I wrote this last month:- (Upsetting someone? Since it was put in the'Not-Quite-Science forum')

"Before Bio-crops took over, people used to eat two bowls of grain per day, they are now only eating one. Not only that but food prices are rising world wide, the hoarding of rice and other grains by unscupulous dealers are affecting everyone. Noticed the price of bread and pasta lately?
Bio-fuel crops are a crime against humanity, in my opinion.
They also indirectly pollute the air with the extra vehicles they fuel.
Trying to keep the price of fuels down at the expense of the 3rd world is evil.
The U.N cant do any more than issue a token amount of free grain to the starving as it gets reported in the press. Publicity or guilt?
Selling ones body for a bowl of grain, and a dose of Aids, is the biggest crime of all. Money is no good to a starving person if there is no affordable food to buy.
This problem I'm writing about is not going to go away, until Bio-planting is banned, just you wait and see." http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25676#Post25676

When I wrote the above, the price of Oil was $115.barrel.
Today its about $122.per barrel (having doubled over the past 12 months)
US pump prices are $4.00 and rising world wide.

With the coming of crop failures due to climatic floods, the price of basic foods
have risen up to 150%....so high, that there have been more food riots in Africa.
In North Korea people, are eating tree bark and grass just to stay alive.
Millions of people and children are undernourished as they cannot afford to buy their daily bowel of rice.
The earthquake disaster in China, has destroyed 5 million homes.
The floods in Myanmar (Burma) have been exacerbated by the seeming unwillingness of the their Goverment to allow relief workers in to treat water, or distribute rice.

Plus one of the biggest Oilfields in the World has just announced that it is running out of oil. Which if true may start sympathetic price rises on everything, everywhere....and that would include Propane and Methane as well.
http://www.ameinfo.com/71519.html

Now its the 'United Nations' and its distributers, that are finding they are suddenly short of food to supply to the Worlds millions of needy and starving.
They have plenty of tents and materials, but are seeing a depletion of warehouse grain storage.
They are not helped by the finding that millions of acres world wide have been devoted to growing non food crops, only suitable for producing Bio-fuels.
Easy peasy money for the farmers, who dont have to sort out the crops for weeds, but just take their money.
This Bio-fuel acerage has got to be replaced to grow food for humans once again.

The 'World Food Summit' still ongoing at the present time, has not yet reached an
agreement on key policy disputes. mainly the need to review the cultivation of crops for Bio-fuels.
Biofuel critics stated yesterday, that it was morally reprehensible for us to develop Biofuels, when there were hungry people in the world. (My sentiments exactly) However South American Bio producers accused the critics of denying their farmers a new source of income. To date no agreement has been reached.

I find it interesting that the biggest Bio-growers of fuel, Brazil, Venezuelia and Mozambique are exporters of oil?

Let the Car manufactures suffer for a few years, until they develop a smaller more efficient engines. Prehaps based upon microdroplets of fuel plus water? They are rich Companys, who will not go out of business. As we will still continue to buy our vehicles, even if they are smaller and slower.

There is no easy answer to an infinite population increase, coupled with a finite supply of oil, but its time the UN woke up to put a stop to Goverments growing Fuel, instead of food. It will be cheaper for all of us eventually.

Mike

Its a disgrace the way we dont act.

We are slaves to energy.

if everyone would just do something everyday to lower their
personal energy consumption , the resulting decrease in the demand for energy would lower all food and energy prices and remove the need for Bio fuels.

a single step by each person multiplied by all people is what we need.

it will be the people of the world that will decide their fate
not those who decide what types of energy we use.

a car that uses a 90% efficient gas turbine engine
that turns a generator
that charges a battery
that powers a electric motor
could run with a 3.5 H.P. gas turbine engine.

the turbine could stay at a constant speed and charge the battery when you are stopped or at low speeds when you are traveling on the freeway at higher speeds the generator could be clutched off and the cars momentum can be maintained through direct drive using a reduction gear.

it doesnt take much to maintain momentum ever notice how far down your gas pedal is pressed when traveling at 55 mph?

a piston engine is only 10% efficient.

10 H.P X 90% efficent gas turbine = 9 H.P.

90 H.P X 10% efficient piston engine = 9 H.P.

Oh your probably wondering why I first said a 3.5 H.P. gas turbine engine... well gas turbines usualy turn at a very high rpm lets say the turbine turns at 10,800 rpm ( its a slow one )
10,800 rpm ... is way to fast for a electric generator
you would have to use reduction gears to decrease the rpm to a stable generator rpm of around 3600 this means that the 3.5 H.P. gas turbine is delivering apx 3 X the input H.P. which makes the output H.P. apx 10.5 H.P.

a lawn mower engine sized gas turbine can provide plenty of engine to power a good sized gas turbine electric car.

but it will be the people of the world that will demand a change
in energy that will accomplish such as this , not those who make more when you buy more , and not the governments of the world either , it will be the people.

