Future Energy Sources 2.4 Improved Efficiency External Combustion Engines

Masu,

Co2 is a good thing. Clean Coal power plants next to farms could double crop production. Co2 has value and does nothing to warm the globe since co2 is in saturation.

The real question is one of strategy. I am working on an engine that is both an IC and EC engine. A car with this engine can sit there in the sun and idle and generate 1-2 hp and "regenerate" from solar. That same engine in a house would eliminate the need for all nuke and coal power plants using only 1/4th of the house stock. A stirling cycle will not work, and neither will a rankine, Otto or Diesel for that matter. Such an engine can run on gasoline, Diesel or methane. When the sun is not out, you use the same capital equipment, sunny, cloudy, day or night. Only during long periods of cloudy weather (7 days, depending on design) do you need a fuel.

The real question then is where do we get the co2 to feed our crops? We are starving plants now. They like 1200ppm, not 375.

So, have some patients, Masu. There is no energy "crisis" and energy will drop in price. Once this is solved, "they" (the global warming hoax con men) will demand we burn fuel to save us from the next cold spell that should be starting in a few years.

I for one am sick and tired of being jerked around by fuel prices, global warming scare, and fear of this or that, all to make a buck. "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." Now we have "vote Gore to be poor." If you think it is a problem, help do the research and solve the problem. Anybody who can google can help out. Understand? You can be in a bed on your back and be of value. Turn your brain on, stop the complaining, and go to work.

Masu, here, I am currently working on insulation. I need to know about molding polyurethane in a formed structure for my "power house." Want to help? Let's talk off line. Stop the co2 bull, ok.

Quite apart from any CO2 issue, the cost of acquiring fuel is a concern for every user whether they be a power utility or a home owner. Recovery of heat that normally goes up the flue as waste should be an integral part of any new boiler/burner design.

As I understand it, a normal chimney requires a certain heat differential to produce the upward air flow to vent the combustion fumes out the chimney. If too much heat is stripped out of this flue gas, the chimney effect fails to extract the combustion gases and poor draft and thus combustion results.

In terms of energy expenditure versus energy creation, does it make sense to use a forced air fan system to improve chimney draft and if so how much better efficiency reults?

Hi Seaplaneguy, long time since we last debated.

I notice you have a bit of an obsession with Al Gore. Are you aware that the majority of congress now accepts as fact that CO₂ emissions are causing global warming? Here is an article from January that talks about some of the players involved now. If you want to ridicule Gore, you should do the same to Bush, McCain, and many others, since they all share similiar views on this issue.

http://hill6.thehill.com/the-executive/global-warming-becomes-hot-topic-on-capitol-hill-2007-01-18.html

Yes, Al Gore is Satan in flesh...kind of looks the part don't ya think...

Most of Congress are socialist thugs who pay their friends to do "research" on some totally useless concept as payback for "donations." We used to call it conspiracy, corruption, and theft, but now we call it "partnerships." Oh, you must be their "friend" (ask Congressman Jon Oliver D ma about that). I say tosss the lot of them in jail.

McCain is Mcclueless. He is NOT a repub and has never had a non government day job. He does not have a clue. Inhofe is the man... Bush...funny how you now like him. I guess Bush is now an expert on co2, just like he is a great president... I say toss all socialists in jail who want to put a gun to my head and force me to buy their piece of junk product. Free markets makes the buyer in charge, not the seller, but in your world, the seller can force me to buy.

Look, if you believe it great. If you try to force me to comply with your beliefs, then you have crossed the felony line. What needs to happen is those who think the seas will rise 20 ft, need to sign a contract, put all their money and estate on the line, and in ten year if they are correct then we pay them damages, and if not, they pay us the damage they wanted to inflict on us. Simple. Do it in writing and by contract, otherwise keep the piehole shut about co2 and goverment regulations. Understand? You do not have the right to cry "fire" in a theater and you are liable for all damages. You can talk about fire while in the theater, have meeting on ways to solvle fire issues while in the theater, but once you do as Gore has, you have crossed the line into liability and felony assault. Al the Gores spiking us with co2 taxes and the tabacco companies spiking tabacco are basically the same thing. Both need to be bankrupted.

"Co2 is a good thing. Clean Coal power plants next to farms could double crop production. Co2 has value and does nothing to warm the globe since co2 is in saturation."

Whilst it is true that the text books tell us that an increase in atmospheric CO₂ levels should be beneficial to plant growth it's not that simple.

There are several Free Air Carbon dioxide Enhancement FACE experiments currently under way around the world that are looking at the dynamics of increased atmospheric CO₂ on plant growth rate.

I quote form Duke Forest FACE experiment.

In the Duke Forest The forest experiment was carried out on mature loblolly pine trees in North Carolina, in a forest owned by Duke. Used for timber, loblolly pines are the mainstay of the lumber industry in the Southeast. While increased photosynthesis may result in faster-growing trees and, hence, more wood, the researchers caution against viewing their results as entirely good news. It is not yet clear that the extra photosynthesis will be reflected in faster growth. Said Dr. Ellsworth, "These are early findings, and there are many questions still unanswered. What about competition from other trees? Will the forest outstrip the soil's capacity to support enhanced growth? Would faster-growing wood be more brittle? It's not so simple."

It is still too early to know for sure and there are experiments that are still underway around the world studying what increased CO₂ levels will actually have. There may well be other factor that have not yet been taken into account that will limit the ability of plants to take advantage of the increase in atmospheric CO₂. It is however clear that we do not fully understand the carbon cycle and as such there is no way anybody can make a broad statement like "CO₂ is a good thing"

You can read more about the FACE experiments from the following links or doing an internet search for "FACE experiment" AND "carbon dioxide"

• Stanford Report: Mark Shwartz
• OzFACE Start Up Document: CSIRO
• OzFACE Preliminary Report:: CSIRO
• Aspen FACE experiment.
• Duke FACE Report: Science Daily

There is also something called an Oceanic Anoxic Event (OAE) which appears to have occurred several times in the history of Earth and is likely responsible for the laying down of the fossil fuel we are so dependant upon today. Basically an OAE is the de-oxygenation of the worlds oceans and the mass extension of plant and animal life. They may also be associated with the release of large quantities of hydrogen sulfide which could increase the level of extension and seriously damage the ozone layer.

Nobody is absolutely sure at how or why OAE take place but one of the possibilities is that it is one of the mechanisms that has limited the level of atmospheric CO₂ and that high atmospheric CO₂ levels act as a trigger.

Now it is true that we can't be certain high CO₂ levels will cause an OAE but it they are triggered this way the increase in atmospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution puts us about half way to one happening.

There are lots of ifs, buts and maybes here, however, regardless of the cause, an OAE would be catastrophic to human life on Earth. It is something that requires a lot more research but if there is a chance we could cause one then we need to do our utmost to change our wasteful ways and avoid a man made OAE.

Masu,

I have told you many of times about www.co2science.com. They have lots of research going way back on this subject. Read it. Take the time to educate yourself. Co2 is a good thing! You know this is so much "bull" when "scientists" say the farts (methane) from cows exceed the effects of co2 from all human sources.

Co2 has been higher than now several times within the last two centuries. We are not at a peak or any where near it. We can't even measure human co2 over the co2 "noise" of the planet. Get real! There is no "smoking gun" (pun inteneded) with co2. The theory is wrong.

I have been reading some of the information on your much lauded CO₂ Science web site.

One of the things that worries me deeply is the non scientific attitude that is taken at the start of a project. A classic example is the so called Medieval Warm Period WMP project. I quote from the preamble to the project.

Our Medieval Warm Period Project is an ongoing effort to document the magnitude and spatial and temporal extent of a significant period of warmth that occurred approximately one thousand years ago. Its goal is to ultimately provide sufficient real-world evidence to convince most rational people that the Medieval Warm Period was:

(1) global in extent,

(2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and

(3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.

Starting out with goals that are specifically negative like this is a total travesty and in no way can be called scientific. Coming out with something like to prove the MWP is more extensive and warmer than the current warm period is starting with a conclusion and then fitting your research and data to fit that conclusion.

A proper research paper would have goals more along the lines of

(1) Gather historical data in an attempt to analyze the extent and severity of the MWP

(2) Compare it with the current warm period

(3) Ascertain if anything or any parallels can be drawn between historically warmer periods and the current trend and possible future warm periods.

I am sorry, but, form what I have read so far the documentation seems to have started with a conclusion and then looked for ways to prove that by selectively filtering observations.

I will, however, not pass final judgment and delve deeper into the data in a attempt to develop a more balanced view on the subject.

I am interested to see what other people think.

Masu,

You, again, have NOT read it. The REASON they take that stance is because the midevil warming period was well documented by the UN already, and because of Gore, Mann, Hansen and other "motivated' types, as you say "unscientifiic", it was eliminated.

Mann was quoted as attempting to remove the midevil warming period, which is what Gore latched onto. The UN has now been force to see the actual data which clearly says we are still 1.7 degrees BELOW any peak in the last 8000 years. I have stated many times in other posts about this fact. When someone presents data that does NOT support well documented data and which does NOT jive with history (!), then it is well within "science" to do as co2science is doing.

Again, read it before you make comments that are not accurate.

Seaplaneguy

"You, again, have NOT read it. The REASON they take that stance is because the midevil warming period was well documented by the UN already, and because of Gore, Mann, Hansen and other "motivated' types, as you say "unscientifiic", it was eliminated. "

I have read the entire document and it dose have some information in it that is important. However the first paragraph is a conclusion and anything that starts out with a conclusion is not going to look at the data subjectively and come to a non biased conclusion.

