Showing posts with label internal combustion engine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internal combustion engine. Show all posts

Saturday, February 1, 2025

Green Quirk part 4: Internal Combustion Engine Efficiency--Permanent Solutions For a Healthy Environment


            

 

                                                                                                                                             Image: Krzysztof from Pixabay



Green Quirk part 4

Internal Combustion Engine Efficiency: permanent solutions for a healthy environment

There have been many inventors over the years who have worked to improve the gas/diesel efficiency of the internal combustion engine and reduce exhaust emissions. These same innovators, to their surprise, have found themselves in direct conflict with the very organizations they thought would support their ideas, the petroleum industry, original equipment manufacturers (OEM), and their federal government policing agencies (e.g. EPA, FTC).

Over the years, there have been small changes in the carburetor’s efficiency, but nothing substantial. A new car in North America today averages about 25.4 mpg (10.6 km/l). The 1908 Ford Model T got between 13-21 mpg, the 1930 Chevy truck about 15-20 mpg, and the 1956 Ford Edsel 13.7 mpg. The only innovation since then is the efficient catalytic converters on engines for emission control, but the fuel economy remains roughly the same. The oil companies have tight control over certain aspects of the automobile industry. Greed and consumer consumption drive profits, and internal combustion engine efficiency is not in their best interest.

In the 1970s-80s, Lt. Col. Charles L. Brown invented a technology to improve gas mileage by humidifying the air intake on an internal combustion engine while at the same time reducing exhaust emissions. He amazed his colleagues with the engine’s increased efficiency of 20-30%. He started selling his technology, attracting the attention of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not knowing of the consequences that followed. One project involving the EPA involved a diesel engine with improved fuel economy and a diesel emission reduction of 23%. In a project with the Maritime Administration using a modified engine on a pusher tug/tow boat, Brown added 20% more horsepower and lowered fuel consumption by 20% while at the same time reducing emissions by 40%. His carburetor not only humidified the air and provided oxygen to the engine, but it also generated combustion-stimulating molecules and radicals in the process, similar to what he called a “thunderstorm in a bottle”. Brown had created a new science that was substantiated by various research professionals. The carburetor could be retrofitted on any vehicle and was tested to work with propane, diesel, and gas engines. According to Brown, the big diesel polluters like buses, 16-wheelers, ships, boats, tractors, and power plants could benefit greatly from this technology. He even had a deal with an auto dealer who offered his carburetor for free with every American-made car, truck, or van purchased.

It appears the government had tricked Brown, milking him for his research and test results. After they saw the test results, all his test vehicles and equipment were stolen. The Maritime Administration took all his notes and records and declared its research division eliminated. He had a bomb threat in a hotel where he was staying. His own car, while parked at another hotel (Holiday Inn) along with test equipment and a prototype carburetor, was stolen in a lighted parking lot. There is no question that he was being followed and his phone was monitored.

Unfortunately, Brown’s carburetor never made it into the market, and the benefit to consumers was never realized. Lt. Col. Brown, a US WWII veteran, was left bankrupt and died at 86 in November 2008, with his carburetor, research, and test results taken out of the public domain.

The dream to create a high-efficiency carburetor was also the goal of two inventor mechanics, John Robert Fish and Charles Nelson Pogue. Both inventors created a stir in the oil and original parts manufacturing industry.

Charles Pogue was from Winnipeg, MB. He made headlines in 1933 when he drove a 1932 Ford V8 200 miles on a gallon of gas during a demonstration overseen by the Ford Motor Company in Winnipeg using his super-carburetor system. Later, in 1936, the Breen Motor Company of Winnipeg tested the Pogue carburetor on a Ford V-8 Coupe and got 200+ mpg. Winnipeg’s largest auto dealers supposedly tested the carburetor with the amazing results of 216.8 mpg. Newspapers claimed Pogue took his 1929 Chrysler Imperial from Winnipeg to Vancouver on 15 gallons of gas, averaging 130 mpg over a distance of 1879 miles. His carburetor was never independently verified but was of interest to the army.

According to a 1945 unnamed source, carburetors marked “POGUE CARBURETOR, DO NOT OPEN” were used by American Army tanks throughout WWII and removed from circulation after the war.

