RE: [Vo]:The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
Does the force of a magnet 'run down' as it is used? That is, does it lose internal alignment as a result of its countering interaction with other magnetic bodies? Lawry -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine FWIW, Al is reporting over 7 hours of continuous run of his magnetic motor over in the Steorn forum. Replications are close to realization. Terry
Re: [Vo]:Re: ITER Budget Slashed
On Friday 11 January 2008 09:35, Michel Jullian wrote: > It has been suggested on another list that they were convinced by the 2006 posthumous Science > article by William Parkins mirrored by NET here: > > "[Hot] Fusion Power: Will It Ever Come?" > http://www.newenergytimes.com/Inthenews/2006/SCIENCE-FusionPower.htm > > Quote: "Scaling of the construction costs from the Bechtel estimates suggests a total plant cost on > the order of $15 billion, or $15,000/kWe of plant rating. At a plant factor of 0.8 and total annual > charges of 17% against the capital investment, these capital charges alone would contribute 36 cents > to the cost of generating each kilowatt hour. This is far outside the competitive price range." > > $15/W is indeed a lot compared to the ~$2/W of a coal powered plant, or better now a Nanosolar PV > plant ($2/W too, admittedly with a lower plant factor (~0.2?) than coal due to insolation not being > constant, but with arguably much lower operating costs!) > > Michel > > - Original Message - > From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:12 PM > Subject: [Vo]:ITER Budget Slashed > > > > By 93.3%: > > > > http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/07/557301.aspx > > > > Is Congress coming to their senses? > > > > Terry > > Not to worry too much. Failure of vision by Congress will be replaced by funding from China and others, and possibly the reorganiztion of the project to include the United States out of the affair altogether. A rather ignominious end to US involvement. Somebody...a group of somebodies...are comparing apples and oranges, again. This is new project and costs are going to be quite high, especially on something that this species has never accomplished before in this period of its literate self awareness. To compare its supposed economics with anything at all not to mention a coal fired boiler is preposterous and smacks of an institution looking to bail and willing to use any excuse. It also smells like bankruptcy, something an institution would do when it privately knows it is insolvent but does not want that fact known outside its inner circle. This project is historic. It is not a silicon valley startup inventing a faster thumb drive or a new way of concealing corporate mal-ware in one; and finding out that the neighbors can do it 'cheaper'.The failure of the Americans will not be the end of it. It will only mean that the project will be built without American help, interference, or control; and its benefits will be to those with the vision to persevere in it. The eventual cost of this short-sightedness will be at first be economic, as new 'intellectually licenced' plants will spread over the world outside of the United States and start to lift the rest of the world to the leadership role that we are now abdicating. Second will be political and possibly territorial, as the United States becomes a third world nation sinking first into poverty and then into loss of territory. History has not been kind to those who pass on the torch of leadership. We gained our leadership by realizing that energy production leadership translated to leadership in factory production as muscles were replaced by machines run by abundant energy. Fusion energy is to chemical energy as chemical energy was to muscle energy. Fusion will work. The French know this. Eighty percent of their nation is run on atomics, and this fact is seen by others, giving the lie to detractors who endlessly prattle to pandering barrators about 'waste'. So it will be with fusion. This plant built in France over US objectionsdo we detect sour grapes here will be the model. When I was at university, an old professor instilled a lesson in a half forgotten class about 'activation energy'. A low energy process could be initiated by a relatively lower energy of activation, as in a spark initiating the firing of compressed gas in a cylinder. A high energy process will require more energy. Fusion requires more energy. Large fusion will require a lot more, but then society will get more in return. Meanwhile a small project, Focus-Fusion, languishes with low funding in a South American country yet soldiers on. They too could be successful with the dense plasma focus, and I pray they are. Burning dead dinosaurs and petrified ground litter and petrified fish guts will only last so long. Maybe that is why so many civilizations are episodic. Standing Bear