Good point about the smaller engine options.

As for biofuels... it is a good example of how "free-market forces" don't understand the purpose of these noble ideas.

Biofuels should be grown on marginal soils (unsuitable for crop production) and should be encouraged in areas where poorer populations could benefit from the new programs.

I noticed the price of oil figures in this discussion.
Below is some info.
This also applies to other commodities like grains.

http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/index.html

Prospects for Crude Oil Prices & GCC Investment Strategies
http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/data/pdf/437.pdf
In the valuation of paper WTI... there is a void between less than US$60 per barrel and more than $120/barrel.
Speculative traders bid up the price of paper WTI - or paper Brent - as a hedge against inflation and as protection from the falling dollar.
...

Decomposition Analysis of the Soaring Crude Oil Prices
http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/data/pdf/421.pdf
The following pages briefly describe (1) demand, (2) supply, (3) insecure supply/geopolitical risk, and (4) futures market in relation to the changes in the oil prices.

[#4 is the one to focus on....]
...

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/journal/J/F0217A/2004.php
...

http://www.rice.edu/energy/research/IEEJ/index.html
The research will examine a variety of scenarios for the future of global energy markets, focusing on factors that could trigger a regional or worldwide crisis. The study seeks to assess the geopolitical risks currently facing international energy markets and the global financial system. It also will investigate the consequences that such risks could pose to energy security, pricing and supply as well as to the transparent and smooth operation of the global market for oil trade and investment.

Billionaire financier George Soros tells lawmakers speculation leading to oil price 'bubble'
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/03/business/NA-FIN-US-Soros-Oil-Speculation.php
The surge in popularity of commodity index funds is "intellectually unsound ... and distinctly harmful in its economic consequences," Soros told a Senate hearing. When speculators enter a market mostly on one side — in this case, betting on rising oil futures — it "distorts the otherwise prevailing balance between supply and demand."
...

Soros, Greenberger others tell truth of Oil market manipulation to Senate Commerce Committee..
http://www.clipmarks.com/clipmark/60A68087-A57B-4DAD-8D11-F10734E624DE/

...

http://38.105.88.161/Search/basic.asp?BasicQueryText=soros
Soros is one of the witnesses at today's Senate Commerce Cmte. hearing on energy market manipulation. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) chairs the hearing.
6/3/2008: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 16 min.: C-SPAN

I happened to catch much of this on CSPAN. I was outraged, etc., and agree with the summary above (Enron Loophole = deregulation of Futures Markets). Also note the entry (also unregulated) of London and Dubai Futures Markets into US commodities (90% of West Texas Crude).

Their opinion was that between 1/3 and 1/2 of the price of oil was due to speculation on futures markets by large institutional investors and hedge funds (solely for profit, not use of oil for actual energy).


p.s.
So prices should drop quickly below $100 as some regulation is threatened.

Samwik

I couldnt help but notice this



and wanted to comment while I can as a free american before we are hoodwinked into 4 more years of the republican party.
and further freedoms and control over our own lives are taken away.

McCain and Clinton are both heavily politicing on there
" EXPERIENCE "

How much "EXPERIENCE" was available to President Bush in the last 8 years?

I ask is it " EXPERIENCE " that we really need.

or do we need someone who hasnt been exposed to the "EXPERIENCE"

LOL... SBT

its time for back scratching and favors to be removed from the picture and strong measures taken to heal our nation.

Its time to get rid of the self serving republicans / politicians.

I intend to read over the entire reply you made and post any further comments at that time.

Its nice to find someone who understands that our present use
of piston engines is stupid to say the least.

granted using the cfpfm would remove any fuels usage in automobiles , power generation , etc...

It would be quite a shock to the energy sectors.

but it would be a boost to any and all other sectors.

at this time a move to a smaller more efficient gas turbine system would be more feasible and would still necessitate oil consumption only in much smaller quantities.

and look at the profits the auto industries would make as they
begin to replace all of the cars that get only 15 mpg with the ones that get over 300 mpg or more.

also the current foreign car manufacturers would most likely have to relocate to the U.S. because that is where all the scrap piston engine cars are.

according to supply and demand price force factors the price of gassoline at the pump would drop to just above what the government taxes are...

around 60-70 cents a gallon when you include the current gas tax of around 48 cents per gallon.

and lets dont forget the reduction in pollution.

alaskan crude pumps to ground level at apx $3.00 per barrell
we could use our own oil and only our own oil.

we could then begin to be an oil exporter.

