date:20090603


Jeff Fink wrote:

Repeat after me 100 times:  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is not a 
pollutant.  CO2 is not a pollutant.


Of course it is a pollutant! That is an absurd assertion. Excessive 
CO2 causes harm, and it is injected into the atmosphere by people, 
therefore it is a pollutant.


Any substance is a pollutant in some circumstances and in some 
amounts, but not in other circumstances or concentrations. Take salt, 
for example. Two-thirds of the earth is covered by salt water, and we 
cannot survive without eating salt, so it is obviously not a 
pollutant in the ocean or in your body. However, if you plow salt 
into a productive field in a farm, the way the Romans supposedly did 
in Carthage, it permanently destroys the land. If you spread salt 
over roads in the U.S. to melt snow, it causes terrific damage to the 
surroundings. Therefore it is a pollutant.


Please do not replace scientific analysis with empty slogans. 
Repeating simplistic, mindless nonsense 100 times does not make it 
true. This is a science discussion forum, so let us have rigor.



If we have to capture the carbon in CO2, then we really can't burn 
it in the first place.


We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it 
will probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric 
oxygen which is a growing problem.


- Jed

[Vo]:Toyota announces it will lease 500 plug-in vehicles


This just in . . . in Japanese.

http://www.asahi.com/business/update/0603/NGY200906030019.html

The headline says the Toyota will begin lease-purchases of PHV (plug 
in vehicles), with 200 expected in Japan.


The Asahi newspaper on line just now published this short article. It 
says they plan to lease purchase 500 vehicles worldwide, including 
200 to to government agencies and the like in Japan by the end of the year.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Jed sez:

...
 We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it will
 probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric oxygen which
 is a growing problem.

Ok... time to ask a dumb question:

How does one burn CO2?

My mundane sense of logic would seem to suggest that burning CO2
would only result in... well... more CO2 released into the atmosphere.
Obviously, that's not what is meant here.

Clarify?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture



OrionWorks wrote:
 Jed sez:
 
 ...
 We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it will
 probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric oxygen which
 is a growing problem.
 
 Ok... time to ask a dumb question:
 
 How does one burn CO2?
 
 My mundane sense of logic would seem to suggest that burning CO2
 would only result in... well... more CO2 released into the atmosphere.
 Obviously, that's not what is meant here.
 
 Clarify?

It's not the CO2 which is being burned, of course!  The antecedent of
it was murky, but it actually referred to fossil fuels, not CO2.

The original statement was from Jeff Fink, who stated that if you need
to capture the CO2 from burning fossil fuels, then it's impossible to
burn the fuels in the first place.

Of course Jeff was overstating the case to try to make a point.  His
actual assertion here seems to be that carbon capture is impractical and
demanding it will, in practical terms, block use of the fuels for which
it's required, and by so doing, cause economic damage to the United States.


 
 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture


OrionWorks wrote:


 We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it will
 probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric oxygen which
 is a growing problem.

Ok... time to ask a dumb question:

How does one burn CO2?


That's not what we meant. You burn the carbon and capture the CO2 
combustion product, underground, for example, instead of releasing it 
to the atmosphere. That is very difficult to do, but it can be done.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Well, this is a science forum, so lets test that. And we will do so in
true science fashion, by attempting to DISprove our theory.
So, our theory is that co2 is NOT a pollutant.

To test that, hows about we lock you in a room and pump in co2? see
what it does

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote:
 Repeat after me 100 times:  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is not a
 pollutant.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is not a





 If we have to capture the carbon in CO2, then we really can’t burn it in the
 first place.



 Funny how we are willing to build Nuclear plants for other countries, but we
 are going to stick ourselves with windmills and solar collectors.  Half of
 Iran is sun baked desert, but even they won’t take solar power over nuclear.



 Jeff



 

 From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:11 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture



 My first day in the carbon-sequestering group went well.  The technology is
 proprietary so I cannot share it with this group.  I can, however, share
 some items.  In the year 2020 all power plants will be required to sequester
 their carbon emissions.  They will be required to capture 90% of the emitted
 carbon.  There are many technologies to capture carbon.  The ones that can
 capture carbon at a 90% rate are very capital and energy intensive.  Capital
 costs could equal the cost of the original generating plant.  Energy costs
 could reach 30% of generation.  Efforts are underway to reduce these costs.
 There does not appear to be an easy way out.  The company I work for has the
 only working, in operation, technology in North America.  That's good.



 I do not know how the utilities and rate payers are going to be able to
 sustain these costs.  Perhaps a goal of 25% capture would be more viable.



 I am still learning and studying this stuff.  Jed we need cold fusion now
 please.



 Frank Z



 

 An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Thanks Stephen, Jed,

That's what I kind-a thot, but wanted verification.

I knew at least enough from basic chemistry to know that molecules
like H2O and CO2 are at the bottom of their respective energy wells.
They would need an external energy source applied in order to break
the covalent bonds.

IOW, the CO2 sequestering technology endeavors to essentially
transform portions of our underground into a gigantic fizzy's tablet.
This seems reminiscent to a scene in the movie, Animal House, when
Dean Vernon Wormer lamented Who dumped a whole truck-load of fizzies
into the swim-meet?

http://www.uselessmoviequotes.com/umq_a005.htm

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture


Jeff Fink wrote:

Funny how we are willing to build Nuclear plants for other 
countries, but we are going to stick ourselves with windmills and 
solar collectors.


This is completely wrong. The U.S. is poised to license and build the 
largest number of nuclear power plants since the 1960s, including one 
in Georgia.


It makes sense to build a nuke in Georgia because we have no wind or 
solar resources. In the desert outside of Los Angeles, building a 
nuclear plant instead of a solar thermal generator would be economic 
and technological insanity. It would be like putting a nuke next to 
Niagara Falls instead of installing hydroelectric generators.



Half of Iran is sun baked desert, but even they won't take solar 
power over nuclear.


Iran also has shortages of gasoline and they are devoting billions of 
dollars to devices that separate plutonium for some odd reason. I 
would not look them for energy policy ideas.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Precisely.

Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

OrionWorks wrote:
 Jed sez:

 ...
 We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it
will
 probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric oxygen
which
 is a growing problem.

 Ok... time to ask a dumb question:

 How does one burn CO2?