Re: [Vo]:The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:50:01 -0500 (GMT-05:00): Hi, [snip] >Terry Blanton wrote: > >>FWIW, Al is reporting over 7 hours of continuous run of his magnetic >>motor over in the Steorn forum. Replications are close to >>realization. > >Seven hours? As Chris Tinsley used to say, that narrows it down to two >possibilities: real, or fraud. No middle ground there. Some of the skeptics >commenting on the video claimed they saw fishing line unreeling and pulling >the device. That wouldn't work for 7 hours. Nor would small batteries or >demagnetization. I suppose there are a few other ways to fake it, but anyway, >if it really did run for 7 hours with no wires attached, that sounds like >irrefutable proof to me. > >I hope it is replicated and thousands of copies are made world-wide within a >few months. The only thing that I would regret -- slightly -- is that it would >probably make cold fusion moot, and it might even cause cold fusion to be >forgotten. (On the other hand, an astounding breakthrough might open people's >minds to other possibilities such as cold fusion, which might still be useful >for transmutation.) But anyway, a magnetic motor would serve all of the >purposes I described in my book, and that is the only thing that matters. I think even magnet motors need a power source. That could be ZPE, but if it isn't then it may be the Van Allen Belts (particularly the lower one), in which case the total power available is limited to roughly what we are now using. Considering that such motors would likely rapidly find wide usage, it would probably soon become necessary to start legally restricting what they could be used for. The most obvious applications that come to mind are transport and small motors in appliances, however personally I would restrict their use when it came to converting the energy into heat for hot water or central heating. Consequently, I think there is still likely to be a useful role for CF or related, at least for heating purposes. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:34:27 +0100: Hi, [snip] > It would also mean that the car's range could be >considerably reduced in very cold weather. [snip] Not necessarily. If the air in the tank was also compressed when the external temperature was the just as cold, then more compressed air would fit into the tank. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:34:27 +0100: Hi, [snip] >I just saw Robin's explanation for the discrepancy (heat taken from ambient >air during expansion, >which produces cold air as is well know), it makes sense to me. It's quite >remarkable that 9 kWh out >of the 12 seem to be provided by the environment! [snip] Of course this also means that quite a lot more work has to be done to compress the air in the first place than one might at first guess. However if the air compressor is in your garage, then a nice synergy is possible. The waste heat from the compression phase might be used to heat the hot water in the hot water system. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
Terry Blanton wrote: >FWIW, Al is reporting over 7 hours of continuous run of his magnetic >motor over in the Steorn forum. Replications are close to >realization. Seven hours? As Chris Tinsley used to say, that narrows it down to two possibilities: real, or fraud. No middle ground there. Some of the skeptics commenting on the video claimed they saw fishing line unreeling and pulling the device. That wouldn't work for 7 hours. Nor would small batteries or demagnetization. I suppose there are a few other ways to fake it, but anyway, if it really did run for 7 hours with no wires attached, that sounds like irrefutable proof to me. I hope it is replicated and thousands of copies are made world-wide within a few months. The only thing that I would regret -- slightly -- is that it would probably make cold fusion moot, and it might even cause cold fusion to be forgotten. (On the other hand, an astounding breakthrough might open people's minds to other possibilities such as cold fusion, which might still be useful for transmutation.) But anyway, a magnetic motor would serve all of the purposes I described in my book, and that is the only thing that matters. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heisenberg and Mills
