Re: [Vo]:China aims to settle nationwide trade in yuan by 2011
This could eventually make oil, and many other things, unaffordable to the USA. We can't keep printing our way out of the crisis. We need LENR energy now. --- Unfortunately, LENR doesn't seem to available yet, so, in my opinion, we should bite the bullet and buy American made, and try to keep most of the cash at home. --- JF
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:01:42 +0100, you wrote: This must be a scam. As Jed said, at the point where the craft is going downwind at the speed of the wind, the relative wind across the propeller would be zero so it could not accelerate from this point on. If it did, the force from the prop would reverse anyway. Even more obviously, if it can accelerate from a position of zero relative wind then one could start it off in no wind conditions and it would accelerate - perpetual motion just isn't that easy! --- I've attached a drawing which shows basically how Thin Air Design's Blackbird vehicle works. Note that with the wind pushing the cart and the pitch of the propeller as shown, the wind would, intuitively, be forcing the propeller to rotate counter-clockwise as viewed from the rear of the cart. However, such is not the case. What's really happening is that the wind is pushing on the prop, forcing the cart to move forward, and the torque generated by the wheels is coupled to the prop in such a way as to cause the prop to rotate clockwise when viewed from the rear. This direction of rotation makes the prop a pusher, and will increase the apparent force of the wind. As long as the wind is blowing from the rear, the cart will accelerate until it reaches wind speed, when the wind speed will effectively be zero. However, because of the prop's action as a pusher, the cart will be going a little faster than wind speed, at wind speed. Then, as soon as the prop feels the headwind it'll stop being a propeller and will become a turbine, driving the wheels and accelerating into the headwind until, eventually, everything settles out and the cart reaches its speed limit. --- --- JF
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:12:27 -0400, you wrote: Sailboats vary enormously in terms of their favored point of sailing. I would guess that most sailboats do best with the wind on their beam (90 deg.) My boat is best on that point, and I can also sail into the wind to about 28 degrees without pinching, which is exceptionally. Downwind is slow for me, so I often tack downwind, keeping main and gennie filled. I wonder what race committees will say when a sailor shows up with this rig. Thinking of John's explanation, though, I suppose it will not work as there won't be any torque transmission from the wheels to the prop. Right, John? --- I think so since, even if the prop was coupled to an underwater screw, the coeffiction of friction between the water and the screw would be so much weaker than that between a wheel and the ground that it would be hard to keep the prop from turning the wrong way initially. --- JF
Re: [Vo]:Downwind Faster than the Wind (DWFTTW)
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:26:47 -0400, you wrote: I do not see how this can work! They are going with the wind, so if they start to travel at the same speed as the wind, the propeller should stop turning. Maybe I am missing something. - Jed --- Notice from the pitch of the propeller and its rotation that it's turning in the wrong direction if it's being driven like a turbine. As I understand it, what's happening is that the drag from the prop (and everything else at the rear of the vehicle) is being used to push the vehicle forward and turn the wheels, and the wheels are geared to the prop in a way to make it turn backwards. So, while the wheels are causing the prop to spin until the vehicle achieves wind speed, after that it'll be heading into the wind, the prop will start acting like a turbine, and the torque developed will be used to turn the wheels and make the vehicle run upwind, --- JF
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:56:11 +1000, you wrote: In reply to John Fields's message of Sat, 19 Sep 2009 10:08:09 -0500: Hi, [snip] On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:18:54 +0200, you wrote: John, sorry for the late answer. Unwanted induction heating on rings necklaces etc: they say it doesn't happen because you need very fine tuning to receive (see the TED video I linked to, the guy walks happily through the power beam, same thing for the original MIT research team photographed while sitting in the beam, photo shown in the video) --- As far as I know, the ring or necklace would act like a shorted single-turn secondary of a transformer and would heat up without regard to the frequency of the field, the heating depending only on the turn's resistance, its orientation relative to the field it was in, and the intensity of the field. I agree, however because a metal ring wouldn't be tuned, the energy transfer would go as 1/r^2, and be just as inefficient as an air core transformer at considerable distance, so I don't think heating would be a problem unless you were quite close to the source. --- I'm pretty sure that, even tuned, power falls off as 1/r² and, because of the inefficiency, the intensity of the field would have to be quite high in order to excite the 'secondary' in the device being charged, thereby also inducing currents which could be quite high in 'shorted turns' being worn by the user. What tuning gets you, though, is elimination of the reactive terms in the receiver's front end, so that all that's left to deal with is the resistance of the load. In this case that would be the resistance of the tuned secondary itself, and the resistance of the charger circuitry. Just for grins, let's say that a cell phone needs to be able to charge its battery in one hour, and to do that it needs to, from the field, extract enough power to put 5 volts RMS across the charger and push 100 milliamperes through the battery. Further, let's say that the receiver's coil comprises 100 turns of copper wire. Ohm's law tells us that the resistance of the load would be: E 5V R = --- = -- = 50 ohms I 0.1A and it would dissipate: P = IE = 0.1A * 5V = 0.5 watts. Now assume that someone wearing a necklace with a resistance of 0.1 ohms walks into the field. Since it's only a single turn the voltage across it will be 1% of the voltage induced in the receiver's coil, so the current through it will be: E 0.05V I = --- = --- = 0.5 ampere R 0.1R and the power it would dissipate would be: P = 0.05V * 0.5A = 0.025 watts That's trivial, so under those conditions it looks like a safe scenario. --- IOW best placement in the home for the transmitters would probably be in the ceiling. --- For a small device like a cell phone I think a pad might be more efficient, but still not as good as a conventional, properly designed switching power supply with load detection wired to the mains. --- BTW while we are on the topic, consider that it might be possible to use the lower Van Allen belt as the transmitter, allowing reception of free power. (The belt itself is of course powered by the solar wind). There should be a point where the strength of the Earth's magnetic field results in a cyclotron frequency that has a wavelength long enough to reach the Earth's surface, ensuring that we are within 1 wavelength of the transmitter. I have for some time suspected that this concept may lie behind some of the stranger free energy devices. --- I'm not conversant in those areas, so I'll just sign off with: Perhaps ;)
