Switch off at the socket?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
: snip
:
: I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in
your
: scenario? Is energy being converted to, and stored as,
mass, or
: what?
:
:
: No, you are the one making the claims that everyone else in
the
: history of modern science is wrong, YOU prove that your are
the
: next Einstein and winner of a Nobel prize for your
(literally)
: earth shattering discovery...
:
: I'll take that as you don't know then.

If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
black!

YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU who
needs to back up YOUR claims...

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , Norman Wells
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
writes

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea
how big the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made
extractor would be?

Yes, at surface density, it is equivalent to a uniform layer a little
less than 5 miles thick over the surface of the globe, some 200million
square miles, making the atmosphere approximately 1billion cubic miles
at surface density.

How many would we need do you think?

That depends on how fast you think we need to do it. The argument,
whether you believe it or not, is that we have managed to cause the
problem simply by a few hundred large CO2 producers over a couple of
hundred years. So a similar number of capture units should be capable
of sweeping it all up in a similar time, probably faster.

At a few hundred feet per minute a single atmospheric extraction unit
with a scrubber area of only 1 square mile, would take around 20,000
to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, so a distributed system of 50
such systems around the planet would clear the problem in less time
that it took to create it in the first place - and we don't WANT to
get rid of all of the CO2 or we'd be in for a very cold future.

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

No, because trees rely on natural air movement to access the
atmosphere, not forced air movement. And they tend to decay or be
burned, releasing their captured CO2 in the timescale.

How much energy do you think that will involve? How will these
'scrubbers' work exactly, and how will they be powered? To extract
anything that constitutes just 0.04% of the atmosphere by passing it
_all_ through scrubbers, at speeds sufficient to suck in all the
atmosphere of the planet rather than wait for it to come to you, seems
enormously wasteful.

Not so! It is completely naive to suggest it is impractical or not cost
effective! You don't need to chemically recombine carbon to hydrogen,
which would, of course, require reinvestment of much of the extracted
energy and thus be impractical. Just condense the CO2! Guess what the
highest condensation point of the atmosphere's highest constituent is
after water? CO2! So condense the damn stuff and take it out of
circulation - you yourself note that it is only 0.04% of the atmosphere,
so it has a relatively small intrinsic energy content!

I guess you have never heard of or used Joule-Kelvin coolers, but they
are very simple devices, extremely reliable and exceedingly efficient at
condensing atmospheric constituents. I have used them, as one of the
production methods for liquid nitrogen - you know the stuff that is a
little cheaper to make and distribute than the bottled water you get in
Tesco's or Sainsbury's - and guess what, CO2 production is one of the
major side effects, a problem when you are trying to produce liquid
nitrogen, and something that current designs go to some lengths to
avoid!

The basic concept of the J_K cooler and liquefaction process is to
compress the gas, expand it through a nozzle, resulting in cooking if
above the curie point and heating if below it. Ever felt how cold an
aerosol spray is? That isn't just "The Lynx Effect" - its fecking cold!

The colder, in the case of air, exhaust gas is then used to pre-cool the
incoming air trough a heat exchanger - a series of static vanes in the
gas flow. Once started, the process continues indefinitely until
liquefaction forms, assuming adequate thermal isolation is achieved.

Using such technology as an atmospheric carbon extraction system only
requires the gas volume brought in through an input area to be
compressed by a series of fans and turbines and fed to a simple, no
moving parts, adiabatic expansion nozzle, or array of nozzles. The
compression of the gas releases heat, a proportion of which is used,
initially together with external energy sources, to drive the
compression turbines. The expanded gas on the other side of the
nozzle(s) is lower in temperature, since the major constituent of air
(Nitrogen) is well above the curie point at the triple point of CO2.

This expanded, cold, exhaust atmospheric gas is then used to cool the
incoming compressed gas through a heat exchanger. The whole process
continues until it is either stopped by closing the expansion nozzle or
until liquid nitrogen forms, well below the triple point of CO2.
Furthermore, the expansion of the CO2 free exhaust gas also provides
most of the energy to drive the input compression turbines, external
supplies of power only being necessary to overcome frictional and Van
der Waals forces lost in the system. By a relatively simple control
procedure this is maintained just below the triple point of CO2,
resulting in the condensation of CO2 from the outgoing gas flow - onto
ready made condensation troughs.

Almost all of the energy used in compressing the atmospheric gas is
recovered from the expansion of the majority of the gas and recycled in
the process so that, once the system has reached equilibrium, the only
external energy required to sustain it is that of maintaining the
relatively small percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is condensed and
removed. That is many orders of magnitude less than the chemical energy
released by burning hydrocarbons in the first place, which is why this
is an existing industrial process.

Once extracted, the solid CO2 will, off course require containment but,
whilst that has its own problems, it wasn't your question - atmospheric
extraction is not only practical with existing technology it is
exceedingly cheap to implement. If you can contain the solid CO2
produced by large J-K compressors then is it certainly feasible and any
small country could sell these vats of solid CO2 back to energy
consuming, CO2 generating countries for them to contain and store under
international CO2 trading schemes.

All that is required is the political will and the investment in plant.
North Sea oil voids are currently filled with compressed air to get
extract the last drops of black gold - the ideal final resting place for
high pressure, or even solid, CO2. Existing coal mines in the UK are
another potential long term deposition. Of course the Arabs and the
Chinese have even larger potential CO2 reservoirs than we have, but who
said the benefits of such technology was unique to the West, and there
is nothing to stop us selling CO2 back to them.