The carburetor’s optimal performance came from ‘white’ gas, gas without additives such as Tetraethyl lead. Additives in the fuel made Pogue’s elaborate carburetor inefficient, giving it similar gas mileage to the standard carburetors. Tetraethyl lead had been added to gasoline since 1922 as an antiknock agent, to increase octane rating, and improve engine performance; however, there was a theory, whether conspiracy or not, that lead was added to gasoline to stop Pogue and others from building similar devices. Lead leaves heavy deposits and clogs the device, rendering the carburetor inefficient because of its inability to transfer heat to preheat the fuel.

The Pogue or the Winnipeg carburetor worked by preheating the gas into a vapour before entering the engine's combustion chamber. Here is an excerpt from Rex Research offering a brief description of the Pogue carburetor:

Charles N. Pogue (April 9, 1935)

This invention relates to a device for obtaining intimate contact between a liquid in a truly vaporous state and a gas, and particularly to such a device which may serve as a carburetor for internal combustion engines, and is an improvement on the form of device shown in my Patent # 1,938,497, granted December 5, 1933.

In carburetors as commonly used for supplying a combustible mixture of air and liquid fuel to internal combustion engines a relatively large amount of the atomized liquid fuel is not vaporized and enters the engine cylinder more or less in the form of microscopic droplets. When such a charge is "fired" in the engine cylinder only that portion of the liquid fuel which has been converted into the vaporous and consequently the molecular state, combines with the air to give an explosive mixture. The remaining portion of the liquid fuel which is drawn into the engine cylinder and remains in the form of small droplets does not explode and thereby impart power to the engine, but burns with a flame and raises the temperature of the engine above that at which the engine operates most efficiently, i.e., from 160° to 180° F.

In my aforesaid patent there is shown and described a form of carburetor in which the liquid fuel is substatially completely vaporized prior to its introduction into the engine cylinders, and in which means are provided for maintaining a reserve supply of "dry" vapors available for introduction into the engine cylinder. Such a carburetor has been found superior to the standard type of carburetor referred to above and to give better engine performance with far less consumption of fuel.

It is an object of the present invention to provide a carburetor in which the liquid fuel is broken up and prepared in advance of and independent of the suction of the engine and in which a reserve supply of dry vapors will be maintained under pressure ready for introduction into the engine cylinder at all times. It is also an object of the invention to provide a carburetor in which the dry vapors are heated to a sufficient extent prior to being mixed with the main supply of air which carries them into the engine cylinder to cause them to expand so that they will be relatively lighter and will become more intimately mixed with the air prior to their explosion in the engine cylinders.

I have found that when the reserve supply of dry vapors is heated and expanded prior to being admixed with the atmospheric air a greater proportion of the potential energy of the fuel is obtained and the mixture of air and fuel vapors will explode in the engine cylinders without any apparent burning of the fuel which would result in unduly raising the operating temperature of the engine.

More particularly, the present invention comprises a carburetor in which liquid fuel vapors are passed from a main vaporizing chamber under at least a slight pressure into and through a heated chamber where they are caused to expand and in which droplets of liquid fuel are either vaporized or separated from the vapors, so that the fuel finally introduced into the engine cylinders is in true vapor phase. The chamber in which the liquid fuel vapors are heated and caused to expand preferably comprises a series of passages through which the vapors and the exhaust gases from the engine pass in tortuous paths and in such manner that the exhaust gases are brought into heat interchange relation with the vapors and give up a part of their heat to the vapors to cause their heating and expansion.” Diagrams, upgraded versions, and more details can be found at Charles Nelson Pogue: US Patent #1,759,354 ("Carburetor").

In 1936, Pogue’s Winnipeg carburetor caused oil stocks to crash, making him a worldwide legend and a media sensation. He upset the Toronto Stock Exchange, the major oil companies, and carburetor manufacturers. He was threatened several times, the workshop was broken into a few times, models were stolen, and he received pressure from both the US and Canadian governments. In the mid-late 1930s, according to some articles, Pogue, tired and frightened, surrendered by selling to the large oil companies his carburetors, plans, and research. Everything was placed into the trunk of a Pierce Arrow and taken away. He stayed in Winnipeg until after WWII, when he moved to Montreal, producing oil filters for heavy machinery. Pogue became very secretive and reclusive, refusing to talk to the media and reporters. Mystery surrounded his dealings, financial backers, and sales numbers. The legitimacy of the media reports is also questionable. He continued experimenting with carburetors under the “Winnipeg” name until 1952. The Winnipeg carburetor saw limited production. Pogue returned to Winnipeg in 1973 after his wife died and remained there in a secure retirement home until his death in February 1986 at 88.

