Thought you guys would be interested in hearing about this competition my company is sponsoring. Check out the details at www.live-edge.com/info
It's open to anyone over the age of 18, anywhere in the world.
$100,000 prize announced for first international
environmental design engineering competition of its kind
Global distributor Premier Farnell offers unique legal, marketing and design support for 'Live Edge' winner
Premier Farnell plc, one of the world’s leading distributors of electronic components, has launched a major international design competition called ‘Live Edge’ – Electronic Design for the Global Environment. Newark, a Premier Farnell business, will support the competition throughout the Americas.
Electronics engineers, students and academics around the world are invited to submit innovative designs that utilize electronic components and have a positive impact on the environment, for example by increasing energy efficiency or reducing carbon emissions. Full details are available at www.live-edge.com/info.
The winning entrant will receive a cash prize of $50,000 as well as the support to move the design towards production. The support package, estimated to be worth an additional $50,000, will include the services of an electronic design consultancy that will develop the design to prototype stage, assistance with legal matters and IP registration, marketing and publicity, as well as Premier Farnell’s help in securing investment funding. The group will actively market the end product to millions of customers globally through their “Leading Edgeâ€
$100,000 global environmental design challenge
Re: $100,000 global environmental design challenge
Unless you're talking about stopping up cows or volcanoes, how will reducing mankind's cardon emissions help the environment? Carbon dioxide is good for plants, and especially crops. I would assume you are talking about global warming except for the fact that there is $100,000 dollars involved, so the competition would be expected to be based on real science and not biased theories enmeshed with politics.jfleisher wrote:...submit innovative designs that utilize electronic components and have a positive impact on the environment, for example by increasing energy efficiency or reducing carbon emissions.
-
Chris Smith
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Bieber Ca.
Let me take the facts straight from the book "Chemistry: Precision and Design":Chris Smith wrote:Try keeping up with science, not the politics of a few ignorant in the WH.
-At least 94% of the earth's greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. Less than 6% is caused by CO2. Of all that CO2, over 96% produced each year comes from nature. Less than 4% is man's contribution. In all, .0021 % of the greenhouse effect comes from man. That is, nature produces 200,000,000,000 tons of CO2 annually, as opposed to mankind's 7,000,000,000 tons annually.
-An issue to researching global warming is accurate temperature measurement, which we have only for very recent times. However, there are historical events that can be attributed to massive temperature change. From A.D. 900 to A.D. 1100 there was the Medieval Warm Period, as shown by the harvest of grapes and citrus fruits in England, the Vikings settling farms in Greenland, and the Anasazi Indians building an agricultural civilization on the Colorado Plateau. Around A.D. 1300, there was the Little Ice Age when Greenland froze over and the Vikings had to leave, the Anasazis crops were wiped out and the civilization died, and the Thames River froze thick enough for the annual "ice fairs." The cold weather lasted into the early American colonists' winters, which were unusually harsh. By 1850 the weather warmed up again, and at the start of the 1900s there was citrus harvested in the Carolinas, and shortly after we got more accuate temperature measurements. From 1850 to 1938, the earth's temperature gradually increased, even though there was very little production of greenhouse gases. Between 1940 and 1980, temperatures decreased slightly, even though production of greenhouse gases was steadily increasing. In fact, in the 70's, environmentalists were calling for action to save the earth from global cooling.
-The point is that temperatures change drastically historically without any apparent cause by man. Some people argue that modern agrigulture, especially cows' farts, are causing global warming, and not the cars and factories. However, think about the plains full of buffalo for centuries before agriculture developed.
-It appears that changes in temperature are caused much more by changes in the sun's heat output than anything else. The sun's heat output changes over time. It has been increasing since the 80s, likely causing our present global warming.
-I heard once, and definately believe, that current temperature measurements are aometimes misleading due to the expansion of cities. As cities grow larger, their asphalt and concrete covers a larger area, and as the sun shines throughout the day, the whole city absorbs the heat. By evening, when rural areas are cooling off, the city will be releasing it's heat, making the evening and night temperature readings much higher than is accurate. And cities are getting larger and larger all the time.
