[VO]: Free Will Power
Howdy Vorts, This link was passed on to me for comment. I am unfamilar with the people that produce this website. They claim to invest in new energy research. There is no address given and no board of directors listed although they claim 501C3 listing. Perhaps Steve Krivit , editor of New Energy Time ( NET) knows of them. Richard http://www.freewillpower.org/
Re: [VO]: Free Will Power
On Feb 25, 2008, at 5:54 AM, R C Macaulay wrote: Howdy Vorts, This link was passed on to me for comment. I am unfamilar with the people that produce this website. They claim to invest in new energy research. There is no address given and no board of directors listed although they claim 501C3 listing. Perhaps Steve Krivit , editor of New Energy Time ( NET) knows of them. Richard http://www.freewillpower.org/ Something about this does not seem right to me. They claim to be non-profit, yet the patents are used on a for-profit basis under the company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) : http://www.freewillpower.org/aboutus.html This means the employees (the founder/owner and buddies) get to take donations and yet keep all the goodies??? I'm confused ... I think ... no ... yes ... well, I'm always confused anyway. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [VO]: Free Will Power
Richard One of the people involved in this seems to be inventor and professional beggar- Sir Charles Shults of [EMAIL PROTECTED] fame. I do not mean the 'beggar' part in complete disrespect, however. He does have good ideas. Although not without controversy, due to his constant tin-cup routines in various guises and tireless self-promotion, Shults is keen in advocating one particular invention of interest for solar energy conversion - based on a large fresnel lens to flash hot water (from passive panels) into steam, which is meant to run a low pressure turbine. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Charles_Shults'_Fresnel_Solar_Design In California, Shults sez this could save an average homeowner about $40,000 over the cost of solar panels to generate 6 kW of electricity, with hot water left over for winter heating! IF Shults' numbers were accurate, this is big news, as natural gas prices are 'through the roof' this year; but AFAIK this concept is not yet reduced to practice even as a working protoype. However, other commentators have downplayed the idea as too complicated for home-use and moreover: 'just an idea' which is too green to be useful without a lot of engineering and a corporate name behind it. Jones
Re: [VO]: Free Will Power
In an obtuse way the web site reminds me of Dr. Greer's SEAS organization, which incidentally seems to have reincarnated into a new entity called, AERO - Advance Energy Research Organization. See: http://www.aero2012.com/en/index.html ...which I could not help but notice that the web address contains the year 2012 incorporated into to the URL, which immediately makes me wonder if they are planning a special party on that momentous date. ...which, if so, they might wish to pick up a few pointers from another organization known as the Raelians. For example, in UFO Magazine Issue #142, page 5, a letter to the Editor states: --- In your November 2007 (Vol. 22, No. 11) The Rael Dael article, it is said that The Elohim are supposed to appear on Earth sometime in the year 2012 AD. This is not correct. The Elohim only told Rael that they would return to Earth at the latest in 2035. The year 2012 has no special meaning to Raelians. --- ...which as best as I can tell the Raelians appear to be an interesting front for a swinger's club, with a few philosophical eccentricities thrown in for good measure. Ever get the feeling that there's a party being planned somewhere where your name is not on the invitation list? Mark you calendar. http://www.rael.org Oh dear, my mind's wandering... Where's the ritalin. I gotta get back to work... Oh! What an interesting picture of a turtle... Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
See Tom Valone's latest newsletter: http://users.erols.com/iri/EnewsFeb25,2008.htm Headlines: 1) Pentagon Space-Based Solar Power - Leading future energy solution for only $10 billion 2) Space Based Solar as an Opportunity for Strategic Security - Steps to energy independence 3) Tiny Vibrations Harness Energy - Great review article of new parasitic ways of generating energy 4) Energy Islands of the Future - Diversified clean energy generation all in one place 5) Clean Coal is Cancelled - Another nail in the coffin of dirty fossil fuels that cannot become clean 6) Annual Energy Outlook - Rising fuel prices are expected to spur domestic energy production 7) New Energy Technology - Symposium by the American Chemical Society proves energy importance - Jed
[Vo]:OFF TOPIC Amazingly stable public opinion poll
