Re: [Biofuel] Over unity? Shock waves and steam heat *#

2007-02-19 Thread Zeke Yewdall

Do a search on "thermoacoustic".   This isn't all that mysterious, and if
you want to get in to computational fluid dynamics computations, it can all
be explained according to the laws of physics.  It's essentially the same as
a heat pump, only instead of a mechanical compressor to create pressure
differences, the standing sound waves set up in the device create areas of
higher and lower pressure in the gas, and transfer heat.  I can also be
harnessed in the reverse, using heat to create sound waves, which then
operate a linear generator to generate electricity.  I believe it actually
operates on the stirling cycle, but without the very hard to machine
pistons/cylinders/seals required by a mechanical stirling engine.  Yes,
right now the efficiency isn't very good now, but the lack of moving parts
is appealing.   Lots of interesting reading on the web.

On 2/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Dear D.M.,

 I suppose for now, this machine is one of life's mysteries.

 A somewhat larger mystery, however, is why someone would buy
a machine with a coefficient of performance of 1.6 at best when
water source heat pumps are available with a COP of 5.0.

 Putting this aside for a moment, I assume that the city
departments are connected to the grid.  So, power is delivered to the
device with 30% efficiency or thereabouts.

 Let's see .3 X 1.6 = .48 throughput when considering the
inefficiencies of centralized power.

 Or the city could use any number of furnace/fuel combinations to get
heat at up to 95 percent efficiency, or so.

 Finally, commercial users are usually charged a premium for
electricity based on peak usage for the year.  I don't know whether
this is the case for municipalities in general or for those in Georgia,
U.S.A.

 Any thoughts?

Regards,

Wendell




>From: "D. Mindock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/02/19 Mon AM 03:12:56 CST
>To: 
>Subject: [Biofuel] Over unity? Shock waves and steam heat

>
>http://www.alternativescience.com/over-unity.htm
>Shock waves and steam heat
>
>For more than two years debate has raged on the Internet about an
ordinary-looking metal drum sitting on the concrete floor of a factory
building in Rome, Georgia, 50 miles from Atlanta. Its inventor, the man
about whom the Internet debate is raging, is James Griggs, an industrial
heating engineer. The invention that has brought Griggs such notoriety is a
device that he began developing in 1987, that he calls the 'Hydrosonic Pump'
and that many of his supporters believe is over-unity, in that it generates
around 30 per cent more energy as heat than is put in as electricity.
>To the skeptics, the Griggs Gadget is, at best, a case of self-delusion
on a grand scale, and, at worst, a case of scientific fraud. To his
supporters, the pump is the first unequivocal public demonstration of
undoubted over-unity.
>Jim Griggs told me, 'the pump is based on a theory of what takes place
when a shock wave is created in a fluid. We know that when you create a
shock wave in a liquid there is a minute amount of energy released into the
fluid in the form of heat.'
>'Most of the previous studies had been done in how to eliminate that
shock wave, instead of putting the heat to a useful purpose. We've designed
a system to take the shock-wave heat energy, capture it, and produce hot
water or steam.'
>Griggs believes that his device works on perfectly normal principles and
violates no laws of physics. Just what happens when the Hydrosonic pump is
filled up with water and switched on is described by over-unity investigator
Jed Rothwell who conducted a detailed engineering investigation of the
device in January 1994.
>'During one of the demonstrations we watched,' he says, 'over a 20 minute
period, 4.80 Kilowatt Hours of electricity was input, and 19,050 BTUs of
heat evolved, which equals 5.58 Kilowatt Hours, or 117 per cent of input.
The actual input to output ratio was even better than this, when you take
into account the inefficiencies of the electric motor.'
>But if there are kilowatts of excess heat available, why doesn't Griggs
simply use the steam to turn a turbine-generator and connect the output to
the input -- thus getting a perpetual motion machine?
>One reason is that converting steam into electricity is an extremely
inefficient process. You would be lucky to convert 5 per cent of the output
heat energy back into electricity -- and 2 per cent might be nearer the
mark. The Hydrosonic pump would therefore have to be massively over-unity
before you could recover enough energy to make it self-sustaining, and at
present the margin is a 'modest' 30 per cent.
>More importantly, the excess energy does not actually appear at the
output steam pipe for a constant input of energy. What happens is this; the
pump is started and after five or ten minutes reaches a steady state where
it is converting water at room temperature to steam. Once this steady state
is reached, the pump, according to Griggs, goes int

[Biofuel] Fwd: Re: [12VDC_Power] Propane and low speed alternator

2007-02-19 Thread Kirk McLoren
thought this might be of interest
  Kirk

kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:55:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [12VDC_Power] Propane and low speed alternator

> Then i read about DME
> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/dimethyl_ether_.html

The thread died back in 2005 after this post:
--
2 moles of methane produce 1 mole DME
I counted the Net Cash Recovery
((product price-raw material price)/raw material price))
and the result is 2,4.
Is it economically feasible?
Or it's just 'environmentally-feasible'?
I'm a student, looking forward for an aswer to my curiousity
--

And this other cited link is dead:
http://www.altfuetechnology.com/

With all of the hype there are likely to be dreamers
and shysters dragging out all manner of miracle fuels
and engines and technologies, some for attention, many
for quick money. Few if any will amount to anything.

Same as in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. Sigh.

Caveat emptor.

-- 

Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
~~
Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
Personal: http://bibleseven.com
~~


To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please don't email the entire list with your unsub request. TNX 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12VDC_Power/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12VDC_Power/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



 
-
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.___
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] Warnings Over Privacy of US Health Network...and Real ID

2007-02-19 Thread M&K DuPree
Connect the dots..once Real ID is implemented, we will have lost our legal 
basis for control over our medical records and ultimately our medical 
treatment.  Chip implantation, here we come, Bush's "personal electronic 
medical record," for which we have Hillary Clinton to thank too!!!  From the 
article, "The accountability office said doubts about privacy could slow the 
adoption and use of electronic medical records. Professor Rothstein offered a 
similar prediction, saying: 'If privacy protections are not built into the 
network, people will not trust it. They won't participate, or they will opt out 
if they are allowed to.'"  Key words "could slow" and "if they are allowed to." 
 Real ID will speed up adoption and use of medical records as it takes away 
from us our ability to opt out, unless we plan on trying to subvert the system 
and live underground.  Lot of hassle comin that could be avoided by getting our 
States to Reject Real ID and ultimately our Federal Government to Repeal Real 
ID.  As they say, pay me now or pay me later.  The costs of paying now by 
hammering our representatives to Reject/Repeal Real ID will be much less than 
later when we lose control of what goes into our bodies, how they are treated, 
and by whom.  Mike DuPree

http://www.truthout.org:80/docs_2006/021907F.shtml___
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] Virgin, the Dynamo, and the Prize

2007-02-19 Thread Fred Oliff

Thanks Keith, some very good stuff to read there.  Must get to it right away.  Branson is perhaps taking the approach that no matter how big the problem, throw enough money at it and it will get solved. How myopic.




