[mchargue]

From the introduction:
—–
Of the current 10 billion tons of carbon (GtC) emitted
annually as CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities
[Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008], only around 40%
[Jones and Cox, 2005] remain in the atmosphere, while the
rest is absorbed by the oceans and the land biota to about
equal proportions [Bopp et al., 2002]. This airborne fraction
of anthropogenic CO2 (AF) is known to have stayed
remarkably constant over the past five decades [Jones and
Cox, 2005], but if it were to increase in a way predicted by
models, this could add another 500 ppm of CO2 to the
atmosphere by 2100 [Friedlingstein et al., 2006], significantly
more than the current total.
—–

From my reading, I see that the airborne fraction is (remarkably) constant. That is to say, the same. If the fraction is not changing, then it’s not increasing. I can see where the verbiage about ‘40% remaining in the atmosphere’, though, might make it sound like we’re adding 40% or our total CO2 production to the atmosphere each & every year. However, if that were the case, then the fraction would be changing – which is a point the authors seem to making.

Failing a chance to speak with the author, I think we’re stuck with our interpretations. I hope that more evidence – one way of the other – comes out soon.

Pat

[mchargue]

I read the entire paper. From the conclusions comes,
—–
From what we understand about the underlying
processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a
change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF
since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
the available data and its accuracy.
—–

It seems clear that the author is talking about the a atmospheric fraction (AF) that is ‘nearly constant’ since the start of industrialization. All the talk about increases seems to be speaking to the increase in the amount of CO2 industrialization injects into the atmosphere, and to the amount of natural sequestration that’s taking place.

The take-away point seems to be that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly constant, and has been for some 150 years.

Pat

[mchargue]

pluto wrote: G’day

Electromagnetic fields are part and parcell of the workings of the universe small and large. They are prime in explaining supernova and galaxy evolution.

I posted this, as it seemed to me that in the book, BBNH, Lerner was taking to task astrophysicists that explained the large-scale structure of the universe in terms of gravity alone; neglecting the participation of electric and magnetic fields.

I thought it interesting that an article came forward that quoted an ‘unexpected’ result when it came to the contribution of magnetic fields in defining the structure of gas clouds.

Pat

[mchargue]

Deeper in the article appears…
—–
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
—-

If the airborne fraction is not increasing, then there is no increase. After all, we’re not getting more atmosphere.

On the whole, the article seems to engage in editorializing by saying that (anonymous) scientists think that the fraction MAY be increasing. However, the published article just states that the fraction has been stable over the time period of the assessment. Sticking to facts, as opposed to faith, CO2 is a non-issue w.r.t. GW.

I wonder if further refutations will employ similar anonymous (un-sourced) voices as their principal means of proof.

Pat

P.S. Especially interesting to me was that this study was a contradiction to other studies. I guess ‘scientific consensus regarding AGW’ is a really big tent! /sarcasm

[mchargue]

Opps! It looks like a lynch-pin of AGW may be nothing more than wishful thinking. Specifically, that mankind has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, which was claimed as a cause of global warming. The following article presents evidence that no increase occurred. Obviously, reasons for taking to control developed countries economies need to be re-thought…

—–
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere…

continues in,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Pat

[mchargue]

Spot on, Newbie and Old Timer. Spot on.

It was depressing to read through code snippets that showed outright manipulation of the data, all in the name of ‘homogenizing’ it. Also insightful was the read of the documentation that read as a lamentation of the data set, the code base, and the manipulations that were applied to produce the desired results.

Sadly, while all of science will take a hit if it does not clean its house out, politically-safe AGW will likely trundle on. Sadly, there’s just too much money at stake to allow truth, or common sense, to win out.

Unless scientists of all stripes speak out against this, they will all be treated with the same (justified) derision.

Pat

[mchargue]

Note the CRU ‘leaked’ emails, and the non-reception by the main stream media.

[mchargue]

I like the layout, and the information that’s being presented.

[mchargue]

Dr_Barnowl wrote: Are these spark-gap switches a scaling up of a krytron?

Sure sounds like something close to it. I think, though, that they dispense with the grid, and initiate a conductive plasma by jumping a high-voltage spark across the gap. After the conductive plasma is started, it persists until the capacitors finish discharging through the plasma – sustaining it until the current drops off.

Pat

[mchargue]

Here’s something… Using a DPF as a switch for an inductive (as opposed to capacitive) energy storage system. An interesting read, and you folks might be able to better understand how this might apply to your own work.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4406952/description.html

BTW, I enjoyed reading up on the progress w.r.t. the spark-gap switching system. Glad you folks have a handle on it. I look forward to more technical details on this, and other aspects of the FF system.

