Super Genius
Posts: 1,274 
December 4th, 2005, 04:13 PM
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Adams1202.htm
[I found a new news outlet!]
The propoaganda that led the public to believe that global warming is not real is guilty of conspiracy in the greatest crime of all time against the planet earth.
By definition, a "scientific consensus on global warming" is the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That view is now this:
"Human-induced global warming is occurring and it is presently necessary to take action to curtail production of greenhouse gases."
But Americans don't know there is one, and so they don't feel the urgency they would if they did know. Therefore, their greenhouse gas reductions are not going to occur.
quote:
"the percentage of Americans who believes a scientific consensus exists is still disturbingly small, around 50% (PIPA 2005). This is a remarkably small percentage considering an unassailable scientific consensus has existed for well over a decade. That progress in understanding has been extremely slow is due, in no small part, to the efforts of the energy industry to misinform the public. "
Read more at the link!
Karlin
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Adams1202.htm
[I found a new news outlet!]
The propoaganda that led the public to believe that global warming is not real is guilty of conspiracy in the greatest crime of all time against the planet earth.
By definition, a "scientific consensus on global warming" is the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That view is now this:
"Human-induced global warming is occurring and it is presently necessary to take action to curtail production of greenhouse gases."
But Americans don't know there is one, and so they don't feel the urgency they would if they did know. Therefore, their greenhouse gas reductions are not going to occur.
quote:
"the percentage of Americans who believes a scientific consensus exists is still disturbingly small, around 50% (PIPA 2005). This is a remarkably small percentage considering an unassailable scientific consensus has existed for well over a decade. That progress in understanding has been extremely slow is due, in no small part, to the efforts of the energy industry to misinform the public. "
Read more at the link!
Karlin
Executive Member
Posts: 9,531 
December 4th, 2005, 05:22 PM
The production of greenhouse gasses began to climb about the time of the industrial revolution. We have been building on it for over two hundred years. My first question is always: If we could stop all production of greenhouse gasses tomorrow, how long would it take for the global warming to stop. Nobody seems to have an answer to that. We may already have gone too far. As the Earth warms up, some of the polar cap ice melts and some sunlight and heat that was once reflected back into space is now absorbed and the problem increases. Life on Earth exists only in a relatively narrow band of temperatures and a mean temperature increase of only 10 or 15 degrees could have tragic consequences, for everyone.
The production of greenhouse gasses began to climb about the time of the industrial revolution. We have been building on it for over two hundred years. My first question is always: If we could stop all production of greenhouse gasses tomorrow, how long would it take for the global warming to stop. Nobody seems to have an answer to that. We may already have gone too far. As the Earth warms up, some of the polar cap ice melts and some sunlight and heat that was once reflected back into space is now absorbed and the problem increases. Life on Earth exists only in a relatively narrow band of temperatures and a mean temperature increase of only 10 or 15 degrees could have tragic consequences, for everyone.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,274
December 7th, 2005, 09:25 PM
However, if we WAIT until 2020 to cut emissions down to 1990 levels the result will be exponential, with no improvement until 2080 or beyond. Our output is that much more now that it was in 1990, each year edlay is like a decade when added accumulately.
Our grandchildren will not be impressed with us if we wait until 2020 to cut emissions. The extent of the severe weather and other changes will be, of course, much worse.
-----------------
When people say "we have gone too far allready", it is an excuse to throw in the towel. We would like that, it is the easiest way - no more conferances, no more "one-tonne challenges", no more guilt. Ahhhh, thats better.
THINKING about global warming causes us stress, and we are overloaded allready. To protect ourselves, the EASIEST way is to find an excuse not to think about it anymore - AND WE ARE GOOD AT DOING THAT. We are just too stressed and we find ways of dealing.
Some issues we simply have to face up to. This is one of them, it should give you butterflies to consider the reality of it, and those butterflies should make us put in the energy needed to fight global warming. Let the stress of it hit you - this is real.
Don't let the media give you ways out, its up to us now to keep the pressure on.
The war in Iraq is the main competition for our headspace these days, lets turn the spotlights back to global warming eh>?
----------------------------
one more -
"Climate change illustrates the insanity of the doctrine of limitless economic growth"
- a quote from :
Her Highness, Linda McQuag authored this beauty on global warming and economics - have a read!!
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=44628
Quoting
Juan, they are saying that if we cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2012, the atmosphere would return to a balanced state by about 2040, give or take a decade.
.
