Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
The New York Times breaks a preview of the main story 23 hours ago University to Investigate Fusion Study http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/science/08fusion.html Nature breaks the full story with a 4-part splash 14 hours ago. A sound investment? http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-4.html Bubble fusion: silencing the hype http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-1.html Is bubble fusion simply hot air? http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-2.html Bubble bursts for table-top fusion http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-3.html Reuters runs this erroneous lead 13 hours ago, based on the Nature story, and starts to call it cold fusion: University checks bubble fusion fraud claim WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Purdue University is investigating complaints about a scientist who claimed to have achieved cold fusion using sound waves to make bubbles in a test tube, the university said on Wednesday. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNewsstoryID=2006-03-08T140246Z_01_N0836255_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-FUSION-DC.XML Then, 11 hours ago, CNN repackages the same Reuters story and calls it cold fusion in the title Purdue probes 'cold fusion' fraud claim http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/08/fusion.probe.reut/ UPI picked up the story 7 hours ago, apparently based off the NYT story. http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060308-112608-2313r Purdue investigates professor's research AP does their own original reporting and puts their story out 4 hours ago: Purdue probes 'tabletop fusion' study http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/14050194.htm At about 23 hours after the first NYT story broke, Google News reports that this story has appeared in 54 news outlets. Based on a very quick analysis, only four outlets apparently have done original reporting on this story and everyone else is ripping and reading it. 2 of the 3 wire services apparently did not do original reporting. DAY 2 Washington Post (Perhaps the most best report so far) T+24hrs EST Tabletop Fusion' Research Under Review http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/08/AR2006030802052.html NYT does follow-up story at T+24hrs EST Scientist Says He Stands by Fusion Data http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/science/09fusion.html LA Times has several direct and indirect allegations of fraud from Suslick and Putterman. Perhaps the most slanderous and inaccurate article so far. T+25hrs College Reviews Physicist's Tabletop Fusion Claims http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-fusion9mar09,1,2142402.story?coll=la-news-a_section Indianapolis Star T+25hrs Purdue scientist is under scrutiny http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/NEWS01/603090431/1006/NEWS01 Boston Globe reprints Reuters story, reuses CNN title T+25hrs Purdue investigates scientist over 'cold fusion' claims http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/09/purdue_investigates_scientist_over_cold_fusion_claims/ Google News reports a total of 67 stories at T+30hrs EST
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Like I tell people all the time; the ONLY way to prove that any of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions actually work in a practical sense, is to quickly incorporate each into a simple prototype working device. Scientists - especially the closed-minded (non-intuitive) ones - can spend endless hours debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead, but when an actual physical device is operating continuously according to what looks like a new paradigm, it's very difficult to argue that the reason for the original results of the bench study was that the test tube was dirty. At 02:37 AM 3/9/2006 -0800, you wrote: The New York Times breaks a preview of the main story 23 hours ago University to Investigate Fusion Study http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/science/08fusion.html Nature breaks the full story with a 4-part splash 14 hours ago. A sound investment? http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-4.html Bubble fusion: silencing the hype http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-1.html Is bubble fusion simply hot air? http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-2.html Bubble bursts for table-top fusion http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060306/full/060306-3.html Reuters runs this erroneous lead 13 hours ago, based on the Nature story, and starts to call it cold fusion: University checks bubble fusion fraud claim WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Purdue University is investigating complaints about a scientist who claimed to have achieved cold fusion using sound waves to make bubbles in a test tube, the university said on Wednesday. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNewsstoryID=2006-03-08T140246Z_01_N0836255_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-FUSION-DC.XML Then, 11 hours ago, CNN repackages the same Reuters story and calls it cold fusion in the title Purdue probes 'cold fusion' fraud claim http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/08/fusion.probe.reut/ UPI picked up the story 7 hours ago, apparently based off the NYT story. http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060308-112608-2313r Purdue investigates professor's research AP does their own original reporting and puts their story out 4 hours ago: Purdue probes 'tabletop fusion' study http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/health/14050194.htm At about 23 hours after the first NYT story broke, Google News reports that this story has appeared in 54 news outlets. Based on a very quick analysis, only four outlets apparently have done original reporting on this story and everyone else is ripping and reading it. 2 of the 3 wire services apparently did not do original reporting. DAY 2 Washington Post (Perhaps the most best report so far) T+24hrs EST Tabletop Fusion' Research Under Review http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/08/AR2006030802052.html NYT does follow-up story at T+24hrs EST Scientist Says He Stands by Fusion Data http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/science/09fusion.html LA Times has several direct and indirect allegations of fraud from Suslick and Putterman. Perhaps the most slanderous and inaccurate article so far. T+25hrs College Reviews Physicist's Tabletop Fusion Claims http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-fusion9mar09,1,2142402.story?coll=la-news-a_section Indianapolis Star T+25hrs Purdue scientist is under scrutiny http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060309/NEWS01/603090431/1006/NEWS01 Boston Globe reprints Reuters story, reuses CNN title T+25hrs Purdue investigates scientist over 'cold fusion' claims http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/09/purdue_investigates_scientist_over_cold_fusion_claims/ Google News reports a total of 67 stories at T+30hrs EST
Re: Record Set for Hottest Temperature on Earth: 3.6 Billion Degrees
At 05:27 am 09/03/2006 +, you wrote:
At 06:49 pm 08/03/2006 -0900, Horace wrote:
On Mar 8, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Mitchell Swartz wrote:
Record Set for Hottest Temperature on Earth: 3.6 Billion Degrees in
Lab
Scientists have produced superheated gas exceeding temperatures of
2 billion degrees Kelvin, or 3.6 billion degrees
Fahrenheit. ...They don't know how they did it.
The result may be due to establishing an efficient nuclear heat
sampling regime that taps zero point energy from the nuclei. See:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HeisenbergTraps.pdf
I was very interested in the following para. from the above
paper of yours, Horace.
This has to happen without cracking the lattice,
which is apparently the difficult part.
When the lattice cracks the gas in the vicinity
leaks and confinement is ended. Large parts of
an electrode volume have cracks and thus there
is a steady flow of hydrogen into and out of a
cathode, which precludes
electron trapping in those volumes.
This ties in rather neatly with the generation of Beta-atmosphere
vacua in the cavitation spaces that form when specimens of ductile
metals, such as mild steel, are pulled apart in tension tests.
Passing a massive current through wires is equivalent to failing
them by axi-symmetric pressure (shades of Percy Bridgman) which is
equivalent to tension and the basis of the indirect tension test
invented at the Building Research Station.
Goodness me - Maybe they are the first people to have achieved
demonstrable cold fusion. What a laugh. 8-)
And though superficially that suggestion might seem like an
oxymoron, it isn't.
I suspect what is happening is that the failing of the wires
in effective tension is opening up very high Beta-atmosphere
vacua cavities in which nuclear processes are taking place.
In other words things are cold initially and only heat up when
the nuclear cavity reactions have taken place.
One only needs to examine the nuclear ash left behind after
the experiment to prove this one way or the other.
Cheers,
Frank Grimer
When I wrote the above reply to Horace's post I hadn't
actually read Mitchell Swartz's excerpt [honest Injun 8-) ].
which says:-
Record Set for Hottest Temperature on Earth:
3.6 Billion Degrees in Lab
Scientists have produced superheated gas
exceeding temperatures of 2 billion degrees
Kelvin, or 3.6 billion degrees Fahrenheit.
...They don't know how they did it.
It works by releasing 20 million amps of
electricity into a vertical array of very
fine tungsten wires. Sandia researchers
still aren't sure how the machine achieved
the new record.
This morning I read the whole thing - It says:-
=
http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html
-
Sandia researchers still arent sure how
the machine achieved the new record.
Part of it is probably due to the replacement
of the tungsten steel wires with slightly
thicker steel wires, which allow the plasma
ions to travel faster and thus achieve higher
temperatures.
=
Tungsten steel ain't tungsten - It's steel -
as can be seen from the following dictionary
definition.
