Re: [Vo]:The OC Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:29:42 -0500: Hi, [snip] PGM are already very expensive and I expect extraction techniques are already about a good as they can get. It has been suggested that Brown's Gas might be used to affect a separation. I suppose it would vaporize them and then you would use something like a mass spectrometer to separate them. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:Energy by motion patents
Thomas sez: Vortexians; In the Utube link that I posted, Gamma Manager said that they have built a free running FE machine. I have been invited to visit Professor Szabo's laboratory for a two day seminar. They want to sell us a license, of course. They have several patents, if any of you would like to examine them and give your opinion as to their workability, that would be nice. I'm sure that Budapest is beautiful in the spring. http://www.rexresearch.com/szabo/szabo.htm I went to the home page of Rex Research and discovered that not only are we running out of oil, we're running out of oxygen as well. Oxygen? Then I saw the link to Shangra-La and my heart skipped a beat - a place I'd really love to visit before I die. Alas, I got a 404 - not found message. Dang! Just like in the movies. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c I'm glad someone in the oval office is asking the important questions. Can't you just pump some more oil out of the ground for us - for faster, more quicker? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Energy by motion patents
OrionWorks wrote: Thomas sez: I went to the home page of Rex Research and discovered that not only are we running out of oil, we're running out of oxygen as well. Oxygen? Then I saw the link to Shangra-La and my heart skipped a beat - a place I'd really love to visit before I die. Alas, I got a 404 - not found message. Dang! Just like in the movies. Robert will post anything. One of the comments on his front page says it all, You're a whack job!. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China, a country that now has the money to pay your price. Or would you rather keep the price high to make more money and to hasten the end of American meddling in Middle East affairs. Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? Besides, Bush is no longer useful in getting American aid. In this game of poker, Bush has now lost every hand and has no idea how to play the game. Ed OrionWorks wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c I'm glad someone in the oval office is asking the important questions. Can't you just pump some more oil out of the ground for us - for faster, more quicker? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
My, my, Ed, you're *are* the cynic, aren't you! I'm hoping we elect a more gooder regime next November, at least a new gang of criminals that will have the sense to avoid the temptation of getting our country involved in additional regime changes. It would be much safer for the world if we could elect a new regime that finds it immensely more satisfying to conduct their illicit activity behind closed doors and bedrooms rather than on the battle front. As for oil prices, my personal feelings gravitate towards the hope that, despite all the pain and suffering it will cause us all, oil prices remain outrageously high. As best as I can tell maintaining stable high prices will be the only way to help encourage serious AE RD in our capitalistic economy. Our way-of-life depends on it. I doubt we can afford another 80's flip-flop where oil prices sky-rocketed then plummeted. I suspect we're all pretty much in agreement on the point that decades of cheap oil essentially killed off AE research for decades. Had AE research started twenty years ago and continued unabated we probably wouldn't be having this insane conversation now. On 1/15/08, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China, a country that now has the money to pay your price. Or would you rather keep the price high to make more money and to hasten the end of American meddling in Middle East affairs. Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? Besides, Bush is no longer useful in getting American aid. In this game of poker, Bush has now lost every hand and has no idea how to play the game. Ed OrionWorks wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c I'm glad someone in the oval office is asking the important questions. Can't you just pump some more oil out of the ground for us - for faster, more quicker? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
Edmund Storms wrote: Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? No, but throughout its history, OPEC has been careful to keep the price reasonably low, for two reasons: 1. To keep from hurting the U.S. economy, because the U.S. is their biggest customer. (And nowadays because they get paid in dollars, but that was never an issue in the past.) 2. To discourage the development of alternative energy source. See the book The Prize for details. After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China . . . They get the same price no matter who they sell to. Oil is completely fungible. They don't care who buys the stuff. By the same token they want to avoid a U.S. recession no matter who else is buying, because a U.S. recession will lower worldwide demand and reduce the price of oil worldwide. For that matter, they want to avoid a Chinese recession. They would be concerned about the U.S. economy even if the U.S. were still self-sufficient and exporting oil, as it did until the 1970s. It could easily become self-sufficient again, by mandating the use of plug-in hybrid cars. The U.S. could be a member of OPEC by 2015. In that scenario, the Saudis would still prefer to see a strong U.S. economy. Except they would hate to see GM sell millions of hybrid cars a year. (Not a problem so far. Ten years after the Prius was introduced and after Toyota has sold more than a million of them, GM has not sold a single hybrid automobile. What a disgrace!) If the U.S. stopped using oil completely, from all sources, then OPEC would no longer care about our economy. Of course, if we had the technology to do that, so would everyone else in the developed world, and OPEC would be in a desperate situation. Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? A U.S. depression is what they are trying to avoid. That's why they would be wise to do what Bush suggests. They should also pump the stuff and sell it as quickly as they can, before someone invents a cheaper alternative. Sooner or later, it will be worth nothing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