 My mundane sense of logic would seem to suggest that burning CO2
 would only result in... well... more CO2 released into the atmosphere.
 Obviously, that's not what is meant here.

 Clarify?

It's not the CO2 which is being burned, of course!  The antecedent of
it was murky, but it actually referred to fossil fuels, not CO2.

The original statement was from Jeff Fink, who stated that if you need
to capture the CO2 from burning fossil fuels, then it's impossible to
burn the fuels in the first place.

Of course Jeff was overstating the case to try to make a point.  His
actual assertion here seems to be that carbon capture is impractical and
demanding it will, in practical terms, block use of the fuels for which
it's required, and by so doing, cause economic damage to the United States.

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

I must have heard over a hundred times in the past year that CO2 is a
pollutant.  I thought we could use a little balance.

Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:13 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Jeff Fink wrote:

Repeat after me 100 times:  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is not a 
pollutant.  CO2 is not a pollutant.

Of course it is a pollutant! That is an absurd assertion. Excessive 
CO2 causes harm, and it is injected into the atmosphere by people, 
therefore it is a pollutant.

Any substance is a pollutant in some circumstances and in some 
amounts, but not in other circumstances or concentrations. Take salt, 
for example. Two-thirds of the earth is covered by salt water, and we 
cannot survive without eating salt, so it is obviously not a 
pollutant in the ocean or in your body. However, if you plow salt 
into a productive field in a farm, the way the Romans supposedly did 
in Carthage, it permanently destroys the land. If you spread salt 
over roads in the U.S. to melt snow, it causes terrific damage to the 
surroundings. Therefore it is a pollutant.

Please do not replace scientific analysis with empty slogans. 
Repeating simplistic, mindless nonsense 100 times does not make it 
true. This is a science discussion forum, so let us have rigor.

If we have to capture the carbon in CO2, then we really can't burn 
it in the first place.

We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it 
will probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric 
oxygen which is a growing problem.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture



OrionWorks wrote:
 Thanks Stephen, Jed,
 
 That's what I kind-a thot, but wanted verification.
 
 I knew at least enough from basic chemistry to know that molecules
 like H2O and CO2 are at the bottom of their respective energy wells.
 They would need an external energy source applied in order to break
 the covalent bonds.

Well, actually, if you want to picky about it, and if by burn you mean
oxidize (rather than the more specific meaning of combine with
oxygen), then I bet you *could* burn CO2 quite nicely ... at least, if
you had a flourine atmosphere to play with.

Off hand I'd even guess that it would burn so well in the presence of
flourine that a stoichiometric mixture of CO2 and F2 might be explosive.
 But this is just wild speculation; I didn't look up the redox
potentials or anything else before posting it...


 
 IOW, the CO2 sequestering technology endeavors to essentially
 transform portions of our underground into a gigantic fizzy's tablet.
 This seems reminiscent to a scene in the movie, Animal House, when
 Dean Vernon Wormer lamented Who dumped a whole truck-load of fizzies
 into the swim-meet?
 
 http://www.uselessmoviequotes.com/umq_a005.htm
 
 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

If you put me in a room where CO2 is double the ambient, I won't even
notice.  If you put some potted plants in there with me they will love it
and grow like crazy.  Vegetation on this planet is starved for more CO2.

Jeff

-Original Message-
From: leaking pen [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Well, this is a science forum, so lets test that. And we will do so in
true science fashion, by attempting to DISprove our theory.
So, our theory is that co2 is NOT a pollutant.

To test that, hows about we lock you in a room and pump in co2? see
what it does

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote:
 Repeat after me 100 times:  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is not a
 pollutant.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  CO2 is not a

 If we have to capture the carbon in CO2, then we really cant burn it in
the
 first place.

 Funny how we are willing to build Nuclear plants for other countries, but
we
 are going to stick ourselves with windmills and solar collectors.  Half of
 Iran is sun baked desert, but even they wont take solar power over
nuclear.

 Jeff

 From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:11 PM
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Subject: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

 My first day in the carbon-sequestering group went well.  The technology
is
 proprietary so I cannot share it with this group.  I can, however, share
 some items.  In the year 2020 all power plants will be required to
sequester
 their carbon emissions.  They will be required to capture 90% of the
emitted
 carbon.  There are many technologies to capture carbon.  The ones that can
 capture carbon at a 90% rate are very capital and energy intensive. 
Capital
 costs could equal the cost of the original generating plant.  Energy costs
 could reach 30% of generation.  Efforts are underway to reduce these
costs.
 There does not appear to be an easy way out.  The company I work for has
the
 only working, in operation, technology in North America.  That's good.

 I do not know how the utilities and rate payers are going to be able to
 sustain these costs.  Perhaps a goal of 25% capture would be more viable.

 I am still learning and studying this stuff.  Jed we need cold fusion now
 please.

 Frank Z

 An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

We are poised, and poised, and poised, and 10 or 15 years from now we might
have one running. In the mean time all the ones we have are passed there
service life. As far as nuclear goes, the clock is has run out for America.

Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Jeff Fink wrote:

Funny how we are willing to build Nuclear plants for other 
countries, but we are going to stick ourselves with windmills and 
solar collectors.

This is completely wrong. The U.S. is poised to license and build the 
largest number of nuclear power plants since the 1960s, including one 
in Georgia.

It makes sense to build a nuke in Georgia because we have no wind or 
solar resources. In the desert outside of Los Angeles, building a 
nuclear plant instead of a solar thermal generator would be economic 
and technological insanity. It would be like putting a nuke next to 
Niagara Falls instead of installing hydroelectric generators.

Half of Iran is sun baked desert, but even they won't take solar 
power over nuclear.

Iran also has shortages of gasoline and they are devoting billions of 
dollars to devices that separate plutonium for some odd reason. I 
would not look them for energy policy ideas.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

From Jeff and all:

 We are poised, and poised, and poised, and 10 or 15 years from now we might
 have one running. In the mean time all the ones we have are passed there
 service life. As far as nuclear goes, the clock is has run out for America.

...which all seems to come back to Frank's original plea, that we
...need cold fusion now please!

