On the Flightdeck during Aviation Disasters

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 19th, 2014

Technology 101

USAir Flight 427 on Approach to Pittsburgh flew through Wake Vortex and Lost Control

Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 search is still ongoing.  We’re seemingly no closer to understanding what happened than before.  There has been a lot of speculation.  And rebuttals to that speculation.  With many people saying things like why didn’t the crew radio?  Why didn’t they report a problem?  While others are saying that it is proof for their speculative theory.  That they were either under duress, had no time or were in on it and, therefore, went silent.  So what is it like on the flightdeck when something happens to an aircraft?  Well, because of past CVR (cockpit voice recorder) transcripts from previous accidents, we can get an idea.

On September 8, 1994, USAir Flight 427 flew into the wake vortex (little tornados trailing from a large plane’s wingtip) of a Delta Airlines Boeing 727 ahead of it.  This sideways tornado disrupted the airflow over the control surfaces of the USAir 737.  Disrupting it from level flight, causing it to roll left.  The autopilot tried to correct the roll as the 737 passed through the wake vortex core.  Causing more disruption of the airflow over the control surfaces.  The first officer then tried to stabilize the plane.  Control of the aircraft continued to deteriorate.  We pick up the CVR transcript just before this event (see 8 September 1994 – USAir 427).  CAUTION: The following recounts the final moments of Flight 427 and some may find it disturbing.

CAM-1 = Captain
CAM-2 = First Officer
CAM-3 = Cockpit Area Mike (cabin sounds and flight attendants)
RDO-1 = Radio Communications (Captain)
APP: Pittsburgh Approach

APP: USAir 427, turn left heading one zero zero. Traffic will be one to two o’clock, six miles, northbound Jetstream climbing out of thirty-three for five thousand.
RDO-1: We’re looking for the traffic, turning to one zero zero, USAir 427.
CAM-3: [Sound in engines increasing rpms]
CAM-2: Oh, yeah. I see the Jetstream.
CAM-1: Sheez…
CAM-2: zuh?
CAM-3: [Sound of thump; sound like ‘clickety-click’; again the thumping sound, but quieter than before]
CAM-1: Whoa … hang on.
CAM-3: [Sound of increasing rpms in engines; sound of clickety-click; sound of trim wheel turning at autopilot trim speed; sound similar to pilot grunting; sound of wailing horn similar to autopilot disconnect warning]
CAM-1: Hang on.
CAM-2: Oh, Shit.
CAM-1: Hang on. What the hell is this?
CAM-3: [Sound of stick shaker; sound of altitude alert]
CAM-3: Traffic. Traffic.
CAM-1: What the…
CAM-2: Oh…
CAM-1: Oh God, Oh God…
APP: USAir…
RDO-1: 427, emergency!
CAM-2: [Sound of scream]
CAM-1: Pull…
CAM-2: Oh…
CAM-1: Pull… pull…
CAM-2: God…
CAM-1: [Sound of screaming]
CAM-2: No… END OF TAPE.

At 19:03:01 in the flight there was a full left rudder deflection.  The plane yawed (twisted like a weathervane) to the left.  A second later it rolled 30 degrees left.  This caused the aircraft to pitch down.  Where it continued to roll.  The plane rolled upside down and pitched further nose-down.  The pilots never recovered.  The plane flew nearly straight into the ground at 261kts.  The crash investigated focused on the rudder.  Boeing redesigned it.  Pilots since have received more training on rudder inputs.  And flight data recorders now record additional rudder data.  This incident shows how fast a plane can go from normal flight to a crash.  The captain had time to radio one warning.  But within seconds from the beginning of the event the plane crashed.  Illustrating how little time pilots have to identify problems and correct them.

An In-Flight Deployment of a Thrust Reverser breaks up Lauda Air Flight 004

A plane wants to fly.  It is inherently stable.  As long as enough air flows over its wings.  Jet engines provide thrust that push an airplane’s wings through the air.  The curved surfaces of the wings interacting with the air passing over it creates lift.  As long as a plane’s jet engines push the wing through the air a plane will fly.  On May 26, 1991, something happened to Lauda Air Flight 004 to disrupt the smooth flow of air over the Boeing 767’s wings.  Something that isn’t supposed to happen during flight.  But only when a plane lands.  Reverse thrust.  As a plane lands the pilot reverses the thrust on the jet engines to slow the airplane.  Unfortunately for Flight 004, one of its jet engines deployed its thrust reverser while the plane was at about 31,000 feet.  We pick up the CVR transcript just as they receive a warning indication that the reverse thruster could deploy (see 26 May 1991 – Lauda 004).  CAUTION: The following recounts the final moments of Flight 004 and some may find it disturbing.

23.21:21 – [Warning light indicated]

23.21:21 FO: Shit.

23.21:24 CA: That keeps, that’s come on.

23.22:28 FO: So we passed transition altitude one-zero-one-three

23.22:30 CA: OK.

23.23:57 CA: What’s it say in there about that, just ah…

23.24:00 FO: (reading from quick reference handbook) Additional system failures may cause in-flight deployment. Expect normal reverse operation after landing.

23.24:11 CA: OK.

23.24:12 CA: Just, ah, let’s see.

23.24:36 CA: OK.

23.25:19 FO: Shall I ask the ground staff?

23.25:22 CA: What’s that?

23.25:23 FO: Shall I ask the technical men?

23.25:26 CA: Ah, you can tell ’em it, just it’s, it’s, it’s, just ah, no, ah, it’s probably ah wa… ah moisture or something ’cause it’s not just, oh, it’s coming on and off.

23.25:39 FO: Yeah.

23.25:40 CA: But, ah, you know it’s a … it doesn’t really, it’s just an advisory thing, I don’t ah …

23.25:55 CA: Could be some moisture in there or somethin’.

23.26:03 FO: Think you need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.

23.26:06 CA: What’s that?

23.26:08 FO: You need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.

23.26:10 CA: OK.

23.26:12 CA: OK.

23.26:50 FO: (starts adding up figures in German)

23.30:09 FO: (stops adding figures)

23.30:37 FO: Ah, reverser’s deployed.

23.30:39 – [sound of snap]

23.30:41 CA: Jesus Christ!

23.30:44 – [sound of four caution tones]

23.30:47 – [sound of siren warning starts]

23.30:48 – [sound of siren warning stops]

23.30:52 – [sound of siren warning starts and continues until the recording ends]

23.30:53 CA: Here, wait a minute!

23.30:58 CA: Damn it!

23.31:05 – [sound of bang]

[End of Recording]

The 767 Emergency/Malfunction Checklist stated that upon receiving the warning indicator ADDITIONAL system faults MAY cause an in-flight deployment of the thrust reverser.  But that one warning indication was NOT expected to cause any problem with the thrust reversers in stopping the plane after landing.  At that point it was not an emergency.  So they radioed no emergency.  About 10 minutes later the thrust reverser on the left engine deployed in flight.  When it did the left engine pulled the left wing back as the right engine pushed the right wing forward.  Disrupting the airflow over the left wing.  Causing it to stall.  And the twisting force around the yaw axis created such great stresses on the airframe that the aircraft broke up in the air.  The event happened so fast from thrust reverser deployment to the crash (less than 30 seconds) the crew had no time to radio an emergency before crashing.