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
Further, let's say that the receiver's coil comprises 100 turns of copper wire.^^ --- Oops...transmitter's
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:02:13 +0200, you wrote: John, OK so you want actual numbers regarding battery savings. Let's study the case of the latest version (3G-S, July 2009) of the popular iPhone smartphone: http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html : A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles http://www.apple.com/support/iphone/service/battery/ : iPhone Out-of-Warranty Battery Replacement... The program cost is $85.95 per unit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone : 3GS: 3.7 V 1219 mAh[5] Internal rechargeable non-removable lithium-ion polymer battery[6] So total delivered energy is 3.7V*1.219Ah*0.4kcycles = 1.8kWh, that's a cost per delivered kWh of 85.95/1.8 ~= USD 48 per kWh So that's only ~ 500 times the cost of grid power (which is ~ USD 0.10 per kWh, right?), the several thousands factor I had in mind must have been for non-rechargeables. A factor 500 is still huge, it means that all the time you're on 50% efficient witricity power instead of battery power, consuming what would cost you x USD/s if you were operating off the grid with 100% efficiency, instead of spending 500x you spend 2x, that's a saving of 99.6%. Note that even if the factor was only 50 (10 times lower than calculated above) and the witricity efficiency was only 10%, instead of spending 50x you spend 10x, that's still a saving of 80%, for each second you spend on witricity instead of battery power. So witricity is not just practical, it also saves money. If it also complies with health regulations regarding radiation levels which they claim it does, it is definitely a good thing. --- Actually, the replacement cost of the battery is immaterial. Let's look at this thing from a different viewpoint. Let's say we have two identical cell phones outfitted with identically discharged batteries, that one cell phone is being charged by a wireless charger running at the 50% efficiency you quoted, while the other is being charged with a properly designed conventional switchmode charger running at 90%, and that it takes one hour to fully charge both batteries. Now, disconnecting both chargers from the mains during the times they're not charging and cycling both systems until battery failure occurs leads to the conclusion that since the cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour is the same for either system and the wired system will waste less electricity in charging its battery than the wireless system, the wired system will be cheaper to run from day one. How much will it save over 400 cycles? Since the wireless system is 50% efficient it'll eat 1.8kWh while delivering 1.8kWh, while the wired system, being 90% efficient, will eat only 0.2kWh. At USD 0.1 per kWh, that's $1.80 for the wireless system, while only $0.2 for the wired system. Notice that the cost per battery is the same for either system, so that part drops out of the equation, leaving us with a ninefold increase in energy to charge the battery. Looking at _that_ globally should give one pause.
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:54:05 -0500, you wrote: Since the wireless system is 50% efficient it'll eat 1.8kWh while delivering 1.8kWh, while the wired system, being 90% efficient, will eat only 0.2kWh. At USD 0.1 per kWh, that's $1.80 for the wireless system, while only $0.2 for the wired system. --- Oops... 18 cents wireless VS 2 cents wired.
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:18:54 +0200, you wrote: John, sorry for the late answer. Unwanted induction heating on rings necklaces etc: they say it doesn't happen because you need very fine tuning to receive (see the TED video I linked to, the guy walks happily through the power beam, same thing for the original MIT research team photographed while sitting in the beam, photo shown in the video) --- As far as I know, the ring or necklace would act like a shorted single-turn secondary of a transformer and would heat up without regard to the frequency of the field, the heating depending only on the turn's resistance, its orientation relative to the field it was in, and the intensity of the field. I don't know the intensity of the fields shown in the videos, but my concern would be that in a field of sufficient intensity to charge a cell phone battery would also be capable of heating rings, necklaces, and the like. --- Turning witricity off when not loaded: yes, good idea if they haven't thought of that already. If absence of loading can't be detected easily it might be done by communicating via bluetooth or wifi, e.g.: hi there can you send so many watts my way, the emitter would then deliver witricity until the receiving device stops responding to do you still need power enquiries. --- For a small device, say a pad upon which you'd place a cell phone to charge, detecting a no-load condition would be easy by having the transmitter turn the field on periodically and measure the current into the coil, which would be lower than if a load was present. That would obviate the need for data communications between the transmitter and receiver, reducing costs as well as eliminating the electrical power needed for that function. In a large system, such as the one you describe where walking through or being immersed in the field would charge the cell phone's batteries, the simple load detection scheme wouldn't work and some sort of data communications scheme would need to be employed. Either that or the transmitter would have to stay on forever, wasting power, which seems more plausible given the current propensity to lower up-front manufacturing costs at the expense of long term power waste. --- But anyway that's the idea I gather, your cellphone, PDA or tablet will be charged while in your pocket, which will extend (by at least a factor of two I would guess) its battery life, which would mean a global saving in energy. It makes sense to me. --- Shooting from the hip is one thing, but having enough reliable data to successfully predict the path of the bullet is quite another. Do you have any actual numbers relating the extension of battery life and its savings on replacements to the cost in manufacturing and operating the large charging system you envisage? --- What I would disagree with would be using witricity for TVs and other stuff which could be powered by wire, which I am afraid is in the pipes... --- Well, we can all vote with our wallets. What I disagree with is that any system designed to send electricity wirelessly will ever exceed the efficiency of a properly designed and operated wired system, and will, consequently, waste power. Unfortunately, the convenience of being able to just mindlessly drop a cell phone on a pad will probably win out over any effort made to tout conservation of our resources.