John Robert Fish was an American inventor and mechanic with a much simpler carburetor design than Pogue’s more elaborate model. The simplicity of the model made it easier to manufacture and maintain. It had enhanced atomization capabilities, and some claim it delivered up to 200 mpg. Just with the Pogue carburetor, Fish’s design lacked independent verification. The general claim is that Fish’s model achieved 20% better gas mileage and 30% more horsepower and could be mounted on many different engines. An excerpt from an online publication, Ross Carburetors, gives an idea of how Fish’s design worked:

The Fish Carburetor was originally invented by John Robert Fish in America in the early Thirties. The carb works on pressure differential – not air speed, which means that it is almost instantly self adjusting & self compensating so any change in weather or altitude requires no adjustments or modifications as with conventional carbs. Hence all round suitability for cars, boats, aircraft, mountain or pressure charging use.

Instead of the usual one main fuel discharge point within the carburetor, the “Fish” has from SIX to TEN leading to vastly superior atomization and therefore much improved vaporization and since wet fuel DOES NOT burn (only the vapor), better and more complete combustion is ensured enabling more power to be extracted from the same amount of fuel.”

The Fish Carburetor Company of Daytona Beach, between 1947 to 1959, manufactured over 125,000 high-mileage carburetors. During this time, the company had various financial and production problems. There were attempts to disrupt Fish’s business by big oil and original equipment manufacturers. Dirty tricks, including mail stoppages, were employed by the sinister forces to stop his cash flow and put him out of business, but Fish kept going, selling his carburetors to individuals and wealthy big game fishermen. During this time, he befriended the famous stock car legend, Fireball Roberts. Fireball drove the original M-1 car and a Fish carburetor in place of the big 4-barrel “Works” carburetor that everyone was using. Fireball, with his out-of-date car, left the other racers standing and frequently won the trophy. His race car tires repeatedly developed mysterious problems, which did not happen for racers using the “Works” original equipment carburetor. Fish also sold his product in Canada and Europe. After he passed away in 1958, the design was licensed to a firm that later folded, and from 1981-1996, a version of the Fish carburetor was manufactured by Brown Carburetor Company.

Another researcher, Dr. David Yurth, co-founder of the Nova Institute of Technology, Salt Lake City, UT, developed a corona discharge gas plasma disassociation system (CDGPDS) that broke down CO2 and eliminated vehicle exhaust fumes before they left the tailpipe. The device can be retrofitted to any internal combustion engine on the planet. It uses less than 20 amps of current with no modifications to the vehicle’s electrical system. The technology is lightweight, low-cost, energy efficient and can be adapted to gas vents used in refineries, incinerator exhaust stacks, and implemented in more than 100 uses.

According to Rex Research, theCDGPDS™ incorporates proprietary plasma generating devices with high speed switching circuits to create what is known as a fracturing field inside a pulsating plasma chamber located within the exhaust system. The fracturing field breaks down or "dissociates" carbon dioxide and other pollutants within the device itself, thus eliminating the problem before it manifests. Dr. Michael Kralik, Senior Physicist and Chief Science Officer for Nova: states "Carbon dioxide molecules behave according to a well-known set of harmonic resonances which generate the fields that attract and bind the oxygen atoms to the central carbon atom. By subjecting the gas to intensely dissonant field effects, we are able to disrupt the spin polarity and oscillation frequencies that bind the atoms together."”

This is an amazing technology which suggests it can disrupt the spin polarity and oscillation frequencies of any atom and break any pollution molecule down to its basic elemental components.

A web search found active research into corona discharge disassociation of CO2, but nothing on the manufacturing and distribution of Yurth’s CDGPDS device. It may be in use commercially but not available to consumers.