From:  Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:  biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:  [Biofuel] Virgin, the Dynamo, and the PrizeDate:  Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:41:09 +0900>http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021407J.shtml>>Virgin, the Dynamo, and the Prize> By Kelpie Wilson> t r u t h o u t | Environmental Editor>> Wednesday 14 February 2007>> Like most American kids in the 1960s, I was an avid Star Trek fan>and I rooted for every new development in the US space program. I'll>never forget staying up past midnight to watch Neil Armstrong take>Man's first 
steps on the moon.>> But by the time of the first shuttle disaster in 1986, I was less>concerned with the Star Trek mission and more concerned with the fate>of the Earth. Apart from the human tragedy of the disaster, the>setback to the space shuttle program didn't seem to matter much, and>the image of the Challenger flameout at 48,000 feet over Florida>seemed symbolic of the utter failure of Western society to create a>sustainable civilization on Planet Earth.>> The recent release of the IPCC's fourth assessment on climate>change is just one more milestone documenting the disintegration of>Earth's planetary life-support systems. The world must act quickly,>but I am not impressed by the announcement last week that Sir Richard>Branson, founder of 
a company that is building a fleet of excursion>vehicles for the space tourism market, has offered a $25 million>prize for the invention of new carbon-sequestration technologies.>> Branson's space travel company, called Virgin Galactic (in line>with his other ventures, Virgin Media, Virgin Trains and Virgin>Airways), is building five suborbital spacecraft based on Burt>Rutan's X-Prize winning design, SpaceShipOne. Tourists will pay about>$200,000 a ticket to spew greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere>and enjoy an hour of bouncing around in microgravity. Presumably, it>was the success of the X-Prize competition in producing this space>toy that inspired Branson to offer the carbon-sequestration prize,>which he calls the Earth Challenge. Sadly, Branson's prize may do>more 
harm than good.>> There are two big problems with the Earth Challenge prize. First,>and most important, it sends the wrong message to those who are just>waking up to the true threat of climate change: it says we can solve>this problem by inventing the right techno-fix. Branson himself said>it at his news conference announcing the prize: "Man created the>problem; therefore Man should solve the problem.">> If "Man" is about to jump in and fix the carbon problem, then>we'll all be able to carry on with business as usual, right? Yikes!>If this perception becomes widespread, then there will be no>motivation to change our wasteful habits. We can relax, because we>have plenty of coal in the ground and our techno-heroes will find a>way to capture and 
store those pesky carbon molecules out of the way>somewhere.>> Encouraging complacency is one problem. Then there's the problem>that any techno-fix solution big enough to make a difference has the>potential for dangerous unintended consequences of planetary>magnitude. Ideas like pumping CO2 deep into the ground or the ocean>may sound promising, but can create new disasters. For instance, the>oceans have already been absorbing much of the CO2 generated during>the fossil fuel era, and as a result, they are turning acidic. No one>knows how much more acidic the oceans can become before the calcium>shells of animals like clams and corals begin to dissolve.>> We can also inject CO2 into old oil and gas fields and coal beds>- it is being done right 
now in Norway, Texas and Canada. But in>order to be effective as a carbon-sequestration strategy, hundreds of>underground reservoirs would need to be created and maintained. Jeff>Goodell, writing in his book Big Coal, says that each reservoir would>spread out "fifty or so square miles underground, which means that if>carbon sequestration does indeed become widespread, tens of thousands>of people will be living above giant bubbles of CO2." Leakage is a>problem, he says, "CO2 is buoyant underground and can migrate through>cracks and faults in the earth, pooling in unexpected places." A 20>percent concentration of odorless CO2 can cause a person to lose>consciousness in "a breath or two" and asphyxiate.>> And here's an unintended consequence I have never heard discussed>- what 
happens to all of the oxygen in the CO2 molecules that get>sequestered? When plants pull CO2 out of the air and use it to grow>stems and roots, they recycle the oxygen back into the atmosphere.>Are we in danger of burying a needful portion of our oxygen deep in>the Earth?>> Ultimately, Branson's Eart

Re: [Biofuel] U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On Earth

2007-02-19 Thread Keith Addison
Hi Fred, Frank and all

There's also this:

http://snipurl.com/syl8
[Biofuel] Oil shortage threatens military

"The military needs to take major steps to increase energy 
efficiency, make a 'massive expansion' in renewable energy purchases, 
and move toward a vast increase in renewable distributed generation, 
including photovoltaic, solar thermal, microturbines, and biomass 
energy sources."

The US Army report's an interesting read:

Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development 
Center (ERDC), September 2005
Full report, 1.2Mb pdf:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA440265

Best

Keith


>so it makes complete sense to only attack those countries that have 
>oil, not those that might actually pose a real threat?
>
>
>From:  "Frank Navarrete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject:  Re: [Biofuel] U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On Earth
>Date:  Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:42:59 -0500
>
>
>And thus a push for escalation. . . .
>
>On 2/19/07, Keith Addison 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
>
>U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On Earth
>
>The US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its
>
>oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities
>makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. By
>the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are
>only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per
>
>day than the Pentagon.
>http://www.energybulletin.n 
>et/26194.html
>
>Published on 17 Feb 2007 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 17 Feb 2007.
>
>US military oil pains
>
>
>by Sohbet Karbuz
>
>As of September 30, 2005 the US Air Force had 5,986 aircraft in service. (1)
>
>At the beginning of 2006 the US Navy had 285 combat and support
>ships, and around 4,000 operational aircraft (planes and
>
>helicopters). (2)
>
>At the end of 2005, the US Army had a combat vehicle fleet of
>approximately 28,000 armored vehicles (tracked vehicles such as
>Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles)(3). Besides those the
>
>Army and the Marine corps have tactical wheeled vehicles such as
>140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. The US Army has
>also over 4,000 combat helicopters and several hundred fixed wing
>aircraft.
>
>
>Add all those also 187,493 fleet vehicles (4) (passenger cars,
>busses, light trucks etc) the US Department of Defense (DOD) uses.
>
>The issue is that except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraft
>carriers, almost all military fleet (including the ones that will be
>
>joining in the next decade) run on oil.
>
>Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly,
>its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and
>facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the
>
>world. By the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings
>there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume
>more oil per day than the Pentagon.
>
>An interesting point is that even though there are only a few data
>
>sources, how much oil the Pentagon really consumes is still kind of
>puzzle, at least to me.(5)
>
>According to recently released "Annual Energy Management Report", in
>Fiscal Year 2006 the Pentagon consumed 320,000 barrels per day of
>
>site delivered oil, compared to about 360,000 barrels per day in
>2005. Note that these and all other official figures do not include
>fuel obtained at no cost overseas(6), fuel consumed by
>contractors(7), fuel consumed in some leased and privatized
>
>facilities, and not last but least oil consumed by certain leased and
>rented fleet vehicles.
>
>While the official figures for military oil consumption went down in
>2006, the costs went to the sky. In 2005 DoD had spent slightly over
>
>$8.5 billion for oil but this figure reached $17 billion in 2006.
>Note that oil accounts for 85% of the DoD's $20 billion energy
>consumption costs in 2006.
>
>Figure 1: The US military oil consumption and costs
>
>
>
>Source: DESC Fact book (several issues), EIA Annual Energy Review
>(several issues), Federal Energy Management Program Annual Report to
>Congress FY2005 and FY2006, General Services Administration Federal
>
>Fleet Report for Fiscal Year 2006, DoD Annual Energy Management
>Report for Fiscal Year 2006. Note that cost figures are converted
>into 2006 constant prices by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI
>index.
>
>
>Fortunately at least the cost part of US military oil consumption has
>recently been getting attention. For example, Senator Dick Lugar's
>website contains a section on "Oil and the Military."(8)
>
>http://lugar.s 
>enate.gov/energy/security/military.html In there it is
>stated that "Some of the energy related costs to the military include

