Switch off at the socket?

J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:18:38 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over their
whole life.

Unless the practice of the ancients is followed and the wood converted
to charcoal and then added to the soil, which of course, enriches it
for growing more plants.

http://www.ecogeek.ORG/agriculture/2173

The question is, what happens to it when incorporated in the soil? If it
acts as a sort of fertiliser, which it sounds like, then it will just get
absorbed by the plants and will re-enter the carbon cycle. Only if it stays
there unchanged and immutable will it lock carbon away, in which case the
fertiliser effect is illusory.

Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:13 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Nothing, but that is not the point.

An electron which moves from a lower energy state to a higher energy
state gains mass, and similarly for the other particles.

A Nobel prize beckons if only you can prove it.

Since no *scientific* theory has ever been *proven*, it would more be a
Nobel prize for theology actually.

Which just goes to show how little you know about science at all.

Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:18:38 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

They have no nett CO2 reduction effect when considered over their
whole life.

Unless the practice of the ancients is followed and the wood converted
to charcoal and then added to the soil, which of course, enriches it
for growing more plants.

http://www.ecogeek.ORG/agriculture/2173

The question is, what happens to it when incorporated in the soil? If
it acts as a sort of fertiliser, which it sounds like, then it will just
get absorbed by the plants and will re-enter the carbon cycle. Only if
it stays there unchanged and immutable will it lock carbon away, in
which case the fertiliser effect is illusory.


I see you are as blatantly ignorant of how soil, fertilizers and botany
in general works, as everything else.


The largest contribution of e.g. peat, which is mainly carbon, is that
it acts as a matrix to hold other nutrients and water.

ALL the carbon in a plant is synthesised from atmospheric CO2 or at best
weak carbonic acid absorbed by the root systems.
..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Mass.

The constituents all weigh a bit less, even taking into account they
are further away from the center of the earth..

Sorry, no. Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body, and that
doesn't vary just because you've wound up your cuckoo clock. It still has
exactly the same number of protons, neutrons and electrons as it always did.


And when it falls, it regains those electrons, neutrons or whole
atoms? Conveniently in exactly the same form as when they were lost?
How's that work then?


All those items do not have fixed masses.

Oh, but they do, you see. Winding up your cuckoo clock doesn't exactly
accelerate them to near the speed of light, does it? And that's the only
way their mass can change.



E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg.
light, heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated
electromagnetic energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

And the proof of that is where exactly?


E=mC^2"

Ah, it lies in the uncomprehending use of a formula applied to a situation
where it is not of the slightest relevance.

Now I see.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:34:36 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
You've just described nuclear fusion. There's not much of that happening
in your immediate environment (apart from the large furnace about eight
light-minutes away).

No I have not.

If the electrostatic force of repulsion were not overcome by a stronger
force then matter would not exist.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Tim S wrote:

Seriously - yes, there is a mass increase.

I wind up my cuckoo clock. The driving weight (not the pendulum)
rises a metre. Has its mass increased due to the increase in
potential energy?


I think so, yes.

So, what's it lost then? Electrons, neutrons, whole atoms, or what?

Mass.

The constituents all weigh a bit less, even taking into account they
are further away from the center of the earth..

Sorry, no. Mass is defined as the quantity of matter in a body, and
that doesn't vary just because you've wound up your cuckoo clock. It
still has exactly the same number of protons, neutrons and electrons as
it always did.


And when it falls, it regains those electrons, neutrons or whole
atoms? Conveniently in exactly the same form as when they were lost?
How's that work then?


All those items do not have fixed masses.

Oh, but they do, you see. Winding up your cuckoo clock doesn't exactly
accelerate them to near the speed of light, does it? And that's the
only way their mass can change.



E=mc^2 only kicks in if the body is *radiating* away energy (eg.
light, heat radiation, gamma rays, etc.) or absorbing radiated
electromagnetic energy.

I don't think so, no.

Any release of chemical energy as either heat or electricity is
accompanied by weight loss.

And the proof of that is where exactly?


E=mC^2"

Ah, it lies in the uncomprehending use of a formula applied to a
situation where it is not of the slightest relevance.

Now I see.

Humpty Dumpty also made words fit what he wanted them to mean without
regard for what they do. Now what happened to him?

Sorry Norman, very deeply sorry that you haven't the brain and
certainly not the patience and humility to even begin to understand even
Newtonian physics..let alone anything else.

Why don't you give it a rest, take a glass of warm milk and some
Ovaltine, and relax in your ignorant certainties?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it
into plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As
it rots, it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again. The
same is true if you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2
reduction is if we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then
either store it in such a way it can never rot, or drop it into a
subduction zone so that it releases the carbon so deep in the earth
it can never escape again.

OK, so you store it, just like you store the CO2 captured by other
means, eg. building materials. How much CO2 does roasting limestone
for cement liberate?

I think a lot goes back into it when the cement sets again..

Er, no it doesn't.

Limestone (CaCO3) is heated in a furnace to drive off the CO2 leaving
calcium oxide CaO which is the active part of dry cement. In use that
combines with water (H2O) to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) which is what
set cement is. The CO2, which has been locked away by those helpful little
molluscs for millions of years, now swans around the atmosphere like there's
no tomorrow, which might be right.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

"mass (Phys) The quantity of matter in a body" - Chambers Dictionary
of Science and Technology.

Care to tell us what abstruse definition you're using, and where it
may be found?

Not really. Chambers dictionary circa 1950 is probably geared towards
laymans usage, not what is used by scientists in pursuit of science.

That'd be why mine's dated 2000 then and is a specialist dictionary 'of
Science and Technology'.

Now, what obscure definition are you using, and where may it be found?

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
That one's been already cracked. It's called a tree.

Nope, doesn't work, and one of the greatest green myths of all time.
Everybody knows that trees absorb CO2 when they grow, converting it
into plant mass.

Unfortunately, every living tree eventually dies, rotting away. As
it rots, it releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere again. The
same is true if you burn it, of course.

The only way a tree can make a lasting contribution to CO2
reduction is if we cut it down when it is fully grown, and then
either store it in such a way it can never rot, or drop it into a
subduction zone so that it releases the carbon so deep in the earth
it can never escape again.

OK, so you store it, just like you store the CO2 captured by other
means, eg. building materials. How much CO2 does roasting limestone
for cement liberate?

I think a lot goes back into it when the cement sets again..

Er, no it doesn't.

Limestone (CaCO3) is heated in a furnace to drive off the CO2 leaving
calcium oxide CaO which is the active part of dry cement. In use that
combines with water (H2O) to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) which is
what set cement is. The CO2, which has been locked away by those
helpful little molluscs for millions of years, now swans around the
atmosphere like there's no tomorrow, which might be right.

calcium hydroxide will not stay calcium hydroxide long in the presence
of carbonic acid dear.

And cement is a damned site more complex than that.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

No one said matter was converted into energy: We said MASS was.

"mass (Phys) The quantity of matter in a body" - Chambers Dictionary
of Science and Technology.

Care to tell us what abstruse definition you're using, and where it
may be found?

Not really. Chambers dictionary circa 1950 is probably geared towards
laymans usage, not what is used by scientists in pursuit of science.

That'd be why mine's dated 2000 then and is a specialist dictionary 'of
Science and Technology'.

Now, what obscure definition are you using, and where may it be found?

The accepted definition from scientists of course.

Did the chammbers come with the Bumper Book of How Stuff Works as a job lot?