update on iesi story
http://newenergytimes.com/SR/IESI.htm
Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage
- Original Message - From: Bob Fickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage True, lightweight high-strength containment materials may make such a system practical, although they tend to be expensive. But there's no need to wait. Both mechanical flywheels and compressed-air energy storage share the same characteristics in this regard: stored energy scales directly with the strength and size (and thus mass) of the container. Both will have the same energy capacity as a superconducting storage system; so why wait for ultraconductors? If Kevlar is practical, go ahead and build flywheels into electric cars! I once heard a talk by Bitter, one of the leading proponents of flywheel storage. The energy storage is very much a function of the spped of the flywheel and limited by its bursting strength. Kevlar filament wound wheels are good candidates, but significant gains would be realized if carbon fiber could be realized. Carbon fiber nanotubes are ideal candidates, but like Mark Golde's superconductors, they are short and the way to make long filaments is elusive. Flywheel systems are complex devices, requiring magnetically suspended rotors spinning in a vacuum and complex support systems to get energy in and out of the rotors. Containment systems are necessary in case of bursts, although filament wheels shred rather than emitting scrapnel. Wheels are gyroscopes, which add to the problems when you wnat to go around corners. An ultraconductor system is solid state and if it can be made to work at room temperature, could be quite attractive. Mike Carrell Mark Goldes wrote: Los Alamos National Laboratory patented a lightweight containment system using Kevlar. While the Patent was in force, our firm had rights for use with our polymers. Now that their Patent has expired we still expect to use that lightweight system of containment for UMES electron flywheels. Carbon fiber may prove to be an even better alternative and we are watching wire development progress with that extremely light material many times stronger than steel. Mark From: Bob Fickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Room Temperature Superconductors and EVs Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:50:05 -0600 Much as I'd like to have some ultraconductor wire to play with, I'm not convinced that Ultrqaconducting Magnetic Energy Storage will replace batteries. Magnetic fields create a pressure equal to the energy density- and therefore require a strong (read heavy and expensive) mechanical container. Mark Goldes wrote: Harry, They can be made, but not yet in wire form. Thin films containing Ultraconductors 1 or 2 microns in diameter (1/50th the diameter of a human hair) can always carry 50 Amperes. The Ultraconductors run through the film in the thin direction, (i.e. normal to the film). Wire is 3 years and $18 million in front of us. Once available as wire, electron flywheels can begin to replace batteries. Ultraconducting Magnetic Energy Storage systems are expected to prove practical. Electric motors made with Ultraconducting wire can be much smaller and lighter, and may require no iron. Alll plastic motors may therefore prove practical. Superconducting motors require no iron. We suspect the same will be true of Ultraconductors. Mark From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:29:14 -0500 If room temperature superconductors can be made they would also boost the performance of electric vehicles. If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: iesi
Hi Steven, Good reporting and followup. I remain concerned about certain Canadian and US public offerings. Some are unfolding, some have unfolded and some are awaiting. Of great concern is Barrick Gold and it's near sudden emerging as the world's largest gold firm according to their estimates of unmined gold reserves. Richard - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:27 AM Subject: iesi http://diyduediligence.blogspot.com
Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage
Hi Mike, There was a west coast firm ( US Flywheel ??) working on high speed mechanical flywheels some 20 years ago. Such a device would need to oeprate above 750,000 rpm and preferably above 1.25 mil rpm to sustain and store sufficent energy. You can easily recognoze the inheent engineering problems with materials without considering how to induce speed and convert recovered energy under this scenario. Electron flywheels may allow solutions unavailable with mechanical flywheels. I would love to have them for our shop battery operated tools. Talk about available torque.. wow!. Richard - Original Message - From: Mike Carrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage - Original Message - From: Bob Fickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage True, lightweight high-strength containment materials may make such a system practical, although they tend to be expensive. But there's no need to wait. Both mechanical flywheels and compressed-air energy storage share the same characteristics in this regard: stored energy scales directly with the strength and size (and thus mass) of the container. Both will have the same energy capacity as a superconducting storage system; so why wait for ultraconductors? If Kevlar is practical, go ahead and build flywheels into electric cars! I once heard a talk by Bitter, one of the leading proponents of flywheel storage. The energy storage is very much a function of the spped of the flywheel and limited by its bursting strength. Kevlar filament wound wheels are good candidates, but significant gains would be realized if carbon fiber could be realized. Carbon fiber nanotubes are ideal candidates, but like Mark Golde's superconductors, they are short and the way to make long filaments is elusive. Flywheel systems are complex devices, requiring magnetically suspended rotors spinning in a vacuum and complex support systems to get energy in and out of the rotors. Containment systems are necessary in case of bursts, although filament wheels shred rather than emitting scrapnel. Wheels are