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:11 +1000, you wrote: In reply to John Fields's message of Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:30:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Same problem with the electric airport cars; the distance between the transmitters and receivers and the inverse square law, which our dear Mother Nature invokes in order to keep us from blowing up the universe, makes the field strength fall off so quickly as the distance between them increases. [snip] Apparently for resonant transmission, it's not an inverse square law, but rather linear with distance. --- Picture a point source in space radiating at a single frequency in all directions. Picture now two identical antennas tuned to that frequency, with one separated from the source by twice the distance of the other. Will the signal intercepted by the far antenna be half that intercepted by the near one? No. It'll be 1/4.
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:20:44 +0200, you wrote: 2009/9/19 John Fields jfie...@austininstruments.com: I don't know the intensity of the fields shown in the videos, but my concern would be that in a field of sufficient intensity to charge a cell phone battery would also be capable of heating rings, necklaces, and the like. In the photo here: http://cheeju.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/wireless-grp1-enlarged.jpg one of the guys in the beam is wearing what looks like metal rimmed glasses, with no sign of discomfort. --- Blowing up the picture makes it seem like they're rimless but, in any case, he's not in the concentrated part of the beam between the coils, he's on the outside of that area, where the field strength is much, much lower. On top of that it appears that the optical axes of the lenses aren't normal to the magnetic field, which would also reduce the current induced in the rims. --- Do you have any actual numbers relating the extension of battery life and its savings on replacements to the cost in manufacturing and operating the large charging system you envisage? I haven't got precise numbers but the cost of electricity from a battery is a few thousand times more than that of electricity from the grid, so it shouldn't be hard to make savings by drawing a little less from the battery and a little more from the grid. --- Without numbers to back up your conjecture, your case is, essentially, moot. --- What I disagree with is that any system designed to send electricity wirelessly will ever exceed the efficiency of a properly designed and operated wired system, and will, consequently, waste power. Not if you consider the global cost and energy balance for equipment which would otherwise be battery powered. --- Again; without numbers to back up your conjecture, your case is, essentially, moot.
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:25:27 +0200, you wrote: Indeed cell phone batteries will still be needed, but with sufficiently ubiquitous witricity they will live much longer because they will be more or less permanently on charge, even when in your pocket: --- For that to happen, the cell phone would have to be in an undulating magnetic field with sufficient intensity to charge the battery while quite far away from the source of the field. To me, that doesn't seem like a realistic scenario in that metallic objects close to the source (rings, necklaces,etc) could act like cookware on an induction heating cooktop. --- this lengthens considerably a cell phone's life, as it lowers the number of cycles in a given period. This is of particular interest for newer cell phones, which are used for many other purposes than phoning and therefore use more energy. If the battery lives say twice longer, then the total cost of your cell phone's energy is divided by about two (the cost of the electricity itself being negligible compared to that of the battery wear out). So witricity will save you money, and will probably save energy globally, as manufacturing batteries takes energy. --- What you've forgotten about is the fact that induction charging is less efficient than conventional switch-mode chargers and, unless turned off when not loaded, will continue to dissipate power. On a global scale this would amount to a huge waste of power. --- Michel P.S. The top posting convention is a disability thing like Terry said. It has been adopted by most email software providers to make life easier for blind people. Since they use text to speech software to read their emails, with bottom posting thay have to hear all the old stuff they have already heard before getting to the new stuff. --- Looking through your older posts here, I notice that nearly all of them are bottom-posts, yet you chose to top post this one. Any particular reason?
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
The efficiency I was referring to was for a pair of untuned loops loosely coupled, but even at 50% for a more closely coupled resonant system, half the power out of the transmitter would be lost before it got to the load. And, no matter how efficient the system can be made to be, it can never be made more efficient than the direct ohmic contact made between a plug and a socket. I doubt whether the impact on batteries will even be noticeable, since devices designed to be mobile will still need to be powered by batteries when they're not in the vicinity of a transmitter, the only advantage being that their batteries can be charged without having to directly connect a charger to the device. As far as electric vehicles goes, I think the idea of a non-plug-in charger is pure insanity. Why? Arbitrarily pulling some numbers out of thin air, if we assume that the battery needs to be charged from a 120 volt source at 20 amperes for 8 hours, that's 19.2 kilowatt-hours, and at US$0.15 per kilowatt-hour, that's $1.92. Not bad... but, with a non-plug-in charger running at 50%, that's $1.92 thrown away for every $1.92 used. Worse is the fact that it's not just money being thrown away, it's resources being squandered because of laziness. On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:28:26 +0200, you wrote: A more informative video on the subject of witricity here: http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_giler_demos_wireless_electricity.html Transfer efficiency is not 5% like John suggested but more like 50% and growing. I suspect the energy loss compared to traditional solutions will be globally more than made up by the savings in disposable batteries or rechargeable battery cycles in many nomadic battery powered applications such as hearing aids and cell phones. Not sure about electric cars though, unless the efficiency can be significantly improved, which I guess can be done by bringing the coils closer together (either the coil in the car or that in the floor could be mobile and automatically brought into close proximity of the other one before charging begins). Michel 2009/9/15 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: From: John Fields On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:11:48 -0400, you wrote: As John Fields says, this is a harebrained scheme. My guess is that if the power is high enough to useful work, they will eventually discover it can harm your health. I suppose there are some narrow applications that would benefit from this technology. --- You're right; there are. One of them is battery powered toothbrushes with resting stations that allow recharge of the cells, in the toothbrush, between brushings without the need for ohmic contacts between the load and the source. I suspect medical implants, like pacemakers would benefit as well. I believe they are working on this. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:22:06 -0400, you wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, John Fields jfie...@austininstruments.com wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:30:56 -0400, you wrote: These people claim they can improve over direct connection charging: http://www.wipower.com/ --- I have trouble following a long thread once it starts getting snipped and top-posted to so, if you don't mind, I'll continue this one by bottom posting: I couldn't find where they made the claim; do you have a link, please? Sorry, Google defaults to top-posting. I think it is an ADA thingy. Here is one reference: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/132/big-green-and-juicy.html And according to WiPower, inductive charging systems work with about 80% to 90% efficiency -- roughly the same as plugging directly into a wall socket. --- According to WiPower's white paper at: http://www.wipower.com/PRESS_Files/WiPower%20White%20Paper.pdf (Sorry, for some reason I can't copy the text) A tightly coupled inductive system can have 90 to 95% DC to DC efficiency, while a loosely coupled system can send 300 watts plus at 80% efficiency. The tightly coupled (because of its internal transformer) system is the conventional switching supply which connects to the mains and charges the load's batteries, while the loosely coupled system is WiPower's approach to eliminating the electrical connection between the load and the charger. However, according to the video, WiPower's device can only do 74%, and that's DC to DC, without considering the AC to DC conversion and smoothing required to get the DC input to the transmitter. --- That blows away the industry average for wired chargers, around 40%. So wireless juice is not only less messy, it's less hungry, too. --- It's not less messy since it has to meet the same FCC radiation intensity spec's as anybody doing switching supplies with crispy waveform edges has to, and it's 74% efficient instead of 95%, it's not less hungry either. --- But, as you say, there is no technical support that I can find. --- Yup. :-(
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:45:43 -0400, you wrote: John Fields wrote: As far as electric vehicles goes, I think the idea of a non-plug-in charger is pure insanity. I think so too, but an intriguing idea would be electric vehicles without pantographs, on roads equipped with wireless chargers under the surface. This would not be a viable replacement for conventional automobiles. But maybe it would work for something like an airport, in which many small automatic vehicles replace the automated subway and rail systems they have now, which are like horizontal elevators, with inflexible paths. It would be nice if one automatic car could stop at a gate while others zip by it. We could do this with battery electric cars of course. There might not be an advantage. --- Nice idea, but I think the problem with getting the power into the cars' motors inductively would be that the air gap between the receiver on the car and the transmitter in the road would waste so much power as to make it impractical. --- Perhaps it would work in a large city center with high population density, such as Manhattan. Only small, specially-made, fully electric passenger vehicles would be allowed. You would not need a charger under every meter of every road. You would not have to dig up every street in Manhattan! I suppose one every few blocks in an urban area might work. Sort of like cell phone towers. --- Except that that would be like expecting the output from the cell phone towers to power the cell phones. ;) Same problem with the electric airport cars; the distance between the transmitters and receivers and the inverse square law, which our dear Mother Nature invokes in order to keep us from blowing up the universe, makes the field strength fall off so quickly as the distance between them increases. --- I think the best use for it might be to power a million nano-machines that are working inside a vat, let us say, or inside a human body looking for cancerous cells. --- I like that, but I think they'd have to get their power electrochemically, just like everybody else in the mix, and have their waste products eliminated transparently in order to keep from being toxic. I think we're not there yet...
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
Yes, that's the main issue with the harebrained scheme. How it's done now is that the AC mains are rectified and smoothed, and then that DC is switched on and off at a high frequency into the primary of a transformer. That generates a well-contained magnetic field which builds up and collapses at the switching frequency, causing a voltage to be induced in the secondary winding of the transformer, which is then rectified, smoothed, and regulated as required for the device it's driving. The thing about the transformer is that the magnetic field is largely contained within the structure of the transformer and nearly all of the energy in the primary is transferred to the secondary, with the result being that a well-designed switching power supply can have an efficiency surpassing 80%, with some going over 90% The wireless scheme requires that a magnetic field be generated with a large loop of wire (the primary of the transformer) and that the secondary be part of the device being charged/operated, with the energy transfer occurring when the secondary is in the field created by the primary. The fly in the ointment is that there's no way to concentrate the energy in the field (as is done in the core of the transformer) and couple it efficiently through air to the secondary in the device being charged/powered. The result of that is that efficiency of the system would be _very_ low; I'd guess at 5% or less. Unfortunately, this little fact (which should be known to anyone with even a passing interest in power conversion) seems to been overlooked by the researchers trying to foist this huge boondoggle on the public. Even more disgraceful, in my opinion, is that this primary would be on 24/7, wasting a huge amount of power. On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:59:53 -0500, you wrote: Yet another report on the coming of Wireless power: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/09/13/electricity.without.plugs.c nn http://tinyurl.com/rbrpk9 While I love the idea primarily for its convenience I harbor the suspicion that we are about to unleash the mother of all power vampires across the national landscape during a critical time in our history when we are trying to conserve energy. Or is that not the issue? Comments? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The coming of Wireless Power, A report on CNN
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:11:48 -0400, you wrote: As John Fields says, this is a harebrained scheme. My guess is that if the power is high enough to useful work, they will eventually discover it can harm your health. I suppose there are some narrow applications that would benefit from this technology. --- You're right; there are. One of them is battery powered toothbrushes with resting stations that allow recharge of the cells, in the toothbrush, between brushings without the need for ohmic contacts between the load and the source.