Sure, maybe we will be able to figure out how to sequester (in the
economic sense) massive amounts of CO2 underground - and in the
process transform massive swatches of underground faults into gigantic
fizzies tablets...just don't add water! Anyone who has cats as family
members are perfectly aware of distinct sound these creatures are
capable of emitting while barfing up the ruminants of last evening's
supper, or a hairball, typically at 4:00 AM in the morning. IOW, I
believe there is some concern as to how effective the CO2 sequestering
might turn out to be, let alone the daunting economics of making it
all practical. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of transforming the
ground beneath my feet into a gigantic ticking hairball waiting to
erupt. But no doubt, I'm just expressing my irrationality concerning
this topic. ;-)

It would seem that a more practical approach would be to focus more of
our RD resources on the development of AE, like CF, Wind, Solar,
algoil, as well more exotic approaches rather than sequestering
massive amounts of coal-fire generated CO2 underground. It almost
strikes me as if we are sweeping the problem under the rug. Too many
dust bunnies under the rug will inevitably result in increased
allergies - and a lumpy rug.

As for Frank's current job. I'm not too concerned that he will find
himself unemployed anytime in the near future! I suspect his unique
skills  services will continue to be in great demand.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Here is a publication on our carbon capture


CLEAN COAL companies:

Alstom: Chilled Ammonia
Location: Chena, Alaska
Inventor: Eli Gal
Alstom, the French energy giant, is using a “chilled ammonia” process developed 
by chemical engineer Eli Gal to remove carbon dioxide from power plant gases. A 
pilot plant to demonstrate the technology began construction in 2007 in 
Wisconsin, organized by the Electric Power Research Institute and supported by 
more than thirty U.S. utilities. In 2008 Alstom intends to install a 
demonstration scrubber at the 1,300-megawatt Mountaineer Plant in West 
Virginia, the nation’s number one industrial emitter of carbon dioxide. The 
plant’s operator plans to build a commercial-scale, $325 million chilled 
ammonia scrubber in Oklahoma in 2011, selling the captured carbon dioxide for 
enhanced oil recovery.


I have been studing the details of this process.   Eli Gal is one smart dude.


Frank Z

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

From Leak:

 Balance?  Science is not political.  Reality and facts do NOT bend to
 political bias.

Ideally, science should not be political. The process should not bend
to political bias.

But how many here believe that actually occurs?

I suspect the Vort Collective is all-too aware that the politics of
the situation have often played an ugly part in squandering finite RD
resources either for political favor, as well as to bolster the
current philosophical paradigms concerning how the universe is put
together.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Here is a publication on our carbon capture

What actually comes out the stack when the scrubber is in use? (For
that matter, *is* there still a stack?)

Does the plant still vent steam, H2O being the second major combustion
product, or is that also soaked up by the ammonia? The stuff is majorly
hygroscopic, I would guess.

Here's a totally random thought: If an effective scrubber could be made
reasonably compact, and if it actually scrubs away the entire exhaust
of the plant, then it would be possible (in principle) to make practical
non-nuclear submarines that didn't have the short immersion limit of the
WWI and WWII subs. (Now, whether they'd be good for anything is another
question.)

fznidar...@aol.com wrote:

CLEAN COAL companies:

/Alstom: Chilled Ammonia/
*Location:* Chena, Alaska
*Inventor:* Eli Gal
Alstom, the French energy giant, is using a â€œchilled ammoniaâ€�
process developed by chemical engineer Eli Gal to remove carbon dioxide
from power plant gases. A pilot plant to demonstrate the technology
began construction in 2007 in Wisconsin, organized by the Electric Power
Research Institute and supported by more than thirty U.S. utilities. In
2008 Alstom intends to install a demonstration scrubber at the
1,300-megawatt Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia, the nationâ€™s number
one industrial emitter of carbon dioxide. The plantâ€™s operator plans
to build a commercial-scale, $325 million chilled ammonia scrubber in
Oklahoma in 2011, selling the captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil
recovery.

I have been studing the details of this process. Eli Gal is one smart
dude.

Frank Z

Shop Inspiron, Studio and XPS Laptops at Dell.com
http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222616459x1201464730/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215218145%3B37264238%3Bd

[Vo]:what comes out of the stack

What actually comes out the stack when the scrubber is in use?? (For
that matter, *is* there still a stack?)

nitrogen

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Science is not political?  We, on this forum, of all people, know just how
political science has become. Reality and facts bend to
political bias all the time.  If not, we would likely be powering the world
with cold fusion by now.

-Original Message-
From: leaking pen [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Balance?  Science is not political.  Reality and facts do NOT bend to
political bias.

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture


Jeff Fink wrote:


I must have heard over a hundred times in the past year that CO2 is a
pollutant.  I thought we could use a little balance.


You have probably often heard that 2+2=4. Claiming that it equals 5 
does not provide balance. Your assertion that CO2 is not a pollutant 
is wrong. Flat out, 100%, demonstrably, wrong. Writing it 100 times 
does not make it right. As I said, you might as well claim that salt 
on the roads is not a pollutant.


If you would like to argue that salt or CO2 in the wrong places in 
the wrong amounts are not pollutants, let's see some reasons. Don't 
just make an unsupported assertion that flies in the face of known 
facts. Are you saying that CO2 does not cause global warming and 
therefore it is not a pollutant? That would be different argument. 
That's also wrong, but different. You seem to be saying that because 
natural levels of CO2 are benign any other level is also benign. If 
you believe that would you be willing to eat a kilogram of salt?


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture


Jeff Fink wrote:


If you put me in a room where CO2 is double the ambient, I won't even
notice.


Oh come now! This is not a serious argument. If I put you in a 
Japanese hot spring bath for a half-hour you would probably find it 
pleasant. If a million acres of Georgia land were inundated with 50 
deg C water filled with sulphur it would be a disaster.


Please, give us a break. This is a science forum. You can't just toss 
out the last hundred years of climatology and substitute a statement 
about how you would fare if you were put in a room with a lot of CO2. 
That's got nothing remotely to do with climatology, and you know it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:what comes out of the stack

From Frank:

 What actually comes out the stack when the scrubber is in use?  (For
 that matter, *is* there still a stack?)

 nitrogen

Wow! Pretty neat trick!

I assume ammonia is being consumed sequestering the CO2. Is that a
correct assumption? Is ammonia also being pumped underground? I would
imagine this is part of the 30% sequestering cost.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Sequestering CO2

Frank's work brings up a wish-list:

Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while
simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon
nonotubes.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2



OrionWorks wrote:
 Frank's work brings up a wish-list:
 
 Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
 that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
 elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while
 simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon
 nonotubes.