A coworker in a retail outlet where I worked had an American uncle who produced a 150-200 mpg carburetor that also preheated the gas into vapour before entering the engine’s combustion chamber. Whether it was similar to Pogue’s device, and the time period involved, I have no idea. One day his uncle and the carburetor mysteriously disappeared and were never seen again. Sometime later, while still working at the same retailer, another coworker mentioned he knew of someone who just bought a new truck and was amazed at the superior gas mileage. Shortly thereafter, he got a call asking for his truck to be returned in exchange for a new one for the next three years. The exchanged truck had very poor gas mileage compared to his first vehicle. The discussion was interesting, it meant that there are handpicked people or organizations getting vehicles with higher mileage carburetors than the average consumer.

With the increased popularity of electric vehicles and the rise of fuel prices at the pump, fuel economy would be an excellent selling point in getting people to keep or buy gas vehicles; however, it appears the oil companies are willing to cut their own throats with their arrogance and stubbornness than to give the consumer any leeway on improved fuel mileage.

Green Quirk part 1 Introduction

Green Quirk part 2 Radiation Remediation and Thorium Reactors

Green Quirk part 3 Over Unity/Free Energy

Green Quirk part 4 Internal Combustion Engine Efficiency

Green Quirk part 5 Electrogravitic Space and Personal Vehicles

Green Quirk part 6 Water Electrolysis and Hydrogen

Green Quirk part 7 Conclusions


References:

  1. Automotive American; The Fish High Mileage Carburetor; September 1, 2024; The Fish High Mileage Carburetor – Automotive American; Site accessed 1-31-2025.

  2. Benjaminson, Jim; Charles Pogue’s 1929 Imperial: Car of the “200 mpg carburetor”; ALLPAR; November 16, 2020; Charles Pogue’s 1929 Imperial: Car of the “200 mpg carburetor” | Allpar Forums; Site accessed 1-30-2025.

  3. Bennett-Smith, Meredith; From Model T to Prius: 13 big moments in fuel efficiency history; The Christian science Monitor; March 7, 2012; From Model T to Prius: 13 big moments in fuel efficiency history – CSMonitor.com; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  4. Bumbeck, Mike; 5 off-beat carburetors you”ve got to check out; Hagerty Media; September 11, 2019; 5 off-beat carburetors you’ve got to check out - Hagerty Media; Site accessed 1-30-2025.

  5. Charles Pogue Carb; the 200-mpg super carburetor; August 15, 2016; Fuel-efficiennt-vehicles.org; Charles Pogue Carb. – ** Fuel Efficient Vehicles **; Site accessed 1-30-2025.

  6. Charles Nelson Pogue; Vapor Carburetor; Rex Research; Charles Nelson Pogue: US Patent #1,759,354 ("Carburetor"); Site accessed 1-30-2025.

  7. Charles Nelson Pogue; Charles Pogue; Alchetron; September 22, 2024; Charles Nelson Pogue - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia; Site accessed 1-31-2025.

  8. Edelstein, Stephen; Why did the world use leaded gas—and why did it take so long to phase out? Green Car Reports; September 1, 2021; Why did the world use leaded gas—and why did it take so long to phase out?; Site accessed 1-30-2025.

  9. Expat; Anyone ever use a Fish Carburetor?; Bob’s The Oil Guy; March 17, 2014; Anyone ever use a Fish Carburetor? | BobIsTheOilGuy; Site accessed 1-31-2025.

  10. Fish, John R.; Carburetor; Rex Research; John R. Fish -- Carburetor -- Articles & US Patent; Site accessed 1-31-2025.

  11. Hasslberger, Sepp; Pogue Carburetor, ‘Gasoline Vapor Maker’ Increase Mileage; April 14, 2007; Pogue Carburetor, 'Gasoline Vapor Maker' Increase Mileage - Sepp Hasslberger; Site accessed 1-30-2025.

  12. Hottexhaust; The Role of Catalytic Converters in Modern Vehicles: How They Reduce Pollution and Improve Efficiency; Hottexhaust.com; October 15, 2024; The Role of Catalytic Converters in Modern Vehicles: How They Reduce Pollution and Improve Efficiency – Hottexhaust; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  13. Markel, Andrew; Determining Catalytic Converter Efficiency; Underhood Service; August 28, 2024; Determining Catalytic Converter Efficiency; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  14. Nova Institute of Technology; Breakthrough CO2 Technology Eliminates Vehicle Exhaust Fumes at the Source; PR Newswire September 25, 2015; Breakthrough CO2 Technology Eliminates Vehicle Exhaust Fumes at the Source; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  15. Nic; Guide to Catalytic Converter Efficiency and Emission Control; Catalytic Converter Solutions; January 15, 2024;Guide to Catalytic Converter Efficiency and Emission Control; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  16. Pixabay; Stunning royalty-free images & royalty-free stock; 5.2 million+ Stunning Free Images to Use Anywhere – Pixabay; Site accessed 1-19-2025.