My first question is always: If we could stop all production of greenhouse gasses tomorrow, how long would it take for the global warming to stop. Nobody seems to have an answer to that. We may already have gone too far.
.
My first question is always: If we could stop all production of greenhouse gasses tomorrow, how long would it take for the global warming to stop. Nobody seems to have an answer to that. We may already have gone too far.
.
However, if we WAIT until 2020 to cut emissions down to 1990 levels the result will be exponential, with no improvement until 2080 or beyond. Our output is that much more now that it was in 1990, each year edlay is like a decade when added accumulately.
Our grandchildren will not be impressed with us if we wait until 2020 to cut emissions. The extent of the severe weather and other changes will be, of course, much worse.
-----------------
When people say "we have gone too far allready", it is an excuse to throw in the towel. We would like that, it is the easiest way - no more conferances, no more "one-tonne challenges", no more guilt. Ahhhh, thats better.
THINKING about global warming causes us stress, and we are overloaded allready. To protect ourselves, the EASIEST way is to find an excuse not to think about it anymore - AND WE ARE GOOD AT DOING THAT. We are just too stressed and we find ways of dealing.
Some issues we simply have to face up to. This is one of them, it should give you butterflies to consider the reality of it, and those butterflies should make us put in the energy needed to fight global warming. Let the stress of it hit you - this is real.
Don't let the media give you ways out, its up to us now to keep the pressure on.
The war in Iraq is the main competition for our headspace these days, lets turn the spotlights back to global warming eh>?
----------------------------
one more -
"Climate change illustrates the insanity of the doctrine of limitless economic growth"
- a quote from :
Her Highness, Linda McQuag authored this beauty on global warming and economics - have a read!!
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=44628
Executive Member
Posts: 9,531
December 7th, 2005, 09:59 PM
Karlin wrote:
Karlin wrote:
Quote:
I have grandchildren Karlin, and that is scary. A lot of the people who can make a difference will be dead in 2040. They have to be made to care now.
However, if we WAIT until 2020 to cut emissions down to 1990 levels the result will be exponential, with no improvement until 2080 or beyond. Our output is that much more now that it was in 1990, each year edlay is like a decade when added accumulately.
Time Out
Posts: 4,194
Location: Vancouver
Location: Vancouver
December 7th, 2005, 10:10 PM
The time for talk is over, actually long over. We the citizens of the world need to rise up and let politicians know we will not put up with anymore delays or bs talk, committees etc. Even if it means public disobeidence.
I am so sick of hearing plans from governments, but yet nothing seems to be done. It is time politicians grew a pair and told their backers (Big oil, big auto and other big money donors) to go jump in the lake and listen to the people for once.
It is very scarey to think what this world will look like in 50-100 years, many sea level city's will be under water, many more people with asthma and other breathing problems, who knows what sort of cancer and other dieases people will get from all this pollution.
The time is now for action. Personally I would have no problem helping shutting down all the bridges in the Vancouver area for the morning rush hour one day. It would be great to have a world wide one day protest, shutting down all bridges and major highways to get our point across.
The time for talk is over, actually long over. We the citizens of the world need to rise up and let politicians know we will not put up with anymore delays or bs talk, committees etc. Even if it means public disobeidence.
I am so sick of hearing plans from governments, but yet nothing seems to be done. It is time politicians grew a pair and told their backers (Big oil, big auto and other big money donors) to go jump in the lake and listen to the people for once.
It is very scarey to think what this world will look like in 50-100 years, many sea level city's will be under water, many more people with asthma and other breathing problems, who knows what sort of cancer and other dieases people will get from all this pollution.
The time is now for action. Personally I would have no problem helping shutting down all the bridges in the Vancouver area for the morning rush hour one day. It would be great to have a world wide one day protest, shutting down all bridges and major highways to get our point across.
Steven Hawking's Hero
Posts: 6,891
December 8th, 2005, 09:08 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1208-01.htm
glaciers ( Greenland) receding ...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1208-01.htm
glaciers ( Greenland) receding ...
