| |
Main
Date: 14 Aug 2007 15:27:37
From: dgk
Subject: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
Seems to me that Nashbar, Performance, etc, should be manufacturing
and selling compressed air cartridges rather than passing on CO2
cartridges that were designed for a different purpose. If I want to
make my own seltzer, I'll get CO2, but if I want to fill up a tire,
air is better.
CO2 is polluting and seeps through tubes too quickly. Having a
compressed air cartridge would be both healthier and better for bikes.
Likely cheaper as well since air is, well, air.
Just a thought.
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 18:50:13
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
dgk wrote:
> ...
>
> CO2 is polluting and seeps through tubes too quickly. Having a
> compressed air cartridge would be both healthier and better for bikes.
> ...
I'd love to hear why you think using CO2 is polluting.
\\paul
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:57:40
From: Aeek
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:50:13 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
<phobson@gatech.edu > wrote:
>dgk wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> CO2 is polluting and seeps through tubes too quickly. Having a
>> compressed air cartridge would be both healthier and better for bikes.
> > ...
>
>I'd love to hear why you think using CO2 is polluting.
>
>\\paul
It's not the CO2 so much as the disposable cartridges.
A pump action air compressor works well enough for me.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 10:19:12
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
Aeek wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:50:13 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
> <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> dgk wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> CO2 is polluting and seeps through tubes too quickly. Having a
>>> compressed air cartridge would be both healthier and better for bikes.
>>> ...
>> I'd love to hear why you think using CO2 is polluting.
>>
>> \\paul
>
> It's not the CO2 so much as the disposable cartridges.
> A pump action air compressor works well enough for me.
ahh. You know, thinking about, those things should be pretty easy to
refill/recap/reuse (if any company wants to step up to the place).
\\paul
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 08:05:43
From: dgk
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:19:12 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
<phobson@gatech.edu > wrote:
>Aeek wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:50:13 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
>> <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> dgk wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> CO2 is polluting and seeps through tubes too quickly. Having a
>>>> compressed air cartridge would be both healthier and better for bikes.
>>>> ...
>>> I'd love to hear why you think using CO2 is polluting.
>>>
>>> \\paul
>>
>> It's not the CO2 so much as the disposable cartridges.
>> A pump action air compressor works well enough for me.
>
>ahh. You know, thinking about, those things should be pretty easy to
>refill/recap/reuse (if any company wants to step up to the place).
>
>\\paul
Ah, the concept of deposits for CO2 cartridges arises. I already throw
them in the recycle bin; hopefully they get used for something.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 00:07:16
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
"Paul Myron Hobson" wrote: I'd love to hear why you think using CO2 is
polluting.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'LL tell ya why. If too many people use CO2 to inflate their tires, and
that all ends up in the atmosphere, along with a few other causes of global
warming, eventually sea level will rise enough to flood some of our best
coastal bike routes. THAT REALLY MATTERS.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 21:44:38
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:07:16 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>"Paul Myron Hobson" wrote: I'd love to hear why you think using CO2 is
>polluting.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I'LL tell ya why. If too many people use CO2 to inflate their tires, and
>that all ends up in the atmosphere, along with a few other causes of global
>warming, eventually sea level will rise enough to flood some of our best
>coastal bike routes. THAT REALLY MATTERS.
>
Just a wild guess, but doesn't the CO2 come from distilling
(atmospheric) air? Ya take it out of the air, then put it back in --
no net change (assuming nuclear power for the CO2 plant).
:)
Email address works as is.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 23:35:29
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:07:16 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
> <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> "Paul Myron Hobson" wrote: I'd love to hear why you think using CO2 is
>> polluting.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I'LL tell ya why. If too many people use CO2 to inflate their tires, and
>> that all ends up in the atmosphere, along with a few other causes of global
>> warming, eventually sea level will rise enough to flood some of our best
>> coastal bike routes. THAT REALLY MATTERS.
>>
> Just a wild guess, but doesn't the CO2 come from distilling
> (atmospheric) air? Ya take it out of the air, then put it back in --
> no net change (assuming nuclear power for the CO2 plant).
Lots of "greenhouse" gases are produced in mining, enriching and
transporting uranium.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 01:38:09
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Patrick Lamb wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:07:16 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
>> <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> "Paul Myron Hobson" wrote: I'd love to hear why you think using
>>> CO2 is polluting.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> I'LL tell ya why. If too many people use CO2 to inflate their
>>> tires, and that all ends up in the atmosphere, along with a few
>>> other causes of global warming, eventually sea level will rise
>>> enough to flood some of our best coastal bike routes. THAT REALLY
>>> MATTERS.
>>>
>> Just a wild guess, but doesn't the CO2 come from distilling
>> (atmospheric) air? Ya take it out of the air, then put it back in --
>> no net change (assuming nuclear power for the CO2 plant).
>
> Lots of "greenhouse" gases are produced in mining, enriching and
> transporting uranium.
Care to quantify that, assuming hydrogen or electric powered mining
equipment instead of gasoline?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 02:05:01
From: mike vore
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> Care to quantify that, assuming hydrogen or electric powered mining
> equipment instead of gasoline?
And where does that electric come from? Some from Atomic generating, some
from HydroElectric, but lots from Coal Burning generators - the last produce
lots of gases.
--
Mike Vore
http://www.OhMyWoodness.com
http://www.OhMyWoodness.com/blog (new - update your Bookmarks)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 23:11:13
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
mike vore wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Care to quantify that, assuming hydrogen or electric powered mining
>> equipment instead of gasoline?
>
> And where does that electric come from? Some from Atomic generating,
> some from HydroElectric, but lots from Coal Burning generators - the
> last produce lots of gases.
So you're saying that the only way that it is possible to generate
electricity for the purpose of mining uranium is by burning coal, and
that it will be that way forever and ever, and that it will never ever
be possible to generate that electricity using nuclear plants instead?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:09:49
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
"Patrick Lamb" wrote: (clip) doesn't the CO2 come from distilling
(atmospheric) air? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wondered about that, so I looked it up in Wikipedia. Sources are, in no
particular order: 1.) Byproduct of some reactions, such as fermentation.
2.) CO2 wells (out of the ground.) 3.) Combustion of carbonaceous fuel.
4.) Heating certain carbonates. 5.) Byproduct in the production of
hydrogen and ammonia.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 08:00:38
From: dgk
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:09:49 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>
>"Patrick Lamb" wrote: (clip) doesn't the CO2 come from distilling
>(atmospheric) air? (clip)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I wondered about that, so I looked it up in Wikipedia. Sources are, in no
>particular order: 1.) Byproduct of some reactions, such as fermentation.
>2.) CO2 wells (out of the ground.) 3.) Combustion of carbonaceous fuel.
>4.) Heating certain carbonates. 5.) Byproduct in the production of
>hydrogen and ammonia.
>
Since they're looking for ways to dump CO2, just put it into the
little cartridges and sell them at bike shops.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 18:40:37
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "Paul Myron Hobson" wrote: I'd love to hear why you think using CO2
> is polluting.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'LL tell ya why. If too many people use CO2 to inflate their tires,
> and that all ends up in the atmosphere, along with a few other causes
> of global warming, eventually sea level will rise enough to flood
> some of our best coastal bike routes. THAT REALLY MATTERS.
ROTFL Good one! ROTFL
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 19:48:09
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
"dgk" wrote: (clip) CO2 is polluting (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And another thing: a gallon of gasoline converts into several pounds of
CO2. A cartridge a few grams, so, putting things into perspective, you can
tell your "green conscience gland" to relax. You put more CO2 into the
atmosphere by breathing than you would ever put in your tires.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 15:36:23
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "dgk" wrote: (clip) CO2 is polluting (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And another thing: a gallon of gasoline converts into several pounds
> of CO2. A cartridge a few grams, so, putting things into
> perspective, you can tell your "green conscience gland" to relax. You put
> more CO2 into the atmosphere by breathing than you would ever
> put in your tires.
THINK AGAIN:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
Sheesh.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:54:02
From: Grolsch
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
Yabbut, the guy driving the car is still using calories to breathe, pump
blood, stay warm and think. you'd have to calculate the difference between
sedentary driving CO2 production verses active walking CO2 production. And,
hey, while you're at it, don't forget to calc in ALL of the environmental
costs of the car... the road, it's production, noise pollution, and general
environmental and social degradation. Stupid article really.