Hi Paul and Samwick,
I take your points about using a more efficient Gas Turbine hybrid in as family car.

Unfortunately it would not provide any immediate help to the worlds starving. Since it would take years, if ever' for the price of oil to drop to ensure cheap food.
Human greed is such that unless the farmers were to get more money for grain production than the ease of Bio fuel, little will get done.
I would like to see a law brought in restricting BioFuel crops to prehaps just a few percent of normal food cultivation.
Prehaps even a ban put on BioFuel exports, if it exceeded a small percentage of the total land used for food?
Prehaps the building of more storage Grain Elevators might help, as well as fertilizer production?

Thinking of Pauls excellent idea of using the more efficient Gas turbine in family cars.
I was prepared to give it a no no, because of the hot fast exaust gasses might burn kids and pedestrians.
I was thinking of aircraft turbines on a smaller scale. But I was totally unprepared for my find when I searched for the possibility of a small turbine.
In fact I was amazed! A turbine just 6 inches long! Yet another smaller than a pak of matches!
Yikes!. If this is the future.....bring it on.
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2007/08/worlds-smallest-gas-turbine-engine/
And
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/microengines.html

Why did the Solar Car, at one stage during last century the "Car of the Future", never get past the prototype stage? A race is still held every year for solar cars in Australia through the Outback (lots of sun!). The cars are small, very uncomfortable and very undeveloped. A small electric bike or car could be solar powered from batteries in the garage which store solar power during the day. We seem to ignore solar power, and it's there free and, here at least, in over-abundance!

To persist with growing crops for fuel instead of food, when people are hungry is immoral and disgusting.

Mike



Well the basic technology is in place already , if the U.S. were to really get itself in gear , and pursue this end , it would only be less than 2 years max before we could be installing turbine / electric engines into existing automobiles.

Now if it looks to "INVESTORS" the stock market as if the BIO fuels technology will be worth "0" in two years time , well need I say more.

everything already invested will be scrap for the most part , other than the experience gained from the research.

thats just the way it is.

I really enjoyed your links to the micro turbines , I believe the smaller one is earmarked for cell phones and the larger version for laptops.

the 20mm turbine can be used to propel someone in a personal transportation vehicle , similar to a motorized wheelchair.

if you think of the weight comparisons of load and engine size
you can see that this type of tech could drive semi trucks or any other type of vehicle normally powered by a piston engine...

a brand new 4x4 truck only delivers apx 700 ft lbs of torque.

check out these torque values from several Truck manufacturers

and think about foot pounds of torque , if you weight 150 lbs
your body weight can supply 150 ft lbs of torque at 1 ft from center of the wheel...

some of these trucks only supply 140 ft lbs of torque...

where are all the horses?

a single H.P. will supply 3.92 times that amount of torque.

550 / 140 = 3.92

is there someone in there designing the trucks with 120 H.P. engines to only be capable of delivering 140 ft lbs ?

1 H.P. is the amount of power to lift 550 lbs to a height of 1 foot in 1 second..

120 H.P. should be able to pick the truck straight up into the air
550 lbs * 120 H.P. = 66,000 pounds lifted to a height of 1 foot in 1 second.

that 3000 lb truck should be capable of hopping straight up to a height of at least 22 ft in the air in 1 second...

can anyone think of why cars and trucks get such terible gas mileage and performance?

I can its called deception , control , and greed as mike pointed out.


Ellis

solar power is growing strong here in the U.S. in california there are solar powered cars in a way , there are companies that are using solar power to split water for the hydrogen to fill hydrogen powered cars tanks.

in this way the normaly free suns energy becomes a sellable product.


hows the tower comming along , after we had a previous discussion on it , I watched a program about it and other projects on the science channel I believe , and they seem to already have included the sudgestions I made about increasing the height toward the center because of the thermal expansion of the air flowing through it.

I noticed they did not include the sudgestion of using a black top or black sand to increase the airs temperature.

which could also be used to decrease the overall size of the project in general.

My impression is that a big part of the price increase in food has been the rise of the middle class in China and India. They want (as most people everywhere do) to eat more and better, and often to eat more meat. Meat is much less efficient in terms of productivity than grain is, so an increase in meat production to meet this demand translates into less grain for direct human consumption.

