It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

helium-3 from moon an incredible power source?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
some scientists think we could power all of the earth for a millenium if we harvested helium-3 from the surface of the moon. i have no knowlegde in this field, so could someone more knowledgable explain or debunk this?

seattletimes.nwsource.com... e24.html




posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I read somewhere that it could be very valuable except that its highly unstable, and upon re-entering our atmosphere it could explode. I also read that you could build a station upon the lunar surface to turn the helium energy into microwaves which could be picked up on earth using "rectennas" thus solving our need for fossil fuels and halting the CO2 emissions.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
And there's only one reactor for it.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
interesting. so its possible, just not very plausible



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
WTF?! How the hell can they make something that makes more energy than it receives?! Isn't that 100+% efficiency (which is supposed to be impossible thanks to physics)? I think the law goes that it is possible to create a machine which is perpetual (such as the wheel which I read about a while back - I forget who created it), but as soon as you try to harness the energy it comes back down under 100%. Anyone?



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
There are two ways of calculating efficieny:

The physics one: E(used)/E(all)
The economical one: E(output)/E(input)

The first one can't go above 100%, but the second can.

He3 isn't unstable. It is not radioactive and it's one of the group of gasses that react with almost nothing. The gas pressure may cause an explosion, but He3 itself is not unstable.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Yeah - Helium is one of the noble gases - it reacts with nothing.

I still don't understand how the hell you can have a larger output energy than input - even with your economic equation. Giving out more energy than put in is creating energy - which is impossible since energy cannot be created or destroyed - only converted. It is therefore impossible to give out more than put in is it not?



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Well, what you say is true of the physical version. But in the economical formula it is possible. An example, if someone uses nuclear power to get energy, he has to put in x amount of energy first. That starts the chainreaction and produces more energy than was put in. In the economic formula you then get

output (larger than input)/ input *100% = larger than 100%

This is not a scientific formula though, but sometimes people use it for efficiency. In my opinion they call the two different formula's differently: physical efficiency and economical efficiency.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Has anyone heard about zeropoint enegry? Supposedly vast amounts of engry are locked up in empty space,aparrently in one cubic meter of empty space has enough enegry to boil away all earths oceans..just imagin how much is in the room ur sitting in!!

Will we see these quantum reactors in our lifetime?



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
I've heard about zero-point energy. It's apparently extremely powerful, but I've also herd that the ocome may be like nuclear energy - they turn that crap into a bomb, and its supposed to make the nuclear bomb look like a pea-shooter...



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Zero-point energy is theorical idea, but the real value of it hasn't been determined yet. What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join