Re: [Biofuel] USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority

2007-02-19 Thread Jason& Katie
i see..."slash" as you call it, i know as "tops" there is my confusion. tops 
make for very good firewood from a very small diameter up to splitting wood. 
my father follows along behind the local loggers and collects everything 
down to about 4" diameter to sell as firewood. it's free to him, because 
noone else wants it, and then he makes brushpiles out of the smaller stuff 
for small animals and birds to shelter in.
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Dyck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority


> Hi Jason and Katie,
>
> I agree with you about selective logging, however, their would still be
> slash.  The slash comes from the branches that the loggers cut off the
> trees.
>
> Terry Dyck
>
>
>>From: "Jason& Katie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>>To: 
>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority
>>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:53:25 -0600
>>
>>i seem to have a problem with the "slash" aspect to begin with. why not
>>selective harvesting? cut out the scrub and give the healthy trees room to
>>grow.
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Terry Dyck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: 
>>Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:06 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority
>>
>>
>> > Hi Keith,
>> >
>> > Using wood waste to create bio-fuel will kill 2 environmental birds 
>> > with
>> > one
>> > stone.  The air pollution from burning slash left over from logging
>> > operations is causing health problems from poor air quality.
>> > If we produce biofuel from the slash instead of burning it there will 
>> > be
>>2
>> > benefits to the environment.
>> >
>> > Terry Dyck
>> >
>> >
>> >>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> >>Subject: [Biofuel] USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority
>> >>Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 01:58:07 +0900
>> >>
>> >>Let them eat grass...
>> >>
>> >>Ooops, they're going to make ethanol out of all the grass too.
>> >>
>> >> >The ethanol production process can use grasses, woody plants, and
>> >> >wood waste, he said.
>> >>
>> >>Anyone know where you can actually buy some cellulosic ethanol? Or
>> >>biodiesel from algae? LOL!
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>
>> >>http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40154/story.htm
>> >>
>> >>USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority
>> >>
>> >>US: February 5, 2007
>> >>
>> >>NASHVILLE, Tenn., - US Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns assured US
>> >>cattle producers on Friday that the government will work hard to
>> >>encourage other ways of making ethanol to give them relief from high
>> >>corn prices.
>> >>
>> >>The price of corn, an important cattle feed, have sped higher as more
>> >>of the grain goes to making the biofuel ethanol.
>> >>
>> >>"That is why the Farm Bill proposes a very strong federal commitment
>> >>to accelerating our research into cost-effective ways of producing
>> >>cellulosic ethanol from biomass," Johanns said during his address at
>> >>the convention here of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the
>> >>largest US cattle group.
>> >>
>> >>The ethanol production process can use grasses, woody plants, and
>> >>wood waste, he said.
>> >>
>> >>The proposed 2007 Farm Bill released last week recommends US$1.6
>> >>billion in new funding over the next 10 years targeted at the
>> >>development of cellulosic ethanol. It also proposes US$2.1 billion in
>> >>guaranteed loans for cellulosic projects and construction of plants
>> >>in rural areas.
>> >>
>> >>"This constitutes a strong commitment to nailing down the knowledge
>> >>and building the infrastructure we must have to meet a much larger
>> >>share of our energy needs," said Johanns.
>> >>
>> >>A US$500 million portion of that US$1.6 billion will be used for
>> >>grants to develop new energy sources, possibly methane gas from
>> >>livestock waste, he said.
>> >>
>> >>"All of that could be a part of this initiative," he said.
>> >>
>> >>In a press conference following his speech, Johanns said he supported
>> >>exploring the use of sugar cane and sugar beets to make ethanol.
>> >>
>> >>SOUTH KOREA "FRUSTRATING"
>> >>
>> >>Reopening export markets for US beef has been a priority for the
>> >>NCBA. Overseas markets closed in December 2003 after the United
>> >>States reported its first case of mad cow disease.
>> >>
>> >>Many markets have reopened, with some restricting the type of beef
>> >>they will accept. South Korea, once the third largest overseas buyer
>> >>of US beef, is one that remains closed.
>> >>
>> >>Last year, South Korea lifted its ban on US beef, but tight
>> >>restrictions on bone chips and other material has prevented imports
>> >>from reaching consumers. The United States has been in talks to
>> >>restart beef sales to South Korea, and more talks are scheduled next
>> >>week.
>> >>
>> >>"T

[Biofuel] Virgin, the Dynamo, and the Prize

2007-02-19 Thread Keith Addison
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021407J.shtml

Virgin, the Dynamo, and the Prize
By Kelpie Wilson
t r u t h o u t | Environmental Editor

Wednesday 14 February 2007

Like most American kids in the 1960s, I was an avid Star Trek fan 
and I rooted for every new development in the US space program. I'll 
never forget staying up past midnight to watch Neil Armstrong take 
Man's first steps on the moon.

But by the time of the first shuttle disaster in 1986, I was less 
concerned with the Star Trek mission and more concerned with the fate 
of the Earth. Apart from the human tragedy of the disaster, the 
setback to the space shuttle program didn't seem to matter much, and 
the image of the Challenger flameout at 48,000 feet over Florida 
seemed symbolic of the utter failure of Western society to create a 
sustainable civilization on Planet Earth.