But ... the problem is the energy balance.

You got a lot of energy out when you let those O atoms glue themselves
to the C -- in fact, getting that energy fix is probably why you did
it.  Now, to get them unstuck again, you're going to have to put just as
much energy back in.

Kind of defeats the purpose, I would think.

On the other hand, it could be useful if you're imagining using the
C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle as a convenient way of transporting energy
from point A to point B, or converting the energy from one form to
another.  But then again that sort of puts you back where we started,
which is looking for some other source of energy.



 
 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

as well as a method of suicide, combined with carbon MONoxide for a
more nerve deadening effect, vis a vis the old, run the car in an
enclosed garage and go to sleep method.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:


 Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Jeff Fink wrote:

 If you put me in a room where CO2 is double the ambient, I won't even
 notice.

 Oh come now! This is not a serious argument. If I put you in a Japanese
 hot spring bath for a half-hour you would probably find it pleasant. If
 a million acres of Georgia land were inundated with 50 deg C water
 filled with sulphur it would be a disaster.

 Please, give us a break. This is a science forum. You can't just toss
 out the last hundred years of climatology and substitute a statement
 about how you would fare if you were put in a room with a lot of CO2.

 The argument (or non-argument) also depends critically on the definition
 of a lot of CO2.

 Note well that CO2 can be used as an anesthetic in small animal surgery
 (it knocks them cold) and it is also used to perform euthanasia on small
 animals (it knocks them colder).  Again, it all depends on the
 concentration.


 That's got nothing remotely to do with climatology, and you know it.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2


OrionWorks wrote:


Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
elements.


That would take as much energy as you get from burning the coal in 
the first place. It would be useless, because if you have that much 
energy from some other source, why burn coal?


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2

We have economical examples of these devices all over the planet.  They are
called trees.  They are self replicating, and the higher the concentration
of CO2 gets the faster they replicate.  Well, isn't that cool?  A self
regulating planet wide system is already in place to deal with the problem.

Jeff

-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:09 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2

Frank's work brings up a wish-list:

Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while
simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon
nonotubes.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2

Actually what I said here was (probably) wrong.  Sort of like saying you
can't get energy out of sugar in the absence of oxygen -- yeast would
laugh in your face if you claimed such a thing.

If we start with something like gasoline, which is something like C8H18
(pure octane, I know it's not, but close enough), then the actual
combustion reaction is something like this:

  2*C8H18 + 25*O2 -- 16*CO2 + 18*H2O

with who-knows-what intermediaries and such.  Be that as it may, the
point is the oxidation of the H's releases energy, all by itself (though
I dare say the lion's share comes from oxidizing the carbon).

So, in principle, it should be possible to start with gasoline, burn a
little bit and use the energy for something you want to do, then burn a
lot more and use the energy from the second burn to split the CO2 from
both burns.  Overall the reaction would look like:

  x*C8H18 + y*O2 --  z*Cw (some kind of graphite?) + q*H2O

Without spending time with redox tables or the equivalent I'm not
certain but I think the reaction is still energy-positive.

In fact, if I don't miss my guess something close to this is done in
charcoal production, where a large amount of wood is stacked up in such
a way that it has rotten ventilation in the middle, and the pile is
burned, very slowly.  Certainly a lot of the heat driving the reaction
comes from burning the well-ventilated wood on the outside of the pile
but I'm not sure that does more than get the reaction started; once the
stuff in the middle starts to go it's most likely self sustaining.


Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
 
 OrionWorks wrote:
 Frank's work brings up a wish-list:

 Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
 that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
 elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while
 simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon
 nonotubes.
 
 But ... the problem is the energy balance.
 
 You got a lot of energy out when you let those O atoms glue themselves
 to the C -- in fact, getting that energy fix is probably why you did
 it.  Now, to get them unstuck again, you're going to have to put just as
 much energy back in.
 
 Kind of defeats the purpose, I would think.
 
 On the other hand, it could be useful if you're imagining using the
 C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle as a convenient way of transporting energy
 from point A to point B, or converting the energy from one form to
 another.  But then again that sort of puts you back where we started,
 which is looking for some other source of energy.
 
 
 
 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2

From Stephen:

 OrionWorks wrote:
 Frank's work brings up a wish-list:

 Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in
 existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its
 individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the
 atmosphere while simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts
 of interesting carbon nonotubes.

 But ... the problem is the energy balance.

Agreed. What I did not make clear in my pie-in-the-sky speculation was
the additional premise that energy would no longer be an expensive
issue. I was thinking in terms of a futuristic sceneario when
hopefully abundant energy would be available allowing us to indulge
all sorts of activities that under present circumstances would be
considered impractical, if not a little absurd.

 You got a lot of energy out when you let those O atoms glue
 themselves to the C -- in fact, getting that energy fix is
 probably why you did it.  Now, to get them unstuck again, you're
 going to have to put just as much energy back in.

 Kind of defeats the purpose, I would think.

 On the other hand, it could be useful if you're imagining
 using the C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle as a convenient way of
 transporting energy from point A to point B, or converting the
 energy from one form to another.  But then again that sort of
 puts you back where we started, which is looking for some other
 source of energy.

I would assume the O+H2 -- H2O -- O+H2 cycle is considered to be a
much more popular transport of energy. Obviously there has been a lot
more research into the latter cycle. Nevertheless, it would be
interesting to discover if an equivalent (as well as an economical)
transport is possible through the C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle.

I wouldn't know.

I should try contacting Vincent Dinglelint. But alas, his current
whereabouts are unknown. ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2



Jeff Fink wrote:
 We have economical examples of these devices all over the planet.  They are
 called trees.  They are self replicating, and the higher the concentration
 of CO2 gets the faster they replicate.  Well, isn't that cool?  A self
 regulating planet wide system is already in place to deal with the problem.

Yes indeed, you've put your finger on a major piece of the problem:  We
have -- no, I mean we **HAD** -- all these wonderful forests, which
could be part of the solution -- and we've cut down about half of them
now, turning them into part of the problem.  And we're working hard to
cut down the other half just as quickly as we can get in there with
enough chainsaws to do the work.