I don't mean to introduce politics, but here is an amazing public opinion poll anomaly, from the Clinton-Obama race: http://www.gallup.com/poll/104530/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx The results have remained in a statistical dead heat within 2%, consistent and unchanged, for 5 days during one of the most hotly contested and closely watched races in the last 40 years. Public opinion is rarely this stable. The people at Gallup are experts at polling. Their results are usually reliable and repeatable, although that does not mean they actually predict the outcome of the next vote in this particular race. That sounds kind of stupid I realize, but I mean that this poll is probably a good reflection of general public opinion, and if you doubled the number of respondents the numbers would not change much, but in a volatile race of this nature, you cannot predict which segments of the public will vote. For example, this year young people are voting in larger numbers than usual. Plus many states allow people to vote for a week or two in advance of the election, so the results reflect samples at different times during the run-up to the election. People have criticized public opinion polls but a sophisticated reader will understand that they have their limitations and results must be interpreted. Polls resemble instrument readings from complex instruments such as silicon detectors, where not all control parameters are under control. You have to take into account unavoidable sources of bias and noise, and the fact that all public opinion polls are backward looking, lagging indicators. Sort of like running a calorimeter with 24-hour latency. Professional pollsters are embarrassed about this year's inaccuracies. John Zogby, who is a smart cookie, was asked about his incorrect prediction of the California race. His comment: Let the record show I'm sitting in the corner in a fetal position right now. It was not my finest hour and it was embarrassing. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/352352_diazonline24.html Understanding limitations and interpreting results is also crucial when you read about cold fusion experiments, or social science research, or other fuzzy research into subjects that are largely unknown. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beads to Gold
Mike Carrell wrote: My understanding is that as clever as the Patterson cell was, there was something in the beads that was important to the success. When the supply of beads was used up, the effect vanished. After he ran out of beads, Patterson told me I can make new beads anytime I want. But then he ran out of gumption, and then he ran out of time. Tempus fugit. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM VP reveals his true feelings
Mr. Lutz's comments about his quote, in which he digs the hole he is in even deeper: http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/02/talk_about_a_cr.html Some people do not understand when to apologize and shut up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM VP reveals his true feelings
Jed sez: Mr. Lutz's comments about his quote, in which he digs the hole he is in even deeper: http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/02/talk_about_a_cr.html Some people do not understand when to apologize and shut up. - Jed Mr. Lutz appears to say in his blog that GM is going full steam ahead in their work on environmental issues like E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, the electrification of the car (the Chevrolet Volt), which hopefully will be out on showrooms in a couple of years. ...all because it's the ...right thing to do. If so, I wouldn't put much stock in his personal opinions, like global warming being a crock of kaka. Shoot! I personally believe all those conspiracy theories claiming the WTC had been crammed full of strategically positioned explosives just prior to the jets slamming into them is kaka too! But whada I know! Deeds are what count. Not opinions. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.Zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
On Feb 25, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:07:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] See Tom Valone's latest newsletter: http://users.erols.com/iri/EnewsFeb25,2008.htm Headlines: 1) Pentagon Space-Based Solar Power - Leading future energy solution for only $10 billion Quote: Space-based solar power may become an important energy source as fossil-fuel supplies dwindle in midcentury: A single 1-kilometer-wide solar array could collect enough power in a year to rival the entire world’s oil reserves. This is wrong. It would in fact only produce enough to cover the oil usage of the US alone for about a day. It may be the author confused the space based solar collectors with the terrestrially based microwave receiver grids. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:GM VP reveals his true feelings
OrionWorks wrote: Mr. Lutz appears to say in his blog that GM is going full steam ahead in their work on environmental issues like E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, the electrification of the car (the Chevrolet Volt), which hopefully will be out on showrooms in a couple of years. ...all because it's the ...right thing to do. If so, I wouldn't put much stock in his personal opinions, like global warming being a crock of kaka. The problem is, that is a contradictory set of opinions, and his statements are unconvincing. If global warming is not real, then the only reason anyone would work on things like fuel cells and electric cars would be for the PR value. As far as I can tell that is in fact the only reason GM is spending any money on these things: it is all a public relations stunt, and they have no intention of manufacturing anything. Ten years after Toyota introduced the Prius, GM does not sell a single hybrid car as far as I know. They can't be serious. They are NOT going full steam ahead! That's absurd. The thing is, apart from global warming there is no perilous environmental threat from cars. The amount of pollution they cause in the first world is declining. Of course oil is running out, but this will happen gradually. If oil did not cause global warming and terrorism there would be no reason to transition away from it abruptly. It would make sense to make