>All boils down to transducers and instrumentation doesn't it? >1% answers are considered pretty good. >Cheap and accurate are at odds with each other. > >Some interesting transducers measured sound velocity and it changes with >mix. >I think they were looking for a reliable CO2 guage for greenhouse plants. >But V changes with temp and barometric pressure. Suddenly not so simple. > >Air and pollutants-- who knows what is there. It is often a trick to >determine what and how much is even more info. Meanwhile water content and >temperature are moving. I think you won't find this done cheaply. > >Kirk
Not cheaply, it seems. This is from the stoves list recently: >Dear Dean, > > The short answer is "Probably No". We used an expensive >CO/CO2 meter made by Hereus (Germany). I think the price at the time >(1980) was around 5000 NLF, equivalent to c. 2500 US$. >However, things have moved on. Possibly Piet Visser could tell you >more, his Email address is: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piet Visser) > >You might take a look at a possible website of Hereus. > >Before each series of experiments we used to calibrate the CO/CO2 >meter with calibrating gas with precisely known concentrations of >CO, CO2, O2 and N2. > >Let me know how you get on. > >Kind regards, > >Peter Verhaart > > >At 09:21 18/10/02 -0700, you wrote: > >>Dear Peter, >> >>I'm trying to measure CO/CO2. Did you find a good way to do this >>that costs less than $2,000 US? >> >>Best, >> > > Dean Just for CO/CO2. You need something like the X-ray workers wear, that bleeps cheerfully when it's time to go spend a few centuries in your corpsicle tank till things improve somewhat. It needs to read the stuff behind the increasingly regular announcements in ever more cities cancelling school and warning kids and old people to stay indoors. That's just smog though, the cancer-causing stuff is less easily measured, and how much does it take to cause cancer? One molecule, no? In theory. Which precise one does the job being the question. The Japanese are into this stuff a bit. I see water testing kits in some of the shops, not quite sure what they do, or how well. With pesticide residues, MM. I can't see simple tests for that, I think there are too many of them, and the tests aren't so simple. Also, as with food additives etc (5,000-odd of them in use, all had the same safety tests as thalidomide, none of them tested in combination, and the average Westerner consumes the equivalent of 13 aspirin-sized rablets of them per day), there's the possibility that they might be benign (more or less) taken singly, but can be highly toxic in combination combination. What combination, exactly? How many in combination? It gets too complex. The best way is avoidance, if possible, and that is becoming more possible. That and ban the stuff, it's all worse than useless anyway. Keith >-----Original Message----- >From: murdoch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:58 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair > > >There's an invention in the general area of sustainability and >environmentalism, that I've been waiting for someone to make widely >available to the public, and it hasn't happened, and I haven't even >heard the slightest discussion of such a thing even being tried, so >let me take this opportunity to put it out there, should any capable >people perhaps be reading and looking for some ideas to try. > >Actually, it's two inventions, or areas of inventions: > >I'd like to see the average Joe be able to take a quick and accurate >reading of the chemical composition of his air, and of his water. So, >if one is at home, why not be able to read a meter which shows a >reasonably accurate reading on the gasses which make up the air, and >their percentages (Oxygen, CO2, Nitrogen, etc.). Also, outside. Why >not? We hear all these obscure references on TV to parts-per-million >of pollutants, but don't have a good solid idea of the basic gasses, >pollutants, percentages, etc. > >Likewise, such a device would be a good idea for >tap-water-measurements as well. Sure, there are filters for tapwater, >and there are devices which sniff our home air to detect fire. But >water-cleaners and smoke-detectors do not give us a sufficient >understanding of our environment. > >I suppose a third and similar device would be a way to detect >pesticide residues in foods. Perhaps if this is too complex, one >could set up a business which gives reasonably-priced data to those >who send samples. > >I once spoke to an EV advocate who pointed out that, in a sense, our >Oxygen on earth is a finite resource which is being used up as we burn >up the finite resource of Oil. I wonder if the general O2 percentage >is dramatically lower today than it was 200 years ago. There's no way >to know this, though, in any commonly-available way. > >There have been some recent earth-science theories which seem to point >to the release of O2 into the EArth atmosphere as a significant event >which brought forth much more robust life on EArth, many hundreds of >millions of years ago. I.e., it helped explain why for so long much >life didn't exist, and then relatively suddenly it started to thrive. >I don't know if this theory is born out, but I also think of this when >I see Oxygen percentages not even discussed or measured commonly. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/jd3IAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
