Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths

Q-reeus said:
Impasse. How about we agree to terminate this latest fork and assess what progress if any has been achieved towards 'Pressure Harvesting - from ocean depths', after ~ 8 months and 32 pages to date.
Has there been a single truly viable idea turned up consistent with thread title?
Click to expand...
Agreed!
It depends on what you mean by viable.
In principle I believe we arrived at the:
Quantum Quack said:
Sum of the thread:
Potential energy can indeed be harvested from ocean depths but only to the value of displacement.
Click to expand...
regarding the use of a vessel that compresses air. Utilizing other gases or fluids hasn't been investigated.
..and that only took 28 pages. Mostly because some members were unnecessarily concerned about perpetual motion and energy devices for some reason.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Agreed!
It depends on what you mean by viable.
In principle I believe we arrived at the:

regarding the use of a vessel that compresses air. Utilizing other gases or fluids hasn't been investigated.
..and that only took 28 pages. Mostly because some members were unnecessarily concerned about perpetual motion and energy devices for some reason.
Click to expand...
I wrote 'truly viable'. Could it ever be a commercial success? Any comprehensive analysis to determine that? Or lots of wishful thinking?
 
This is the hallmark of a QQ thread, sci-fi topic in a mainstream forum, using terms that he doesn't understand, he is corrected, says he has learned something and then continues with the same nonsense followed by statements ending in "yes?" and 600 posts later no more has been learned than whatever was in the 2nd post.

In this case we are toying around with a free energy machine, a concept that doesn't work, getting into definitions that don't matter "energy=0, time=0, how long is the universe going to last, what does time mean if there is no momentum, etc" and discussing quantum physics with someone that doesn't understand quantum physics (not that I am well informed enough in that regard to be lecturing anyone) but is sure that he is correct because, well, you know...E=0, M=0, T=0, D=0.
 
Q-reeus said:
I wrote 'truly viable'. Could it ever be a commercial success? Any comprehensive analysis to determine that? Or lots of wishful thinking?
Click to expand...
In it's current form, no.
Wishful thinking has nothing to do with it...
The challenge was to show how potential energy can be transferred from the pressure at depths of the ocean. With out depleting that pressure or causing conflict with the laws of conservation.
If you do not understand how, read the thread and then ask away.
 
Quantum Quack said:
In it's current form, no.
Wishful thinking has nothing to do with it...
The challenge was to show how potential energy can be transferred from the pressure at depths of the ocean. With out depleting that pressure or causing conflict with the laws of conservation.
If you do not understand how, read the thread and then ask away.
Click to expand...
Evidently no-one here is worthy of you. So stop wasting time with us intellectual pygmies at SF - take your breakthrough concept to some receptive seed capital outfit and proceed at speed to upset the world energy economy apple-cart. Good luck.
 
Q-reeus said:
Evidently no-one here is worthy of you. So stop wasting time with us intellectual pygmies at SF- take your breakthrough concept to some receptive seed capital outfit and proceed at speed to upset the world energy economy apple-cart. Good luck.
Click to expand...
What the hell is wrong with you?
You are obviously upset about not being able to exclude me from your exclusive club of arrogance.
I ask a simple question and offer a platform for some creative input and get told I am not qualified to ask it or offer it
The thread was offered in good faith and all that has happened is a bun fight about yours and others insecurities..
sorry to insult you with my presence but you are going to have to live with it.

33 pages of attempts at frustrating the purpose of this thread... wow...
 
Quantum Quack said:
What the hell is wrong with you?
You are obviously upset about not being able to exclude me from your exclusive club of arrogance.
I ask a simple question and offer a platform for some creative input and get told I am not qualified to ask it or offer it
The thread was offered in good faith and all that has happened is a bun fight about yours and others insecurities..
sorry to insult you with my presence but you are going to have to live with it.

33 pages of attempts at frustrating the purpose of this thread... wow...
Click to expand...
Yes I was being sarcastic but then imo you have well earned that response. Not being prepared to concede time after time when one reasonably should has its inevitable drawbacks.
 
Q-reeus said:
Yes I was being sarcastic but then imo you have well earned that response. Not being prepared to concede time after time when one reasonably should has its inevitable drawbacks.
Click to expand...
When there is good reason to I always do...
Please list the issues I need to concede...
 
Q-reeus said:
Not interested in participating further in a Groundhog Day vortex. Others might.
Click to expand...
well that's your choice...
Pity though.. you could have really made me look the fool...just by listing all the things I should have reasonably conceded. But of course you can't can you...
 
Q-reeus said:
Not interested in participating further in a Groundhog Day vortex. Others might.
Click to expand...
Yes, "groundhog day vortex" captures it exactly.:biggrin:

(I think QQ is going senile and just wants someone to talk to, so he keeps the merry-go-round revolving, without either thinking or learning anything from people's responses. Ditto Write4U. Waste of time engaging either of them.:rolleyes: )
 
Quantum Quack said:
well that's your choice...
Pity though.. you could have really made me look the fool...just by listing all the things I should have reasonably conceded. But of course you can't can you...
Click to expand...
I think perhaps that "you could have made me look even more foolish" is not the best comeback. Nor would that seem to be something you'd want to encourage.
 
Quantum Quack said:
At this stage the idea was about establishing the principle more so than the practicability.
There are probably many ways to capitalize on the extreme pressures available. ( ie. chemical reactions that require high pressure etc, metals and crystals that exhibit certain reactions when at depth etc)
but really it is just teasing the imagination with a little sci fi possibility.
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha. Well, I only care about the cost. jk :wink:

It's somewhat surprising that your ''idea'' isn't being met with more enthusiasm, considering this form of energy wouldn't harm the environment.
 
wegs said:
Ah, gotcha. Well, I only care about the cost. jk :wink:

It's somewhat surprising that your ''idea'' isn't being met with more enthusiasm, considering this form of energy wouldn't harm the environment.
Click to expand...
That's because his idea would do as much as doing nothing and doing nothing wouldn't harm the environment either.
 
Seattle said:
That's because his idea would do as much as doing nothing and doing nothing wouldn't harm the environment either.
Click to expand...
33 pages of nothing? Hmm.

But, on that note, I've said my piece and bowing out of this thread, now. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top