From Agence France-Presse (Whatever happened to Reuters?)

An Australian scientist called Wednesday for an end to the age-old tradition of cremation, saying the practice contributed to global warming. Incinerating one body can produce more than 50 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
...people could help the environment by being buried in a cardboard box under a tree. The decomposing bodies would provide the tree with nutrients and the tree would convert carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen for decades.....what a shame to be cremated when you go up in a big bubble of carbon dioxide...Why waste all that carbon dioxide on your death?....it would not be a bad idea to bequeath one's body as food for a forest....You can actually do, after your death, an enormous amount of good for the planet....

The guy is a Reproductive Biologist which maybe explains why he doesn't seem to realise that it does not matter whether some is burnt or just decomposes naturally the same amount of CO2 is produced. But he got his name in newspapers worldwide.

Undoubtedly he ended his report with something along the lines of "however, much more research needs to be done into the subject.. and I'm the person to do it... give me lots of money".

The carbon from the tree would eventualy be given up.. unless we buried the tree too... in fact, perhaps we could get all the old trees and dead people, then use a high pressure industrial press to create oil.. I may sell that idea to Shell Oil hehe. We could power the press by tethering miles long wires attached to satelites- the wire would pass through the earth's magnetic field generating free electricity according to some physicists left hand rule of something.. but I need to research it more- can I have some money please?

......We could power the press by tethering miles long wires attached to satelites- the wire would pass through the earth's magnetic field generating free electricity according to some physicists left hand rule of something.. but I need to research it more- can I have some money please?

This does need more research:

The satellite would have to be geostationary or the wire would wrap around the earth and reel the satellite in.

Therefore the satellite, wire and earth rotate as a single unit.

Therefore the wire is not moving relative to the magnetic field of the earth.

Therefore no free electricity?

.... Incinerating one body can produce more than 50 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
.........The decomposing bodies would provide the tree with nutrients and the tree would convert carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen for decades.........[/I][/B]


Decomposition results in CO2 AND....????? Decomposition is a net benefit?? The next logical step in this direction is that we grind up the bodies and use them for fertilizer.

"Hey Mom! These home-growed tomatoes are YUMMY!! I never dreamed gramma would be so tasty!"

This does need more research:

The satellite would have to be geostationary or the wire would wrap around the earth and reel the satellite in.

Therefore the satellite, wire and earth rotate as a single unit.

Therefore the wire is not moving relative to the magnetic field of the earth.

Therefore no free electricity?

Dear Geof,

I think that the answer is to repeatedly re-deploy the satellite in a non-geostationary orbit. This would have two benefits..

1) electricity would be generated because the wire would be moving relative to the earth's magnet field

2) the huge amount of force available when the satellite collides with the earth's surface could be used directly to power the ...er....oil press.


Best wishes


Martin

Decomposition results in CO2 AND....????? Decomposition is a net benefit?? The next logical step in this direction is that we grind up the bodies and use them for fertilizer.

"Hey Mom! These home-growed tomatoes are YUMMY!! I never dreamed gramma would be so tasty!"

Watch the old science fiction film Soylent Green, tasefully done. One step beyond fertilizer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

Perfect Tommy: Emilio Lizardo. Wasn't he on TV once?
Buckaroo Banzai: You're thinking of Mr. Wizard.
Reno: Emilio Lizardo is a top scientist, dummkopf.
Perfect Tommy: So was Mr. Wizard.

RIP Mr. Wizard. The good news is you've been replaced by Bill Nye.

Perfect Tommy: [I]Emilio Lizardo. ...

Great movie. One of the best :)

The satellite would have to be geostationary or the wire would wrap around the earth and reel the satellite in.

Damn, I was hoping no-one would notice that... ok, my preliminary research (which needs more funding) has revealed that two satellites in non- geostationary orbits, one say 1 km above the other and linked by several wires would produce electricity. or even 3 or 4 linked horizontaly like a bolas

The "dead press" could be situated on the lower satelite or the centre of the "bolas" and the oil dispensed directly as "oil rain", or passed to a geostationary satelite and...

Getting the dead stuff up into orbit could be problematic, however I beleive our crack team (of one) have devised a unique solution in using a geostationary satelite with 1 tonne of collected oil from the "dead press" (TM) attached to a steel cable loop and pulley down to the ground... attach 1 tonne of dead stuff to the other end of the loop and reel it in. Because the weights in both sides of the loop are equal it should cost not a lot of energy...

You could also replace some of the "dead" weight by live tourists and charge them a fortune.

My head hurts...

Don't let the Met Office Hadley Centre see your idea...they'll steal it fer sure!!

Damn, I was hoping no-one would notice that... ok, my preliminary research (which needs more funding)

Sounds like a good ten years of government funding available there :)

Damn, I was hoping no-one would notice that... ok, my preliminary research (which needs more funding) has revealed that two satellites in non- geostationary orbits....

What I find scary is that this idea has about the same level of practicality as some proposals that seem to have been seriously touted; millions of little discs and things like that.

Lmao, for those of you who don't know- what Geof is referring to is actualy being considered as a serious proposal- I read it in New Scientist or Scientific America or something like that- the idea goes like this...

We blast a huge rocket off towards the sun and stop it at the Legrange point then disperse billiiiiions of little thin reflective disks which will effectively act like a pair of sunglasses for the earth (I kid you not).

