@deathlogic1 It's going to reguire getting photosynthetic organisms to produce more mass as biofuel than other cellular or structural plant components. Development of efficient combustion engines should also help by reducing the demand for mass production. My guess, is that biofuels will meet the fuel demands of local or regional areas in the near future first. The problem at the moment, at least in the U.S., is the demand for low efficient gas vehicles.
Another very bad idea attempting to preserve/prolong an unsustainable way of life, yard waste is no waste at all, all organic matter that is grown should return to the land to feed our depleted top soil, make a choice; bread or air conditioning.
@flowewritharoma Actually no, he fails to take account vertical bioreactors or growing biofuels offshore in the ocean. Scientists have grown crops in space and underground. The same technologies can be applied for the production of biofuels. At the moment, the challenge is to get photosynthetic organisms to produce more biofuels from a given amount of mass. He fails to mention oceanic phytoplankton which fix millions of tons of carbon dioxide in the form of carbonates.
@godfather755 This isn't chemical engineering. An engineer hasn't designed the enzymes to break down cellulose. Engineering became obsolete decades ago. The engineering profession like medicine steals from the basic sciences and nature in the form of biomimetic technology. Basic Science can design without engineering but engineering will find it very difficult to design without basic science. This fool fails to take into account bio-towers with large surface area will use very little area.
@chroniclerofthe70s Well I studied Chemical Engineering with Biotechnology and I know how strongly connected both areas are. Of course man engineering = physics, chemistry, maths etc. But engineering is the application of all those sciences in practice. Who cares how to solve an abstract partial differential equation (in maths) ??? But when it comes to heat transfer you have to care a lot! Maths and Physics are tools, Engineering is the application. Without either we wouldnt exist.
@godfather755 Nonsense, I've got several designs in patent pending status. It's the intrinsic properties of chemical compounds and fluid dynamics based on physics coupled with mathematical modeling that I used to design several instrumentation. Engineering has a long history that dates thousands of years, well before the development of the basic sciences. Engineering simply adopted 19th and 20th century knowledge from the basic sciences to remain viable.
@godfather755 Partial differential equations are often part of EPROMs used for fluid flow control in chemical plants.
Actually it's Applied Mathematics and Applied Physics. Many NASA engineers believed a small 2 lb. piece of styrofoam coating from the main propulsion tank traveling at thousands of miles/hr would disintegrate upon impact with the leading wing edge of the Columbia Space Shuttle. Basic physics predicts the styrofoam mass would behave like a dense solid at such velocities.
@chroniclerofthe70s and by the way is not stealing. If you want to talk about stealing talk about Chemistry. By far the fakest "Science" ever. Everything from Chemistry is taken from Physics. In school I was learning about the atom its structure and the interactions between protons and electrons etc. and when I made the question to my teacher saying "Sir, isnt that Physics" and he replied: "I am a Physicist" lol
@godfather755 Yes it is stealing. Chemistry developed from alchemy and Physics developed from mathematical natural philosophy, fool. It's only in the 19th and 20th century that chemistry began to develope the theory of atoms from mathematical physics. Today, basic research into physical chemistry is in part based on quantum physics. I know graduate students in chemistry who have developed several methods of synthesis and designs for scaled production that have been licensed to Dupont.
@chroniclerofthe70s Well dont call me fool coz we are just discussing here. You said that engineering has long history and it started "stealing" in the 19th and 20th century to remain viable. And you also say that CHEMISTRY "its only in the 19th and 20th century that began to develop the theory of atoms from mathematical physics. So as much as engineering is stealing from other sciences, chemistry is stealin from Physics.
@chroniclerofthe70s And finally, engineering is expanding rather than becoming obsolete. Maybe certain areas of engineering have become obsolete (e.g. civil engineering in which the only changes being made are for example, in terms of the environmentally friendly structure of a building) but chemical engineering and biotechnology are increasingly expanding. An example: bio-reactors. To design a bio-reactor you have to have basic knowledge of designing a chemical reactor... To design a chemical..
@godfather755 Of course, Engineering will take any technology outside of engineering and place the engineering tag on the end of it. I've taken both engineering and basic science. My engineering professors made it perfectly clear, many engineering methods become obsolete after an x number of years. I've grown hundreds of strains of different microorganisms very efficiently for over 20 years based on microbial metabolism. Microbial transgenics has more potential than any bio-reactor design.