Fire in the Cargo Hold brought down ValuJet Flight 592

One of the most dangerous things in aviation is fire.  Fire can fill the plane with smoke.  It can incapacitate the crew.  It can burn through electric wiring.  It can burn through control cables.  And it can burn through structural components.  A plane flying at altitude must land immediately on the detection of fire/smoke.  Because they can’t pull over and get out of the plane.  They have to get the plane on the ground.  And the longer it takes to do that the more damage the fire can do.  On May 11, 1996, ValuJet Flight 592 took off from Miami International Airport.  Shortly into the flight they detected smoke inside the McDonnell Douglas DC-9.  We pick up the CVR transcript just before they detected fire aboard (see 11 May 1996 – ValuJet 591).  CAUTION: The following recounts the final moments of Flight 592 and some may find it disturbing.

CAM — Cockpit area microphone voice or sound source
RDO — Radio transmissions from Critter 592
ALL — Sound source heard on all channels
INT — Transmissions over aircraft interphone system
Tower — Radio transmission from Miami tower or approach
UNK — Radio transmission received from unidentified source
PA — Transmission made over aircraft public address system
-1 — Voice identified as Pilot-in-Command (PIC)
-2 — Voice identified as Co-Pilot
-3 — Voice identified as senior female flight attendant
-? — Voice unidentified
* — Unintelligible word
@ — Non pertinent word
# — Expletive
% — Break in continuity
( ) — Questionable insertion
[ ] — Editorial insertion
… — Pause

14:09:36 PA-2 flight attendants, departure check please.

14:09:44 CAM-1 we’re *** turbulence

14:09:02 CAM [sound of click]

14:10:03 CAM [sound of chirp heard on cockpit area microphone channel with simultaneous beep on public address/interphone channel]

14:10:07 CAM-1 what was that?

14:10:08 CAM-2 I don’t know.

14:10:12 CAM-1 *** (’bout to lose a bus?)

14:10:15 CAM-1 we got some electrical problem.

14:10:17 CAM-2 yeah.

14:10:18 CAM-2 that battery charger’s kickin’ in. ooh, we gotta.

14:10:20 CAM-1 we’re losing everything.

14:10:21 Tower Critter five-nine-two, contact Miami center on one-thirty-two-forty-five, so long.

14:10:22 CAM-1 we need, we need to go back to Miami.

14:10:23 CAM [sounds of shouting from passenger cabin]

14:10:25 CAM-? fire, fire, fire, fire [from female voices in cabin]

14:10:27 CAM-? we’re on fire, we’re on fire. [from male voice]

14:10:28 CAM [sound of tone similar to landing gear warning horn for three seconds]

14:10:29 Tower Critter five-ninety-two contact Miami center, one-thirty-two-forty-five.

14:10:30 CAM-1 ** to Miami.

14:10:32 RDO-2 Uh, five-ninety-two needs immediate return to Miami.

14:10:35 Tower Critter five-ninety-two, uh, roger, turn left heading two-seven-zero.  Descend and maintain seven-thousand.

14:10:36 CAM [sounds of shouting from passenger cabin subsides]

14:10:39 RDO-2 Two-seven-zero, seven-thousand, five-ninety-two.

14:10:41 Tower What kind of problem are you havin’?

14:10:42 CAM [sound of horn]

14:10:44 CAM-1 fire

14:10:46 RDO-2 Uh, smoke in the cockp … smoke in the cabin.

14:10:47 Tower Roger.

14:10:49 CAM-1 what altitude?

14:10:49 CAM-2 seven thousand.

14:10:52 CAM [sound similar to cockpit door moving]

14:10:57 CAM [sound of six chimes similar to cabin service interphone]

14:10:58 CAM-3 OK, we need oxygen, we can’t get oxygen back here.

14:11:00 INT [sound similar to microphone being keyed only on Interphone channel]

14:11:02 CAM-3 *ba*, is there a way we could test them? [sound of clearing her voice]

14:11:07 Tower Critter five-ninety-two, when able to turn left heading two-five-zero.  Descend and maintain five-thousand.

14:11:08 CAM [sound of chimes similar to cabin service interphone]

14:11:10 CAM [sounds of shouting from passenger cabin]

14:11:11 RDO-2 Two-five-zero seven-thousand.

14:11:12 CAM-3 completely on fire.

14:11:14 CAM [sounds of shouting from passenger cabin subsides]

14:11:19 CAM-2 outta nine.

14:11:19 CAM [sound of intermittant horn]

14:11:21 CAM [sound similar to loud rushing air]

14:11:38 CAM-2 Critter five-ninety-two, we need the, uh, closest airport available …

14:11:42 Tower Critter five-ninety-two, they’re going to be standing by for you. You can plan runway one two to dolpin now.

14:11:45 one minute and twelve second interruption in CVR recording]

14:11:46 RDO-? Need radar vectors.

14:11:49 Tower critter five ninety two turn left heading one four zero 14:11:52

RDO-? one four zero

14:12:57 CAM [sound of tone similar to power interruption to CVR]

14:12:57 CAM [sound similar to loud rushing air]

14:12:57 ALL [sound of repeating tones similar to CVR self test signal start and continue]

14:12:58 Tower critter five ninety two contact miami approach on corrections no you you just keep my frequency

14:13:11 CAM [interruption of unknown duration in CVR recording]

14:13:15 CAM [sounds of repeating tones similar to recorder self-test signal starts and continues, rushing air.]

14:13:18 Tower critter five ninety two you can uh turn left heading one zero zero and join the runway one two localizer at miami

14:13:25: End of CVR recording.

14:13:27 Tower critter five ninety two descend and maintain three thousand

14:13:43 Tower critter five ninety two opa locka airports aout ah twelve o’clock at fifteen miles

[End of Recording]

The cargo hold of this DC-9 was airtight.  This was its fire protection.  Because any fire would quickly consume any oxygen in the hold and burn itself out.  But also loaded in Flight 592’s hold were some oxygen generators.  The things that produce oxygen for passengers to breathe through masks that fall down during a loss of pressurization.  These produce oxygen through a chemical reaction that produces an enormous amount of heat.  These were hazardous equipment that were forbidden to be transported on the DC-9.  Some confusion in labeling led some to believe they were ’empty’ canisters when they were actually ‘expired’.  The crash investigation concluded that one of these were jostled on the ground and activated.  It produced an oxygen rich environment in the cargo hold.  And enough heat to start a smoldering fire.  Which soon turned into a raging inferno that burned through the cabin floor.  And through the flightdeck floor.  Either burning through all flight controls.  Or incapacitating the crew.  Sending the plane into a nose dive into the everglades in less than 4 minutes from the first sign of trouble.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

All Tobacco is Bad for you Except the Kind that can Help you Get the Youth Vote—Marijuana

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2013

Week in Review

Cigarettes will kill you.  And are addictive.  Which makes that killing you thing worse.  Governments have sued Big Tobacco for all the heart disease, lung cancer and emphysema their products caused.  Smoking is so bad for you that we’ve banned smoking in all public places.  We’ve also banned second-hand smoke.  And are discussing ways to band third-hand smoke (the stink of smoking left behind).  We ostracize smokers today.  And shame them.  Except in the movies.  Where people still love to smoke.  And they make it look so cool that kids who see them smoke want to smoke, too.

Apart from Hollywood, though, there is an outright war on smoking.  It’s just so bad that governments are doing everything they can to get people to quit smoking.  And prevent them from starting to smoke in the first place (see Fewer teens smoke but more use e-cigarettes, hookahs by Wendy Koch posted 11/14/2013 on USA Today).