If you really what to start getting into the facts and figures as presented by the paper they claim that during the MWP temperatures in the southern hemisphere ware around 0.75° C warmer than those of the 20^th century. Australia is already 1° C warmer than the middle of the 20^th century and that would tend to indicate that we are in uncharted territory.

However there is precious little data in the study from the southern hemisphere so there can be no real conclusion drawn over the climate in the southern hemisphere.

My beef is not with the data they have presented, nor the concept that there was an MWP but the way the whole paper started out with the goal of, and I quote.

Its goal is to ultimately provide sufficient real-world evidence to convince most rational people that the Medieval Warm Period was:

1. global in extent,
2. at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and
3. of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.

I don't know which university you went to but if I handed in a paper that started off like that it would have received a big fat FAIL and I would have been told to go back and do it all again.

If your plan is to prove a theory then you must state the theory with the calculations and a much detail as possible prior to going into the collection and analysis of the data. From what I gather and the sparse sampling from the southern hemisphere, the project is still underway, yet, they have already stated their conclusion. You just can't go about presenting a scientific paper like this and expect to be taken seriously.

This is however only one paper from the CO₂ Science website web site and a conclusion about the ethics of the site cannot be drawn from a single article. However, it is something that I thought should be brought to the attention of the CR4 readers.

I plan to read more of the documents presented on the CO₂ Science website in the near future in an attempt to gain a more informed view on the subject and I would invite fellow CR4 members to do likewise and post their views here. I am interested in what others have to say on the subject.

I will leave it up to others to judge, but, I don't think I could be any more open-minded and fairer than that.

Masu,

Are you a paid lobbyist for the co2 sequesting companies? You inability to read what I wrote, to read co2science.com and put it together is quite amazing.

Information is data. Knowledge is organized data. Wisdom is the ability to put that knowledge together for smart and right action. Try to be wise. A wise person would not put any stock in the human induced co2 theory. The knowledge we have now shows the theory to be false. History itself shows the theory to be false.

If you claim that a conclusion should never be in any report, then what is the UN doing???????? The pols at the UN issue the conclusion, and the SCIENTISTS do NOT have any say for months and years after the conclusion is out. What this means is that the next time a UN report on climate comes out, you should denounce it!

List of scientist cited in Midevil Warming Period project In your world all these scientists are idiots and know less than you or Al the Gore. Hmmm.

Like I have said several times to you, 1875 AD was the coldest in 8000 years. If Australia is 1 degree hotter than it was, it still has 1.5 to go to make a new high! By the way, what is the "correct" temperature for Australia???

If there is "precious little data" for the southern hemisphere, how can you claim anything? Yet somehow, Australia is in the breaking records, as you claim. NOT.

My beef is your inability to read what the project is for and why they are doing it. The midevil warming period was a well established scientific fact, until Mann falsified the data with his famous "hockey stick" remake. When co2science puts the data together, then people will see that there was a midevil warming period and the theory of human induced co2 warming will be shown to be wrong. This is the front line in the battle. You contention and attempt to attack the credibility of co2science is unfounded and biased, not to mention contrary to scientific methods.

Real Science tries to prove the theory WRONG as well as provide the evidence to support it. Providing data, as co2science does, is what a scientist does, and must do to qualify as science. Mann left this data out on purpose. By providing this data (1-3 in your comment), which should have been provided BY THE SUPPORTERS OF THE GW THEORY to make the theory a "scientific" presentation, co2science is "finishing" the presentation of facts REQUIRED to even qualify it as a scientific theory. The Hansen and Mann con men do NOT provide the required data and cherry picked data they liked and left out data showing their theory is false.

A university that would accept Mann, Hansen and Gore to have any credibility would be the poster child of a big fat "fail," as you claim. Indeed, Co2science is doing what you advocate, namely, going back and providing the other data set left out that enables the theory to even be presented for consideration, let alone held to be true and accepted. Mann and the gang lied and did not present all the raw data. Such is totally nonscientific to say the least.

If you just cannot go about presenting a paper like this, as you say, then most of the pro GW theory supporters have no leg to stand on.

There is NOT just one paper. It is a "Project," and when complete with show that Mann and the gang left out the critical data that proves GW co2 theory to be false. Checkmate on the con game of Gore!

You open minded???? You are up there with Bin Laden in conviction of your ideas, just change the obsession and compulsion. (Do you have Obsessive compulsive disorder? Just asking.) Look at all the data, not just what the religionists are stating. Try doing the scientific method and try to prove the theory of Human induced GW wrong. I have done so to my level of satisfaction. You have only tried to prove it correct, which is NOT science.

Like I have said several times to you, 1875 AD was the coldest in 8000 years. If Australia is 1 degree hotter than it was, it still has 1.5 to go to make a new high!

You accuse me of not reading the things yet either you do not read what I write or do not comprehend it. I sad Australian temperatures are 1° C warmer than they were in the middle of the 20^th century no the second half of the 19^th century or some 75 years earlier. During that period Australia was considerably wetter than it is today and may well have been even cooler. The rise in temperatures I am referring to has taken place over the last 30 years not the last 130 years and it is the short time frame over which the rise has taken place that is worrying. Last month, May was the hottest on record and that would tend to indicate that temperatures are continuing to rise as each year is the hottest on record. Clearly the climate in Australia is warming and warming at a rate that is alarmingly fast and apparently but as yet not confirmed faster than ever before.

By the way, what is the "correct" temperature for Australia???

Australia is a large place and you can't give a single temperature for the entire continent. However this link will take you to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Australian Climate Variation Time Series website . You can select numerous parameters and regions and look at the trend over the past century as well as the 11 year average. If you look at any of the temperature graphs you will clearly see that Australia has been warming over the past 30 years or so. It doesn't matter where you are in Australia the temperatures have all clearly been rising over the last 30 years. No matter what you say Australia is clearly warming and from the hard data shown in all these charts the rate of warming is currently increasing. There are no if, buts or maybes about this, these are actual reading taken by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology over the last century and Australia has definitely been getting warmer over the last 30 years.

If there is "precious little data" for the southern hemisphere, how can you claim anything? Yet somehow, Australia is in the breaking records, as you claim. NOT.

I said that the MWP project sighted little data from the southern hemisphere to support the theory not that there was not information on what temperatures were or were not during that period in the southern hemisphere. In fact the MWP project has no data from Australia at all. The New Zealand information is taken from limestone deposits in caves and considering the limestone cave systems in Australia are larger and more extensive than both islands of New Zealand in their entirety I find this somewhat strange. Why is there not one single sample from any of the tens of thousands of limestone caves in Australia. These are some of the most ancient and extensive limestone cave systems in the world and would offer a way to push the data further back yet there is not a single sample for the entire continent. To simply miss an entire continent in the sampling is a glaring oversight and means the data is at best woefully incomplete. For all I know there may be data from Australia that contradicts the MWP theory and it has be excluded from the data presented but nobody knows because it's not there.

Are you a paid lobbyist for the co2 sequesting companies? You inability to read what I wrote, to read co2science.com and put it together is quite amazing.

I am not, nor ever have been a paid lobbyist for the CO₂ sequestration companies. My opinion on this matter is in fact quite the opposite and I have grave reservations that the technology will produce a workable solution. I believe there are other far more practical solutions that can be implemented for far less expenditure and in a shorter time frame than CO₂ sequestration.

If you claim that a conclusion should never be in any report

No that is not what I claim, what I stated is that you can not start out with a conclusion. You can start out with a goal to prove a theory but not a conclusion like the ongoing MWP project has. Clearly the MWP project is ongoing as the amount of data presented is by no means global yet the project starts off with a conclusion that it is going to prove that the MWP was warmer and more extensive than the CWP. You just can't do things like that and expect to be taken seriously, you need to start of with a goal something like

The aim of the MWP project is to ascertain the extent in time, distribution and degree of what appears to be the MWP and to compare it to the current warm period in an attempt to ascertain the effects the current warm period may have on global climate.

However, it starts, and I quote, yet again, from the CO₂ Science website MWP project overview

Its goal is to ultimately provide sufficient real-world evidence to convince most rational people that the Medieval Warm Period was:

1. global in extent,
2. at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and
3. of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.

In other words they are starting off with the premise that they are going to prove that the MWP was more extensive in all ways to the current warm period without having all the data or knowing all the facts about the MWP. That is not subjective science and is what concerns me about the whole project.

At no time have I ever denied the existence of an MWP and apart from comparing the current continent-wide rise of mean temperatures in Australia have not drawn any parallels with the current situation.

As I said in my previous post and unlike you have put forward in your reply, this is only one paper and one cannot draw conclusions from that so I have reserved my final judgment. I also invited others and supplied the link to the CO₂ Science website in my posts so that they can draw their own conclusions.

As I said in my last post this is only one of the papers the CO₂ Science website and can no way be used to draw any conclusions. As I also stated in my last post I will be reserving my judgment till I have read more from the site but I will be posting what I find and invite others to do likewise.

What pray tell, is wrong with that?

Masu wrote: "Whilst coal fired power stations are far more efficient than steam locomotives they are only around 30% efficient overall and this means that over twice as much energy is wasted than used"

What about the somewhat recent developments in burn systems like Fluidized beds. I recall reading that this improved overall efficiency by a great deal.

Just this morning I was reading about a wood stove that gasified the wood pieces and achieved much greater combustion efficiencies. The furnace also used waste heat to heat domestic water. Is this 30% an maximum efficiency or an average?

Elnav

Dear Elnav,

Methane burning condensing boilers have an max theoretical efficiency of about 111% and the best boilers for domestic application I know about have around 108-109%

The values are >100% because until latent heat was considered the max theoreticaly obtainable was 100%. As soon as latent heat was regenerated then the efficiency scale would have to be changed but things stay as it always was.