Also, the price rise in oil (which is partly but definitely not totally due to the same up-and-coming middle class) has dramatic effects on food production costs.

Remember that a significant fraction of the corn that is converted to ethanol in the US is from grades of corn that would not be eaten by people, and that much of the cane in Brazil that is used for ethanol production is waste material that wouldn't be eaten by people. So it isn't a one-for-one switch of food-producing land to "gas"-producing land.

Good points! ...poor harvests in '07, and there's also the financial speculation in oil and food commodities that allows rich people to circumvent the falling dollar.

Mismanagement of biofuels is only a small part of the confluence of circumstances that increasingly has things falling apart.

I suppose all the bad events to come will get blamed on any attempts to prevent or ameliorate those very same looming problems.

Cheers,
~SA

The main disadvantage of gas turbines is...od of your car.

This technology has been around since 1872. If they were viable in the automobile, then they would have been adapted to that application long ago. That they have not, and reading Mike Kremer's micro engine links confirms this, means they are difficult to create. It is important to investigate other sources for energy and other possible efficiencies, but this does not seem to be one of them.

Ellis mentioned solar, but we are still waiting for a breakthrough, like "avalache" cells, to increase efficiency. They are still too expensive and only work well in bright sun.



If you really believe this, then make a better product! If anyone can make a much more efficient vehicle, they will soon become billionaires.

You are also missing something in your horse power/ pounds of torque argument. "One horsepower is also commonly expressed as 550 pounds one foot in one second or 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute." In other words, you are missing the time taken to perform the useful work.

Here is another link that may be important to our biofuels discussion: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20080508234022data_trunc_sys.shtml

John



Let me break it down for you.

I said


you replied with


then you added work to the picture



I did not reference Work , however the 1 second should have been substantual.

if you want to think of this in work terms then
550 ft lbs / second of work
can be performed each second by a 1 H.P. piston engine that is if the 1 H.P. engine is 100% efficient or the 550 pounds is only 10% effiecient (55 lbs). LOL

sorry but not me.

I totally disagree with the assessment that growing plants for the production of bio fuels is evil for a few reasons. Firstly the food we produce here in America has been rejected in the starving countries of Africa for being bio engineered, so if they would rather starve than eat our bio engineered crop then in my opinion let them die. Secondly Just because we have the ability to grow food to feed other countries does not in any way obligate us to feed those other countries, and by doing so we are in my opinion committing a bigger crime by denying one of Earths defenses against over population which is famine from being effective. If the people in these other countries wish to survive they should first control their population growth and make sure they themselves can produce their own food or go to war and conquer the food of their neighbors. Finally I feel it is our responsibility to take care of ourselves first and foremost and if we cannot afford to pay the other person’s price for a barrel of oil then we have the obligation to ourselves to find alternatives which includes converting food we would usually sell to others for our own fuel.

I found this:

http://www.mindfully.org/Food/2004/Politics-Feeding-World23apr04.htm

With much of its population reeling from the economic disaster left from a two-decades-long civil war, Angola jeopardized its international aid last month by announcing it would not accept genetically modified food, consumed daily by Americans in any number of processed foods, but shunned by Europeans.

Angola's decision has been even more maddening to aid groups because the specifics of the ban remain unclear. As a result a 19,000-ton U.S. corn shipment to the country has been delayed.

Zambia and Zimbabwe, citing environmental and health fears, have also rejected biotech food aid in the past. Other African countries have accepted American biotech grain only after it was milled to prevent errant seeds from taking hold in the countryside.

Rallem

At first I thought it was a great idea , then I believe mike made a post about the greed involved.

and when mike dissagrees with something I take a serious look into it.

I was thinking that the bio crops would be grown on less suitable land or unused land , I surely did not think that our already stretched food supply would be threatened by bio crops.

I take a trip about 40 miles several times a month , and have been doing so for years , there are many farms along the way that grew a diverse variety of crops , however recently I noticed that the crops are mostly corn and the corn no longer grows in rows ... it is just matted as thick as carpet , the corn stalks are no more than 4 inches apart , I suppose this is a result of bio crops.

its easy to see that there is more corn plants in each farm for bio corn vs food corn.

easy money is hard to refuse.

thats the problem and the evil mike speaks of dont you think?

