My Modest Proposal to End Global Warming, Revitalize General Aviation, and End Our Dependence on Foreign Oil

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:22:54 -0600, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2007-10-14 00:39:27 -0600, said:


Of course, those who still live out in the sticks will need some other
way to get around. This will be the rail lines, just like in the old
days, or they will fly, as God intended. New airports will spring up
like flowers after a rain. Flight instructors will be busy. The little
planes will no longer bother anybody because everyone will realize they
are necessary. Aircraft manufacturers will finally have the incentive
to innovate and produce airplanes in reasonable numbers.


If by little planes you mean 4 seaters and such, then I doubt that
they will ever become reliable means of private transport like the
car. Even with an instrument rating it would require a high level of

They could with the work NASA is doing, BUT *affordable* is a horse of
a different color.

skill, confidence and time commitment on part of the pilot to use a
little airplane regularly for commuting. Besides, no matter how many
airports spring up, there still remains the problem of getting from
the airport to the work place and back.

It would be possible even with today's technology to build an airplane
that could be programmed, or automated to fly from point A to B and
far easier than with cars. The resulting aircraft would, or could
require far less skill than required of today's pilots.

The most difficult to implement and expensive parts lie at each end
of the trip as well as with traffic control.

OTOH like anything that says "airplane" on it, I don't see it becoming
economical.
If more and more employers and employees work together to find ways to
work remotely from home, it would reduce automobile usage to an
extent.

The question is how many could routinely do this and to what extent
would it reduce automobile usage? When you get right down to it, only
a small percent of the work force can work from home. Even office and
data management work can not all be done from home. Yes, a lot of
communications can take place via the Internet/electronically, but
there still needs to be a face-to-face interaction between workers as
well as workers and management.

I used to do a bit more than half my work from home. (Sys admin,
Developmental Analyst, and finally project manager) HOWEVER that
didn't result in less driving. I spent less time at the plants and
corporate headquarters, but I still had to be there nearly every day.
I had to be there often enough they owed me over 90 days of vacation
when I retired.


Nevertheless, NASA is committed to developing the advanced technology
to make flying an airplane as easy and safe as driving a car, if not
more so. Modern glass panel avionics are one part of that. The Adam is
based on the ideas developed in this program.

It is going to happen -- if GA manages to survive until then.

I have no doubt they can do it. It could be done with today's
technology, but I have my doubts that it can be made practical and
economical.

Roger (K8RI)

In article ,
Morgans wrote:

"Edward A. Falk" wrote

... With solar panels on the roof to charge it,
it becomes pretty green.

Unless you park it for a few weeks between uses, solar cells don't come
close to providing enough power to make it a viable charging option.

Ooops. My bad. I meant the roof of my house.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

"Edward A. Falk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Morgans wrote:

"Edward A. Falk" wrote

... With solar panels on the roof to charge it,
it becomes pretty green.

Unless you park it for a few weeks between uses, solar cells don't come
close to providing enough power to make it a viable charging option.

Ooops. My bad. I meant the roof of my house.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

So you charge it at night from the solar panels?

Or perhaps you charge batteries in the house on good weather days, and
then transfer to your car at night?

Sunlight
(with losses) Solar panel on house
(with losses) Battery in house
(with losses) Battery in car
(with losses) motor.

This is pretty green?

How many good weather days will it take to drive to work once?

Al G

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
suggests the sun has no effect on climate.

Or, that we we cannot presently correlate sun and climate. Or there is
some interfering data swamping a comparatively small effect.

If not the sun, how about our dirt? It lives, excretes, and is deep,
to boot. Who understands zero gee fission? we are ice on a fireball.
We are the snowball surrounding hell, walking around on a little
insulating frozen rock floating on a lake of magma.

Cheap renewable power? Geothermal, solar steam, wind, tidal.

Real expense? Transmission, overpopulation?

Private planes to eliminate highway congestion? The highway, be it
asphalt or air, is no more than an extension of the parking lot. Are
we gonna have sky garages 20 floors tall and elevator parking for
excess idle Mohler sky machinery, or are we gonna take air taxis? How
many pedestrians squashed by crashing cabs before we try dirigible
busses, or living with parachutes in our office?