Tungsten steel (Metal.), a variety of steel
containing a small amount of tungsten, and
noted for its tenacity and hardness, as well
as for its malleability and tempering
qualities. It is also noted for its magnetic
properties.
And that is as good a description one could wish for
a material which will cavitate under tensile stress.
If they make the wires even thicker they might even
break the record again. 8-)
Cheers,
Frank Grimer
P.S. It would be interesting to find out how to control
the current stretching of the wire so as to freeze the
cavities. I suspect that weighing the wires might show
a loss over what it should be due to the presence of
Beta-atmosphere vacua.
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Winestone wrote.. Like I tell people all the time; the ONLY way to prove that any of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions actually work in a practical sense, is to quickly incorporate each into a simple prototype working device. Scientists - especially the closed-minded (non-intuitive) ones - can spend endless hours debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead, but when an actual physical device is operating continuously according to what looks like a new paradigm, it's very difficult to argue that the reason for the original results of the bench study was that the test tube was dirty. Howdy Philip, The tides of time have a way of "flushing" the estuaries of science. Overlooked in the reportsare the undercurrents of interest by the science community. Steven Krivit of New Energy Times again demonstrates integrity, class andstyle with his factual reporting and analysis by listing the chronology of the " breaking" stories. The accelerating interest in new energy research is the " story". The trials and tribulations of one scientist is irrelevant. Let facts be submitted to a candid world. We can handle the facts. Richard
Re; A Seasoned Scientist on Controlled Fusion
I quote: --- "I am not sure that I have ever mentioned it to you, but controlled fusion has been a real problem with me for over 40 years. I was involved in some of the first meetings where this crap was first promulgated. I told them then that they were full of shit, because they had not the slightest notion about how to achieve it. It is hugely important to understand the difference between science and science fiction. A good scientific problem is one that is just slightly outside of our "sphere of understanding" -- it's far enough out that success expands our "sphere", but it's close enough in that you have a pretty good idea about how to solve it. Science fiction is stuff that is so far outside the sphere that you have no idea as to what the path to the solution might be. These guys have now spent billions of dollars producing nothing and most often clogging the literature with nonsense. I guess that you know that my field of research was surface physics. One of the most amusing (but so sad) results of the fusion program was when the Princeton folks found that radiation from their plasma was desorbing gas from the walls of their vacuum chamber -- a problem that was easily predictable, and was predicted. Overnight, they were throwing millions of dollars at completely unqualified and inexperienced people who were trying to do surface physics. Their work was nonsense, but it corrupted the literature for years. These billions of dollars that have been spent have mostly caused good people to waste their talent on bad problems." End quote.
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Hi Richard... nice hearing from you. I'm the new guy on the Vortex block. I've been in communication with Steve Krivit, and a few weeks ago had the pleasure of meeting him in person, when I was in California. He put me in touch with Vortex. laughing I'm not the most patient of people, and I've been hanging around Cold Fusion ever since it started. When I saw the very nasty (and very closed-minded) reaction to what these two Chem Eng professors had come up with, I was immediately incensed to the point where I smelled several rats. I'm a Chemical Engineer myself, and I've never met a professor who made some of the elementary mistakes thrown at the media by the professional debunkers. Steve Krivit is exactly what Cold Fusion (I call it LENR to prevent the usual automatic reaction) needs. My tack - and Steve knows this - is that, as I said in my posting, we need solid applications asap, even if they don't yet operate at the theoretical peak efficiency. Why? Because as with the automobile and all major inventions - even the humble light bulb - it's ordinary people who make the ultimate decision to accept or not, and the only way to get ordinary people involved is to offer them the prospect of something extremely attractive... preferably before some government naysayer enacts some legal obstacle to its use, which is quite likely these days. Unfortunately, the average person knows very little about nuclear physics, so the only alternative, as I see it, is to show them a working unit. Philip. At 08:01 AM 3/9/2006 -0600, you wrote: Winestone wrote.. Like I tell people all the time; the ONLY way to prove that any of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions actually work in a practical