Edmund Storms wrote: Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? OrionWorks wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c I'm glad someone in the oval office is asking the important questions. Can't you just pump some more oil out of the ground for us - for faster, more quicker? Hi All, The Bush tour is all theatrics. The Saudis and the Bushes both benefit from the high price of oil which is the result of supply restriction in Iraq and the threat to the Iranian oil fields, not to mention Nigeria and other touble spots, better said profit centers. I'm sure Steven's remark was meant to be taken humorously. The real beef that the Oil Gang has with the Russians is that they are selling into the world oil glut as fast as they can pump it out of the ground. On a serious note, 12 years to the Kazakh War of 2020 unless we get off oil. Now is the time for biodiesel, methanol, commuter rail, nuclear, etc. So far, it looks like the joke is on us because none of the major presidential candidates has advocated getting off oil. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
Jed sez: ... Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? A U.S. depression is what they are trying to avoid. That's why they would be wise to do what Bush suggests. They should also pump the stuff and sell it as quickly as they can, before someone invents a cheaper alternative. Sooner or later, it will be worth nothing. - Jed Continuing my own cynical rant I'd like to mention that the Kiplinger Letter, a conservative think tank, recently commented on the fact that most OPEC heads do not want their prices to skyrocket either. OPEC, at least the smarter heads who are trying to run things behind closed doors, are well aware of what the future holds for their way-of-life if AE RD picks up speed and begins to make inroads. I also think it becomes increasingly more likely that continued high prices will ultimately have the potential of destroying OPEC because year-after-year their own economies will gradually become addicted to the expectation of higher revenues just to maintain their own life styles. Any dip in prices... and the revolution is only a week away. A wise Saudi businessman once stated: My grandfather herded camels. My father rode bicycles. I drive cars. My children will pilot jets. My grandchildren will herd camels. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
OrionWorks wrote: Continuing my own cynical rant I'd like to mention that the Kiplinger Letter, a conservative think tank, recently commented on the fact that most OPEC heads do not want their prices to skyrocket either. This has been their policy from day one, as I said. It is common knowledge. This is what they say publicly, and their prices have always been a bargain. They could have raised the price oil much higher any time after OPEC was formed in 1960, and especially after U.S. oil resources peaked and began to decline rapidly in the 1970s. But they have kept prices low because they are not fools. They charge enough to make maximum profit without damaging the economies of their principal customers. Of course the prices are high enough to starve people in the third world, but that doesn't bother OPEC, or us. OPEC, at least the smarter heads who are trying to run things behind closed doors, are well aware of what the future holds for their way-of-life if AE RD picks up speed and begins to make inroads. OPEC is highly secretive, but this is not a closed-door policy decision. It is what they say publicly, and their prices prove they mean it. First world nations cannot complain about OPEC pricing. My only complaint about the price of oil is that it is far too low in the U.S. Starting in 1975, we should have taxed gasoline at several dollars per gallon, the way they do in Europe and Japan to discourage consumption. We should have invested the revenue in plug-in hybrids and alternative energy. That would have thwarted OPEC's low-cost pricing scheme, which is intended to keep us from developing alternatives. That, too, is not a closed-door policy. It is no secret. They have said all along they want to discourage alternative energy research. Nixon told the Saudis he would develop nuclear power if they did not keep oil prices low. They didn't believe him, but they didn't want to test his resolve, either. This is described in The Prize along with much else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:42:34 -0600: Hi, [snip] Had AE research started twenty years ago and continued unabated we probably wouldn't be having this insane conversation now. [snip] I can't think of any time in the last 40 years that this sort of research hasn't been ongoing. It has just taken a long time to get to the point it is now at. Gradual progress. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