the transition gradual, over 30 to 50 years. We might as well use it up as long as it remains reasonably cheap. That is just what the oil companies and GM want us to do. They would only want us to do that if they themselves did not believe oil, coal and other fossil fuel is causing catastrophic and irreversible climate change. Lutz says he does not believe that and I take him at his word. That explains his decisions and actions. Let me explain what I mean by PR stunt. For many years, the U.S. automobile industry has been spending a few hundred million dollars a year to make ultraclean, advanced prototype concept cars for trade shows. Plus they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of government money in joint-development projects that went nowhere. I have often read that industry insiders consider these projects to be PR stunts, and they have never seriously intended to manufacture these vehicles. The purpose is to keep the Congress and the public from criticizing industry, and to make themselves look good, without actually spending the billions of dollars it would take to manufacture one of these vehicles. My guess is that Lutz views Toyota's decision to make the Prius as an expensive public relations stunt that got out of hand. Even now many critics say that Toyota must be losing money on every Prius sale (a violation of antitrust laws), and Toyota is only selling the car to make themselves look good and to steal American market share. Prominent right-wing critics and industry shills such as George Will often say that Prius uses more gasoline per mile and more steel and other resources than a Hummer. (Will really says that in the New York Times, and I suppose he means it, because he appears to be innumerate and he understands nothing about batteries, manufacturing or technology.) People like Lutz apparently assume that Toyota managers don't believe in global warming either. They think the Prius must be some kind of ploy or a way to game the system. Managers at GM such a Lutz do not see the Prius as a better product or an honest way to attract customers. They do not seem to understand why consumers like it. That is my impression from their comments. That is why they are going out of business. What other explanation is there? It isn't as if they want to liquidate the company. Here is one thing you must understand about people such as Lutz, Will, and the anti-cold fusion fanatics such as Park: They really are as stupid as they seem. It is not an act. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Space-based solar power may become an important energy source as fossil-fuel supplies dwindle in midcentury: A single 1-kilometer-wide solar array could collect enough power in a year to rival the entire world's oil reserves. This is wrong. It would in fact only produce enough to cover the oil usage of the US alone for about a day. Yes, I noticed that number is wrong. I posted some info on space based generation some month ago. Anyway, it does have the potential to supply all energy on earth with very little ground based infrastructure, and the collection grids on the ground could be built on top of grass and plants. The incoming beam would not harm people, wildlife or plants, so it is a big plus. I think it is the most promising alternative, except for cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:07:31 -0500: Hi, [snip] See Tom Valone's latest newsletter: http://users.erols.com/iri/EnewsFeb25,2008.htm Headlines: 1) Pentagon Space-Based Solar Power - Leading future energy solution for only $10 billion Quote: Space-based solar power may become an important energy source as fossil-fuel supplies dwindle in midcentury: A single 1-kilometer-wide solar array could collect enough power in a year to rival the entire worlds oil reserves. This is wrong. It would in fact only produce enough to cover the oil usage of the US alone for about a day. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
You guys all missed one tiny detail: in that article they (misleadingly) specify the width (1-kilometer-wide but not the _length_ of the array :) The hypothetical array would be quite long in fact as it would form a continuous band at geostationary orbit (cf the actual study group report further down the page), which seems a little overambitious if that calculation is not just meant to strike imagination. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews Robin van Spaandonk wrote: Space-based solar power may become an important energy source as fossil-fuel supplies dwindle in midcentury: A single 1-kilometer-wide solar array could collect enough power in a year to rival the entire world's oil reserves. This is wrong. It would in fact only produce enough to cover the oil usage of the US alone for about a day. Yes, I noticed that number is wrong. I posted some info on space based generation some month ago. Anyway, it does have the potential to supply all energy on earth with very little ground based infrastructure, and the collection grids on the ground could be built on top of grass and plants. The incoming beam would not harm people, wildlife or plants, so it is a big plus. I think it is the most promising alternative, except for cold fusion. - Jed
[Vo]:George Will is at the Washington Post
I wrote: (George Will really says that in the New York Times, and I suppose he means it . . . I meant the Washington Post. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
The hypothetical array would be quite long in fact as it would form a continuous band at geostationary orbit They're planning to build Ringworld?