I see city buildings before commuter conveniences. Land is limited. I
see deep wells for Icelandic power, even air conditioning. I see tube
trains surrounding volcanic artifacts linking ring of fire hot spots.
I count the calories produced by cities in their warm spots with their
reflective sky scrapers and steam pipes warmed by moving lightweight
reflectors.

I see wind power to produce compressed air, liquid nitrogen and
ultimately, hydrogen to be burned on site to put power into the grid
when needed.

Can liquid nitrogen be used to operate a Stirling cycle engine or
turbine warmed by ambient air? What is it's energy density next to
gasoline or hydrogen? What about it's seasonal efficiency?

Our oil problems are really political marketing.

Terry K

"Terry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
suggests the sun has no effect on climate.

I guess they never heard of "seasons".

This paper refutes the above paper:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_lockwood.pdf

On 31 Oct 2007 15:16:07 -0700, Terry K wrote:


http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
suggests the sun has no effect on climate.

Or, that we we cannot presently correlate sun and climate. Or there is
some interfering data swamping a comparatively small effect.

The sun's effect is easily measured and has been for decades.
It's done by a method called the "pan evaporation rate". The
inconsistency is the pan evaporation rate has been going down for at
least the last three decades or more. That would indicate the amount
of energy from the sun reaching the earth has been steadily dropping
for over 30 years. A Google search should give the process in detail.


If not the sun, how about our dirt? It lives, excretes, and is deep,
to boot. Who understands zero gee fission? we are ice on a fireball.
We are the snowball surrounding hell, walking around on a little
insulating frozen rock floating on a lake of magma.

Cheap renewable power? Geothermal, solar steam, wind, tidal.

Real expense? Transmission, overpopulation?

Private planes to eliminate highway congestion? The highway, be it
asphalt or air, is no more than an extension of the parking lot. Are
we gonna have sky garages 20 floors tall and elevator parking for
excess idle Mohler sky machinery, or are we gonna take air taxis? How
many pedestrians squashed by crashing cabs before we try dirigible
busses, or living with parachutes in our office?

None of the sky routes are economical.
A quick check will show some high rises in NY do have parachutes for
emergencies although I'd not think they'd be practical.


I see city buildings before commuter conveniences. Land is limited. I
see deep wells for Icelandic power, even air conditioning. I see tube
trains surrounding volcanic artifacts linking ring of fire hot spots.
I count the calories produced by cities in their warm spots with their
reflective sky scrapers and steam pipes warmed by moving lightweight
reflectors.

I see wind power to produce compressed air, liquid nitrogen and

Liquid nitrogen is very inefficient as it takes a lot of energy to
produce and the only energy you get out is the expansion from
evaporation and expansion.

ultimately, hydrogen to be burned on site to put power into the grid
when needed.

Hydrogen too is expensive to produce on a large scale and remain a
viable economic alternative to gas, expensive to store and expensive
to transport although not nearly as dangerous as most think. It also
takes more energy to produce the gas than you can get back out of it.
Liquefying it takes even more. However Hydrogen contains far more
energy than liquid Nitrogen as you can use Hydrogen in combustion and
produce a fair amount of clean energy.


Can liquid nitrogen be used to operate a Stirling cycle engine or
turbine warmed by ambient air? What is it's energy density next to
gasoline or hydrogen? What about it's seasonal efficiency?

Compared to combustible fuels it's very poor although I don't have the
numbers right at my fingertips. Gasoline is considerably higher than
Hydrogen due to all the carbon.


Our oil problems are really political marketing.

Only partially. Unstable sources, unfriendly sources, poorly
accessible sources, long and expensive transportation routes, all lead
to price sensitivity. It along with coal is also a big source of
pollution.

Roger (K8RI)

Terry K

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:48:16 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote:


"Terry K" wrote in message
roups.com...

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf
suggests the sun has no effect on climate.

I guess they never heard of "seasons".

This paper refutes the above paper:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_lockwood.pdf

And this paper too appears to have some flaws. It ignores the Pan
evaporation rate which has shown the amount of energy from the sun
reaching the earth's surface has been going down for decades.

Also it denies the major effect of CO2 while current scientists have
overwhelmingly accepted CO2 as the prime driver.

Still in the end the ONLY source for earth's energy we see does come
from the sun with the exception of a small amount of leakage from the
earth's core.

Both papers have some serious conflicts with today's accepted
theories.

Roger (K8RI)