gyroscopes, which add to the problems when you wnat to go around corners. An ultraconductor system is solid state and if it can be made to work at room temperature, could be quite attractive. Mike Carrell Mark Goldes wrote: Los Alamos National Laboratory patented a lightweight containment system using Kevlar. While the Patent was in force, our firm had rights for use with our polymers. Now that their Patent has expired we still expect to use that lightweight system of containment for UMES electron flywheels. Carbon fiber may prove to be an even better alternative and we are watching wire development progress with that extremely light material many times stronger than steel. Mark From: Bob Fickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Room Temperature Superconductors and EVs Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:50:05 -0600 Much as I'd like to have some ultraconductor wire to play with, I'm not convinced that Ultrqaconducting Magnetic Energy Storage will replace batteries. Magnetic fields create a pressure equal to the energy density- and therefore require a strong (read heavy and expensive) mechanical container. Mark Goldes wrote: Harry, They can be made, but not yet in wire form. Thin films containing Ultraconductors 1 or 2 microns in diameter (1/50th the diameter of a human hair) can always carry 50 Amperes. The Ultraconductors run through the film in the thin direction, (i.e. normal to the film). Wire is 3 years and $18 million in front of us. Once available as wire, electron flywheels can begin to replace batteries. Ultraconducting Magnetic Energy Storage systems are expected to prove practical. Electric motors made with Ultraconducting wire can be much smaller and lighter, and may require no iron. Alll plastic motors may therefore prove practical. Superconducting motors require no iron. We suspect the same will be true of Ultraconductors. Mark From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:29:14 -0500 If room temperature superconductors can be made they would also boost the performance of electric vehicles. If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or
Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field
The subject article has been checked for arithmetic errors and the title changed to The Ambient Gravimagnetic Field. It is located at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GraviCalcs.pdf Horace Heffner
Alien Hunter
This man was interviewed last night on C to C AM. His title sums up what he does. He mentioned that they are lyres. There are many details, including pictures of the implants on his website, www.alienhunter.org --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jan 30, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I wonder if there is a connection between Gravimagnetism and dowsing and ley lines... I'm clueless on that one. Horace Heffner Could Gravimagnetism be involved in the precession of the perihelion of planet mercury? http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html Harry
RE: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
Title: Message $36.13 billiontotal profitfor 2005, highest of all time second highest of all time?Exxon again with$25.3 billion in 2004. Good for them, hopefully this unabashedgreed pushes the complacent out of their easy chairs and gives viable alternative sources a much needed foothold. Essentially, we need a Linux revolution in the energy sector. Copyleft! -j -Original Message-From: John Coviello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:55 PMTo: VortexSubject: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base? ExxonMobil just reported record quarterly profits, over $10 Billion just this quarter. Has there ever been a business in the history of mankind that has even come close to the profits that the oil business has enjoyed, especially in recent years? Does anyone really need a further explanationfor why the U.S. government lavishes the oil industry with approximately $100 Billion in military protection each year and gives energy conservation and alternative energy so little attention and funding? Oil is king of theeconomic world.The U.S. government knows the deal with peak oil, probably better thananyone. It is the main reason we are in Iraq at the moment. Oil plays thecentral role of our foreign policy, especially since Communism fell. Remember how Dick Chenney said in 2001 that energy efficiency did notmatter? I just saw him last week explaining on network television that the reason our economy is not in recession due to the current high oil prices isbecause we use oil twice as efficiently as we did in 1980 when we had a serious economic recession due to oil. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Slick Dick!For those out there who belittle big oil conspiracy theories as poppycock, I suggest you investigate the diamond trade. Diamonds would be essentially worthless if they were allowed to trade freely. I was surprised to learn this myself a few years ago. Yes, there is actually an international cartel that tightly controls the diamond supply to ensure that diamonds remain a valuable commodity. A company called DeBeers actually has warehouses full of diamonds in Europe, keeping millions of stones off the market, to ensure they remain scarce and valuable. 60 Minutes did a story on this fact a few years ago. Not only do they keep diamonds embargoed, they also are heavily involved in the mining trade and control the production side as well.Well, if such far flung efforts have been carried out successfully fordecades to ensure diamonds remain valuable, why is it so hard to believe that there are also powerful forces that manipulate energy markets. Energy is the most valuable commodity known to man at the moment, and oil is the prime energy commodity. Their is ample reason to manipulate the price of oil. I believe we see this manipulation every year as the U.S. government routinely spends $100 Billion or more to ensure the free flow of oil, also ensuring huge profits for the ExxonMobils of the world, and having the side-effect of retarding alternative energy competitiors who have to compete against a subsidized commodity like oil.
