Bob, Unless the beam of gamma rays are emitted at high enough altitude most of the beam energy will be reabsorbed by the atmosphere.
harry On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Harry- > > No I do not think sending energy to space is equivalent to increasing the > reflectivity of the earth. > > Its using kinetic energy released as heat or work or other useful form > (existing already on Earth) to transfer heat stored in the atmosphere and > oceans (more than is used by the transfer mechanism) to the thermal sink of > outer space. Such energy, if properly directed from Earth, may even be used > to heat a Moon habitat or a moon of Pluto habitat. > > As Jones has suggested, directing energetic muons in a certain direction, up > for example, may work just as well as a gamma laser. > > Such laser magic is already used to cool matter down to near absolute zero. > The trick will be to harvest the thermal energy from the ocean and > atmosphere and change it to a coherent gamma beam that can escape the Earth. > > Bob Cook > > -----Original Message----- From: H LV > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comparison of energy inputs to Earth climate > > Bob, > > That would be equivalent to cooling the Earth by increasing the > reflectivity of the Earth. > > The advantage of "renewable" energy sources is that they don't add > more energy to the environment so a global excess heat problem could > not arise from their expanded use. > > The quest for "the holy grail of energy" is a quest for an energy > source that is completely independent of the Sun. However, it is > possible to achieve energy security without living independently of > the Sun. Therefore the belief that some sort of ultimate energy > source exists is emblematic of the dream to leave the Earth and to > travel to the Stars. It is not emblematic of the pressing need to > build a better life on Earth. It is important to have dreams but the > pursuit of a dream should not serve as a substitute for the > satisfaction of a pressing need. > > Harry > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Harry-- >> >> If the use of non-polluting energy becomes too great and causes additional >> warming and ocean rises, then energy production may need to be controlled >> on >> a global basis. Maybe a device to harvest infra-red EM and shoot it to >> space to avoid warming the atmosphere is the next earth saving invention. >> I >> think such a device may already exist in the form of a gamma ray laser. >> >> Think about the mechanism for sending gamma ray bursts across the >> universe. >> >> Bob Cook >> >> -----Original Message----- From: H LV >> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 4:10 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Vo]:Comparison of energy inputs to Earth climate >> >> In defence of AGW, this link argues that heat fluctuations from within >> the Earth are far too small to contribute to global warming. >> >> http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html >> >> The interesting thing is that according to fig. 4 energy produced by >> fossil and nuclear sources is already 1/3 of the energy flow from >> within the Earth. If LENR can really replace all other energy sources >> and if the demand for energy grows a hundred times then the "holy >> grail of energy" could bring about a global heat pollution problem. >> >> Harry >> >