  17. Rex Research; Inventor Index/Subject Index; Rex Research -- Inventor Index; Site accessed 1-30-2025.

  18. Ross Carburetors; Fish Carburetors; February 10, 2016; Fish Carburetors – Ross Carburetors; Site accessed 1-31-2025.

  19. Sirius Disclosure-YouTube; Project Grudge: The Tip of the Iceberg-Lt. Col. Charles Brown/Disclosure Proj. Testimony Archive (begin at 19:30 minutes); https://youtu.be/78qfynQdCf4?si=fBDicle0S6oTtQGI; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  20. Yurth, David; Corona Discharge Gas Plasma Disassociation Sytem; rexresearch.com; David YURTH : Corona Discharge Gas Plasma Disassociation System; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  21. Valentine, Tom; Charles Brown “Power Pak” Fuel Humidifier; rexresearch.com; April 1977; Charles Brown -- Power pak fuel hunidifier; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  22. Wikipedia; Charlie Brown (pilot); Last edited January 4, 2025; Charlie Brown (pilot) – Wikipedia; Site accessed 1-29-2025.

  23. Wikipedia; Charles Nelson Pogue; Last edited October 14, 2024; Charles Nelson Pogue – Wikipedia; Site accessed 1-30-2025.

  24. Wikipedia; Tetraethyllead; Last edited January 15, 2025; Tetraethyllead – Wikipedia; Site accessed 1-30-2025.



Charles Pogue Carburetor Cutaway                                                                                                 Source:Hagerty Media




 John Fish Carburetor                               Source: just a car guy





Charles Kuss

2025

Updated: 05-21-2025

Thursday, January 30, 2025

Green Quirk Part 1: Introduction--Permanent Solutions For a Healthy Environment

 

                                                                                                                                    Image: AdobeStock


Green Quirk part 1

Introduction: permanent solutions for a healthy environment

The four main renewable energy sources, hydro, biomass, wind, and solar, are the main alternative energy sources to electric power produced from fossil fuels and nuclear-powered generating stations. The renewables are much cleaner, but biomass burning has issues with environmental contamination, mainly air quality.

Fossil fuel burning, as we know, has a very high ecological footprint because of various pollutants released into the environment. Nuclear, although clean, produces radioactive wastes and has the potential to release radioactive contamination lasting for millions of years (Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island).

Wind turbines and solar panels are inefficient for a large-scale electrical grid system that requires a continuous, reliable source of electricity. Solar and wind are very expensive and not very cost-effective since the sun doesn’t shine every day, and windless days are common even on the prairies.

In 2025, the most efficient solar panel available to the public was 22.8% efficient, and that of wind turbines is roughly 20-45%. Dust, snow, and ice build-up further reduced the efficiency of solar panels. The panels have to be replaced every 25-30 years and are 94-96% recyclable. If the solar cells are disposed of in landfills, chemical pollution (Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide, Cadmium Telluride, Cadmium Hallium (di)Selenide, Hexafluoroethane, Lead, Polyvinyl Fluoride) can become an environmental hazard. Modern wind turbines have a life expectancy averaging 20 years, and the 15% that can’t be salvaged end up in the landfill. Solar and wind farms are open to the destructive influence of hail and strong winds, and they take away the allure from the landscape.

Biomass and biofuel-burning electric generating stations have been sold to the public as a clean, renewable green energy solution to coal and are popular in the US, Canada, and Europe. Biomass burning consumes millions of acres of forests annually, mainly in Canada, Indonesia, and South America. The forestry companies export chips or pellets worldwide to biomass-burning plants for a clean and efficient burn. However, some biomass facilities burn green and damp trees, producing temperatures below the optimal level, which is generally around 600°C or higher. To raise the temperatures, some US plants supplement the biomass with natural gas, tire chips, and old creosote and PCP (pentachlorophenol) treated railroad ties. Some biomass power stations in eastern US cities are garbage incinerators. This leaves one to question whether biomass burning is actually green. The response to this question must consider the extensive destruction of forests, the displacement of indigenous people in South America and elsewhere, the endangerment and extinction of wildlife, and health hazards caused by air pollution. This is the opposite of what has been sold to the public. What exactly is renewable Green Energy? How serious is the concern about the environment? Is Green Energy just another exploitative capitalist tool creating corporate shareholder value and making a few people extremely rich?

There are more challenges to the extensive electrical grid infrastructure. The system is vulnerable to solar activity, heavy frost, ice, aging, wildfires, hurricanes, and cyberattacks. Wind and other induced atmospheric vibrations such as sudden changes in temperature and pressure can cause transmission lines to vibrate creating high amplitude and low frequency (known as “conductor galloping”), or low amplitude and high frequency (known as “aeolian vibrations”) fluctuations that can place additional stress on the grid infrastructure that can cause blackouts. The cost-effectiveness of the grid itself is affected by the reduced electrical power loss during transmission. The power loss occurs when electrical energy is converted into heat because of the resistance in the transmission lines, and this loss can be significant over long distances. There is another challenge: repairing and maintaining this elaborate grid system can cost in the millions and billions of dollars.

Solar activity can cause periodic major and even smaller solar events that can cause major challenges to the grid infrastructure. Examples are Solar Cycle 10 or the Carrington Event of September 1 &2, 1859, where a major solar geomagnetic storm caused sparking and even fires in telegraph stations. On July 23, 2012, a larger and possibly stronger solar disturbance than the Carrington Event missed Earth by roughly 9 days. The Quebec Blackout of 1989 was caused by a significant solar storm, resulting in massive outages caused by transformer failure. The interaction between the solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and the Earth’s magnetic field can lead to electromagnetically induced currents along the transmission lines, causing high-voltage transformers to overheat and fail, resulting in power outages.  

The electrical infrastructure is further challenged by the arrival of electric vehicles.

Battery-powered electric vehicles (EV) have become an alternative to the polluting internal combustion engine (ICE). The EV has overcome many of the initial challenges, making them as reliable as the ICE vehicles, and their low maintenance has made them attractive initially; however, the replacement battery can be expensive, and in 2025, it is roughly 32-35% of the cost of the EV. The battery and access to a charging station are limiting factors for the EV. The size of an average EV battery is roughly 40-71 kWh, lasting about 10 years with an 8-year warranty in the US and Canada.

The Green Quirk blogs parts 2 to 5 are stories of suppressed, genuine alternative green energy and healthy environmental solutions that conflict with the established energy infrastructure. The conflicts go further into theshoddy’ environmental solutions attempting to solve man-made environmental problems, which in some cases appear to be deliberately introduced. Brave, well-meaning innovators and their fate for trying to insert their environmentally clean innovations into the established energy and environmental sector will also be discussed. Once you see what has been suppressed, you might want to ask yourself a question: How serious is all this ‘environmental talk’, or is it simply exploitive capitalism or a clever way to raise taxes? While you’re pondering that question, take a deeper look at the driving forces and mechanisms behind the global economic system, and look at what’s being exploited to sustain an economy. Anyone offering a permanent, genuine solution to disease, stress, war, catastrophic events, and other problems can easily upset the global financial structure and threaten the national security of any nation.

Green Quirk part 1 Introduction

Green Quirk part 2 Radiation Remediation and Thorium Reactors

Green Quirk part 3 Over Unity/Free Energy

Green Quirk part 4 Internal Combustion Engine Efficiency

Green Quirk part 5 Electrogravitic Space and Personal Vehicles

Green Quirk part 6 Water Electrolysis and Hydrogen

Green Quirk part 7 Conclusions


References:

  1. Admin, Solar Maintenance, Technology; The Truth About Dangerous Chemicals In Solar Panels; March 7, 2022; The Truth about Dangerous Chemicals in Solar Panels - Iowa Solar; Site accessed 1-12-2025.

  2. Battlbox Articles; How Do Solar Flares Affect Power Grids; How Do Solar Flares Affect Power Grids | Battlbox – Battlbox.com; Site accessed 2-17-2025.