It is said that the greed factor of our farmers trying to make more money by not growing crops for food and rather by growing crops for bio fuels, but let me point out that farmer's first responsibility is to his family and that it is the greed of the people in the starving countries which is causing their dilemma. If they cannot take responsibility for their own survival, then why are they still making babies? How dare they make more babies when they cannot feed the ones they already have? I find it funny that liberals like the people here are so willing to place the blame on America for the ills of the world when it is the rest of the world itself which is refusing to take responsibility for its own actions.

Rallem

A good point indeed Rallem , one that is hard to concieve is when the ethiopians were starving , the U.S. gave assistance in the form of agricultural supplies , they ate the seeds , they took the tires off of the tractors and trucks and sold them or burned them for fuel.

the food earmarked for the starving was stolen and used to feed the army of who ever was in control of the area at that time and the remaining grain / food was sold to purchase weapons.

it seems that giving food is not a good idea and that giving supplies to grow food is also not a good idea , the only thing we could do to ensure that starving people have food available is to remove food as a fuel.

agreed sometimes trying to help other nations is like pulling your own teeth.

but are we to stand by and watch as they die by the millions?

can you envision a farmer in some poor nation trying to grow FOOD waking up one morning to find the local army stealing his crops to sell as bio fuels?

I can.

before long a farm would have to be equiped with surface to air missles to discourage an airborn assault.

and even here in the U.S. farmers are asking for trouble if they continue to grow bio crops , because starving people will try to feed their families no matter what country they live in.

You then divided 550 as the equivalent to 1 HP by 140. It is as though you are suggesting that those trucks have only have a quarter horse power. That does not make sense. The 140 is not per second. From your link, the 2.2 L engines in the Chev S10's have 120 HP SAE @ 5,000 rpm and 140 ft lb @ 3,600 rpm. That is 120 HP and 140 ft lbs.

Let's do it right. 550 ft lb per second / 140 ft lbs

Since the ft lb units will cancel each other out, you end up with 3.92 per second. That means nothing.



Horse power is the measure of work, so you did reference work.

Of all the things I said, that was all you would respond to?

When you discuss easy money, I think we might agree on something. To get rid of the biofuels industry is easy. Get rid of the subsidies. Getting rid of the bio fuel requirements would be even better because I wonder what the result would be if we use the non-arable land to grow biofuel crops. That will not stop world hunger. Much of the starvation is cause by politics.

I would not go so far as to call biofuel crops a crime, but it is wrong to push something that reduces fuel efficiency such that the suggested positive ends will never be realized.

If you go back to an earlier reply I made here you will see a url where it says that among other factors the food we sent to these starving countries was refused by these very countries, so to answer your question, yes we should watch them die and not feel any pity for them, because it is their choice.

John



your right it is the maximum amount of torque that the engine can develope.

1 H.P. can lift 550 lbs 1 ft in 1 second.

it can lift 550 lbs 60 ft in 1 minute.

it can lift 33000 lbs 1 ft in 1 minute.

the truck is rated at 120 H.P. at 5000 rpm.

revolutions per minute...

this is what I said





that does not make sence why did you sudgest that?
I said

550 is the torque that 1 horse can supply.

140 is the torque that 1 chevy s10 can supply.

the difference is that the chevy has 120 horses.

so... where are all the horses.

this means that 1 horse can supply 3.92 times the amount of torque that a chevy s10 can.



in other words you are saying that a chevy s10 engine needs
to be turning at
3600 revolutions per minute
or
60 revolutions per second
in order to develope 140 ft lbs of torque.

where did you get the "missing the time" at




the time is included in horsepower , it is 1 second.

it was the choice of the regions army / whatever not the starving people.

people dont choose to starve normaly it is the leaders / controllers of people that choose for them.


.

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.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

Thanks Anonymous
At 73 minutes long, I was unable to take it all in.
But in the first 4 minute he mentions that the Russians had found lots of oil after drilling super deep at over 40,000 ft down.
That again verifies Thomas Gold's theorys, when he dug thru granite rocks to find oil.
The Russians always did listen to Thomas Gold.......I wrote about Gold's oil theory here, couple of weeks ago.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=26630#Post26630

Many thanks for your Video though, very interesting indeed.

If you listen to it all he explains at the end that they have capped the largest well in the world and are pumping the natural gas that is in the well back into the ground. With the intention of keeping it a secret from the public.

Oh, and that well is in Alaska, and it costs about a dollar a barrel to get it out of the ground.

I still think we should convert the corn into fuel and let the people of the poor nations starve to death. It the only humane thing to do.

Right now Gasoline is 10% ethanol, and Diesel fuel is just Diesel fuel, but we can buy Bio-fuel and we can also buy Bio-fuel blends where we can buy Diesel fuel blended with Bio-fuel B10, B20, and I’ve heard of B50 but have never seen it.

