Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum BioFuel Crops are a Crime

I can barely believe some of the comments made in this thread.

Paul is absolutely right:


It’s vitally important to bear this in mind. The choices made by ruthless despots cannot be expected to represent the will of the people. A major obstacle confronting would-be benefactors such the U.S. is the perverted self-interest of these well fed, well armed thugs in power, not the victimised, starving men, women and children of the general populace. Just take a close look at what's been happening in Burma during the past month.

No it was their choice to reject the food for fear of contamination.

I'm ignorant of the case in question, but I wouldn't be surprised if that statement is met with considerable scepticism. After all, they were probably at least several hundred thousand people. Since there was obviously no referendum involved, one can only assume that someone took it upon themselves to speak for them. Who, I wonder?

Paul, time is still the answer. You can change your question through fisking thus pretending that you were comparing only torque as much as you like. That simply is not the case. From my torque / HP link, it says that, "[James] Watt learned that 'a strong horse could lift 150 pounds a height of 220 feet in 1 minute.'"

Let's look at that. 150 pounds at a rate of 220 ft per minute. How fast is that really?



So one horse power is the ability to move a load of 150 pounds at 4 km/h for one minute. I walk faster than that, so that is pretty slow. How fast and for how long can a truck move a load of 150 pounds vertically? Just stepping back and looking at the scenario shows that your logic does not make sense.

Where are all the horses indeed. Using your logic with respect to horses, that '150 pounds a height of 220 feet in 1 minute' gets translated to 550 pounds for one foot in one second which is a slower rate (1 ft/s = 0.68 miles/hour = 1.1 km/hour). So, before the translation to 550, by your logic, the horse is about as powerful as the S10 truck (a 150 pound load at a rate of 4 km/h). Once you translate it to 550, the horse is 3.92 times more powerful according to you. We can keep doing this. That 550 pounds for one foot per second is the same power as 1100 pounds one foot in two seconds. Would you say that a horse has 39.2 times the amount of torque as an S10 truck? What about 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute? Is there a horse that can lift 33,000 pounds or even 1100 pounds? Your logic just does not work. As I have pointed out, it is because you are not comparing like values. You are forgetting the units.

If you really want to know, "where are all the horses" then you can use this formula: hp = torque * RPM / 5252

Rallem, your link provides other insightful data. It mentions local farmers in Africa who cannot compete against free handouts. Handouts are contributing to the economic hardships as are Western agricultural subsidies which prevent poor countries from selling their corn, wheat, etc. to the more developed nations. With Angola, Zambia, and Zimbabwe citing health fears, who is it doing the rejecting? Is the the poor and hungry or their political representatives? Your link does not say.

John



well lets just line up 120 horses and connect them to a chevy s10 truck and see which one has more power.

I say the 120 horses would win a tug of war between the two.

even though the chevy has 120 horses of power.

550 ft lbs * 120 horses = 66,000 lbs of horse torque.

can the chevy truck with 120 H.P. lift 66,000 lbs to a height of 1 ft in 1 second?

NO...NO...NO...NO.

can the 120 horses lift 66000 lbs to a height of 1 ft in 1 second?

YES...YES...YES...YES.

if James Watt were alive today
and he needed to "lift" 66,000 lbs 1 ft in 1 second
and he bought a 120 H.P. chevy s10 truck to do the job with.

he would be greatly dissapointed.

he might find it usefull to move himself and a passenger to get to the place where the 120 horses are being used to lift the 66,000 lbs.




YES..

1100 lbs can be lifted by 1 horse using a 2-1 gear ratio.

33,000 lbs can be lifted by 1 horse using a 60 - 1 gear ratio.

because the force that a horse can deliver to a mechanical advantage is 550 lbf.

a chevy s10 truck can only deliver a 140 lbf to a
mechanical advantage.




No , I said that a horse has 3.92 times the amount of torque that a chevy s10 has.