Apart from the huge impracticality of the weight of the beast needed... they haven't really thought it out. Now my physics is not brilliant, but I beleive that after a while the little disks would all end up on the same plane (like Saturn's rings) cos they would attract each other by gravity in the North South direction (although centripetal force would keep them spread out laterally).

That's why all our planets, and asteroid belt, and Kuiper belt lie on the same plane (I know pluto's slightly off, but that's proly a captured asteroid) and not spread out in a homogenous sphere.

Also.. who would hoover them all up if it worked too wel lolol.

These guys are actualy getting paid for this... off our taxes.

More funding needed!

.... Now my physics is not brilliant, but I beleive that after a while the little disks would all end up on the same plane (like Saturn's rings) ...

Your physics is fine but you may have a slightly optimistic idea of the timing for this to occur; measured in year I think it involves a 1 followed by seven or eight zeroes.

It was in New Scientist. Which as I pointed out in a different thread has jumped wholeheartedly on the Anthropogenic Global Warming bandwagon.

Ahhh in true machinist tradition I hadn't thought of the timescale :withstupi
"What do you mean the deigners have eaten all the project's budgeted hours?! you want it WHEN!?" lol

And so true about New Scientist, I've been reading it since it was a monthly mag but these days I find myself flicking through about a quarter of it without even reading the bits about global warming: it's so "what if" these days.

Apart from the huge impracticality of the weight of the beast needed... they have't really thought it out. Now my physics is not brilliant, but I beleive that after a while the little disks would all end up on the same plane (like Saturn's rings) cos they would attract each other by gravity in the North South direction (although centripetal force would keep them spread out laterally).


Weight and gravitational mass shouldn't be an issue. Their just reflective disks, doesn't matter if their 10lb lead disks or .001 mylar sheet. Of course a few to many and we plunge ourselves into an ice age. And then what, we bomb the little disks out of existence to get rid of a few? Oh yeah, I can see the headlined now... Earth declares war on little mylar disk... save the mylar people protests heard round the world.... Sean Penn traveling to the mylar belt to act as a human shield...

So, it this the ultimate solution so we can pump more crap into the air and all die early from cancer and emphysema or should we just clean things up a little?

...And so true about New Scientist, I've been reading it since it was a monthly mag but these days I find myself flicking through about a quarter of it without even reading the bits about global warming: it's so "what if" these days.

Yes, I think it has degenerated more in the past two years than the previous 40 or so.

Dear All,

I never got to grips with astronomy, and my knowledge of gravitational pull is mighty thin. I would be very grateful if anybody could enlighten me on these issues...

1) If you increase the mass of the Earth ( say, by importing rubble from far off planets), would the Earth assume an orbit round the Sun that is of a smaller "radius" compared to the present one, or a larger radius? (I'm guessing a smaller radius, but may well be wrong).

2) If there is a natural change in radius, does the Earth have to be moved to it, or will it assume it of its own accord ?

Incidentally, I think that ImanCarrot's posts are two of the funniest pieces I have ever read. I was helpless. Thank-you.

Best wishes

Martin

Dear All,

I never got to grips with astronomy, and my knowledge of gravitational pull is mighty thin. I would be very grateful if anybody could enlighten me on these issues...

1) If you increase the mass of the Earth ( say, by importing rubble from far off planets), would the Earth assume an orbit round the Sun that is of a smaller "radius" compared to the present one, or a larger radius? (I'm guessing a smaller radius, but may well be wrong).

2) If there is a natural change in radius, does the Earth have to be moved to it, or will it assume it of its own accord ?

Incidentally, I think that ImanCarrot's posts are two of the funniest pieces I have ever read. I was helpless. Thank-you.

Best wishes

Martin

Well we are importing rubble, but it is called dust, from out there, to the tune of multi-thousands of tons per year I think. You can probably find out how much via Google.

What does it do to the Earth's orbital distance? That is a good question. We need Priapus, or whatever he called himself, to come on the scene and give us a lecture.

I am sure conservation of angular momentum comes into it somewhere :) .

But what has this got to do with the topic of MY Thread? You Thread Hijacker!!!!!!(chair)

But what has this got to do with the topic of MY Thread? You Thread Hijacker!!!!!!(chair)

Dear Geof,

Your thread threw up the idea of exporting "dead stuff" to space as an alternative to cremation. It might solve global warming. OK, I cannot pretend that a space-based "dead press" (TM) was my favourite option.

Anyway, you mentioned a scheme to give the Earth a pair of "designer" shades, and I started thinking.....

....instead of blocking solar radiation with shades, why not reduce solar radiation by moving the Earth to a different, and more distant orbit from the Sun.

It could be that a less "massy" Earth might assume the required orbit.

If this could be achieved by dumping "dead stuff" into space.... Bingo...loads of dead birds with one stone.

Best wishes,

Martin

Dear Geof,

Your thread threw up the idea of exporting "dead stuff" to space as an alternative to cremation..... Best wishes,

Martin

No, no, no; go back and read again. The suggestion was to obtain energy with some harebrained space based scheme and use the energy to convert dead people and old trees to an oily pulp.

No, no, no; go back and read again. The suggestion was to obtain energy with some harebrained space based scheme and use the energy to convert dead people and old trees to an oily pulp.

Dear Geof,

Hush...

ORD(Orbit Re-alignment Denial) is now a criminal offence.

