Standup Zone Forum
General => Random => Topic started by: Admin on January 08, 2019, 02:46:54 AM
-
Did you guys catch this on 60 minutes? Incredible story, and what a character.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marshall-medoff-the-unlikely-eccentric-inventor-turning-inedible-plant-life-into-fuel-60-minutes/
-
Hope he can do what he says he can. Does look promising.
-
We need people who think out of the box to find what's not in it. I think he is very 'Einsteinian'..... No degree required. Just brains. Just what the world needs right now.
-
It certainly checks a lot of boxes.
This is good stuff.
-
Per Marshall Medoff,
"...all to be produced in a 21st century sustainable industrial revolution"
Music to my ears.
-
Was this on this last Sunday night along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
If so (I don't watch that show anymore) what a juxtaposition of intelligence! Holy crap!
-
Calm down, 60 minutes needed to do some peer review of the claims about novelty and lack of succes of other methods.
Science reporting in the modern world absolutely sucks.
-
Calm down, 60 minutes needed to do some peer review of the claims about novelty and lack of succes of other methods.
Science reporting in the modern world absolutely sucks.
I see your point, but they did mention (though sort of offhandedly) that other more universally accepted scientific methods or trains of thought were more costly and less efficient. No real numbers, other than 1/3 of the fuel market.
-
Calm down, 60 minutes needed to do some peer review of the claims about novelty and lack of succes of other methods.
Science reporting in the modern world absolutely sucks.
Yes, but reporting has always been this way, perhaps even worse. There is actually more transparency now, but tempered with less “perceived” credibility.
-
60 minutes presents the story they want you to hear.
A few years ago I was involved with an organization they went after. They interviewed kids from the school. Then said that no officials
were available to be interviewed. Truth was that officials drove the kids to the interview and asked to be interviewed themselves.
60 minutes is an entertainment show not a news program.
-
Calm down, 60 minutes needed to do some peer review of the claims about novelty and lack of succes of other methods.
Peer review about novelty? He has the patents.
Peer review about lack of success of other methods? If others have processes that work and that don't infringe, bring those methods to market.
This story was an introduction to a process and a reportedly successful bid to answer a scientific problem (extracting sugar from cellulose) that most of us (all?) were unaware existed prior to the story.
-
Most people who passed high school biology know cellulose is a polysacharide that is broken down by digestive systems in lots of organisms, but not people. Not being aware of biomass/biofuels research is more a sympton of the current age of people who think they know "technology", but just know web aps and social media.
Sorry not meaning to offend anyone. It's possible to have patents for processes that absolutely do not work, and for processes that are simple modifications of exisitng ideas. I'm an inventor on ~ 35 issued patents, so the word "patent" does not make say "ooooh ahhhh, amazing."
My issue is with due diligence of the news reporters in looking into other methods of extracting glucose from cellulose, fermentation and chemical methods have been known since the middle ages and earlier. Biomass/biofuels research was a very big area until the recent hostile administration. If you google for "extracting glucose from cellulose" you'll find enough background reading to keep you busy for a few weeks. I notice in the google list there is a review by a scientist at Stanford that is a pretty good starting place.
-
Most people who passed high school biology know cellulose is a polysacharide that is broken down by digestive systems in lots of organisms, but not people. Not being aware of biomass/biofuels research is more a sympton of the current age of people who think they know "technology", but just know web aps and social media.
Sorry not meaning to offend anyone. It's possible to have patents for processes that absolutely do not work, and for processes that are simple modifications of exisitng ideas. I'm an inventor on ~ 35 issued patents, so the word "patent" does not make say "ooooh ahhhh, amazing."
My issue is with due diligence of the news reporters in looking into other methods of extracting glucose from cellulose, fermentation and chemical methods have been known since the middle ages and earlier. Biomass/biofuels research was a very big area until the recent hostile administration. If you google for "extracting glucose from cellulose" you'll find enough background reading to keep you busy for a few weeks. I notice in the google list there is a review by a scientist at Stanford that is a pretty good starting place.
Calm down Seadart. Were I a chemist who had the training and resources but watched this from the sidelines, I might sound bitter too :).
-
The US patent office used to be a technically competent and through organization, but they went insane about 15 years ago and became highly politicized. Patents are now tools for lawyers, hence the rise of patent trolls who take questionable patents and use them for extortion rather than protection against theft of valid intellectual property.
