|
Posted by Bolaleman on September 15, 2009, 2:35 pm
> These is one of my Blog which I have posted while back
> Whatever you all may think of it, it is my opinion and is based on facts!
> I am sure that every person with little knowledge and common sense is a w=
ere of
> fact that Mother Nature is some way some place some how to some extent ha=
d gone
> wacky. Before you decide to judge me please read my statement slowly so t=
hat you
> can apprehend what I am saying. Our scientist is blaming all or most on C=
Os a
> "Carbon Dioxide" generated by burning of phosphorous fuels. It is true th=
at
> these fuels are culprit to global warming among many other symptoms that
> Environment presently throwing at us. However it is my believe that are m=
any
> other culprits that are harmful just as much if not more. For example I a=
m sure
> that most of you readers knows little or perhaps lot about x-rays, and x-=
rays
> machines that are generating heat. Now don't say that I maybe blaming x-r=
ay
> machines on global warming "No I do not" just setting up example how heat=
could
> be generated, it is generate by magnetic field induced or transmitted by =
Radio
> Frequency known as RF. These RF Micro waves can be in milliwatts or thous=
and of
> watts it depends on type of equipment in use. For example you broadcast A=
M radio
> station that put out 100,000 watts it will consumes Apx. 400,000 watts 4 =
to 1
> ratio compare, you "Cell Phone" transmitter putting out 10,000 watts may =
consume
> 100,000 watts 10 to 1 ratio which it mean that 90,000 watts was wasted in=
to
> heat, this is part that is donating to global warming. However those 10,0=
00
> watts that was transmitted that is "major culprit" in Global warming, tha=
t is
> specific 100% heat contributing to global warming because these frequenci=
es
> actually simulate our sun rays. Higher the Frequency more heat is generat=
ed more
> harmful to any living creature on these Earth. There is no room for excus=
es or
> debates these are the facts. I am puzzled these is never mentions are tal=
k about
> why! Good question I am sure that our scientists know this but are keepin=
g they
> mouth shut again why. Is it because Manufacture helping them with extra
> curricular activity or perhaps would not get grants and keep their jobs I=
am
> sorry and I don't care what is they reason. This is something that you do=
not
> sweep under rug but it should be debate and view as major obstacle to red=
uctions
> of Global warming. "O" yes not mentioning the satellite, missiles, shuttl=
e,
> Bombardment Etc.
> Ladies & Gents Have nice life pretty soon you can microwave you Grand chi=
ldren
> and have barbeque party. "Dummies"
> *************************************************************************=
**=AD**********************************************************************=
*****=AD******************
> > On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Bolaleman
> >>> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Bolaleman
> >>> >I found a nice website about gases used in car A/C:
> >>> >http://www.fluorocarbons.org/en/applications/air_conditioning.html
> >>> >Seems as if the future is towards "trans-critical CO2" (whatever tha=
t
> >>> >really means - guess CO2 at high pressure) for improving the common
> >>> >HFC-134a systems. There is a lot of research going on. I never heard
> >>> >that flammable gases are used in car A/C systems (apart from militar=
y
> >>> >applications maybe).
> >>> The EU has banned 134a for use in new cars beginning in 2011. Its
> >>> replacement will be HFO-1234yf. There is no future for co2 as a
> >>> refrigerant because of its global warming potential. I look for it to
> >>> be banned in the future.
> >>HFO-1234yf has a GWP of 4 which means 4 times higher than carbon
> >>dioxide (which by definition has a GWP of 1). The reason CO2 might not
> >>take off for this application is rather based on technological reasons
> >>than ecological ones.
> >>----------------------------------
> >>1234facts.com (search for HFO-1234yf)
> >>http://2ajobguide.com/manager_assistant_jobs.aspx
> >>-------------------------
> > Its not about technology or ecology. =A0Its about taxes. =A0CO2 will be
> > banned mark my word.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You need to put these numbers in comparison to other energy emission
sources. Probably compared to other global warming sources, this might
be just peanuts... specially as these radiations do not directly
contribute to the greenhouse effect like the so-called greenhouse
gases.
In one point I agree: if you could reduce these RF micro wave and IR
emissions from electric sources (what by the way energy saving lamps
or neon-tubes are doing), a lot of energy power plants could be shut-
down - and this really would reduce the emission of greenhouse gases,
in particular CO2.
-------------------------------------------------
Wind Energy Job Board with wind jobs published in 14 countries:
http://2ajobguide.com/wind_jobs_solar_renewable_energy_jobs.aspx
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> Not only UK, but where ever they are found. Aparently,
> someone decided to use propane as a refrigerant. Which is
> fine, until it leaks into the compartment, and is ignited by
> a spark.
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> =A0www.lds.org
> .