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:46c22e68$0$18901$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> "dgk" wrote: (clip) CO2 is polluting (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> And another thing: a gallon of gasoline converts into several pounds
>> of CO2. A cartridge a few grams, so, putting things into
>> perspective, you can tell your "green conscience gland" to relax. You put
>> more CO2 into the atmosphere by breathing than you would ever
>> put in your tires.
>
> THINK AGAIN:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
>
> Sheesh.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 07:59:16
From: dgk
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:36:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> "dgk" wrote: (clip) CO2 is polluting (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> And another thing: a gallon of gasoline converts into several pounds
>> of CO2. A cartridge a few grams, so, putting things into
>> perspective, you can tell your "green conscience gland" to relax. You put
>> more CO2 into the atmosphere by breathing than you would ever
>> put in your tires.
>
>THINK AGAIN:
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
>
>Sheesh.
>
I thought that the point was NOT to regain the calories lost in
exercise.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 15:05:25
From: DI
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:ZFnwi.35751$ax1.34048@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "dgk" wrote: (clip) CO2 is polluting (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And another thing: a gallon of gasoline converts into several pounds of
> CO2. A cartridge a few grams, so, putting things into perspective, you
> can tell your "green conscience gland" to relax. You put more CO2 into
> the atmosphere by breathing than you would ever put in your tires.
>
After inflating your tires, just don't mow your lawn for a week, (a
redneck's carbon offset).
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 07:53:04
From: dgk
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:05:25 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:ZFnwi.35751$ax1.34048@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "dgk" wrote: (clip) CO2 is polluting (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> And another thing: a gallon of gasoline converts into several pounds of
>> CO2. A cartridge a few grams, so, putting things into perspective, you
>> can tell your "green conscience gland" to relax. You put more CO2 into
>> the atmosphere by breathing than you would ever put in your tires.
>>
>After inflating your tires, just don't mow your lawn for a week, (a
>redneck's carbon offset).
>
I'm ahead of the game! I already don't mow my lawn for a week.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 15:37:29
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
DI wrote:
> "Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:ZFnwi.35751$ax1.34048@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "dgk" wrote: (clip) CO2 is polluting (clip)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> And another thing: a gallon of gasoline converts into several
>> pounds of CO2. A cartridge a few grams, so, putting things into
>> perspective, you can tell your "green conscience gland" to relax. You put
>> more CO2 into the atmosphere by breathing than you would
>> ever put in your tires.
> After inflating your tires, just don't mow your lawn for a week, (a
> redneck's carbon offset).
LOL (And then you can hide the worn out tires /right in the front yard/!)
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 18:19:05
From: DI
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:46c22eab$0$18958$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> After inflating your tires, just don't mow your lawn for a week, (a
>> redneck's carbon offset).
>
> LOL (And then you can hide the worn out tires /right in the front yard/!)
Turn them inside out and plant flowers in them. (another carbon offset idea)
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 19:41:45
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
"dgk" wrote: (clip)compressed air cartridges rather than passing on CO2
cartridges that were designed for a different purpose. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad this isn't feasible. The reason CO2 works so well is that it is
liquid at a reasonable pressure at room temperature. As it expands into the
tire, it evaporates, producing a large volume compared to the cartridge
volume. Air would expand about 18x going from 2000 psi to 100 psi--not
enough to fill a tire from a little cartridge. If you try to beat the rap
by making the cartridge bigger, you have to increase the wall thickness, so
you wind up with something like a big, heavy steel water bottle. (My guess,
not calculated.)
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 07:56:39
From: dgk
Subject: Re: How about compressed air instead of CO2?
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:41:45 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>
>"dgk" wrote: (clip)compressed air cartridges rather than passing on CO2
>cartridges that were designed for a different purpose. (clip)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Too bad this isn't feasible. The reason CO2 works so well is that it is
>liquid at a reasonable pressure at room temperature. As it expands into the
>tire, it evaporates, producing a large volume compared to the cartridge
>volume. Air would expand about 18x going from 2000 psi to 100 psi--not
>enough to fill a tire from a little cartridge. If you try to beat the rap
>by making the cartridge bigger, you have to increase the wall thickness, so
>you wind up with something like a big, heavy steel water bottle. (My guess,
>not calculated.)
>
It's liquid inside that little cartridge? That makes sense I guess; it
would explain why it gets so cold when it expands.
Oh well, I don't think that I want to lug around diver tanks on the
bike.
|
|