There are various ways to convert heat in externally heated devices to usable power.

Thermodynamics such as with Stirling cycle (29,4% best efficiency on with solar concentrating units), Brayton cycle, Ericsson cycle, Proe afterburner, HAT cycle, Kalina cycle, Maisotsenko gas turbine cycle, Uehara cycle and our own heat2power cycle.

Thermo-electrics such as with Seebeck effect, thermo ionic emission, thermo channeling, thermo-photo-voltaics

Thermo-chemical processes such as endothermic vapo-cracking, pyrolisis, and others

Thermo-acoustics (have a look at the "laminar flow" video on youtube)

Seaplaneguy says he is working on a combined ICE-ECE. This is also an interesting approach. A long time ago there was compound engine on the Kitson still locomotives and a diesel-turbocompound on napier nomad aircraft engine around 1941 with extremely high efficiencies. There is still a big progress to be made in efficiencies of combustion engines and current thermodynamics developments will show some surprises.

I would be interested to see more of seaplaneguy's work.

Best regards,

Randolph Toom

Director of heat2power, paris, france.
www.heat2power.net

Mr. Toom,

You mention a lot of ways to do things. What is it about each that you like or dislike?

Dear Seaplaneguy,

As I have been working on this benchmark for more than a year it has cost me a lot of time and I truely regret I cannot give away to you what I sell or try to sell to other people and companies.

Apologies, but I hope you understand.

Kind regards

Randolph Toom

Mr. Toom,

I will restate my quesition.

Compare what YOU SELL to these other means. Why is your idea better? How is it better? Why are you investing in your idea, instead of other ideas? What make your idea the direction.

I do not have a web page "selling" my ideas or wanting investment input. You are. I am in private domain, and you are in the public with private input.

What I will say is that my ideas are the best because: 1) the engine can do EC and IC power generation, 2) it can work with a house/commercial/industrial building to generate power via solar and fossil/bio fuel when the sun is not putting out or at night via energy capacitance, 3) It replaces the HVAC system, 4) It can be mobile in a car or airplane (seaplane better yet, of course) and serve as the only power source for the vehicle stopped or moving, 5) it can make mobile/house power generation harvesting/ integration possible, 6) cost effective, 7) quickest way to 90+% fuel reduction I know of.

Put another way, sell me on why you are right! Fair enough?

Hi to all,

the limited efficiency is a fundamental problem that can be mde better only by a rising temperature difference as in modern gas-turbines.

So one attempt would be to rise the upper temperature , this will require better and costly alloys for the turbine blades.

Another attempt would be to use much lower temperatures at the low end, this is feasible only with LNG heated power plants when the low temperature can be very low if the cold gas (fluid and then evaprised) is used to establish the low temperature.

This will rise efficiency to around 45%!

Fundamental limitations of how much mechanical energy can be extracted from a thermal engine that operates between two temperature levels are described in any book on thermodynamics.

RHABE

As mentioned by RHABE, the low efficiency of internal combustion machines is thermodynamical in nature: The adiabatically barrier between the combustion-cell and the surrounding ambiance is not efficient enough as a thermal insulator. The temperature difference between the combustion cell and the ambiance determines the system's efficiency.

Such inherecy is usually met with artificial (and energy consuming) cooling systems to the engine's block.

The Stirling as a viable alternative, has not yet met advanced design to allow industrial strength to be measured in the KW range.

Gas turbines are much more efficient in power-to-weight ratio, and in chemical input to kinetic output energy content ratio.

Those are used in Military transportation systems where this high efficiency is a must, such as tanks, helicopters and hovercrafts.

Sorry, the #12 above was me, forgot to log-in.

Sorry Masu:

Non engine is good -nor ICE neither ECE- do to following facts:

WORLDISGREEN.COM

BUSSINESS STRATEGY AND SUSTAINABILITY

JOSE MA JIMENEZ R

SEPT 3, 2007

GREEN HOUSE EFFECT IS FALSE

IT IS A TRICKY SENTENCE THAT PETROLEUM GUYS WANT US TO BELIVE IN, TO CONFUSE EVERY BODY

- IT IS A CRAISY IDEA to send satelite MIRRORS to BLIND AND REDUCE incoming solar energy to avoid climate change -due to a mitic green house effect-.... Sun has never been harmfull to Earth....... Sun Radiation is in a perfect Thermal Equilibrium with Earth ever since. is`nt it so?............ we Humans are the danger to earth..

REAL CAUSES:

Real causes are down here, where HUGE amounts of waisted heat from more than 6 billions tons of hot gases -per year- are generated while burning fuels -in motor vehicles, water heaters, boilers, thermoelectric generators, driers, ranges, ovens, etc-. We dont have to be scientist to understand a math equation, showing that the problem results from the extra added heat to atmosphere:

IR sun energy + extra waisted heat from burning fuels = atmosphere overheating

= more evaporation = denser clouds = flooding storms = polar deice = actual kaoz

- Do you know what happen now that petroleum XX century is gone and Solar XXI century will replace fuels-WITH FREE AND CLEAN NATURAL ENERGY?- ......very simple.....the depleted AND EXPENSIVE petroleum will go down to 1 dollar per barrel and that will crack petroleum industry....... See? ...ENERGY will be free then, and peaple will save money to buy many thing else -as a free-maintance electric car ----and so on----- politically impossible?....IT SEEMS LIKE FICTION MOVIE….....but there are...

TWO SOLUTIONS:

1. Urge to replace all combustion devices, equipments and engines -WITH SOLAR AND ELECTRIC POWERED ONES-.

2. As well as urgent is to reforest the world with billions of trees – they are magic factories that will clean air from CO2, by:

Sucking CO2 + Absorbing solar UV and solar heat = to return us pure and fresh OXIGEN -instead-

Trees never heat the air -so- the craisy green house effect does not happen -that's a lie-

The true is that are cooking our self's in this global pot, due to PETRO-effect -nothing else-.

HOW YOU CAN HELP? :

- I urge any body who has responsability of enviromental care and have funds -you must support any projects where products (vehicles or equipments) pursue this change over -to a new solar and electric eco-culture-.

-I urge Presidents all -to issue compulsory regulations to stop using any apparatus, device or engines where combustion of fuels take place -of any hidrocarbons (liquid or gas) alcohols, biofuels, carbons or hidrogen too- because all react exothermicaly generating the hot gases that over-heat the air -depleting oxigen O2 and ozone O3 as well while they burn to CO2 -which ixcess is getting a letal concentration level, too-.

• Now, I hope you understand it better -the real global warming problem- & communicate it to all your friends -what is going on- to become more that GREEN peaple -but ECOLOGY ORIENTE PEAPLE, co-responsible- don't relay on heaven help, only. PLEASE STOP BURNIG FUELS guys.

jmjr, Senior Chem. Eng, MS from UMass,

Zapopan, jal. Mexico

Hi CHEMA,

You are so far off track with so many points that it is hardly worth commenting, but as you have put the effort into responding I will reply with as much information as I can,

• Real causes are down here, where HUGE amounts of waisted heat from more than 6 billions tons of hot gases -per year- are generated while burning fuels -in motor vehicles, water heaters, boilers, thermoelectric generators, driers, ranges, ovens, etc-. We dont have to be scientist to understand a math equation, showing that the problem results from the extra added heat to atmosphere

Not even close. If you look global energy consumption of around 500 EJ the heating effect that would have on the atmosphere is negligible. The problem is so called green house gasses like carbon dioxide CO₂ and methane CH₄ that are relatively opaque to infrared radiation IR. The atmosphere is not directly heated by the sun but rather by the reradiated IR coming from the ground when it is hit by sunlight. It is this reradiated IR coming from the ground that is absorbed by the green house gasses that is causing the heating of the atmosphere, it has very little to do with the energy we are consuming other than the burning of fossil fuels that generate these IR opaque greenhouse gasses. If you don't believe me then do a little research and calculate the heating effect that the 500 EJ would have on the atmosphere, it's not a difficult calculation.

• = more evaporation = denser clouds = flooding storms = polar deice = actual kaoz

Yes, but that doesn't always equate to greater rainfall everywhere. Some places will have a greatly increased rainfall while other will have a dramatically reduced rainfall. Global weather and climate are extremely and not fully understood mechanisms and there is no way to predict with certainty the exact results of a warming planet. We can however state that even a 1°C increase in median temperatures would cause dramatic and possibly even cataclysmic changes to the Earth's current weather and climate patterns.

• Urge to replace all combustion devices, equipments and engines -WITH SOLAR AND ELECTRIC POWERED ONES-.

This is definitely a goal worth striving for but it is not that simple, the technology doesn't yet exist that would enable us to switch to 100% solar generated energy. At the moment the very best solar cells are only 40% efficient and in reality it's difficult to get past 20%. If you take our median power requirement of 15 TW, hours of daylight and efficiency of solar cells you get an area something like

That's an area roughly 390 km by 390 km and that's before we start to take into account cloud cover, atmospheric losses, transmission losses, increases in demand etcetera. The cost would be catastrophically high and at the current time is just not practical.

• As well as urgent is to reforest the world with billions of trees – they are magic factories that will clean air from CO2, by:
• Sucking CO2 + Absorbing solar UV and solar heat = to return us pure and fresh OXIGEN -instead-
• Trees never heat the air -so- the craisy green house effect does not happen -that's a lie-
• The true is that are cooking our self's in this global pot, due to PETRO-effect -nothing else-.

Deforestation is definitely a serious problem and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. There are however a great deal of misunderstanding about what trees do.