Fewer U.S. teens are smoking cigarettes, but more are getting a nicotine fix from hookahs and electronic cigarettes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports today…

The CDC attributed the increase to lower prices for these products as well as their increased marketing and availability, and the perception that they are safer alternatives to cigarettes. It also found a slight uptick in high school students who smoked pipes and cigars, including the little ones that look like cigarettes but cost a lot less and come in candy flavors.

“This report raises a red flag about newer tobacco products,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden in announcing the findings. “Cigars and hookah tobacco are smoked tobacco – addictive and deadly. We need effective action to protect our kids from addiction to nicotine…”

The CDC report, published in this week’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, reported that 14% of high school students smoked cigarettes last year, down from 15.8% in 2011 and 28% in 2000. It notes that smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States, and nearly 90% of adult smokers began smoking by age 18.

Leading cause of preventable death?  And 90% of adult smokers started smoking by age 18?  Wow, smoking must be bad.  But if it is why the big push to decriminalize marijuana by the same people who want to criminalize every other type of tobacco product?  Simple.  Kids love getting high.  And if the Democrats are the ones to decriminalize marijuana they can count on the youth vote in election after election.  Until they die from heart disease, lung cancer and emphysema, that is.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Engineering Tradeoffs, Security System, Fire Alarm System and HVAC System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 13th, 2013

Technology 101

A Security System basically locks Doors while a Fire Alarm System unlocks Doors

Engineering is basically a study of compromise.  Of tradeoffs.  For solving one problem often creates another problem.  For example, boiling water creates steam.  And the pressure of steam is so strong that it can do useful work for us.  However, the pressure of steam is so strong that it can also blow up boilers.  Which was common in the early days of steam.  So we install pressure relief valves on boilers.  To safely dump excessive steam pressure.  So they don’t explode violently.

We want steam pressure to do work for us.  And the higher pressure the steam is the more work it can do for us.  But the higher the pressure the greater the chance for a catastrophic explosion.  So the engineering of steam systems is a tradeoff.  We design them to produce the maximum steam pressure that won’t blow up any part of the system.  Trading additional useful work for safety.

Then there are systems that come together with opposing design criteria.  Such as security and fire alarm systems.  A security system basically locks doors in a building.  Preventing the free passage of unauthorized people.  While a fire alarm system basically unlocks doors.  To allow the free passage of everyone.  Authorized and unauthorized.  For example, few people can get into the maternity area of a hospital.  Even the elevator won’t stop on that floor if you don’t have a security card to swipe in the elevator.  But if there is a fire in the building, all the secured doors will release to allow everyone to get out of the building.

If the Duct Smoke Detector detects Smoke it will Break the Safety Circuit and Shut Down the HVAC Unit

Interfacing the fire alarm system to HVAC systems require additional compromises.  The primary design criteria of a heating, ventilating and air conditioning unit (basically a big box with a supply fan and a return fan with filters, heating/cooling coils and air dampers to blend in a varying amount of outside air) is to move air.  To prevent the dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide from our exhaled breath.  They also cool buildings in the cooling season.  And help to heat the building in the heating season.  In addition to the floor-mounted perimeter hot-water heating system.  Located under most exterior windows.

Keeping the air moving helps to keep the air safe to breathe.  Which allows us to work safely within enclosed buildings.  But this moving air can be a problem if there is a fire in the building.  For in a fire it’s smoke inhalation that kills most people.  So if there is a fire someplace in a building you don’t want the HVAC system to blow that smoke throughout the building.  Especially in areas where there is no fire.  Which is why we interface the HVAC system to the fire alarm system.  When there is no fire alarm condition the HVAC system is free to operate to meet the HVAC design criteria.  Keeping dangerous levels of carbon dioxide from building up.  If there is a fire alarm condition the fire alarm system takes control of the HVAC system to meet the fire alarm system design criteria.  Preventing smoke from spreading throughout the building.  In exchange for a less dangerous buildup of carbon dioxide.  For in a fire alarm condition people will be leaving the building.  So they will be out of the building before any buildup of carbon dioxide can harm them.

Air moves through ductwork.  There is a supply-air duct system.  And a return-air duct system (or a ceiling plenum where all the airspace above the ceiling is the return-air pathway back to an HVAC unit).  They both terminate to an HVAC unit.  The return-air fan pulls air from the building and the supply-air fan blows air back into the building.  Located shortly downstream of an HVAC unit in the supply-air duct is a duct smoke detector.  We wire this into the safety circuit of the HVAC unit.  Which is basically a lot of switches wired in series.  They all have to close for the HVAC unit to start.  Such as the freeze-stat on the heating coil.  Which prevents the unit from blowing freezing air onto a cold heating coil to prevent the water from freezing and breaking the coil.  Also in the safety circuit are end-switches installed on the air dampers.  Which close when the unit isn’t running to prevent heated air from venting out and cold air from migrating in.  Before the fans start these damper have to open.  And once they fully open switches close in the safety circuit clearing these safeties.  Also in this safety circuit is the duct smoke detector.  When the duct smoke detector is powered it closes a set of contacts.  The duct smoke detector safety runs through these contacts.  When closed it clears this safety.  If there is smoke in this duct (or if the duct smoke detector loses power) this set of contacts opens.  Breaking the safety circuit.  And shuts down the HVAC unit.

Providing Smoke-Free Routes out of a Building gives People the best Chance of Surviving a Fire

HVAC units may feed more than one zone in a building.  And if the ductwork serving these units pass through a wall (i.e., a fire/smoke barrier) there will be a fire damper in the ductwork at this location.  Either one with a fusible link that melts in a fire.  And when it melts energy stored in a spring releases and closes the damper.  Preventing smoke from crossing this barrier.  Often times they will install a combination fire/smoke damper.  That will have both a fusible link that will melt in a fire.  And a duct smoke detector and a motor.  When powered up the motor winds up a spring and holds open the damper.  These will also have end-switches on them.  And we will also wire these into an HVAC unit’s safety circuit.  Either hard-wired.  Or by computer programming.  If the detector detects smoke or loses power the contacts open the holding circuit and the energy in the spring will close the damper.  As well as shutting down the HVAC unit connected to that duct.

The reason why we tie these into the safety circuit is that if the HVAC units start up without opening these dampers first dangerous pressures will build up in the ductwork.  And blow them apart.  Which is why there are end switches on the air dampers at the unit.  For if the unit starts with those closed they will blow the dampers apart.  All of a building’s HVAC units and dampers are controlled by a building management system (BMS).  Which makes all the components in the building work harmoniously together.  Varying the speeds of the fans, the positions of the dampers, the position of the valves on the piping serving the heating/cooling coils, etc.  Unless there is a fire alarm condition.  Then the fire alarm system takes control.  And sends a fire alarm signal to the BMS system.  Which, upon receiving this, executes an orderly shutdown of all systems.  So when the fire alarm condition clears it can begin an orderly and safe startup.  Often staggering the starting of the HVAC units to prevent dimming the lights from the power surge if they all started at the same time.

