Re: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair
You are correct. It was late when I read that. Sorry for my thick headedness. Bill C. - Original Message - From: murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:43:01 -0600, you wrote: I think the thing to take from the discussion of O2 increases being dangerous should be that any rapid (geologically) changes in the composition of the air are dangerous to species which have adapted to specific conditions over long periods. CO2 is the immeadiate threat. I think you've sort of missed a point. Increase in CO2 is not the only rapid geological change in air composition we have apparently experienced. Another is concomittant *decrease* in O2. 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/ 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/
RE: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair
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
Re: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair
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. Similar to your thoughts on hydrogen. I'd also like to know the answer to this. I've seen the release of O2 into the Earth's atmosphere described as the greatest catastrophe for life that ever happened, much worse than the fate of the dinosaurs. It wiped out just about everything. Life was mostly anaerobic prior to that, but for a small number of obscure and struggling aerobes - weirdos that lived on explosive gas. Suddenly there was only room for the weirdos, everyone else perished. Now we all breathe this poisonous explosive stuff and think it's normal. Well, I haven't seen that way of discussing the release of greater O2 percentages into the atmosphere. It was put forth in the context of the great mystery as to why there is not more of a historical fossil record of a wider diversity of life (land life?) up until a few hundred million years ago. Trees, for example, I don't think they're more than a few hundred million years old. And many creatures, we have fossil records of them, but they do not really start in abundance up until a certain point? In any case, when I heard the presentation, it really seemed to make sense to me. The idea was that at various points large quantities of O2, somehow within the EArth, were released, and with these releases, finally they resulted in a bit of a change. I don't know if it was to the climate or to the suitability of certain breathing biochemistry approaches or what. 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/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair
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. Note that I hope we can crosspost a bit here, I'd like to see more opinions. Thx for the feedback. I'd like to see a start toward just generally giving it a shot. Obviously, one can't make a super-accurate measure-everything affordable home-kit. We have good smoke detectors, and now CO-detection. Radon? I'm not sure if that's affordable or if you have to have outsiders come in. So, I'd like to see progress, or inventions, in giving a much better picture, say percentages of the basic gasses in the house. This would help, for example, folks to better understand that when they sleep in an enclosed environment without much fresh air, they probably bring the O2 levels well down and the CO2 levels way up. I was thinking about this today, and I can't even remember a single meteorological news story (i.e. the Weather) which gave any real indication of gas percentage levels of the common gasses or uncommon ones, with the exception of Ozone and some other particulates or pollutants. I mean, I would have no idea of O2 percentage that is normal, and most people wouldn't. Yet, why not make it part of common knowledge? With water, I think that a good solid expose of what's actually in our water is always a story waiting to happen. People do have an excellent sense that there might, or might not, be something wrong, and they've already proven that they are *quite* ready to spend money for quality water, or to avoid even potentially bad water, such as by buying tap filters (not that cheap!) and by buying bottled water (more expensive than Gas here). This is a night-time local news story always waiting to happen, for the enterprising journalist. Lately I have noticed a good (great) trend in the local news of a couple of newscasters really putting themselves out there as consumer advocates who get action on important issues. I wonder when they will get into this one. 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. I think folks will be more motivated to practice avoidance if they have access to information, detailed information, as to non-food residues which are in their food. While you may be quite familiar with such information, many others are not. So, I think such tests go hand in hand. Your point as to the difficulty of doing them is well-taken. So, here it would be more a matter of such an expensive laborious task being done at a less-frequent higher level, such as at a good University, in an ongoing process. I'm not sure if Consumer Reports would be up to doing such tests and exposes, on food, water, air, but I'd like to see it. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/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/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair
I think the thing to take from the discussion of O2 increases being dangerous should be that any rapid (geologically) changes in the composition of the air are dangerous to species which have adapted to specific conditions over long periods. CO2 is the immeadiate threat. Bill C. - Original Message - From: murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair 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. Similar to your thoughts on hydrogen. I'd also like to know the answer to this. I've seen the release of O2 into the Earth's atmosphere described as the greatest catastrophe for life that ever happened, much worse than the fate of the dinosaurs. It wiped out just about everything. Life was mostly anaerobic prior to that, but for a small number of obscure and struggling aerobes - weirdos that lived on explosive gas. Suddenly there was only room for the weirdos, everyone else perished. Now we all breathe this poisonous explosive stuff and think it's normal. Well, I haven't seen that way of discussing the release of greater O2 percentages into the atmosphere. It was put forth in the context of the great mystery as to why there is not more of a historical fossil record of a wider diversity of life (land life?) up until a few hundred million years ago. Trees, for example, I don't think they're more than a few hundred million years old. And many creatures, we have fossil records of them, but they do not really start in abundance up until a certain point? In any case, when I heard the presentation, it really seemed to make sense to me. The idea was that at various points large quantities of O2, somehow within the EArth, were released, and with these releases, finally they resulted in a bit of a change. I don't know if it was to the climate or to the suitability of certain breathing biochemistry approaches or what. 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/ 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/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:43:01 -0600, you wrote: I think the thing to take from the discussion of O2 increases being dangerous should be that any rapid (geologically) changes in the composition of the air are dangerous to species which have adapted to specific conditions over long periods. CO2 is the immeadiate threat. I think you've sort of missed a point. Increase in CO2 is not the only rapid geological change in air composition we have apparently experienced. Another is concomittant *decrease* in O2. 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/
RE: [biofuel] Re: [mdiaircar] Nuremberg Inventor's Fair
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 -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. 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/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 10/31/2002 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/