• Carbon Uptake: Trees definitely take in CO₂ and give off oxygen O₂ but they only do it while they are photosynthesizing when there is sufficient daylight. When there is insufficient daylight they metabolize the sugars they created during the photosynthesis.
• Growth Rate: While trees are growing they have a net intake of carbon from the surrounding environment. However once they reach maturity the intake of carbon from the environment dramatically reduces.

What we need to be doing is utilizing mature trees in some way that locks the carbon in them u indefinitely while replacing them with multiple saplings that will grow rapidly and reach a mature size when they can then be used. This would not only supply is with a valuable material for construction and fabrication but increase the uptake of carbon from the environment.

• I urge Presidents all -to issue compulsory regulations to stop using any apparatus, device or engines where combustion of fuels take place -of any hidrocarbons (liquid or gas) alcohols, biofuels, carbons or hidrogen too- because all react exothermicaly generating the hot gases that over-heat the air -depleting oxigen O2 and ozone O3 as well while they burn to CO2 -which ixcess is getting a letal concentration level, too-.

You cant just legislate technology into existence, it has to be developed and the put into production. If we were to instantly ban all use of fossil fuels the energy available would drop by over 80% and result in a catastrophic collapse of the global economy. Just think about what happens when the power fails to a large city and then think what would happen if we were to cut off 80% of the world's energy. Millions would die very quickly and the resultant collapse in the farming sector would result in the death of billions due to starvation.

What is required is a global coordinated effort that utilizes and array of existing technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels while we develop new technologies that can use renewable sources to supply our ever increasing need for energy. If you go my An Engineer's Look at the Future of Energy Blog Contents page you will see a list of technologies with links to discussions on those technologies that have taken place over the last year. Some of the discussions are fairly old but they are all still active and if you add any comments the participants in that discussion will be notified that you have added a new comment.

You claim to have a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering so you should be easily capable of doing the sort of calculations needed to develop a deeper understanding of the global problems we are currently facing. I look forward to reading your opinions on the technologies we have discussed. If you have a suggestion for a technology you believe warrants a thread of its own use this link to send me a message and I will gladly start off a discussion.

Masu,

Hey big guy, you still preaching the co2 "hell in a hand basket" doctrine?

Look, I have explained to you clearly that co2 is in saturation and more co2 in the 370 ppm range makes near zero difference in temperature. The effect of co2 is a log function, not linear. If you take ALL the co2 out of the atmosphere you would see a 15-30 degree drop. If you add in 20 ppm you get 50% effect and so on . At 280-370 it makes very very little difference.

Read Georg Beck 180 years of chemical measurement. You are missing the grand canyon on this issue. Notice the Greissberg cycle and the real world data showing a spike in the 1850's, 1940's and now in 2010's (about 70-80 years apart). CO2 in the 1960's dropped back to the 300 ppm level, off from the 400+ ppm highs in the 1940's. Around 2010-2015 that peak will occur again and then the co2 levels will drop again, just like they did in 1850's and 1940's. Notice what Tambora in 1816 (summer of no sun) did to co2 levels (550 ppm! in 1820) and how this is a major clue of what is happening. It would seem that volcanic activity coupled with solar system center of gravity issues/stresses in cycle causes eruptions on Earth and wild solar output changes (that have only within the last few years been even remotely understood).

The lie of Gore is that we are in a natural (Greissberg cycle) upturn in co2 (like clock work...1940 + 70 =2010) that started in the 1980's. The peak will occur around 2010-2015 and then co2 levels are expected to turn DOWN. The ice core data is a 80 year average that off-gases the spike levels (400 ppm typical) giving a false smooth 280 ppm curve (where did the spikes go...gee wiz, by golly). The lie is in combining ice core data (false level 280 ppm curve) that eliminates the natural spikes (400 ppm), with data from a volcano in the Pacific that is NOW spiking in co2 locally and globally (by many eruptions underwater just now realized by scientists).

Look, these people are not dumb. They are using data in a VERY dishonest and UNSCIENTIFIC way and telling a "story" that is completely false to reality. They have 2-10 years before this will become obvious (when the co2 level start to drop) and a Global UN tax "must" (in their "reptillion" minds) be in place (like Social Security that is very difficult to stop) where it will become impossible to undo.

They (Gore ilk) are in a panic for time and waiting will expose their lie, not to mention that the sky will not have fallen as they predict.

The three LIES of GW are:

1) They don't tell you that co2 is in saturation and the effect is logarithmic.

2) They don't tell you that the actual data shows that co2 naturally spikes every 70-80 years to 400+ ppm and that ice core data hides this fact. It is therefore valid to use ice core data in the short run.

3) Co2 lags temperature in both short and long term.

Masu, why is this so hard to understand? You are in denial, big time.

Here's a Link for the Paper you are refering to 180 years,

Seaplane guy how's your project progressing?

Moving along...

I have read much of the data Seaplaneguy is quoting an it does present some arguments against global warming. However, by far the majority of scientific analysis points to our practice of burning fossil fuels and the resultant products of combustion that are opaque to IR radiation, are the major driving force behind the warming.

I will however comment on the following:

• Look, I have explained to you clearly that co2 is in saturation and more co2 in the 370 ppm range makes near zero difference in temperature. The effect of co2 is a log function, not linear. If you take ALL the co2 out of the atmosphere you would see a 15-30 degree drop. If you add in 20 ppm you get 50% effect and so on . At 280-370 it makes very very (sic) little difference.

If that's the case how do you explain the runaway green house effect on Venus? If the amount of IR radiation trapped by CO₂ does not increase after the level you have quoted the surface temperature of Venus would never have reached anything like the temperatures it now has.

It's a nice theory but unfortunately it doesn't fit all the observations.

Anyway, I am currently feeling like crap and I really couldn't be bothered with arguing at the moment so I will leave it there.

Masu,

Why is Mars heating up? Maybe the rover was actually a Land Rover, gas guzzling pig of a vehicle...hmm. I didn't know Exxon-Mobil was on Mars drilling oil...

Come on Masu, give it up. Turn your brain on, big guy.

Try reading these:

http://geology.about.com/od/venus/a/aa_venus_2.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

Why is Venus hot? Have you taken the time to consider that our planet, just like Venus, has a heater inside. We get stuff called lava, or molten rock...really hot stuff that makes things really hot. Venus has lava all over it.

Venus may just be one internally hot mother of a planet. You seem to assume that it is just the same as Earth. Have you ever considered what would happen if our Earth had NO heat? We would freeze up.

First off Venus does not have a crust (insulation) like earth does, and when it's shell blows off it is truly "hell in a hand basket" express style. Earth as a system is much different, with a truck load of water to boot. There is no way we will ever go bust like Venus because co2 is in spectral saturation, not to mention venus's atmosphere is 93 time heavier, and a host of 20 or 30 other issues.

Come on, give it up. This is like a horror movie where this dumb co2 theory just won't die and keeps coming back to life over and over. Global Warming is hoax and make a bad rerun...

Hi Seaplaneguy & others,

Ok, I was going to address you points but we have been there before and it would be a total and complete waste of your, mine and any participants time.

Regardless of the arguments lets just look at the evidence:

• Melting Ice Sheets: The ice sheets that cover Antarctica, Greenland and other smaller arctic and Antarctic regions are retreating at an alarming rate.
• Increased Temperatures: The mean temperatures being experienced in Australia are already around 1°C warmer than they were in the middle of the 20^th century. There have been several years over the last decade that have produced the hottest months, seasons and years on record only to be supplanted by even hotter months, seasons and years the next season.
• Increased Atmospheric Instability: The atmosphere has been producing more highly energetic meteorological events than the norm. The last cyclone season in Australia not only started earlier and ended later than had been previously seen but produced more cyclones. In the period of one week Australia was hit by three tropical cyclones with one area on the north western coast being hit by two in 7 days.
• Oceanic Warming: The temperature of the oceans in the tropical regions has increased to the point that large areas of the Great Barrier Reef have suffered massive coral bleaching events. While coral bleaching is nothing new and can be recovered from there is no evidence that the extent of coral bleaching we are currently seeing has ever happened before.

That's just the tip of the iceberg and there is now a phenomenal amount of evidence that the Earth is warming and warming at a rate that has hitherto been unheard of. If the warming continues and even 10% of the Antarctic and Greenlandic ice sheets were to melt sea levels would rise by some 7 m. This would wipe out many of the islands of the Pacific and make life somewhere between very difficult and impossible in low lying regions, cities and countries.

Climate patterns are changing, desertification is rapidly turning previously arable land into dust bowls while tropical regions are being hit with more frequent downpours that cause dramatic flooding, erosion and loss of life.

Clearly there is something happening. It may not be due to our burning of fossil fuels but if there is even the remotest chance that it is the it would be grossly negligent if we were not to act while we still have the time to do so. If we act and global warming is due to our use of fossil fuels then we have averted a disaster like no other. On the other had if we act and global warming isn't due to our use of fossil fuels then we end up with a cleaner atmosphere and the same problem.

Either way, if we act and reduce our dependence we end up winning so there really is no argument about it, we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and do it as a matter of urgency.

For the time being that is were I must leave and I apologize for not reading and replying to everybody's posts. Unfortunately I have other pressing tasks to perform so I will be unable to revisit this thread for some time. I would encourage you all to carry on without my input for the next few days.

Hi, I am with you Her Masu, we better don`nt use scientific terms because we may look like a craisy guys, like Einstein. and that solves nothing.

Who cares if global warming is do to the CO2 -green house effect- or the due to petroburning effect where the heat that goes along with CO2 overheats the atmosphere and causes the sound global warming.

At the very end, it is the same -Desmadre- we all talk about. Eath is a big pot where we or broilig our selves due to petrodependance.