The recent release of the IPCC's fourth assessment on climate 
change is just one more milestone documenting the disintegration of 
Earth's planetary life-support systems. The world must act quickly, 
but I am not impressed by the announcement last week that Sir Richard 
Branson, founder of a company that is building a fleet of excursion 
vehicles for the space tourism market, has offered a $25 million 
prize for the invention of new carbon-sequestration technologies.

Branson's space travel company, called Virgin Galactic (in line 
with his other ventures, Virgin Media, Virgin Trains and Virgin 
Airways), is building five suborbital spacecraft based on Burt 
Rutan's X-Prize winning design, SpaceShipOne. Tourists will pay about 
$200,000 a ticket to spew greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere 
and enjoy an hour of bouncing around in microgravity. Presumably, it 
was the success of the X-Prize competition in producing this space 
toy that inspired Branson to offer the carbon-sequestration prize, 
which he calls the Earth Challenge. Sadly, Branson's prize may do 
more harm than good.

There are two big problems with the Earth Challenge prize. First, 
and most important, it sends the wrong message to those who are just 
waking up to the true threat of climate change: it says we can solve 
this problem by inventing the right techno-fix. Branson himself said 
it at his news conference announcing the prize: "Man created the 
problem; therefore Man should solve the problem."

If "Man" is about to jump in and fix the carbon problem, then 
we'll all be able to carry on with business as usual, right? Yikes! 
If this perception becomes widespread, then there will be no 
motivation to change our wasteful habits. We can relax, because we 
have plenty of coal in the ground and our techno-heroes will find a 
way to capture and store those pesky carbon molecules out of the way 
somewhere.

Encouraging complacency is one problem. Then there's the problem 
that any techno-fix solution big enough to make a difference has the 
potential for dangerous unintended consequences of planetary 
magnitude. Ideas like pumping CO2 deep into the ground or the ocean 
may sound promising, but can create new disasters. For instance, the 
oceans have already been absorbing much of the CO2 generated during 
the fossil fuel era, and as a result, they are turning acidic. No one 
knows how much more acidic the oceans can become before the calcium 
shells of animals like clams and corals begin to dissolve.

We can also inject CO2 into old oil and gas fields and coal beds 
- it is being done right now in Norway, Texas and Canada. But in 
order to be effective as a carbon-sequestration strategy, hundreds of 
underground reservoirs would need to be created and maintained. Jeff 
Goodell, writing in his book Big Coal, says that each reservoir would 
spread out "fifty or so square miles underground, which means that if 
carbon sequestration does indeed become widespread, tens of thousands 
of people will be living above giant bubbles of CO2." Leakage is a 
problem, he says, "CO2 is buoyant underground and can migrate through 
cracks and faults in the earth, pooling in unexpected places." A 20 
percent concentration of odorless CO2 can cause a person to lose 
consciousness in "a breath or two" and asphyxiate.

And here's an unintended consequence I have never heard discussed 
- what happens to all of the oxygen in the CO2 molecules that get 
sequestered? When plants pull CO2 out of the air and use it to grow 
stems and roots, they recycle the oxygen back into the atmosphere. 
Are we in danger of burying a needful portion of our oxygen deep in 
the Earth?

Ultimately, Branson's Earth Challenge prize reflects the same 
attitude that got us into the climate crisis in the first place. It's 
a wet dream for engineers who now get to play with a whole planet, 
acting out their favorite science fiction scenarios. If they want to 
terraform a planet, I say send them to Mars, but don't experiment 
with the Earth.

In his landmark critique of Technological Man, The

Re: [Biofuel] Distance between the richest and poorest

2007-02-19 Thread Keith Addison
>The distance between the richest and poorest countries was:
>44 to 1 in 1973
>72 to 1 in 1992
>Anyone have a more recent stat on this one?
>Best
>James

Hi James

I think you might find that information at Anup Shah's excellent site:
http://www.globalissues.org/

regards

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] Over unity? Shock waves and steam heat *#

2007-02-19 Thread yankeetrader
Dear D.M.,

 I suppose for now, this machine is one of life's mysteries.

 A somewhat larger mystery, however, is why someone would buy
a machine with a coefficient of performance of 1.6 at best when
water source heat pumps are available with a COP of 5.0.

 Putting this aside for a moment, I assume that the city
departments are connected to the grid.  So, power is delivered to the device 
with 30% efficiency or thereabouts.

 Let's see .3 X 1.6 = .48 throughput when considering the
inefficiencies of centralized power.

 Or the city could use any number of furnace/fuel combinations to get heat 
at up to 95 percent efficiency, or so.

 Finally, commercial users are usually charged a premium for
electricity based on peak usage for the year.  I don't know whether
this is the case for municipalities in general or for those in Georgia, U.S.A.

 Any thoughts?

Regards,

Wendell




>From: "D. Mindock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/02/19 Mon AM 03:12:56 CST
>To: 
>Subject: [Biofuel] Over unity? Shock waves and steam heat