The real practical problem with this process is that 50 years after its
introduction on this sort of scale (10-100 sq. miles total collection
area distributed on global sites) you would need to implement a "Reverse
Kyoto Agreememt" to stop rogue states from driving the world into the
next ice age!

But, of course, we could always nuke the rogue feckers by then!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:47:36 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

The root problem was that the underlying value of the asset wasn't

enough to cover the debt on it.

From which one can therefore conclude that the people buying the asset
were

a) being ripped off by having to paying far more than the asset was
worth

and/or

b) incredibly stupid

a) Happened 'cause it was the only way they "could own their own
home".

b) Merkins, need I say more?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Switch off at the socket?
 

In article , J G Miller wrote:
The abilty for the people to pay or not isn't particularly relevant. The
root problem was that the underlying value of the asset wasn't enough to
cover the debt on it.

From which one can therefore conclude that the people buying the asset were

a) being ripped off by having to paying far more than the asset was worth

and/or

b) incredibly stupid

They were being ripped off by being persuaded to *promise* to pay. As they
didn't have the means to pay the money back, these were promises that would
never be kept. Effectively they were paying with non-existent money.

Some of them may or may not have been stupid as well (because some people
are) but most of us are not fully conversant with financial terminology, and
those who live by it don't usually go out of their way to make it easy to
understand, because then we'd all realise what they're up to. If I had
absolutely nothing in the world and somebody effectively offered me a house
for nothing, I'd probably take it, and so would you. The real villains in
this are the financial institutions who set up these empty promises and then
sold them on to others, because they knew exactly how it all worked and
exactly what they were doing. Now we're all paying the price, even those of
us who have worked for what we have, and had the foresight to save it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Switch off at the socket?
 

On 20/09/09 04:05, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

I guess you have never heard of or used Joule-Kelvin coolers, but they
are very simple devices, extremely reliable and exceedingly efficient at
condensing atmospheric constituents. I have used them, as one of the
production methods for liquid nitrogen - you know the stuff that is a
little cheaper to make and distribute than the bottled water you get in
Tesco's or Sainsbury's - and guess what, CO2 production is one of the
major side effects

All you have to do is "Pass Go" then, that nice Mr Branson has a
$25,000,000 prize waiting.

http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/

Switch off at the socket?
 

Andy Burns wrote:
On 20/09/09 04:05, Kennedy McEwen wrote:

I guess you have never heard of or used Joule-Kelvin coolers, but
they are very simple devices, extremely reliable and exceedingly
efficient at condensing atmospheric constituents. I have used them,
as one of the production methods for liquid nitrogen - you know the
stuff that is a little cheaper to make and distribute than the
bottled water you get in Tesco's or Sainsbury's - and guess what,
CO2 production is one of the major side effects

All you have to do is "Pass Go" then, that nice Mr Branson has a
$25,000,000 prize waiting.

http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginearth/

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
snip

I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in your
scenario? Is energy being converted to, and stored as, mass, or
what?


No, you are the one making the claims that everyone else in the
history of modern science is wrong, YOU prove that your are the
next Einstein and winner of a Nobel prize for your (literally)
earth shattering discovery...

I'll take that as you don't know then.

If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
black!

YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU who
needs to back up YOUR claims...

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.

What's yours?

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
: Jerry wrote:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
: snip
:
: I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in
your
: scenario? Is energy being converted to, and stored as,
mass, or
: what?
:
:
: No, you are the one making the claims that everyone else in
the
: history of modern science is wrong, YOU prove that your are
the
: next Einstein and winner of a Nobel prize for your
(literally)
: earth shattering discovery...
:
: I'll take that as you don't know then.
:
: If ever there was a case of the pot trying to call the kettle
: black!
:
: YOU really just don't get this, *YOU* are the one making the
: claims (away from the accepted facts), not me, so it is YOU
who
: needs to back up YOUR claims...
:
: But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct
one.
:
: What's yours?
:

You really don't get it, I do not have to supply anything as I'm
not the one making any claims, YOU are, it is for YOU to supply
your references - something that you have signally failed to do
in any MEANINGFUL way.

Wells, put up or shut up!

Can't help thinking that Mr Wells might also belong to the "Flat
Earth Society"...
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:07:58 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:58:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

The abilty for the people to pay or not isn't particularly relevant.
The root problem was that the underlying value of the asset wasn't
enough to cover the debt on it.

If you are being charitable you say the banks took a gamble on the
asset values continuing to rise and by the time the debt was due
their value would cover it. A gamble they lost big time.


Did any banks really lose actual tangible spendable cash on their UK
private house mortgage business?

They may have potentially lost on B. T. L. mortgages but these
customers had been paying premium interest rates for their business.

IMV apartment blocks left half finished represent a greater likelyhood
of losing money for the bank, but not as bad for the banks as the
early adopters who paid top dollar only to see the environment they
bought into go down the gurgler.

IMHO the reality is the banks got greedy, seeing lots of income from
the interest on massive loans, the mere fact that the value of the
loan was far more than the value of the asset was ignored.

Derek

Switch off at the socket?
 

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:

But I gave you my explanation, which happens to be the correct one.

You've not given us an explanation yet, merely waving a single formula
around, which relates the rest mass of a body to the energy released
in its annihilation.

Not me.

You've failed to explain (other than "I guess so") by what mechanism
the mass of a cuckoo clock weight would change when it releases its
potential energy as it slowly falls.

Not me. I'm the one saying there's absolutely no change in mass at all, not
even infinitessimally.