sense, is to quickly incorporate each into a simple prototype working device. Scientists - especially the closed-minded (non-intuitive) ones - can spend endless hours debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead, but when an actual physical device is operating continuously according to what looks like a new paradigm, it's very difficult to argue that the reason for the original results of the bench study was that the test tube was dirty. Howdy Philip, The tides of time have a way of flushing the estuaries of science. Overlooked in the reports are the undercurrents of interest by the science community. Steven Krivit of New Energy Times again demonstrates integrity, class and style with his factual reporting and analysis by listing the chronology of the breaking stories. The accelerating interest in new energy research is the story. The trials and tribulations of one scientist is irrelevant. Let facts be submitted to a candid world. We can handle the facts. Richard
Re: Record Set for Hottest Temperature on Earth: 3.6 Billion Degrees
-Original Message- From: Grimer Goodness me - Maybe they are the first people to have achieved demonstrable cold fusion. What a laugh. 8-) Or, the first could have been metal plating companies who caused embrittlement of ferrite metal alloys. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Another huge problem with the bulk of media coverage on this story is that even if Taleyarkhan or someone else turns out to be a bad apple in terms of credibility, which may indded be the 'proximate' case... ...they failed to look at the numerous other work in the field - some of it superior in a number of ways - PLUS - just like the case with the BBC using Putterman, as their agent-provocateur, who it turned-out was also a likely jealous-suitor with a competing device (LENR but claimed to really be hot fusion) this new whistle blower has one too ... ...did you (or the media) pick up on that little detail ?? Jones
Re: Media tracking of Bubble Fusion Story
Sorry previous message went out a little on the unripe side... ...did you (or the media) pick up on that little detail ?? ...should have been a little clearer on the identity of another possible bad apple ... or is that bad orange ... Mr. Naranjo [the whistle blower] said that the pattern of particles seen in the experiment much more closely matched that given off by californium, a radioactive element that is used in Dr. Taleyarkhan's laboratory. The press ran this blurb almost without question, even though Mr. Naranjo is an undergrad who is working with Putterman on a competing device and even though this new Taleyarkhan report was extremely embarrassing to Putterman, due to his BBC 'slime job'... now totally discredited. Not to mention the pattern of particles [sic] does NOT match californium, but I guess the media was a bit to lazy to check with someone other than an undergrad working on a competing project It should be noted that With $350,000 from the Defense Department, Seth J. Putterman, a professor of physics at U.C.L.A. is the thesis adviser to Mr. Naranjo, and 'reportedly' has tried to build a replica of Dr. Taleyarkhan's apparatus but has not seen any signs of fusion, YET he has his own competing LENR device which he claims does work ... and he is trying to distance himself from Taleyarkhan's sonofusion device... which BTW is far more robust, than Putterman's and has far greater potential to commercialize. Academic jealousy is slimier than anything on the morning soap operas... Jones
Re: Media Tracking Bubble Fusion Story
At 10:41 am 09/03/2006 -0600, Richard wrote: We are all growing boys and girls and know that viewing an eyewall of a hurricane is an optical illusion because nobody can explain scientifically how the wall can form and sustain. But again, I see and hear lotsa things I find unbelievable even after getting my fingers burned. Richard === I can't believe THAT!' said Alice. ` Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. ` Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.' Alice laughed. `There's not use trying,' she said: `one CAN'T believe impossible things.' ` I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. `When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. 8^) ===
McKubre paper repaired
People reported difficulty reading this paper: McKubre, M.C.H. The Need for Triggering in Cold Fusion Reactions. in Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2003. A revised Acrobat version of this has been uploaded: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheneedfor.pdf - Jed
Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
See: http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/ERG-NPR-letter-1-30-06.pdf Farrell agrees with Pimentel that ethanol takes a lot of input energy -- although he does not specify how much in this letter. He says that Pimentel was wrong and that the Berkeley study did take into account the energy used by farm machinery. His main point is that much of the input energy for ethanol production comes from fuels other than oil, so it produces a net increase in transportation fuel. Maybe so, but I doubt it is economically viable, I doubt it does anything to reduce CO2 emissions, and I expect that if the subsidies were withdrawn no one would buy the stuff. - Jed
Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
Most of the studies I'm aware of discuss the manufacture of ethanol from corn. I know first-hand of an interesting process that uses cellulose as its feedstock. The reaction is via an enzyme that initially converts the cellulose to sugar... then the normal fermentation process to ethanol. The process lends itself very nicely to waste wood: bark, chips, sawdust, stumpage... and could easily be implemented by the pulp and paper industry which has the logistics in place to undertake such projects. And this industry is having its problems right now, especially here in Canada. All it takes is some investment. Many energy expenditures occur, even/especially with oil-based fuels. Imagine how much energy it takes to transport fuel from the the wells to the refineries dotted about North America to the fuel depots and then to the individual retail outlets. The conversion process from raw oil to different fuel types also takes a substantial amount of energy. Same problems with ethanol: manufacture and distribution. I haven't read the various studies on the subject so I don't know what parameters were used. I can only say that some time ago similar studies were done to compare solar energy (energy to manufacture the panels, etc.) and these were all deeply flawed - either accidentally or deliberately. Philip. At 04:19 PM 3/9/2006 -0500, you wrote: See: http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/ERG-NPR-letter-1-30-06.pdf Farrell agrees with Pimentel that ethanol takes a lot of input energy -- although he does not specify how much in this letter. He says that Pimentel was wrong and that the Berkeley study did take into account the energy used by farm machinery. His main point is that much of the input energy for ethanol production comes from fuels other than oil, so it produces a net increase in transportation fuel. Maybe so, but I doubt it is economically viable, I doubt it does anything to reduce CO2 emissions, and I expect that if the subsidies were withdrawn no one would buy the stuff. - Jed
Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
I heard that the limit on biofuels is that they would require devoting the entirety of our agricultural surfaces to the corresponding cultivations if we wanted to run all our vehicles on them. Otherwise their net CO2 emission is zero without a doubt, as all they can release to the atmosphere is what they have taken from it a year or so before for their photosynthesis, unlike fossil fuels which did so a very long time ago. Michel - Original Message - From: Philip Winestone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:39 PM Subject: Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol Most of the studies I'm aware of discuss the manufacture of ethanol from corn. I know first-hand of an interesting process that uses cellulose as its feedstock. The reaction is via an enzyme that initially converts the cellulose to sugar... then the normal fermentation process to ethanol. The process lends itself very nicely to waste wood: bark, chips, sawdust, stumpage... and could easily be implemented by the pulp and paper industry which has the logistics in place to undertake such projects. And this industry is having its problems right now, especially here in Canada. All it takes is some investment. Many energy expenditures occur, even/especially with oil-based fuels. Imagine how much energy it takes to transport fuel from the the wells to the refineries dotted about North America to the fuel depots and then to the individual retail outlets. The conversion process from raw oil to different fuel types also takes a substantial amount of energy. Same problems with ethanol: manufacture and distribution. I haven't read the various studies on the subject so I don't know what parameters were used. I can only say that some time ago similar studies were done to compare solar energy (energy to manufacture the panels, etc.) and these were all deeply flawed - either accidentally or deliberately. Philip. At 04:19 PM 3/9/2006 -0500, you wrote: See: http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/ERG-NPR-letter-1-30-06.pdf Farrell agrees with Pimentel that ethanol takes a lot of input energy -- although he does not specify how much in this letter. He says that Pimentel was wrong and that the Berkeley study did take into account the energy used by farm machinery. His main point is that much of the input energy for ethanol production comes from fuels other than oil, so it produces a net increase in transportation fuel. Maybe so, but I doubt it is economically viable, I doubt it does anything to reduce CO2 emissions, and I expect that if the subsidies were withdrawn no one would buy the stuff. - Jed
Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
Michel Jullian wrote: I heard that the limit on biofuels is that they would require devoting the entirety of our agricultural surfaces to the corresponding cultivations if we wanted to run all our vehicles on them. I have discussed that issue here before. Actually, it would take much more than the entirety of our agricultural surfaces in the U.S. It would take roughly twice as much as the entire landmass produces -- 2 times all biomass from all dry land. Biomass can never supply more than a few percent of our energy, and every calorie of biomass we use condemns someone outside the United States to malnutrition and starvation. - Jed
Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
Good point about the CO2 emissions. I don't believe it's practical to even think about running vehicles on biofuels alone. I do believe, however, that a percentage of vehicle fuel could be biofuel. Right now I use Sunoco gas (in Canada) that contains a maximum of 10% ethanol. If all gasoline suppliers were to supplement their fuel with 10% ethanol, that's simply 10% less gasoline used. I don't know how much is practical, but any avoidance of oil imports is important to me. Philip. At 12:07 AM 3/10/2006 +0100, you wrote: I heard that the limit on biofuels is that they would require devoting the entirety of our agricultural surfaces to the corresponding cultivations if we wanted to run all our vehicles on them. Otherwise their net CO2 emission is zero without a doubt, as all they can release to the atmosphere is what they have taken from it a year or so before for their photosynthesis, unlike fossil fuels which did so a very long time ago. Michel - Original Message - From: Philip Winestone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:39 PM Subject: Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol Most of the studies I'm aware of discuss the manufacture of ethanol from corn. I know first-hand of an interesting process that uses cellulose as its feedstock. The reaction is via an enzyme that initially converts the cellulose to sugar... then the normal fermentation process to ethanol. The process lends itself very nicely to waste wood: bark, chips, sawdust, stumpage... and could easily be implemented by the pulp and paper industry which has the logistics in place to undertake such projects. And this industry is having its problems right now, especially here in Canada. All it takes is some investment. Many energy expenditures occur, even/especially with oil-based fuels. Imagine how much energy it takes to transport fuel from the the wells to the refineries dotted about North America to the fuel depots and then to the individual retail outlets. The conversion process from raw oil to different fuel types also takes a substantial amount of energy. Same problems with ethanol: manufacture and distribution. I haven't read the various studies on the subject so I don't know what parameters were used. I can only say that some time ago similar studies were done to compare solar energy (energy to manufacture the panels, etc.) and these were all deeply flawed - either accidentally or deliberately. Philip. At 04:19 PM 3/9/2006 -0500, you wrote: See: http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/ERG-NPR-letter-1-30-06.pdf Farrell agrees with Pimentel that ethanol takes a lot of input energy -- although he does not specify how much in this letter. He says that Pimentel was wrong and that the Berkeley study did take into account the energy used by farm machinery. His main point is that much of the input energy for ethanol production comes from fuels other than oil, so it produces a net increase in transportation fuel. Maybe so, but I doubt it is economically viable, I doubt it does anything to reduce CO2 emissions, and I expect that if the subsidies were withdrawn no one would buy the stuff. - Jed
Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
Philip Winestone wrote: Many energy expenditures occur, even/especially with oil-based fuels. Imagine how much energy it takes to transport fuel from the the wells to the refineries dotted about North America to the fuel depots and then to the individual retail outlets. Oil energy overhead is 15% to 20% depending upon where the oil originates, and how much it needs to be processed. Most of the overhead is at the refinery. See Appendix C, here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/NRELenergyover.pdf Ethanol energy overhead is 60% according to the industry and well over 100% according to others. Enzyme conversion has the potential to increase output considerably, and it will probably bring the overhead below 100%, but the total mass of biomass is so limited this can never be a substantial source of energy. - Jed
Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
Philip Winestone wrote: If all gasoline suppliers were to supplement their fuel with 10% ethanol, that's simply 10% less gasoline used. It is not that simple. The amount reduced would depend upon how much oil is needed to produce the ethanol. That subject is sharply disputed, but as far as I know even the industry flacks agree that a great deal of oil is needed. The industry claims the overhead is 60%. Assuming that most of that is oil, and not coal, the use of 10% ethanol would reduce oil consumption by 5%. I do not think there is a slightest chance we can ever supply 10% of gasoline with ethanol. We would starve to death. Of course you might run the ethanol production industry on ethanol itself, reducing oil inputs to zero. But in that case the cost of a gallon of ethanol would be $10 or so and the energy overhead would be outrageous. As things now stand, no tractor or ethanol factory boiler is fired by ethanol, or as all oil wells, refineries and tankers are powered by oil. - Jed
Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
I wrote: . . . no tractor or ethanol factory boiler is fired by ethanol, or as all oil wells, refineries and tankers are powered by oil. Meant: whereas all oil wells, refineries . . . Sooner or later -- probably within 50 years -- oil production overhead will exceed 100%. That is to say, it will take more than one barrel of oil to extract, refine and transport the gasoline equivalent of one barrel of oil. This will bring an abrupt end to the oil age. It will happen long before oil wells are exhausted. Actually, Robert Park is right about this issue -- which proves that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. To quoting What's New -- Franco Battaglia at the University of Rome put it this way: 'You can buy an apple for one euro. If you really want an apple, you might pay five euros. You could even pay a thousand euros, but you would never pay two apples.' http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN03/wn062003.html - Jed
Re: Electrostatic Hover Cars
Original Message- From: ThomasClark123 According to the Unity of Creation Theory (The cosmic matrix piece for a jigsaw puzzle part 2- Leonard G. Cramp), gravity is simply a deficit of 1g on Earth between creative rays (cosmic/ether/compressed magnetic rays) that push upon Earth from the atmosphere with a higher force, Yes, this is the basis of Sir Grimer's Beta-atmosphere conjecture. However, if you actually read the posts (input vs. output) on this list you would know this. Regards, Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Atmospheric Capacitor and Beyond
An interesting article: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060306/sprite_tec.html which would tend to show that all weather is an equalization between the ionisphere and the surface. But what of beyond? Tether? T ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Farrell responds to Pimentel regarding ethanol
Well, I keep saying it: no corn... only cellulose, preferably waste cellulose, of which there's lots. So there's no question of starving. In the ethanol manufacturing process, there's really only one main user of energy, which is the distillation operation. In addition, because ethanol forms an azeotrope, removing water from the last 2 - 3% of the ethanol-water solution, could be another significant energy user... I don't know about this, as I haven't gone into it... We have to also distinguish between mobile (automotive) fuel usage and static usage. Why use oil, a mobile fuel, as a fuel for another mobile fuel, when other waste products as well as coal - static fuels - could do the job. Philip. At 06:40 PM 3/9/2006 -0500, you wrote: Philip Winestone wrote: If all gasoline suppliers were to supplement their fuel with 10% ethanol, that's simply 10% less gasoline used. It is not that simple. The amount reduced would depend upon how much oil is needed to produce the ethanol. That subject is sharply disputed, but as far as I know even the industry flacks agree that a great deal of oil is needed. The industry claims the overhead is 60%. Assuming that most of that is oil, and not coal, the use of 10% ethanol would reduce oil consumption by 5%. I do not think there is a slightest chance we can ever supply 10% of gasoline with ethanol. We would starve to death. Of course you might run the ethanol production industry on ethanol itself, reducing oil inputs to zero. But in that case the cost of a gallon of ethanol would be $10 or so and the energy overhead would be outrageous. As things now stand, no tractor or ethanol factory boiler is fired by ethanol, or as all oil wells, refineries and tankers are powered by oil. - Jed
Re: Electrostatic Hover Cars
In a message dated 3/9/2006 7:01:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, this is the basis of Sir Grimer's Beta-atmosphere conjecture. However, if you actually read the posts (input vs. output) on this list you would know this.Regards,Terry I read many of the posts but I missed the above. I also speed read, so that sometimes I miss much.
RE: global warming: spin or not spin?
It was my understanding that greenhouse gases are only those which have the particular characteristic of absorbing the wavelengths of reflected radiation. It was told to me that only specific gasses, not water vapor, have this characteristic. Comments? Disagreements? I don't believe that Global Warming is a man-made event. So be it, but let me make a point. It's not that water vapor isn't a green-house gas. It is. But CO2 is more important because there is a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human action. In other words, CO2 and other green house gases released from burning wood, or from burning methane, are not that important because the CO2 contained in those fuels was extracted from the atmosphere when those fuels were created. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels which are being removed from locations deep within the Earth. These sources of carbon, when burned, are creating the net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which the global warming advocates are concerned about. Craig Haynie (Houston)