Re: [Vo]:GM VP reveals his true feelings
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:00:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] OrionWorks wrote: Mr. Lutz appears to say in his blog that GM is going full steam ahead in their work on environmental issues like E85, hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cells, the electrification of the car (the Chevrolet Volt), which hopefully will be out on showrooms in a couple of years. ...all because it's the ...right thing to do. If so, I wouldn't put much stock in his personal opinions, like global warming being a crock of kaka. The problem is, that is a contradictory set of opinions, and his statements are unconvincing. If global warming is not real, then the only reason anyone would work on things like fuel cells and electric cars would be for the PR value. He also mentioned energy independence, which for many in the US is more important than global warming, particularly in GOP circles. As far as I can tell that is in fact the only reason GM is spending any money on these things: it is all a public relations stunt, and they have no intention of manufacturing anything. Ten years after Toyota introduced the Prius, GM does not sell a single hybrid car as far as I know. They can't be serious. They are NOT going full steam ahead! That's absurd. The thing is, apart from global warming there is no perilous environmental threat from cars. Air pollution, which I think we would all rather do without. The amount of pollution they cause in the first world is declining. But not by much. Of course oil is running out, but this will happen gradually. ...yes, but as it does so, the price of gas will rise rapidly, because while supply is decreasing, demand will increase, so that the difference between the two grows even faster. If oil did not cause global warming and terrorism there would be no reason to transition away from it abruptly. It would make sense to make the transition gradual, over 30 to 50 years. We might as well use it up as long as it remains reasonably cheap. That is just what the oil companies and GM want us to do. They would only want us to do that if they themselves did not believe oil, coal and other fossil fuel is causing catastrophic and irreversible climate change. They want us to do that because the oil still in the ground is worth far more than the oil already extracted (precisely because the price of a barrel is going up). They know that it's running out, and don't really care. They're making hay while the sun shines. Lutz says he does not believe that and I take him at his word. That explains his decisions and actions. I agree. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Re: Interesting stuff in Future Energy eNews
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:13:43 +0100: Hi, You guys all missed one tiny detail: in that article they (misleadingly) specify the width (1-kilometer-wide but not the _length_ of the array :) The hypothetical array would be quite long in fact as it would form a continuous band at geostationary orbit (cf the actual study group report further down the page), which seems a little overambitious if that calculation is not just meant to strike imagination. Michel [snip] That does indeed work out to about half a trillion boe over a 1 year period (thermal only). However the thermal power is 1E14 W, resulting in about 1E13 W electric if one assumes 10% conversion efficiency. Even if the cost is only $1 / watt electric, the cost of the whole is still a 10 trillion, not ten billion. Actually, since it is wrapped around in a circle, the real cost would be Pi times that, so nearer 30 trillion. Not to mention, where is one going to get all the mass from - Earth? Unlikely. Mining the Moon or the asteroids might be cheaper. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
