Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:51 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1 GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system . when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
It's interesting that in this thread so far nobody has brought up Thermal Depolymerization...that's a pretty cool technology that's in its infancy, but has potential. There's a plant in the bible belt somewhere that's been using butterball turkey offal as a base material... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization Anywho...BD proponants will no doubt have something negative to say about this emerging technology, but I think it's pretty cool. Of course, it's not solving out emissions problems, or reducing our energy consumption...which should be the paramount goal in developing energy technologymore for less, renewable etc. You said it yourself, some of it. More important, it's not suitable for small, local community-scale operations, which are the only scale that makes any sense for biofuels (food, anything). Which, along with Robert's comment about the waste stream it depends on, makes it less than cool. Best Keith --- MK DuPree [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know anything about Tyson using chicken fat to supply stock for biodiesel? If so, comments? Thanks. Mike DuPree ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
Jason Katie wrote: BD a dollar more than DD? what a crock. if we can do it in our collective garage for less than a dollar a gallon why cant they do it in a huge super-specialized facility for even less? man, these corporate types are dumber than i thought...and i figured they were they were incompetent to begin with. They have a lot more fingers in their pies than you do, with government regulations, paying for collection time and labor and feedstock, Research and Development costs that must be recouped, government regulations, safety inspections, administrative overhead... did I mention the government regulations they have to meet? With oil production subsidized like it is, I'm not surprised that it costs more to produce BD than DD. But I imagine that if you stripped all the subsidies off of both of them, petrodiesel would come out more expensive than the bio. -Kurt I'll side with Jason, at least until corporate types like ADM et al who're making ethanol from corn wake up to the fact that they could also make biodiesel from the corn oil instead of treating it as a waste product or whatever they do with it these days. Actually I'll still side with Jason even if they are doing that, I'm not going to run out of evidence of big-central corporate dumbnesses any time soon. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Wes Moore wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes And did you actually read what I wrote? http://snipurl.com/17co2 [Biofuel] Pendulum Wed Jan 10 2007 Keith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:51 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1 GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Bumper Stickers for 2007
Not politically correct, in a couple cases. Bumper Stickers for 2007 At Least Nixon Resigned Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet? George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore America : One Nation, Under Surveillance They Call Him W So He Can Spell It Who's God Do You Kill For? Cheney/Satan '08 Jail to the Chief No, seriously, why did we invade Iraq ? Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap Bad President! No Banana. We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them Is It Vietnam Yet? Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand Basket? You Elected Him. You Deserve Him. Impeach Cheney First Dubya, Your Dad Shoulda Pulled Out, Too When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46 Pray For Impeachment Fermez la Bush The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century What Part of Bush Lied Don't You Understand? One Nation Under Clod 2004: Embarrassed 2005: Horrified 2006: Terrified Bush Never Exhaled ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] [Fwd: Re: Global warming Sportsters]
Interesting cross-post from another list... -Weaver Original Message Subject:Re: Global warming Sportsters Resent-Date:Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:34:24 -0500 (EST) Resent-From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:34:11 -0600 From: David Broadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert, I also drive a Honda. We use some of the curly fries bulbs, too, for the same reason you do. A climatologist I heard (don't recall his name, but he's well respected in his field) said that at the equator the temperatures will not really change. As you go toward the poles the temps will increase, with the poles averaging 3-4 degrees higher than now. Houston and Wichita Falls are only going to see a small amount of that increase. I doubt our electric usage will increase dramatically in the summer. The comment on British wine was based upon fact. In the first millennium AD the Roman Empire, before it withdrew, imported wine from Britain, and it was considered good. Wine grapes are not able to grow in the UK now because the weather has been too cool. Since there were far fewer people then, not to mention livestock polluting through flatulence and the selfish Americans polluting by driving SUVs, this is one indication that the earth goes through temperature cycles. According to that climatologist, about every 1400-1500 years. We survived without kilometers just fine. Remember having to clean your plate because of the starving children in India? Today there are twice as many Indians and they pretty much feed themselves, so the population control crowd of revered scientists were wrong there. Same with the eminent ice age coming in the 70s. The point is the air and water are cleaner, and we puny people actually do very little that could destroy the earth. We can, however, destroy our economy with overblown theories for no good reason. Ride the bikes and enjoy life. David On 1/11/07 7:11 PM, Robert Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two new clean burning Honda Automobiles. One is an ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle), the other is a LEV with 240hp and I love it. So far I think I am doing my part. Then, the wife insists on recycling the aluminum cans out by the street for the trash man, that's just fine as long as she does it. I have filled all of the light sockets in my home with those fluorescent ones that look like curly fries. Not because they are cheap on power, because I only change them every 8 years (or that's what the package says). OK.. I still think I'm doing my part. David Wrote-- I don't worry much about whether the average temperature at the South Pole goes up from 30 below to 27 below. David I'm just thinking that if the South Pole warms from -30 to -27 then there is somewhere that will warm from +31 to +34. in the Houston summer the electric bill would from $600 to $700. I am not a big fan of the global warming electric cooling bill in Houston. I would move to Wisconsin but it is too far to drive every morning. Man adds about 3 1/2% of all greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, nature adding the rest. That's really a small percentage. David you have a good point. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines did a number on the Earth in releasing greenhouse gases in 1991 and 1994. Remember that 30-40 years ago we were about to enter an ice age, according to the leading (whacky) scientists of the day, and 40-50 years ago they said if we didn't control the population everybody was going to die of starvation. I also remember (when I was 8 years old) that if we don't learn and use the metric system we will all die, or something like that. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
