task is to clean that 35 meters long bore pipe.
Any suggestion how to remove bigger debri, like pieces of wood floating and
sand , grave at the bottom??
I suspect that good few meters at the bottom could be clogged by fallen sand.

www.seabreeze.com.au/img/photos/other/18174469.jpg' />
electric quad ! why not a time for electric water pump ?? one may think....







old wind mill sadly gone !



new solar pump doesn't do job at all !


Beside that the cheap Chinese pump was working for a while
till flooded water inside motor housing...
Cheap too replace , but how long to last next one ??
The wind mill was standing there for good few decades,
solar pump doesn't last few months....

Actually to fill the bucket with water takes a minute or two !!
and that will cause water level drop and suck air at the bottom of 35 m pipe!!
when the water table level is about 10 meters below ground- means 20-25 meters level to suck in.

Air lift pump to clean it.

Compressor, air hose and riser pipe is all you need. Must have a riser pipe that was on the working windmill, if it used the bore casing then that should be good for the riser of an air lift pump. Probably best to google or youtube, but it is very simple.



But gotta say - a decades old very reliable windmill that gave you a concrete tank constantly full of water, you take it down to replace with a cheap Chinese solar pump, and now your complaining the solar doesn't work !! ?? !!


Feel free to disagree all you want but the 3 laws of thermodynamics are :

1) solar power is the worst way of generating power that there is
2) batteries are a terrible way of storing energy. Lithium, bromine, sodium, whatever, they are all very poor compared to other ways
3) anything cheap and Chinese is a 100% waste of money. Do it once, do it right.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

But gotta say - a decades old very reliable windmill that gave you a concrete tank constantly full of water, you take it down to replace with a cheap Chinese solar pump, and now your complaining the solar doesn't work !! ?? !!

You just made the list buddy! (Not as high as me, but you are on it!)

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Air lift pump to clean it.

Compressor, air hose and riser pipe is all you need. Must have a riser pipe that was on the working windmill, if it used the bore casing then that should be good for the riser of an air lift pump. Probably best to google or youtube, but it is very simple.



But gotta say - a decades old very reliable windmill that gave you a concrete tank constantly full of water, you take it down to replace with a cheap Chinese solar pump, and now your complaining the solar doesn't work !! ?? !!


Feel free to disagree all you want but the 3 laws of thermodynamics are :

1) solar power is the worst way of generating power that there is
2) batteries are a terrible way of storing energy. Lithium, bromine, sodium, whatever, they are all very poor compared to other ways
3) anything cheap and Chinese is a 100% waste of money. Do it once, do it right.

agree with all 3 points
but looks like I love to learn on my own mistakes.
I get rid of steel pipes all together with mill sold on Gumtree.
Can I use 25mm poly rural irrigation green strip pipe or 32mm rather for air lift?
I few few rolls of each, so which one will be better?
How to pinch floating debris and biggest stones ??

PS explanation for switch from wind to solar is such:
-look at surrounding- windmill is standing rather at the bottom of the hill, with trees above and around
-wind is more random then sun shine.
-I could supplement solar with batteries to have constant flow 24h a day. Which means if everything works as planned I could suck of all the water to bore could deliver.
- I am building now new battery bank for off the grid home. Based on 300Ah each LeFePO4 cells. Cost $200 per kwh,
so the matter will be to calculate total capacity required to run pump 24h constantly,

Cost to buy Tesla Powerwall is about 15K, mine same size should cost 4 ot 5