Me and two auto buddies used Len Torney’s info for a fleet upgrade. Gas saver idea.

Thanks, he’s a smart dude!!

If we save what he says, I guess we should send him a case of Foam.

Best,

Phi, James & Bill the (aka Fat Tire)

Share or Bookmark

I’ve been attempting to “educate” myself on an idea to “save the world” and happened across your article Is Steam Power in Your Future?

Just a quick note to thank you for your insight and down to earth approach to the subject. I believe it to be a key to what I am looking for. It is often hard to find good advice that points you in the right direction, i.e., educate myself!

Yours is one of the few meat and potatoes articles out there. Again, thank you!

Sincerely,

Troy Bracke
Fort Worth, TX

Share or Bookmark

But what if the environmentalists really are at fault?

Remember back in the 70’s when they were crying about the coming Ice Age. But then they got the EPA to clamp down on coal burning, especially for electrical generation. Soon enough, don’t you know it, the skies cleared up from all the soot and next thing we’re experiencing Global Warming.

Of course that might also mean that increased industrialization, especially of India and China, is responsible for the decline and reversal of Global Warming over the last 10 years.

Wouldn’t the watermelons* hate to admit that?

Phill Osborn
Hagerstown, Md.

*watermelon – green on the outside but red on the inside

Share or Bookmark

I must first preface my comments by saying that I am somewhat of an agnostic regarding this whole global warming issue. While I believe the problem is real, I am still not convinced of it’s seriousness or whether we can realistically do anything to stop it. Nor am I a blind faith-based global warming denier. So, I will stick to the particulars of the theory you have proffered.

Your explanation of what causes wind and how it works is largely correct, in that the energy in the wind comes entirely from the sun, as the sun sets up convection currents between warm and cool areas on the earth’s surface. The kinetic energy in the wind eventually dissipates in the form of low-level heat as the result of friction effects when the wind comes in contact with the irregular surface of the earth (and to a lesser degree, as the result of turbulence within the wind stream itself). Because the sun continues to shine and continues to set up convection currents, a steady state is achieved, which is why the wind continues to blow.

Now, here are several areas where I think you run astray in your theory that wind turbines act to slow the rotation of the earth.

First off, even if wind power were built out to some total conceivable maximum, the combined swept area of all the wind turbines would represent but a tiny fraction of a percent of the total area of all the obstacles on the surface of the earth that the wind would normally encounter. Furthermore, as the rate of global deforestation continues to increase, we are very likely decreasing the amount of obstacles to the free flow of wind, despite the building of wind turbines. In other words, for every wind turbine built, there are probably thousands of trees over a hundred feet high that have been cut down, thus providing a smoother path for the wind than it had when the trees were still standing.

Second (and this is far more subtle), being that the earth is a rotating sphere, and the wind a fluid moving on the surface of that sphere, the motion of the wind is far from uniform and takes on the form of distinct circular patterns (e.g., the ‘trade winds’ etc.) that interact with each other in complex ways. Thus, for every unit of wind-induced momentum transfered to the earth in the direction of the earth’s rotation, there is somewhere on the earth’s surface an equal amount of wind-induced momentum transferred in the direction opposite to the earth’s rotation. It can probably be mathematically proven that these have to cancel out (just don’t ask me to do it), and result in no net transfer of momentum to the earth.

Anyway, it’s a very interesting theory. You ought to look into it further, as I strongly suspect that somewhere in the geophysical literature someone somewhere has analyzed just this sort of thing.

Sincerely,

Edmund Dohnert
Wilmington, Delaware

Sorry, Edmund, but I’m going to take a page from the Liberal Handbook and stick with my theory despite all the facts and evidence to the contrary.

It’s new world of hope and change and I’m going to be a good citizen and get with the program. I’m going to hope the laws of nature will change so I can be right.

And even if they don’t, perhaps I can get my congresscritter to introduce new legislation revising the relevant natural laws so my theory will be correct.

I mean, if they can revise the “natural laws” of economics and business and banking, why not those of other inconvenient things like physics?

Thanks for writing.