@chroniclerofthe70s ....To design a chemical reactor you need to know the chemical reaction. The chemical reaction is chemistry. But to design the reactor BASED on the reaction its pure engineering. And when I am referring to design I mean, dimensions (diameter, length) or other (efficiency, process time, "life"). If you dont know the reaction then your dont know how to design, if you know the reaction but you dont know how to design, then your reaction is saying absolutely nothing IN PRACTICE
@godfather755 Wrong, the law of mass action, choice of catalysts, and mechanical statistics at a given temperature determines how much actual yield will result. Chemists control rates by removing certain intermediates or final product to shift chemical equilibrium to achieve a higher yield of the desired product. Several chemists work in petroleum to pharmaceutical conversion plants. It's the chemistry that dictates the flow and height of the fractioning separation towers.
@chroniclerofthe70s Nop. You are wrong chemical engineers design chemical reactors. Design = determining the dimensions of a design unit for producing a specific compound. Chemists design the reactors the outcome of THE reaction its self, the catalysts (As you correctly said) etc. I am not gonna discuss anything further as I am a chemical engineer and I have a relatively sufficient knowledge of both chemistry and engineering. But to conclude I didnt say that I disagree
@chroniclerofthe70s your question is misleading. There have been developed plastis that can conduct electricity and there are the traditional plastics which cannot. The reason some new plastics conduct electricity is that they are not "pure" plastics and because the additional materials present in the plastic can conduct electricity so can the plastic. Also it depends on the hold up of static charge. You might get shocked if you come in contact with the plastic if you have a high static charge.
@godfather755 Actually my question is not misleading. What makes a chemical solid electrically conductive is the energy gap between its atom's valence band and higher conductive band. In most organic compounds including organic plastics, the energy gap is too large. The organic molecule Pentacene can conduct electricity due to it's delocalized electrons resulting from it's double bonds within it's ring structures. Electrically conductive polyacetylene plastic was first synthesized in 1977.
@chroniclerofthe70s your question was whether plastic can conduct electricity or not. Not how and why it is conducts electricity. The result is that some plastics can and some plastics cannot conduct electricity.
@godfather755 Actually, my statement was in response to your comment stating that traditional plastics cannot conduct electricity. My question was meant to imply whether a traditional plastic has the potential to conduct electricity. I asked this to make the point that fundamental chemistry could theoretically envision a conductive organic plastic if the proper electronic configuration could be achieved.
@godfather755 My inclusion of how and why was in response to your statement . You state the reason for modern plastics ability to conduct electricity is due to added materials which are electrically conductive. This is false. The addition of non-metal or metal atoms to plastics is to rearrange the electronic configuration of either the valence band or conductive band by generating mobile positive point charges ( holes ) or negative point charges.
@godfather755 Your comments are puzzling. Most chemical engineering degree plans are very similar to chemistry degree plans up to the junior year. At senior year, both chemical engineering students and chemistry students take P-Chem and Inorganic synthesis. Except chemical engineers start taking industrial process courses and advanced fluid mechanics. Non of your comments made references to fluid mechanics or the Reynold's number which is important for bioreactor design due to sheer stress.
@chroniclerofthe70s I was thinking of making reference to fluid mechanics but as you can see there is no space to write everything. I mentioned bioreactors why should I talk about the importance of fluid mechanics anyway? Well I did my first degree at UCL in UK we had two Chemistry courses in my whole degree. Then I did masters at imperial college in chem eng with biotech. No chemistry courses there either.
@chroniclerofthe70s disagree with what u said about the basic sciences. For me the basic sciences is physics and mathematics and I love both of them. However, its stupid to almost say that engineering is only stealing from the basic sciences. Engineering is more applicable in real life than physics and chemistry. Thats why engineering are more in to the production plants while physics and chemists are more involved in R&D. And read my words, I never say "only" I said "mostly"
@godfather755 Perhaps borrowing is a more appropriate term. What I'm stating is that the knowledge of the basic sciences is enouph to design functional structures without having to go through a formal engineering program. I tutored mechanical and electrical engineers with their engineering problems during my undergraduate studies. They had difficulty finding the appropriate mathematical methods to solve their problems. Some of my good friends are engineers.