That's an interesting story, but that's about all. Seadart--anyone expecting diligence and intelligence from a reporter of any flavor is headed for disappointment. I spent ten years explaining nuclear power to reporters. Put every other mythical claim aside, news organizations sell viewers to advertisers. That's it, that's all. I get my science news fix from reading Quanta magazine, everything else I consider bullshit unless by some random chance a reporter happens to get something right. About as likely as monkeys typing Shakespeare, but it could happen.
I'm feeling very calm. I had a turbulent but interesting and fun foil session today. My peers reviewed it and were pleased I hadn't run down anyone.
-
I gave this some thought and I think I know what he's doing. It's a clever and interesting approach. 60 minutes sucks toads, they made it all about his lack of formal education, beating out the scientists from MIT. Such nonsense. Makes a nice story, gives it the common twist that they crave. Totally irrelevant of course.
Bashing away at the material to be digested with electrons is probably the interesting twist. When I was a junior in high school I bombarded blocks of polyethylene with electrons so I could get an idea of the power of the electron accelerator I built. Accelerating electrons is not remarkable in any way, the cathode ray tube in the TV your Mom tossed out thirty years ago not only accelerated them but also steered them very precisely--three beams if it was color--and modulated their effective amplitude. The electrons in my experiment were moving faster, and purposefully came out the end of the tube, and they polymerized the poly, making it harder. I don't recall any specifics, my project advisor (one of those lightweight scientists, a physicist at MIT) suggested the target and the evaluation process, but the plastic got harder where the beam hit it, and peeling up the layers and testing each told me how deep the beam went (not very).
I think bashing the cellulose might make it easier to process with other means. Looking at his equipment I'm reminded that the chemical factory in a single cell is not the simple, low-velocity process I used to imagine. Duplicating the function on a macro scale would require a lot of machinery, and duplicating the processing speed would require it all to be working at ridiculous rates.
Anytime I hear about something like this I always wonder about the energy balance. Transportable fuel always takes more energy to produce and transport than they directly return as usable energy. Beyond that sticky bit, changing the fuel source isn't a big solution unless the thermodynamic efficiency is somehow improved. Making fuels for internal combustion engines at the very best can only return about 30 percent of the energy consumed. That's one reason I'm somewhat convinced that transportation needs to be converted to mostly electric.
-
Anytime I hear about something like this I always wonder about the energy balance. Transportable fuel always takes more energy to produce and transport than they directly return as usable energy. . . . .
Back when I was counting calories I learned and discovered all sorts of interesting things.
I was wondering how efficient a HUMAN is vs. a gas vehicle for example. When I added up the energy density of FAT which is known to be 9 Calories a gram you end up with ~ 4100 Calories per pound of about 30,000 Calories per GALLON. Gasoline converted to Calories is ~ 33,000.
Whoaaaa! The energy density of FAT is nearly as high as gasoline. Could this be true? Sure enough a quick search on Google will show the comparable energy density below.
Long story short nature found a way to PACK a whole lot of energy into a small accessible package called FAT in our body. This is why it's so hard to lose weight. We are too darn efficient e.g. I burn 140 calories per mile --> Therefore I run 214 miles on a gallon of fat and only lose 7.5 lbs.
The measure of food calories is a function of what we can process and convert into heat energy. If we eat grass, wood or cardboard the caloric content is ZERO. But Cows and other animals can extract energy from grass, wood and probably cardboard.
By this line of thinking I guess humans did figure out how to get energy from cellulose long ago. Throw it in a fire!
Back to the steam engine we go.
-
Your graph with liquid H2 way out in right field reminded me of when I got to meet some astronauts who when I was an undergraduate, and one of them talked about what it's like sitting on top of a huge tank of liquid hydrogen and knowing the whole shebang was put together by the lowest the bidder.
-
Hydrogen gas. Fun and safe for the whole family.
I’ve been making these hydrogen bombs for a quarter century.
Always gets a giggle.
https://youtu.be/Leh_4Iwx_TI
-
Anytime I hear about something like this I always wonder about the energy balance. Transportable fuel always takes more energy to produce and transport than they directly return as usable energy. Beyond that sticky bit, changing the fuel source isn't a big solution unless the thermodynamic efficiency is somehow improved. Making fuels for internal combustion engines at the very best can only return about 30 percent of the energy consumed. That's one reason I'm somewhat convinced that transportation needs to be converted to mostly electric.
True, and electric cars are only as green as the electric coming out of the outlet. This has the potential to be used on either end. I posted a similar graph to those below a few years back and it is remarkable how little this has changed in some sources. Biomass is a broad term in that it combines stuff like burning cane (how much did we love that on Maui?) and much cooler technologies (oh, damn that word again).