Best wishes,

Martin

The earth wobbles in it's orbit as it is...in fact, the big earthquake that caused the Xmas tsunami of '04 actually shifted the earths CG and changed its wobble by a few centimeters.

If you increase the mass, you'd need to do it uniformly, or you'll worsen the wobble...not necessarily a good thing! The existing wobble affects climate cycle (I'm not sure offhand what the period(s) are).

The other down side to increasing the mass is increasing gravitational attraction, which will pull the moon closer, and pull us, as a system, closer to the sun.

Much more serious as a side effect will be the shift in astrological forecasts. I'm not sure I'd wanna risk becoming a capricorn!!

Let's not screw with nature any more than we already do. Every time we do, we inevitably make things worse in the long term.

The earth wobbles in it's orbit as it is...in fact, the big earthquake that caused the Xmas tsunami of '04 actually shifted the earths CG and changed its wobble by a few centimeters...

Was it really a few cm??? I thought it was a fraction of a centimeter; certainly measurable but pretty small compared to the earth.



....If you increase the mass, you'd need to do it uniformly, or you'll worsen the wobble...not necessarily a good thing! The existing wobble affects climate cycle (I'm not sure offhand what the period(s) are).....

Isn't that the 25,000 year one in the Milankovitch cycles?

If you bring it in a dust just at a much greater rate than at present it should distribute fairly uniformly. But then I suppose if you filled the atmosphere with dust you don't need to worry about Global Warming anymore:confused: .

But what does it do to day length? This stuff coming in does not have the same angular momentum as the Earth so the spin will slow down. I would expect 48hour days might be as difficult, if not more difficult, to adapt to as Global Warming.

As Mr Rabbit Food said we need a bigger grant to study this.

Aha! this cosmic dust thing has enlightened me to a puzzle that has bugged me for many a year...

We're importing cosmic dust all the time (as a planet) and hence the mass of the earth is getting larger- this explains why all old biblical cities are under the ground!

Also, if the earth is gaining mass then it logicaly should orbit the sun a bit slower (like a bigger mass on the end of a string) and hence years will be longer... this explains why old guys in the bible lived for 200 years and stuff... the years were shorter.

Goodness! Einstein and Hawkins have nothing on us lot *phew*

One question that has been also bugging me for years is: how fast does gravity travel? Like, if you removed the moon how soon would the tides "know", would it be instantaneous or at the speed of light?

Sorry to ramble :) it's Monday and I've only had two cups of coffee and me machine is on a warmup cycle.

But what does it do to day length? This stuff coming in does not have the same angular momentum as the Earth so the spin will slow down. I would expect 48hour days might be as difficult, if not more difficult, to adapt to as Global Warming.

I suspect this is a cunning ploy by the powers that be to get us working longer hours *peers about in a paranoid fashion*.

I need more funding please to dig for these ancient cities... my excavation equipment is not very high tech (see below).

Dear All,

I never got to grips with astronomy, and my knowledge of gravitational pull is mighty thin. I would be very grateful if anybody could enlighten me on these issues...

1) If you increase the mass of the Earth ( say, by importing rubble from far off planets), would the Earth assume an orbit round the Sun that is of a smaller "radius" compared to the present one, or a larger radius? (I'm guessing a smaller radius, but may well be wrong).

2) If there is a natural change in radius, does the Earth have to be moved to it, or will it assume it of its own accord ?

Incidentally, I think that ImanCarrot's posts are two of the funniest pieces I have ever read. I was helpless. Thank-you.

Best wishes

Martin


Hi Martin,

This is the simple answer from Kepler's laws pf planetary motion.

LAW 1: The orbit of a planet about the Sun is an ellipse with the Sun's center of mass at one focus. This means part of the time the earth is closer than at other times.

LAW 2: A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time. When the Earth moves in closer to the sun, it's orbital speed inccreases. Think of it this way. In any minute the Earth sweeps out a pie shaped arc in space. Those pie shaped arcs are always the same size in square inches (nobody gets jipped on their piece of pie). They can be long and skinny of short and fat, but they are always the same size.

LAW 3: The squares of the periods of the planets are proportional to the cubes of their semimajor axes. A variation of law 2. Basically the closer the earth is to the sun the faster it rotates.

The beauty of Keplers laws is that in the mathematics the mass of the earth cancels out. So the only factors are the distance from the sun and the orbital speed. Mass doesn't matter. Sounds a little wierd I know, but it's the way the math works out. It's why we can have the earth in it's orbit where it is, jupiter with something like 300 time the mass of the earth way out there and pluto at .002 times the mass of the earth even further out. They just orbit slower based on their distance, not their mass.

The beauty of Keplers laws is that in the mathematics the mass of the earth cancels out

*confused* What if the earth's mass was equal to, or ten times that of the the sun then?

Or... if it had a mass of only 1 ounce that would surely affect it?

The orbit distance, and/ or speed of orbit would need to change surely *scratches head*

As I recall, Kinetic Energy= 1/2(MV^2) ... so increasing the mass would need a reduction in Velocity to maintain the Kinetic Energy. This doesn't sound right though....

Manual M and G code suddenly looks a lot easier now lol.

*confused* What if the earth's mass was equal to, or ten times that of the the sun then?...

In your second case the sun would orbit the earth.

In your first case both would orbit a point equidistant between them.

In all cases the centers of mass of each orbiting body actually orbit a point which corresponds to the center of mass of the combined system. I think for the moon-earth system it is a few thousand miles underground.