>
>http://www.alternativescience.com/over-unity.htm
>Shock waves and steam heat
>
>For more than two years debate has raged on the Internet about an 
>ordinary-looking metal drum sitting on the concrete floor of a factory 
>building in Rome, Georgia, 50 miles from Atlanta. Its inventor, the man about 
>whom the Internet debate is raging, is James Griggs, an industrial heating 
>engineer.  The invention that has brought Griggs such notoriety is a device 
>that he began developing in 1987, that he calls the 'Hydrosonic Pump' and that 
>many of his supporters believe is over-unity, in that it generates around 30 
>per cent more energy as heat than is put in as electricity. 
>To the skeptics, the Griggs Gadget is, at best, a case of self-delusion on a 
>grand scale, and, at worst, a case of scientific fraud. To his supporters, the 
>pump is the first unequivocal public demonstration of undoubted over-unity.
>Jim Griggs told me, 'the pump is based on a theory of what takes place when a 
>shock wave is created in a fluid. We know that when you create a shock wave in 
>a liquid there is a minute amount of energy released into the fluid in the 
>form of heat.'
>'Most of the previous studies had been done in how to eliminate that shock 
>wave, instead of putting the heat to a useful purpose. We've designed a system 
>to take the shock-wave heat energy, capture it, and produce hot water or 
>steam.'
>Griggs believes that his device works on perfectly normal principles and 
>violates no laws of physics. Just what happens when the Hydrosonic pump is 
>filled up with water and switched on is described by over-unity investigator 
>Jed Rothwell who conducted a detailed engineering investigation of the device 
>in January 1994.
>'During one of the demonstrations we watched,' he says, 'over a 20 minute 
>period, 4.80 Kilowatt Hours of electricity was input, and 19,050 BTUs of heat 
>evolved, which equals 5.58 Kilowatt Hours, or 117 per cent of input. The 
>actual input to output ratio was even better than this, when you take into 
>account the inefficiencies of the electric motor.'
>But if there are kilowatts of excess heat available, why doesn't Griggs simply 
>use the steam to turn a turbine-generator and connect the output to the input 
>-- thus getting a perpetual motion machine?
>One reason is that converting steam into electricity is an extremely 
>inefficient process. You would be lucky to convert 5 per cent of the output 
>heat energy back into electricity -- and 2 per cent might be nearer the mark. 
>The Hydrosonic pump would therefore have to be massively over-unity before you 
>could recover enough energy to make it self-sustaining, and at present the 
>margin is a 'modest' 30 per cent.
>More importantly, the excess energy does not actually appear at the output 
>steam pipe for a constant input of energy. What happens is this; the pump is 
>started and after five or ten minutes reaches a steady state where it is 
>converting water at room temperature to steam. Once this steady state is 
>reached, the pump, according to Griggs, goes into an over-unity mode where the 
>output temperature is maintained, but the amount of energy needed at the input 
>to maintain it, drops by 30 per cent.
>Griggs has been working with a number of physicists and engineers to try to 
>get to the bottom of just how his device works. As well as Jed Rothwell's 
>consulting engineering firm in Atlanta he has worked with Professor Keizios, 
>dean emeritus of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Institute 
>of Technology and past president of the American Society of Mechanical 
>Engineers. Professor Keizos supervised the design of the instrumentation that 
>measures the energy input and output of the Griggs Gadget.
>In a second test, during which the over-unity effect was measured, the 
>adjusted co-efficient of power was a remarkable 168 per cent -- the machine 
>produced 1.68 times th

Re: [Biofuel] U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On Earth

2007-02-19 Thread Fred Oliff

so it makes complete sense to only attack those countries that have oil, not those that might actually pose a real threat?




From:  "Frank Navarrete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To:  biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo:  biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject:  Re: [Biofuel] U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On EarthDate:  Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:42:59 -0500
And thus a push for escalation. . . .

On 2/19/07, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On EarthThe US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its
oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilitiesmakes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. Bythe way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there areonly 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per
day than the Pentagon.http://www.energybulletin.net/26194.htmlPublished on 17 Feb 2007 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 17 Feb 2007.US military oil pains
by Sohbet KarbuzAs of September 30, 2005 the US Air Force had 5,986 aircraft in service. (1)At the beginning of 2006 the US Navy had 285 combat and supportships, and around 4,000 operational aircraft (planes and
helicopters). (2)At the end of 2005, the US Army had a combat vehicle fleet ofapproximately 28,000 armored vehicles (tracked vehicles such asAbrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles)(3). Besides those the
Army and the Marine corps have tactical wheeled vehicles such as140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. The US Army hasalso over 4,000 combat helicopters and several hundred fixed wingaircraft.
Add all those also 187,493 fleet vehicles (4) (passenger cars,busses, light trucks etc) the US Department of Defense (DOD) uses.The issue is that except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraftcarriers, almost all military fleet (including the ones that will be
joining in the next decade) run on oil.Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly,its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles andfacilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the
world. By the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankingsthere are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consumemore oil per day than the Pentagon.An interesting point is that even though there are only a few data
sources, how much oil the Pentagon really consumes is still kind ofpuzzle, at least to me.(5)According to recently released "Annual Energy Management Report", inFiscal Year 2006 the Pentagon consumed 320,000 barrels per day of
site delivered oil, compared to about 360,000 barrels per day in2005. Note that these and all other official figures do not includefuel obtained at no cost overseas(6), fuel consumed bycontractors(7), fuel consumed in some leased and privatized
facilities, and not last but least oil consumed by certain leased andrented fleet vehicles.While the official figures for military oil consumption went down in2006, the costs went to the sky. In 2005 DoD had spent slightly over
$8.5 billion for oil but this figure reached $17 billion in 2006.Note that oil accounts for 85% of the DoD's $20 billion energyconsumption costs in 2006.Figure 1: The US military oil consumption and costs
Source: DESC Fact book (several issues), EIA Annual Energy Review(several issues), Federal Energy Management Program Annual Report toCongress FY2005 and FY2006, General Services Administration Federal
Fleet Report for Fiscal Year 2006, DoD Annual Energy ManagementReport for Fiscal Year 2006. Note that cost figures are convertedinto 2006 constant prices by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPIindex.
Fortunately at least the cost part of US military oil consumption hasrecently been getting attention. For example, Senator Dick Lugar'swebsite contains a section on "Oil and the Military."(8)
http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/security/military.html In there it isstated that "Some of the energy related costs to the military includeprotecting shipping lanes, ports, and fuel delivery convoys, as well
as transporting the fuel that provides power at military bases. Intotal, the Department of Defense estimates that each $10 per barrelincrease in oil prices costs the U.S. military an additional $1.3billion dollars."
I don't know what that $1.3 billion really contains but certainly notthe items listed. Because a) "every 10 dollar increase in the priceof a barrel of oil costs the United States Air Force $600 million"
(9) only, b) the US military [in 2003] "allocated $49.1 billionannually to maintaining the capability to assure the flow of oil fromthe Persian Gulf," (10), & c) DESC alone spends $1 million per day
just for transporting the fuel to delivery point (11), among others.Since oil is a vital strategic commodity and since "DOD's consumptionof oil represents the highest priority of all uses, there will be no
fundamental limits to DOD's fuel supply for many, many decades."(12)However, once the global peak is reached th

Re: [Biofuel] U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On Earth

2007-02-19 Thread Frank Navarrete

And thus a push for escalation. . . .

On 2/19/07, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On Earth

The US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its
oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities
makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. By
the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are
only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per
day than the Pentagon.
http://www.energybulletin.net/26194.html

Published on 17 Feb 2007 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 17 Feb 2007.

US military oil pains

by Sohbet Karbuz

As of September 30, 2005 the US Air Force had 5,986 aircraft in service.
(1)

At the beginning of 2006 the US Navy had 285 combat and support
ships, and around 4,000 operational aircraft (planes and
helicopters). (2)

At the end of 2005, the US Army had a combat vehicle fleet of
approximately 28,000 armored vehicles (tracked vehicles such as
Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles)(3). Besides those the
Army and the Marine corps have tactical wheeled vehicles such as
140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. The US Army has
also over 4,000 combat helicopters and several hundred fixed wing
aircraft.

Add all those also 187,493 fleet vehicles (4) (passenger cars,
busses, light trucks etc) the US Department of Defense (DOD) uses.