Re: [Vo]:Ban religion/politics permanently?
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:58:42 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: I see that Vortex has acquired the religion/politics illness that affects most forums. Or call it poor health, where natural defenses begin to fail, and opportunistic infections start appearing. --- Indeed. --- We could ban politics permanently. Or temporarily limit the topics to CF and nothing else. Or as a last resort, shut down the forum for awhile. But first I'm using the trick which has worked in the past: kill it off artificially. Stamp out every last vestige, then wait awhile to make certain it's gone. If it slowly grows back much later, the forum's own immune system might keep it at a very low level. --- The antibiotic strategy? IMO, Excellent! :-) Especially since you've set up b as an agar dish where we can watch not only bacterial but also viral infections plead their cases. JF
Re: [Vo]:China vs US
On Tue, 19 May 2009 17:42:48 -0700, you wrote: NOTHING is more ugly and violent than a capitalist which hasn't been fed bloodmeal and raw, dripping hamburger in the past few minutes. --- Nonsense. A true capitalist tries to perpetuate his model of reality by trying to retain and to further amass power by bringing competition into the fold or, if that's not successful, by bringing the competition to its knees, financially. And, then, providing for the needs of the vanquished. Your way, if you ally yourself with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao is to murder all of your detractors, no matter how softly they squeak. JF
Re: [Vo]:Has Atlantis Been Found . . .
Sub-continent? ;) On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:31:13 -0500, you wrote: A lost sub? Harry - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com Date: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Has Atlantis Been Found . . . In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:36:17 - 0500:Hi, [snip] Google says:- A spokeswoman said: ?Bathymetric (or sea floor terrain) data is often collected from boats using sonar to take measurements of the sea floor. ?The lines reflect the path of the boat as it gathers the data. However this doesn't make sense. A random collection of such lines wouldn't all be rectangular, unless it was a deliberate search grid, and why would a deliberate search grid be chosen just at that spot, unless they thought there was something there worth mapping? I smell conspiracy. :) Go back to sleep. Google says no: http://newslite.tv/2009/02/20/city-of-atlantis-not-found-on.html On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: This one has the coordinates: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/google/47313 13/Google-Ocean-Has-Atlantis-been-found-off-Africa.html http://snipurl.com/caqv2 [www_telegraph_co_uk] On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: . . . on Google Earth? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2255989.ece It sure looks like it. Terry Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html JF
Re: [Vo]:The Perepetia Generator
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:15:01 -0500, you wrote: On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:02:15 -0400, you wrote: Mark Iverson wrote: I haven't seen any mention of Thane Heins' Perepetia Generator yet, which really surprises me... Too much watchin' the ladies at the Dime Box Saloon and not payin attention to the fun stuff? http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4047.3280 http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins I've been following this thread almost since it began, and it's really quite fascinating... They have been set up in the Univ of Ottowa for about a year, and now have a decent idea of what's happening... in Thane's own words below! /Mark / --- YOU HAVE A HV COIL WITH A VERY HIGH IMPEDANCE - SO VIRTUALLY NO CURRENT FLOWS - WHEN A ROTOR MAGNET APPROACHES IT, IT STORES ITS ENERGY IN THE ELECTROSTATIC FIELD LIKE A CAPACITOR. Sorry, electrostatic field between what and what? --- The capacitance between the insulated turns, (thewinding capacitance) with will store charge when there's a voltage difference between the turns. Any inductor will act like a self-resonant circuit when: 1 f = - 2pi sqrt LC where f is the resonant frequency, in Hertz, L is the inductance of the winding, in Farads, and C is the winding capacitance. --- Aaarghhh!!! L is the inductance of the winding in henrys, and C is the winding capacitance in farads. JF
Re: [Vo]:Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:02:06 -0800, you wrote: On Sep 25, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space By Clara Moskowitz Staff Writer posted: 23 September 2008 12:46 pm ET As if the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy weren't vexing enough, another baffling cosmic puzzle has been discovered. Patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe. Astronomers are calling the phenomenon dark flow. The stuff that's pulling this matter must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude. Another alternative explanation is that the stuff is being *pushed* by an invisible clump of negative gravitational charge matter that is located in the visible part of the universe. --- Is there any evidence of that? A hypothesis which I posited here, a couple of years or so ago, conjectured that there was no big bang but, instead, a cavitation event which occurred in an infinite or nearly infinitely massive Universe which created our universe; a bubble surrounded by a huge block of Swiss cheese, the Universe, for want of a better analogy. If my hypothesis is correct, the accelerating red shift of the galaxies receding toward the wall can be easily accounted for by the inverse square law increasing attraction as the matter in our universe hurtles toward the wall. JF
Re: [Vo]:IPKat - weblog: The continuing incredible adventures of Dr. Randell Mills
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:07:54 -0500, you wrote: From Mike Carrell: A standard tactic of patent examiners is deny and cite objections and force the applicant to overcome the objections. Objections of this type have been seen before. The process of overcoming them is iterative, lengthy, expensive, and private. It is reasonable to believe that such interaction is ongoing and necessary to protect investors and prospective partners. Legal action may follow, which would make interesting theater. Mike Carrell Hi Mike, Is the new solid fuel process commercially viable? The implication over at the BLP web site has been that the new-and-improved process has been proven experimentally to self-generate through well-known chemical manufacturing processes. If this really is an authentic breakthrough in how to sustain the critical regenerative process to produce excess energy couldn't BLP lawyers simply patent the process that generates the excess heat and, well, sort of gloss over (at least for now) the alleged theory behind it? Hasn't experimental evidence always trumped what theoretical explanation may currently be in vogue? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks --- In time, yes. When it's important for the scientist doing the work, not always. Galileo, with his observational evidence supporting a heliocentric system and thus his support of Copernicanism, fell afoul of the theoretical explanation given by the Roman Catholic church for geocentrism and, certainly in fear for his life, had to recant his position and endure house arrest for the rest of his life. About 400 years later, the Church admitted he was right. JF