besides, the last energy bill handed the oil companies 10 Billion with a B to, uh, get more. Kurt Nolte wrote: Jason Katie wrote: BD a dollar more than DD? what a crock. if we can do it in our collective garage for less than a dollar a gallon why cant they do it in a huge super-specialized facility for even less? man, these corporate types are dumber than i thought...and i figured they were they were incompetent to begin with. They have a lot more fingers in their pies than you do, with government regulations, paying for collection time and labor and feedstock, Research and Development costs that must be recouped, government regulations, safety inspections, administrative overhead... did I mention the government regulations they have to meet? With oil production subsidized like it is, I'm not surprised that it costs more to produce BD than DD. But I imagine that if you stripped all the subsidies off of both of them, petrodiesel would come out more expensive than the bio. -Kurt ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Hi Keith: I am afraid egos have entered this discussion. The reality I see from all of the objections is some folks would like to be physicists. I think being a good physicist requires extreme depth. The objections I have seen are valid to understand where the extra energy is coming from. Once this is understood, it is helpful to look at what energy is required as input and what we receive at the other end. I am grateful for this discussion, it has been useful to me to organize these procedures in my mind, and to be able to re-iterate them in an intelligible way. Beyond that I am only seeing a distortion of egos. Farmers seem to have a handle on this, they know the sun is providing a certain amount of energy to help them grow corn. But they are smart enough to focus on what energy input is necessary from them. Perhaps this is why so many farmers just shake their head in disbelief when a physicist speaks Wes On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:39 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Wes Moore wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes And did you actually read what I wrote? http://snipurl.com/17co2 [Biofuel] Pendulum Wed Jan 10 2007 Keith On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1 GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system Š when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Wes Moore wrote: Hi Keith: I am afraid egos have entered this discussion. Egos, hm. The reality I see from all of the objections is some folks would like to be physicists. I think being a good physicist requires extreme depth. LOL! Clearly I'm right out of my depth here Wes. I'll just leave you to it, eh? Meanwhile I'll go and gaze raptly at all those dollar bills flying in and out of our woodstove and gas cooker and so on. Think I'll post that message again, see below... The objections I have seen are valid to understand where the extra energy is coming from. Once this is understood, it is helpful to look at what energy is required as input and what we receive at the other end. I am grateful for this discussion, it has been useful to me to organize these procedures in my mind, and to be able to re-iterate them in an intelligible way. Beyond that I am only seeing a distortion of egos. Farmers seem to have a handle on this, they know the sun is providing a certain amount of energy to help them grow corn. But they are smart enough to focus on what energy input is necessary from them. Perhaps this is why so many farmers just shake their head in disbelief when a physicist speaks Are you a farmer? I am. Best Keith Previous: http://snipurl.com/17co2 [Biofuel] Pendulum Wed Jan 10 2007 Wes Moore wrote: -Original Message- Doug Being a pump does not preclude a device from being over unity. It does not violate physics because it extracts energy from one place and utilizes it at the other end of the cycle. From our perspective, we do not have to pay for all of the energy that we extract so it is over unity to us. Wes, what is your definition of over-unity? It seems you differentiate between two types of energy: energy you pay for and energy you don't pay for. Physics isn't interested in how you pay your bills. Running on home-brewed biodiesel our Toyota TownAce probably qualifies as an over-unity device according to your definition. Substituting free energy (below) also doesn't work because it uses the same definition, free as in it doesn't cost you money. It's about energy costs, not money costs, you can't substitute the one for the other. You're confusing chalk and cheese (in a subject that is quite confused enough already), and seeing over-unity/free energy devices where there aren't any. (And there aren't any.) I asked you this: Do you know of any other working, real-world, attested, authenticated examples of this over-unity device working? Or of any over-unity device working? The answer, with all the provisos and but-if's pruned away, was no, and it's still no. Wes On Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:39 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Wes Moore wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes And did you actually read what I wrote? http://snipurl.com/17co2 [Biofuel] Pendulum Wed Jan 10 2007 Keith On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1 GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system © when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy
Re: [Biofuel] [Fwd: Re: Global warming Sportsters]
'Lo Weaver What a load of bollocks. Pardon me, but it's a little hard to find something he didn't get wrong. Regarding substantiation of that (a) please see the archives and (b) citing A climatologist I heard (don't recall his name, but he's well respected in his field) said that... doesn't quite cut it, or not here anyway. Who, Fred Singer? Oh - he got the overpopulation myth right, more or less, though probably for the wrong reasons, but not the starvation bit, no shortage in view of starving people, including in India (and the US). ... the air and water are cleaner - than when? Um, lots of good vineyards in England. Some English organic wines: http://www.vinceremos.co.uk/mall/departmentpage.cfm/VinceremosWines/69062/1/1 Dream on. Best Keith Interesting cross-post from another list... -Weaver Original Message Subject: Re: Global warming Sportsters Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:34:24 -0500 (EST) Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:34:11 -0600 From: David Broadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:Robert Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert, I also drive a Honda. We use some of the curly fries bulbs, too, for the same reason you do. A climatologist I heard (don't recall his name, but he's well respected in his field) said that at the equator the temperatures will not really change. As you go toward the poles the temps will increase, with the poles averaging 3-4 degrees higher than now. Houston and Wichita Falls are only going to see a small amount of that increase. I doubt our electric usage will increase dramatically in the summer. The comment on British wine was based upon fact. In the first millennium AD the Roman Empire, before it withdrew, imported wine from Britain, and it was considered good. Wine grapes are not able to grow in the UK now because the weather has been too cool. Since there were far fewer people then, not to mention livestock polluting through flatulence and the selfish Americans polluting by driving SUVs, this is one indication that the earth goes through temperature cycles. According to that climatologist, about every 1400-1500 years. We survived without kilometers just fine. Remember having to clean your plate because of the starving children in India? Today there are twice as many Indians and they pretty much feed themselves, so the population control crowd of revered scientists were wrong there. Same with the eminent ice age coming in the 70s. The point is the air and water are cleaner, and we puny people actually do very little that could destroy the