@godfather755 Engineers had metal processing technologies for more than 1000 years and yet technological advances proceeded relatively slow. The introduction of the scientific method and fundamental scientific knowledge formed the foundation of the industrial revolution of the 19th century. Maxwell's mathematical work on electricity and magnetism allowed the development of the communications industry. Mathematics of packet switching allowed the development of the internet.
Go to 12:06 Hemp is 5 times more efficient then corn and look how good corn is and profitable; the leading members that made hemp illegal owned lumber yards and were scared of the great powers of hemp, its nonsense that we don't use it for so many things, it would impact the effort on helping to save the environment!
this is such a great technology.... their is a company called "the alternative energy technology center (AETE)... they are the first once to make a plant using multiple inputs of biomass...
their stock has suffered due to a SPAM incident.... americans need to start voting with their money... this is a great company... revolutionary tech! and their stock is at .40 a share!!! also look at meridian biosciences vivo... companies that could change the world!!!
@BuyUSAsEthanolKilOil A Japanese CEO of an electronics corporation stated back in the late 90s the 21 century would be the century of Biology. The key is transgenics coupled with epigenetic regulation. This fool has little understanding of photosynthesis. There are two major type of plants, C3 plants and C4 plants. C4 plants utilize a highly efficient enzyme known as PEPCO to achieve higher yields than C3 plants under harsh conditions.
inspring talk and definately great literature review
MsKolie 1 month ago
interesting, but i'm not too sure how feasible. i don't think this can be mass produced but, every bit will help.
deathlogic1 8 months ago
@deathlogic1 It's going to reguire getting photosynthetic organisms to produce more mass as biofuel than other cellular or structural plant components. Development of efficient combustion engines should also help by reducing the demand for mass production. My guess, is that biofuels will meet the fuel demands of local or regional areas in the near future first. The problem at the moment, at least in the U.S., is the demand for low efficient gas vehicles.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
Another very bad idea attempting to preserve/prolong an unsustainable way of life, yard waste is no waste at all, all organic matter that is grown should return to the land to feed our depleted top soil, make a choice; bread or air conditioning.
iorr98 10 months ago
very smart
zzy4567 11 months ago
a pretty smart lecture with Cellulosic Biofuels
flowewritharoma 1 year ago
@flowewritharoma Actually no, he fails to take account vertical bioreactors or growing biofuels offshore in the ocean. Scientists have grown crops in space and underground. The same technologies can be applied for the production of biofuels. At the moment, the challenge is to get photosynthetic organisms to produce more biofuels from a given amount of mass. He fails to mention oceanic phytoplankton which fix millions of tons of carbon dioxide in the form of carbonates.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The big bad Oil corporations r trying their best to stop free energy ideas from spreading to common ppl.
We need to put an end to this corruption ,start generating ur own electricity now.
Visit LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints . Join the Revolution!!
violafinishda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
urgencyharviefcem 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and it's here! The Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this
information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the
revolution!
despinapjr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
offertorycardiacml 1 year ago
This is my favourite area of chemical engineering! I love green technology and alternative methods of energy renewal :P
godfather755 2 years ago 4
@godfather755 This isn't chemical engineering. An engineer hasn't designed the enzymes to break down cellulose. Engineering became obsolete decades ago. The engineering profession like medicine steals from the basic sciences and nature in the form of biomimetic technology. Basic Science can design without engineering but engineering will find it very difficult to design without basic science. This fool fails to take into account bio-towers with large surface area will use very little area.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s Well I studied Chemical Engineering with Biotechnology and I know how strongly connected both areas are. Of course man engineering = physics, chemistry, maths etc. But engineering is the application of all those sciences in practice. Who cares how to solve an abstract partial differential equation (in maths) ??? But when it comes to heat transfer you have to care a lot! Maths and Physics are tools, Engineering is the application. Without either we wouldnt exist.
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Nonsense, I've got several designs in patent pending status. It's the intrinsic properties of chemical compounds and fluid dynamics based on physics coupled with mathematical modeling that I used to design several instrumentation. Engineering has a long history that dates thousands of years, well before the development of the basic sciences. Engineering simply adopted 19th and 20th century knowledge from the basic sciences to remain viable.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@godfather755 Partial differential equations are often part of EPROMs used for fluid flow control in chemical plants.
Actually it's Applied Mathematics and Applied Physics. Many NASA engineers believed a small 2 lb. piece of styrofoam coating from the main propulsion tank traveling at thousands of miles/hr would disintegrate upon impact with the leading wing edge of the Columbia Space Shuttle. Basic physics predicts the styrofoam mass would behave like a dense solid at such velocities.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s and by the way is not stealing. If you want to talk about stealing talk about Chemistry. By far the fakest "Science" ever. Everything from Chemistry is taken from Physics. In school I was learning about the atom its structure and the interactions between protons and electrons etc. and when I made the question to my teacher saying "Sir, isnt that Physics" and he replied: "I am a Physicist" lol
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 ***that question I made to the Physicist was in a chemistry class.
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Yes it is stealing. Chemistry developed from alchemy and Physics developed from mathematical natural philosophy, fool. It's only in the 19th and 20th century that chemistry began to develope the theory of atoms from mathematical physics. Today, basic research into physical chemistry is in part based on quantum physics. I know graduate students in chemistry who have developed several methods of synthesis and designs for scaled production that have been licensed to Dupont.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s Well dont call me fool coz we are just discussing here. You said that engineering has long history and it started "stealing" in the 19th and 20th century to remain viable. And you also say that CHEMISTRY "its only in the 19th and 20th century that began to develop the theory of atoms from mathematical physics. So as much as engineering is stealing from other sciences, chemistry is stealin from Physics.
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Sorry, I apologize.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s And finally, engineering is expanding rather than becoming obsolete. Maybe certain areas of engineering have become obsolete (e.g. civil engineering in which the only changes being made are for example, in terms of the environmentally friendly structure of a building) but chemical engineering and biotechnology are increasingly expanding. An example: bio-reactors. To design a bio-reactor you have to have basic knowledge of designing a chemical reactor... To design a chemical..
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Of course, Engineering will take any technology outside of engineering and place the engineering tag on the end of it. I've taken both engineering and basic science. My engineering professors made it perfectly clear, many engineering methods become obsolete after an x number of years. I've grown hundreds of strains of different microorganisms very efficiently for over 20 years based on microbial metabolism. Microbial transgenics has more potential than any bio-reactor design.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s ....To design a chemical reactor you need to know the chemical reaction. The chemical reaction is chemistry. But to design the reactor BASED on the reaction its pure engineering. And when I am referring to design I mean, dimensions (diameter, length) or other (efficiency, process time, "life"). If you dont know the reaction then your dont know how to design, if you know the reaction but you dont know how to design, then your reaction is saying absolutely nothing IN PRACTICE
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Wrong, the law of mass action, choice of catalysts, and mechanical statistics at a given temperature determines how much actual yield will result. Chemists control rates by removing certain intermediates or final product to shift chemical equilibrium to achieve a higher yield of the desired product. Several chemists work in petroleum to pharmaceutical conversion plants. It's the chemistry that dictates the flow and height of the fractioning separation towers.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s Nop. You are wrong chemical engineers design chemical reactors. Design = determining the dimensions of a design unit for producing a specific compound. Chemists design the reactors the outcome of THE reaction its self, the catalysts (As you correctly said) etc. I am not gonna discuss anything further as I am a chemical engineer and I have a relatively sufficient knowledge of both chemistry and engineering. But to conclude I didnt say that I disagree
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Then answer me this, can a plastic conduct electricity?
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s your question is misleading. There have been developed plastis that can conduct electricity and there are the traditional plastics which cannot. The reason some new plastics conduct electricity is that they are not "pure" plastics and because the additional materials present in the plastic can conduct electricity so can the plastic. Also it depends on the hold up of static charge. You might get shocked if you come in contact with the plastic if you have a high static charge.