  3. Bhutada, Govind; What Are the Five Major Types of Renewable Energy? June 8, 2022; What Are the Five Major Types of Renewable Energy?; Site accessed 1-19-2024.

  4. Calculo Online; Electric Power Loss Calculator (Transmission); Electric Power Loss Calculator (Transmission) - Calculo Online; Site accessed 2-17-2024.

  5. Crownhart, Casey; Solar panels are a pain to recycle. These companies are trying to fix that; August 19, 2021; Solar panels are a pain to recycle. These companies are trying to fix that. | MIT Technology Review; Site accessed 1-25-2025.

  6. D, Nikole; How Efficient Are Wind Turbines?-Complete Facts; WX Research; February 21, 2024; How Efficient are Wind Turbines? - (Facts and Data); Site accessed 1-13-2024.

  7. Dempsey, Eilidh; Are Solar Panels Recyclable? What You Should Know; February 27, 2022; Are Solar Panels Recyclable? What You Should Know – Utopia; Site accessed 1-25-2025.

  8. Dualsun; Recycling solar panels; Updated January 14, 2025; Solar Panel Recycling [Percent, Issues, Process]; Site accessed 1-25-2025.

  9. Electric Vehicles Database; Useable battery capacity of full electric vehicles cheatsheet - EV Database; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Site accessed 1-19-2025.

  10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-United States; Renewable Energy Fact Sheet: Wind Turbines; August 2013; Renewable Energy Fact Sheet: Wind Turbines; Site accessed 1-13 2025.

  11. Farrell, Joseph P.; Some Speculations About That European Blackout; The Giza Death Star; May 5, 2025; SOME SPECULATIONS ABOUT THAT EUROPEAN BLACKOUT; Site accessed 5-5-2025.

  12. Geeks for Geeks; What Are Transmission Line Losses? Causes, Types and Reduction Strategies; February 15, 2025; Transmission Line Losses: Causes, Types & How to Reduce Them; Site accessed 2-17-2025.

  13. GlenFarrow; Biomass boiler temperature ranges: Everything you need to know; January 29, 2024; Biomass boiler temperature ranges: Everything you need to know; Site accessed 1-19-2024.

  14. Greer, Steven Dr.; et al; YouTube-PopNet: The Lost Century; October 24, 2024; The Lost Century | Full Documentary; Site accessed 1-1-2025.

  15. Khillar, Sagar; Difference Between.net; Difference Between Biofuel and Biomass; June 19, 2019; Difference Between Biofuel and Biomass | Difference Between | Biofuel vs Biomass; Site accessed 1-19-2025.

  16. Marchall, Alexander; Energy losses in the electricity grid, what are they due to and how much do they impact?; August 11, 2024; Energy losses in the electricity grid, what are they due to and how much do they impact?; Site accessed 2-17-29-024.

  17. Moore, Michael; YouTube-Michael Moore: Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans| A Film by Jeff Gibb| Full Documentary; April, 21, 2020; Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | A Film by Jeff Gibbs | Full Documentary; Site accessed 1-12-2025.

  18. Normal, Nick; Nikola Tesla, he Opera: A Preview; Make: Magazine; February 18, 2015; kola Tesla, the Opera: A Preview – Make: ;Site accessed 1-11-2025.

  19. Petersen, Carolyn Collins; Is the World Ready For a Catastrophic Solar Storm?; Phys.org; May 22, 2025; Is the world ready for a catastrophic solar storm?; Site accessed 5-23-2025.

  20. Phillips, Alexis; How Long Do Wind Turbines Last? Average Lifespan Explained; Updated January 14, 2022; How Long Do Wind Turbines Last? Average Lifespan Explained - Energy Follower; Site accessed 1-19-2025.

  21. Walker, Emily; How efficient are solar panels? Top brands compared in 2024; Energysage; July 19, 2024; How Efficient Are Solar Panels? Top Brands Compared in 2024 | EnergySage; Site accessed 1-13-2025.

  22. Wikipedia; Carrington Event; Last update January 6, 2025; Carrington Event – Wikipedia; Site accessed 1-12-2025.

  23. Wikipedia; July 2012 solar storm; Last update September 10, 2024; July 2012 solar storm – Wikipedia; Site accessed 1-13-2025.


Charles Kuss

2025

Updated: 05-23-2025