earth. We can, however, destroy our economy with overblown theories for no good reason. Ride the bikes and enjoy life. David On 1/11/07 7:11 PM, Robert Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have two new clean burning Honda Automobiles. One is an ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle), the other is a LEV with 240hp and I love it. So far I think I am doing my part. Then, the wife insists on recycling the aluminum cans out by the street for the trash man, that's just fine as long as she does it. I have filled all of the light sockets in my home with those fluorescent ones that look like curly fries. Not because they are cheap on power, because I only change them every 8 years (or that's what the package says). OK.. I still think I'm doing my part. David Wrote-- I don't worry much about whether the average temperature at the South Pole goes up from 30 below to 27 below. David I'm just thinking that if the South Pole warms from -30 to -27 then there is somewhere that will warm from +31 to +34. in the Houston summer the electric bill would from $600 to $700. I am not a big fan of the global warming electric cooling bill in Houston. I would move to Wisconsin but it is too far to drive every morning. Man adds about 3 1/2% of all greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere, nature adding the rest. That's really a small percentage. David you have a good point. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines did a number on the Earth in releasing greenhouse gases in 1991 and 1994. Remember that 30-40 years ago we were about to enter an ice age, according to the leading (whacky) scientists of the day, and 40-50 years ago they said if we didn't control the population everybody was going to die of starvation. I also remember (when I was 8 years old) that if we don't learn and use the metric system we will all die, or something like that. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Wait... you make an economic arguement for why not to count the thermal input, then claim that engineers designed it based on economics, not physics? I've got two engineering degrees, and was always taught that the laws of physics govern how stuff works. Economics is so inconsistent depending on particular prices and economic systems, that trying to design something based on it would rarely work. What if you were charged for the thermal input from some central heat distribution system -- would the heat pump suddenly stop functioning? According to your definition, it seems like it would. Yet, it would be exactly the same machine as before. On 1/11/07, Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes -Original Message- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Zeke Yewdall *Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:51 PM *To:* biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, *Wes Moore* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes *On Behalf Of *Zeke Yewdall *Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, *Wes Moore* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system … when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Correspondance with the White House
Hi Robert and Benita, Lovely letter. I heard his remarks this morning (Thursday) about the capacity of the American people to forget, and I'm offended that he would think me stupid enough to forget what happened that day. I will NEVER forget September 11th! I was in Washington that day. I saw what happened to the Pentagon. Our president has NO RIGHT to assume I'll forget what happened . . . Have you seen Loose Change 911? http://www.loosechange911.com/ Everyone should. Even more reasons to never forget. Frank On 1/12/07, robert and benita rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This put a wry smile on my face . . . I composed an e-mail to the White House after listening to Mr. Bush outline his tired old strategy for dealing with the tar baby he's created in Iraq. It was uniformly critical, as has been every e-mail I've sent to the White House since Mr. Bush took office. (There have been dozens of these.) I've never received a response, until tonight. Here's what the automailer of the White House sent me: On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence. We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions. The President is committed to continuing our economic progress, defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values. Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message. Please visit the White House website for the most up-to-date information on Presidential initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you. In order to better receive comments from the public, a new system has been implemented. In the future please send your comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you again for taking the time to write. Ha! I wonder if any of them bother taking the time to READ!!! This is what I wrote: Dear White House Staff: Despite the more conciliatory tone our president has adopted after the elections last November, I listened to his speech last night with resignation. He STILL doesn't get it! We Americans who have NEVER supported the invasion of Iraq will not support an increase in the number of our troops in that country. Get us OUT of that quagmire. We Americans who are Christians and look upon the destruction wrought by our foreign policy with dismay will NEVER support military solutions to our conflicts. Mr. Bush needs to stop invoking the name of God for the sake of fomenting warfare. Mr. Bush needs to stop invoking 11 September as some kind of mantra that, when uttered, magically vanquishes all intelligent opposition to his policies. I heard his remarks this morning (Thursday) about the capacity of the American people to forget, and I'm offended that he would think me stupid enough to forget what happened that day. I will NEVER forget September 11th! I was in Washington that day. I saw what happened to the Pentagon. Our president has NO RIGHT to assume I'll forget what happened . . . But our nation's response to that day, under Mr. Bush's leadership, has consisted of one myopic blunder after another. He did not announce anything new in his speech to us last night. He's proposing more war, more death / sacrifice (but only for the underpriviledged enlisted, not to his own children), more finger-pointing (laying our inability to stop the insurgency at the feet of the Iraqis, themselves), more deficit spending, more worry about WMD's (Iran) more consultations with nations already generally supportive of an ongoing American presence in the Gulf (the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians) ; yet he's NOT listening to his own people (who have had ENOUGH!), the growing outcry in the Congress (even from people in our own party) and he's still refusing to talk to our enemies. Richard Nixon talked to the Chinese. Ronald Reagan talked to the Soviets. Why can't we talk to the Iranians or the Syrians? Perhaps we don't like what they'll say? Perhaps we don't really WANT to do anything about the Palestinians, whose democratically elected government we don't like . . . Or maybe this apparent ineptitude on the part of our administration is designed to KEEP American soldiers in Iraq indefinately, so that we can justify our large bases there. Perhaps Mr. Bush's saber rattling with respect to Iran is nothing more than another fear tactic to justify the need for large troop deployments in the region. The Iranians don't have nuclear weapons, but even if they did, so what? The Pakistanis have nuclear weapons. The Indians have nuclear weapons. The Israelis have nuclear weapons. Now the North Koreans have them too. We ALSO have nuclear weapons, and we're the only nation that has ever used them in anger. Perhaps, if they're secretly developing a bomb program, the Iranians are looking to deter OUR aggression. After all, we invaded Iraq on a pretext of WMD's there, that, by the way, STILL haven't surfaced .