OrionWorks wrote: My, my, Ed, you're *are* the cynic, aren't you! I prefer the term realist. :-) A realist is a cynic who was proven right. I'm hoping we elect a more gooder regime next November, at least a new gang of criminals that will have the sense to avoid the temptation of getting our country involved in additional regime changes. It would be much safer for the world if we could elect a new regime that finds it immensely more satisfying to conduct their illicit activity behind closed doors and bedrooms rather than on the battle front. As for oil prices, my personal feelings gravitate towards the hope that, despite all the pain and suffering it will cause us all, oil prices remain outrageously high. As best as I can tell maintaining stable high prices will be the only way to help encourage serious AE RD in our capitalistic economy. Our way-of-life depends on it. I agree. Only the pain of spending money will get the public's attention, and eventually the small minded politician's attention. But is this being too cynical? Its hard to tell these days. Ed I doubt we can afford another 80's flip-flop where oil prices sky-rocketed then plummeted. I suspect we're all pretty much in agreement on the point that decades of cheap oil essentially killed off AE research for decades. Had AE research started twenty years ago and continued unabated we probably wouldn't be having this insane conversation now. On 1/15/08, Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China, a country that now has the money to pay your price. Or would you rather keep the price high to make more money and to hasten the end of American meddling in Middle East affairs. Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? Besides, Bush is no longer useful in getting American aid. In this game of poker, Bush has now lost every hand and has no idea how to play the game. Ed OrionWorks wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/bush.mideast/index.html http://tinyurl.com/23yc5c I'm glad someone in the oval office is asking the important questions. Can't you just pump some more oil out of the ground for us - for faster, more quicker? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Had AE research started twenty years ago and continued unabated we probably wouldn't be having this insane conversation now. [snip] I can't think of any time in the last 40 years that this sort of research hasn't been ongoing. It has just taken a long time to get to the point it is now at. Gradual progress. I assume AE stands for conventional alternative energy, not stuff like cold fusion. Cold fusion is a whole different story, as everyone here knows. I think alternative energy and conservation research has been desultory (disconnected, haphazard, jumping from one thing to another). Especially in the U.S. we have not taken it seriously enough, or invested enough. That's why our economic rivals such as Italy and Japan are more energy efficient and they get far more GNP per dollar of expenses. Both industry and government have failed. The most glaring example is the Toyota Prius versus the GM line of gas guzzling SUVs and other 30-year-old, unsafe, obsolete, garbage technology! It is no wonder Toyota is the biggest carmaker, and GM stock is worth nothing. The company doesn't deserve to survive. While there has been progress in some forms of alternative energy, such as wind turbines, there has been practically no progress in equally promising things such as solar thermal, or pure electric cars. This is deliberate. Vested interests drove Luz out of business and crushed the GM electric cars. It has been the policy of large corporations and the U.S. government to prevent progress in these technologies. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I recognize crooked businessmen and anti-trust violations when I see them. Business strive to prevent progress, stifle competition, and rook their customers all the time, in every country. Read the business section any newspaper, any day of the week, and you will see a parade of scoundrels who cause trouble and prevent progress for a living. A good living! See the movie about Enron, The Smartest Guys in the Room. I would never say that all businessmen are corrupt, but plenty of them are, plus there are hoards of fools who are even more destructive. Unfortunately, our energy policy has been in the hands of scoundrels and fools for a generation. We might have converted the whole of Nevada and Southern California to solar thermal electricity by now. We might have built 50 GW of wind power, plus 200 new generation uranium fission reactors to replace coal. Instead we got Enron and ethanol. Needless to say, with cold fusion, business, government, academia and the media all failed spectacularly. Every institution in society that is supposed to promote progress is at fault. It is an unprecedented fiasco. I think it is the worst in modern history. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Well Steven, if you had the oil, would you agree to take less money for your dwindling resource just because Bush asked? No, but throughout its history, OPEC has been careful to keep the price reasonably low, for two reasons: 1. To keep from hurting the U.S. economy, because the U.S. is their biggest customer. (And nowadays because they get paid in dollars, but that was never an issue in the past.) 2. To discourage the development of alternative energy source. See the book The Prize for details. Yes, these are the arguments of the past. The question is do they still apply. A growing opinion is developing that a US depression is unavoidable with the price of oil have little effect on the outcome. The issue of developing alternate energy has changed from saving a few bucks to saving the world. The price of oil will have no effect on this issue. After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China . That is exactly my point. If they lower the price to help Bush, they also get less from China. China is not hurting and would gladly pay the price. . . They get the same price no matter who they sell to. Oil is completely fungible. They don't care who buys the stuff. By the same token they want to avoid a U.S. recession no matter who else is buying, because a U.S. recession will lower worldwide demand and reduce the price of oil worldwide. For that matter, they want to avoid a Chinese recession. They would be concerned about the U.S. economy even if the U.S. were still self-sufficient and exporting oil, as it did until the 1970s. It could easily become self-sufficient again, by mandating the use of plug-in hybrid cars. The U.S. could be a member of OPEC by 2015. In that scenario, the Saudis would still prefer to see a strong U.S. economy. Except they would hate to see GM sell millions of hybrid cars a year. (Not a problem so far. Ten years after the Prius was introduced and after Toyota has sold more than a million of them, GM has not sold a single hybrid automobile. What a disgrace!) If the U.S. stopped using oil completely, from all sources, then OPEC would no longer care about our economy. Of course, if we had the technology to do that, so would everyone else in the developed world, and OPEC would be in a desperate situation. Besides the price will naturally drop soon as the American economy slides into depression. Why take a hit sooner than is necessary? Bush is too late to avoid this outcome to his general policy. The forces of greed that Bush allowed to take over the mortgage industry and his encouragement of outsourcing of our basic industries have done the job without the help from high energy cost. A U.S. depression is what they are trying to avoid. That's why they would be wise to do what Bush suggests. They should also pump the stuff and sell it as quickly as they can, before someone invents a cheaper alternative. Sooner or later, it will be worth nothing. Yes, eventually this will be true, but not in the life time of anyone living today. In spite of a wish for a better attitude, the present energy industries will fight any effort to change the present source of energy at every turn. They will support efforts that have no hope of pushing them aside, such as ethanol and hot fusion, while fighting any thing that will have an effect, such as more efficient cars. But, watch and see if the price of oil actually drops thanks to Bush. That will be the final evidence of his impotence. Ed - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CNN.COM: Bush pushes Saudis for help with rising oil prices
[Please respond to Vortex!] Edmund Storms wrote: 2. To discourage the development of alternative energy source. See the book The Prize for details. Yes, these are the arguments of the past. The question is do they still apply. No, they do not, because there is now a permanent, worldwide shortage of oil. The problem can only be fixed the way the whale oil shortage was fixed, by finding a replacement resource. After all, this would mean you would also get less selling to China . That is exactly my point. If they lower the price to help Bush, they also get less from China. China is not hurting and would gladly pay the price. Yup. Good point. and sell it as quickly as they can, before someone invents a cheaper alternative. Sooner or later, it will be worth nothing. Yes, eventually this will be true, but not in the life time of anyone living today. In spite of a wish for a better attitude, the present energy industries will fight any effort to change the present source of energy at every turn. This reminds me of what businessmen said back in 1980: IBM will always dominate the computer industry, and Mother Bell will always dominate the phone business. They thought of IBM as a force of nature. They said that even the Justice Dept. anti-trust lawsuits could not hurt these two behemoths, so what chance do other business have? By the year 2000, IBM was a shell of its former self, and ATT was gone. You may be right that oil will not be replaced in the life time of anyone living today but if history is any guide, it may also be replaced by 2015. Change sometimes moves though industry much faster than people anticipate. Oil based transportation is one of the obsolete industries on record. It was overdue for a change back in 1960. It has vulnerable written all over it. If GM does not start making hybrid cars it will be bankrupt in a few years. Energy industries and the like are powerful and wealthy, but they can be defeated by market forces or the public. They can be defeated overnight, and bankrupted in a few years. Back in 1900 the railroads owned the Congress and more or less ran the nation to their own advantage. People said they were all-powerful and impossible to control Then in 1908 Ford began manufacturing the Model T and by the late 1920s every railroad was on the skids. Their political power evaporated. They never recovered. If someone invents a better battery today, and Toyota, Mitsubishi or the Chinese Cherry automobile company starts selling viable electric cars, the oil industry will be defunct in 5 or 10 years. The Chinese plan to start selling $6,000 automobiles in the U.S. If they sell electric cars and hybrids for one-third the cost of Ford and GM cars, how long do you suppose Ford and GM will survive? They will gone as quickly as Data General and DEC vanished after personal computers were introduced. I have some books of predictions from the late 19th century. People then thought we would still be using sailing ships in the year 2000, and horse transportation, and a host of other things that were gone by 1920. They also predicted that race war was inevitable and that all U.S. native Americans and black people would be killed off by the year 2000. This kind of prediction was printed in a matter-of-fact way in major newspapers back then. It wasn't pessimistic; people thought that killing other races was a good idea, just as they thought we should exterminate the buffalo. They said it would improve the nation. H. G. Wells and many other prominent people advocated race genocide. People tend to make dire predictions about the future, and to expect the worst, or the most dramatic outcome. We did not commit genocide after all, and perhaps now, in this era, we will avoid a depression and global warming and the other horrible things we fear. Perhaps in 20 years we will make oil obsolete, even without cold fusion. Technically this would not be difficult. I am sure that we can avoid these things, if only we have the will and the wisdom to act. Our ancestors were wise enough to stop the Indian wars after Wounded Knee, and to stop killing off buffalo and whales, so maybe we will also act wisely. - Jed
