From a P-I Editorial last week, Environment: Cleansing state's air:
Washington state will have cleaner air. That's something to celebrate. As early as this week, Gov. Christine Gregoire will sign into law requirements for cleaner-burning vehicle engines...Today, from Nature.com:
While not groundbreaking, the clean car legislation will have positive long-term effects. The California standards will remove some pollutants... and reduce the state's contribution to the phenomenon of global warming.
Our planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.
That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.
I get whiplash listening to environmental debates. One day we're headed for a new ice age, the next, a global meltdown.
Bjorn Lomborg wrote in The Skeptical Environmentalist:
A recent AOCGM study showed that the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming.I think our green legislature might consider passing a law to ban this excessive sunlight, and end global warming right away. Posted by Brian Crouch at May 06, 2005 04:58 PM | Email This
The long term record indicates we are coming out of a short period 300-400 year period of a relatively mild climate. What we have been recording for 300 years is not the norm.
There are a whole lot of climate cycles, daily light and dark temperature swings, annual seasons, and longer cycles. Ocean current cycles in the decades, sun spot activity with 11, and 1100 year cycles. We the cycles low points coincide we get an ice age, when the cycles peak we get warming.
The data suggest that the cycles are peaking. Human activity does have a additive effect. However human activity could do nothing to stop cooling if the cycles were bottoming out. The effect of human activity is insignificant against all the forces acting on climate. Remember the little burp from St. Helens a few weeks ago? That was equal to something like 25% of all the emissions in WA state for the entire year.
Global warming in some respects seems to be self regulating. Warmer temps evaporate more sea water which produces more clouds which reflects more sunlight. Warm temps increase plant growth which removes CO2 from the atmosphere reducing the greenhouse effect. Are just two examples.
It is hugely complicated system, and to attribute climate change to a simplistic cause and effect is absurd.
One note in the report I liked a significant contributor to the clean of the air was the fall of communism. Now the left can blame RWR for global warming.
Posted by: JCM on May 6, 2005 06:56 PMThe gas/electric cars are wonderful. Now what are they going to do with all of those batteries when they wear out?
Posted by: Huey on May 6, 2005 07:15 PMIf these were lead-acid batteries, refurbishing/recycling would be minimally useful. But they aren't a good choice for an electric or hybrid car anyway.
The newer lithium batteries seem to be worth 'mining' for the lithium. Both Lithium-air and Lithium-polymer seem inherently near-100%-recyclable.
JCM, the one that amused me is the study of recent solar output versus the historical pattern.
Posted by: Al on May 6, 2005 07:47 PMThe ozone hole is a hoax, too. I do not deny there IS one, just that we are causing it to expand. Several years ago the one over the north pole shifted a thousand miles further south into Siberia than it had ever been know to do. The cause--COLDER than usual temperatures! Ask yourself WHERE these holes occur in the first place. Not over warm regions of the earth, my friend. Could it be that they are just NATURALLY OCCURING PHENOMENA?
As to gas savings and fule efficiency, the California standards and anyone elses are just so much tripe--a bandaid where a transplant is needed. The answers have been there all along and whenever someone comes up with a great fuel vaporizer (not carburetor, not meter, not injector, but VAPORizer) they are bought out, scared off or just plain disappear. Why? Big money lobbies and vested interests.
This is just more of the same fertilizer they feed us mushrooms while they are keeping us in the dark (or so they think). They forget we think and read and add things up (their government schools didn't work too well with me).
CO2--now there is junk science if ever there was any! All the while they are attempting to prevent our spilling tons of the stuff into the atmosphere, they are also saying plant more trees. What do the trees consume from the atmosphere, idiots?!! And what do they produce in return? Starve the trees and expect more oxygen? DUH! And all the indoctrination about 'less trees today than when the white man came here' is so much rubbish. New Hampshire has over twice as many as before and other states have followed suit. And I KNOW Utah has more--there was ONE LONE TREE in the Salt Lake Valley when Jim Bowie went through. He said he wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the whole thing and look at it today.
And don't even get me started on Black Holes, the Big (fizzle) Bang theory or (d)evolution/science debate--the bunch of monkeys! These "people" couldn't have a battle of wits if they wanted to--they are totally unarmed! And don't give them a book to read that shows the error of their ways--they'll just eat the covers!
Liberalism truly IS a mental disorder.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 6, 2005 07:56 PMSorry--that is 30 years ago.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 6, 2005 08:01 PMSorry--that is 30 years ago.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 6, 2005 08:01 PMSorry--that is 30 years ago.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 6, 2005 08:01 PMThat is one of the fishier statements in the article. The truth is that Hungary, East Germany, and the Czech Republic have modernized somewhat, but Russia and the rest of the block are industrially not much different from the Soviet days. Romania continues to be a yellow-smoke belching hell hole. The fall of Communism didn't cause instant clean air. This is one of several specious "explainations" that they had, because they have to attribute it to something done by humans, rather than consider that it might be a natural cycle. Perish the thought!
Posted by: Dogbert on May 6, 2005 08:40 PMPlease elaborate. I've heard a little about this and of course it sounds too good to be true. For those who don't know, and I hope this is what you are referring to, roughly, by vaporizing fuel you can utilize up to half of a unit of gasoline's potential where prevalent technology utilizes say eight percent, thus you are talking engines that run 200 to 300 mpg. My only problem is this technology is supposed to have been tinkered with, and according to some, perfected since the 1920s. Yet greedy oil companies do whatever it takes, legal and illegal, to keep it under wraps. OK, gasoline is $6 or $7 a gallon in some parts of the world. We've even went through a world war and other crises where fuel was in short supply since then. So there is and has been a definate incentive to expand upon this technology in parts of the world where the oil companies don't have much political say. However, this hasn't happened. Why? I'm not just being an ass, I would love to see this accomplished, but some things just do not add up.
Posted by: CandrewB on May 6, 2005 08:41 PMWe all see things subjectively. Scientists too!
In reality science can only reliably give us facts, and it is up to us to weigh those facts against the competing theories that are dreamed up to explain those facts.
The theory we chose is, more often than not, based not on whether it better fits the facts as on whether its better fits our view of how things SHOULD be.
As a scientist, I get to see and hear a lot more of these compteting theories than do most folks.
So far though, all science can say with any certaintly is that human measurements show that average temperatures have increased since we began recording them.
Why? Nobody really knows. All the rest that you hear are THEORIES. Nothing more!
Posted by: Deadwood on May 6, 2005 09:15 PMCase in point, the current DOE regulations we have in *parts* of Clark County. Cars 5 years old and newer aren't required an emissions test. Never mind than just before they passed this part of the "law," DOE inspections found 5 vehicles, still under warranty,(these are just the ones that showed up at the delarship I work at) that failed the test and it was discovered that some parts were worn inside the engines. I repaired them under warranty. If the owner had to pay for it, it would have cost about $1500 each or more.
Depending on the year, a failed vehicle can obtain a "waiver," provided there was a certain amount of money spent towards repairs and at least some improvement was shown. Never mind it's still failing DOE inspection and polluting the air.
If they really were desiring the clean up our air, then maybe they could curtail the flatulent speeches coming out of Olympia. They have to be wreaking havoc on our environment.
All these so called "clean air" bills are is another tax on us, plain and simple.
Posted by: DakotaRed on May 6, 2005 09:41 PM"So there is and has been a definate incentive to expand upon this technology in parts of the world where the oil companies don't have much political say. However, this hasn't happened."
The truth is that is HAS happened and only WHEN they want it to. Take, for instance, the tanks that crossed the desert to fight Rommel. The distances would have been prohibitive except for the technology that I have heard more than one WW2 vet speak of as BEING IN USE at that time.
There are also men such as Edwin V. Gray that have developed technologies that have yet to be debunked even though "scientists" and "professors" and "engineers" have tried for years. The best they can do is ignore the man now. He continues to drive a vehicle that is electric and makes its own power and recharges its own battery and NEVER needs gas or any external fuel input. Many others have done similar things. What often happens is they get a visit in the middle of the night, some 'good advice' and a payoff or a trip to who knows where.
With Gray, all they do is ignore, because he is satisfied that all the local TV and papers, etc. have acknowledged his accomplishment. A few engineers and scientists have done so, too, but they cannot give him open fanfare or they get blackballed---just like anyone who says AIDS is not caused by HIV virus will lose their research grant and be blackballed(though there are folks with AIDS and no HIV and folks with HIV and no AIDS). It happens.
I can tell you right now we have an item called a nebulizer, used in hospital respiration therapy, that could revolutionize fuel vaporization. I have seen firsthand how they work and been allowed to experiment with them. You run the airflow through the liquid in them and at 1" from the opening you get cold steam and then true vapor. It DISAPPEARS into thin air, man! TRUE VAPOR! Do this to gasoline and you have the makings of NO POLLUTION, HIGH MILEAGE and LESS MONEY for the petroleum industries. The auto companies own stock in the fuel and the fuel comapanies own stock in the autos---so why would they be interested in disruptive technology? They feel the same as Bill Gates does about Linux. If HE were really so smart he would take the open kernal and put his own GUI around it and use his already established reputation and distribution system, wouldn't he? Guess he is not so smart after all, is he? It is disruptive technology to him, so he would rather use his money to shut down and hog-tie the competition. Same with the fuel issue. Makes too many waves for some folks--they get seasick. Understand now?
Research Howard Johnson sometime. The man finally got a patent when he could convince the patent office it was NOT a perpetual motion machine, but real physics at work. Well, today he is dead and his wife is AFRAID to talk to anyone. I have talked to guys who tried to interview her. I also met a man who bought a car straight from a Detroit factory and drove it home to the west coast. He thought the fuel guage was broken---until he "knew" he MUST fill up or run out of gas. What happened shocked him. He immediately knew this was a test car that was mistakenly sold to him. He also knew it woulfd soon be missed and that he would get a visit, so he went to a friends house instead and they tore it down and took photos of everything. He got the expected visit and a substitute auto, alright. I understand he was making the modifications for friends in Tacoma when he got another visit and all of his shop equipment was confiscated. He soon therafter disappeared. Witness protection program maybe (I doubt it).
It happens all the time. A guy invents a natural means to fight a disease, safe and effective--he gets a visit from a pharmaceutical company that hates competition. They offer him $30M to NOT go into business and produce his stuff. The auto and fuel industries have the money to lobby congressmen and to pay off hitmen.
Take the case of the Freon that has been banned. Just by "coincidence" the new stuff required by Congressional dictate is made by the same company as the old stuff that was just about to have its patent protection expire. "Well, isn't that special?" Think these guys don't buy off anyone they can?
They call it "protection money--take it and we protect your family. Refuse it and...well, I would hate to have you do that---you look like a smart man. Are you a smart man?"
So, we aren't in Kansas anymore, Toto. This is the real world. They don't care about you. They care about the bottom line. They care about power and prestige. They care about status. You want a vaporizer? You have to make one and tell NO ONE. If it happens at all, it happens at the grassroots level.
I once asked a mechanic why he didn't help me to develop one. His answer was textbook stuff---"a 15 to 1 air to fuel ratio....blah, blah, blah". I then asked, "what about gasoline you throw on the ground and toss a match to? That may be 50 to one, for all I know. And what about propane conversions--dopes it go in as a gas or as a liquid?" Well, all of a sudden he is too busy to discuss the matter. And this happens EVERY time I try to get someone to help me do it. It is insane. Anyone knows that if the fuel were burning completely there would be no hydrocarbons coming out the tailpipe. And the funny part is that what is expelled is FLAMMABLE! So, they put a band-aid on it (catalytic converter--a way to sell you platinum you didn't think you wanted) and then they call it good.
Cynical? Yeah, I may get the title soon enough. But I have had my eyes opened to what the world is like. I think only when men fear God more than man will we have a heaven on earth. Until then it will be us against the hellions.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 6, 2005 11:48 PM"...a failed vehicle can obtain a "waiver," provided there was a certain amount of money spent towards repairs and at least some improvement was shown."
Taken together, these statements would lead me to believe that the auto dealers and industry lobbied (bread as: bought off politicians) to require everyone to have costly repairs or buy new cars. There is an old saying from the Watergate days--"Follow the money".
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 6, 2005 11:53 PMSorry--getting late and I am getting tired.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 7, 2005 12:01 AMDON VANDERVELDE; Gig Harbor
Last updated: May 6th, 2005 02:40 AM
Dear Editor:
“Oh, why do they hate us so?” I refer not to mass-murdering Moslems but to Washington state Democrats and The News Tribune.
They successfully promoted legislation that is pure cultural vandalism in order to force a reduction in the use of gasoline and diesel fuel upon Washingtonians. This is ostensibly to save the Earth from carbon dioxide, in a sort of poor man’s Kyoto international suicide pact.
They even admit that the legislation will not reduce the level of carbon dioxide. But it will certainly damage the state’s economy. We have enough unemployment now, and we don’t need to create any more poverty.
Current mileage standards already kill and maim thousands of Americans each year by forcing them to drive smaller, gas-saving but more dangerous cars. For example, the Brookings Institute and the Harvard School of Public Health say CAFE standards already cause 2,200 to 3,900 additional deaths and 11,000 to 19,500 serious injuries per car model year.
Please, quit “helping” us so much.
Quick, start up those V8s and produce some particulate emmissions!
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 7, 2005 02:39 AMYou're welcome!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 7, 2005 08:21 AMYou are correct on some points: A nebulizer makes a fine mist, much better than a carburetor or a typical fuel injector. But the efficiency increase you project defies the fundamental underpinnings of several fields.
You can independently measure the energy stored in a gallon of gasoline (noting that gas is a mixture of a slew of things). You can independently note that you are getting 30% efficiency in converting that energy into forward motion in a normal car. (Perhaps 40% in a hybrid where the engine is designed around a much narrower range of RPM) There _is_ room for improvement. You can also independently measure what exactly is coming out of your tailpipe.
But 100% _is_ the maximum. If you can demonstrate a method, _any_ method, of exceeding the theoretical maximum energy output from a gallon of gasoline, you will be practically guaranteed a nobel prize, a cool trillion dollars, and a physical process named after you in perpetuity. Because this 'theoretical maximum' if exceeded would essentially allow you to use your process to MAKE more gas than you started with. It would be a perpetual energy machine. Even just 101% would allow one to set up a gas station and sell gas. Without buying _more_ gas. Ever. A couple of hundred thousand dollars would _not_ be enough to buy _me_ out. Heck, keep adding zeros. And a payout of that scale would be noticeable.
On a second note, there is _not_ an unburned 70% gasoline in an engine that is 30% efficient. The vast majority _was_ burnt. The 'rest' of the energy was wasted cooling the engine, warming up the incoming fuel, compressing air, overcoming the friction of an insane number of moving parts and running my iPod. I haven't performed these calculations recently, but 98+% seems like the correct ballpark for how much of the incoming gasoline is burnt. There's far less than 1% _gasoline_ in the exhaust of a decent engine designed without any exhaust widgets. Less than 1% of the carbon (that was part of the original gasoline) is coming out either unburnt or as soot. If it was anywhere near that high you'd need to clean your exhaust like a chimney sweep monthly. 'ppm' on the emission test reports means 'parts per million'.
The other 'incomplete combustion product' of note is carbon _mon_oxide. The purpose of the catalytic converter is nearly entirely to convert the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. Because you are right, carbon dioxide is tree food. But carbon _mon_oxide is both poisonous and obnoxious.
Back to the nebulizer, the crucial job that the carburetor and/or fuel injector are trying to do is distribute the fuel around the interior of the combustion chamber in a fairly even spread. You _are_ correct that a fine mist would do a better job. The problem is that this just isn't crucial to good burning. Gasoline is _naturally_ not just a mist, but a honest gas when it has reached the temperatures and pressures present right before the spark plug fires. As a gas, what was a droplet and the small bit of air that was around it become well mixed extremely quickly. If we had _large_ droplets, the gasoline still becomes a gas, but it takes a little longer for the gas and the air to mix. The shorter the minimum time for mixing is, the higher your RPM is. Wait a second, rpm has nothing to do with 'efficiency', it has to do with performance and how much gas you can shove through the engine each second. If you check the Indy cars, for instance, you'll find that they run on really light fuels - methanol, ethanol. There is _less_ energy in a gallon of methanol or ethanol... but it will heat up faster, convert to a gas faster, and mix inside the combustion chamber faster -> which means they can run their engines at a much higher rpm. (With other mechanical improvements of course).
The 'NO POLLUTION' claim also defies chemistry. Air is 80% nitrogen, and heat will 'burn' nitrogen into various nitrous compounds (NOx). If you had a membrane or something that could separate the nitrogen out before it went into the extremely hot combustion chamber, then you might have a chance of eliminating NOx compounds, otherwise, nearly everything you do to improve efficiency of the 'gas plus oxygen' reaction also increases the 'nitrogen plus oxygen' reaction. Bummer.
I don't have any comment on the other claims, but the discussion of the nebulizer and the oil magnate conspiracies happens to be in my area of research (high-temperature combustion and hydrogen generation) and doesn't align with well established physical phenomena. It shouldn't cost too much to actually test most of this yourself if you have access to a car geek and a machine shop.
