Maybe their definition of efficiency is different to that used in thermodynamics?

- Steve

What do you expect from liberals, or progressives, or whatever they call themselves?

Nope! You're not the only ones. In Florida, the violation is that of fatigue for repetitive stress in amusement rides. According to state law, one must be able to see fatique failure before it happens. Nice trick if you can do it.

I have nothing of use to contribute, other than perhaps to lighten the mood and remove frustration.  Simpsons fans will appreciate it.

 

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vxHkAQRQUQ

DistCoop - That link you provided shows that the writers for the Simpsons are far smarter than politicans behind DOER.

Perhaps they'll mandate very low temperatures in Mass. in the future, thereby increasing the efficiency of all heat engines, if they don't freeze. What a masterstroke for the greenies.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

I like the Laws of Thermo, Redux, that I think I probably first read here:

Oth Law:  you must play the game
1st Law:  you can't win
2nd Law:  you can only break even on a really, really cold day
3rd Law:  it never gets that cold...

 

I've always seen it as "2nd law: you can't break even, and 3rd law: you can't get out of the game".

Yours is probably a better statement of the 2nd law, but not of the 3rd really. But each is good.

maybe ... 3rd if it got that cold, you'd be dead.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

I think the statement of the 3rd law (in my post) is really a restatement of Murphy's law.

? murphy's law is "if something can go wrong, it will", sometimes with "at the worse possible time" added

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Hmm...no, I had it "right" the 1st time according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginsberg%27s_theorem

Allen Ginsberg, whodathunkit. I do agree the 3rd law isn't quite what that quote says (but it does ring poetic, hey?)

I like the corollary to Murphy's law that I've seen attributed to more than one source: "Murphy was an optimist."

Well, anything is possible in politics. I seem to recall a proposal to mandate seatbelts on motorcycles.

But it is my guess that the DOER is referring to HHV boiler thermal efficiency.

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad "

I did not look at the definition of efficiency the massachusets DOE used. Here's what many eastern european countries mandate for biogas plants: USEFUL Energy output has to be >50%, meaning: Elctricity production - electricity own demand + heat used for stuff not immediatly conected with the biogas process (drying digestate is ok, heating for the process not) must be > 50% of the energy content of the feedstock.
MAybe they mean something like this?

Without referring to the definition of 'efficiency' used by the DOER, the whole discussion is meaningless.

Wow- seriously? Ginsberg? Whodathunkit?

I heard that the three laws are:
1. You can't win
2. You can't even break even
3. Things are going to get worse before they get better

I'm not really familiar with this paraphrasing of the laws of thermodynamics but #3 does not make sense. More logical would be "Things will only get worse."

See page # 51 of this report...

This is a small example of the mentality and attitude of the people who will control YOUR FUTURE !

http://www.usabiomass.org/docs/2010_10_20_Biomass_...

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer
Venture Engineering & Construction
www.VentureEngr.com

Do you mean a group of people who can make decisions without any facts about the matter? Smile big and talk good and you could be one of them.

I'm in the middle of writing a report on pneumatic controllers to try to counter the stupidity of these people. There is a class of controllers that I call "intermittent vent" that only allow gas to go to the atmosphere at the end of an actuation cycle. They vent a bit of gas for a couple of seconds, and then don't release any gas for (sometimes) days. The contractors hired by the regulators measured the exhaust from these devices during an activation cycle, timed it from onset to termination (around a second) and then divided the [low] volume by the [tiny] time and got a HUGE amount of gas emitted--two orders of magnitude greater than the continuous-bleed controllers that do release considerable gas.

In actuality these intermittent vent controllers emit 1-2 orders of magnitude LESS gas than the continuous bleed controllers. So in Colorado today, they are reviewing a new regulation that makes intermittent vent controllers illegal and requires continuous bleed controllers--the real result will be to require replacing 80-90% of the controllers currently in place (upwards of a million units) and putting 10-200 times as much gas into the atmosphere.

I think the problem is that anyone with any technical ability at all will run from government service. Further, anyone with marginal technical ability, but zero ethics or integrity runs toward government contracts. People with technical ability, ethics, and integrity do not deign to get their hands dirty in this arena (I know that I for one would rather work in fast food or loan sharking than take a government contract). It is hard enough for me to take jobs with industry associations.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

Cranky.....

I am not now, nor will I ever attend a school where I will be awarded an MBA......

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer
Venture Engineering & Construction
www.VentureEngr.com

Who said anything about an MBA? I was talking about political office.

David, godspeed you in dealing with that issue. It would be criminal to see a regulation put in place which results in such a dramatic increase in the amount of methane being emitted to the atmosphere, requiring all that cost and work and hazard, because some dumb@ss didn't understand what they were doing.

David, I had a professor at University who often had a nontraditional approach to problem solving. The problems he encountered in industry were not technical in nature, but personnel related. I think the answer in your situation is not to try to convince legislators of the right approach from a technical basis. I have seen that rarely works. However, campaign contributions from any of the manufacturers of the "intermittent vents" to key legislators has a high probability of success, at least for the short term. After that, it may be possible to get a revision of the report issued based on a criteria which puts both technologies on an equal playing field. Such criteria could monitor the gas vented for 28 calendar days and compare the technologies. After that, it is possible that the wording of this proposed legislation could be reversed to require the intermittent vent technology.