These systems can be even more complex in large buildings.  Stairwells may have a stairwell pressurization system.  If there is a fire alarm condition a dedicated fan will start up and blow air into the stairwell.  And shut down any HVAC units serving areas outside these stairwells.  So there will be a higher pressure inside the stairwell than outside the stairwell.  So air, and smoke, blow out of and not into the stairwell.  Making them safe for people to use to leave a building during a fire.  An even more complex fire alarm system will take over control of the fans and dampers of the HVAC system to ventilate smoke out of building.  Smoke evacuation systems are very complex.  And costly.  But they can save a lot of lives.  As most people die from smoke inhalation in a fire.  So having the ability to provide smoke-free routes out of a building or venting it out of a building gives people the best chance of surviving a fire.  Which we can do when we make some engineering compromises.  And make some tradeoffs between the security, HVAC and the fire alarm designs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to the Climate ‘Scientists’ everything causes Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

Droughts are a sign of global warming.  Excessive rains are a sign of global warming.  Little snow fall is a sign of global warming.  Powerful blizzards are a sign of global warming.  Let’s see, what else?  Meteorites threatening the planet are a sign of global warming.  Gun violence is a sign of global warming.  Obesity is a sign of global warming.  And pretty much anything else is a sign of global warming.  Because climate ‘scientists’ and journalists say so (see Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards by Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, posted 2/18/2013 on The Detroit News).

Ten climate scientists say the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.

“Strong snowstorms thrive on the ragged edge of temperature — warm enough for the air to hold lots of moisture, meaning lots of precipitation, but just cold enough for it to fall as snow,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Increasingly, it seems that we’re on that ragged edge.”

The ragged edge of temperature?  So what this climate ‘scientist’ is telling us is that if it’s too warm it won’t snow.  It will just rain.  They’ve been telling us for DECADES that rising temperatures will melt the Arctic icecap.  Raising the ocean levels.  Swamping our coastal areas.  Causing our farmlands to turn into deserts.  And moving our warmer climes further north.  Keeping the snow further north.   So if temperatures have been rising and pushing the collisions of these hot and cold air masses further north we should be getting less snow in the mid latitudes and more snow in the higher latitudes.  Burying them in snow.  Especially in Canada around the Great Lakes.  Because it’s the same amount of snow but in a smaller area.  Building huge snow masses to provide a long snowmelt to fill those Great Lakes all spring and summer.  Raising their levels to record highs.  It’s a sound theory.  Only one problem.  The Great Lakes are at record lows.

But wait a minute, you say.  What about rain?  The reason it didn’t snow as much in the higher latitudes is because all that moisture fell out of the sky as rain before it got to those higher latitudes.  An excellent point.  Only one problem.  North America suffered one of the worst droughts on record.  Devastating our corn crops.  And raising the price of food across the board.

But wait a minute, you say.  That doesn’t prove anything.  Because of rising temperatures it’s just not precipitating as much.  Less moisture in the air because of higher temperatures means less rain AND less snow.  Another excellent point.  Only one problem.  It has been raining.  A lot.  The UK suffered above average rainfalls this past year.  Sending her rivers over their banks.  And causing some of the worst flooding the UK has ever seen.

But wait a minute, you say.  And I say, enough.  Everything cannot be the result of global warming.  Warmer temperatures and cooler temperatures cannot both be the result of global warming.  Droughts and flooding cannot both be the result of global warming.  Less snowfall and greater blizzards cannot both be the result of global warming.  Every contradictory piece of empirical evidence cannot prove global warming.  Real science doesn’t work that way.  Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius.  And boils at 100 degrees Celsius.  These are distinct states of matter.  And they cannot exist at the same time.  For there are rules in science.  And you can’t keep changing them to prove a theory.

Scientists won’t blame a specific event or even a specific seasonal change on global warming without doing intricate and time-consuming studies. And they say they are just now getting a better picture of the complex intersection of man-made climate change and extreme snowfall.

Then why have we been listening to you for close to three decades now?  Why do we have laws that change the way we live going back decades when you’re only now understanding man-made climate change?  If you were wrong decades ago how do we know you’re right now?

Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann points to the recent Northeast storm that dumped more than 30 inches in some places. He said it was the result of a perfect set of conditions for such an event: Arctic air colliding with unusually warm oceans that produced extra large amounts of moisture and big temperature contrasts, which drive storms. Those all meant more energy, more moisture and thus more snow, he said.

Do you know who Michael Mann is?  He’s the guy that created the ‘hockey stick graph’ that supposedly proved global warming.  Temperatures were relatively constant for 900 years.  Then rose.  Giving the shape of a hockey stick.  He took data from tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores and calculated temperatures for the past 1,000 years.  Giving us the hockey stick graph.  But in 2010 some emails came to light showing other climate scientists, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and others, were not all on board with the hockey stick graph.  Despite the powers that be in climate ‘science’ adopting Mann’s hockey stick (see Controversy behind climate science’s ‘hockey stick’ graph by Fred Pearce posted 2/2/2010 on the guardian).

…Briffa…sent a long and passionate email. “It should not be taken as read that Mike’s series is THE CORRECT ONE,” he warned. “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’, but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”

What’s this?  If you take the data beyond the starting point of Michael Mann’s data, back before man was creating any global warming, there was a matching rise in temperature?  Or so said the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit.  So Michael Mann is a guy that likes to look at limited ranges of data.  Just enough to support his hypothesis.  And not too much so it doesn’t refute his hypothesis.  So one cannot help but to take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

So what does all of this mean?  Global warming is more politics than science.  Most of the accepted research was done by people funded by governments that want to take ever more control over the private sector economy.  To increase the size of government.  And to increase tax revenues.  If you don’t believe this consider the volcano.  When they erupt they tend to cool the climate.  Because they put smoke, soot, ash, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.  The same things coal-fired power plants put into the atmosphere.  Yet volcanoes cool the planet.  While coal-fired power plants warm the planet.  Go figure.  Two things doing the same thing.  Yet each producing completely opposite results.  To understand this you have to enter the world where there are square circles.  And intersecting parallel lines.  A place where there are no scientific laws.  Only wild imagination.  For it is a wacky world when it comes to the field of climate ‘science’.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fire, Oil Lamp, Candle, Wicks, Gas Lights, Incandescence, Incandescent Light Bulb, Fluorescence and Compact Fluorescent Lamp

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 20th, 2013

Technology 101

(Originally published March 28th, 2012)

A Lit Match heats the Fuel Absorbed into a Wick, Vaporizes it, Mixes it with Oxygen and Ignites It

Fire changed the world.  From when Homo erectus first captured it.  Around 600,000 BC.  In China.  They saw it.  Maybe following a lightning strike.  Seeing it around volcanic activity.  Perhaps a burning natural gas vent.  Whatever.  They saw fire.  Approached it.  And learned not to fear it.  How to add fuel to it.  To transfer it to another fuel source.  To carry it.  They couldn’t create fire.  But they could manage it.  And use it.  It was warm.  And bright.  So they brought it indoors.  To light up their caves.  Scare the predators out.  To use it to heat.  And to cook.  Taking a giant leap forward for mankind.

When man moved into man-made dwellings they brought fire with them.  At first a one-room structure with a fire in the center of it.  And a hole in the roof above it.  Where everyone gathered around to eat.  Stay warm.  Sleep.  Even to make babies.  As there wasn’t a lot of modesty back then.  Not that anyone complained much.  What was a little romance next to you when you were living in a room full of smoke, soot and ash?  Fireplaces and chimneys changed all that.  Back to back fireplaces could share a chimney.  Providing more heat and light.  Less smoke and ash.  And a little privacy.  Where the family could be in one room eating, staying warm, reading, playing games and sleeping.  While the grownups could make babies in the other room.