From the article, "Medoff's ethanol is much better than regular corn ethanol in terms of greenhouse gas emissions - 77 percent better, according to a study that was independently reviewed." That would be one factor. As they mentioned, the hard part will be breaking into the existing structure of that industry. Historically they have worked hard to bury competitive ideas.
Energy is just one application. This guy did exactly what the patent office is there to protect (hardly a patent troll situation). The Ah hah moment. He looked at a problem in a fresh way, used existing systems that were available to anyone, and solved a problem (a number of them). I say great to 60 Minutes for bringing that story and I don't mind the window dressing.
(https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/outlet-graph-large.jpg)
(https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity-generation-by-major-energy-source.png)
(https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity-generation-renewable-sources.png)
-
Hydrogen gas. Fun and safe for the whole family.
I’ve been making these hydrogen bombs for a quarter century.
Always gets a giggle.
https://youtu.be/Leh_4Iwx_TI
I almost took the windows out of my attic room at our house in Boston electrolysing water. Here's a tip--don't use AC to do that. You wind up with two containers of hydrogen and oxygen mixed at just the right stoichiometric ratios (naturally, since they started as H2O) to combine quite forcefully--much more dramatic than Hydrogen alone in a balloon. I had the windows open, and the door to my "lab" slammed open hard enough to bury the handle in the wall. Fortunately only one blew, and it wasn't a glass bottle otherwise I wouldn't be writing this. Still, a plastic Clorox bottle full of an explosive mix under a little pressure makes a hell of a bang and will stun you for quite a while. I thought I was deaf and spent most of an afternoon trying to come up with ways to explain my new disability to my parents that didn't include the word "explosion" in the narrative.
I also know some unfortunate ways to generate chlorine gas.
Admin, I wasn't suggesting that Mr. Medoff (unfortunately close to Madoff) was a troll, only that the patent office is no longer actually evaluating patents in the thorough way they used to. I was granted a sweeping internet patent that I have no right to--they gave it to me because they are nuts.
And actually, your graph doesn't include 2108, which is unfortunate since last year was a remarkable one for power generation in the USA with natural gas passing both coal and nuclear as a generation source. Remarkable in the face of the current dipshit administrations full-court press to pump coal. It's a dead horse, no new coal plants in the pipeline and plants that are fairly new being idled or decommissioned. Coal is dead. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, but it's dead, dead, dead. Good riddance. Natural gas is getting ridiculously cheap and no one really knows what our reserves are. Might be effectively infinite. Prices are volatile since storage is limited, but we've got a lot of natural gas.
It's quick and easy to build combined cycle gas turbines.
It also turns out that the midwest is a HUGE wind energy resource. Who knew? I always thought it would be the coasts and river canyons like the Columbia. Nope. Iowa, and all those states with right angle corners.
The big surprise to me is that he's been able to attract serious investment and board members with clout. He seems too odd to pull that off.
-
The interesting thing about the graph in regards to this story is in relation to the 30% claim that he lobbed out there. He felt that he could replace 30% of the current energy structure. If he came close that would certainly eclipse all renewables and would dwarf current biomass/ethanol. He is considering this more on par with Natural Gas or where Coal has been. He couldn't touch those numbers just going after weeny petroleum. I think the reason that the heavy hitters came on board is because they see merit in his process and see a bet-able path to commercial success. Who knows if they are betting on the energy side, food side, plastic side or some combination of those.
And...if you can't bet on whacky, you basically can't bet. I mean, Musk would come out of his tent, call this dude a pedophile and spark up a hooter.
-
I almost took the windows out of my attic room at our house in Boston electrolysing water. Here's a tip--don't use AC to do that. You wind up with two containers of hydrogen and oxygen mixed at just the right stoichiometric ratios (naturally, since they started as H2O) to combine quite forcefully--much more dramatic than Hydrogen alone in a balloon. I had the windows open, and the door to my "lab" slammed open hard enough to bury the handle in the wall. Fortunately only one blew, and it wasn't a glass bottle otherwise I wouldn't be writing this.
These bombs are 'super' percussive but probably pretty tame to what you are describing.
What makes the fireball dramatic with my balloons is that the hydrogen is seeking for the available oxygen in the room. In slow motion you can watch it stretch and grow. Pretty cool and frankly pretty safe.
I get my hydrogen from a combination of aluminum foil and lye (sodium hyrdroxide). Hence its JUST hydrogen. I add a few puffs from my lungs at <20% Oxygen but it lacks the perfect recombination effect and ultimate WHACK!