The issue is that except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraft
carriers, almost all military fleet (including the ones that will be
joining in the next decade) run on oil.

Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly,
its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and
facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the
world. By the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings
there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume
more oil per day than the Pentagon.

An interesting point is that even though there are only a few data
sources, how much oil the Pentagon really consumes is still kind of
puzzle, at least to me.(5)

According to recently released "Annual Energy Management Report", in
Fiscal Year 2006 the Pentagon consumed 320,000 barrels per day of
site delivered oil, compared to about 360,000 barrels per day in
2005. Note that these and all other official figures do not include
fuel obtained at no cost overseas(6), fuel consumed by
contractors(7), fuel consumed in some leased and privatized
facilities, and not last but least oil consumed by certain leased and
rented fleet vehicles.

While the official figures for military oil consumption went down in
2006, the costs went to the sky. In 2005 DoD had spent slightly over
$8.5 billion for oil but this figure reached $17 billion in 2006.
Note that oil accounts for 85% of the DoD's $20 billion energy
consumption costs in 2006.

Figure 1: The US military oil consumption and costs


Source: DESC Fact book (several issues), EIA Annual Energy Review
(several issues), Federal Energy Management Program Annual Report to
Congress FY2005 and FY2006, General Services Administration Federal
Fleet Report for Fiscal Year 2006, DoD Annual Energy Management
Report for Fiscal Year 2006. Note that cost figures are converted
into 2006 constant prices by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI
index.

Fortunately at least the cost part of US military oil consumption has
recently been getting attention. For example, Senator Dick Lugar's
website contains a section on "Oil and the Military."(8)
http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/security/military.html In there it is
stated that "Some of the energy related costs to the military include
protecting shipping lanes, ports, and fuel delivery convoys, as well
as transporting the fuel that provides power at military bases. In
total, the Department of Defense estimates that each $10 per barrel
increase in oil prices costs the U.S. military an additional $1.3
billion dollars."

I don't know what that $1.3 billion really contains but certainly not
the items listed. Because a) "every 10 dollar increase in the price
of a barrel of oil costs the United States Air Force $600 million"
(9) only, b) the US military [in 2003] "allocated $49.1 billion
annually to maintaining the capability to assure the flow of oil from
the Persian Gulf," (10), & c) DESC alone spends $1 million per day
just for transporting the fuel to delivery point (11), among others.

Since oil is a vital strategic commodity and since "DOD's consumption
of oil represents the highest priority of all uses, there will be no
fundamental limits to DOD's fuel supply for many, many decades."(12)
However, once the global peak is reached things will get a bit
complicated. In best case oil costs will bite the military budget
harder.

The good news is that the Pentagon is getting aware of its energy
problem and working towards finding solutions. For instance, the
Department of Defense is committed to achieving the energ

[Biofuel] Local leaders undaunted by tough greenhouse goals

2007-02-19 Thread Keith Addison
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20070219a3.html
| The Japan Times Online
Monday, Feb. 19, 2007

Local leaders undaunted by tough greenhouse goals

By ERIC JOHNSTON

Staff writer

KYOTO -- Think globally and act locally may be a cliche. But as the 
ambitious goals set by participants of the Kyoto Conference on 
Climate Change demonstrated, local governments worldwide are feeling 
the effects of global warming and believe they can no longer wait on 
national leaders to do something about it.

The conference, which concluded Sunday, brought together nearly 109 
mayors and city council members from 26 countries, as well as 
environmental NGOs, academics and representatives from industries 
involved in environmental technologies to discuss ways in which 
practical, effective and financially viable public policies to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions can be introduced at the local level.

The conference was sponsored by the International Council for Local 
Environmental Initiatives -- Local Governments for Sustainability, a 
network of 500 local governments worldwide committed to sustainable 
development.

Under the Kyoto Climate Action Declaration released Saturday, all 
nations are urged to begin negotiating a post-Kyoto Protocol treaty 
that would mandate a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 
and an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

The Kyoto Protocol, which went into affect in February 2005, expires in 2012.

The declaration was described variously as aggressive, idealistic and 
extremely difficult to achieve, especially in developing countries. 
But those present said it reflects a common consensus that local 
governments worldwide have to act quickly and drastically to combat 
global warming because they are on the frontline of the problems 
associated with it.

"It's local governments that have to respond first with local 
resources when hurricanes, floods and droughts damage cities, towns 
and villages. Therefore, local governments have a very direct 
interest in doing everything they can to reduce the effects of global 
warming," said David Cadman, president of the organization and a 
councilman from Vancouver, British Columbia.

The timing of the conference was auspicious, taking place just as 
world legislators from the Group of Eight countries, along with 
China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, met in Washington to 
discuss climate change and the need for a new treaty to replace the 
Kyoto Protocol.

"The evidence that man is changing the climate is now beyond doubt, 
and it is clear the cost of inaction will be greater than the cost of 
action. We suggest elements for a post-2012 framework include 
long-term (greenhouse gas reduction) targets for developed countries 
and appropriate targets for developing countries," said a statement 
released Friday by the Washington conference.

The Kyoto Protocol called on developed countries to make numerical 
cuts in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels but did not commit 
developing countries to specific goals.

This was the reason that, even before the Kyoto Protocol was 
negotiated in 1997, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution saying it 
would not ratify any treaty that did not include developing countries.


___
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] U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On Earth

2007-02-19 Thread Keith Addison
U.S. Military Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil On Earth

The US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its 
oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities 
makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. By 
the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are 
only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per 
day than the Pentagon.
http://www.energybulletin.net/26194.html

Published on 17 Feb 2007 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 17 Feb 2007.

US military oil pains

by Sohbet Karbuz

As of September 30, 2005 the US Air Force had 5,986 aircraft in service. (1)

At the beginning of 2006 the US Navy had 285 combat and support 
ships, and around 4,000 operational aircraft (planes and 
helicopters). (2)

At the end of 2005, the US Army had a combat vehicle fleet of 
approximately 28,000 armored vehicles (tracked vehicles such as 
Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles)(3). Besides those the 
Army and the Marine corps have tactical wheeled vehicles such as 
140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. The US Army has 
also over 4,000 combat helicopters and several hundred fixed wing 
aircraft.

Add all those also 187,493 fleet vehicles (4) (passenger cars, 
busses, light trucks etc) the US Department of Defense (DOD) uses.

The issue is that except for 80 nuclear submarines and aircraft 
carriers, almost all military fleet (including the ones that will be 
joining in the next decade) run on oil.

Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, 
its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and 
facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the 
world. By the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings 
there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume 
more oil per day than the Pentagon.