I think it is more important to this planet that we feed my Diesel truck cheaply than it is to feed the poor people of the World.

Mike says you don't really mean it Rallem, and I'll believe him. Unfortunately though some people DO say that and mean it. After all, to paraphrase Monty Python*,

--What have the poor ever done for you?!

*at least I hope it was Python!

Internal World Bank Secret report: "Biofuel caused food crisis"

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report
Senior development sources believe the report, completed last April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.
The Report emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. Stating that Global food prices are up by 75%, due to the growing of Bio-fuels.
The British government, which was due to release its own report on the impact of biofuels, last week, has been put on hold.

It is thought British study will also state that plant fuels have played a "significant" part in pushing up food prices to record levels

***Thoughts
[color:3333FF]It looks as though the Pro-Bio fuel camp have based their 'less than a 3% food price rise' upon Biofuels derived from Brazillian Sugar Cane.[/color] Which people dont eat anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

I was hoping the bio-fuels would raise the price of food more than that. I really don't think we should be giving away our food cheaply. Oh btw if the price of food is getting outrageous for you perhaps you should plant a garden.

They could always grow hemp to produce bio diesel fuel. Hemp wouldnt interfere with world food costs because it is not used for food. Also hemp is the male plant of cannabis sativa so there is very small trace amounts of thc in it. Hemp feilds could not be used to produce marijuana for sale.

Does that mean that it will grow on land that cannot be used for food crops?

The biofuel crops are based on insight, most of energy of solar radiation is wasted in rotting of grass and weed, under releasing of methane or carbon dioxide, which are green house gases. If it's so, why to not to use this energy for human purposes? The vegetation has a positive effect into local clime and it's definitely more friendly with respect of biosphere, then the desert covered by solar cells.

The main problem is, the method of energy production depends on rich source of watter and the minerals (the nitrogen and phosphorus] must be returned into soil again - or such model will not remain feasible from long-term perspective: it will create a desert from land, not vice-versa..

The biofuel isn't the primary source of high food prices - on the vice-versa! It can be demonstrated easily by the look into history of the latest oil price crisis in the mids of 70's:



As we can see clearly, the history just repeats by now: the food prices are copying the oil prices - and in 70's no biofuel concerns was ever known. The raise of oil price was started as the result of decreasing price of dollar in consequence of Iraq war. If the money value goes down, the investors are looking for more permanent investments and the will changing their money into material commodities. The reality market and mutual funds were collapsed first and now money are transferred into more volatile markets: the oil and food in particular. It means, the primary source of oil and food price raise is the Iraq war in analogy with Vietnam's war, which was ended in the mid of 70's.

It means, if the USA government will continue in war with Iran, it will result into collapse of dollar and the global economy.

I see no problem with this. The Police might get upset because they fly overhead in helicopters looking for marijuana with night scopes because marijuana puts off a distinctive heat signature from most other plants, and if fields of hemp are legal then pot growers could disguise their marijuana in the fields of hemp, but really I think the benefits would outweigh that negative so perhaps we should legalize hemp for this purpose, but I have some questions. Would these hemp fields be replacing a field that could be used for growing food and if so wouldn’t that be interfering with world food costs? Wouldn’t sweet grass have the same effect on world food costs except maybe produce more fuel than hemp? Should we really be concerned with the cost of food to these poor nations?

Zephir,
I'm sure impressed with your breadth of knowledge, and how well you have it integrated into an understanding of the way the world works. Thank you for sharing your insights on physics, economics, and immunology, etc. (so far) in this medium.

I'm figuring that you also can envisage alternate futures for the world's timeline; and even see missed possibilities based on different unrealized potential 'worldlines' emanating from key points in the past. It is maddening, isn't it?
Keep up the ggod work....

~K

You are getting your wish. Food prices are rising (Aug 29 '08)

By diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves. The U.N.'s World Food Program says it needs $500 million in additional funding and supplies, calling the rising costs for food nothing less than a global emergency. Soaring corn prices have sparked tortilla riots in Mexico City, and skyrocketing flour prices have destabilized Pakistan, which wasn't exactly tranquil when flour was affordable.
Several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it's dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.

Biofuels do slightly reduce dependence on imported oil,(*) and the ethanol boom has created rural jobs while enriching some farmers and agribusinesses. But the basic problem with most biofuels is amazingly simple, given that researchers have ignored it until now: using land to grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands that store enormous amounts of carbon.