Wiki saith:

 Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852.[75][76] It has
 been estimated that about half of the earth's mature tropical forests —
 between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi)
 of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million
 sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet[77] — have now been
 cleared.[78][79] Some scientists have predicted that unless significant
 measures (such as seeking out and protecting old growth forests that
 haven't been disturbed)[77] are taken on a worldwide basis, by 2030
 there will only be ten percent remaining,[75][78] with another ten
 percent in a degraded condition.[75] 80 percent will have been lost...

Main article (which is quite long, above snippet is just a tiny piece):

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

The point is that this supposed carbon sink (global woodland) is
actually being driven hard in the other direction, as a result of which
it's a net carbon source.



 
 Jeff
 
 -Original Message-
 From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:09 PM
 To: vortex-l
 Subject: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
 
 Frank's work brings up a wish-list:
 
 Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
 that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
 elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while
 simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon
 nonotubes.
 
 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2

Actually, biosphere 2 experiments with raising trees found that in
higher co2 environments, they would grow quick and tall, not as wide,
not sequester as much co2, and while they used more co2 in
respiration, at levels about double our current baseline co2
percentages, the difference between co2 produced and consumed by trees
neared 0.

Again, SCIENCE!

Alex
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote:
 We have economical examples of these devices all over the planet.  They are
 called trees.  They are self replicating, and the higher the concentration
 of CO2 gets the faster they replicate.  Well, isn't that cool?  A self
 regulating planet wide system is already in place to deal with the problem.

 Jeff

 -Original Message-
 From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:09 PM
 To: vortex-l
 Subject: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2

 Frank's work brings up a wish-list:

 Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
 that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
 elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while
 simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon
 nonotubes.

 Regards
 Steven Vincent Johnson
 www.OrionWorks.com
 www.zazzle.com/orionworks

[Vo]:Shanahan goes off the deep end!

On the Cold Fusion Talk page I saw this weird message from Kirk 
Shanahan in a discussion of Duncan's visit to Energetic Technologies:


Dardik et al, of Energetic Technologies have slides from ICCF12 and 
a paper from ICCF14 (2008) posted on Rothwell's web site. In both, 
they show an artist's drawing of their calorimeter, which contains 
the thermocouples, which are designated Tcell and Tjacket. The 
drawing and these designations are for what is known as isoperibolic 
calorimetry. In the text of the ICCF14 paper, the claim to be using a 
flow calorimeter, but what they show is NOT that. Isoperibolic 
calorimetry is what FP originally did and were criticized about in 
the '89 DOE review. Storms has written several times that flow 
calorimetry is superior to isoperibolic . . .


This refers to Fig. 1, p. 3 here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf

Does he seriously think the Energetics Technology wrote a whole 
papers saying it is flow calorimetry when in fact it is isoperibolic? 
And that Duncan and McKubre failed to notice what kind of calorimetry 
they use?!?


That's mind-boggling. The guy is losing it.

The drawing in question shows that they measures the electrolyte 
temperature and water temperature in the jacket. It does not show 
them measuring at the inlet and outlet temperature but I am sure they 
do. It is a shame it does not show the other pair of thermocouples to 
satisfy Shanahan's literal-minded approach. I suppose he thinks they 
use itty-bitty red alcohol thermometers since that is what the drawing shows.


More to the point, I have never seen a flow calorimeter in which they 
do not measure electrolyte and jacket temperature in addition to the 
flow Delta T. You might say that all flow calorimeter is also used as 
isoperibolic calorimeters, as a backup I suppose, and because why not 
-- you never know what the electrolyte temperature might reveal.


(I'll tell you what it will reveal: when the electrolyte gets hot, 
the reaction increases. You would not know that from flow calorimetry 
alone because the flow Delta T temperature does not tell you what the 
electrolyte temperature is. That's a complicated function of how 
thick and conductive the cell wall is, along with various other factors.)


I have to stop reading this crazy stuff.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Shanahan goes off the deep end!

2009-06-03 Thread Edmund Storms

As I said in my talk at Univ. of Missouri, skeptics have to believe  
that everyone studying cold fusion makes mistakes that are only  
visible to a skeptic. Shanahan proves this point very nicely.  The  
attitude comes from an excessive ego without any compensating  
humility.  The reaction says more about the person making the  
statements than about the subject of CF.  Such people should be  
treated like any irrational person is treated, i.e. ignored.


Ed


On Jun 3, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

On the Cold Fusion Talk page I saw this weird message from Kirk  
Shanahan in a discussion of Duncan's visit to Energetic Technologies:


Dardik et al, of Energetic Technologies have slides from ICCF12 and  
a paper from ICCF14 (2008) posted on Rothwell's web site. In both,  
they show an artist's drawing of their calorimeter, which contains  
the thermocouples, which are designated Tcell and Tjacket. The  
drawing and these designations are for what is known as isoperibolic  
calorimetry. In the text of the ICCF14 paper, the claim to be using  
a flow calorimeter, but what they show is NOT that. Isoperibolic  
calorimetry is what FP originally did and were criticized about in  
the '89 DOE review. Storms has written several times that flow  
calorimetry is superior to isoperibolic . . .


This refers to Fig. 1, p. 3 here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf

Does he seriously think the Energetics Technology wrote a whole  
papers saying it is flow calorimetry when in fact it is  
isoperibolic? And that Duncan and McKubre failed to notice what kind  
of calorimetry they use?!?


That's mind-boggling. The guy is losing it.

The drawing in question shows that they measures the electrolyte  
temperature and water temperature in the jacket. It does not show  
them measuring at the inlet and outlet temperature but I am sure  
they do. It is a shame it does not show the other pair of  
thermocouples to satisfy Shanahan's literal-minded approach. I  
suppose he thinks they use itty-bitty red alcohol thermometers since  
that is what the drawing shows.


More to the point, I have never seen a flow calorimeter in which  
they do not measure electrolyte and jacket temperature in addition  
to the flow Delta T. You might say that all flow calorimeter is also  
used as isoperibolic calorimeters, as a backup I suppose, and  
because why not -- you never know what the electrolyte temperature  
might reveal.


(I'll tell you what it will reveal: when the electrolyte gets hot,  
the reaction increases. You would not know that from flow  
calorimetry alone because the flow Delta T temperature does not tell  
you what the electrolyte temperature is. That's a complicated  
function of how thick and conductive the cell wall is, along with  
various other factors.)