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 9 Jan 2008 09:11:59 -0900: Hi, [snip] >> This may not be a "change" in it's nature at all. It may *be* it's >> nature. > > >By change in nature I mean that free electrons and electrons in >ordinary orbitals don't act like that. What changes their nature >into some new folded dimension type thing when they are in hydrino >orbit spheres? Perhaps I should have been more clear. Mills Hydrino orbitals are all "S" orbitals. The contention is that even ordinary S orbitals are like this. [snip] >This all assumes no radiation is possible, which I agree is not a >necessarily bad assumption because ordinary orbital electrons do not >radiate despite their large acceleration, and the mechanism for >preventing that radiation is I think a matter of contention in >conventional physics. > > >> Eventually, it reaches the speed of light, and this happens before >> the radius of the nucleus is reached. The latter is Mills' ultimate >> barrier to >> shrinkage. Furthermore shrinkage is not possible under EM radiation >> (and hence >> can't be spontaneous). > > >OK, this I think I understand because the velocity and thus >acceleration remain bounded while the mass and thus centrifugal force >must increase upon taking on more energy, thus the radius must There is no "extra" energy, only conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy (analogous to the conversion of gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy as a satellite reenters the Earth's atmosphere). >increase to accommodate the extra energy, and thus more energy can >not be obtained from further radius shrinkage. No, as potential energy is converted into kinetic energy, the velocity increases (while the radius decreases), which according to Einstein should result in a mass increase as the speed of light is approached, something which I *think* Mills tends to sweep under the rug a bit (or perhaps I haven't studied his work closely enough). In my own version of his theory, this is explicitly taken into account. I.e. the total change in energy of the system is properly accounted for (including change in mass). >Do you know what Mills >gives as a smallest radius? Yes the Bohr Radius (BR) times the fine structure constant is the lower limit, although because the inverse of the fine structure constant is not an integer, the actual lowest orbital is thus the BR / 137 (~= 386 fm). (In my version the radius goes as 1/p^2 rather than 1/p, and hence the lowest radius would be BR/(125^2 ) ~= 3.4 fm. - the factor of 125 iso 137 is due to both relativistic considerations, and the assumption that potential energy is another name for rest-mass, IOW as potential energy is lost, the rest-mass of the system is reduced). I might add that AFAIK for all Mills' Hydrinos (irrespective of size), the De Broglie wavelength of the electron is exactly one Hydrino circumference, just as it is in the normal Hydrogen atom ground state. In fact the normal Hydrogen atom ground state can be seen as the top level Hydrino. [snip] >> Because the surface is curved upon itself, infinite distance is >> available in a >> finite space. (Think hamster in treadmill). > > >Yes but the surface still exists in 3D space, so Heisenberg should >apply, Heisenberg may apply, but you have to be exact in applying it. Even on the surface of a sphere, motion is possible in all three dimensions, just not all at once at each point. The De Broglie wave of a particle always propagates along its momentum vector, therefore always in only one direction at any given moment in time. If the path is circular, then it ends up interfering with itself, and hence only those radii are possible where constructive interference occurs. This is precisely what De Broglie was on about. >unless this new space is a newly formed special mini-universe >where ordinary rules don't apply. I suppose that is possible, but it >certainly stretches the imagination! Somewhat more than I intended I'm afraid! Perhaps I shouldn't have been so grandiose in my use of language. No "new" space was intended, though a curvature in ordinary space time is not out of the question. If the Earth follows a curved path around the Sun because gravity warps space-time, then perhaps an electron follows a curved path around a nucleus because charge warps space time even more strongly than gravity??? :) (...and to carry it to it's ultimate conclusion, perhaps gravity itself is really just a "left-over" charge imbalance - the umpteenth term in a Taylor series describing the origin of charge itself?) [snip] >> In the "ground state" of the Hydrogen atom, the nucleus is already >> well within >> the De Broglie wavelength, which = 2*Pi*r. However the direction of >> the De >> Broglie wave is along the momentum vector, > >This is the part I find hard to understand. This is essentially a >longitudinal de Broglie wave. No, just my poor self expression. When I say "the dir