As we advanced so did our literacy.  After a hard day’s work we went inside.  After the sun set.  To read.  Write letters.  Do some paperwork for the business.  Write an opera.  Whatever.  Even during the summer time.  When it was warm.  And we didn’t have a large fire burning in the fireplace.  But we could still see to read and write.  Thanks to candles.  And oil lamps.  One using a liquid fuel.  One using a solid fuel.  But they both operate basically the same.  The wick draws liquid (or liquefied) fuel via capillary action.  Where a porous substance placed into contact with a liquid will absorb that liquid.  Like a paper towel or a sponge.  When you place a lit match into contact with the wick it heats the fuel absorbed into the wick and vaporizes it.  Mixing it with the oxygen in the air.  And ignites it.  Creating a flame.  The candle works the same way only starting with a solid fuel.  The match melts the top of this fuel and liquefies it.  Then it works the same way as an oil lamp.  With the heat of the flame melting the solid fuel to continue the process.

Placing a Mantle over a Flame created Light through Incandescence (when a Heated Object emits Visible Light)

Two popular oils were olive oil and whale oil.  Beeswax and tallow were common solid fuels.  Candles set the standard for noting lighting intensity.  One candle flame produced one candlepower.  Or ‘candela’ as we refer to it now.   (Which equals about 13 lumens – the amount of light emitted by a source).  If you placed multiple candles into a candelabrum you could increase the lighting intensity.  Three candles gave you 3 candela of light to read or write by.  A chandelier with numerous candles suspended from the ceiling could illuminate a room.  This artificial light shortened the nights.  And increased the working day.  In the 19th century John D. Rockefeller gave the world a new fuel for their oil lamps.  Kerosene.  Refined from petroleum oil.  And saved the whales.  By providing a more plentiful fuel.  At cheaper prices.

By shortening the nights we also made our streets safer.  Some cities passed laws for people living on streets to hang a lamp or two outside.  To light up the street.  Which did indeed help make the streets brighter.  And safer.  To improve on this street lighting idea required a new fuel.  Something in a gas form.  Something that you could pump into a piping system and route to the new street lamps.  A gas kept under a slight pressure so that it would flow up the lamp post.  Where you opened the gas spigot at night.  And lit the gas.  And the lamp glowed until you turned off the gas spigot in the morning.  Another advantage of gas lighting was it didn’t need wicks.  Just a nozzle for the gas to come out of where you could light it.  So there was no need to refuel or to replace the wicks.  Thus allowing them to stay lit for long periods with minimum maintenance.  We later put a mantle over the flame.  And used the flame to heat the mantle which then glowed bright white.  A mantle is like a little bag that fits over the flame made out of a heat resistant fabric.  Infused into the fabric are things that glow white when heated.  Rare-earth metallic salts.  Which change into solid oxides when heated to incandescence (when a heated object emits visible light).

One of the first gases we used was coal-gas.  Discovered in coal mines.  And then produced outside of a coal mine from mined coal.  It worked great.  But when it burned it emitted carbon.  Like all these open flames did.  Which is a bit of a drawback for indoor use.  Filling your house up with smoke.  And soot.  Not to mention that other thing.  Filling up your house with open flames.  Which can be very dangerous indoors.  So we enclosed some of these flames.  Placing them in a glass chimney.  Or glass boxes.  As in street lighting.  Enclosing the flame completely (but with enough venting to sustain the flame) to prevent the rain form putting it out.  This glass, though, blackened from all that carbon and soot.  Adding additional maintenance.  But at least they were safer.   And less of a fire hazard.  Well, at least less of one type of fire hazard.  From the flame.  But there was another hazard.  We were piping gas everywhere.  Outside.  Into buildings.  Even into our homes.  Where it wasn’t uncommon for this gas to go boom.  Particularly dangerous were theatres.  Where they turned on the gas.  And then went to each gas nozzle with an open fire on a stick to light them.  And if they didn’t move quickly enough the theatre filled with a lot of gas.  An enclosed space filled with a lot of gas with someone walking around with an open fire on a stick.  Never a good thing.

Fluorescent Lighting is the Lighting of Choice in Commercial, Professional and Institutional Buildings

Thomas Edison fixed all of these problems.  By finding another way to produce incandescence. By running an electrical current through a filament inside a sealed bulb.  The current heated the filament to incandescence.  Creating a lot of heat.  And some visible light.  First filaments were carbon based.  Then tungsten became the filament of choice.  Because they lasted longer.  At first the bulbs contained a vacuum.  But they found later that a noble gas prevented the blackening of the bulb.  The incandescent light bulb ended the era of gas lighting.  For it was safer.  Required less maintenance.  And was much easier to operate.  All you had to do was flick a switch.  As amazing as the incandescent light bulb was it had one big drawback.  Especially when we use a lot of them indoors.  That heat.  As the filament produced far more heat than light.  Which made hot buildings hotter.  And made air conditioners work harder getting that heat out of the building.  Enter the fluorescent lamp.

If phosphor absorbs invisible short-wave ultraviolet radiation it will fluoresce.  And emit long-wave visible light.  But not through incandescence.  But by luminescence.  Instead of using heat to produce light this process uses cooler electromagnetic radiation.  Which forms the basis of the fluorescent lamp.  A gas-discharge lamp.  The most common being the 4-foot tube you see in office buildings.  This tube has an electrode at each end.  Contains a noble gas (outer shell of valence electrons are full and not chemically reactive or electrically conductive) at a low pressure.  And a little bit of mercury.  When we turn on the lamp we create an electric field between the electrodes.  As it grows in intensity it eventually pulls electrons out of their valence shell ionizing the gas into an electrically conductive plasma.  This creates an arc between the electrodes.  This charged plasma field excites the mercury.  Which produces the invisible short-wave ultraviolet radiation that the phosphor absorbs.  Causing fluorescence.

One candle produces about 13 lumens of light.  Barely enough to read and write by.  Whereas a 100W incandescent light bulb produces about 1,600 lumens.  The equivalent of 123 candles.  In other words, one incandescent lamp produces the same amount of light as a 123-candle chandelier.  Without the smoke, soot or fire hazard.  And the compact fluorescent lamp improves on this.  For a 26W compact fluorescent lamp can produce the lumen output of a 100W incandescent light bulb.  A one-to-one tradeoff on lighting output.  At a quarter of the power consumption.  And producing less heat due to creating light from fluorescence instead of incandescence.  Making fluorescent lighting the lighting of choice in commercial, professional and institutional buildings.  And any other air conditioned space with large lighting loads.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s Green Energy Investment into Electric Cars is a Failure According to CB0

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Saving the planet with electric cars is a costly endeavor.  Part of the problem is that no one wants these cars.  Even with fat government subsidies.  Because people would rather have big SUVs, trucks and full-size sedans.  Vehicles that are useful.  Safe.  And have big gasoline engines in them that will always get you home.  Which is why the government’s green energy investment into the electric car industry will never deliver any of its promises (see U.S. electric car policy to cost $7.5 billion by 2019: CBO by Bernie Woodall and Deepa Seetharaman posted 9/20/2012 on Reuters).

U.S. federal policies to promote electric vehicles will cost $7.5 billion through 2019 and have “little to no impact” on overall national gasoline consumption over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report issued on Thursday.

