Re: [Vo]: FRE

Harry Veeder wrote: > Paul wrote: [snip] >> It's called an energy *moving*, not an energy >> destroyer. :-) >> > > Yes, but if you can convert ambient heat into macroscopic > motion without a pre-existing thermal gradient that would > reduce ambient temperature. Conversion, yes, but not d

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Paul wrote: > Jed Rothwell wrote: >> Paul wrote: >> >>> This creates temperature gradients. My point was > that present rise in >>> temperatures will be a drop in the bucket with > global "free energy" >>> unless we develop FRE (Free Recyclable Energy) > machines. >> >> You are assuming that p

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Paul wrote: > I agree for the most part. I would refer to such FRE > devices as AEM (ambient energy > movers) since there are almost as many interpretations > of the 2nd law as there are > physicists. Such AEM devices are not fiction, but a > fact. An LED connected to a resistor > emits photons.

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Hi, Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Paul's message of Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:14:41 -0800 (PST): > Hi, > [snip] >> Robin van Spaandonk wrote: >>> In reply to Paul's message of Fri, 12 Jan 2007 >> 07:16:25 -0800 (PST): >>> Hi, >>> [snip] Sounds exactly what you said. Our rate o

Re: [Vo]: FRE

In reply to Paul's message of Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:14:41 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > > In reply to Paul's message of Fri, 12 Jan 2007 >07:16:25 -0800 (PST): > > Hi, > > [snip] > >> Sounds exactly what you said. Our rate of energy > >> production is exponential. Given > >>

Re: [Vo]: FRE

In reply to Paul's message of Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:16:25 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] >Sounds exactly what you said. Our rate of energy >production is exponential. Given >unlimited "free energy" such energy usage will explode >worldwide. > > Actually, our collective rate of energy usage depends upon th

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Mike Carrel wrote: > and > I don't think even the most doomy Greens expect the problem to last that

Re: [Vo]: FRE

- Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FRE Do you really think there was a beginning? If so, then what created that beginning? Uh...what does this have to do with what I wrote? I sa

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Michel Jullian wrote: > Well, let's work it out. Your scenario of mankind dissipating through cheap nuclear processes 10,000 times more heat than their current energy use 10^18 J/day would mean doubling roughly the Earth's present 10^22 J/day radiated power (almost 100% solar presently). > > B

Re: [Vo]: FRE

ns to eliminate excess heat more efficiently than passive radiation is not found then unlimited power generation will be very dangerous indeed! Michel - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Jed Rothwell wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Heat production may be trivial today, but that may change in the future. > > It is not trivial today. It is already a problem. I do not think it > will become as bad a problem as Paul predicts, even with cold fusion. > > >> After all humanity now

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Paul wrote: > Harry Veeder wrote: > As Harry clearly understood, the future energy > production will increase exponentially if > people have "free energy." That is not exactly what I meant. Regardless of whether energy is "free" or not in the future, if heat production continues to grow at the c

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:33 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: FRE > > >> Ugg, >> capitalism. When is humanity going to grow >> past the

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Harry Veeder wrote: Heat production may be trivial today, but that may change in the future. It is not trivial today. It is already a problem. I do not think it will become as bad a problem as Paul predicts, even with cold fusion. After all humanity now produces 10,000 times more heat tha

Re: [Vo]: FRE

- Original Message - From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: FRE Ugg, capitalism. When is humanity going to grow past the need for the "me me me" stage? In all fairness here is humanities evolut

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Mike Carrell wrote: > > Methinks Paul is still missing the point. Robin correctly points out that > the sun's daily input of energy to the earth is 10,000 times what man's use > is. Our direct use of energy is trivial. It is the blocking of radiant heat > escaping the earth by the ***accumulat

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Paul wrote: > > You're correct in that pollution is obviously by far > the worst. Although you're thinking > in terms of averaging and spreading the energy > humanity contributes over the entire > planet. It's a little more complex than that, as > humanity tends to gather in groups > forming larg

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Methinks Paul is still missing the point. Robin correctly points out that the sun's daily input of energy to the earth is 10,000 times what man's use is. Our direct use of energy is trivial. It is the blocking of radiant heat escaping the earth by the ***accumulated*** greenhouse gases that is

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Paul wrote: This creates temperature gradients. My point was that present rise in temperatures will be a drop in the bucket with global "free energy" unless we develop FRE (Free Recyclable Energy) machines. You are assuming that people will act irresponsibly, and ignore clear & present dan

[Vo]: Re:[VO]: FRE

BlankPaul wrote.. My point was that present rise in temperatures will be a drop in the bucket with global "free energy" unless we develop FRE (Free Recyclable Energy) machines. IMHO the idea of personal and portable ZPE, cold fusion, etc. devices is suicidal. Howdy Paul, Not to worry, hide a

Re: [Vo]: FRE

In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:56:07 -0500: Hi, [snip] >> costly at present. Can you imagine if energy were free >> whereby billions of people, >> millions of vehicles, homes, businesses, etc. etc. are >> ***adding*** energy?!?! It will >> kill this planet! > >Some of th

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Paul wrote: > Earth and nature are > highly sensitive to small average > increases in temperature. It would be bad enough to > increase the planets temperature by a > small percentage, but what you are talking about is > not a small increase. Energy is > costly at present. Can you imagine if ener

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Paul wrote: That's true. It does not generate nasty waste, but still the energy persists . . . No, it does not persist. Where there are no heat absorbing bodies on the ground, heat radiates from the earth in about a half-hour. That is why deserts quickly grow cold at night. On the other ha

Re: [Vo]: FRE

Mike Carrell wrote: > Waste heat from nuclear, CF and BLP is instant and does not persist. That's true. It does not generate nasty waste, but still the energy persists and would contribute to global warming. That is why I am researching FRE (Free Recyclable Energy). Furthermore such technology