The dependence solely on distance is why a geosynchronous satellite has to orbit at the distance it does; 25,000 kilometers in round figures(I think ???). A satellite closer in goes faster, further out goes slower. You can calculate the geosynchronous distance like Arthur C. Clarke did in the 1950's. Just think how rich he would be if he had patented the idea!

EDIT: Manual G and M code is a whole lot easier; provided you can define the shapes analytically.

Manual G and M code is a whole lot easier; provided you can define the shapes analytically

hehe, try telling that to my machine: I can take days to programe a lens then the blasted thing will sometimes do what it wants... which is invariably the opposite to what I want it to do :)

It constantly amazes visitors to my lab that everytime I go to press the big green button I touch my lucky block of wood on the side of the machine "for good luck" mehehe.

...everytime I go to press the big green button I touch my lucky block of wood on the side of the machine "for good luck" mehehe.

I though the lucky block of wood was a given and did not ever need to be mentioned.

This is the simple answer from Kepler's laws pf planetary motion.......

They just orbit slower based on their distance, not their mass.


Dear Steven,

Sorry, I still don't get it. This ellipse thing is doing my head in. Could we just simplify the solar system temporarily in order for me to get to grips with the problem.......?

If you brushed all the planets (apart from the Earth) away into deepest space, would the Earth have a circular orbit about the Sun, or would it still be elliptical? My guess is elliptical. (OK, I would certainly hang on to the Moon because tides are quite handy for re-floating the boat after going aground.) Geof suggests that if the Earth and the Sun had the same mass, the orbits of each would be circular about a single point. Presumably a circle is a sub-set of ellipses?

Best wishes

Martin

Was it really a few cm??? I thought it was a fraction of a centimeter; certainly measurable but pretty small compared to the earth..

But what does it do to day length? This stuff coming in does not have the same angular momentum as the Earth so the spin will slow down. .
JPL reports that the "mean North pole" shifted approx. 2.5 centimeters in the direction of 145deg East Longitude, consistent with an observed long-term trend.

The day was also decreased by some 2.68 microseconds, suggesting that the earth is becoming more "round"...that is, there's less flattening on top and bulging at the equator.

Ok, see if this helps or is it more confusing?

Dear Steven,

Sorry, I still don't get it. This ellipse thing is doing my head in. Could we just simplify the solar system temporarily in order for me to get to grips with the problem.......?

If you brushed all the planets (apart from the Earth) away into deepest space, would the Earth have a circular orbit about the Sun, or would it still be elliptical? My guess is elliptical. (OK, I would certainly hang on to the Moon because tides are quite handy for re-floating the boat after going aground.) Geof suggests that if the Earth and the Sun had the same mass, the orbits of each would be circular about a single point. Presumably a circle is a sub-set of ellipses?

Best wishes

Martin

Hi Martin,

Yes, a circle is a specialized case of an ellipse where the focci are in the center. So yes it would still be an ellipse.

Oh yeah, regarding E=1/2MV^2

More importantly there is the law of conservation of momentum (p=MV)

momentum has to stay constant unless the planet is acted on by some perturbing force (like being hit by an asteroid or something big like that).

If mass increases then velocity has to decrease for momentum to stay the same, and momentum must stay the same. Momentum is what keeps the planet trying to go wizzing off into space. Gravity is what is trying to pull it into the sun. When they are balanced you have a stable orbit.

Now, if the earth collected enough dust to double in mass, then conservation of momentum says it's velocity much reduce to half making for a much longer year, but momentum remains constant. So the orbital distance stays the same (no difference in gravity pulling it in or momentum pulling it out).

that may help a bit too.

JPL reports that the "mean North pole" shifted approx. 2.5 centimeters in the direction of 145deg East Longitude, consistent with an observed long-term trend.

The day was also decreased by some 2.68 microseconds, suggesting that the earth is becoming more "round"...that is, there's less flattening on top and bulging at the equator.

Is that true north or magnetic north (which moves at a pretty steay rate anyway is I think is somewhere under one of the bays off northern Canada right now).

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp_e.php

Magnetic north movement

More importantly there is the law of conservation of momentum (p=MV)

momentum has to stay constant unless the planet is acted on by some perturbing force (like being hit by an asteroid or something big like that).

.

Dear Steven,

Thank-you for your help.

You say that momentum has to stay constant. Presumably this only applies within a closed system. By coming from outside the system, the asteroid provides a force to change the net amount of momentum.

Is this right?

Thanks

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Steven,

Thank-you for your help.

You say that momentum has to stay constant. Presumably this only applies within a closed system. By coming from outside the system, the asteroid provides a force to change the net amount of momentum.

Is this right?

Thanks

Best wishes

Martin

Yes, correct. Actually it's one of Newton's laws (#2 I think). An objects motion will remain constant unless acted upon by an outside force.

Yes, correct. Actually it's one of Newton's laws (#2 I think). An objects motion will remain constant unless acted upon by an outside force.

Dear Steven,

Thanks again.

OK, so if we start exporting "stuff" from the Earth to a position outside the Solar system, what happens to the Earth's orbit round the Sun?

Best wishes,

Martin

Is that true north or magnetic north (which moves at a pretty steay rate anyway is I think is somewhere under one of the bays off northern Canada right now).

It moved into Russian Territory a while back.