Re: Emergence
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:34:18 -0500, you wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Jed's thoughts on this matter brings to mind something I've been pondered on and off in my life for years, a concept called Emergence. Theories of Emergent behavior help explain why dilapidated Mom-and-Pop retail stores thrive. It helps explain why certain run-down neighborhoods in our cities deserve to stay pretty much intact the way they are, as compared to being torn down and replaced with another ill thought out housing project, and with disastrous consequences. I hope you don't mean such neighborhoods deserve to be left run-down. Personally, I think cities should actively develop mixed income neighborhoods. There is no reason why poor and rich can't live in the same neighbourhoods. --- Sure there is. The rich wouldn't do it. -- John Fields
Re: Let's kill all the remaining whales, too
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:15:28 -0500, you wrote: Zell, Chris wrote: Note the quote advocating universal nimbyism and doing everything to increase industry costs. Explain how it would reduce industry costs to build unnecessary refineries when the total volume of oil can only decrease rapidly in the coming decades. Chris, you need a reality check. Even some of the top oil industry executives now admit that oil supplies have peaked. --- Not that I disagree with you, but what would stop those top oil industry executives from fabricating that admission in order to exact ever rising prices for what's left? From The Ballad of Pancho and Lefty: Out of kindness, I suppose. --- If you are living on Easter Island and you have one tree left standing, why would you bother to build a new sawmill? How will that reduce the cost of lumber? --- Nice. I've used the Easter Island predicament of its inhabitants not being able to leave the island because of their squandering of its resources for fuel, instead of for building boats, to illustrate that a parallel exists between their predicament and ours, which is that if we can't work out a way to get off of this planet before it's too late, the human race is doomed. --- Your suggestion is similar to the notion that we should combat Third World starvation by building a thousand more large fishing boats -- factory scale ships. The problem is, fish populations have crashed in every ocean and there are no more fish to catch, and if we build more fishing boats we will simply hasten the day when the remaining stocks of edible fish are driven to extinction. --- I think that's a little severe. There are truly _no_ more fish to catch? If that's true, then there will never be another bite and all the tilapia will be farm raised. Not quite extinction, but not quite wild. --- That gives me an idea. While we are building more refineries, let us also hunt down the remaining blue whales and right whales, and use the oil from them too. - Jed --- OK, and then let's all hunt down the fireflies and tie them down to road signs. ;) Oh, but wait... there'll be no need to with all the oil gone. -- John Fields
Re: Let's kill all the remaining whales, too
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:25:48 -0500, you wrote: -Original Message- From: John Fields There are truly _no_ more fish to catch? If that's true, then there will never be another bite and all the tilapia will be farm raised. Tilapia is a fresh water fish from Israel: http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/alt-ag/tilapia.htm --- Then there's still hope??? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: Let's kill all the remaining whales, too
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:42:25 -0500, you wrote: -Original Message- From: John Fields Then there's still hope??? Certainly for us pollyannas! But neither a pollyanna nor a pessimistic cassandra be. We are an adaptable species. We made it through Y2K. g The fact that we are addressing the energy issue is encouraging to me. Personally, I saw the light during the 70s embargo. I've not owned a vehicle which got less than 30 mpg since then. Pity it's taken three decades for the world to catch up. If the Saudis were smart, *they* would be investing in alternate energy research. At least they should be planning for the day when they have declining revenues. There's a great line in Syriana -- 100 years ago you were riding camels and sleeping in tents. 100 years from now you'll be doing the same. --- And if the rest of civilization crumbles about you and you know how to survive by riding camels and sleeping in tents, that's a bad thing? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: Definition of practical
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:48:38 -0500, you wrote: Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: Scale. The device should produce at least 100 Watts of heat or 10 Watts of thermoelectric power. By the way, many fringe inventors have the impression that a device must produce thousands of Watts before it is practical. This is incorrect. There are many commercial uses for a 10 to 100 Watt device. Even a 10 W heater would be useful for some niche applications, such as keeping equipment warm in the Arctic. - Jed and heated clothing? --- With an average well-fed human needing to dissipate about 100 watts in temperate conditions, in order to stay alive, a 10 watt hot suit wouldn't help much, in my view, considering the losses required in order to get, and keep, the hot suit working when it got cold outside. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: Mile-high Solar Towers: political ramifications
On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:02:08 EDT, you wrote: In a message dated 5/24/2005 10:20:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I find that hard to believe. Do you have some factual data to back up your opinion? Airships already use solar panels to power them. --- The only one I've been able to find is a stratellite http://www.sanswire.com/stratellites.htm Which hasn't yet been deployed, and is designed to send RF signals into its target area, as opposed to converting sunlight into substantial quantities of electrical energy for distribution on the grid. --- But I have not data to back up my suggestions other than it seems logical and safer to build smaller and more mobile solar towers when possible. --- I disagree, in that it seems to me that by going smaller the economy of scale will be lost. Consider a photovoltaic array 1/4 of a mile on an edge supported by columns one mile high, with a column on each corner. Now consider an array one mile on an edge with supporting columns on a 1/4 mile by 1/4 grid under the array. For this configuration a total of 25 columns would be needed, while for 16 separate 1/4 mile X 1/4 mile arrays, 64 columns would be needed! Admittedly, the columns for the small arrays could have a smaller diameter, but even for a two-fold increase in diameter, (if a quadrupling of area was needed for the four-fold increase in compressive load, only 25 columns would have to be poured. The same goes for the cabling and DC to AC conversion equipment, where a few large diameter cables and a doubly or triply redundant converter could save an enormous amount of money and headaches with the synchronization of the outputs from many converters. Then there's the huge moving shadow which would be cast under the 16 square mile array which, if the array were to be located above a desert, might help to precipitate moisture out of the air and make the land arable. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: Mile-high Solar Towers: political ramifications