Consumer tax credits for buying electric vehicles, which can run as high as $7,500 per vehicle, will account for about 25 percent of the $7.5 billion cost, the CBO said.

The rest of the cost comprises of $2.4 billion in grants to battery makers and projects to promote electric vehicles as well as $3.1 billion in loans to auto companies designed to spur production of fuel-efficient vehicles.

“The more electric and other high-fuel-economy vehicles that are sold because of the tax credits, the more low-fuel-economy vehicles that automakers can sell and still meet the standards,” according to the report.

As a result, tax credits will have “little or no impact on the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”

So auto makers are selling electric vehicles for two reasons.  Government subsidies.  And so they can sell more lower-fuel-economy and higher-polluting profitable vehicles.  The kind of vehicles the people want to buy.  And will buy without any government subsidies.  No one wants to buy the electric cars.  And the automakers can’t make any money selling the electric cars.  The only way any sales of electric cars happen is by transferring a large chunk of their cost to the taxpayers.  Against their will.  But, then again, that’s what government is for these days, isn’t it?  Going against the will of their constituents.

While drivers of these electric vehicles use less gasoline and emit less greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide, the cost to the government can be high, the CBO found. The U.S. government will spend anywhere from $3 to $7 for each gallon of gasoline saved by consumers driving electric vehicles…

The CBO said an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours is eligible for the maximum tax credit of $7,500.

“However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle,” the CBO said.

And, the bigger the battery the greater the cost disadvantage for buyers of plug-in vehicles and conventional vehicles, the CBO said.

What happened to that laser-like focus on creating jobs?  That’s what President Obama said back in 2009.  And here we are in 2012 still suffering in the Great Recession.  Despite their Recovery Summer back in 2010.  The president is spending a lot of money.  Some $500 billion or more to the solar panel maker Solyndra now in bankruptcy.  As well as other green energy investments.  Including the investment into electric cars to wean us off of expensive gasoline.  While the cost of the subsidies for these electric cars will basically double the price of gasoline the rest of us pay (the price of the subsidy costs us as much as what gasoline costs us).

We’d be better off just paying for the expensive gasoline to put into the cars we want to buy.

But it’s worth the price to save the planet.  That’s what they say.  But I can’t help but notice that the planet has never been in worse shape since we started trying to save it.  We know volcanic eruptions can lower the earth’s temperature with the amount of smoke, soot, ash and sulfur dioxide they put into the atmosphere.   Periods of global cooling correlate to active volcanic activity.  So that’s a given.  We know it for a fact.  So is it any coincidence that when we started putting scrubbers onto our coal-fired power plants to remove these same things from our smoke stacks that global temperatures began to rise?

Once upon a time we all burned coal in our houses for heat.  Coal-fired locomotives transported people and freight.  And every factory had a coal-fired steam engine.  We covered our cities in smoke, soot and ash from all the coal we burned.  But there was no global warming then like we have today.  Why?  Can it be that burning coal releases the same stuff volcanoes release when they erupt?  And cool the planet?  Perhaps.  If the global warming alarmists were right then the attack on coal and all the emission controls they mandated on our cars should have made the planet a chilly place.  Shortening our growing seasons.  And given us a famine or two along the way.  But that hasn’t happened.  Because the global warming alarmists have been warning us that the end of the world was only 3 years away for the last 30 years.  How much longer are we to quake in our shoes from their nonsense?

The earth is fine.  We need to stop listening to these people.  Because all they’re doing is transferring enormous sums of money from the private sector to the public sector.  To play their games.  And live comfortably.  While those of us paying the taxes and buying the things they make ever more expensive have to sacrifice our quality of life so these talentless alarmist hacks can live a comfortable elitist life at our expense.  And they’re laughing at us all the way to the bank.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

China to Punish Airbus and EU Airlines if the European Union Proceeds with their Emission Trading System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 16th, 2012

Week in Review

Fighting global warming is one thing.  But hurting aircraft sales is another.  Which will happen if the EU goes ahead with their Emission Trading System.  So Airbus is begging the EU not to ruin the aviation industry (see Airbus ministers seek EU CO2 plan delay: Hintze by Maria Sheahan and Victoria Bryan posted 9/14/2012 on Reuters).

Aerospace officials of the European countries where Airbus (EAD.PA) makes its planes will push for a suspension of the European Union’s Emission Trading System (ETS) for airlines to avert retaliation from China, an official said on Tuesday…

Michael Fallon, new business minister in Britain, said at the ILA Berlin Air Show on Tuesday: “Airbus has left us with no doubt that the threat of retaliatory action is a clear and present danger to its order list.”

There is harsh opposition to the ETS from European air travel companies and countries outside the EU such as the United States, Australia and Brazil that have said they want a global agreement to curb carbon emissions rather than a European law that extends to non-EU companies.

Which is a nice way of saying they should scrap the whole ETS.  But if they said that the environmentalists would say they hate the planet.  That they’re global warming deniers.  And that they, of course, hate children.   So by saying we should have a global system instead of just a European one sounds like they believe in global warming.  While at the same time knowing there will never be a global system because the world can’t agree on anything.  And that China is not going to fall for any of this nonsense.  Because they play hardball.

China has threatened retaliation – including impounding European aircraft – if the European Union punishes Chinese airlines for not complying with its emissions trading scheme (ETS), intended to curb pollution.

The dispute between China and the EU froze deals worth up to $14 billion, though China signed an agreement with Germany for 50 Airbus planes worth over $4 billion during Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Beijing last month.

If the dispute is not resolved, Airbus will have to cut its production target for the A330 “pretty soon”, Airbus Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier said late on Monday.

Cancel billion dollar orders AND impound European aircraft?  That’s right.  The Chinese don’t take crap from anyone.  Especially from a bunch of whiny global warming alarmists.  Airlines everywhere are thanking China (behind closed doors, of course) for playing the heavy here.  So they can act like they really want to do what is right for the planet.  Without losing billions in business.

The airline industry has said the ETS distorts competition, forcing European carriers to pay more simply because of the fact they are based in the EU.

“We feel we are being discriminated against,” Hintze said. “We demand a global solution from an industrial policy point of view because we could otherwise put ourselves at a disadvantage in major markets…”

Airbus sales chief John Leahy suggested at a separate news conference on Tuesday that one possible solution could be that all airlines around the world pay a tax to ICAO for carbon emissions, regardless of where they are based.

The ETS is nothing but a way to generate revenue for a cash-strapped European Union.  For what will they do with the money they raise from their ETS?  Pretty much anything they want.  And one of the things they most desperately want is to close their budget deficits.  And the EU thought they had a real winner in the ETS.  Collect money from EU members.  And collect money from non-EU members.  Effectively transferring some EU costs onto nations outside of the EU.  It was perfect.  Except for one thing.  It required other countries to voluntarily pick up the tab for some EU spending.  And some are choosing not to no matter how worthy the cause.

A global carbon tax payable to the ICAO?  The United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organization?  And what, pray tell, will the UN do with that money?  Spend it on grants to green manufacturers to see if they can make jet fuel out of sea weed?  The aircraft manufacturers are doing everything they can to reduce jet fuel consumption because a plane that burns less fuel is a plane that sells better.  They don’t need a grant to do that.  Planes are carrying and burning less fuel per passenger mile than they ever have.  And they still have an incentive to reduce that even more.  Without any grants from the UN to improve fuel efficiency.