Electron Flywheels and Turbines
The discussion of electron flywheels (UMES) has brought to mind a concept I had for an electron turbine. (warning! ASCII art follows) A series of saw-toothed rings with a collection surface on one side, set to rotate in opposing directions. -- Negative Terminal / Stationary Sawtooth - \ CW Ring - / CCW Ring - \ CW Ring - Stationary Collector Plate ++ Positive Terminal A charge imbalance existing between the input and output sides (negative and positive terminals resp.) would cause a flow of electrons through the turbine. An electron has a mass of 9.1095 x 10^-31 kg 1 Amp = 6.2415 x 10^18 electrons/sec. 1 Amp = 5.685 x 10^-12 kg/sec Electron velocity in a vacuum is governed by voltage AFAIK, and is approx. 6000 km/sec at 100 V. If the electrons travel at 45 degrees to the axis, reversing their direction should impart 5.296 x 10^-23 kg.m/sec momentum per electron, or 4.824 x 10^-4 kg.m/sec momentum per amp. So force exerted on the armature by 1A @ 100V should be 4.824 x 10^-4 N Unless I've misplaced some factors this looks completely impractical now that I've done the calculations. shrug Ce La Vie Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
Title: Message Are Big-Oil Conspiracies off base? YES! If any of you really think that oil companies are outrageously profitable, YOU ARE FREE TO BUY THEIR STOCK and share in the profits accordingly. I don't, because I find them too risky. Since 1977, government tax revenues on oil have been twice what oil company profits have been. If every successful company becomes a target for Congressional Thieves, then let's steal some of that $25-40 billion that Microsoft is holding - or tax the unwarranted rise in Google stock value. Better yet, the recentrise in your home's value is clearly a "windfall" - let's have a special tax on that. Oil is extremely risky since, if you invest enormous amounts of money and work to develop fields, some third world dictator will nationalize the property or demand new concessions, destroying your intended projections. Or your best workers get kidnapped by local insurgents -Or you can't find any skilled petroleum engineers that aren't ready for retirement.- Or you put $60 a barrel oil in storage while the Saudis decide to move the price down to $40 a barrel.( all real, reported issues) And refineries? A refinery is almost impossible to build due to NIMBYism. Barron's ran an article on this months ago. If we aren't careful, NIMBYism will kill off windmills, too. Oil has been cheap for a long time, particularily because the swing producers, the Saudis, have kept it that way to prevent alternative development and the US public has little stomach for sacrifice.
RE: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
John Steck wrote: $36.13 billion total profit for 2005, highest of all time second highest of all time? Exxon again with $25.3 billion in 2004. Kenneth Deffeyes pointed out that part of the reason oil companies are making record profits is because they are not investing in new refineries, tankers and other capital equipment. They are not investing because they know there is no more oil in the ground, so there is no point to expanding production capacity. In fact, in 20 years they will not even need present capacity. In other words, they are dismantling their own industry by attrition. Why build a new sawmill when you are on the verge of cutting down the last tree? When a company is in the midst of liquidating its assets, it has a lot of cash on hand, but that is not a sign of good corporate health. In my book, I predicted they would dismantle by attrition after cold fusion makes it obvious will soon go out of business. I did not realize they already knew their days are numbered. I thought they were ignoring Deffeyes. If they had any sense they would be investing in other energy sources, such as wind and cold fusion, but companies on the verge of extinction seldom have any sense. They are doing and says exactly what I would expect, based on the history of other companies in their predicament. See: http://blog.wired.com/cars/ ExxonMobil's Future Lacks Alternatives ExxonMobil also has no interest in solar or wind energy. [ExxonMobile statement:] In our view, current renewable technologies do not offer near-term promise for profitable investment relative to attractive opportunities that we see in our core business. Therefore, we have chosen not to pursue investments in renewable energy options. Translation: We have no clue what to do with our money. We cannot imagine a future without oil, even though we see it is coming. We do not want to think about anything beyond 'short term' next-quarter strategies. The only conspiracy I see here is a silent and unconscious conspiracy by oil companies to destroy themselves. - Jed
Re: iesi
Nicely done Steve. I like the levelheaded approach towards iESi. Very informative. - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:27 AM Subject: iesi http://diyduediligence.blogspot.com
Re: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:08 PM Subject: RE: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base? John Steck wrote: $36.13 billion total profit for 2005, highest of all time second highest of all time? Exxon again with $25.3 billion in 2004. Kenneth Deffeyes pointed out that part of the reason oil companies are making record profits is because they are not investing in new refineries, tankers and other capital equipment. They are not investing because they know there is no more oil in the ground, so there is no point to expanding production capacity. In fact, in 20 years they will not even need present capacity. In other words, they are dismantling their own industry by attrition. Why build a new sawmill when you are on the verge of cutting down the last tree? Good point Jed. Probably one of the most obvious signs that peak oil is near, when the oil industry stops investing in expanded infrastructure and does not increase exploration dramatically in the face of a much higher price environment for their product. Why not? Because they probably know better than anyone that there is no future for oil. It could unravel even faster than many expect, because once oil reaches a certain price threshold, it will price itself right out of the marketplace and alternatives will fill the void. It's a good idea to read between the lines of all the conflicting stories surrounding peak oil and look at underlying indicators, such as rising oil prices (no better indication of the scarcity of a commodity than the price people are willing to pay for it), and as you pointed out the lack of investment in new and expanded infrastructure to process oil, it tells you something about what they are thinking.