Martin it is easy to understand orbital motion; all you have to do is stand on the shoulders of Giants.

Steven;

There is a contradiction in these two, yes?

Now, if the earth collected enough dust to double in mass, then conservation of momentum says it's velocity much reduce to half making for a much longer year, but momentum remains constant. So the orbital distance stays the same (no difference in gravity pulling it in or momentum pulling it out).


It's why we can have the earth in it's orbit where it is, jupiter with something like 300 time the mass of the earth way out there and pluto at .002 times the mass of the earth even further out. They just orbit slower based on their distance, not their mass.

Dear Steven,

Thanks again.

OK, so if we start exporting "stuff" from the Earth to a position outside the Solar system, what happens to the Earth's orbit round the Sun?

Best wishes,

Martin

It doesn't have to be outside the solar system. As long as it is from outside the earth. If we bump into a NEO (near Earth Object) like an asteroid then it would likely come from the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter. Possibly the remains of a planet there that took a bump from something really really big. If it is a comet then it likely would come from the Kuiper belt, a group of some 200 planetoids and comets of which pluto is a member. Both of which are part of the solar system. The term "outside of the system" is a thermodynamic term and doesn't always mean just what it sounds like it should.

Conservation of momentum says it the earth gets lighter then it has to move faster to keep the momentum the same. If the earth gets heavier then it moves slower. But since the mass of Earth = 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms, your talking a lot of stuff to make even the smallest noticible change.

It moved into Russian Territory a while back.

Martin it is easy to understand orbital motion; all you have to do is stand on the shoulders of Giants.

Steven;

There is a contradiction in these two, yes?

Now, if the earth collected enough dust to double in mass, then conservation of momentum says it's velocity much reduce to half making for a much longer year, but momentum remains constant. So the orbital distance stays the same (no difference in gravity pulling it in or momentum pulling it out).


It's why we can have the earth in it's orbit where it is, jupiter with something like 300 time the mass of the earth way out there and pluto at .002 times the mass of the earth even further out. They just orbit slower based on their distance, not their mass.

Exactly.

I forgot about magnetic north moving into Russian territory till I looked at the map. That's OK, you guy's weren't making much off of it when it was your's anyway. Now if you were charging .001 cents for every compass made, then all of Canada could have already been retired :)

Dear Steven , Geof, and all,

"Stand on the shoulders of giants"???? It wouldn't make blind bit of intellectual elevation for this dumb pigmy.

Anyway, thanks for trying.

Having to cancel a lucrative second career as a climate change expert is a bit of a b#gger.

Best wishes,


Martin

Dear Steven , Geof, and all,

"Stand on the shoulders of giants"???? It wouldn't make blind bit of intellectual elevation for this dumb pigmy.

Anyway, thanks for trying.

Having to cancel a lucrative second career as a climate change expert is a bit of a b#gger.

Best wishes,


Martin

The "Stand on the Shoulders of Giants: is a reference to Kepler and others. I think it is attributed to Newton; that he sadi he has seen further than others because he stood on the shoulders of giants; Kepler was one of the 'Giants'.

Your 'pigmy' is almost apropo; the phrase has been traced further back than Newton and its original form referred to a dwarf standing on a giant's shoulder.

See the sort of stuff you missed by not being a physicist :) .

.

See the sort of stuff you missed by not being a physicist :) .

Dear Geof,

I'm shamefully shrinking even further into matter that has almost negative mass .

Any chance of Orbit Re-Alignment?

Best wishes


Martin

"Stand on the shoulders of giants"

Just means to me that when I fall off (not if, but when) I will probably break more things then if I were standing on the shoulders of short people :)

I'm wrong. I'm sorry. Had my head up my butt...so here's my apology.

Changing the earth's mass won't change it's orbit, 'cause of F=GMm/Rsquared. Duh. Astrophysics is not my strong suit.

So there. I admit it.

On other topics: The physical location of the earth's mass changed, not the magnetic.

It was Newton that stood on the shoulders of Kepler and Gallileo.

...It was Newton that stood on the shoulders of Kepler and Gallileo.

And Kepler stood on Brahe and Copernicus so Newton must have been well up in the air. Or have I got it backwards?

Drifted a long way from incinerating corpses haven't we?

And Kepler stood on Brahe and Copernicus so Newton must have been well up in the air. Or have I got it backwards?

Drifted a long way from incinerating corpses haven't we?


Dear Geof,

We most certainly have drifted away from cremation.

As a useless cosmologist, perhaps I may be able to be of help on the rather grim details of going up the chimney.

I looked into the subject when a close member of my family was cremated a couple of years ago, I suppose as some kind of a displacement activity, rather than an entirely morbid one. Please, no notes of sympathy guys.

1) Modern, German and Danish equipment turns you into bone ash at the rate of about 50kg per hour.

2) In case you did not know, the stuff that comes out of the oven is then crushed by rotating steel balls into a reasonably fine powder, allowed to cool,
and placed in a suitably tasteful container.

3) What is the energy input to turn you into about 2 kg of bone ash?

Well, in the UK, about 3000 cubic feet of natural gas.


OK, is it better to be planted in the ground, or blown up the chimney??

(For myself, I going for personal Global Warming)

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Geof,

We most certainly have drifted away from cremation.
OK, is it better to be planted in the ground, or blown up the chimney??