Re: [Biofuel] Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California - Globe andMail - 2007.01.11
As it should be. This is great news. I hope other states follow through with similar legislation. As the sweet crude and foreign crude runs low and the price goes up, eventually Canada's oil will be worth more anyways. Why sell it now. Better to wait until you have the world over a barrel (pun intended) and in the mean time learn how to melt it out by using solar concentrators rather than burning huge methane reserves. DUH Joe Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote: So - Kalifornia will just keep importing. Only 1 of 50 states. M snip Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California Alberta's energy resources at disadvantage under state rule limiting greenhouse gases ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Zeke I think one thing that trumps the laws of physics are results. Physics, as the heat pump example explains identifies where the mysterious energy comes from. From there I think an intelligent engineer would proceed accepting this gift of energy and create the system to operate accordingly. Some people seem to think if physics can not explain something, a machine should not be built. In my experience inventions seem to operate in reverse to that model. Is the physicist who explains how something works, in any way better than the inventor who produced the results?. You raised 2 points here : 1 Economics are inconsistent depending on prices. . It does not matter whether you are paying 1 cent / KW or 30 cents, the ratio remains constant. 2 A common heating system where tenants are charged by consumption only transfers the advantage to the owner of the central system. I would still count the energy from the atmosphere as a gift. The question you raise only questions who gets the gift. In an ideal situation the power plant owner is honest and charges according to his input cost. Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Wait... you make an economic arguement for why not to count the thermal input, then claim that engineers designed it based on economics, not physics? I've got two engineering degrees, and was always taught that the laws of physics govern how stuff works. Economics is so inconsistent depending on particular prices and economic systems, that trying to design something based on it would rarely work. What if you were charged for the thermal input from some central heat distribution system -- would the heat pump suddenly stop functioning? According to your definition, it seems like it would. Yet, it would be exactly the same machine as before. On 1/11/07, Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:51 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1 GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system . when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Holy crap Wes you're paying 15 cents per Kwh? (yes don't forget the hours unit, or are you taking almost 3 hours to do this work?) I pay 6 cents or near a third of that. Where do you live man? Joe Wes Moore wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Yes in all cases I have referred to KW hours. But you are right this does not take into account the few minutes of operation that would be wasted at start up for each cycle. I have set my t stat to 1 cycle per hour so this is not as much of a concern as I sometimes see up to 5 or 7cycles per hour with some electric heat settings. If a system is sized properly 1 CPH does not compromise occupant comfort. Wes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Street Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:44 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Holy crap Wes you're paying 15 cents per Kwh? (yes don't forget the hours unit, or are you taking almost 3 hours to do this work?) I pay 6 cents or near a third of that. Where do you live man? Joe Wes Moore wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
LOL Joe I live in Ontario as well, my calculations are derived from adding in PST, GST, Delivery charge, Debt Retirement, Administration charge and anything else they seem to add to our bill. I simply divide the total bill with the number of kilowatts consumed. It varies between 18 to 15 cents per KW Wes PS: I hope they are not giving you folks in western Ontario preferential treatment!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Street Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:44 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Holy crap Wes you're paying 15 cents per Kwh? (yes don't forget the hours unit, or are you taking almost 3 hours to do this work?) I pay 6 cents or near a third of that. Where do you live man? Joe Wes Moore wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Zeke Sorry Wes, I can't allow this to continue. Your reasoning may seem to you to have an internal logic but it's circular, without support in the real world, it vanishes up its own orifice. According to all definitions of over-unity and free energy except your own, you've failed to produce any example of any over-unity device actually working: Do you know of any other working, real-world, attested, authenticated examples of this over-unity device working? Or of any over-unity device working? The answer, with all the provisos and but-if's pruned away, was no, and it's still no. It's still no. Your non-examples have gone far enough. It's futile discussing it with you, it just goes round and round. I think one thing that trumps the laws of physics are results. Whether you see it that way or not, you've failed to produce any such results, there just aren't any rabbits in that hat. It's the laws of physics that we prefer here at the Biofuel list, us and the rest of the universe. Since you won't adhere to them, I'll have to bring this exchange to an end. This discussion is now closed. Wes, we'll have no further posts from you about over-unity or free energy. Keith Addison Biofuel list owner Physics, as the heat pump example explains identifies where the mysterious energy comes from. From there I think an intelligent engineer would proceed accepting this gift of energy and create the system to operate accordingly. Some people seem to think if physics can not explain something, a machine should not be built. In my experience inventions seem to operate in reverse to that model. Is the physicist who explains how something works, in any way better than the inventor who produced the results?. You raised 2 points here : 1 Economics are inconsistent depending on prices. It does not matter whether you are paying 1 cent / KW or 30 cents, the ratio remains constant. 2 A common heating system where tenants are charged by consumption only transfers the advantage to the owner of the central system. I would still count the energy from the atmosphere as a gift. The question you raise only questions who gets the gift. In an ideal situation the power plant owner is honest and charges according to his input cost. Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Wait... you make an economic arguement for why not to count the thermal input, then claim that engineers designed it based on economics, not physics? I've got two engineering degrees, and was always taught that the laws of physics govern how stuff works. Economics is so inconsistent depending on particular prices and economic systems, that trying to design something based on it would rarely work. What if you were charged for the thermal input from some central heat distribution system -- would the heat pump suddenly stop functioning? According to your definition, it seems like it would. Yet, it would be exactly the same machine as before. On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes -Original Message- From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] lelists.org [mailto:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ustainablelists.org] On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:51 PM To: mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1 GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these
[Biofuel] The Push behind the Surge
The Push behind the Surge By Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn | January 11, 2007 Neoconservatives and their allies are practically the only supporters of the surge idea to send more troops to Iraq. But this doesn't seem to bother the president, who was given a brand new blueprint for victory last week, gift-wrapped by the same ideologues at the American Enterprise Institute who helped lead the country into war. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3898 Full story below. The Hawks' Hawk By Jim Lobe | January 11, 2007 J.D. Crouch, the deputy national security adviser, played a key role in shaping the Bush administration's surge strategy in Iraq. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3897Read full story. See Also: New Right Web profile of http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1259J.D. Crouch II Right Web Profile: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1240Frederick Kagan Neoconservatives are riding a wave of optimism about Iraq, led by Kagan's assertion that victory there is attainable - with tens of thousands more troops, that is. Right Web Profile: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1347Randy Scheunemann Expected to be Sen. John McCain's foreign policy guru during the 2008 presidential campaign, Scheunemann's experience includes serving as a lobbyist for gun groups and founding the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Right Web Profile: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1306John Negroponte The man slated to be the next number two at State has a reputation as someone who gets the job the done - however dirty or undiplomatic. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3898 Right Web | Analysis | The Push behind the Surge The Push behind the Surge Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn | January 11, 2007 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org President George W. Bush's plan to surge more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq without any deadline for withdrawal has garnered little support, except from neoconservatives and their increasingly isolated allies in the hawkish wings of the Republican and Democratic parties. Not only are the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress lining up in opposition to the surge plan, but a growing number of Republican lawmakers-including some staunch Bush loyalists-are also voicing serious reservations. For the neoconservatives, on the other hand, the only problem with Bush's plan is that it doesn't go far enough, arguing in their own recently released plan for victory that troop levels should be boosted by more than a third. A good example of the opposition Bush is facing is Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), an erstwhile supporter of the war who faces reelection in 2008 and just returned from visiting Iraq. He told the Los Angeles Times last week: Baghdad needs reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis. It doesn't need more Americans in the crosshairs. Even retired Lt. Col. Oliver North, a far-right talk-show host who gained fame as the White House coordinator of what became the Iran-Contra affair 20 years ago, reported that his recent interviews with officers and soldiers in Iraq persuaded him that adding more troops to the 140,000 already deployed there would be a mistake. But the tepid support for what critics call an escalation has not dampened the enthusiasm of the neoconservatives. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) last week-with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) in attendance-neoconservatives unveiled a new report: Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq. The AEI report argues that substantially increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq is essential to avoiding a defeat that could lead to regional conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and increased global terrorism. The two senators, who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq, have been heavily criticized on both the left and right for their support of the surge plan. McCain and Lieberman talked to many of the same officers and senior NCOs [non-commissioned officers] I covered for FOX News during my most recent trip to Iraq, North asserted in his syndicated column last Friday. Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen, or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite. 'We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops' was a common refrain. They are right. A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets, North wrote. Like the administration's surge idea, the new neoconservative-supported report, written by AEI scholar Frederick Kagan, whose brother Robert and father Donald are both influential figures in neoconservative circles, calls for a sustained increase in the number of
Re: [Biofuel] The Push behind the Surge
The involvment of Lieberman and McCain certainly hints that Israel is one of the hands in the glove for sending more troops. On 1/12/07, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Push behind the Surge By Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn | January 11, 2007 Neoconservatives and their allies are practically the only supporters of the surge idea to send more troops to Iraq. But this doesn't seem to bother the president, who was given a brand new blueprint for victory last week, gift-wrapped by the same ideologues at the American Enterprise Institute who helped lead the country into war. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3898 Full story below. The Hawks' Hawk By Jim Lobe | January 11, 2007 J.D. Crouch, the deputy national security adviser, played a key role in shaping the Bush administration's surge strategy in Iraq. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3897Read full story. See Also: New Right Web profile of http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1259J.D. Crouch II Right Web Profile: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1240Frederick Kagan Neoconservatives are riding a wave of optimism about Iraq, led by Kagan's assertion that victory there is attainable - with tens of thousands more troops, that is. Right Web Profile: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1347Randy Scheunemann Expected to be Sen. John McCain's foreign policy guru during the 2008 presidential campaign, Scheunemann's experience includes serving as a lobbyist for gun groups and founding the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Right Web Profile: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1306John Negroponte The man slated to be the next number two at State has a reputation as someone who gets the job the done - however dirty or undiplomatic. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3898 Right Web | Analysis | The Push behind the Surge The Push behind the Surge Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn | January 11, 2007 IRC Right Web rightweb.irc-online.org President George W. Bush's plan to surge more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq without any deadline for withdrawal has garnered little support, except from neoconservatives and their increasingly isolated allies in the hawkish wings of the Republican and Democratic parties. Not only are the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress lining up in opposition to the surge plan, but a growing number of Republican lawmakers-including some staunch Bush loyalists-are also voicing serious reservations. For the neoconservatives, on the other hand, the only problem with Bush's plan is that it doesn't go far enough, arguing in their own recently released plan for victory that troop levels should be boosted by more than a third. A good example of the opposition Bush is facing is Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), an erstwhile supporter of the war who faces reelection in 2008 and just returned from visiting Iraq. He told the Los Angeles Times last week: Baghdad needs reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis. It doesn't need more Americans in the crosshairs. Even retired Lt. Col. Oliver North, a far-right talk-show host who gained fame as the White House coordinator of what became the Iran-Contra affair 20 years ago, reported that his recent interviews with officers and soldiers in Iraq persuaded him that adding more troops to the 140,000 already deployed there would be a mistake. But the tepid support for what critics call an escalation has not dampened the enthusiasm of the neoconservatives. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) last week-with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) in attendance-neoconservatives unveiled a new report: Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq. The AEI report argues that substantially increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq is essential to avoiding a defeat that could lead to regional conflict, humanitarian catastrophe, and increased global terrorism. The two senators, who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq, have been heavily criticized on both the left and right for their support of the surge plan. McCain and Lieberman talked to many of the same officers and senior NCOs [non-commissioned officers] I covered for FOX News during my most recent trip to Iraq, North asserted in his syndicated column last Friday. Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen, or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite. 'We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops' was a common refrain. They are right. A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets, North wrote. Like the administration's surge idea, the new
Re: [Biofuel] The Push behind the Surge
From http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/media-surge-escalation/ Media Misleading Americans By Using 'Surge' To Describe Bush Policy Research compiled by ThinkProgress shows that when surge was first adopted by the mainstream media in November 2006, the term was specifically defined as a temporary, short-term increase in U.S. forces. In fact, we now know that the Bush administration and the most prominent advocates of escalation all reject a short-term increase in U.S. forces. Rather, they advocate a long-term increase of forces lasting at least 18 months. The media, in other words, has continued to use the term surge even though its definition has fundamentally changed. The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a short-term troop increase, the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval). Every time the media repeats the word surge, they are helping to mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to stop using the term to describe President Bush's policy. Digg It! Details below: 'SURGE' ORIGINALLY DEFINED AS 'TEMPORARY,' 'SHORT-TERM' INCREASE IN TROOP LEVELS: NOVEMBER 20: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS MCCAIN WANTS 'SHORT-TERM SURGE': In Washington, a leading Republican supporter of the war, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said American troops in Iraq were 'fighting and dying for a failed policy.' But Mr. McCain continued to argue vigorously for a short-term surge in American forces, and he gained a vocal ally in Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina… [New York Times, Brian Knowlton, 11/19/06] NOVEMBER 20: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY SURGE': Speculation over a temporary surge in troops has been fueled in part by sources close to administration deliberations on Iraq strategy. [Christian Science Monitor, Howard LaFranchi, 11/20/06] NOVEMBER 20: WASHINGTON POST REPORTS ON 'SHORT' 'TEMPORARY' TROOP INCREASE: Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said. The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold… [Washington Post, Thomas Ricks, 11/20/06] NOVEMBER 21: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS SENIOR BUSH OFFICIALS BACK 'SHORT-TERM' 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: Pentagon officials conducting a review of Iraq strategy are considering a substantial but temporary increase in American troop levels and the addition of several thousand more trainers to work with Iraqi forces, a senior Defense Department official said Monday. The idea, dubbed the 'surge option' by some officials, would involve increasing American forces by 20,000 troops or more for several months… 'There are people who believe that a short-term surge would have a beneficial impact, but there isn't universal agreement on that yet,' said the senior official. [New York Times, David Cloud, 11/21/06] NOVEMBER 21: NBC NEWS REPORTS ON 'SHORT-TERM SURGE' OPTION: Let's talk a bit about some of the plans that the Pentagon is supposedly considering. First of all, sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq, a short-term surge in an effort to try to stabilize Baghdad. [Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC, 11/21/06] NOVEMBER 22: FOX NEWS REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: The new Marine Corps commandant General James Conway…said the idea some people are now suggesting of creating a temporary surge of U.S. forces in Iraq could be accomplished with the current force of about 180,000 Marines, but would have an undesirable impact later on. [Brit Hume, Fox News, 11/22/06, available on Lexis] NOVEMBER 22: ABC NEWS REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: A temporary increase in US force levels in Iraq. And what General Conway said is that the Marine Corps could facilitate a temporary surge of no more than 60 days, really. He said that's about the limit. [ABC News, Jonathan Karl, 11/22/06, available on Lexis] IN FACT, WHITE HOUSE IS PLANNING LONG-TERM ESCALATION OF U.S. FORCES: TIME REPORTS BUSH PLANNING ESCALATION FOR 'UP TO TWO YEARS': Sometime next week the President is expected to propose a surge in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq for a period of up to two years. [Time, 1/4/07] DECEMBER 27: ARCHITECTS OF THE ESCALATION PLAN ADMIT IT WILL NOT BE SHORT-TERM: In a joint Washington Post op-ed, retired Gen. Jack Keane and right-wing scholar Fred Kagan said they needed to cut through the confusion and admitted a troop increase would require at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail. [Washington Post joint op-ed, 12/27/06] JANUARY 8: NEW U.S. GROUND COMMANDER IN IRAQ ANTICIPATES ESCALATION FOR 'TWO OR THREE YEARS': The New York Times reported on Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno. The new American operational
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
I'd like to take this opportunity that I am the only one on this list with Diplomatic Immunity to the Laws of Physics. -Weaver Keith Addison wrote: Zeke Sorry Wes, I can't allow this to continue. Your reasoning may seem to you to have an internal logic but it's circular, without support in the real world, it vanishes up its own orifice. According to all definitions of over-unity and free energy except your own, you've failed to produce any example of any over-unity device actually working: Do you know of any other working, real-world, attested, authenticated examples of this over-unity device working? Or of any over-unity device working? The answer, with all the provisos and but-if's pruned away, was no, and it's still no. It's still no. Your non-examples have gone far enough. It's futile discussing it with you, it just goes round and round. I think one thing that trumps the laws of physics are results. Whether you see it that way or not, you've failed to produce any such results, there just aren't any rabbits in that hat. It's the laws of physics that we prefer here at the Biofuel list, us and the rest of the universe. Since you won't adhere to them, I'll have to bring this exchange to an end. This discussion is now closed. Wes, we'll have no further posts from you about over-unity or free energy. Keith Addison Biofuel list owner Physics, as the heat pump example explains identifies where the mysterious energy comes from. From there I think an intelligent engineer would proceed accepting this gift of energy and create the system to operate accordingly. Some people seem to think if physics can not explain something, a machine should not be built. In my experience inventions seem to operate in reverse to that model. Is the physicist who explains how something works, in any way better than the inventor who produced the results?. You raised 2 points here : 1 Economics are inconsistent depending on prices. Š It does not matter whether you are paying 1 cent / KW or 30 cents, the ratio remains constant. 2 A common heating system where tenants are charged by consumption only transfers the advantage to the owner of the central system. I would still count the energy from the atmosphere as a gift. The question you raise only questions who gets the gift. In an ideal situation the power plant owner is honest and charges according to his input cost. Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Wait... you make an economic arguement for why not to count the thermal input, then claim that engineers designed it based on economics, not physics? I've got two engineering degrees, and was always taught that the laws of physics govern how stuff works. Economics is so inconsistent depending on particular prices and economic systems, that trying to design something based on it would rarely work. What if you were charged for the thermal input from some central heat distribution system -- would the heat pump suddenly stop functioning? According to your definition, it seems like it would. Yet, it would be exactly the same machine as before. On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you don't agree. Wes -Original Message- From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] lelists.org [mailto:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ustainablelists.org] On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:51 PM To: mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.orgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, Wes Moore mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay
[Biofuel] Another Pendulum
This pendulum is not new, the Amish have used a similar device to pump water for years. Thier system uses a flow of say 1 cubic foot of water falling a distance of 1 foot - to elevate a much smaller volume uphill 40 feet as time is on thier side, periods of low water use slowly fills a storage tank in the attic so ample water at ample pressure is available during times of need. I am not going to waste time doing the math, but the energy equation in these devices is balanced. Period. respecfully, Jim ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Push behind the Surge
Thankyou Frank. It needs vigilance eh? Just mindless or slimy with it, d'you think? Not that it makes much difference I suppose. So much for the 4th estate, or at least the owned portion of it. FAIR is also covering this: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3029 Debating the Iraq Surge on PBS They don't seem to think it's just an unintentional oversight. Best Keith From http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/media-surge-escalation/ Media Misleading Americans By Using 'Surge' To Describe Bush Policy Research compiled by ThinkProgress shows that when surge was first adopted by the mainstream media in November 2006, the term was specifically defined as a temporary, short-term increase in U.S. forces. In fact, we now know that the Bush administration and the most prominent advocates of escalation all reject a short-term increase in U.S. forces. Rather, they advocate a long-term increase of forces lasting at least 18 months. The media, in other words, has continued to use the term surge even though its definition has fundamentally changed. The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a short-term troop increase, the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval). Every time the media repeats the word surge, they are helping to mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to stop using the term to describe President Bush's policy. Digg It! Details below: 'SURGE' ORIGINALLY DEFINED AS 'TEMPORARY,' 'SHORT-TERM' INCREASE IN TROOP LEVELS: NOVEMBER 20: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS MCCAIN WANTS 'SHORT-TERM SURGE': In Washington, a leading Republican supporter of the war, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said American troops in Iraq were 'fighting and dying for a failed policy.' But Mr. McCain continued to argue vigorously for a short-term surge in American forces, and he gained a vocal ally in Senator Lindsey Graham of South CarolinaÖ [New York Times, Brian Knowlton, 11/19/06] NOVEMBER 