Oliver

Share or Bookmark

The fact is that the earth as a whole – together with all its windmills and everything else – has a certain amount of angular momentum which, according to the principle of the conservation of angular momentum, on its own remains constant. The fact that the angular momentum of the earth is changing is due to the effect of the moon on the earth. The moon’s gravity gives rise to the tides in the oceans, resulting in a not perfectly symmetrical gravitational attraction between the earth and the moon. The result of this is that the earth slows down rotationally, while the diameter of the orbit of the moon gradually increases. That is to say, both the length of the day and also the length of the month are becoming longer. By studying the rings on fossilized mussels, this phenomenon can be verified. Another effect is of course the fact that the extra movement of the water in the oceans given by tidal currents converts a tiny amount of the kinetic energy of the earth-moon system into heat in the earth.

However despite all this, it is equally obvious that the arguments of the “global warming” enthusiasts are also false. While your article causes only amusement, the fallacies of the global warming people are causing very real suffering in the world.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey Hemion

Geoffrey.

The whole idea was so foolish, I thought, as you did, that many people would write to dispute it, or at least curse me for making fun of the global warming wackos. It was not to be. Maybe they figured I was too much of a wacko to bother with…and maybe they’re correct.

Oliver

Share or Bookmark

I was wondering if you all sent a copy of the Three Part Article “Our Energy Crisis” to our new Administration at the White House?

This article has many great topics and many point that America needs to know.  Especially the nuclear portion, since they don’t now what to do with the waste. I do like the idea of dropping it in magma.

I know that nuclear is the way to go with are energy, if only the American people could see it.

I love your magazine and all the helpful articles!!

Thanks.

Jake Kistler

Share or Bookmark

Your article Our Energy crisis: Part 3 was very informative.

Just wanted to tell you that about a year ago I invested in a mutual funds that only includes businesses world wide that involve alternative energy,
called New Alternatives (NALFX on the stock exchange).  Like ALL businesses, it took a hit last fall, but is rebounding.

I truly believe that alternative energy will be a profit maker someday, I just hope I live long enough to see it.

Kindest regards,

Coleen Czechowski
Alden, NY

Share or Bookmark

Useful data that was clearly well researched and presented in an unbiased manner that is nearly possible to pull off these days with this heated topic.

Congratulations to Mr. Silveira for providing a reference I will save and use for some time to come.

Dave
Katonah, NY

Share or Bookmark

I was recently gifted (by a friend) with a subscription to your magazine.  Similarly, I received a gift from my (liberal) Mom to another back-to-the-basics magazine with the acronym M.E.N.  I have read a couple of issues of both and wanted to commend you on a job well done.  Frankly, if it was not a gift from my mother, I would cancel my subscription to the ever so liberal “mother”…incidentally, not my mother.  The deciding factor was Dave Duffy’s “My view” in the March/April 2009 issue.  As a degreed (not armchair) ecologist, I applaud a scientific discussion of the supposed global warming/climate change issue as opposed to the litany of politicians espousing their vested and hypocritical opinions.

When I see the multi-trillion dollar global impact on international food prices caused by the recent push for ethanol, I shudder to think what will happen to global natural gas and other commodity prices if we continue down this misguided and corrupt path to CO2 cap & trade.

It is also the height of hypocrisy for the elitist liberal community (political, social and Hollywood) to be spouting concern about the plight of the down-trodden world-wide when cap and trade will most drastically and directly impact the global poor–as was the case with ethanol.  And to think that all of this nonsense is based entirely on the false assumption that anthropogenic CO2 liberation is the root cause of “global warming”.

Anyway, thank you for allowing me to vent, and again, Mr. Duffy hit a grand slam with that one!!

Mark Vanoni
Divide, Colorado

Share or Bookmark

I came across it while looking for information on why I can no longer purchase an incandescent reflector flood R20 60-watt (apparently, federal law) even though the replacement of 45-watt bulbs puts out insufficient light for our kitchen.

What nobody mentions in articles about CFC’s is that, efficiency aside, the quality of the light put out by incandescent is far superior to CFC. Light is such an emotional thing. Even the “warmer” (ie, yellow) CFC bulbs are cold and depressing. I appreciated your sensitivity to governmental “strong-arm” tactics, and your implicit understanding that some consumers may just prefer incandescent bulbs for various reasons.

I have been advised that I should just “learn to like” CFC’s. But I don’t like the light they produce. It’s a flat and creepy effect. Things illuminated lose their depth and shadow and nuance. Things illuminated take on a weird color. It’s unpleasant.

We’re in the process of starting a home remodel, and with all the cost and effort involved in Northern California, even in a down real estate market, we are dismayed to learn that we will be severely limited in the kind of illumination we will be forced to live with. Sheesh!

Edith Lavin
Berkeley, CA

Share or Bookmark