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Actually my question is not misleading. What makes a chemical solid electrically conductive is the energy gap between its atom's valence band and higher conductive band. In most organic compounds including organic plastics, the energy gap is too large. The organic molecule Pentacene can conduct electricity due to it's delocalized electrons resulting from it's double bonds within it's ring structures. Electrically conductive polyacetylene plastic was first synthesized in 1977.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s your question was whether plastic can conduct electricity or not. Not how and why it is conducts electricity. The result is that some plastics can and some plastics cannot conduct electricity.
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Actually, my statement was in response to your comment stating that traditional plastics cannot conduct electricity. My question was meant to imply whether a traditional plastic has the potential to conduct electricity. I asked this to make the point that fundamental chemistry could theoretically envision a conductive organic plastic if the proper electronic configuration could be achieved.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@godfather755 My inclusion of how and why was in response to your statement . You state the reason for modern plastics ability to conduct electricity is due to added materials which are electrically conductive. This is false. The addition of non-metal or metal atoms to plastics is to rearrange the electronic configuration of either the valence band or conductive band by generating mobile positive point charges ( holes ) or negative point charges.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@godfather755 Your comments are puzzling. Most chemical engineering degree plans are very similar to chemistry degree plans up to the junior year. At senior year, both chemical engineering students and chemistry students take P-Chem and Inorganic synthesis. Except chemical engineers start taking industrial process courses and advanced fluid mechanics. Non of your comments made references to fluid mechanics or the Reynold's number which is important for bioreactor design due to sheer stress.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s I was thinking of making reference to fluid mechanics but as you can see there is no space to write everything. I mentioned bioreactors why should I talk about the importance of fluid mechanics anyway? Well I did my first degree at UCL in UK we had two Chemistry courses in my whole degree. Then I did masters at imperial college in chem eng with biotech. No chemistry courses there either.
godfather755 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s disagree with what u said about the basic sciences. For me the basic sciences is physics and mathematics and I love both of them. However, its stupid to almost say that engineering is only stealing from the basic sciences. Engineering is more applicable in real life than physics and chemistry. Thats why engineering are more in to the production plants while physics and chemists are more involved in R&D. And read my words, I never say "only" I said "mostly"
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Perhaps borrowing is a more appropriate term. What I'm stating is that the knowledge of the basic sciences is enouph to design functional structures without having to go through a formal engineering program. I tutored mechanical and electrical engineers with their engineering problems during my undergraduate studies. They had difficulty finding the appropriate mathematical methods to solve their problems. Some of my good friends are engineers.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
@chroniclerofthe70s So you believe that the world would be the same as it is now without engineering?
godfather755 7 months ago
@godfather755 Engineers had metal processing technologies for more than 1000 years and yet technological advances proceeded relatively slow. The introduction of the scientific method and fundamental scientific knowledge formed the foundation of the industrial revolution of the 19th century. Maxwell's mathematical work on electricity and magnetism allowed the development of the communications industry. Mathematics of packet switching allowed the development of the internet.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com JSDOFJSD
titalminarisa 2 years ago
I used it for my science project, it's a really useful video! :) I learned a lot from it.
sinalotfahmadi 2 years ago
Go to 12:06 Hemp is 5 times more efficient then corn and look how good corn is and profitable; the leading members that made hemp illegal owned lumber yards and were scared of the great powers of hemp, its nonsense that we don't use it for so many things, it would impact the effort on helping to save the environment!
Nikg420 3 years ago
source for 5x more efficient
EverettsVLOG 3 years ago
YOU CAN USE HEMP!!!
Nikg420 3 years ago
this is such a great technology.... their is a company called "the alternative energy technology center (AETE)... they are the first once to make a plant using multiple inputs of biomass...
their stock has suffered due to a SPAM incident.... americans need to start voting with their money... this is a great company... revolutionary tech! and their stock is at .40 a share!!! also look at meridian biosciences vivo... companies that could change the world!!!
BuyUSAsEthanolKilOil 3 years ago 2
@BuyUSAsEthanolKilOil A Japanese CEO of an electronics corporation stated back in the late 90s the 21 century would be the century of Biology. The key is transgenics coupled with epigenetic regulation. This fool has little understanding of photosynthesis. There are two major type of plants, C3 plants and C4 plants. C4 plants utilize a highly efficient enzyme known as PEPCO to achieve higher yields than C3 plants under harsh conditions.
chroniclerofthe70s 7 months ago