Posted by: Al on May 7, 2005 07:58 PMRon, I hope you aren't referring to me, but if you are. let's talk man to man about your objections and I will see whether I can alleviate your fears.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 7, 2005 07:59 PMThe MSM would like nothing better than to take down big oil and advance the environmentalist cause. All the inventor of the wonder machine would have to is drive up to any TV station and do a little demonstration.
We all know how good the government and corporation are about keeping secrets. Out of all the thousands of people who would have to be in on suppressing a wonder machine. What are the chances that not a single one would ever have a conscience? So far no one has come forward to spill the beans.
That is where the razor comes in, which is the simpler explanation. That the media, corporations and the government have thousands of people working for decades to suppression wonder machines. Or that the wonder machines aren't so wonderful. On top of that until you can demonstrate exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics, I have one word for wonder machines. BOGUS.
Posted by: JCM on May 7, 2005 09:44 PM"The vast majority _was_ burnt." This does not account for the fact that you can actually get a flash from igniting your exhaust emissions. I have seen it done.
"You _are_ correct that a fine mist would do a better job. The problem is that this just isn't crucial to good burning." I almost choked when I read that sentence, Al. No tcrucial? You might as well say that it is not crucial to adequately mix air into the fuel before burning it, because that is the same thing. You night as well say that insufficient spark is enough to do the job.
"As a gas, what was a droplet and the small bit of air that was around it become well mixed extremely quickly." I have read plenty of reports by shade-tree experimenters that would argue that point. The very reason they are attempting to get better mixing is to overcome the droplet phenomenon. Nearly ALL combustion engineers would argue that the fuel is not mixing adequately to reduce pollution and that if it was , the rate of emissions would be greatly reduced. The unburned hydrocarbons are from unburned gasoline. Not to say that there would be zero pollution if it was 100% vaporization--of course it is impossible to prevent it totally--it is not impossible, however, to reduce it far more than what we are now doing and withgout artificially achievibg it by adding bandaids after the fact. Vaporize it first and you would do far better. Aside from that, do you know if the hybrid cars utilize catalytic converters? I don't know and am interested in hearing about it.
"It shouldn't cost too much to actually test most of this yourself if you have access to a car geek and a machine shop."
Afraid I don't--no one wants to try as they are too steeped in "15/1 doctrine."
Thanks for the response, though.
Maybe you think it is just coincidence that Lincoln, Kennedy (Jack and Bobby both), Jackson and others said the bankers were trying to kill them. Maybe it is just coincidence that Wison said he had betrayed his country by signing the Fed Reserve Act for the PRIVATE BANKERS to control the money (against the counsel of Jefferson) and maybe you think conspiracies don't exist. Well, you are wrong. (And maybe you don't understand the analogy--too bad for you; 30+ years of research has put the big picture together for me-- but I will explain another time).
With that I say goodnight.
Posted by: Steven O'Dell on May 7, 2005 11:04 PMThe efficiency of a air/fuel ratio of 1/infinity is _zero_, the efficiency of a air fuel ratio of infinity/1 is _also_ zero. There's a peak somewhere in the middle, and I personally have run experiments to find the maximum efficiency on a given combustion chamber. (On propane/air).
When you are at one extreme, you have too much fuel - all the oxygen is burnt out of the air long before a decent amount of fuel burns. This 'too rich' condition _does_ lead to raw fuel going out the exhaust.
When you are at the other extreme, you spend all of your energy warming up the 'extra' air. Think of making a pot of spaghetti - if you put in one quart of water, the water boils a heck of a lot faster than if you put in a gallon, and you aren't going to _use_ the extra hot water for anything. A 50-1 air fuel mixture can burn faster than a 15-1 air fuel mixture. But a lot more of the energy released by the burning is tied up in warming the _other_ 49 parts of air that are just along for the ride and don't actually participate in the reaction.
So you could make a piston/combustion chamber that would be able to run at extremely high rpms because of the faster burning, but that WILL be a lower efficiency. More power, but lower efficiency.
You can achieve 'perfect mixing' in the lab, you do not get zero pollution. Even with perfect 'lab' mixing, you can 'light the exhaust' if you are running too rich, but it is typically not _gasoline_ at that point, but vaporized carbon and other short chain fuels.
I'll repeat NOT CRUCIAL. _Good_ mixing is crucial, _perfect_ mixing is _not_. Fuel injectors do a decent job. Sigh.
Posted by: Al on May 8, 2005 11:41 AMhttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15786_Canadian_Scientists_Denounce_Kyoto_Protocol&only=yes
Posted by: JCM on May 8, 2005 03:27 PM