Re: [Vo]:The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
FWIW, Al is reporting over 7 hours of continuous run of his magnetic motor over in the Steorn forum. Replications are close to realization. Terry
RE: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
Ten years ago I tinkered together a 20 ft long replica of a Mississippi River sternwheeler, only it runs on compressed air instead of steam. It uses a portable air tank at 65 psi driving twin 2" bore by 6" stroke air cylinders. When the engine driving the compressor quits, I have a range of about 250 ft to get back to the dock which sometimes makes me glad the pond isn't much bigger than that. Jeff No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1218 - Release Date: 1/10/2008 1:32 PM
Re: [Vo]:Continued Adventures in Celestial Mechanics
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jan 9, 2008, at 8:51 AM, OrionWorks wrote: Also, wouldn't a sizable macro-scale amount of mirror matter appear to weigh less than predicted? In fact If I understand this correctly if a sample was composed more than 50 percent (volume-wise) of mirror matter wouldn't it manifest negative weight, or antigravitation influences? If so, the stuff would obviously be difficult to locate! Would have likely floated away millions & billions of years ago! ;-) No. Mirror matter weakly binds with ordinary matter. If light mirror matter nuclei bind with heavier ordinary matter nuclei, then the result is net ordinary matter, but with low density. It is of great interest that the binding is so weak that mirror matter can be separated by use of a strong centrifuge. See: Orion Work's Mirror Matter idea reminds me of upsadaisyum a metal with antigravity properties. It was part of the Rocky The Flying Squriel cartoon series. Is there really a possibility that something like that exists? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:Green Hyperbole and Guy Negre's compressed air car
Since "green-is-in" these days, more so than ever before, it seems that every scam artist in the universe is trying to find his own green-niche in order to capitalize on the situation. But I do not think this compressed air car of Guy Negre is necessarily one of them. Yet the numbers speak for themselves... or do they? Numbers and statistics can be the slippery next step down in Dante's spiral, below "lies and damn lies" but still... this situation begs for a more complete explanation- as does the following "green-is-in" enticement about algoil: "Matt's company is taking CO2 from local industry and pumping it into specially built algae ponds, which are harvested every three to five days. While one acre of soy can produce about a barrel of biodiesel in a year, the same land dedicated to this unique process produces between 1500-2000 barrels of B-100 a year, depending on how sunny it is. Talk about solar power!" http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1269/ OK here is the problem that keeps popping up wrt algae vis-a-vis normal crops: growing soy is about 2% efficient in converting solar photons into energy, yet this claim is for 2000 times more, which is an effective COP of about 40 - which is over and above 100% conversion of solar into energy. How can that be? In other less fantastic, but still astounding claims which we find for algoil - where heat is also added along with CO2, it has been asserted by the proponents (some reputable like MIT) that there are strains of bacteria which can effectively use IR photons, from low grade heat, to convert CO2 into lipids; and therefore do not require sunlight at all. That may be true up to a point. However, there is no extra heat being added, in the claim above... leading to the apprehension that it is one more scam-in-the-making? There are many observers like me, who have tried to jump aboard the algoil bandwagon before, only to find too much of the same type of inconsistent talk, lack of real data, and scam artists at work - such as with the typical Dennis Lee promotion. Yet with algoil, there does seem to be something potentially remarkable and efficient - at the basis of the situation, which is not found in any other kind of agriculture. Jones FWIW in the evolving-scam department - it is worth noting that Mike Brady (Perendev), who is labeled by some as a genius-inventor and by others as a high-level scam artist of Dennis Lee caliber, has now developed his own compressed air (actually liquid nitrogen) motor: http://www.perendev-power.com/nitrogen.htm Wonder when he and Dennis Lee will get together and jump into algoil ?