It does`nt matter if you have a very complex math equation to explain such warming effect, with some nice hipothesis, to compete for the Nobel prize.

But, It is a real problem, it is not a joke, and we are destroing our planet, our home planet, while stupidly debating what is the best process to explain the warming.

But at the very end, we all believe that it is due to burning huge amounts of petro-fuels, nat-gas and carbon, instead of using petroleum just to make value added petroquemicals and polymers but not to burn it. It will last no longer.

We do not have the button control to put the sun off, however we do have the button to put our gas water heater off as well as our gasoline car, our gas range, our cloth drier, our gas barbecue, and so on, and replace them with a solar or electric counterpart.

He, he, he,,,,, it looks like a fiction movie, but we must do that sunner than later.

I hope you are with me, to do some thing in our favor, to spread it all over, and to convince our friends our Blind politicians and Presidents to make an stop, rethink what is wrong, and correct it rapidly and stop burnig fuels.

America`s empire will fall if it keep petrolized.

Do`nt blame the sun for the sound green house effect -which have been there forever- it is unharmfull. and it is our salvation. I bet to sun energy for XXI century.

Please, do not reply, with so many math-formulas to convence me that I am wrong. Sorry I am not stick to the green house effect only, athough I do produced composite films for green houses in the past.

Drink a wine cup for me and for it to happen. Cheers,

Chema wrote: however we do have the button to put our gas water heater off as well as our gasoline car, our gas range, our cloth drier, our gas barbecue, and so on, and replace them with a solar or electric counterpart.

REPLY: Chema from your comments I think you probably live in low latitude area like maybe Mexico or central America. Just how do you propose people who live elsewhere use solar power when the sun disappears 16 hours per day or even 24 hours per day for months on end? Up here we don't necessarily burn petro fuel we burn wood. But you ecological guys down south think that is bad because of the carbon it release. So just what are you telling us? Go freeze our butts off in the dark!! Yeah right.

I do use electrical power where possible but when that power fails - as it often does - I run a generator. Its fifty mile into the nearest town. You expect me to use a a bicycle maybe?? Get real!

Sorry elnay: I am with you. I staid in New england and know that you need to warm homes by a nice chimny with wood, thats OK. I never say that a little carbon smoke or CO2 coming from our longs is bad, but from 6 billions of peaple and a billion homes -thats different and we have to hit in the mittle, since Climate changes are a fact due to waisted heat from burning gas or any fuel -in transport engines, ranges, ovens, etc, etc- causing desasters down here, and may be none there, all right but we all must be responsable of it, and take advantages of free an clean solar energy -WE and as much as possible YOU too-.

Dont get disapointed, I like cold weather since you may control it better.

saludos.

Actually we are also getting hit with global warming. The relatively milder winters (-20 instead of -50) means some insect parasites do not die off, and as a result spread faster. Northern boreal forests are being decimated (millions of hectares) by pine beetles that kill off all the trees. If the trees are not harvested now, they wil rot in two years. So right now there is plenty of wood to burn, but in five to ten years, the may not be any. Massive reforestation projects wil not yield results for 40 -50 years. Maybe some fast growing specie might mature in 20.

I'm particularly interested in external combustion engines for electrical power generation since the waste heat can be used for heating the homes. Many homes hereabouts already heat with an outdoor furnace/boiler that heats water which is then piped into the house or shop buildings. The benefit being they are safer than old traditional fire places. Insurance companies like them as reduced fire risk. The down side being they do need electrical power for the circulation pumps. Plus you can't get light or cook on these outdoor furnaces. Boilers really since they have water jackets.

I'm thinking that a better and more efficient wood burner might be something like what the locomotives and steam boats used in the old days.

Those external combustion engines did have auxiliary genreators for lighting plants. Maybe a stirling cycle engine mounted on top to extract some heat, could drive a generator for light and circulation pumps.

Ones agin, you think the old way -with combustion engines- to heat and generete electricity an so on -all around fuels- but still exaust waist heat to atmosphere wich causes the global warming.

However, if an external combustion engine exausts at ambient temp, may be OK, but guys who claim excess CO2 supports green house effect, will say no, no.

From now on, in the XX1 century, the solutioms are to take advantage of solar, wind, hidro and tide energies -free, clean and ecology friends-

One question: do you have nice wind corridors there -in your neiborhoods-? If yes, then you dont need to do old pratice, think on electrowind turbines that will provide power for heating and ligting. There are wind turbines of 5 kw up to over 25 megawatts.

Even, electrosolar panels will provide 2kw per m2 in a 6 hrs day and during summer up to 4kw of power used to heat or lighting too, catching it on to your roof.

I hope this ideas could help to you.

I designed a themo-solar panel (pat pend) -to catch IR energy too- just enough to heat daily home water -for a family of 6-. to replace home water boilers world wide, since can be mass produced at similar prices. But project is stacked, do to lack of fund, trying to find them tagged for global warming solutions, from federal or mutinational. Praid for that to happen.

Saludos.

Chema,

Global Warming is a hoax. Stop spreading propaganda!

Read this:

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

Read each link from "crunching the number" to "context. " and then "IPCC propaganda" down "Standards of Criticism."

This is also good

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6&p=1

Chema wrote:

One question: do you have nice wind corridors there -in your neiborhoods-? If yes, then you dont need to do old pratice, think on electrowind turbines that will provide power for heating and ligting. There are wind turbines of 5 kw up to over 25 megawatts.

Even, electrosolar panels will provide 2kw per m2 in a 6 hrs day and during summer up to 4kw of power used to heat or lighting too, catching it on to your roof.

REPLY: Regarding wind. NO! Unfortunately where I live is sheltered by high hills and further away there are old mountains. This was probably why the old time pioneers selected these places for communities. I have a weather station to monitor things like wind speed and solar hours per day. I thought the wind cups had seized, because they moved so seldom. As for solar, the high cliffs to east and west of here means the sun is two hours above the horizon before the sunlight hits the house directly.

Solar power. Where do you get 2kw per m2 . The solar panels I can buy locally deliver approximately 45 watts per square meter. So given a six hour solar day that is 45 watts times six = 270 watt hours per day. Senor; I think your decimal point went walkabout! Maybe if you whistle it come back. <grin>

Quite frankly I don't make enough money to afford a 2kW capacity solar panel and what do you propose I do during the dark winter? That's when I have to use an old fashioned combustion engine.

Tidal power. Right on!! I'm six hundred miles from the ocean! Unless the public electric company agrees to deliver that power - how am I gonna use it?

Maybe your patent pending solar heat thingy might be of use. How much is it gonna cost me to get one shipped to here from wherever you are? Can I even afford it? I got $50 in my wallet and the bank ain't gonna loan me any money. So how do we do this?

Come up with something practical I can build myself and then maybe you got something! We need something that is self reliant, self built and independent of large international vested interest businesses. Then we might get away from using fossil fuels and petro power. Until then we are stuck with going along with the monopoly of the big energy companies.

Right elnay, I didnt explain clearly, but 2kw per m2 is the landing solar IR radiation up there, and pannels up to 300w may by one sale now, but from new technology are coming with higher wattage pretty soon.

I want to manufacture much cheaper thermosolar pannels that use to for home water heating. No more that $300 -all inclisive- to install it yourself.

saludos.

Hi folks,

I havn't been able to give this thread the attention it deserves and I am still trying to catch up with all the new comments but thee are a few thing I find very disturbing.

First off is the following statement by CHEMA in post #23

• It does`nt matter if you have a very complex math equation to explain such warming effect, with some nice hipothesis, to compete for the Nobel prize.

Unless you have a good understanding of the problem and causes you have no chance of ever trying to solve it. Trying to work on a problem without proper analysis is nothing more than a hit and miss approach and global warming is far to big and important a problem to approach with guesswork and a hit and miss approach.

• since Climate changes are a fact due to waisted heat from burning gas or any fuel -in transport engines, ranges, ovens, etc, etc

I have covered this several times. It's not the energy that is the problem, it's the alteration to the composition of the atmosphere. The amount of energy we consume and ultimately ends up in the atmosphere, oceans etcetera is not capable of producing the rise in temperature we are seeing. Pleas, it's not the energy that is the problem but rather the way we are producing that energy.

• Even, electrosolar panels will provide 2kw per m2 in a 6 hrs day and during summer up to 4kw of power used to heat or lighting too, catching it on to your roof.

Photovoltaic cells don't even and never will come anywhere near generating the output you are claiming is possible. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth is around 1,000 Watts per square metre and that's when the sun is directly overhead. The upper limit of efficiency you can achieve with photovoltaic cells is around 40% so the absolute maximum electrical energy you could ever get from a square metre of cells is 400 Watts. That's only a tenth of the 4 kW you are claiming and completely impossible.

Now, before you come back with, "but future technologies may work better" it is not the technology that is the limiting factor but rather the laws of physics. You can't get more energy out than you put in so the absolute best you could possibly get out of a square metre is 1 kW. Unless you pick up the whole planet and move it to about half the distance it currently is from the Sun you will not get 4 kW out of a square metre of photovoltaic or any other form of light to energy system. No if buts or maybe about it.

Then there's seaplaneguy's statement in #42

• Global Warming is a hoax. Stop spreading propaganda!

We may not agree on the ultimate cause of global warming but there is now way, way, way too much evidence for anybody to seriously deny that the planet is currently going through a period of warming. If the Antarctic and Greenlandic ice caps completely melt the sea level is going to rise by around 70 m. That's going to give me a sea side house but some of my neighbors aren't going to be too pleased because their houses are going to be the sea my house is beside.