I have to stop reading this crazy stuff.

- Jed

[Vo]:lots of stuff on the web about carbon sequestering

search for Westcarb



Search for Westcarb and ammonia

fz

[Vo]:here is something that was put on the web by Eli Gal

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:l3DP9WQYZsgJ:www.nexant.com/docs/Service/energy_technology/CAP.pdf+eli+galcd=14hl=enct=clnkgl=us

Re: [Vo]:Shanahan goes off the deep end!


Edmund Storms wrote:

As I said in my talk at Univ. of Missouri, skeptics have to believe 
that everyone studying cold fusion makes mistakes that are only 
visible to a skeptic.


Yup! That was a good talk.

By the way, Shanahan ends his comments with a real bang: And you 
expect me to believe them? And you even more expect me to trust the 
opinion of someone who is new to the field [Duncan] and thinks 
]Energetics Technology] is a great company?? What planet do you live on?


Charming!


The reaction says more about the person making the statements than 
about the subject of CF.  Such people should be treated like any 
irrational person is treated, i.e. ignored.


I point him out only to show that the skeptics are getting more 
isolated and desperate.


Google Alerts brought me another straw-in-the-wind indication of a 
shift in public opinion. See:


http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/commissioning/bbc1-revives-spirit-of-tomorrows-world/5002092.article

BBC1 revives spirit of Tomorrow's World

BBC1 is to reinvent the Tomorrow's World format with new science 
series Bang Goes the Theory.


The 10 x 30-minute series, which will debut in late July, promises to 
explore the world's most advanced technological breakthroughs and 
how to test and manipulate scientific principles in our own backyard. . . .


A letter from the editor, which is not from me or anyone we know (for 
once!) says:


Good news on science reporting.
I hope the first program contains an apology from the bbc to all cold 
fusion researchers.
When it was sport for the flat earthers to attack cold fusion the bbc 
joined in with a few tame experts to show it can not possible be a 
genuine effect.
Now research groups around the world are getting positive results 
they should immediately update with the correct situation.



A little here, a little there. I have never seen such widespread 
public acceptance of the field, or such dug-in, last ditch anger on 
the part of skeptics. At the meeting in U. Missouri it was summer 
vacation and the audience was 30 or 40 grizzled middle-aged 
physicists and chemists. After the three talks by SPAWAR people, 
Larry Forsley asked the audience to: raise your hand if you now 
believe cold fusion is real. Everyone raised their hand! I was 
astounded. I have never seen a response like that from a group of 
people newly introduced to the subject.


Small changes seem to be adding up, and I get as sense that a 
catastrophic change in public opinion is underway. (Catastrophic in 
the mathematical sense, or the conventional sense if you happen to be 
Moshe Gai or Robert Park.) It reminds of the last scene in the 
otherwise forgettable war movie Force 10 from Navarone. I hate to 
spoil the plot, but anyone who seen it will know what I mean. You can 
find it on YouTube.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

2009-06-03 Thread Rick Monteverde

Jed wrote:

 If you would like to argue that salt or CO2 in the wrong places in the
wrong amounts are not pollutants, let's see some reasons. 

Wait a minute! 

- Anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere is warming earth's
climate (and we're at the tipping point now, etc.) If you say it's not,
show me some reasons. 

In your version of a science forum, you can just make up pure scientifical
sounding nonsense like that, perhaps justified by political reasons, then
tell us if we can't show evidence that it isn't true, we should basically
just shut up and smell the socialism? 

Ok, I'll play:

- Invisible elves from the Crab Nebula in Orion are controlling the Federal
Reserve Bank from their base on the back side of the moon. And that explains
everything that's happened to the US economy lately, as confirmed by
numerous people who have studied these things carefully and can't possibly
be wrong.

There it is. Hmpf. 

- Rick

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:12:45 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it 
will probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric 
oxygen which is a growing problem.

[snip]
Reduction of atmospheric oxygen on a World wide basis is not a problem, as I
have repeatedly pointed out on this list. However it can be a local problem in
big cities, but this is just a matter of poor city planning combined with
certain weather conditions.

If we continued to use fossil fuels as our energy source, at the current rate of
energy consumption, until all the oxygen in the atmosphere had been used up
(assuming none of it were recycled by nature), then it would take 4 years to
use it up. Humans can live with Oxygen levels at least 10% lower than current
levels and I think at least 20% lower. 10% implies 4000 years, and 20% - 8000
years, so Oxygen consumption per se is not really an issue.

(Especially when you take into consideration that science and engineering are
not likely to stand still during that time anyway.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:


 If we continued to use fossil fuels as our energy source, at the current
 rate of energy consumption, until all the oxygen in the atmosphere had been
 used up (assuming none of it were recycled by nature), then it would take
 4 years to use it up.


In the blink of an eye, in other words. And long before we use it up the
effects would be catastrophic.



 Humans can live with Oxygen levels at least 10% lower than current levels
 and I think at least 20% lower. 10% implies 4000 years, and 20% - 8000
 years, so Oxygen consumption per se is not really an issue.


For humans, that is. What about all the other species? Such a radical change
in the environment would have wide ranging deleterious effects on millions
of species. Of course, that would, in turn, affect us too.

Really, I find that statement incredibly anthropocentric. That kind of
thinking went out fashion in biology 50 years ago, fortunately.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Shanahan goes off the deep end!

2009-06-03 Thread William Beaty

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Edmund Storms wrote:

 As I said in my talk at Univ. of Missouri, skeptics have to believe
 that everyone studying cold fusion makes mistakes that are only
 visible to a skeptic. Shanahan proves this point very nicely.  The
 attitude comes from an excessive ego without any compensating
 humility.

I had a large insight into my own psychology, and theirs.  My inner
bigot tells me exactly what's going on: CF-haters respond to CF
supporters in the same way that racists respond to non-whites: with
intolerance, with very strong feelings of superiority, and with buried
hatred.  It's definitely an ego thing, but it seems to better fit the mold
of race hatred.  A bigot wouldn't think to trust the science done by
racial inferiors.  CF supporters are the inferior types; the outsiders
to the group of proper scientists.  Hm.  All these dirty ignorant cold
fusion supporters are moving into their (physics) community, joining their
country club.  Something must be done!