As countries around the world are suffering through economic problems the last thing they need is a new tax.  If anything they need a tax cut.  So the ETS should be the last thing we should be doing.  The earth will get by just fine without it.  In fact, it might even do better.  For the rise in global temperatures interestingly correspond to the time we began to fight global warming.  Back in the days when industry, trains and home furnaces belched coal smoke, soot and ash into the air we didn’t have a global warming problem.  Our cities were covered with coal smoke, soot and ash but the temperatures were just fine.  Perhaps a little more of the same would reverse this warming trend.  Say, encouraging our airplanes to burn a dirtier fuel so they put more emissions into the atmosphere that can block those warming rays from reaching the earth’s surface.  It works with volcanoes.  Perhaps it’ll work with manmade emissions, too.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Climate Data shows Anti-Pollution Emission Standards cause Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 29th, 2012

Week in Review

Global warming is real.  So says all the global warming climate scientists’ science.  With some interesting qualifiers.  Where they explain drops in global temperatures.  Which are caused by the very things that are causing global warming.  Man putting smoke, soot and ash into the atmosphere from our fossil fuels (see Climate Canard No. 2: ‘Warming Has Stopped’ — A Very Temporary Duck by Bill Blackmore posted 4/29/2012 on ABC News).

The slight dip in the 1950s is believed by climate scientists to have been caused at least partly by the post-World War II economic boom, which produced great amounts of industrial smog whose tiny particles reflect warming sunlight back into outer space — as does the thick smoke from volcanoes.

Now see, this is the reason why there are climate skeptics.  There is no science that explains this dip in temperature.  Just anti-science.  Hunches.  And guesses.  If smog and smoke lowered temperatures why didn’t they lower temperatures during World War II?  For American industry was humming during the war, too.  Not to mention all those trucks, tanks, jeeps, ships and airplanes pumping all of that pollution into the atmosphere.  None of which had any emission controls.  Then add in all those fires from the destruction of oil refineries.  Ships.  Planes.  Tanks.  And the burning down of cities.  Like Dresden.  And Tokyo.  Throw in a couple of mushroom clouds.  You add all of this up and it should at least equal the pollution we were throwing up into the atmosphere during the Fifties.  Yet this same chart shows higher temperatures during the war.  Which would make sense if pollution caused global warming.  Instead of preventing it.  As they claim happened during the Fifties.

If you back up one decade to the Thirties, it appears there was no change in global temperatures.  Again, this would make sense if man was causing all of the warming.  Because man wasn’t doing much during the Great Depression.  But then even this logic fails if you back up one more decade to the Twenties.  To the Roaring Twenties.  When the world was modernizing.  The new electric power supported a manufacturing boom.  Included in that boom was the new automobile.  That jammed our city streets.  Filling them with raw emissions.  While steam locomotives puffed soot, smoke and ash into our cities and across the country.  And what did all of this manmade pollution do?  It lowered temperatures.  Which supports their original claim that air pollution prevents global warming.  But then this doesn’t agree with the data from the Forties.  When air pollution caused global warming.  And to confuse us a little more they have another chart that shows temperatures fell during the Forties.

The dip in the global temperature from about 1942 to 1970 is believed by climate scientists to be due partly to the intense industrial activity of World War Two and the economic boom that followed.

The gray and black particles in the smoky emissions from factories actually help cool the earth by reflecting some of the warming sunlight back into outer space, thus preventing it from hitting the earth where it changes into the invisible infrared light that is trapped by greenhouse gasses, warming the air.

So what are they telling us?  Are we causing global warming by cutting emissions from fossil fuels?  Should we create more electricity from coal?  And should we let those plants belch pollution into the atmosphere?  To save us from the perils of global warming?  For if there is any correlation between the rise in global temperatures and manmade activity it is this.  Global temperatures took off when we started reducing manmade polluting emissions.  The data absolutely supports this.  And no one can deny it.  Not even the most respective global warming climate scientists.

Again, this is the reason why there are climate skeptics.  Because global warming climate scientists make it so easy to be skeptical.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australians raising electricity rates by 23 percent, Includes Carbon Tax to Save the Planet

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 7th, 2012

Week in Review

Utility prices are always a political hot potato.  No matter where you are.  Currently in Australia they’re talking about eliminating pricing measures in place that have been keeping rates below actual costs.  Doing so, though, will hit consumers with a huge increase in electricity rates which isn’t going to make anyone happy (see Power prices to rise more than 23 per cent by Daniel Mercer posted 4/5/2012 on The West Australian).

Electricity prices are likely to rise much further than the 23 per cent hike flagged by WA’s economic regulator after Premier Colin Barnett dismissed calls for cross-subsidies for country towns to be scrapped.

The Economic Regulation Authority released a long-awaited report yesterday into the tariffs of State-owned electricity retailer Synergy, showing households were still paying significantly less for power than it cost to provide.

According to the ERA, consumers would have to pay 23.1 per cent more power before prices reached “cost-reflective” levels, driving primarily by the need to remove the discount applying to prices and the incoming carbon tax.

What’s really interesting, of course, is that last bit about a carbon tax.  A 23.1 percent increase in utility rates won’t help any elected government at the next election.  So they’re going through political gymnastics about who not to anger.  Those receiving the subsidies.  Or those paying the subsidies.  And while they’re trying to keep the cost of electricity down so people can use it without going broke the federal government is implementing a carbon tax to make it more expensive so people do go broke if they use it.  To save the planet.

Mr Barnett said this morning that while no decision had yet been made about the size of forthcoming utility price hikes, his Government would not be responsible for the effect of the tax.

“We are doing all that we can to keep the increase in the price of electricity to a minimum and by that I mean something around or just above inflation,” he said.

“The carbon tax – that’s a Federal Government tax.

“And remember I don’t support the carbon tax, the Liberal Government does not support the carbon tax but the whole ideas of the carbon tax – Julia Gillard’s idea – is you raise the price of electricity so people use less of it.

“So the whole purpose of a carbon tax is to raise electricity prices.

“I don’t support that, I think it’s a flawed and failed policy.”

While the local government is trying to save the people by making electricity more affordable the federal government is saying screw the people.  We need to save the planet.  Which is rather silly.  For the planet is far cleaner than it was during the Industrial Revolution.  And here we all are a century or so later.  Alive and well from the affects of the Industrial Revolution.  When smoke, soot and ash covered our cities from coal-burning steam engines powering our factories.  When some people were so filthy that they coughed soot and ash.  They may have died young.  But the planet that bore them is alive and well.  So I think it’s time to stop with some of the silliness.  And allow people to live on this planet.  Especially now that it is cleaner than ever. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Fire, Oil Lamp, Candle, Wicks, Gas Lights, Incandescence, Incandescent Light Bulb, Fluorescence and Compact Fluorescent Lamp

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2012

Technology 101

A Lit Match heats the Fuel Absorbed into a Wick, Vaporizes it, Mixes it with Oxygen and Ignites It 

Fire changed the world.  From when Homo erectus first captured it.  Around 600,000 BC.  In China.  They saw it.  Maybe following a lightning strike.  Seeing it around volcanic activity.  Perhaps a burning natural gas vent.  Whatever.  They saw fire.  Approached it.  And learned not to fear it.  How to add fuel to it.  To transfer it to another fuel source.  To carry it.  They couldn’t create fire.  But they could manage it.  And use it.  It was warm.  And bright.  So they brought it indoors.  To light up their caves.  Scare the predators out.  To use it to heat.  And to cook.  Taking a giant leap forward for mankind.