550 / 140 = 3.92

550 ft lbs of torque is a twisting force that can supply 550
pounds of force at a 1 ft radius.

if you use the 550 lb force at a radius of 1 foot
then you can get 550 pounds of force.

if you use the 550 lb force at a radius of 2 feet
then you can get 275 pounds of force.

the chevy s10 truck developes a maximum of 140 ft lbs of torque
@ 3600 rpm. 60 rps.

in the chevy s10 truck if the distance from the center of the wheel to the tire tread is exactly 12 inches and we know the max available torque is 140 ft lbs @ 3600 rpm , the gear ratio of the truck in order to lift a 66,000 lb weight would need to be 471 - 1

and that would only work if the truck weighs more than 66,000 lbs because of friction between the road and the tire.

as for horses a 3,000 lb truck no matter how many horse power it has can easily be dragged around by 6 horses.

even if the brakes are locked down.

the only resistance to the truck moving would be the friction between the road and the tires.

so once the horses begin to move the truck , you could remove 4 or 5 of the 6 and still drag it around.


.

Wow Paul. Working backwards:

550 lb force is 550 pounds of force. In other words, lb force = pounds of force. The distance is irrelevant. 550 lbs at 2 feet radius is 1100 foot pounds of torque. You messed up your units again.

Your 550/140=3.92 equation is still meaningless due to your inconsistent units.

Up until now, pulley systems were not discussed. Pullies will make a difference no matter the engine.

About your 120 horses having a tug of war with a single truck, you have now left the ideal situation we have been discussing and added friction and inertia into the example.

If your point is that the 120 H.P. rating is questionable, then fine. Does that horse power rating take into account the weight of the vehicle? What do you think the S10's power rating should be? I cannot tell by your postings because you are constantly comparing dissimilar ideas.

Im speaking of torque , ie.. shaft torque.

if you have 550 ft lbs of torque available and you apply / use that force at a distance of 2 ft , you only get a 275 lb force.



well without a pulley system / transmission how could you even begin to move the truck with only 140 ft lbs of torque.

the transmission is an essential part of our disscussion.



if you are speaking of a chevy s10 , none , it cannot move vertically only on an incline.

that is why we use helicopters and jump jets to move vertically , they use turbine engines that have the needed power to move vertically.

maybe you can post a link to a helicopter or jump jet VTOL that uses piston engines , since you believe they are so powerfull and efficient.



NO my point is that all piston engines are very inefficient.



I think that the s10's should be fitted with a 90% efficient gas turbine / electric propulsion system vs the basicaly fake 120 H.P. gas guzzling climate changing economy ruining technological embarasment that sits under the hoods today.


.

How does torque relate to farmers deciding to grow crops for bio fuel rather than to feed those greedy third world countries?

The anonymous post aboove was from me because I didn't notice that I wasn't logged on. Wht I meant to ask is how does it make the farmer's choice a crime?

the topic clearly states.



BioFuel Crops

There have been several ways contemplated for reducing the pollution emissions from vehicles. Some were about changing the fuels (biofuels). Others were about changing the components of the engine system to increase efficiency (turbo). You can also change the type of materials used to make the engine more efficient due to the higher operating temperatures (ceramic engine block). Another is to change the engine configuration (rotary and wankle engines) The last one I can think of is the basic technology (rocket, sail, solar sail, jet, ...). There may be others. Each has their own application, and not one is sufficient for all situations.

The original post discusses how some unforseen consequences have cropped up with biofuels.

How does torque make biofuel crops a crime then?

perhaps I can give you a good place to start reading.

try starting here

John



That seems to be the problem here.

we can do almost anything except use an efficent automobile engine.

.

But we as food growers have a no obligation to grow food for these starving nations and it is only up to them to fix their own problems. They have to stop making more babies when they cannot feed the ones they already have and they have to find their own solutions to their own problems. The fact that we do send food is a Christian thing to do, but people should not depend on that charity and if they do then it is their own evil. Actually I am thinking it is maybe a bigger crime to send these people this food because if we let them starve to death then they will no longer be a drain on the World's resources and we the wealthy will be allowing one of the Earth’s four defenses against over population to be effective.

its in that nutshell , right there ^

...no pun intended, I'm sure....
==
Meanwhile....
A waterspout off Florida today, heat deaths in Philadelphia, snow in the Cascades, firestorms in California, and another day of flooding (not related to climate change) in the Midwest.

Hey, that last one is driving corn prices to spike again today.
That's not related to biofuels.
I think poor water/flood-control planning and management should be a crime.

I think having children without being able to provide for them should be considered a crime against humanity.

With the floods and high demand for ethanol I doubt any corn will be left over to send to the starving people of poor nations. It looks like Mother Nature won't be denied her over population plan of famine, pestilence and natural disaster.