Anyway, this thread was started some 7 months ago and many of the points being raised have been covered in great detail in other threads in the series. I would suggest going to the table of contents page and following the links to threads you find interesting.

Thank you Masu, I am with you:

It dosent matter what unbalances the planet temperature :

• If incoming sun energy that cant get out -"the perpetual CO2 green house effect"-
• or "The waist heat effect" added -by exausted hot gases from burning engines or what ever burns fuels-.
• But, we match if I say both effects are "petromanias causing atmosphere overheating. OK? .

Any way, this cause climates change and the catastrofies that follow too. No doubt.

Then, we conclude that it is a matter of common sence no of science, since the only solution is "to stop burning fuels", period, we are the predators not the sun -which energy will be earth salvation for this XXI century-and free - if we get to be smart.

saludos. CHEMA

Hi Chema,

• Then, we conclude that it is a matter of common sence no of science, since the only solution is "to stop burning fuels", period, we are the predators not the sun -which energy will be earth salvation for this XXI century-and free - if we get to be smart.

No, that's not necessarily the case. If the fuel were to utilize carbon that was extracted from the atmosphere then there is no problem with burning fuels. For example if you use alcohol that is created by fermenting some sort of plant matter then the overall effect on the level of atmospheric CO₂ is neutral.

It's not the energy consumption that is the problem but rather the byproducts and pollution that is created by converting that energy into a form that is useful to people and industry.

What we need to do is develop and implement technologies that can supply our energy needs without damaging the environment and creating the myriad of pollutants our current use of fossil fuels does.

There are two ways to go about this:

1. Continue using fossil fuels, but develop technologies that can prevent the pollutants and green house gassed from being released into the atmosphere.
2. Develop and distribute technologies that supply our energy needs from renewable resources that do not produce the waste products or have other detrimental effects on the overall environment.

Personally I believe the only realistic answer is to use a combination of both and then when the problem has been stabilized put the work into long term projects.

I keep coming back to this and it's a vitally critical point. You need to fully understand the process to have even the remotest chance of solving the problem. Broad unscientific statements like "to stop burning fossil fuels" can have cataclysmic results and may even make the problems worse.

To simply stop burning fossil fuels without coming up with another non polluting energy source would be catastrophic. The entire world economy would collapse within a few weeks and anybody that was not capable of directly supplying their own food from the land would starve within a month or two. Industry would cease completely and anybody that lived in cities would have an extremely bleak future, that's if they had a future at all. The projected death toll would result in the global population dropping by around 98% within a couple of months.

I think the best way of summing things up was the catch cry of a company I worked for some time back:

We need to work SMARTER not HARDER!

Masu wrote:

It's not the energy consumption that is the problem but rather the byproducts and pollution that is created by converting that energy into a form that is useful to people and industry.

REPLY: Having recently purchased an older house heated by a wood stove I have become quite interested in how to achieve acceptable efficiencies with a wood stove. Apparently one of the biggest objections to burning wood for heat or any other power conversion is the smoke.

A google seach for Colpitt precipitator got plenty of results for using these in coal fired plants but precious little for home heating wood stoves. The only papers I found involved using a test lab unit to collect wood smoke particles to assess how much and what type of praticulates are found in wood smoke.

so my question is, does the use of a precipitator impair the efficiency of the chimney draft to the point it reduces stove efficiency? It appears to be an area lacking in intensive study.

If the particulate content of wood smoke could be reduced I think the public's opposition to wood stoves would also be less.

The height to extinction for Co2 is 10 meters. If you add more co2 you just lover the height to extinction, and therefore co2 cannot and does not affect warming at the concentrations we are at. The theory is false.

Now, Masu, you did hit on the point of why this hoax of Global Warming is being pushed, in part. To cut human population. If you limit the energy, you limit populations to pre industrial levels. The unwashed masses will get pinched, stop having kids, and die off. Simple.

If you want to stop pollution you need to design the combustion so that the temperatures are correct. An IC crank based engine CANNOT be made to work, but an IC engine can be made to work. You think in a box (just like Gore does) you cannot see just how simple this is.

The hard part is to get into production, not the ideas (I have those figured out...). The Oligopolies will stop you. (Read http://www.oligopolywatch.com) When you build 1 million units, the cost of complying with a regulation is x/1 million per part. If you make 10,000 units the cost is x/10,000, or 100 times the per unit cost that a "big guy" would have. Then, if you make 10,000 units you must also amortize in engineering, and all costs of overhead into the 10,000 units. The very nature of economics (my father was a professor of economics...) is central to the problem of oligopolies and to the stagnation of our economy and energy technologies, where the use of a 100 year old engine design that gets 15-25 mpg, instead of 100 mpg like it should, without any "pollution" (co2 is NOT a pollution...it is a "good thing") continues. You must address the oligopoly problem before any "progress" can be made.

Put another way. Say you have a nice TV. Some thug wants it. What stops him from walking in and taking it while you are at work. The threat of prison and the Sheriff putting his sorry butt in prison. To get the Sherriff to catch the bugger, do you have to pay the Sheriff a bunch of money, hire the city lawyer to prosecute, etc. or does the state protect the individual's rights?

So, I go out and spend $1 million on my "TV" set that is actually a car with a new engine that gets 100 mpg (I like to take drives for a view, instead of looking at a screen...follow me here...). I rip out the old engine, put my new engine in, and problem solved...right? Wrong...

Along comes an Oligopoly company (Ford, for example), and they want it bad. They then "take it" from me against my patents, which cost me lots. I then pick up the phone and dial 911 and report a crime and theft of $1million and all the $10 million for the production tooling that is now worthless. The Sheriff does zero to put Ford behind bars, and tells me to "hire" a lawyer to protect my rights which the government gave me when they issued the patent... and it all goes down hill from there... Result...bankruptcy. So, why bother?

Oligopolies have a vested interest in the status quo. They do not want change. They want you and me off this planet so they can have more to themselves, even though there is plenty enough for all when we turn our brains on.

What am I spending my time on? Engines...No... I have basically what needs to happen for the engine figured out. The problem is having the cash flow (this is war, and war costs money...) outside the engine to sustain the legal staff and getting to the brake even point (you have to produce a product, or you have nothing).

When you cut 3/4th the fuel needed in cars (100 mpg is 1/4th) and most (80-90%) of the heating for a home, you realize this game is not about the environment, but population control, plain and simple.

So, Masu, can you cut the nonsense of Global Warming? It is a hoax. The reason to get the energy needs down is to be FREE, as in Freedom, and free from wackos who control oil, not to save the environment. I have a Natural Gas Van. CNG costs $0.64 per gallon. If you got 100 mpg, that would be $0.64 per mile, or next to nothing relative to insurance, and car costs. We have enough NG in the north of Alaska to run the USA for 200 years, and that is only one area up there. There is enough for 20,000 years globally. Energy should be less than $1.00 per gallon (125,000 BTU), or the cost of finding it, pumping it etc, plus some profit. We are getting screwed. And the GW hoax is a gang rape by the UN...

Later,

Seaplaneguy

• So, Masu, can you cut the nonsense of Global Warming? It is a hoax.

Seaplaneguy, you need to open your eyes and look at what is happening all around you. There is no possible way that you can deny that the atmosphere is warming. Glaciers are retreating world wide, Greenlandic and Antarctic ice sheet are melting at an alarming rate, year after year we are recording record breaking temperatures and so on and so on.

If as little as 10% of the Antarctic ice cap melts sea levels will rise by up to 7 metres and that would be catastrophic. If you deny that the melting of the Antarctic ice cap would cause problems and can be ignored than you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ok, we disagree on the actual reason for this warming but to deny that the earth's atmosphere is warming is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that it is and at what appears to be an alarming rate.

Regardless of the reasons if this warming trend is to continue then we are going to have some serious global problems to deal with over the next 100 years or so.

• I have a Natural Gas Van. CNG costs $0.64 per gallon. If you got 100 mpg, that would be $0.64 per mile, or next to nothing relative to insurance, and car costs. We have enough NG in the north of Alaska to run the USA for 200 years, and that is only one area up there.

I agree with you on this point. LNG or CNG is a fantastic fuel and should be utilized for far more things than it currently is. I was surprised to find that in the USA and Canada oil is still used extensively for heating. This used to be the case in Australia but few people now use it with most having converted to natural gas. It is considerably cheaper than oil and even with the relatively low heating requirements in Australia the break even point is less than 2 years.

The only thing that concerns me with LNG is the way it is being shipped around the planet. The latest tankers work on the concept that if they keep it cold enough it will stay liquid but they don't keep it refrigerated they just heavily insulate the tanks and work on the idea that it will take longer for the LNG to warm up and revert to vapor that it will to get to the destination and unload it. That may be the case but if anything goes wrong with one of these super LNG carriers you are talking about an explosion that is around 10 times the size of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs.

A chritmas gift for all of you Elnav:

You wrote: Maybe your patent pending solar heat thingy might be of use. How much is it gonna cost me to get one shipped to here from wherever you are? Can I even afford it? I got $50 in my wallet and the bank ain't gonna loan me any money. So how do we do this?- Come up with something practical I can build myself and then maybe you got something! We need something that is self reliant, self built and independent of large international vested interest businesses. Then we might get away from using fossil fuels and petro power. Until then we are stuck with going along with the monopoly of the big energy companies.

CHEMA REPLY:

OK. You may do it for $50 -and good enough for use in your rural place- as follows:

• Get one 220Lt steel drum and paint it black (matte) (may be more drums)
• insolete both caps with pressed wood discs (> 0.5in black melamine is better)
• wrap it with a clear reticulated policarbonete (transparent 3mm thick)
• then you got a very good solar water heater -or for any liquid-.
• put it upon your roof -down its side, resting on 2 wooden sticks to avoid rolling downward- side must face sun all day long, to capture IR radiation.
• connect tap water entrance down, and hot water exit on top.
• Then, you will get hot water good enough for a day to day evening shower.