Re: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
Title: Message The way I see it, our dependence on oil is the product of one of the most far flung social engineering projects ever undertaken. From dismantling trolley lines in the early 20th Century to ensuring auto efficiency standards do not put too much pressure on the demand side of oil, to providing $10Billions of federal monies each year to protect oil supplies overseasmilitarily,the federal government has engineered our dependence on oil and has put alternative energy technologies and transportation modes at a marketplace disadvantage. If there was enough need for new refining facilities, they would get built. We are now building LNG facilities, we have continued to build power plants all over the place. New refiniers aren't being built because the industry either doesn't want them to put more supplies on the market and depress pricesor more likely they don't see a return on investment for a product that will price itself out of the market within a decade or two. From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:32 PM Subject: RE: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base? Are Big-Oil Conspiracies off base? YES! If any of you really think that oil companies are outrageously profitable, YOU ARE FREE TO BUY THEIR STOCK and share in the profits accordingly. I don't, because I find them too risky. Since 1977, government tax revenues on oil have been twice what oil company profits have been. If every successful company becomes a target for Congressional Thieves, then let's steal some of that $25-40 billion that Microsoft is holding - or tax the unwarranted rise in Google stock value. Better yet, the recentrise in your home's value is clearly a "windfall" - let's have a special tax on that. Oil is extremely risky since, if you invest enormous amounts of money and work to develop fields, some third world dictator will nationalize the property or demand new concessions, destroying your intended projections. Or your best workers get kidnapped by local insurgents -Or you can't find any skilled petroleum engineers that aren't ready for retirement.- Or you put $60 a barrel oil in storage while the Saudis decide to move the price down to $40 a barrel.( all real, reported issues) And refineries? A refinery is almost impossible to build due to NIMBYism. Barron's ran an article on this months ago. If we aren't careful, NIMBYism will kill off windmills, too. Oil has been cheap for a long time, particularily because the swing producers, the Saudis, have kept it that way to prevent alternative development and the US public has little stomach for sacrifice.
Re: iesi
Thank you. I tries my bests. At 02:46 PM 2/1/2006, you wrote: Nicely done Steve. I like the levelheaded approach towards iESi. Very informative. - Original Message - From: Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:27 AM Subject: iesi http://diyduediligence.blogspot.com
Re: Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off Base?
Hi Vorts, Big oil came in just over the average return ( 6. 5%) on gross sales at near 8.5 % If youn want to look at figures .. look at returns on Banking at 18 %. Not to worry, Paul Voelker, ex Fed chairman recently made a comment that there was a 75% chance for a " major correction" in the world of currencies ( spell that US dollar falling) this year because of the continued US trade imbalance of 500 bil and budget deficit of 500 bil. A 500 bil budget deficit is a " target" not a hard dollar estimate since that target does not include the real world increases in US govt "obligations" of another 500 bil per year. Again, not to worry, Rumsfield replied to the question of rising deficits in govt by saying... deficits no longer matter. He is right when you think about it. Since there is nothing we or the rest of the world can do about it.. it don't matter. We have the grandmother of all " Mexican standoffs" where everybody in the saloon is drunk and holding a cocked shotgun loaded with buckshot.. the first drunk that pulls the trigger gets everybody killed. Currency is no longer a medium of exchange so the world drug cartels buy New Holland hay balersto package 50 and 100 dollar bills. Not much they can do but build another warehouse and buy another forklift.. There is some real quality counterfeit US money around but it can't have much impact vs the credit card which is the currency of choice in today's world. In one swift move CitiBank et.al. moved the swiss out of the poker game and bought the house using your money.. Figures don't lie. The US market economy sustains the world economy. That will be changing as China and India emerge.. as that tetter totter tips..well who knows ? Look into Barrick Gold background history together with their movebecoming the largest gold mining firm. Anyone care to venture a guess how they did it ? Maybe Arianna Huffington can give us a clue. My only question is why does it always point to Texas ? Richard