The phenomenon of xenophobic hatred certainly runs deep in human
psychology.  Very possibly it's triggered whenever orthodox practitioners
encounter a heretic researcher.  I think it could explain a lot.


(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:33:03 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
  x*C8H18 + y*O2 --  z*Cw (some kind of graphite?) + q*H2O

Without spending time with redox tables or the equivalent I'm not
certain but I think the reaction is still energy-positive.

The reaction C8H18 + 4.5O2 - C8 + 9H20 yields a net energy of 1967.734 kJ/mol.
Of course if you do it this way, you miss out on the energy from the formation
of CO2 which would have yielded an extra 3148.08 kJ/mol.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2

In reply to  OrionWorks's message of Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:35:49 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
I would assume the O+H2 -- H2O -- O+H2 cycle is considered to be a
much more popular transport of energy. Obviously there has been a lot
more research into the latter cycle. Nevertheless, it would be
interesting to discover if an equivalent (as well as an economical)
transport is possible through the C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle.
[snip]
A Grignard reagent can be used to reduce/bind CO2 into an organic molecule which
can then serve as the source compound for other C based fuels, likely after
further reduction (see e.g.
http://www.chem.ucalgary.ca/courses/351/Carey5th/Ch19/ch19-2-1.html), however
energy input is required to rejuvenate the reagent. Nevertheless, this might
enable a carbon based cycle if adequate energy from other sources were
available.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

Re: [Vo]:here is something that was put on the web by Eli Gal

In reply to  fznidar...@aol.com's message of Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:47:55 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:l3DP9WQYZsgJ:www.nexant.com/docs/Service/energy_technology/CAP.pdf+eli+galcd=14hl=enct=clnkgl=us

Do you have access to the original pdf file? None of the graphs work in the html
version.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

RE: [Vo]:Need big list of legit heretical research

2009-06-03 Thread Mark Iverson

There was also a woman archaeologist who was studying digs in Mexico or 
elsewhere in Central/South
America that strongly supported the conclusion that modern man has been in the 
Americas much longer
than is the current mainstream thinking... Can't remember her name, but she was 
having a very tough
time.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Need big list of legit heretical research


On May 31, 2009, at 6:57 PM, William Beaty wrote:


 Gerald Pollack, a sucessful maverick biochemist at the UW, is trying 
 to collect a list of books which describe crazy fringe research 
 projects and proposals not currently attracting any government 
 funding.  My own list is below.  Any more suggestions?  Book 
 suggestions, NOT research proposals.
 Also, collections of taboo topics are desired over books about 
 individuals.


I don't now of a book, but the story of Helicobacter pylori is a classic.  Here 
is an article (from
csicop no less) that provides lots of references:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/bacteria.html

Maybe the subject is covered in one or more of the books below. It is still 
controversial because a
large number of people have Helicobacter pylori without bad side effects.  It 
may even prevent
cancer.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
 beaty chem washington edu   Research Engineer
 billbamascicom  UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700


 THE SOURCEBOOK PROJECT: FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE Compiled by WR Corliss

 INFINITE ENERGY MAGAZINE

 THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE Dr. Dean Radin

 FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY  Michael Cremo

 SEVEN EXPERIMENTS THAT COULD CHANGE THE WORLD, A do-it yourself guide 
 to revolutionary science,  Rupert Sheldrake

 FORBIDDEN SCIENCE, Suppressed research that could change our lives 
 Richard Milton

 SCIENTIFIC LITERACY AND THE MYTH OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD Henry H.  
 Bauer

 DEVIANT SCIENCE The Case of Parapsychology,  James McClenon

 DARWIN'S CREATION MYTH, by Alexander Mebane

 COSMIC PLASMAS, by Hannes Aflven

 THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE Thornhill  Talbott

 DARK LIFE  Michael Taylor

 THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE  Thomas Gold

 THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF IGNORANCE Ronald Duncan, Miranda Weston-Smith eds.


 Also, any tales of vindicated heretics?

   HIDDEN HISTORIES OF SCIENCE R. Silvers, ed. 1995

   CONFRONTING THE EXPERTS, B. Martin, ed., 1996

   THE ART OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, W. Beveridge 1950

   SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW, Anthony Standen 1950






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.50/2150 - Release Date: 06/03/09 
05:53:00
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.52/2152 - Release Date: 06/03/09 
05:53:00

[Vo]:CO2 and Ocean Acidity

2009-06-03 Thread Harry Veeder

Another reason to lower CO2 emissions.
Harry
--- 

CO2 levels may cause underwater catastrophe

Changes to the ocean caused by carbon dioxide emissions could lead to an
underwater catastrophe, damaging wildlife, food production and
livelihoods, scientists are warning.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/5420048/CO2-levels-may-cause-underwater-catastrophe.html


Published: 7:55AM BST 01 Jun 2009

The world's scientific academies - including the UK's Royal Society -
issued a warning that ocean acidification must be on the agenda when
countries attempt to forge a new global deal on cutting emissions in
Copenhagen in December.

And a separate paper warned that increasing acidity in the seas could
damage fish, corals and shellfish - leaving fishing communities facing
economic disaster.

The researchers from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Massachusetts, said emissions from deforestation and burning of fossil
fuels had increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by almost 40 per
cent above pre-industrial levels.

Currently around 30 per cent of the CO2 put into the atmosphere by human
activities is absorbed by the oceans where it dissolves, altering the
chemistry of the surface sea levels making it more acidic.

The acidity can damage wildlife, particularly shell-forming creatures
and the species which feed on them, with knock-on effects on people who
rely on the oceans for food and livelihoods.

Damage to corals could also reduce the coastal protection from storms
that reefs currently provide.

According to the US researchers, there were almost 13,000 fishermen in
the UK in 2007, who harvested £645 million of marine products, almost
half (43 per cent) of which were shellfish.

In the US, domestic fisheries provided a primary sale value of 5.1
billion dollars (£3.2 billion) in 2007, they said.

The statement from the science academies of 70 countries, warned that
despite the seriousness of the problem, there was a danger it could be
left off the agenda at Copenhagen.

The joint statement calls on world leaders to explicitly recognise the
dangers posed to the oceans of rising CO2 levels, which it warns are
irreversible and could cause severe damage by 2050, or even earlier, if
emissions carry on as they are.

Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, said the effect of rising
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere on the oceans had not received much
political attention.