Evening shower?

Yes, you have to change your shower habits, because this cheap solar heater lacks of good insulation to hold hot water till the next morning, but you are smart and will save $300 per year -2 months to get your $50 back-

Till then, we might get away from using fossil fuels and petro power.

Be my guest and enjoy it.

cheers.

CHEMA

What is the purpose of insulating (? insolete?) the ends with wood? Wouldn't fiberglass insulation work better.

Is reticulated polycarbonate different than other polycarbonate sheets like that used for snow mobile windshields?

How much of an air gap is needed between the drum and the polycabonate sheet. Is it critical or doesn't matter?

We just purchased a heated drinking bowl for our dog. Despite being plugged in, the water froze in about an hour. Outdoor temps is -30. I think I might have to refine your design. Next summer it will work.

Thanks!

Hi elnav:

Sorry, I do my best -since english is second language, it`s better that one only-

You ask for a cheap solar heater -and that is it- What else you can get for $50 while a good commercial device goes over $1000.

Any way, I answer other 4 questions:

1) Wood fitted over caps is better insolator than nothing -of course it could be from scraps- but 1.5" of Styrene foam -painted black with watery acrilic- will be better that wood and than fiber glass.

2) No Snowmovile PC plates. Reticulated PC are the flauted sheets used to shadow you backyard living place. This act as semi-insulator during day time -but should be clear to let in radiation too-.

3) A 8 mm thead, wound 3 to 4 " apart onto the drum to get a good air gap.

4) Once again, it is not the best solar heater, but you`ll get hot water at evening, but lacks to keep it hot over night, and over coolers day too -I havent try it in snow wether jet-

But do what ever you want to improve insulation efficiency, to save more money the year around.

Marry chritmas. cheers.

How about making engines more efficient ...

- By increasing flame speed (with some hydrogen for example) ?

- By applying overexpansion (Gomecsys Go-engine, Atkinson cycle, Miller cycle) ?

- By regeneration of waste heat ?

Any specialists around the table?

Why would flame speed increase efficiency, and is that "need" due to process or cycle flaws?

If "overexpansion" made a difference, why are others not doing it?

Does a cycle "have to" have waste heat? What kind of cycle would not have waste heat?

Over-expansion (miller and Atkinson) do not remove waste heat, nor deal with any use of it, or elimination of it. What needs to change to eliminate waste heat?

In Summary: What does the thermo want, and why are all known IC engines not giving the thermo what it wants?

These are some of the questions I have asked. When you answer them you will get 60% or more.

Seaplaneguy

Hello Seaplaneguy,

Increased flamespeed would allow to have more combustible burn inside cylinder instead of in exhaust. You may have seen engines with flames coming from an exhaust (racecars for example), well the fuel did not burn before...

Hydrogen is known to have a flamespeed of about 8 to 10 times higher than gasoline. The extra hydrogen in a gasoline mixture gets the gasoline burn earlier in the whole chamber. And that is also what engineers are trying to obtain with HCCI: quicker combustion process leading to higher pressures in chamber in part of the cycle shortly after Top Dead Point. The fuel (gasoline / diesel) would also burn more completely. That is why some trucking companies use on board hydrogen generators. Check www.chechfi.ca for example or google for Hythane, Water4gas, Yoshiro Nakemats Enerex, Hydrodrive, Hy-drive. GEET, Pantone. There are plenty of sources.

Overexpansion has been used by Mr Atkinson a long time ago. see this at http://www.keveney.com/Atkinson.html

Nowadays overexpansion is in a way realized with variable valve timing. Instead of having a shorter intake stroke, the intake valve stays open shorter to obtain less mixture. VVT is widely used on cars and BMW's valvetronic is a excellent example of this.

Using waste heat for producing extra usable energy requires additional devices. Thesen can be volumetric machines for integrating an additional thermodynamic cycle (Stirling , Brayton, Ericsson, heat2power or other) for direct generation of torque but can be other like thermo-electric devices for direct generation of electricity or even thermochemical to generate higher energy content of chemicals on board (reforming, endothermic vapo-cracking etc, processes well known in petroleum industry).

On IC engines running at high performance, fuel is also often used to cool the combustion for protecting the valves and turbo from overheating. Then, the 3-way catalytic converter is not in closed loop control anymore and a lot of fuel is wasted through the exhaust. Lambda values can go up to 1.35 or higher. Instead of cooling with gasoline at 3$ the gallon you could also cool with water. So waterinjection on high performance engines can reduce fuel consumption. There are numerous waterinjection tests going on right now.

You will see that the combustion engine still has quite some potential for becoming more efficient, especially on part load (where it is generally used in cars and trucks).

I guess this message would well fit in a blog entry called

"Future Energy Sources 2.4 Improved Efficiency INternal Combustion Engines" but it is very close in spirit to this blog entry.

Typical external combustion engines are the Stirling engine, the Brayton engine and the Ericsson engine. Efficiencies of these as I find them in scientifical publications are around 29-30% maximum. Some claim 60% but this were true then the whole powergen business would run on Stirling, I can tell you that. Stirling engines also have low specific power and are therefor not interesting for vehicle applications.

I could tell you much more but I have not enough time today.

I will also not go into discussions about global warming and CO2 here. It is not the subject.

I wish you a good day.

Hi Randolph try this discussion

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/4565/Engineering-a-Solution-to-the-Energy-Question-1-1-Hyper-Efficient-IC-Engines

Dear Garth,

Thank you for the link. I will take some time to read it. There is a lot of information. I will probably give some feedback but only later as I am going to the UK tomorrow (with the Eurostar, which saves a lot of CO2 emissions)

Best regards

Randolph

Mr. Toom,

You seem, from your website, to be a guy that wants to be successful. Do you want to be? You dress nice, hair is well slicked back, you likely drive a new car, and live in a $1 million house. Correct? Or do you want to waste you time and never make money doing engines? From your answer I take it you want to waste time.

I asked you a simple question, a question that GM, FORD, Cat, Boeing, All Asian and European car manufacturers, DARPA, etc, are UNWILLING to even entertain. If they did, we would be at 100 mpg highway, and 200 city on a 3500 lbs car.

I will repeat that question: "In Summary: What does the thermo want, and why are all known IC engines not giving the thermo what it wants?" You completely avoided the 1000 lbs sitting on your face. Why? What underlying assumption are you making that blocks progress?

Your answer on Hydrogen has a critical assumption, that leads you to false conclusions. I well understand what Hydrogen does. So what. You still have NOT answered the question.

Overexpansion...again you have a critical assumption that is false. You assume your assumptions to be correct, and you may not even be aware you are making an assumption. You then go along building up all these ways of doing this and that, all based on a false assumption. If you make a chocolate chip cookie with a few pieces of crap for chips, regardless of what you add, it will always be crap. So it is with current IC engines. Question: Which pieces of hardware are the pieces of crap in an IC engine. Why?

And again, waste heat by secondary cycles has been done and not shown to be cost effective. Yes, I know what BMW did. Why don't they put it in their cars? Because they are not dumb. They too refuse to ask the critical question I asked you. Why? Orthodoxy. They cannot let go of the crap...

The practical potential is around 75% in mechanical conversion according to my calculations, and the remaining 25% is for thermals for occupants. So, in the end it is around 95-100%. During 72 F days when no conditioning is needed, the efficiency will be around 75% and during summer and winter, it should be around 100%, with extreme cold requiring fuel to heat the car, dropping mileage, etc.

As for Global Warming, ask this question: Is the ice core data correct? The answer is NO, it clearly is not. Ice cores are not closed systems, therefore are invalid. Simple chemistry tells you that the proxy is not valid. Why then are they using them? If you have a proxy that gives 260-280 ppm over time you can tell a lie and commit a fraud. By mixing the false core data with current data that shows a rise from 300-375ppm from 1960-present you have the incredients of a fiction, and a cause for a global tax to fund the UN, who, by the way, is the "authority" on climate change (not!). Such is the definition of corruption. We have motive, means, and situation.

Remember, my question was: What does the thermo want, and why are all known IC engines not giving the thermo what it wants?"

Put another way: What critical assumption runs through all of your answers? What does that false assumption do to impede your progress in engine development? (Do you like wasting money?) Of all the technologies you mention, which are irrelevant, or become redundant, to giving the thermo what it wants when you remove the false assumption? My answer is "most."

The key is to ask quality questions and turn your brain on. I don't care what you know now, or your experience with current "stuff" that someone who is using (like BMW) who cannot get more than 25%. I did the intern at Porsche, and worked with most all the European car companies. The emperor has no cloths.

Rule #1, don't question their "authority" as they suppose. Porsche lives or dies on this illusion. Every "company" and especially the Air Force, does not tolerate my question above. DARPA would not even entertain the idea of a 100 mpg car 200 city.

The links don't seem to work. Please send me the links by e-mail or another post...Thanks for the answers...

Dear Seaplaneguy,

Here is my reply to your last message:

Yes, I want to be successful. And it takes a lot of preparation, hard work, and perseverence. I am not there yet. My car is eleven years old and still running fine. I do the maintenance myself. No need to change yet. I don't own a house but live in an appartment that is too small to have a room for each of the two kids and neither do I have a calm private office. That will come later. Life in Paris is expensive and tough. I just started my own business with a friend. And yes we want to make money with engines and there is nothing wrong with that if you try to do it better then others with respect to environment. I try to never waste money nor time.