Re: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
Your sig files are usually a political statement. Have you changed over to Monty Python (In search of the holy grail: "Bring me a shrubbery! Nik! Nik!") ? Terry > Robin van Spaandonk > > The shrub is a plant. > >
[Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
Horace we can't be right, or the whole thing would have to be a gross scam. This serious looking resource here: http://www.efcf.com/reports/E14.pdf seems to agree reasonably with Wikipedia's 12kWh: "At 20°C a 300 Liter tank filled with air at 300 bar carries 51 MJ of energy." That's 51000 kW s / 3 600 = 14.2 kW h I guess we'll both have to brush up our thermodynamics :/ But we are not the only ones to get it wrong, according to the above paper's abstract: "the claimed performance has been questioned by car manufacturers and automobile expert. Basically, when referred to ambient conditions, the relatively low energy content of the compressed air in a tank of acceptable volume is claimed to be insufficient to move even small cars over meaningful distances. On the other hand, another air car developer claims to have driven 184 km on one 300 Liter filled with air at initially 300 bar pressure" I just saw Robin's explanation for the discrepancy (heat taken from ambient air during expansion, which produces cold air as is well know), it makes sense to me. It's quite remarkable that 9 kWh out of the 12 seem to be provided by the environment! It would also mean that the car's range could be considerably reduced in very cold weather. It might also give insight into how the fuel (gasoline, whatever) is used in highway mode... maybe it simply heats up the expanding air to get more energy out of it? Michel - Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com > > On Jan 11, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: > >> I understood the sentence as referring to some pneumatic version of >> regenerative braking, but >> admittedly it was unclear. >> >> What amazes me with this compressed air energy storage thing is that it is >> so dead simple, isn't >> there a catch somewhere? >> >> Let's see how much energy they store in their 300 litres at 300 >> atmospheres, it's P*V isn't it? >> >> P*V= 300*10^5Pa * 0.3m^3 =~ 10^7 J = 10^7 W.s = 10^4 kW.s > > Yes - I get 9.12x10^6 W s = 9.12x10^3 kW s = 2.53 kWh. > >> >> Mmmm... only about 1/3600 =~ 3 kWh >> >> Which is wrong, me or Jed's beloved Wikipedia? http:// >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_vehicle : >> "300 litre air at 300 bar only amounts to about 12kWh (the equivalent of >> 1.4 litre (0.37 >> gallons) of >> gasoline)" > > > The above should be 0.075 gallons of gasoline., or 0.28 liters. > > >> Probably me, the maths must be more complicated than P*V... correction >> welcome. > > > Looks to me like you have it right and Wiki has it wrong. > > >> >> Michel >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: ; >> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:57 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com >> >> >>> A Cnet report: >>> Fill'er up: http://www.news.com/2300-11389_3-6225395-4.html?tag=ne.gall.pg >>> >>> This one says: >>> >>> "Here's where you fill 'er up with compressed air. The air drives the >>> pistons in the engine, >>> and >>> the engine returns the favor by recompressing air for later use." >>> >>> A perpetual motion machine! >>> >>> These reporters are such idiots. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >> >> > > > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > >
Re: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:56:31 +0100: Hi, [snip] >I understood the sentence as referring to some pneumatic version of >regenerative braking, but >admittedly it was unclear. > >What amazes me with this compressed air energy storage thing is that it is so >dead simple, isn't >there a catch somewhere? > >Let's see how much energy they store in their 300 litres at 300 atmospheres, >it's P*V isn't it? > >P*V= 300*10^5Pa * 0.3m^3 =~ 10^7 J = 10^7 W.s = 10^4 kW.s > >Mmmm... only about 1/3600 =~ 3 kWh > I think it depends on how the expansion is done. If adiabatically, then you are correct, if isothermally, then extra energy can be absorbed in the form of heat from the environment, just as heat is lost to the environment during compression. In practice, the efficiency will probably be somewhere between the two methods. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
Would it be conceivable to incorporate an alternative or additional energy source, like a liquid nitrogen tank, the idea being to use LN for extended trips. I think Brady was working on a LN engine. Have no idea as to how well that project is going. It's my understanding LN is relatively cheap to create. If sufficient compression could be generated as the LN boils off could it be used to power the car? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
