Those of you who know my posts may find this a bit off-kilter so...
The idea of claiming zero emissions is bullsh!t.
If you can see it, it's reflecting light - an emission. If it gives off heat, it's emitting heat. If is takes in water and puts out vapor, it's emitting vapor. If you plug it into the wall and it changes a battery or a hydroxy cell - it will eventually emit heat, motion or otherwise. If it's got a transformer in it, it's going to be emitting electromagnetic radiation.
[ Low Emissions ] is the better way to go.
Claiming zero emissions is a quick way to a false claims suit. Whether in fact or in theory - there is no such thing as zero emissions unless one is talking about the void itself...which itself seems like nothing more than an idea.
( energy star is a branding scam? )
lets just use the *clean * burning coal(what a fuking joke) obama is talking about, not the solar he talked about and pretty much for got about.
my beloved displacer of bullshtt.....
whatever, this job, is usefull to make growing a salad!
the right definition of emissions zero, would have to be to zero permanent modifications effects;
therefore to exclude:
a) all the emissions that are inert, regard to the physiological beingness, direct and indirect;
b) all the emissions that are absorbed back with the change of temporary induced physical state….
nothing simple...
but the precision, not always goes well, because it involves a unclear explanation, than the person W/out a technical knowlenge, can not to absorbs
Quote from: jadaro2600 on March 10, 2009, 04:39:12 AM
Those of you who know my posts may find this a bit off-kilter so...
The idea of claiming zero emissions is bullsh!t.
If you can see it, it's reflecting light - an emission. If it gives off heat, it's emitting heat. If is takes in water and puts out vapor, it's emitting vapor. If you plug it into the wall and it changes a battery or a hydroxy cell - it will eventually emit heat, motion or otherwise. If it's got a transformer in it, it's going to be emitting electromagnetic radiation.
[ Low Emissions ] is the better way to go.
Claiming zero emissions is a quick way to a false claims suit. Whether in fact or in theory - there is no such thing as zero emissions unless one is talking about the void itself...which itself seems like nothing more than an idea.
( energy star is a branding scam? )
Hi sir
how about cold electricity?
and also the water fuel they talk about?
what do you think sir?
otits
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on March 10, 2009, 05:48:48 AM
Hi sir
how about cold electricity?
and also the water fuel they talk about?
what do you think sir?
otits
As soon as something becomes 'zero emissions' it becomes non existent.
Cold electricity? ..is there a such thing? And is it defined by conjecture?
A water fuel tank is just a thing - what uses it as fuel?
All transfers of energy are emissions, whether they are from one side of the machine to another. The idea of 'zero emissions' is just silly.
We need emissions in order for their to be 'work done' ... and yes, the idea of 'clean burning' is just as asinine as the idea of 'zero emissions'. This is especially true for coal, where they gerrymander the CO2 back into the ground - essentially sweeping it under the rug.
Who's to say that CO2 won't come flooding back out one day killing millions in the low lying areas around it. Or is that their plan?
the rise of CO2 into the atmosfhere is became from 250 PPM to 350 PPM;
+ 100 PPMilion = 1 : 10 000,
then if a pressure of atm, is 1Kg every cm2 (as an BAR)
1: 10000 is also say then 1Kg of CO2 into un Mt2.... math!!
but a CARBON is a 333gr a M2 because the atomic weight is the same for O (667gr) and C....
that means that a Kg/Mt2 of wood (333gr of C) is the necessity to put
into solid state the +C in the slice of air upplaced ....
the ONLY solution is: to save water necessity for encrease the biomass ,
and don't leave that all the rain came to river when raining;
and, stop a desertification whit a longtime live tree.... rise the TOT of biomass into the word!
wait, and you will see at NEW protocoll of Kopenaghen 2012 ,
that is the water THE SOLUTION !!
""This is especially true for coal, where they gerrymander the CO2 back into the ground - essentially sweeping it under the rug.
Who's to say that CO2 won't come flooding back out one day killing millions in the low lying areas around it. Or is that their plan..."
TRUE, this is a crazy handS, the energy wasted for do this IS ONLY a financing feedback to oil company, THEY....:
WHATEVER, a CO2 is not an emissionsfor US :o....unbelivable, but true !!
The reason they haven't paid much attention to the CO2 is because we exhale it ...moving against CO2 is like moving against breathing - eventually they have to tell us to breath less or plant more trees or grass ..or whatever.
Now they pump it back into the ground - and they get a subsidy like corn farmers.
How about we all just let our yards go out of control, more leaf surface areas and the current housing crisis.
Quote from: jadaro2600 on March 10, 2009, 07:21:27 AM
As soon as something becomes 'zero emissions' it becomes non existent.
Cold electricity? ..is there a such thing? And is it defined by conjecture?
A water fuel tank is just a thing - what uses it as fuel?
All transfers of energy are emissions, whether they are from one side of the machine to another. The idea of 'zero emissions' is just silly.
We need emissions in order for their to be 'work done' ... and yes, the idea of 'clean burning' is just as asinine as the idea of 'zero emissions'. This is especially true for coal, where they gerrymander the CO2 back into the ground - essentially sweeping it under the rug.
Who's to say that CO2 won't come flooding back out one day killing millions in the low lying areas around it. Or is that their plan?
Hi sir
i' ve read some of teslas work it says there that he perfected the cold electricity in his later works. maybe it was just suppressed.
and i beleive you sir but maybe they mean something different in zero emission and that is even there is an emission it is not harmful to the environment.
maybe they mean zero emission to harmful emission ;D
God bless
otits
Quote from: jadaro2600 on March 10, 2009, 07:21:27 AM
We need emissions in order for their to be 'work done' ... and yes, the idea of 'clean burning' is just as asinine as the idea of 'zero emissions'. This is especially true for coal, where they gerrymander the CO2 back into the ground - essentially sweeping it under the rug.
Who's to say that CO2 won't come flooding back out one day killing millions in the low lying areas around it. Or is that their plan?
hi sir
i've read that they shifted to C02 because it does'nt destroy the ozone layer of the earth. 8)
God bless
otits
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on March 10, 2009, 08:35:36 PM
Hi sir
i' ve read some of teslas work it says there that he perfected the cold electricity in his later works. maybe it was just suppressed.
and i beleive you sir but maybe they mean something different in zero emission and that is even there is an emission it is not harmful to the environment.
maybe they mean zero emission to harmful emission ;D
God bless
otits
Less harmful emissions is also connotative - there's the 'dirty electricity' crew out there ...and the anti-CFL's.
Tesla's cold electricity was essentially experiments in high voltage?
Quote from: jadaro2600 on March 10, 2009, 04:39:12 AM
The idea of claiming zero emissions is bullsh!t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_emissions
Zero emission refers to an engine, motor, or other energy source, that emits no waste products that pollutes the environment or disrupts the climate.
The idea that wikipedia defined it isn't substantially different - it still remains a misnomer.
It's like saying "Same Difference". or irregardless.
You referred to something giving off light as an emission. That's true, but it's not accurate in the context of what zero emissions is about - reducing impact on the environment - which is why I posted the definition.
Hi sir
i think earth rotation is one proof of zero emision 8)
and also magnetic profelled motor 8)
what do you think sir ?
They both make energy without emission 8)
God bless ;D
otits
Heat and motion are emissions. ...for one thing - the "low emissions" phrase is the idea.
If it were up to me, the whole emissions thing would be defined some other way.
Emissions of heat are not accounted for.