I hope that the time I spend writing in CR4 can help others. Life is not always about taking, it needs some giving as well. This is part of the giving and I have an impression there are a few people in the audience that are willing to take some fresh ideas.

Thank you kindly for the compliment about the way of dressing.

Every respectable automobile manufacturer is consciously making its choices, trade-offs between characteristics that make its vehicles sell. Simply making very efficient cars does not sell because the trade-off with comfort, safety, performance is not there. BMW does a great job with efficient dynamics. And so are others at OEMs but also at TIER one suppliers (working on more efficient engines or technologies therein). Toyota does a great job too and has shown enormous courage launching hybrids on a big scale. But there is still a lot of progress to be made and not only on engine. Getrag is heavily investing in DCTs because of better fuel economy. And so many engineers just want what you and I want. Make it better, cleaner, nicer, more efficient.

Aerodynamics are a key to better fuel economy. Audi did a wonderful job with the A2, a wonder of lightweight aluminium structure, small highly turbocharged engine, good interior space, excellent aerodynamics, good acceleration, top speed of over 200 km/h and comfortable. Was it a product that every one wanted? NO. Americans still love their V8's and F150's, in Europe cars got bigger and higher and got poor aerodynamics (4x4's are very popular here); A strange world isn't it?

Volvo and others are trying slender vehicles for reduced frontal area. Volvo Tandem is just an example. Modesi is trying to do something similar and i encourage these initiatives. We don't all need cars that are capable of hauling a reconstitued family with 5 kids to the football playground on saturday for everyday going to work (alone).

Wubbo Ockels is trying a low and aerodynamic "high speed" bus. For intercity peoples transport.

There are so many initiatives. But take some time to understand why they do not become a huge success. It is a difficult world where changes are often difficult to make and once they are made it often is a guess whether the market will pick it up.

So the world is not only made by smart engineers but also by consumer behaviour.
Recently came the Aptera. Would you buy one? I would be interested in a Loremo if you want my opinion. Small efficient engine (the problem is that i don't like diesels for their sound and their smell). But parking in Paris is a big problem; how do I park a car that is 1 meter longer than most of the cars in the street. It just wont fit so I would spend at least an hour a day to find a parking place close to home. I do most of my trips in Paris on my bike so I dont loose time trying to park my car. Perhaps you live in an area where you don't have that problem and in that case I am happy for you.

So OEMs try to make cars, trucks and planes efficient but it is not easy , simple as that.
If they succeed they know that they get a bigger market. Simply because fleetowners look at running cost, whether they have cars trucks or planes.


I am sorry not to be familiar lbs and mpg (see http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/8077#newcomments) but I got the picture.

IC engines have a typical behaviour which is layed down in the SFC diagram (specific fuel consumption) which shows how much fuel it takes to make a kWh on the crankshaft. And cars don't always run in their most efficient point. The road does not allow it. That is quite different from air planes if you see what I mean.

Efficiency... Everybody tries to make that better. But some technologies have simply not been widely accepted yet and this can be for various reasons. Durability and cost of changing production lines for example. Factories often do not get the budget for thourough changes. Simply because the company can not afford it or because smaller progress with a smaller budget is easier to accept and maintains the companies market position. These are the underlying assumptions I am making that block progress. But it is more than assumptions. I have worked for an OEM and have seen decision process from the inside.

100 mpg seems a lot for cars but is not impossible. They would simply not be like todays cars anymore.

I try to play my part of the game by proposing something serious in waste heat regeneration because I think that this is still underdeveloped which leaves me some openings for success. I decided to take personal riks, invest time and a lot of money in the company. I could also have bought a house on the countryside from that money but decided my life should be different. Feel free to join the club and propose some fuel savings alternative that you can bring to the market.

Energy losses in the system are the reasons for poor efficiencies. Think of Friction, heat transfer, cooling required for not burning/melting engine parts (sometimes even cooling with fuel), limitations in the mechanical lay-out that limit the thermal efficiency of a cycle, poor combustion behaviour because of non optimized working points, internal drag (throttle valve). There are so many reasons for efficiency drop. You hardly get around it.

The best efficiencies that I am aware of are on big ships where they reach slightly higher than 50% today.

Hydrogen : do you have experience? There are people out there that do. And so will I in a little while from now. The technical papers on the subject just look good.

Overexpansion. I know it works and it gives about 10% better fuel economy. There are no assumptions. Just data from testbench.

Cost effectiveness is indeed a brake on investments. With gasoline at 1,44 Euro per liter (here in France) and increasing, things are changing in the time to return on investment but also in mentalities. Cost that were not taken into account in the past are taken into account today (environmental cost for example). What was not cost effective yesterday may become today or tomorrow.

What BMW will put on its cars will amaze you. They now started with Hydrogen.
BMW leaders are not dumb. They do not refuse to ask the critical question. Why? Because they are Bavarian. "The job well done" is programmed in their genes. But that goes for Baden-Württemberg as well.

If I were you I would verify the heat transfer and heat flow in and between the different parts of the engine, cooling system and exhaust. If you get around 43% for a Diesel you are very good.

What is your source of information for the ice core data? I am not a specialist of ice cores but I always wonder what effect osmosis has on gases trapped in ice for hundreds of thousands of years and how the findings in the cores can lead to concentration curves. I guess they are using them amongst others (also pores density in leaves of plants) because it is one of the most important tools available today. I let the specialists do their work.

I dont like wasting money. I would like to fight me free of the position i am in today. Money is a tool to do that. Doing it with engineering is certainly a very interesting way to do it. I do everything I can for success and do it after a long period of reflection and planning.

I agree with you that the key is to ask quality questions and turn your brain on. I do that all the time. I wish everybody did. It would saves us all a lot of troubles if the action that follows originates in the right mental process.

What would you need the Air Force's opinion for?
The links work fine by clicking on them from my computer. Try again.

I wish you a good night. It is close to midnight here. I'm off to sleep.

Mr. Toom,

Thanks for the reply.

HOLA Masu:

Thanks for replying my comment on global warming, with a master piece of information and math formulas supporting your sound green house effect, but detracting the impact -too- of waisted heat effect acumulated from the same petroburning or petromania.

It calls my attention where you calculate, that an AREA roughly 390 km by 390 km of electro-solar panels should be installed -"at a catastrofic cost"- to catch enough solar energy to convert it into electricity -due to present low 25% efficiency of such technology-

However -do to present climates unbalance- I guess that catastrofes -happening every day around world- all ready are close to what you preffer not to expend in electro-solar panels technology for homes and industry, to stop using and paying power from present thermoelectrical plants -that work with petrofuels at a similar efficiency-

I hi-lighted the word AREA, because it recalls me -besides- another fact influencing global warming -not taken in account usually, except in my research report- and It is the widespread roads and streets paving -over a millon of Km2 with BITUMEN- a black charcoal wich acts like a real heater -by catching 5Kw/m2/day of IR solar energy-adding overwarming in towns air too -as much as +5ºC at noon- and should be prohibited world wide too -as well as the exposed bitumen coats to protect roofs from wetting-. Such surfacings must be clear -white on paving and aluminized on roofs-

If you think it is pinuts, please step nude on it to confirm that your egg breakfast can be cooked too, or open you car-window right above such black carpeting while wait for the green light, then you tell me.

Belive it or not, that is another forgoten FACT on global warming debates.

saludos.

chema.

Where would we get 150'000 square kilometers of silicon to make that many solar cells?

& there would also have to be extensive amounts of infastructure to transports the power from the sunny places to the consumers of the power.

bitumen roads are cheaper to build than cement.

ANY NEWS ABOUT EFFICIENT COMBUSTION ENGINES ON THIS THREAD?

Randolph,

Just You seaplane & masu's original post.

Alles ruhe am Western Front.

Everything rests in the western front?

I am with you Garthh, but:

1) Silice material is not starved. it is an engineers chalenge, yes.

2) No need to connect to the electro red, since solar planels intall on to your roof and you will not paid electro-bills any more, and thats in not what electroindustry likes.

3) White toped concrete is 25% above bitumen paving price, yes, but will be lower when mass applied. You dont put bitumen paving to your home, if you know its unconfortable and enviroment bad features. We dont live alone in our cities -and have no choice- an less you propose a better solution.

If we dont polemise but help, good solutions may come out of this blog -at the end- instead of combustion enginens to keep overwarming the plannet. think it over.

Saludos. Cheers.

Sorry GARTHH:

Besides, concrete last for over 50 years -its is a plus-

Paving low traffic road at the country side is no problem, even in VERY COULD PLACES LIKE Alaska or Groeland towns -could help to warm a little- but not in cities dowards -of course-.

The ends may be bad, but YOU KNOW THAT we must use common sence.

saludos.

Peaple is all mix up with so many wrong news -given by non professional newsman and even from scientist- since even we have diferent point of view (on causes of Global Warming). But, what ever hypotesis you believe in:

1º the emision of co2 and other gases has green house effect that increase temp. This is a fancy gess but not a proben fact.

or

2º the huge wasted energy exhusted as heat -companion of CO2- from any combustion engine (device o equipment) in a rate of 85 million barrelas a day, and acummulated since a century, causes global warming. This is a fact, as real as we can feel it from the hot gases that exhaust our cars.

And -no matter what hipotesis you believe in- the fact is that, both, point that burnt fuel is the Evil that produces both -CO2 a the heat- in huge amounts that unbalanced atmosphere thermodynamic equilibrium, ence, the accion to be urgently taken is to reach CERO CO2 emitions, wich is the same as CERO fosil fuel combustion too.

So, from Copenhagen meeting, leaders should come out with the task to promote use of clean, enless, and free nature`s energy as solar, wind, tide and hidro, to stop global warming and its efffect on climate changes.