Backed by billions in investment capital, this alarming phenomenon is replicating itself around the world. Indonesia has bulldozed and burned so much wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that its ranking among the world's top carbon emitters has surged from 21st to third according to a report by Wetlands International. Malaysia is converting forests into palm oil farms so rapidly that it's running out of uncultivated land. But most of the damage created by biofuels will be less direct and less obvious. In Brazil, for instance, only a tiny portion of the Amazon is being torn down to grow the sugarcane that fuels most Brazilian cars. More deforestation results from a chain reaction so vast it's subtle: U.S. farmers are selling one-fifth of their corn to ethanol production, so U.S. soybean farmers are switching to corn, so Brazilian soybean farmers are expanding into cattle pastures, so Brazilian cattlemen are displaced to the Amazon. It's the remorseless economics of commodities markets. "The price of soybeans goes up," laments Sandro Menezes, a biologist with Conservation International in Brazil, "and the forest comes down."

Deforestation accounts for 20% of all current carbon emissions. So unless the world can eliminate emissions from all other sources--cars, power plants, factories, even flatulent cows--it needs to reduce deforestation or risk an environmental catastrophe. That means limiting the expansion of agriculture, a daunting task as the world's population keeps expanding. And saving forests is probably an impossibility so long as vast expanses of cropland are used to grow modest amounts of fuel. The biofuels boom, in short, is one that could haunt the planet for generations--and it's only getting started.

Why the Amazon Is on Fire

This destructive biofuel dynamic is on vivid display in Brazil, where a Rhode Island--size chunk of the Amazon was deforested in the second half of 2007 and even more was degraded by fire. Some scientists believe fires are now altering the local microclimate and could eventually reduce the Amazon to a savanna or even a desert. "It's approaching a tipping point," says ecologist Daniel Nepstad of the Woods Hole Research Center.
(Precis from: www.time.com/time/ - <Mar '08>

(*)My thoughts, from above
"Biofuels do slightly reduce dependence on imported oil"
Yes,..... but only at the level of the car population at the present time.
Personal car transport is increasing world wide. There will come a time when more land is given over to Bio-fuel production.
There will be no more land to deforest, and very little land left to grow food.
Eventually, the 'deforesters' will have to START increasing both their oil imports, AND importing expensive food.
People just cant give up their cars. They are essential to get to work. Modern living has ensured that most people,
have to drive dozens of mile to work every day. Nor do they want to give up the little bit of private quiet space
within their car where they can relax, and feel free to do and think whatever they like.

Bio-Fuels will always be a crime, in my book.

Mike, I don't find what you were linking to when you posted that link. Could you be more specific? It is a page full of links, but none of them looked like they were applicable to the topic.

Hello Rose,
You are right. The posts upon this subject are somewhat disjointed re dates. I believe I was replying to Rallem (his post #26992 on 7th May)

I stated in my post, that Rallem was getting his wish....ie That the reported price of food was rising today.
(Thats an almost 4 month difference between his post and mine before this food price rise could be shown)
By all means delete my post, if you feel its non-relevant.
Since I am sure the headline "Bio-Fuel Crops are a Crime" will
come up again in the near future.

Mike Kremer

Maybe the farmers will get their fair share now that they hold all the wild cards. I have no sympathy for the hungry in this situation.

Rallem

Im sure that the starving hungry peoples would have sympathy
on you if you were frozen solid durring a sudden artic freeze over that could occur if eratic climate changes continue.

or even if it were a more harsh senario such as a caldera on greenland , surely this has nothing to do with bio-fuel crops being a crime or does it?

bio-fuels still emit CO2

solar - wind - nuclear - free , energy does not.

...

I am not looking for sympathy from anyone over my weather conditions, and I don't believe the co2 emissions mankind puts out is fully responsible for any climate changes we may be experiencing. With that said I think it is possible that biofuels may actually help mankind reduce its output of co2 into the atmosphere. My reasoning may seem a little convoluted, but lately one of the practices that oil refineries have been performing here in America is to trap any co2 emissions coming from their smoke stacks and pressurize it into liquid form so it can be shipped to Canada to be pumped into the ground so that more oil can be extracted from there. The oil refineries are no longer looking at co2 emissions as a waste product they are trying to get rid of, but now co2 is an asset for them to sell. Now for the biofuels, I do not remember where I got this information from but I think I heard it on NPR, and I think it said that bio fuels may produce less co2 in the vehicles but it produces more co2 in the refining/distillation of the biofuels, so why not have the biofuel manufacturing plants trap their co2 emissions and sell them to oil fields so they can get more co2 from the ground? If the biofuel manufacturers can trap their co2 emissions, then why not have all of the manufacturers do the same which should greatly reduce the co2 footprint of mankind on the planet?