An interesting point is that even though there are only a few data 
sources, how much oil the Pentagon really consumes is still kind of 
puzzle, at least to me.(5)

According to recently released "Annual Energy Management Report", in 
Fiscal Year 2006 the Pentagon consumed 320,000 barrels per day of 
site delivered oil, compared to about 360,000 barrels per day in 
2005. Note that these and all other official figures do not include 
fuel obtained at no cost overseas(6), fuel consumed by 
contractors(7), fuel consumed in some leased and privatized 
facilities, and not last but least oil consumed by certain leased and 
rented fleet vehicles.

While the official figures for military oil consumption went down in 
2006, the costs went to the sky. In 2005 DoD had spent slightly over 
$8.5 billion for oil but this figure reached $17 billion in 2006. 
Note that oil accounts for 85% of the DoD's $20 billion energy 
consumption costs in 2006.

Figure 1: The US military oil consumption and costs


Source: DESC Fact book (several issues), EIA Annual Energy Review 
(several issues), Federal Energy Management Program Annual Report to 
Congress FY2005 and FY2006, General Services Administration Federal 
Fleet Report for Fiscal Year 2006, DoD Annual Energy Management 
Report for Fiscal Year 2006. Note that cost figures are converted 
into 2006 constant prices by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI 
index.

Fortunately at least the cost part of US military oil consumption has 
recently been getting attention. For example, Senator Dick Lugar's 
website contains a section on "Oil and the Military."(8) 
http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/security/military.html In there it is 
stated that "Some of the energy related costs to the military include 
protecting shipping lanes, ports, and fuel delivery convoys, as well 
as transporting the fuel that provides power at military bases. In 
total, the Department of Defense estimates that each $10 per barrel 
increase in oil prices costs the U.S. military an additional $1.3 
billion dollars."

I don't know what that $1.3 billion really contains but certainly not 
the items listed. Because a) "every 10 dollar increase in the price 
of a barrel of oil costs the United States Air Force $600 million" 
(9) only, b) the US military [in 2003] "allocated $49.1 billion 
annually to maintaining the capability to assure the flow of oil from 
the Persian Gulf," (10), & c) DESC alone spends $1 million per day 
just for transporting the fuel to delivery point (11), among others.

Since oil is a vital strategic commodity and since "DOD's consumption 
of oil represents the highest priority of all uses, there will be no 
fundamental limits to DOD's fuel supply for many, many decades."(12) 
However, once the global peak is reached things will get a bit 
complicated. In best case oil costs will bite the military budget 
harder.

The good news is that the Pentagon is getting aware of its energy 
problem and working towards finding solutions. For instance, the 
Department of Defense is committed to achieving the energy reduction 
goals set forth in t

Re: [Biofuel] Over unity? Shock waves and steam heat

2007-02-19 Thread Kirk McLoren
Lets hope there is more improvement. Using the electricity in a common 
commercial heatpump could net you 350% of the hot water resistance heating 
would get you.
   
  Kirk

"D. Mindock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.alternativescience.com/over-unity.htm
  Shock waves and steam heat

For more than two years debate has raged on the Internet about an 
ordinary-looking metal drum sitting on the concrete floor of a factory building 
in Rome, Georgia, 50 miles from Atlanta. Its inventor, the man about whom the 
Internet debate is raging, is James Griggs, an industrial heating engineer.  
The invention that has brought Griggs such notoriety is a device that he began 
developing in 1987, that he calls the 'Hydrosonic Pump' and that many of his 
supporters believe is over-unity, in that it generates around 30 per cent more 
energy as heat than is put in as electricity. 
  To the skeptics, the Griggs Gadget is, at best, a case of self-delusion on a 
grand scale, and, at worst, a case of scientific fraud. To his supporters, the 
pump is the first unequivocal public demonstration of undoubted over-unity.
  Jim Griggs told me, 'the pump is based on a theory of what takes place when a 
shock wave is created in a fluid. We know that when you create a shock wave in 
a liquid there is a minute amount of energy released into the fluid in the form 
of heat.'
  'Most of the previous studies had been done in how to eliminate that shock 
wave, instead of putting the heat to a useful purpose. We've designed a system 
to take the shock-wave heat energy, capture it, and produce hot water or steam.'
  Griggs believes that his device works on perfectly normal principles and 
violates no laws of physics. Just what happens when the Hydrosonic pump is 
filled up with water and switched on is described by over-unity investigator 
Jed Rothwell who conducted a detailed engineering investigation of the device 
in January 1994.
  'During one of the demonstrations we watched,' he says, 'over a 20 minute 
period, 4.80 Kilowatt Hours of electricity was input, and 19,050 BTUs of heat 
evolved, which equals 5.58 Kilowatt Hours, or 117 per cent of input. The actual 
input to output ratio was even better than this, when you take into account the 
inefficiencies of the electric motor.'
  But if there are kilowatts of excess heat available, why doesn't Griggs 
simply use the steam to turn a turbine-generator and connect the output to the 
input -- thus getting a perpetual motion machine?
  One reason is that converting steam into electricity is an extremely 
inefficient process. You would be lucky to convert 5 per cent of the output 
heat energy back into electricity -- and 2 per cent might be nearer the mark. 
The Hydrosonic pump would therefore have to be massively over-unity before you 
could recover enough energy to make it self-sustaining, and at present the 
margin is a 'modest' 30 per cent.
  More importantly, the excess energy does not actually appear at the output 
steam pipe for a constant input of energy. What happens is this; the pump is 
started and after five or ten minutes reaches a steady state where it is 
converting water at room temperature to steam. Once this steady state is 
reached, the pump, according to Griggs, goes into an over-unity mode where the 
output temperature is maintained, but the amount of energy needed at the input 
to maintain it, drops by 30 per cent.
  Griggs has been working with a number of physicists and engineers to try to 
get to the bottom of just how his device works. As well as Jed Rothwell's 
consulting engineering firm in Atlanta he has worked with Professor Keizios, 
dean emeritus of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Institute 
of Technology and past president of the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers. Professor Keizos supervised the design of the instrumentation that 
measures the energy input and output of the Griggs Gadget.
  In a second test, during which the over-unity effect was measured, the 
adjusted co-efficient of power was a remarkable 168 per cent -- the machine 
produced 1.68 times the energy that was input. A third test did nearly as well 
with a Co-efficient of power of 157 per cent.
  If the only evidence for these claims were the colour brochure printed by 
Griggs's company, Hydro Dynamics Corporation Inc., and reports of his 
supporters, then most observers might be inclined to side with the skeptics: 
Griggs's claims seem fundamentally improbable. Yet surprisingly, Griggs has not 
only patented his device and started manufacturing a commercial version on a 
small scale, he has also sold and installed devices to users in the Atlanta 
area.
  The customers include the Atlanta Police Department, a fire station, a dry 
cleaning plant, and a gymnasium. Interestingly, the Hydrosonic pump was 
installed in the public buildings by the county engineer after evaluating the 
device. The buildings are using the device mainly for heating purposes,

