On May 31, 2009, at 11:56 AM, grok wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
mounted the barricade and roared out:
It seems to me also true the probability of mating itself may
change due
to mutations, and this is a
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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,
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
What actually comes out the stack when the scrubber is in use?? (For
that matter, *is* there still a stack?)
nitrogen
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
search for Westcarb
Search for Westcarb and ammonia
fz
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:l3DP9WQYZsgJ:www.nexant.com/docs/Service/energy_technology/CAP.pdf+eli+galcd=14hl=enct=clnkgl=us
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
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
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
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
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
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 +
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Im not too familiar with some of the mathematic principles mentioned,
but i did find this
First, he mis-applies the Virial theorem. The virial
theorem applies to kinetic vs. potential energy, and it can be shown
that for an atmosphere in equilibrium it is trivially satisfied by
any hydrostically
Could be, but I don't remember her name... It's been years since I've read
anything about her.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: bangdon12 [mailto:bangdo...@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:36 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Need big list of legit heretical
51 matches
Mail list logo