Executive Member
Posts: 9,531
December 8th, 2005, 09:14 PM
We seem to have two threads going about GHG and Kyoto.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2001/010711_b_e.htm
We seem to have two threads going about GHG and Kyoto.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2001/010711_b_e.htm
Member
Posts: 89
January 8th, 2006, 01:00 PM
I believe we can not only stop global warming but reverse it. See: Mitigation of Global Warming
It would be expensive because it would essentially be Terra-forming, deliberately tinkering with the environment on a global scale. I thought this excerpt from the article was interesting:
I believe we can not only stop global warming but reverse it. See: Mitigation of Global Warming
It would be expensive because it would essentially be Terra-forming, deliberately tinkering with the environment on a global scale. I thought this excerpt from the article was interesting:
Quote:
Other ideas involve changing the albedo of the planet so that more sunlight is reflected. There are a number of ideas floating around but first, we need dollars for more research to test for feasibility. The money to do it will have to come from governments or NGO's because the resource industries certainly aren't going to contribute.
Seeding oceans with iron
The so-called Geritol solution to global warming, which got its name from a tonic touted to treat the effects of iron-poor blood, asserts that seeding the oceans with iron will dramatically increase levels of phytoplankton and therefore draw more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientists have conducted experiments whereby small areas of the ocean were seeded with iron, resulting in significant phytoplankton blooms. The long-term ecological effects of iron fertilisation are not known and these concerns have hindered research progress.
The so-called Geritol solution to global warming, which got its name from a tonic touted to treat the effects of iron-poor blood, asserts that seeding the oceans with iron will dramatically increase levels of phytoplankton and therefore draw more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientists have conducted experiments whereby small areas of the ocean were seeded with iron, resulting in significant phytoplankton blooms. The long-term ecological effects of iron fertilisation are not known and these concerns have hindered research progress.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,274
January 30th, 2006, 10:55 AM
Senior climate scientist at NASA is saying the Bush Administration has THREATENED him if he told the public about his findings "about global warming caused by fossil fuels emissions".
Oh ya, its a fact allrighty. Why else would BushCo have to deny it?
LINKS TO NEWS ITEMS -
NASA lead climate guy threatened by Bush -
http://tinyurl.com/c7fyo
White House aide quits after climate change row
http://tinyurl.com/beuhj
Report: "Global warming soon irreversible" -
http://tinyurl.com/bw88x
--------------
The remaining question is: "What does Bush know or plan to do when the sh*t hits the fan?" - we are all on this planet together...
Karlin
Senior climate scientist at NASA is saying the Bush Administration has THREATENED him if he told the public about his findings "about global warming caused by fossil fuels emissions".
Oh ya, its a fact allrighty. Why else would BushCo have to deny it?
LINKS TO NEWS ITEMS -
NASA lead climate guy threatened by Bush -
http://tinyurl.com/c7fyo
White House aide quits after climate change row
http://tinyurl.com/beuhj
Report: "Global warming soon irreversible" -
http://tinyurl.com/bw88x
--------------
The remaining question is: "What does Bush know or plan to do when the sh*t hits the fan?" - we are all on this planet together...
Karlin
Bright Spark
Posts: 315
January 30th, 2006, 12:33 PM
A frightening aspect of the Bush whitehouse is undermining science. They insist there is controversy about man made global warning because there a handfull of sell out scientists that are in the employ of the Oil industry that claim it is not. By following this kind of technique any facts can be smeared and made meaningless.
The reality is massive overwhelming concensus of climate scientists worldwide that we are causing this unnatural warming.
I think anyone promoting the denial agenda should immediately be barred from living anywhere other than Florida for 10 generations...
A frightening aspect of the Bush whitehouse is undermining science. They insist there is controversy about man made global warning because there a handfull of sell out scientists that are in the employ of the Oil industry that claim it is not. By following this kind of technique any facts can be smeared and made meaningless.
The reality is massive overwhelming concensus of climate scientists worldwide that we are causing this unnatural warming.
I think anyone promoting the denial agenda should immediately be barred from living anywhere other than Florida for 10 generations...
Super Genius
Posts: 1,274
January 31st, 2006, 10:56 AM
ExxonMobil makes world's biggest profit with $36bn in a year
[/url]http://tinyurl.com/dy5hnhttp://<br /> <br /> Clinton: Clim...st worry<br />http://tinyurl.com/a55x7http://<br /> <br /> <br /> K - t...knows - <br />http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012906E.shtmlhttp://<br /> <br /> I mean - how ...ays have been]
ExxonMobil makes world's biggest profit with $36bn in a year
[/url]http://tinyurl.com/dy5hnhttp://<br /> <br /> Clinton: Clim...st worry<br />http://tinyurl.com/a55x7http://<br /> <br /> <br /> K - t...knows - <br />http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012906E.shtmlhttp://<br /> <br /> I mean - how ...ays have been]
Member
Posts: 217
February 1st, 2006, 07:31 PM
Cutting green house emmissions sounds like a great idea, until you realize what it will mean in your daily life. To cut emmissions, we simply have to cut production. Well that isn't that simple because it would permanently end our way of life. By cutting production to 1990 levels, you're also cutting production labour to 1990 levels. That's a lot of unemployed people who won't have anything to do, and the rest of us wouldn't be able to support them as the rest of us would have to live below the poverty line to do so.
My point is that it's not a matter of the polititians not wanting to impliment a strategy, it's the fact that by telling us that there isn't enough for everyone, it will trigger mass panic. The implimentation of this strategy essentially signs a death warrant for all of the people who rely on consumer goods production jobs to make ends meat, rising powers like India and China would have to declare a state of emergency, everyone would be dirt poor, and the anger would spill over and become a problem for all those of us who live in countries were life is more sustainable. Who here doesn't think that the best action would be to simply manipulate people through media and economic tweaking to set us into a more sustainable attitude by reducing resource subsidies, while simultaneousely conditioning us for war? These current wars like Iraq and Afgahnistan served two purposes, to get some practice in modern warfare, and to establish puppet governments so that they can be used as offshore battlefields. Since oil is the priority fossil fuel to extending the period of transition, the middle east is likely to be the primary target for all aggressive nations with lots of unemployed people to fight. We were duped by the greedy bastards of the world, and now everyone has to pay for the majorities Bliss through ignorance.
Cutting green house emmissions sounds like a great idea, until you realize what it will mean in your daily life. To cut emmissions, we simply have to cut production. Well that isn't that simple because it would permanently end our way of life. By cutting production to 1990 levels, you're also cutting production labour to 1990 levels. That's a lot of unemployed people who won't have anything to do, and the rest of us wouldn't be able to support them as the rest of us would have to live below the poverty line to do so.
My point is that it's not a matter of the polititians not wanting to impliment a strategy, it's the fact that by telling us that there isn't enough for everyone, it will trigger mass panic. The implimentation of this strategy essentially signs a death warrant for all of the people who rely on consumer goods production jobs to make ends meat, rising powers like India and China would have to declare a state of emergency, everyone would be dirt poor, and the anger would spill over and become a problem for all those of us who live in countries were life is more sustainable. Who here doesn't think that the best action would be to simply manipulate people through media and economic tweaking to set us into a more sustainable attitude by reducing resource subsidies, while simultaneousely conditioning us for war? These current wars like Iraq and Afgahnistan served two purposes, to get some practice in modern warfare, and to establish puppet governments so that they can be used as offshore battlefields. Since oil is the priority fossil fuel to extending the period of transition, the middle east is likely to be the primary target for all aggressive nations with lots of unemployed people to fight. We were duped by the greedy bastards of the world, and now everyone has to pay for the majorities Bliss through ignorance.
Newbie
Posts: 35
Location: Within Myself
Location: Within Myself
February 2nd, 2006, 12:46 AM
FUD - Fear, Uncertity and Doubt. Learn this tatic well, it is used as often as Problem, Reaction, Solution.
So, Alberta's Finest, let me ask you then. Communism fell because it failed to take into the most comman thing - human nature. What you are saying is that captalism is also destined to fail, because there is clearly an end point to your scenerio and it ends in only one way. Incidently even Rothchild, i beleive, knew this and was quoted in an interview saying pretty much what you just did. The inherient problem with captalism is that it creates an illusion of never ending potentials, when the reality is that scarcity is more than just an economic term.
In the end you, or one of your family will pay. Of that there is no doubt. The only thing we can do is to start to pay some of it off(Get used to a lower standard of living, as obviously the current one is an illusion if it is unsustainable) so that our children will have less pain and suffering(not none, but just less than they would if we did nothing, and allowed the compound problems) and hopefully they act responsibly and do their part so that their children, our grandchildren, have even less of our parents, and grandparents, mistakes to deal with.
I am not saying it will be easy, but fundamentally we have to understand that unless this issue is dealt with, we are likely giving our children a dead planet. In relation to that, is living at 1990 levels so bad?
FUD - Fear, Uncertity and Doubt. Learn this tatic well, it is used as often as Problem, Reaction, Solution.
So, Alberta's Finest, let me ask you then. Communism fell because it failed to take into the most comman thing - human nature. What you are saying is that captalism is also destined to fail, because there is clearly an end point to your scenerio and it ends in only one way. Incidently even Rothchild, i beleive, knew this and was quoted in an interview saying pretty much what you just did. The inherient problem with captalism is that it creates an illusion of never ending potentials, when the reality is that scarcity is more than just an economic term.
In the end you, or one of your family will pay. Of that there is no doubt. The only thing we can do is to start to pay some of it off(Get used to a lower standard of living, as obviously the current one is an illusion if it is unsustainable) so that our children will have less pain and suffering(not none, but just less than they would if we did nothing, and allowed the compound problems) and hopefully they act responsibly and do their part so that their children, our grandchildren, have even less of our parents, and grandparents, mistakes to deal with.
I am not saying it will be easy, but fundamentally we have to understand that unless this issue is dealt with, we are likely giving our children a dead planet. In relation to that, is living at 1990 levels so bad?
Bright Spark
Posts: 315
February 2nd, 2006, 06:39 AM
Though I will commend most on the right here for not denying the overwhelming evidence that we have a big hand in the climate change occuring.
In the end we may be screwed because without China, USA and India any effort is shot.
But we should make bigger strides to do things that are beneficial anyway. Like strongly ecouraging fuel efficient vehicles with tax breaks, guzzler taxes. Changing car rules to allow production of ultra efficient city cars. Oil saved through efficiency would not harm the economy. More renewables for power. More Nuclear. It would be a big help in the trade balance of provinces that are net oil importers.
Quoting
Your opinion is only valid if they discover breakthrough science appropriate to the problem. Assuming they will in time is just an excuse for Ostritch thinking (head in the sand).
All of you are correct if current science remains
static.
But if it doesn't and there are advances and discoveries
in new ways, new solutions, then none of your
opinions are valid.
static.
But if it doesn't and there are advances and discoveries
in new ways, new solutions, then none of your
opinions are valid.
Though I will commend most on the right here for not denying the overwhelming evidence that we have a big hand in the climate change occuring.
In the end we may be screwed because without China, USA and India any effort is shot.
But we should make bigger strides to do things that are beneficial anyway. Like strongly ecouraging fuel efficient vehicles with tax breaks, guzzler taxes. Changing car rules to allow production of ultra efficient city cars. Oil saved through efficiency would not harm the economy. More renewables for power. More Nuclear. It would be a big help in the trade balance of provinces that are net oil importers.
Member
Posts: 217
February 2nd, 2006, 02:05 PM
Here in Canada, we won't have to deal with the loss of standard of life like much of the US and EU, mainly because we didn't overpopulate our land to keep up with production demands. People here will simply have to re-align themselves to a mostly domestic economy. Our oil will last plenty long enough to set up a sustainable system for our populous, and a lot of it is going on right now under our noses. Technically, apart from losing cheap products through importation, Canada will remain much the same and will probably be the torch that others will follow once their own populous gets down to a sustainable level. Most of the people here will simply go from exporting, to replacing the workers for products that used to be imported.
I'm personally working on some of the technology that will make Canada viable. I working on reducing the cost and creating a simple thermal heating system that draws heat from the ground, and then is extracted through heat pumps. The power consumed would end up being around $15 per month, but if solar or wind power were implimented in the system, the operating cost would be zero. The installation cost should be about $10,000 installed, and will last longer than your house.
Another project I have going is a new horticultural light. It uses LEDs controlled through a ballast that I designed. The power consumption of the light is about 1/6 the current grow light with the same foot print. Features also include a variable spectrum that can be custom tweaked to manipulate the appearence and taste of fruit. The power use of the light would be about 1.8KW per day.
And my last project which I have no time for is a new fuel delivery system that can be installed on any fuel injected vehicle, and could multiply mileage up to ten times the cars starting mileage. It's essentially a plate with small canals milled into it like a long winding river. As the fuel flows through the plate it's microwaved. The plate has to be kept at high pressure, so that the fuel stays in liquid form, although It's actually boiling. As it's injected, the fuel instantly atomizes, and the water in the fuel causes the combustion to multiply many times over, reducing the amount of fuel needed to make the same amount of power. The cost of the device should come in around $4000 installed. I'm going to go further with this technology by using it to build the ultimate hybrid. Instead of batteries, I'm going to use a capacitor bank to hold the charge created by a small generator that uses the new fuel delivery system. I'm shooting for 150mpg, but the car will be no slouch. The electic motors should be able to put out an equivelant of about 300hp, and through a speed control, you could program it to 150hp when you lend it to your kid, or your driving in the winter. The only downside of it is that it may need to be run on alcohol instead of gasoline, but this is likely to be the fuel of the future as we'll have plenty of extra grain when nobody else needs it.
Just in case anyone was wondering why these products aren't available yet, it's because I'm not that old, and R&D is expensive. I've thought about applying for a grant to fund the development of these products, but I don't know where to get in contact with the right people. If anyone knows where I can apply for such a grant, please leave me a link.
Here in Canada, we won't have to deal with the loss of standard of life like much of the US and EU, mainly because we didn't overpopulate our land to keep up with production demands. People here will simply have to re-align themselves to a mostly domestic economy. Our oil will last plenty long enough to set up a sustainable system for our populous, and a lot of it is going on right now under our noses. Technically, apart from losing cheap products through importation, Canada will remain much the same and will probably be the torch that others will follow once their own populous gets down to a sustainable level. Most of the people here will simply go from exporting, to replacing the workers for products that used to be imported.
I'm personally working on some of the technology that will make Canada viable. I working on reducing the cost and creating a simple thermal heating system that draws heat from the ground, and then is extracted through heat pumps. The power consumed would end up being around $15 per month, but if solar or wind power were implimented in the system, the operating cost would be zero. The installation cost should be about $10,000 installed, and will last longer than your house.
Another project I have going is a new horticultural light. It uses LEDs controlled through a ballast that I designed. The power consumption of the light is about 1/6 the current grow light with the same foot print. Features also include a variable spectrum that can be custom tweaked to manipulate the appearence and taste of fruit. The power use of the light would be about 1.8KW per day.
And my last project which I have no time for is a new fuel delivery system that can be installed on any fuel injected vehicle, and could multiply mileage up to ten times the cars starting mileage. It's essentially a plate with small canals milled into it like a long winding river. As the fuel flows through the plate it's microwaved. The plate has to be kept at high pressure, so that the fuel stays in liquid form, although It's actually boiling. As it's injected, the fuel instantly atomizes, and the water in the fuel causes the combustion to multiply many times over, reducing the amount of fuel needed to make the same amount of power. The cost of the device should come in around $4000 installed. I'm going to go further with this technology by using it to build the ultimate hybrid. Instead of batteries, I'm going to use a capacitor bank to hold the charge created by a small generator that uses the new fuel delivery system. I'm shooting for 150mpg, but the car will be no slouch. The electic motors should be able to put out an equivelant of about 300hp, and through a speed control, you could program it to 150hp when you lend it to your kid, or your driving in the winter. The only downside of it is that it may need to be run on alcohol instead of gasoline, but this is likely to be the fuel of the future as we'll have plenty of extra grain when nobody else needs it.
Just in case anyone was wondering why these products aren't available yet, it's because I'm not that old, and R&D is expensive. I've thought about applying for a grant to fund the development of these products, but I don't know where to get in contact with the right people. If anyone knows where I can apply for such a grant, please leave me a link.
Bright Spark
Posts: 315
February 2nd, 2006, 04:28 PM
The next two smack of snake oil big time.
You are certainly not going to get Ten Times the gas mileage with a magic carburator or fuel atomizer or whatever. Gas engines are already about 30% efficient. Meaning they turn 30% of the potential energy of gasoline into motion. So the perfect engine would only triple the rating if it were 100% efficient.
With a modern fuel efficient engine a 15% increase in engine efficiency would be huge news
The real improvements in MPG will come from smaller lighter, more aerodynamic vehicles. Regen braking and possible an electric drive system that does away with the transmission and has the motor just drive a generator. Then, in theory, the motor can always run in the most efficient range.
Quoting
Ground based heat pump systems like this are already available.
I working on reducing the cost and creating a simple thermal heating system that draws heat from the ground, alonger than your house.
The next two smack of snake oil big time.
You are certainly not going to get Ten Times the gas mileage with a magic carburator or fuel atomizer or whatever. Gas engines are already about 30% efficient. Meaning they turn 30% of the potential energy of gasoline into motion. So the perfect engine would only triple the rating if it were 100% efficient.
With a modern fuel efficient engine a 15% increase in engine efficiency would be huge news
The real improvements in MPG will come from smaller lighter, more aerodynamic vehicles. Regen braking and possible an electric drive system that does away with the transmission and has the motor just drive a generator. Then, in theory, the motor can always run in the most efficient range.