(For myself, I going for personal Global Warming)

Best wishes

Martin

Actually if you really want the ecologically and environmentally correct answer you should be rendered down into synthetic oil and bone meal.

The Ozzie Biologist who was the root cause for this thread is correct when he says humans release about 50kg during combustion. This amount is released whether a human is combusted in a blaze of glory or whether they are just tossed on the compost heap for the bacteria, maggots and worms to have a go at.

What most people don't grasp is that the 50kg of CO2 was actually fixed from the atmosphere via the plants which were consumed by the human during their growth. We all started off pretty close to nothing; actually there is a thing about 'being a gleam in your Father's eye' greater than nine months prior to your date of birth so you can say we all did start off as nothing.

We ate and grew and every single Carbon atom incorporated into our body came from a molecule of Carbon Dioxide that some plant had taken from the atmosphere and turned into plant tissue. Make that announcement at a Cocktail Party sometime and most people will look at you like you are a raving lunatic.

And that is just a small portion of the Carbon from Carbon Dioxide that we have eaten. Every single Carbon Dioxide molecule we exhale is merely replacing a Carbon Dioxide molecule that was taken in by a plant and turned into plant tissue that became our food. It doesn't matter whether it first went into a beef of chicken it still came from the atmosphere and when we exhale we just return it to the atmosphere.

As far as our bodies are concerned most of the Carbon in the food we eat is a fuel; an energy carrier. Plants take solar energy and use it to separate Oxygen from Carbon Dioxide, use the Carbon as part of their structure and boot the Oxygen out as a waste product; the solar energy is stored in the plant in Carbohydrates, also known as starch and sugars. We eat the Carbohydrates, take in Oxygen, combine it with the Carbon from the Carbohydrates and release the energy that was stored by the plants and use this energy to stay alive. While we are growing a small portion of the Carbon is used to make our tissues.

So when we 'pass on' to use the polite euphemism, or 'kick the bucket' and are cremated, or otherwise disposed of, all that happens is the final Carbon atoms, that plants extracted from the atmosphere to make us, are returned to the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide and the circle is complete. We have had no net effect; our life has been a large resounding zero. Another neat tidbit to bring up at a Cocktail Party.

But a small amount of redemption is at hand! The Carbon in us is as valuable, energy wise, as the Carbon in an equivalent weight of crude oil. That is dry weight on our side; water is not very useful. Energetically we are equivalent to about about 15kg of crude oil.

I read recently in a business magazine that some oil company is teaming up with a food processor to take animal waste and use a high temperature and pressure process turn this waste into fuel oil. I also read sometime back about a company in either Kansas or Kentucky already doing this type of thing on a small scale.

So here is your redemption. A way to make sure your life is not a zero. Humans are animals, biologically speaking...this is not a value judgement. You can volunteer to be rendered into diesel fuel and in doing so remove the need for the consumption of 15kg of fossil fuel; your own ultimate contribution to fight Global Warming.

You expressed a preference for 'personal Global Warming'. This choice is not available to you. You can go out in the blaze of glory or on the trash heap and your contribution is zero; your only choice is being a big nothing or a small tank of diesel fuel.

Oh, I mentioned bone meal. Yes that is not much use for fuel oil but it goes into plant fertilizer so you can have a continuing contribution.

So here is your redemption. A way to make sure your life is not a zero. Humans are animals, biologically speaking...this is not a value judgement. You can volunteer to be rendered into diesel fuel and in doing so remove the need for the consumption of 15kg of fossil fuel; your own ultimate contribution to fight Global Warming.

You expressed a preference for 'personal Global Warming'. This choice is not available to you. You can go out in the blaze of glory or on the trash heap and your contribution is zero; your only choice is being a big nothing or a small tank of diesel fuel.

.

Dear Geof,

Any chance of folding myself, languidly, into my compost heap, as I draw my last breath...???


Ah well, the rats will get me...


Best wishes

Martin

Incidentaly, every single atom in your body was synthesised in the middle of a star. Since Hydrogen and Helium were the basic building blocks of the universe, everything else had to be made in the nuclear fusion furnace of the inside of a star.

When the star went supernova it scattered all these nice atoms around the place and some of them ended up here to make molecules of stuff that became... us.

Kinda neat that we came from a star :)

Actually if you really want the ecologically and environmentally correct answer you should be rendered down into synthetic oil and bone meal.


I read recently in a business magazine that some oil company is teaming up with a food processor to take animal waste and use a high temperature and pressure process turn this waste into fuel oil. I also read sometime back about a company in either Kansas or Kentucky already doing this type of thing on a small scale.

So here is your redemption. A way to make sure your life is not a zero. Humans are animals, biologically speaking...this is not a value judgement. You can volunteer to be rendered into diesel fuel and in doing so remove the need for the consumption of 15kg of fossil fuel; your own ultimate contribution to fight Global Warming.

.


Dear Geof,

Your kind words have been a great source of comfort to me.

I read somewhere, not too long ago, that a Scandinavian country that has access to net-loads of fish (Norway maybe) was turning pilchards or herring into oil to be burned in their power stations. Naturally, this did not go down too well with (conventional) conservationists, but I whooped with joy realising that personal salvation was at hand on my very own European door-step.

After a long period of reflection, I decided that it might be unfair to those left behind to have to say farewell, even to me, at the gates of some fishy-stinky facility.

It was a hard decision at the time, but I drive a small car. My neighbour's ridiculous monster would p#ss away my diesel on a single school run.

Bah, humbug.


Best wishes

Martin

Hehe, my Dead Press (TM lol) might become a viable project then! *files patents by the dozen and applies for multi-million dollar grants* Muahaha I shall take over the planet like Bill Gates! *cackles in a meglomaniacal mad scientist manner*

Anyway as an aside, you can get the carbon of deceased loved ones turned into diamonds (I jest you not)... I would find it weird though, having my girlfriend hanging round my neck: she's a pain in the neck when alive lol. She can't see this board I think *peers about nervously*.

Dun beleive me? here's a link (or you can google "Diamonds from dead people")

http://www.lifegem.com/

Oh, even though I do Diamond Machining, I have nothing to do with this company, I need to use natural diamonds, synthetic ones just don't cut it. Ewww Immagine machining with a diamond made of dead people *shudders* you'd need to give it a name and talk to it *shivers*

Martin,

Hey thanks for letting me ramble on about physics. It's so rare that anyone wants to listed when I talk about it. I've been hanging out here for a little over a year and sometimes I try to help out the newbies and answer their questions and the seasoned people then jump on my comments saying stuff like "well,. that's mostly right...but", or "well,. that's partly right...but", or "well,. this time he spelled "CNC" right...but". It's refreshing to talk about something where I have a vague idea of what I'm talking about.

Also, in case your thinking of trying it, talking physics doesn't work as an ice breaker at a party

....Also, in case your thinking of trying it, talking physics doesn't work as an ice breaker at a party

Compared to what I was rambling on about a few posts up Physics is a barnstormer of a topic. People seem to get all squeamish about getting squished into crude oil.

Compared to what I was rambling on about a few posts up Physics is a barnstormer of a topic. People seem to get all squeamish about getting squished into crude oil.

Dear Steven and Geof,

OK, here's some advice to liven up your social skills..... just drop in a few of those cremation facts and you'll be the life and soul of the party.

Best wishes

Martin

Martin,

I'll keep that in mind at the next really good party I get invited to :)

Thinking about that company that will change your ashes into a diamond... when we die we could get that done then have the diamond broken down into chips and put into a sintered grinding wheel.

That way we could carry on machining even after we're dead :)

Thinking about that company that will change your ashes into a diamond... when we die we could get that done then have the diamond broken down into chips and put into a sintered grinding wheel.

That way we could carry on machining even after we're dead :)

Can I be dimond coated onto an edge tool like a wood working gouge or a knife. It's one way of getting people to say "wow, he is really pretty sharp" :)

Thinking about that company that will change your ashes into a diamond... when we die we could get that done then have the diamond broken down into chips and put into a sintered grinding wheel.

That way we could carry on machining even after we're dead :)

A really, really, really tiny grinding wheel.

Can I be dimond coated onto an edge tool like a wood working gouge or a knife. It's one way of getting people to say "wow, he is really pretty sharp" :)

First you should see how diamond tools work on wood. You may be more likely to be described as incredibly dull. Although if you change the substrate on which the tool works it may be one time when you got somewhere banging your head (and the rest of you) against a concrete wall.

(or you can google "Diamonds from dead people")

http://www.lifegem.com/

*

Dear ImanCarrot,

What a fantastic website. It makes the prospect of being loaded into the fuel tank of my neighbour's Hummer, together with a shoal of pilchards, look positively tasteful.

Best wishes

Martin

The current trend reminds me of a friend whose father wished to be buried at sea. This is difficult to arrange these days what with all the greenies going on about polluting the marine environment. However, he settled on a solution, had his father cremated, rented a boat and then out in Georgia Straights tossed overboard the little plastic container that came from the crematorium. He did have the forethought to punch holes in the plastic but when he got to the part about bashing the container with a boathook to try and make it sink I stopped listening: I was laughing too hard.

The current trend reminds me of a friend whose father wished to be buried at sea. This is difficult to arrange these days what with all the greenies going on about polluting the marine environment. However, he settled on a solution, had his father cremated, rented a boat and then out in Georgia Straights tossed overboard the little plastic container that came from the crematorium. He did have the forethought to punch holes in the plastic but when he got to the part about bashing the container with a boathook to try and make it sink I stopped listening: I was laughing too hard.

Interesting enough, if your friends father was x-navy, then burrial at sea is a service they offer free to all navy vetrans (with full military honors). It is also offered as a free service to all members of a particular scuba diving school in St Croix (which is where my girlfriend got her certification).

OK, maybe a diamond coated edge tool is the wrong choice. I could be cut and mounted into a ring and just settle for being "bright". While the girlfriend is ultimately going to be fishfood.

Although if she is wearing me at the time then I will be neither sharp or bright lying at the bottom of the cold dark sea.

My dad is a hot-rodder from Way way back...I mean WAYYYY back. He likes to go to Bob's on Friday nights 'cause they let all the rodders display their cars....even Jay Leno shows up on occasion with one from his fleet.

I cracked him up when I suggested that when he died I was going to spread his ashes over Bob's Big Boy in Toluca Lake on one of those Friday nights....I just couldn't think of anything more appropriate.

Me? You can bury me at the base of a tree that is going to become TP for 1SheetSheryl. (please though, help me avoid Rosie..)

..... I could be cut and mounted into a ring and just settle for being "bright"....

Sorry to tell you, the ones I have seen pictures of at least, are a dull cloudy grey like synthetic industrial diamond used on diamond saws. Which of course is what they are.

The current trend reminds me of a friend whose father wished to be buried at sea. This is difficult to arrange these days what with all the greenies going on about polluting the marine environment. However, he settled on a solution, had his father cremated, rented a boat and then out in Georgia Straights tossed overboard the little plastic container that came from the crematorium. He did have the forethought to punch holes in the plastic but when he got to the part about bashing the container with a boathook to try and make it sink I stopped listening: I was laughing too hard.

Dear Geof,

If only your friend had heard of www.seaburial.com.

Here is one of their services.......

Sea Floor Burial

* The created remains will be taken in an urn to the sea bed floor by a diver and buried.
* A remembrance of soil of the sea bed floor from the area of the burial will be given to the next of kin.
* A photo will be taken of the urn on the sea bed floor.
* Certificate of Sea burial will be issued to the next of kin.

A photo of the urn on the sea bed floor is a nice touch, don't you think?

Best wishes


Martin

Sorry to tell you, the ones I have seen pictures of at least, are a dull cloudy grey like synthetic industrial diamond used on diamond saws. Which of course is what they are.

No way am I going to win at this I see. OK, give me away to the sausage factory. Good thing your a vegetarian, huh?

My dad is a hot-rodder from Way way back...I mean WAYYYY back. He likes to go to Bob's on Friday nights 'cause they let all the rodders display their cars....even Jay Leno shows up on occasion with one from his fleet.

I cracked him up when I suggested that when he died I was going to spread his ashes over Bob's Big Boy in Toluca Lake on one of those Friday nights....I just couldn't think of anything more appropriate.

Me? You can bury me at the base of a tree that is going to become TP for 1SheetSheryl. (please though, help me avoid Rosie..)

You from NYC (Long Island)? My girlfriend's Uncle Mike shows up to those things too. Billy Joel and Leno show up regularly.

Ever though of CNCing him a custom urn in the shape of his favorite hot rod?

No way am I going to win at this I see. OK, give me away to the sausage factory. Good thing your a vegetarian, huh?

Actually I do own a diesel powered vehicle; hint, hint, nudge, nudge. Never one to turn down the offer of a free tank full of fuel. Whoops not quite full, maybe about 20%.

Dear Geof,

If only your friend had heard of www.seaburial.com.

Here is one of their services.......

Sea Floor Burial

* The created remains will be taken in an urn to the sea bed floor by a diver and buried.
* A remembrance of soil of the sea bed floor from the area of the burial will be given to the next of kin.
* A photo will be taken of the urn on the sea bed floor.
* Certificate of Sea burial will be issued to the next of kin.

A photo of the urn on the sea bed floor is a nice touch, don't you think?

Best wishes


Martin

There is something inefficient or inconsistent here:

The remains are buried on the seabed. Presumably at this point an excavation is performed.

The diver now surfaces to give some of the excavated seafloor to the next of kin.

Now the diver goes back down and must disinter the remains in order to take a photograph of them on the sea floor.

Then a false certificate is prepared for the next of kin. Obviously false, there is no mention of reburial so the remains must have been left exposed on the sea floor after the photograph.

I am glad these people are not in control of sequencing operations in my company.

You from NYC (Long Island)? My girlfriend's Uncle Mike shows up to those things too. Billy Joel and Leno show up regularly.

Ever though of CNCing him a custom urn in the shape of his favorite hot rod?

This is west-coast--Leno's collection is in Burbank....right next door to Toluca Lake, where the Bob's is located. It's known as Shoney's in the south, forgot the other name it goes under in other parts of the country.

I did take his car-styled logo that he came up with in 1934, stick into MasterCrash, turn it into Nurbs, and engrave it into a key chain that I gold plated for him.

At 86, he's driving a 365hp crate-motored '66 El Camino. Don't think I'll have to worry about an urn...I think he might already be self-contained.... :) And that's just the way he likes it!

Keith Richards was recently asked by a popular music publication what was the weirdest thing he had ever snorted... apparently he snorted his dad's ashes with some blow, whatever blow is *coughs*

Now that's weird.

Here's the link if you dun beleive me :)

http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/27515

Dun try this at home folks.

ps: as you can probably tell, my machine is totaly setup and only requires a pressing of the big green button every 10 mins, so I'm bored... so I searched some more for what to do with dead people since my oil press has not attracted any governmental grants as yet.

My favourite is the one that says you freeze the body to about minus 18 deg C then imerse it in liquid nitrogen- it (obviously) becomes very brittle and can be smashed into little bits with vibration. The little bits are then passed through a mesh to remove any spare surgical parts and stuck in a vacuum chamber to remove water and sterilised at the same time, they are then buried in a shallow grave with a tree on top...

Their justification of this? it stops emmisions by cremation... now consider how much emissions were used to generate the power to cool the body to -18 deg C, to produce the liquid nitrogen, to vibrate and seperate the remains, to generate the vacuum and extract the water etc etc lmao they are nutters.

Here's the link that one above is about half way down).

http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/damndata/index.php?/archives/809-Ten-things-to-do-when-youre-dead.html

Other ideas they have is to put the ashes in a snow spehre thingy so you can shake it every now and again, make wine glasses and/ or glazing with ashes, mix the ashes with concrete and create artificial coral reefs, stick them in shotgun shells or fireworks lol it really is quite amusing :)