-Finally, I've heard from several people that the book "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years" is one of the best sources for the facts about global warming. I'm thinking about buying it.
-Sorry if this is exceptionally off-topic, but I always enjoy web boards with a little off-topic debate allowed. Please tell me if this is frowned upon.
I wouldn't call people in the oil business losers (well, maybe a few in Saudi Arabia) but in any case, I work for Les Schwab, and before that it was the Forest Service. However, I do think that the oil business is a much more respectable businees than say, modern attorneys or Federal regulation promoters and enforcers.Let me guess, your in the oil bidness along with those other losers?
-
Chris Smith
- Posts: 4325
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Bieber Ca.
You mean new and ignorant, like some?
You sound like Libby, speaking in riddles for Cheney.
Not even close.
What’s your CO emissions lately, .....the facts are there, just put down the conservative red handbook and wake up to the fact that man is doing all of the adding to this environment, above and beyond what nature deals with.
WE dig up oil, coal, and gas then add this to the atmosphere, unlike what nature has provided for ions. A balance.
Nature put it in the ground as a balance, not burns up it for quick profit.
Almost as stupid as blaming the coyote for the diminishing bird count, were the only new fact in this play book.
Our air is less than 20 miles thick/high, and you want to play with it for what, profit?
We burn coal and gas, we add in ......[WEB]
Miles worth of CO2 emissions from the average American car.
Assumption: 0.9142 lbs CO2 per mile driven , given 19.564 lbs. of CO2 per gallon of gasoline and a national average of 21.4 miles per gallon for cars (19.564/21.4=.9142). Source: The conversion factor for the lbs. of CO2 per gallon of gasoline comes from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration, Instructions for Form EIA 1605B, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix B. The average car mileage figure come from the Energy Information Administration - Monthly Energy Review - February 2001, Table 1.10. Both these conversion factors are referenced in the Green Tags USA calculator at www.greentagsusa.org/greentags/calculator_step3.cfm.
In 1994, U.S. residential vehicles traveled 1793 billion miles ...........or 1793 billion pounds of WHAT,..... nature??? [1.8 trillion pounds]
.......instead of keeping it under lock and key, like nature put it.
Even the most flatulent cow doesn’t come close to what you alone made today.
And I haven’t even scratched the surface of OUR abuse.
Only the rich and greedy are as ignorant as you speak, "were not harming the planet",.. like hell.
Its too late, now the only question is do we destroy what is left, or do we change now?
I remember well one joke called Lush Limbaugh, and his response was like yours , its better to cool down my fat ass using CFCs than to take them serious, and believe it destroys the ozone.
Pure ignorance to suit the greedy and ignorant ways.
What arrogance, what stupidity, what reading you consume to tickle your fat behind.
Any conservative can read what they want to, it’s the real reading that bothers them.
SO what, get used to it, its not going away like the condition of our atmosphere.
And now, pay through the nose for the arrogance of your ancestors, it wont be changing any time soon.
Basic web....
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are components of the atmosphere
Greenhouse gases include water vapor
Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere,
while others result from human activities such as burning of fossil fuels and agriculture are very likely the main cause of recently observed global warming
Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, transportation(1/3 of total US global warming pollution).......over 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions world wide.
You really have to bury your head and take up the surname of ostrich to be this ignorant, and DC is leading this charge for profit.
They have already proven them selves to be complete losers and liars.
A car does what?..............
In one year, a new 2001 model small car, traveling the average
12,513.2 miles per year, getting 28.7 miles to the gallon, using 436
gallons/year, spews into the air we breathe*:
_ 8,725 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2)
_ 193 lbs of carbon monoxide (CO)
_ 5.7 lbs of hydrocarbons
_ 18 lbs of nitrogen oxide (NOx)
_ smaller amounts of benzene, formaldehyde, volatile organic
compounds, and other toxic materials.