On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:16:25 EDT, you wrote: A series of quarter mile solar towers placed in the center of flying airships would prove more economical, safe, and easier to build and test. Smaller is better. Building a one mile high solar tower that is fixed to the ground which could be damaged by weather or other problems is far riskier than building one or a few flying small quarter mile solar tower airships which can move around and which can be built with smaller investment risks. --- I find that hard to believe. Do you have some factual data to back up your opinion? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: The SMOT game over, Greg Watson gone
On Mon, 9 May 2005 19:10:51 +0100, you wrote: John Fields wrote:- So what? The refund was an admission of failure and the lack of payment of interest only means that he got to use your money, for as long as he had it, for free. Errr, John - did you miss the bit where I said he offered me A$50 on top for the inconvenience? --- Hmmm... I guess I did. Sorry about that. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: The SMOT game over, Greg Watson gone
On Sun, 8 May 2005 16:00:24 +0100, you wrote: William Beatty wrote:- What, should someone show up on his ex-wife's doorstep and ask for her side? Incidentally, when Greg refunded me, the actual international money order had been filled out by Shirley Watson... So what? The refund was an admission of failure and the lack of payment of interest only means that he got to use your money, for as long as he had it, for free. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
On Tue, 3 May 2005 16:43:39 +1000 (EST), you wrote: --- Public [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you seen this?: http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html Hi Craig, Not to be a wet blanket but that big spring in the central column could be a worry? --- In what respect? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
Re: 1997 - 2005 the missing SMOT years
On Mon, 2 May 2005 10:59:26 +1000 (EST), you wrote: Guys, Several have asked and many must have wondered what happened to the SMOT and Greg Watson from 1997 to 2005. Simply stated I walked away from my research due to depression which at some time was quite severe. I turned inward, searching to understand my body and how it works instead of taking the drugs they tried to get me to take. I now consider myself a Naturopath and a much healthier and stronger person. I created a web site of what I discovered about health and aging. The missing photo are due to the breakdown of my 33 year marriage in 2002: http://optimalhealth.cia.com.au/ It's now 3 years later (2005) and I have found a new love who has inspired me to gain the strength and again confront my OU deamons which were: 1) My inability to make a 100% solid SMOT device and ship it to the 20 or so people who had sent me $150 Aus. 2) The very high level of inability experience by other folks in trying to replicate and verify my creations. 3) Infinite Energy's very negative SMOT review where the same It can't happen bias that Cold Fusion is subjected to was used against the SMOT. Conventional theory was used to say it can't be OU. NO one actually did any measurements. 4) My inability to deliver a device which could deliver significant energy to a client / potential investor. To reverse these personally damaging past events and to again become active in the OU community I created the Prometheus Effect discussion group where my focus is to ensure the underlying OU Prometheus Effect is clearly understood, can be duplicated and measured before I reveal any new devices I have build. The focus is on understanding the effect and not on building devices. Once the independent Prometheus Effect verifiers have reported back their results, I will reveal photos and a video of the toy SRRS device I'm building. --- Have you seen this?: http://www.reidarfinsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html -- John Fields
Re: Greg's msg from 1997: continuous closed-loop SMOT
On Sun, 1 May 2005 17:41:39 +1000 (EST), you wrote: --- Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Prometheus Effect a.k.a. Greg Watson wrote: Hi Jed, You once posted me a copy of the SMOT review Chris Tinsley did for IE. Could you please do that again? I would like to review it and post a few comments. By the way, can you provide the mailing address for IE . . . Hi Greg, Go to hell. And have a nice trip! Hi Jed, Having a bad day? Really pissed off at those who will not give CF data the real review it needs? Maybe like the SMOT review IE did where it was ASSUMED the ball on exit would experience sufficient dragback to reclaim the ramp gained PE but NO effort was put into actually measuring the energy on exit. Just a quick white wash using existing conservative modeling. Sound a bit like about the mainstream opinion of CF? So I take it you are not interested in verifying the Prometheus Effect and another IE writeup is out of the question? Now it's just engineering effort, time and money, Greg --- Perhaps you could apply to Joseph Newman or Jack Carey for help. -- John Fields
Re: Room-Temperature Superconductor Invented 25 Years Ago
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:18:33 -0800 (PST), you wrote: And look at how many patents Sam gets every year -everything they fund, they keep the rights to. --- Yes, and what's irked me for years is that they do the development with public funds which, unless there's some compelling reason not to, (genuine national defense, for example) should put what they find squarely in the public domain. -- John Fields
Re: NK Could Test TD-2 Anytime
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:48:27 -0500, you wrote: Dr. Storms wrote: I think you all are missing the point of the missile defense system. It is to defend us from China in 10 years, not NK now. Possibly, however the premature deployment will inhibit only the irrational. China knows it is ineffective. --- And will watch as it's made effective? -- John Fields
Re: NK Could Test TD-2 Anytime
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:42:02 -0700, you wrote: John Fields wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:48:27 -0500, you wrote: Dr. Storms wrote: I think you all are missing the point of the missile defense system. It is to defend us from China in 10 years, not NK now. Possibly, however the premature deployment will inhibit only the irrational. China knows it is ineffective. --- And will watch as it's made effective? Yes, because Chine is gaining more by buying the US in contrast to taking. We are giving China the ability to develop its manufacturing infrastructure by going into debt to buy its products. When we run out of money in a few more years and need to use military power to keep China from taking over countries in its part of the world, we will need the missile defense to keep China from implementing a counter threat. The world is not what it seems to be because our government no longer holds truth in high regard. The Cold War is not over. --- I agree. It seems we've decided to become denizens of the swamp, but I was disagreeing with Terry about the deployment being premature, in that even if it is ineffective now, as its efficacy improves and is proven through testing, it will provide another more or less real deterrent to military adventures with the US as a target. However, with one in four of us Earthlings being Chinese, I wonder whether it'll matter much if/when push comes to shove... -- John Fields
Re: NK Could Test TD-2 Anytime
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:15:22 -0500, you wrote: http://reuters.myway.com/article/20041217/2004-12-17T200534Z_01_N17264117_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ARMS-MISSILE-KOREA-DC.html I don't think NK's alleged ballistic weapons are any more of a threat to the US than our missile defense system is to their missiles. :-) Bluff and counter bluff. I don't, however, enjoy a game of poker where I'm one of the stakes. --- You're not. ;) -- John Fields
Re: Off Current Subject: Big Bang Simulator
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 01:00:48 -0900, you wrote: At 5:41 PM 12/7/4, John Fields wrote: [snip] The real beauty of your idea (is it original?) --- As far as I know, it is. The lightbulb going off was due to something of Fred Sparber's or Frank Znidarsik's (sp?) that I read a few years ago on vortex, and since then I've been looking but haven't been able to find anything quite like it. A month or so ago I talked to Hal Puthoff about it and he also thought it was novel, so maybe it is. You may want to check out the thread: Qball: Electrostatic Sphere Field Evaluator. A sample post late in the thread follows below. I wrote (and posted) a basic program to integrate the effects of a spherical distribution of charge, and sample data. We learned a few things from the exercise if you recall... --- Yes. I particularly liked the following paragraph, and especially liked the sentence following it: Now let's attempt to look at your initial problem of the bubble universe and an infinitely dense surrounding. The confinement force is now an expansion force, due to gravity being attractive, but all else is really the same, except for dealing with the infinite nature of the infinitely dense volume outside the bubble. To begin this we can examine a single shell, but only a finite portion of mass m in the shell, uniformly distributed. This gives us a finite mass density in the shell. Such a shell has zero force inside it, as we saw earier. We can now sum (integrate) an infinite number of such shells, all of the same fixed radius, each having mass m, so that the total mass in the resulting shell is infinite. Since the force of each shell everywhere is zero, the same is true of the final infinite sum. We can then sum (integrate) the shells at every radius r, with r- inf. Since the force inside every shell is everywhere zero, this must be true inthe final sum. There is thus no force of gravity exerted by the external volume on the universe. Of ourse one tiny change in density out in that infinitely dense volume ... --- :-) -- John Fields
Re: Off Current Subject: Big Bang Simulator
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 06:38:52 -0800, you wrote: *December 7, 2004** * *Hi all,* *The WMAP study conducted by NASA concluded with startling revelations which should give ZPE supporters support. 23 percent of the universe is unknown dark matter and another 73 percent is mysterious dark energy. That leaves only 4 percent we know about.* *NASA also announced that the universe was expanding at an expanding rate. That would seem to make the universe flat and expanding forever.* *To test this, I developed a simulator of the Big Bang. I created a computer model that simply produces an energy field and drops matter into it. The object was to see what happens. Here is what I got: * *1. **Matter self organizes in an energy field. Gravity, centripetal, and acceleration forces all appear naturally but you need to look closely.* *2. **As matter approaches the edge of the field, it expands faster away* *from the center.* *3. **Local groups tend to hold together longer, but eventually as the * * field diminishes, the matter loses integrity. I would believe that* * matter would turn into quarks or something similar later in* * the expansion phase as energy is cooled or fades. (not shown in * * the simulator).* *In my mind, these results are physics-shaking.* --- NASA'a announcement and your results seem to add credence to my hypothesis that there was no big bang but, instead, a big bubble which sprang into being much like a bubble in a cavitating fluid. All of the matter in our universe would have outgassed from the other side of the wall of the bubble as it expanded, and has been being attracted back ever since the beginning of the expansion. Assuming the bubble is nonspherical and that what lies behind it is massive, the matter on our side of the wall being attracted to it will be attracted to it more strongly the closer it gets, so it will accelerate and its doppler signature will be increasingly red shifted from any viewpoint in the bubble. That would seem to explain the increase of red shift with distance and the apparent expansion of the bubble. Next, assume that the bubble is not expanding at a rate faster than that which would allow the matter on this side of the wall to collide with the wall, and that's where the missing matter went; it's been absorbed! Or, perhaps, the matter accelerated to the point where it went superluminal and got added to the ZPE pool. In either case, it would seem to be missing. -- John Fields
Re: Tectonic versus planetary expansion
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:09:09 -0500, you wrote: BlankWylie asks if I have an interesting viewpoint on the subject. No, just the ongoing dialogue mentioned with a since passed geologist friend. Your interest leads me to believe that you have some views. Please feel free to express them here. Perhaps the first recorded discussion on the matter is in Job chapter 38. Talk about questions. Richard -- John Fields
Re: Tectonic versus planetary expansion
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 12:35:41 -0500, you wrote: Oops... Hit the wrong button; sorry! -- John Fields