A PROMINENT United Nations activist against famine has demanded a five-year moratorium on biofuels as a new report showed Australia could use its sugar to become a major global provider of ethanol.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said it was a "crime against humanity" to convert food crops to fuel, driving up food prices when there are 854 million hungry people in the world.
James
http://www.crackcocaineaddictiontreatment.com

I don't see the UN doing anything against the rising prices of fuel, but does it really matter? The UN is nothing but a toothless dog which can bark rather loudly but has not power to back up its warnings.

Yea, but whose fault is that? (asked rhetorically; I know, it's the US's)

btw:
I think I've agreed with all that's been said above about the "crime" part of biofuels displacing food....

But why does nobody talk about producing biofuels on marginal (poor, unused) soils. That is also an option; we're not just limited to a food vs. fuel choice.

Growing on marginal soils (providing jobs for poor poeples and refugees) will also sequester much more carbon than simply replacing food with fuel. Win-win!

http://ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=42982
"Planting more trees is the only long-term solution to the wood shortage -- and CARE does have a small nursery at Iridimi where two shifts of around 20 workers -- all refugees -- tend thousands of tiny seedlings. But many of the young trees die from a lack of water, Djimdim says, and even those that survive might need three years before they start producing firewood."

Now as a scientist, I ask why "the young trees die from a lack of water?"
Isn't this a refugee camp, on marginal soil, with lots of human wastes ...needing processing?
...organic processing, ...by growing biomass ...for fuel ...to trade for food, etc.

Am I missing something here, or is everyone else?

Biofuels offer a way to restore the land and support populations; but yes, they have to be done the right way; not replacing existing arable land and food supplies.
That truly is a crime.

...but to repeat, there is a third option:
Biofuels offer a way to restore the land and support populations.

How can you blame the U.S. for the poor condition of the U.N.? We started the U.N. and gave it property in the most important city in the world, New York. It's all you third world countries like Germany and Australia who've ruined the U.N. with your insistence on a vote when you really don’t matter. jk

Aside from the one line remark about the UN (which could be a new topic)...

Any thoughts on the other 15-20 lines about other options?

re:
Restoring degraded lands, and not using arable land,
should be the focus when growing biofuel crops.

~

There is a tree which I think is called the Jathropa tree or something like that, and it produces a fruit with a pit inside that can be turned into a diesel fuel alternative. The tree has an advantage of growing in poor soil conditions, and growing rather quickly, but has a disadvantage of only producing about one gallon of fuel a year per tree.

Thanks Mike,
Just a few hours ago someone else told me I had some neat ideas too. ...a good day.

Maybe you missed this July post:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=27312#Post27312

"...and on top of that...!

Algae can produce up to 8000 gallons of biodiesel/acre. That's got to be better than a hydroxide-based scrubber, for soaking up CO2; don't you think?

http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/01/28/story4.html?b=1201496400%5E1581925



...also from the article....
"And algae is prolific when it comes to oil production.
Experts estimate the organisms can make 8,000 to 10,000 gallons of oil per year per acre, compared to 50 or 60 gallons per year using soybeans, 20 gallons using corn, and 150 gallons using canola or rapeseeds."

p.s. I've seen numbers more like 100-400 gallons for corn, and up to 2000 gallons for coppiced poplar or willow; but still that's no 8,000 to 10,000 gallons/acre!
===end post copy===

p.s.
Mike, re: the problem with sandy soils....
They can be converted to rich, sequestering, arable soils by the application of composted manures, other wastes, and bio-chars.
...and water (and care).

Thanks again,
~

Biofuel is defined as solid, liquid or gas fuel derived from recently dead biological material and is distinguished from fossil fuels, which are derived from long dead biological material. Theoretically, biofuels can be produced from any (biological) carbon source; although, the most common sources are photosynthetic plants. Various plants and plant-derived materials are used for biofuel manufacturing. Globally, biofuels are most commonly used to power vehicles, heating homes cornstoves and cooking stoves. Biofuel industries are expanding in Europe, Asia and the Americas.
_____________________________________________________________

[quote=Mike Kremer]

Here we are Proof,... that 'Biofuel crops' are a CRIME.
I knew this would come up sooner or later.
"The Final Proof that Food, Fuels Cars, not Stomachs"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/22/quarter-us-grain-biofuels-food

And its barely 2 years since this post was started