Re: [Biofuel] Is the Deadly Crash of Our Civilization

2007-02-19 Thread John Wilson
>I seem to remember something about a burning bush.  >Perhaps it was related to 
>the talking onion.  :)

Maybe Zeke! but you have to watch that burning bush. It can scorch your ass! 
The onion can only bring tears to your eyes.
Yours truly
John Wilson
***
Wilsonia Farm Kennel Preserve
Goldens
Ph-Fax (902)665-2386) 
Web:  http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/new.htm
 Pups:  http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/pup.htm
 Politics:  http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/elect.htm
  
In Nova Scotia smoking permitted in designated areas only until 9:00 PM . After 
9:00 it is okey to kill everyone. 
 
Not anymore! Smoke freedom day 6 th December 2006
^___
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] USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority

2007-02-19 Thread Thomas Kelly
Michael,
 I'm a bit confused. You wrote: " Whether from wood chips or corn stalks 
or switchgrass, you need something to heat up the fermented mash to distill 
out the alcohol.  That is why sugar cane is one solution."

 Whether you make ethanol from cellulose or from more easily digested 
carbohydrates, you need something to heat up the fermented mash to distill 
out the alcohol.

 Are you referring to the energy cost needed to prepare cellulose for 
fermentation?
 Are you alluding to the fact that once the sugar is removed, the canes 
can be burned  > the energy for distillation?

  Tom

- Original Message - 
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority


> Whether from wood chips or corn stalks or switchgrass, you need something
> to heat up the fermented mash to distill out the alcohol.  That is why 
> sugar
> cane
> is one solution.
>
> Michael @ http://RecoveryByDiscovery.com
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] USDA Tells Ranchers Non-Corn Ethanol a Priority
>
>
> Then there's this - not the only one I think:
>
> http://www.yanmar.co.jp/english/aboutus/whats-new/news/0609/conts02.htm
> Wood Biomass Power Generation in Higashi-ohmi
> September 17, 2006
> ShigaPrefecture
> Higashi-ohmi city, Shiga Pref.
> Yanmar Co., Ltd.
>
> Wood Biomass Power Generation in Higashi-ohmi
>
> The Shiga prefectural government, Higashi-ohmi municipality and
> Yanmar Co., Ltd. started joint research on a wood biomass power
> generation system in April this year.The experimental facility at the
> AitoMaterialCenter* in Higashi-ohmi city was completed on September
> 17 and the tests began recently.They are scheduled to continue for 3
> years until 2009.
>
> Lumber chips, trimmed branches, bamboo and many other wooden
> materials produced in Higashi-ohmi city are being used for the
> tests.The gaseous fuel produced from these materials can be used in
> dual fuel cogeneration. The system generates power (22KW/h) and heat
> stably even on this low calorie gas.
>
> The hope is that wood biomass will not only rein in the consumption
> of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions but also produce ripple effects in
> the effective use of waste materials, vermin control in the local
> hills and mountains, revitalization of mountain villages, and flood
> control through forestry preservation work.
>
> Besides this research on energy conversion technologies, the joint
> study will tackle such related tasks as identifying the most
> appropriate ways to collect and transport biomass wood material,
> effective power and heat applications and optimization of the total
> system. A Biomass Utilization Committee has been set up in
> cooperation with ShigaPrefectureUniversity.
>
> The Higashi-ohmi municipality aims to be a model community for the
> resource recycling society.It also has a major rape blossom project
> for making BDF.The combined use of bio-diesel fuel and wood biomass
> energy will be incorporated into the community model in due course.
>
> Yanmar develops and distributes highly efficient and durable
> cogeneration systems and is eager to build up new energy technology
> schemes through the use of the biomass fuels.
>
> The Shiga prefectural government, Higashi-ohmi and Yanmar are
> creating the composite energy system for wood biomass material
> collection, conversion and application, promoting the self-sustaining
> energy community and diffusion of these approaches.
>
> *Warehouse owned by Higashi-ohmi city (location: No.7-1, Namazue-cho,
> Higashi-ohmi city, ShigaPrefecture)
>
>
> * Inquiries on this topic should be addressed to:
>
>
> Forestry Improvement Dept., Environment Agricultural Administration
> Div., Higahi-ohmi Local Promotion Bureau, Shiga Prefecture
> Tel.: 0748-22-7717 Fax.: 0748-22-8798
>
> Livelihood Environment Dept., Livelihood Environment Div., 
> Higashi-ohmiCity
> Tel.: 0748-24-5633 Fax: 0748-24-0752
>
> Technical Development Group, Bio Gas Power Generation Div.,
> Environment Project Development Div, Yanmar Co., Ltd.
> Tel.: 0749-52-8422 Fax.: 0749-52-6346
>
>
>>They're betting on it yes, so are a lot of people in the US it seems,
>>but they're not selling it yet, and that's been the case for a long
>>time. There doesn't seem to be much actual ground-level advance on
>>this good but not very new overview:
>>
>>Wood-Ethanol Report
>>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/WoodEthanolReport.html
>>
>>See also:
>>
>>Ethanol from cellulose
>>http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_link.html#cellulose
>>
>>Always nice to hear from a "list lurker" (but you're welcome either way).
>>
>>Best
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>>
>> >just a simple FYI from a "list lurker"...
>> >
>> >
>> >http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/02/14/

Re: [Biofuel] Is the Deadly Crash of Our Civilization

2007-02-19 Thread Fred Oliff
www.theonion.com, a satirical look at the news. sometimes we need some humour in our lives. I know I could use a laugh right about now, just before the precipice.


From: "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo: Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Is the Deadly Crash of Our CivilizationDate: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:08:18 -0400



Fred Oliff wrote:> "screw the meek", they have had over 2000 years to do something and have > not, doth quote the Onion >OK-who did the Onion Quote? Or should that be The >Onion saith...
 
Wow! Taking guidance from a talking onion and they say, quote:"the Jesus freaks" end guote, have some weird ideas!

Yours trulyJohn Wilson***Wilsonia Farm Kennel PreserveGoldensPh-Fax (902)665-2386) Web:  http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/new.htm Pups:  http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/pup.htm Politics:  http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/goldens/elect.htm  In Nova Scotia smoking permitted in designated areas only until 9:00 PM . After 9:00 it is okey to kill everyone.  Not anymore! Smoke freedom day 6 th December 2006^
>___>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/