When man moved into man-made dwellings they brought fire with them.  At first a one-room structure with a fire in the center of it.  And a hole in the roof above it.  Where everyone gathered around to eat.  Stay warm.  Sleep.  Even to make babies.  As there wasn’t a lot of modesty back then.  Not that anyone complained much.  What was a little romance next to you when you were living in a room full of smoke, soot and ash?  Fireplaces and chimneys changed all that.  Back to back fireplaces could share a chimney.  Providing more heat and light.  Less smoke and ash.  And a little privacy.  Where the family could be in one room eating, staying warm, reading, playing games and sleeping.  While the grownups could make babies in the other room.

As we advanced so did our literacy.  After a hard day’s work we went inside.  After the sun set.  To read.  Write letters.  Do some paperwork for the business.  Write an opera.  Whatever.  Even during the summer time.  When it was warm.  And we didn’t have a large fire burning in the fireplace.  But we could still see to read and write.  Thanks to candles.  And oil lamps.  One using a liquid fuel.  One using a solid fuel.  But they both operate basically the same.  The wick draws liquid (or liquefied) fuel via capillary action.  Where a porous substance placed into contact with a liquid will absorb that liquid.  Like a paper towel or a sponge.  When you place a lit match into contact with the wick it heats the fuel absorbed into the wick and vaporizes it.  Mixing it with the oxygen in the air.  And ignites it.  Creating a flame.  The candle works the same way only starting with a solid fuel.  The match melts the top of this fuel and liquefies it.  Then it works the same way as an oil lamp.  With the heat of the flame melting the solid fuel to continue the process. 

Placing a Mantle over a Flame created Light through Incandescence (when a Heated Object emits Visible Light)

Two popular oils were olive oil and whale oil.  Beeswax and tallow were common solid fuels.  Candles set the standard for noting lighting intensity.  One candle flame produced one candlepower.  Or ‘candela’ as we refer to it now.   (Which equals about 13 lumens – the amount of light emitted by a source).  If you placed multiple candles into a candelabrum you could increase the lighting intensity.  Three candles gave you 3 candela of light to read or write by.  A chandelier with numerous candles suspended from the ceiling could illuminate a room.  This artificial light shortened the nights.  And increased the working day.  In the 19th century John D. Rockefeller gave the world a new fuel for their oil lamps.  Kerosene.  Refined from petroleum oil.  And saved the whales.  By providing a more plentiful fuel.  At cheaper prices.

By shortening the nights we also made our streets safer.  Some cities passed laws for people living on streets to hang a lamp or two outside.  To light up the street.  Which did indeed help make the streets brighter.  And safer.  To improve on this street lighting idea required a new fuel.  Something in a gas form.  Something that you could pump into a piping system and route to the new street lamps.  A gas kept under a slight pressure so that it would flow up the lamp post.  Where you opened the gas spigot at night.  And lit the gas.  And the lamp glowed until you turned off the gas spigot in the morning.  Another advantage of gas lighting was it didn’t need wicks.  Just a nozzle for the gas to come out of where you could light it.  So there was no need to refuel or to replace the wicks.  Thus allowing them to stay lit for long periods with minimum maintenance.  We later put a mantle over the flame.  And used the flame to heat the mantle which then glowed bright white.  A mantle is like a little bag that fits over the flame made out of a heat resistant fabric.  Infused into the fabric are things that glow white when heated.  Rare-earth metallic salts.  Which change into solid oxides when heated to incandescence (when a heated object emits visible light).

One of the first gases we used was coal-gas.  Discovered in coal mines.  And then produced outside of a coal mine from mined coal.  It worked great.  But when it burned it emitted carbon.  Like all these open flames did.  Which is a bit of a drawback for indoor use.  Filling your house up with smoke.  And soot.  Not to mention that other thing.  Filling up your house with open flames.  Which can be very dangerous indoors.  So we enclosed some of these flames.  Placing them in a glass chimney.  Or glass boxes.  As in street lighting.  Enclosing the flame completely (but with enough venting to sustain the flame) to prevent the rain form putting it out.  This glass, though, blackened from all that carbon and soot.  Adding additional maintenance.  But at least they were safer.   And less of a fire hazard.  Well, at least less of one type of fire hazard.  From the flame.  But there was another hazard.  We were piping gas everywhere.  Outside.  Into buildings.  Even into our homes.  Where it wasn’t uncommon for this gas to go boom.  Particularly dangerous were theatres.  Where they turned on the gas.  And then went to each gas nozzle with an open fire on a stick to light them.  And if they didn’t move quickly enough the theatre filled with a lot of gas.  An enclosed space filled with a lot of gas with someone walking around with an open fire on a stick.  Never a good thing.

Fluorescent Lighting is the Lighting of Choice in Commercial, Professional and Institutional Buildings 

Thomas Edison fixed all of these problems.  By finding another way to produce incandescence. By running an electrical current through a filament inside a sealed bulb.  The current heated the filament to incandescence.  Creating a lot of heat.  And some visible light.  First filaments were carbon based.  Then tungsten became the filament of choice.  Because they lasted longer.  At first the bulbs contained a vacuum.  But they found later that a noble gas prevented the blackening of the bulb.  The incandescent light bulb ended the era of gas lighting.  For it was safer.  Required less maintenance.  And was much easier to operate.  All you had to do was flick a switch.  As amazing as the incandescent light bulb was it had one big drawback.  Especially when we use a lot of them indoors.  That heat.  As the filament produced far more heat than light.  Which made hot buildings hotter.  And made air conditioners work harder getting that heat out of the building.  Enter the fluorescent lamp.

If phosphor absorbs invisible short-wave ultraviolet radiation it will fluoresce.  And emit long-wave visible light.  But not through incandescence.  But by luminescence.  Instead of using heat to produce light this process uses cooler electromagnetic radiation.  Which forms the basis of the fluorescent lamp.  A gas-discharge lamp.  The most common being the 4-foot tube you see in office buildings.  This tube has an electrode at each end.  Contains a noble gas (outer shell of valence electrons are full and not chemically reactive or electrically conductive) at a low pressure.  And a little bit of mercury.  When we turn on the lamp we create an electric field between the electrodes.  As it grows in intensity it eventually pulls electrons out of their valence shell ionizing the gas into an electrically conductive plasma.  This creates an arc between the electrodes.  This charged plasma field excites the mercury.  Which produces the invisible short-wave ultraviolet radiation that the phosphor absorbs.  Causing fluorescence.

One candle produces about 13 lumens of light.  Barely enough to read and write by.  Whereas a 100W incandescent light bulb produces about 1,600 lumens.  The equivalent of 123 candles.  In other words, one incandescent lamp produces the same amount of light as a 123-candle chandelier.  Without the smoke, soot or fire hazard.  And the compact fluorescent lamp improves on this.  For a 26W compact fluorescent lamp can produce the lumen output of a 100W incandescent light bulb.  A one-to-one tradeoff on lighting output.  At a quarter of the power consumption.  And producing less heat due to creating light from fluorescence instead of incandescence.  Making fluorescent lighting the lighting of choice in commercial, professional and institutional buildings.  And any other air conditioned space with large lighting loads. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries