I'm NOT a celestial scientist, BUT I've heard enough learned scientists discuss rationally the origins & read enough literature to know that science has dated the physical Earth at more than 2 billion years age. And, there's been plenty of dialogue even for a lay person to understand that the sun has enough "fuel" remaining to provide us with light for at least ONE million more years. And, what about fossil remains & other artifacts unearthed which have been carbon-dated well in excess of 100,000 years? I supposed they were flown in to support some esoteric theory ....
Since I'll not have to concern myself with any near term flame-out, nor will my heirs, I think it's not worth further discussion. And, one PhD in the mix, does not a quorum make!
"Rational science has it that Mommy Earth is roughly 2 BILLION years old,..."
Hmmmmm.... I wonder just how BIG the continually consumed Sun would have been 2 BILLION years ago? Big enough to toast the Earth? Big enough to have occupied the space where the Earth now orbits?
According to an article called, The Sun Is Shrinking by Russell Akridge, Ph.D, "The change in the size of the Sun over the past 400 years is important in the study of origins. Over 100 thousand years these changes would have accumulated so much that life of any kind on the Earth would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, all life on the Earth must be less than 100 thousand years old. The Sun, 20 million years ago, would have been so large that it would have engulfed the Earth. The Earth cannot be more than 20 million years old." (Bold added)
Rational science has it that Mommy Earth is roughly 2 BILLION years old, and since we recently celebrated Mother's Day, it is fitting that we owe her a debt of gratitude for spinning on her axis, lo these many years.
IF it takes a cataclysmic event, or natural attrition, or human intervention (ala global war) to "readjust" systems to where they should be, then so be it.
And, to those who claim we have only a short time before all the fossil fuel is gone, I say, BUNK!! This concept is nothing more than a political football, which some have deigned to be passed from one generation to another. So frequently we are witness to confirmed science giving us details of vast new finds of "oil". I would venture to guess that in the ceentury plus of consuming fossil fuel for power, we have not yet put a dent into the total supply, but that's just a hunch, NOT an accurate scientific pronouncement.
Yes, I agree the Earth will do just fine. I'm not so sure about human comfort. We're pumping a lot of carbon into the air. If the permafrost melts, we'll see tons of methane. We don't know how this will affect human life on the planet.
OLD, you are completely correct. The Earth will survive just fine no matter what we do. The problem is that this infestation of humans on the surface might not fare too well if we screw things up badly enough.
Then things will self correct with a lot fewer humans and other creatures around. But the Earth will be trucking along just fine.
MOMMY Earth has been self-inflicting wounds to her body eons before you had a nose. To rationally deduce that mankind is going to kill her, is just plain naive!!!! Long before your ancestors roamed this planet, there were massive upheavals in climate, etc. Who you gonna blame on these occurrence? .... the dinosaurs? Get real!!!!
In the 1970s, the fringe scientists were predicting a new Ice Age. When that failed to materialize, they concluded that a 0.1 degree rise in average temperature was man's fault, and we were headed for a "hell" armageddon. And, so, what's it gonna be? Wait another couple of years ... you'll see icebergs in NY harbor!!!!
Important points Bob. I keep thinking about all this energy wasted by converting it to heat, then using energy to run the cooling system, pump, fan(s), etc. Then there is the loss due to noise that must be muffled. I work at an airfield with F5 and F15s, and thinking while they are launching "if all that noise could only be converted into useful thrust they would have a super fighter". I have been told that the F35s are twice as loud, yet not twice the performance.
And as you point out, the best combustion is at a perfect air/fuel mix, but I know this will at least burn the valves and melt the pistons. As I recall California was worried about hydrocarbons from rich mixes so they mandated a lean mix. The result was the nitrogen byproducts.
Maybe a perfecting the "muscle metal" heat engine? It's easy for me to throw stones as I'm an electronics guy, not a ME, so I probably should say sorry in advance.
I seldom get it right but this is how I see it: Anywhere between 20 and 40% of an ICE engines cooling comes from the incoming fuel mixture - thus excess fuel is needed to keep the engine from self-destructing. Remember the ceramic engine toted a few years ago as the next-big-thing? Once the fuel mixture is leaned out to optimize economy, the combustion temperature soars, causing excessive NOx. Vehicles using ICEs need enough acceleration to satisfy the market-place, but need to run efficiently at constant speed crusing. ICEs have very poor torque at low speed so they must be overly large to meet the acceleration requirements - thus the apparent benefit of electrics, torque is maximum at stall. So it would appear the perfect vehicle for today's market is a hybrid diesel/electric. The engine would run at constant RPM, torque would be provided by an electric motor with supercapacitors for low end acceleration with the diesel engine running at max efficiency when at cruising speed. It seems the compromises needed to meet the somewhat arbitrary requirements of Congress and the even more fickle needs of the buying public, mixed with the current state-of-the-art in ICEs have created our current slate of 5,000 pound pick-up trucks that carry nothing but can go zero to sixty in 8 seconds mixed with 40 MPG economy vehicles that can go from zero to sixty eventually.
It's not that something was lost but that something was gained - weight. With increasing government regulation comes added mass. Door beams, air bags, more stringent crash test standards - the list goes on - all add additional weight to the vehicle.
You are correct that turbocharging allows higher power from a smaller displacement engine (higher specific output). This can cause more spirited driving , therefore defeating the purpose, but don't forget that one of the most critical cost variables in long haul trucking is fuel economy and I don't think there's been an over the road semi built in the past three or four decades that wasn't turbocharged. Keep your right foot out of it and the smaller turbo engine will almost always be more economical than a larger displacement engine with the same power output.
We looked at a number of sources to determine this year's greenest cars, from KBB to automotive trade magazines to environmental organizations. These 14 cars emerged as being great at either stretching fuel or reducing carbon footprint.
Healthcare might seem to be an unlikely target application for the Internet of Things technology, but recent developments show small ways that big-data is going to make an impact on patient care moving into the future.
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is