Larger vehicles, like popular sport utility vehicles (SUVs), can produce
more than twice as much pollution as a small car!
Note: Cars emit several different nitrogen oxides. If you want to
demonstrate how much of a particular nitrogen oxide weighs per
pound, you would have to make a separate calculation for each kind of
nitrogen oxide using their different atomic masses.
*Figures from "Tailpipe Tally," Environmental Defense Fund, on the
web at www.edf.
You sound like Libby, speaking in riddles for Cheney.
Not even close.
What’s your CO emissions lately, .....the facts are there, just put down the conservative red handbook and wake up to the fact that man is doing all of the adding to this environment, above and beyond what nature deals with.
WE dig up oil, coal, and gas then add this to the atmosphere, unlike what nature has provided for ions. A balance.
Nature put it in the ground as a balance, not burns up it for quick profit.
Almost as stupid as blaming the coyote for the diminishing bird count, were the only new fact in this play book.
Our air is less than 20 miles thick/high, and you want to play with it for what, profit?
We burn coal and gas, we add in ......[WEB]
Miles worth of CO2 emissions from the average American car.
Assumption: 0.9142 lbs CO2 per mile driven , given 19.564 lbs. of CO2 per gallon of gasoline and a national average of 21.4 miles per gallon for cars (19.564/21.4=.9142). Source: The conversion factor for the lbs. of CO2 per gallon of gasoline comes from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Energy Information Administration, Instructions for Form EIA 1605B, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix B. The average car mileage figure come from the Energy Information Administration - Monthly Energy Review - February 2001, Table 1.10. Both these conversion factors are referenced in the Green Tags USA calculator at www.greentagsusa.org/greentags/calculator_step3.cfm.
In 1994, U.S. residential vehicles traveled 1793 billion miles ...........or 1793 billion pounds of WHAT,..... nature??? [1.8 trillion pounds]
.......instead of keeping it under lock and key, like nature put it.
Even the most flatulent cow doesn’t come close to what you alone made today.
And I haven’t even scratched the surface of OUR abuse.
Only the rich and greedy are as ignorant as you speak, "were not harming the planet",.. like hell.
Its too late, now the only question is do we destroy what is left, or do we change now?
I remember well one joke called Lush Limbaugh, and his response was like yours , its better to cool down my fat ass using CFCs than to take them serious, and believe it destroys the ozone.
Pure ignorance to suit the greedy and ignorant ways.
What arrogance, what stupidity, what reading you consume to tickle your fat behind.
Any conservative can read what they want to, it’s the real reading that bothers them.
SO what, get used to it, its not going away like the condition of our atmosphere.
And now, pay through the nose for the arrogance of your ancestors, it wont be changing any time soon.
Basic web....
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are components of the atmosphere
Greenhouse gases include water vapor
Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere,
while others result from human activities such as burning of fossil fuels and agriculture are very likely the main cause of recently observed global warming
Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, transportation(1/3 of total US global warming pollution).......over 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions world wide.
You really have to bury your head and take up the surname of ostrich to be this ignorant, and DC is leading this charge for profit.
They have already proven them selves to be complete losers and liars.
A car does what?..............
In one year, a new 2001 model small car, traveling the average
12,513.2 miles per year, getting 28.7 miles to the gallon, using 436
gallons/year, spews into the air we breathe*:
_ 8,725 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2)
_ 193 lbs of carbon monoxide (CO)
_ 5.7 lbs of hydrocarbons
_ 18 lbs of nitrogen oxide (NOx)
_ smaller amounts of benzene, formaldehyde, volatile organic
compounds, and other toxic materials.
Larger vehicles, like popular sport utility vehicles (SUVs), can produce
more than twice as much pollution as a small car!