Pat

[mchargue]

One other idea…

Does the shape of the current pulse matter as much as the amplitude? If not, then maybe to get the amplitude without having to worry about the timing so much, just add some more capacitors.

If some come in late, or early, it may not be such an issue. So long as a majority come in together, and produce a sufficient amplitude, you’re golden. This would be especially useful if the timing of the bank varies from shot-to-shot. You’re just looking for a majority to be on time so that you can ignore the outliers.

Failing that, is there some way to get the capacitors to time their own firing? Like in a super-Marx generator, where earlier stage spark-gaps load up on later stage spark gaps as the potential across later stage spark-gaps keeps increasing.

Can the capacitor banks be coupled somehow to reinforce each others’ firing?

[mchargue]

Axil wrote: Chech out tis reference, there are some z-pince diagrams discribed.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.2071

I’m not certain about this, as there’s not a lot of information on the capacitor system, switches, or its connection to the FF reactor, but I don’t think that a super-Marx generator is what they’re using. I don’t think that timing would be such an issue if this were being used.

The Marx device will step up a low voltage to produce a high voltage spark by charging capacitors at a low voltage in parallel, and discharging them in series through many spark gaps. More likely, I’d say it’s the opposite: charging capacitors with a high voltage in series, and discharging them in parallel for a high current.

The topologies exist to do this using diodes, but I’m not sure you can get diodes with sufficiently high power ratings. (though they may be available) Without diodes, you’d need a lot of spark gaps, and timing would be critical for closing each. (hence, the challenge?)

See,
http://koasas.kaist.ac.kr/bitstream/10203/6494/1/%5B2008%5DPower-Efficient Series-Charge Parallel-Discharge Charge Pump Circuit for LED Drive.pdf

To dispense with the requirement for high-current diodes, you’d string all the capacitors together, nose to derriere using a (low-current, low Vbr) diode. Then you’d tie the series connected lot across a high voltage potential to charge it. Each capacitor’s negative & positive terminal is then connected with its own spark-gap to the FF reactor’s negative & positive terminal. (two per cap)

To fire the bank, the top & bottom and all spark gaps would be ‘closed’ together to short the entire bank of capacitors to the FF device in parallel. Bingo! High current from a high voltage source.

This topology might work better with the voltages expected voltages generated by the ‘reverse linear accelerator’ that taps the power from the FF reactor, but that’s probably not a prime consideration. This would dispense with (possibly non-existent) high power diodes, but would require the use of a pair of spark gaps for each capacitor used. A tractable challenge, I’d say, and a trade off required by what’s available.

[mchargue]

Timing on switches… How about this.

If you’re using spark-gaps, or something similar, is it possible to hold them all slightly below their spark threshold? Then, with them all in this state, you can trigger them all using a laser, or some other excitatory means, to produce a conductive plasma.

Unless you’re using an ignitron, or some other enclosed gap, flashing a plasma near the gap should be enough to close it. If the laser were then fired over all gaps, that should have all the switches closing at the same time – less light travel time. Whatever delay was engendered by the distance from the laser could be compensated for by shortening output leads based on their distance from the laser light source.

You know, there may be some good ideas out here, but you’ve given almost no information on what system you have in place now. It’s hard to just keep punching in the dark on this.

Got time to describe the system you’re using now?

Pat

[mchargue]

pluto wrote: G’day

Please define Dark Matter. There are so many definitions theses days.

You mistake me. The article is not offered in support of dark anything. Instead, it presents a theory that does not rely on dark matter/energy to explain the anomalous spin rates of galaxies.

As for a definition of dark matter & energy… It’s a contextual definition: It is whatever you need it to be.

Pat

[mchargue]

What kind of switch system are you using to connect the capacitors to the FF reactor? (Ignitron, spark gap, etc.)

Given that a switch is ‘triggered’ on, how much repeatability is there with any one switch w.r.t. the trigger? That is to say, what’s the jitter between receipt of the triggering event, and the switch closure.

You may be able to control/limit jitter by constraining the environment of the switches. (common temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.)

If it’s a synchronization issue among many such switches, what means are you using to turn the switch on? If the switch trigger is electronic in nature, there are certainly options available to dynamically tune the trigger to get the desired switch behavior based on feedback from the switches & environment.

Sounds like a fun engineering problem. I’d love to hear more about it.

Patrick

[Author]

Posts