But he said: Unless global CO2 emissions can be cut by at least 50 per
cent by 2050 and more thereafter, we could confront an underwater
catastrophe, with irreversible changes in the makeup of our marine
biodiversity.

The effects will be seen worldwide, threatening food security, reducing
coastal protection and damaging the local economies that may be least
able to tolerate it.

Copenhagen must address this very real and serious threat.

[Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?

2009-06-03 Thread Mark Iverson

Or has the balance always been there?

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi has quite a distinguished scientific career, including a 
number of years at
NASA Langley.

It's a long read, but well worth it...

http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/ZM-MF_short.pdf

And here is one of his later peer-reviewed publications:
http://hpsregi.elte.hu/zagoni/NEW/2007.pdf


-Mark


Dr. Miskolczi's theses: 

1.There are hitherto unrealized global average relationships 
between certain
longwave flux components in the Earth’s atmosphere;

2.The new relations directly link global mean surface 
temperature to the incoming
shortwave radiation F0 ;

3.The Earth’s atmosphere optimally utilizes all available 
incoming energy; its
greenhouse effect works on the possible energetic top;

4.The classical semi-infinite solution of the Earth's 
atmospheric radiative transfer
problem does not contain the correct boundary conditions; it underestimates the 
global average
near-surface air temperatures and overestimates the ground temperatures;

5.Recent models significantly overestimate the sensitivity of 
greenhouse forcing to
optical depth perturbations;

6.Resolving the paradox of temperature discontinuity at the 
ground, a new energy
balance constraint can be recognized;

7.The Earth’s atmosphere, satisfying the energy minimum 
principle, is configured to
the most effective cooling of the planet with an equilibrium global average 
vertical temperature and
moisture profile;

8.The Earth-atmosphere system maintains a virtually saturated 
greenhouse effect with
a critical equilibrium global average IR flux optical depth tauA = 1.87;  
excess or deficit in this
global average optical depth violates fundamental energetic principles;

9.As long as the Earth has the oceans as practically infinite 
natural sources and
sinks of optical depth in the form of water vapor, the system is able to 
maintain this critical
optical depth and the corresponding stable global mean surface temperature; 

10.   The new transfer and greenhouse functions, based on the finite, 
semi-transparent
solution of the Schwarzschild-Milne equation with real boundary conditions 
adequately reproduce both
the Earth’s and the Martian atmospheric greenhouse effect;

11.   The Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 global mean energy budget estimate (c.f. 
IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1
FAQ1.1. Fig.1.) is erroneous; the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (USST-76) does not 
represent the real
global average temperature profile (not in radiative equilibrium, not in energy 
balance, not enough
H2O); it should not be used as a single-column model for global energy budget 
studies;

12.   The observed global warming on the Earth has nothing directly to 
do with changes in
atmospheric IR absorber concentrations; it must be related to variations in the 
total available
incoming F0 solar plus P0 heat energy (geothermal, ocean-atmosphere heat 
exchange, industrial heat
generation etc.). Runaway greenhouse effect contradicts the energy conservation 
principle; global
mean surface warming is possible only if the solar luminosity, the Earth-Sun 
distance and/or the
planetary albedo changes (depending on the extent of the cryosphere, on cloud 
coverage, and/or on
the varying surface properties according to land use change etc.);

13.   Without water vapor feedback, the primary greenhouse sensitivity 
to a doubling CO2
theoretically would be about 0.24 K, according to the semi-transparent solution 
of the radiation
equations in a bounded atmosphere. But taking into account all the energetic 
constraints, the actual
value is 0.0 K.

 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.52/2152 - Release Date: 06/03/09 
05:53:00

Re: [Vo]:Need big list of legit heretical research

2009-06-03 Thread bangdon12

Are you refering to Virginia Steen-McIntyre ?
Chuck Kinney
- Original Message - 
From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:10 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Need big list of legit heretical research

There was also a woman archaeologist who was studying digs in Mexico or 
elsewhere in Central/South
America that strongly supported the conclusion that modern man has been in 
the Americas much longer
than is the current mainstream thinking... Can't remember her name, but 
she was having a very tough

time.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 4:33 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Need big list of legit heretical research

On May 31, 2009, at 6:57 PM, William Beaty wrote:

Gerald Pollack, a sucessful maverick biochemist at the UW, is trying
to collect a list of books which describe crazy fringe research
projects and proposals not currently attracting any government
funding.  My own list is below.  Any more suggestions?  Book
suggestions, NOT research proposals.
Also, collections of taboo topics are desired over books about
individuals.

I don't now of a book, but the story of Helicobacter pylori is a classic. 
Here is an article (from

csicop no less) that provides lots of references:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/bacteria.html

Maybe the subject is covered in one or more of the books below. It is 
still controversial because a
large number of people have Helicobacter pylori without bad side effects. 
It may even prevent

cancer.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty chem washington edu   Research Engineer
billbamascicom  UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700

THE SOURCEBOOK PROJECT: FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE Compiled by WR Corliss

INFINITE ENERGY MAGAZINE

THE CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE Dr. Dean Radin

FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY  Michael Cremo

SEVEN EXPERIMENTS THAT COULD CHANGE THE WORLD, A do-it yourself guide
to revolutionary science,  Rupert Sheldrake

FORBIDDEN SCIENCE, Suppressed research that could change our lives
Richard Milton

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY AND THE MYTH OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD Henry H.
Bauer

DEVIANT SCIENCE The Case of Parapsychology,  James McClenon

DARWIN'S CREATION MYTH, by Alexander Mebane

COSMIC PLASMAS, by Hannes Aflven

THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE Thornhill  Talbott

DARK LIFE  Michael Taylor

THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE  Thomas Gold

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF IGNORANCE Ronald Duncan, Miranda Weston-Smith eds.

Also, any tales of vindicated heretics?

  HIDDEN HISTORIES OF SCIENCE R. Silvers, ed. 1995

  CONFRONTING THE EXPERTS, B. Martin, ed., 1996

  THE ART OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, W. Beveridge 1950

  SCIENCE IS A SACRED COW, Anthony Standen 1950

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.50/2150 - Release Date: 06/03/09 
05:53:00

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.52/2152 - Release Date: 06/03/09 
05:53:00

Re: [Vo]:The Science of Greenhouse Effect...Time for some balance?