Note: Cars emit several different nitrogen oxides. If you want to
demonstrate how much of a particular nitrogen oxide weighs per
pound, you would have to make a separate calculation for each kind of
nitrogen oxide using their different atomic masses.
*Figures from "Tailpipe Tally," Environmental Defense Fund, on the
web at www.edf.
-
Dave Dixon
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 1:01 am
- Location: Wichita, KS
- Contact:
But, I digress <sigh>I found a report on http://www.nationalgeographic.com titled "New Ice Core Reveals 800,000 Years of Climate History"
The very first line of this report is "Earth's polar temperature has swung wildly—by as much as 15 degrees Celsius (27 degrees Fahrenheit)—over the last 800,000 years, an Antarctic ice core has revealed."
I don't think we were around then and therefore cannot be blamed. I'm not saying that humans shouldn't conserve and recycle and look for alternative sources, but I think we are being blamed and made to feel guilty more than is deserved.
The funny thing about this report is the timing of releasing it. It was released on July 6th 2007....... The day before Al Gore's "Live Earth" event.
The very first line of this report is "Earth's polar temperature has swung wildly—by as much as 15 degrees Celsius (27 degrees Fahrenheit)—over the last 800,000 years, an Antarctic ice core has revealed."
I don't think we were around then and therefore cannot be blamed. I'm not saying that humans shouldn't conserve and recycle and look for alternative sources, but I think we are being blamed and made to feel guilty more than is deserved.
The funny thing about this report is the timing of releasing it. It was released on July 6th 2007....... The day before Al Gore's "Live Earth" event.
Hi there,
There is also the possibility that global warming has occurred
5000 times before in the past because of natural causes, but
this time it's because of us.
If it is because of us and we do nothing, we loose.
If it is because of us and we do something, it might help.
If it is not because of us and we do nothing, nothing lost.
If it is not because of us and we do something, it's just a pain, but still
nothing lost.
There is also the possibility that global warming has occurred
5000 times before in the past because of natural causes, but
this time it's because of us.
If it is because of us and we do nothing, we loose.
If it is because of us and we do something, it might help.
If it is not because of us and we do nothing, nothing lost.
If it is not because of us and we do something, it's just a pain, but still
nothing lost.
LEDs vs Bulbs, LEDs are winning.
I agree we should be good stewards of the earth and use the resources we have as efficiently as possible while striving to minimize the damage we impose.
I also think there are hypocrites on both sides of the debate. I believe that most of the high profile people who are pushing an eco friendly lifestyle and selling carbon offsets travel around in private jets, limos and live in huge homes. I think if you're gonna talk the talk you better walk the walk.
I also think there are hypocrites on both sides of the debate. I believe that most of the high profile people who are pushing an eco friendly lifestyle and selling carbon offsets travel around in private jets, limos and live in huge homes. I think if you're gonna talk the talk you better walk the walk.
-
Dave Dixon
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 1:01 am
- Location: Wichita, KS
- Contact:
"Chemistry: Precision and Design" A 5 year old book. Accurate enough for teaching chemistry but Much research about global warming has been published in the mean time.
Its as simple as this. Global warming and cooling are caused by inputs created by natural causes. Some are big like volcanoes and flatuating cows and others are more subtle like the Albido of the Arctic tundra. Humanity is a natural part of the earth (as much as we would like to think we are special, we are just part of a giant system of nature)
While most of these inputs are completely out of our control, growing evidence shows that Human activities are becoming one of the significant inputs. We can't control the others but we can control our activities.
Releasing otherwise Sequestered Carbon in the form of CO2 by burning fossil fuels has been identified as one of the primary areas where we are causing a difference. Its natural that this be a focus area for research and remidiation efforts. This dosen't happen spontaniously, a contest is a great way to incentive people to work on specific ideas. Sure no one idea will stabilize the climate, its inevitable ti will change but we sure don't want it to be our fault. With so many people and so many causes, there will need to be many many solutions to make a differnce.
