Wow, that is the height of arrogance, to think that we are more powerful than nature.

Really?... Oh yeah...sure we have seen how mankind is more powerful than nature on the fact that we CAN'T stop hurricanes, we CAN'T stop earthquakes, we CAN'T stop natural disasters from occurring...but you claim we can, so go ahead and prove so... Last time I checked even the AGW scientists have been caught wrong time and again, and they have had to change their predictions...

They can't comprehend for the life of them that mankind is NOT more powerful than nature, the Sun, the Solar System, and the Universe/Multiverses...

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by missingrandkids

---

USGS says:

A: Seismologists have observed that for every magnitude 6 earthquake there are 10 of magnitude 5,100 of magnitude 4,1,000 of magnitude 3, and so forth as the events get smaller and smaller. This sounds likea lot of small earthquakes,but there are never enough small ones to eliminate the occasional large event.It would take 32 magnitude 5's,1000 magnitude 4's,32,000 magnitude 3's to equal the energy of one magnitude 6 event. So, even though we always record many more small events than large ones, there are never enough to eliminate the need for the occasional large earthquake.

As for "lubricating" faults with water or some other substance, ]injecting high pressure fluids deep into the ground is known to be able to trigger earthquakes to occur sooner than would have been the case without the injection. However this would bea dangerous pursuit in any populated area,as one might triggera damaging earthquake.

emphasis mine

There are technologies being researched, however, which could possiby mitigate the damage:

You're not the only one. Some folks have worked out a pretty smart protection scheme. While not prevention, it does offer a degree of protection.

Practically, band gaps properties of sonic crystal structures were used in application of reduction of vibrations or sound wave. In this study, we consider crystal structures for suspension of destructive seismic waves from an earthquake in a theoretical manner. Accordingly, we referred these crystals as Seismic Crystal and application of isolating a region from destructive seismic wave as Earthquake Shielding

It seems as though crystalline structure has what are termed "band gaps" which is a way of saying that certain portions of certain frequencies are not transmitted via that medium (crystal structure) resulting in a scattering or damping of the energy passing through the structure.

There is also the damping effect caused by compression/expansion of these Seismic Crystals as the P-waves pass through the crystals.

As an earthquake happens, the energy emanates outward from the epicenter in a radial pattern:

The greatest damage done, however is due to S-waves which come after the initial pressure wave.

Now, let's say you arrange a “seismic fence” around a city or region like this:

And you have a damping effect upon the initial p-waves. What about the shaking?

Looks like both types of waves are substantially lessened by passing through the “fence” in a way similar to a laser passing through a perforated screen. You can change the arrangement of the individual crystals and get different levels of protection:

You can also change the shape of the crystals themselves to achieve an even greater variety of protection:

And then use those different shaped crystals in varying arrangements until you have the optimal protection available. All in all, a really neat idea whose time may need to wait for further advances in materials science.

Or not...

As we've seen with predictive seismology, the actual level of technological capability and what is admitted to or used in “public view” is not always the same.

The thing is, we just don't know how far along they are as they won't tell us, we've got to ferret it out for ourselves.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny

---

10 meters seems very small since you used it to indicate the distance the heat island effect of a city.

What we're doing is taking carbon that's locked up and releasing it. There's no change in the total energy. It's a simple chemical reaction.

Agree, the fuel is an energy accumulator (that itself consumed energy to form), but as one uses energy it is dispersed in various ways for instance motion losses energy to several processes, friction, etc. almost all will end in heat. Now we burn a huge amount of fossil fuels, even considering the cycle to replenish it (very slowly) there is a lot of energy that builds on the environment, mostly as heat (heat can be ruggedly described as the energy of the vibration in mater and ultraviolet radiation) .

edit on 10-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny

---

How can something that boosts oxygen consumption on a combustion generate less CO2 ? The combustion uses the excess oxygen (to what is normally required) to generate more power. You seem to be looking at post-combustion uses, and the general effect that turbo compression will indeed decrease the consumption of fuel to generate the same power but only very recently have electronic permitted to more broadly use the technology (depending on the driving stats), since the compression can only be performed at specific instances and not constantly since it also increases the engine's mechanical stress and temperature.

edit on 10-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by HappyBunny

---

Wow, that is the height of arrogance, to think that we are more powerful than nature.

Of course we are, we are nature working under a directed will. Humans can more easily and predictably move a given mountain that nature alone. Well the easy part is if we exclude the economical constrains that society created with the monetization of energy, but how long would you have to wait, or probable, for nature alone to put a man in the moon.

edit on 10-1-2012 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)