On Jan 11, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Michel Jullian wrote: I understood the sentence as referring to some pneumatic version of regenerative braking, but admittedly it was unclear. What amazes me with this compressed air energy storage thing is that it is so dead simple, isn't there a catch somewhere? Let's see how much energy they store in their 300 litres at 300 atmospheres, it's P*V isn't it? P*V= 300*10^5Pa * 0.3m^3 =~ 10^7 J = 10^7 W.s = 10^4 kW.s Yes - I get 9.12x10^6 W s = 9.12x10^3 kW s = 2.53 kWh. Mmmm... only about 1/3600 =~ 3 kWh Which is wrong, me or Jed's beloved Wikipedia? http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_vehicle : "300 litre air at 300 bar only amounts to about 12kWh (the equivalent of 1.4 litre (0.37 gallons) of gasoline)" The above should be 0.075 gallons of gasoline., or 0.28 liters. Probably me, the maths must be more complicated than P*V... correction welcome. Looks to me like you have it right and Wiki has it wrong. Michel - Original Message - From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com A Cnet report: Fill'er up: http://www.news.com/2300-11389_3-6225395-4.html?tag=ne.gall.pg This one says: "Here's where you fill 'er up with compressed air. The air drives the pistons in the engine, and the engine returns the favor by recompressing air for later use." A perpetual motion machine! These reporters are such idiots. - Jed Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
Michel Jullian wrote: I understood the sentence as referring to some pneumatic version of regenerative braking, but admittedly it was unclear. Ah, that does make sense. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. When the Prius came out, many newspaper reports said it "gets energy from braking." Some people, such as one who wrote to the "Car Talk" advice column, got the notion that if you don't stop and start a Prius it runs out of energy and it may stop in the middle of a highway. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com
I understood the sentence as referring to some pneumatic version of regenerative braking, but admittedly it was unclear. What amazes me with this compressed air energy storage thing is that it is so dead simple, isn't there a catch somewhere? Let's see how much energy they store in their 300 litres at 300 atmospheres, it's P*V isn't it? P*V= 300*10^5Pa * 0.3m^3 =~ 10^7 J = 10^7 W.s = 10^4 kW.s Mmmm... only about 1/3600 =~ 3 kWh Which is wrong, me or Jed's beloved Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_vehicle : "300 litre air at 300 bar only amounts to about 12kWh (the equivalent of 1.4 litre (0.37 gallons) of gasoline)" Probably me, the maths must be more complicated than P*V... correction welcome. Michel - Original Message - From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Photos of Guy Negre's compressed air car on CNET News.com >A Cnet report: > >>Fill'er up: >>http://www.news.com/2300-11389_3-6225395-4.html?tag=ne.gall.pg > > This one says: > > "Here's where you fill 'er up with compressed air. The air drives the pistons > in the engine, and > the engine returns the favor by recompressing air for later use." > > A perpetual motion machine! > > These reporters are such idiots. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:Nothing on
OrionWorks wrote: Setting my personal conspiratorial opinions aside, why would they remove Beaudette's book but not Ed Storms? They deleted Beaudette and Krivit because they claim these books are "self published." There was a long, tedious discussion of this in the talk section. I contributed, against my better judgement. I wish that Google Knol would launch and give us a platform to compete with these clowns. Wikipedia has a lot of influence, unfortunately. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: ITER Budget Slashed
It has been suggested on another list that they were convinced by the 2006 posthumous Science article by William Parkins mirrored by NET here: "[Hot] Fusion Power: Will It Ever Come?" http://www.newenergytimes.com/Inthenews/2006/SCIENCE-FusionPower.htm Quote: "Scaling of the construction costs from the Bechtel estimates suggests a total plant cost on the order of $15 billion, or $15,000/kWe of plant rating. At a plant factor of 0.8 and total annual charges of 17% against the capital investment, these capital charges alone would contribute 36 cents to the cost of generating each kilowatt hour. This is far outside the competitive price range." $15/W is indeed a lot compared to the ~$2/W of a coal powered plant, or better now a Nanosolar PV plant ($2/W too, admittedly with a lower plant factor (~0.2?) than coal due to insolation not being constant, but with arguably much lower operating costs!) Michel - Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:12 PM Subject: [Vo]:ITER Budget Slashed > By 93.3%: > > http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/07/557301.aspx > > Is Congress coming to their senses? > > Terry >
[Vo]:ITER Budget Slashed
By 93.3%: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/07/557301.aspx Is Congress coming to their senses? Terry