20: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY SURGE': Speculation over a temporary surge in troops has been fueled in part by sources close to administration deliberations on Iraq strategy. [Christian Science Monitor, Howard LaFranchi, 11/20/06] NOVEMBER 20: WASHINGTON POST REPORTS ON 'SHORT' 'TEMPORARY' TROOP INCREASE: Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said. The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofoldÖ [Washington Post, Thomas Ricks, 11/20/06] NOVEMBER 21: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS SENIOR BUSH OFFICIALS BACK 'SHORT-TERM' 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: Pentagon officials conducting a review of Iraq strategy are considering a substantial but temporary increase in American troop levels and the addition of several thousand more trainers to work with Iraqi forces, a senior Defense Department official said Monday. The idea, dubbed the 'surge option' by some officials, would involve increasing American forces by 20,000 troops or more for several monthsÖ 'There are people who believe that a short-term surge would have a beneficial impact, but there isn't universal agreement on that yet,' said the senior official. [New York Times, David Cloud, 11/21/06] NOVEMBER 21: NBC NEWS REPORTS ON 'SHORT-TERM SURGE' OPTION: Let's talk a bit about some of the plans that the Pentagon is supposedly considering. First of all, sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq, a short-term surge in an effort to try to stabilize Baghdad. [Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC, 11/21/06] NOVEMBER 22: FOX NEWS REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: The new Marine Corps commandant General James ConwayÖsaid the idea some people are now suggesting of creating a temporary surge of U.S. forces in Iraq could be accomplished with the current force of about 180,000 Marines, but would have an undesirable impact later on. [Brit Hume, Fox News, 11/22/06, available on Lexis] NOVEMBER 22: ABC NEWS REPORTS ON 'TEMPORARY' SURGE: A temporary increase in US force levels in Iraq. And what General Conway said is that the Marine Corps could facilitate a temporary surge of no more than 60 days, really. He said that's about the limit. [ABC News, Jonathan Karl, 11/22/06, available on Lexis] IN FACT, WHITE HOUSE IS PLANNING LONG-TERM ESCALATION OF U.S. FORCES: TIME REPORTS BUSH PLANNING ESCALATION FOR 'UP TO TWO YEARS': Sometime next week the President is expected to propose a surge in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq for a period of up to two years. [Time, 1/4/07] DECEMBER 27: ARCHITECTS OF THE ESCALATION PLAN ADMIT IT WILL NOT BE SHORT-TERM: In a joint Washington Post op-ed, retired Gen. Jack Keane and right-wing scholar Fred Kagan said they needed to cut through
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Joe some people pay even more. Thats why I am so tickled to see the rate on my daughters house in Oregon to be 4 1/2 cents. Helps being within 10 miles of McNary Dam :) Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Holy crap Wes you're paying 15 cents per Kwh? (yes don't forget the hours unit, or are you taking almost 3 hours to do this work?) I pay 6 cents or near a third of that. Where do you live man? Joe Wes Moore wrote: Oh yes I read what you wrote. You seem to think I should be concerned about the latent energy from the atmosphere and count it as the input cost. The input cost is what we need to do to make it work. Here in the real world where I live I can buy 8221 Btu (2.383Kw) of electrical energy for about 35.5 cents Canadian and turn it into $1.36 worth of energy. When I use just a little of the energy from the sun I increase the return on the input cost to $1.77. Who do you think I should pay to balance the account. I have no argument with you saying the latent energy in the atmosphere is the difference so you can balance your equation. Calculating the energy extracted from the atmosphere simply allows one to calculate what the over unity factor is. Seems pretty simple to me. I am glad the engineers who first built this system seemed to see things the way I do. I am sorry you dont agree. Wes ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ - Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Next Stage of Capitalism
Makes me think we should get a bunch of T-shirts printed with a slogan like Secure the commons! * ( Made from organic hemp of course). Joe * This message has been brought to you by 'the common man' all rights reserved. Your individual rights may vary or be illusory depending on the state in which you live. Limited time offer. No cash value. Keith Addison wrote: http://www.alternet.org/stories/46146/ AlterNet: The Next Stage of Capitalism By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted January 5, 2007. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum
Actually I'm paying the same as Wes. I was only thinking of the generation rate. I forgot about those decrepit nuclear reactors we have to pay to keep blundering along... J Kirk McLoren wrote: Joe some people pay even more. Thats why I am so tickled to see the rate on my daughters house in Oregon to be 4 1/2 cents. Helps being within 10 miles of McNary Dam :) ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The Push behind the Surge
From your link Keith, . . . sending additional troops to Iraq—a position endorsed by 12 percent of the public, according to the most recent polling (USA Today/Gallup, 1/5-7/07). (In another question, Gallup did find 36 percent support for Bush's plan to increase troops—but only when the increase was described as temporary,. . . Apart from our media, an industry based on words, not caring for the meaning of their medium (I'm sure they would declare we are having a surge of warm weather) -- does the president's decision to mobilize strike you as a democratic one? I've seen the above numbers say the same about public opinion in one form or another and the will of the people is clearly being ignored. The oil plutocracy is making our tax payers' decisions for them. We are being taxed without representation. Sound familiar? Frank On 1/12/07, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thankyou Frank. It needs vigilance eh? Just mindless or slimy with it, d'you think? Not that it makes much difference I suppose. So much for the 4th estate, or at least the owned portion of it. FAIR is also covering this: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3029 Debating the Iraq Surge on PBS They don't seem to think it's just an unintentional oversight. Best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Threats of Peak Oil to the Global Food Supply
Speaking of fun films, I just saw the 1976 film Network and would highly recommend it. --- doug swanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get that movie out occasionally, check it out again. one of the few that I'll watch again from time to time. Like Powder, or The Green Mile for different, and yet related reasons... doug swanson Jason Katie wrote: anyone see that old movie waterworld ? i kind of like the idea of that aerofoil wind turbine that was built into the mast of the main character's catamaran. Jason Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