If you don't believe in global warming yet (the portion caused by human activity that is), its because you don't have a wide enough view of the interconnected effects and the impossible to untangle feedback system that make up our enviornment.
Ironically, this is as good for our economy as it is bad. The emergence of an industry to remove and sequester pollutants and carbon have made jobs for many and there are still lots of opportunities.
Another Irony: Evolution is in part driven by climate change. North americans have been blamed for much of the gasses that caused the present warming trend and they (may) stand to benefit most by improved climate in the grain belt and other argricultural areas while other countries who have had a hard break will get even worse. HMMM... Dosen't that make north americans at least in part responsible for remidiating the problem. To deny that is to say you don't care.
Its as simple as this. Global warming and cooling are caused by inputs created by natural causes. Some are big like volcanoes and flatuating cows and others are more subtle like the Albido of the Arctic tundra. Humanity is a natural part of the earth (as much as we would like to think we are special, we are just part of a giant system of nature)
While most of these inputs are completely out of our control, growing evidence shows that Human activities are becoming one of the significant inputs. We can't control the others but we can control our activities.
Releasing otherwise Sequestered Carbon in the form of CO2 by burning fossil fuels has been identified as one of the primary areas where we are causing a difference. Its natural that this be a focus area for research and remidiation efforts. This dosen't happen spontaniously, a contest is a great way to incentive people to work on specific ideas. Sure no one idea will stabilize the climate, its inevitable ti will change but we sure don't want it to be our fault. With so many people and so many causes, there will need to be many many solutions to make a differnce.
If you don't believe in global warming yet (the portion caused by human activity that is), its because you don't have a wide enough view of the interconnected effects and the impossible to untangle feedback system that make up our enviornment.
Ironically, this is as good for our economy as it is bad. The emergence of an industry to remove and sequester pollutants and carbon have made jobs for many and there are still lots of opportunities.
Another Irony: Evolution is in part driven by climate change. North americans have been blamed for much of the gasses that caused the present warming trend and they (may) stand to benefit most by improved climate in the grain belt and other argricultural areas while other countries who have had a hard break will get even worse. HMMM... Dosen't that make north americans at least in part responsible for remidiating the problem. To deny that is to say you don't care.
-
Dave Dixon
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 1:01 am
- Location: Wichita, KS
- Contact:
Guess this thread will go on for some time. In that case, I'll try to steer it a little bit towards electronics. IMHO the Lead-Free initiative does much more harm than the "good" that it can ever hope to accomplish. It seems to be making a lot of people rich though. I come across parts daily that are made of the exact same composition as they always were. However, now that they are "certified" lead-free, the cost has risen dramatically. I understand the cost of "certification", but also am quite confident that in many cases the price increases are not justified.
It is an established fact that reliability suffers with this process. That is why Aviation/Medical devices are exempt. Higher temperatures used in the lead-free soldering process use more energy, and degrade many components. Tin whiskers are a whole separate issue. At the same time, manufacturers of Aviation/Medical devices are finding that the old leaded parts are impossible to obtain, or price has increased for these parts. (Like paying extra for grocery items with NO salt added! - seems funny). It has also been said that mining of the Tin that is now needed requires releasing more lead and metal byproducts, that will not be consumed. Sounds like more waste. I'm no expert on this subject, and am very interested in other viewpoints on this issue. Regards,
Dave
It is an established fact that reliability suffers with this process. That is why Aviation/Medical devices are exempt. Higher temperatures used in the lead-free soldering process use more energy, and degrade many components. Tin whiskers are a whole separate issue. At the same time, manufacturers of Aviation/Medical devices are finding that the old leaded parts are impossible to obtain, or price has increased for these parts. (Like paying extra for grocery items with NO salt added! - seems funny). It has also been said that mining of the Tin that is now needed requires releasing more lead and metal byproducts, that will not be consumed. Sounds like more waste. I'm no expert on this subject, and am very interested in other viewpoints on this issue. Regards,
Dave
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests