About TF3CY

QSL Info – prefer through bueuro, but direct QSL cards will be responded to.

Benedikt Sveinsson

Einarsnesi 42a

101 Reykjavik

Callsign is TF3CY, formerly TF3BNT

current email: benedikt@ok.is and besveinsson@gmail.com

Currently employed at Open Systems Iceland , working as a Cisco network engineer.

Hobbies include:  Fly Fishing, HAM radio, electronic design, RC helicopters and planes, Hiking, football (soccer), Have still some interest in photography.

facebook: http://www.facebook.com/benediktsv

Here are some pictures of me and the family:

kári í starwars force unleased!

5 thoughts on “About TF3CY”

  1. Hi Benedikt.
    This is a shoot out in the dark, but I really need some help from Iceland that is NOT EME related, hi.
    Let me first introduce my self, my name is Stig and call OZ4MM. Currently very active on EME on 432 + 1296 + 2320 and little 144MHz using my 10 meter dish. I have several times seen your call on the logger, hi.
    OK now to the problem. 2 years ago I visit Iceland with my sonns school and stayed at a exchange class in Holmavek in northewest Iceland a of couple day, and some days in Reykjavik. Sorry I didn know about you then. In fact I never found a Ham antenna on my stay on Iceland. Problem now, as a parrent of my daughters class, we need desperate a contact to a school in Iceland who would be interested to be a exchange class with a danish 8 to 9 class. We have had a another contact, but this year its not possibly for our Icaland friends. So we need to find a Iceland school for visit in August. Yes I know its desperate to contact a Iceland EMEer, but MAYBE you know of some persons we can try to contact concerning school exchange, even with so little time before August.
    If you know of any persons who can help us, please reply soon as possible Benedikt.
    By the way, I see you are Cisco technican. I worked 18 years at Siemens latter FSC, 6 years ago I started at Teracom as broadcast technician. Thats very good then you are playing with EME and highpower stuff, hi.

    Sorry this no EME related subject, but hope you can give a hint.

    Please respond to: vestergaard@os.dk

    CU de OZ4MM, Stig

  2. I hate to be cynical, but this sakcms of perpetual motion. It takes more energy to synthesize methanol than can be extracted from its combustion/I think the Icelanders know what they are doing. There is a serious amount of spare heat going around in a geothermal plant. That energy can be used to drive the combustion of methanol backwards. So yes, it takes more energy to create the methanol than it gives out when burnt. But it is energy currently going entirely to waste.It takes more energy to gasify water and have it rain upland than you get via hydro dams, but that doesn’t mean getting electricity from dams violates any laws of physics.It’s been a while since I took chemistry, but:2 CH3OH + 3 O2 2 CO2 + 4 H2OThey are doing it the other way round. Put in CO2 and get out methanol. As it happens they crack the water first, but the essence is the same.2CO2 + 4H2 2CH3OH + O2It is endothermic, but the large reduction in the number of gas atoms on the right means it will be driven at high pressures.

  3. Roger, if the Svartsengi Geothermal Power Plant is Geothermal, where is the CO2 coming from that they’re using for the proescs?Also, this raises the question of: what is the net carbon emission results from this? If they’re capturing CO2, they’re going to be lowering the overall efficiency of the power plant to produce a carbon-based fuel. So this raises the question as to whether or not this proescs is less carbon intensive than traditional oil refining if they have to makeup for the loss of efficiency.Perhaps I just need to look into the proescs, but I don’t have the time right now

  4. This is an interesting aiapicptlon indeed.But a quick check of the numbers – wholesale rate for bulk CO2, facility capacity, wholesale rate for methanol, the investment to develop facility, etc, – suggests that this is not even close to viable. Roger’s comment #11 notwithstanding – both CO2 and electricity have a cost even for the producer.The company seems to acknowledge this problem on their website, “[The facility’s] purpose is to improve plant economics for building larger plants.One wonders, do they intend to make up the losses on volume?

  5. This is an interesting apcapiltion indeed.But a quick check of the numbers – wholesale rate for bulk CO2, facility capacity, wholesale rate for methanol, the investment to develop facility, etc, – suggests that this is not even close to viable. Roger’s comment #11 notwithstanding – both CO2 and electricity have a cost even for the producer.The company seems to acknowledge this problem on their website, “[The facility’s] purpose is to improve plant economics for building larger plants.One wonders, do they intend to make up the losses on volume?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *