Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Car battery jumpstart gadgets

Is it my imagination or is kellys_eye a global-warming denier? Or, to put it more kindly, just a skeptic?

Personally, living close to a major stratospheric ozone hole (which has begun to heal, thanks to the 1987 Montreal Protocol), and seeing the steady rise in NZ atmospheric temperatures over the last 40\50 years, has left me in no doubt as to the nature of the problem. The cause, or causes, are equally obvious: corporate greed, driven by the need to satisfy shareholders (who are us), and the raging drive of human males to impregnate the closest or most compliant female.
 
is kellys_eye a global-warming denier?
No; global warming exists and, in the absence of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, is a natural effect that we have no control over.

Show me the irrefutable, empirical evidence to the contrary and I'll consider changing my position.

As an indication to your own so-called understanding of atmospheric disturbances I suggest you read more about the Montreal Protocol and subsequent refutation of both the exaggerated claims for ozone loss and the actual effects that do occur.

http://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/ozone-the-hole-truth
 
Last edited:

hevans1944

Hop - AC8NS
... seeing the steady rise in NZ atmospheric temperatures over the last 40\50 years, has left me in no doubt as to the nature of the problem.
Global warming is occurring. There can be no doubt about that. It is the normal consequence of the ending of the last Ice Age. The controversy arises when attempts are (1) made to identify the cause and (2) if necessary, promulgate an effective and universally acceptable corrective action.

Sometime in the 1960s I saw a graph of carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over Mauna Loa Observatory, HI. Back then, only part of the data on the graph below had been collected, but it was enough to show a disturbing trend: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was monotonically increasing. Recent observations indicate the rate of increase is increasing. The questions then (as now) are (1) why? And (2) what effect does this have on the Earth's climate, specifically its heat energy budget with Sol?
co2_data_mlo.png

The "politically correct" answers are (1) anthropogenic creation of excess carbon dioxide and (2) anthropogenic-created global warming as a result of all that CO2 we humans pumped into the atmosphere.

Conclusions: we are all going to die as a result of actions taken by our own hands! Welcome to Hotel Earth. You can check out, but you can never leave. Maybe the cockroaches will survive us.

Or the world can implement any of a dozen or more corrective "solutions" such as: Kill all the cows, whose intestines produce over fifty percent of the greenhouse gas methane. Plant lots of trees and restore the rain forests to absorb CO2 and release more O2 into the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Strictly limit the population of the Earth. Ban all use of fossil fuel. Use giant pumps, driven my nuclear reactors, to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and decompose it into elemental carbon and oxygen. And so on. Of course it will take a strong-arm dictator of the world to accomplish any of this, and it may still be too late for corrective action.

All the above presupposes that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the cause of global atmospheric temperature, rather than simply the effect of global atmospheric temperature. There is a convincing body of experimental evidence that indicates atmospheric CO2 concentration is an effect, not a cause... of anything. Perhaps everyone here should view this excellent documentary that takes the position that it's all a Great Global Warming Swindle, not science at all, but politics.

So, maybe it's best we just call it quits and enjoy what's left of the 21st Century. The human race has had a pretty good run, but all things eventually dissolve in the oblivion of time. Whether we humans are the cause of global warming or not, the Earth will keep on spinning and moving around the Sun, sometimes hotter than usual (after an Ice Age ends), sometimes colder than usual (during an Ice Age). But barring a gamma ray burst completely sterilizing the planet, life of some form or other will probably continue.
 
Last edited:
One good description of the issue I saw was:

take one sheet of A4 paper (210x297mm) total area 62,370mm^2 to represent the global atmosphere.

draw a square of dimensions 0.25mm x 0.25mm (basically a fullstop using a ball pen) - this represents the whole of the CO2 in our atmosphere.

And ONE QUARTER of that tiny square is what mankind has added since the 1850's.

And we're supposed to believe that that is the root cause of our potential demise....?????

Show me ONE alarmist prediction that has come true....... one.
 

hevans1944

Hop - AC8NS
I think we're getting waaaaay off topic.
Yes, but we did get a new member involved in our discussion. There are sooo many people that show up here as just "hit and run" posters, looking for a "cheap and dirty fix" to whatever their problem is. At first I thought @portyforty might be one (he does say he subscribes to, or visits, "hundreds" of BBS groups) who post and vanish, but maybe not. We'll see. These forums have a lot of depth for those willing to stick around and participate.

So, yeah, Steve... go ahead and close the thread if you think we are waaaay too far off topic. OTOH, I wonder if a high-frequency buck converter, running off a full-wave rectified 240 VAC house line, perhaps with a large-ish energy storage capacitor, could be inexpensively built to provide starter motor current in the range of 100 A to perhaps 400 A for a short period of time, perhaps up to ten seconds or so?

That would have to be either a helluva big inductor to store enough magnetic energy between high-frequency cycles to maintain such a large current, or an equally large energy-storage capacitor to replenish the high-frequency oscillations in that inductor between the much slower power line cycles. There is probably an optimal design trading off capacitance for inductance that depends on how long you want to crank the engine before it starts, and how long you have to wait between cranking intervals for things to cool down and/or re-charge.

Is there any good reason you couldn't make a switchmode power supply delivering (say) 200A from a standard 240V 10A outlet?
This definitely could use some further research. I betcha the Chinese are already "on it" after their robots finish surfing this thread and reporting back to the mother ship.:D Look for a "solution" soon on eBay or Alibaba...:rolleyes:
 
One of the things that gets my goat on bulletin boards is that people rarely read your statements properly before rushing into print. On the credit side, I now have enough goats to start a cheese factory.
 
No, Steve. Thanks to those who have contributed useful information, I now have a clear understanding of the formidable technical and economic issues that currently prevent the construction of a cheap and simple mains-powered, battery-less jumpstarter.

Actually, there is something else. I'd like to know how to build a device that could feed back (and hopefully distort) the never-ending thumping racket (I can't call it music) that's being continuously broadcast by the low-forehead, mouth-breathing Croods-like family who inhabit the property next door. Where should I post such a question?
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
Either this section (general electronics chat) or the "off-topic" section would be fine.
 
Top