Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Paul]

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 required to recycle
ambient energy is old technology not even 
requiring QM and therefore is not a security risk due
to terrorists and rogue countries 
such as Iran and N.Korea.  Objects such as electrons
and atoms at room temperature are 
moving at high speeds. This is a endless supply of
energy. The device moves energy from 
ambient temperature (surrounding vibrating atoms) in
to a device such as computer.  The 
device then returns the energy to the environment,
thus completing the beautiful cycle-- 
Recyclable Energy.

One can verify this by one of three experiments -->

1. MCE. This is initially very difficult.
2. A resistor and LED connected in series. A small
carbon composite resistor generates 
voltage noise. All LED's emit photons even below the
forward voltage. The noisy resistor 
will generate photon wave packets.
3. T-ray lens. At room temperature all matter radiates
T-rays. Most materials have 
appreciably high emissivity. For example, a thin one
square meter of such material 
radiates over 900 watts (~460 watts per side). There
are methods of focusing such radiation.


Regards,
Paul Lowrance


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Jed Rothwell]

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 hand, when you generate a continuous flow of heat in a 
concentrated area, that area does grow warmer, and it stays warm, 
because the heat is replenished. That is why we have "heat islands" 
in major cities. This heat damages the ecosystem and it makes people 
uncomfortable, therefore we should limit total energy production.


This amounts to the same thing, but it is incorrect to say that heat 
"persists."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Harry Veeder]

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 energy were free
> whereby billions of people,
> millions of vehicles, homes, businesses, etc. etc. are
> ***adding*** energy?!?! It will
> kill this planet!

Some of the "free" energy could be used to operate some sort
of global heat pump system to ensure the biosphere does not get
too warm.

Consequently the price of free energy is the cost of keeping
the planet cool.

Harry

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Robin van Spaandonk]

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 the "free" energy could be used to operate some sort
>of global heat pump system to ensure the biosphere does not get
>too warm.
>
>Consequently the price of free energy is the cost of keeping
>the planet cool.

Most of human contribution to global warming is as a consequence of greenhouse
gasses. This is considerably larger than our actual contribution in terms of
thermal energy. By converting to CF globally, we would eliminate the greenhouse
gas contribution. In the near term, our contribution to thermal energy would be
minimal. The Sun supplies 1 times more power than we currently use, so our
actual contribution is insignificant. Nevertheless wasteful use of CF combined
with a growing  and wealthier population, would eventually put us back where we
are today. So it would be wise to continue along the path of energy efficiency.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Jed Rothwell]

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 dangers. People sometimes do that, but not always.



  IMHO the idea of personal and portable ZPE, cold fusion, etc. 
devices is suicidal.


I do not buy this argument, which Rifkin called "giving a baby a 
machine gun." As I pointed out in my book, chapter 19 (where I quoted Rifkin):


". . . [W]e can easily destroy the earth with the technology we 
already have. We do not need cold fusion, nuclear bombs or any 
advanced technology. We are using fire, man's oldest tool, to destroy 
the rain forests. The ancient Chinese, Greeks and Romans deforested 
large areas and turned millions of hectares of productive cropland 
into desert. The destructive side effects of technology in 2000 BC 
were as bad as they are today."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Mike Carrell]

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 our 
contribution to global warming. You burn a tankful of gasoline and its 
direct contribution to warming is un-measurable, but the effect of the CO2 
produced will continue for perhaps thousands of years, each day contributing 
to the blockage of cooling of the earth by radiation.


Non-polluting sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, 
blacklight power, cold fusion and others do not contribute to trapping the 
sun's energy and can be safely used even if the total output by future 
mankind is manyfold what we now do. Paul's idea of a 'heat pump' required 
that heat be dumped someplace off earth, which is handily done each clear 
night as the earth radiates heat into deep space. "Free recyclable energy" 
is not well defined. Wind, Solar, and Hydro extract energy from that which 
the sun has already given earth, but will not satisfy all human needs. It is 
not 'free' in the sense that human effort is necessary to produce the 
collection, storage and distribution systems, and these people need to be 
adequately compensated for their effort [a large part of your utility bill 
pays off the bondholders who lent the money for the construction of the 
power plant and distribution infrastructure].


A point Paul is overlooking is that CF and BLP devices, when commercialized, 
will liberate mankind from the political and economic system which exerts 
control by controlling the sources of energy. There is no viable ZPE device 
on the horizon. There are many tasks important to the survival and comfort 
of a wold population of 10 billion, which we are approaching, which can 
safely be tackled only by new energy soruces -- desalinaiton of sea water on 
a massive scale, reconcentration [recycling] of mineral resources dispersed 
by manufacture and use, etc.


Mike Carrell
---



Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
> 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 the "free" energy could be used to operate
some sort
>> of global heat pump system to ensure the biosphere
does not get
>> too warm.
>>
>> Consequently the price of free energy is the cost
of keeping
>> the planet cool.
>
> Most of human contribution to global warming is as
a consequence of greenhouse
> gasses. This is considerably larger than our actual
contribution in terms of
> thermal energy. By converting to CF globally, we
would eliminate the greenhouse
> gas contribution. In the near term, our
contribution to thermal energy would be
> minimal. The Sun supplies 1 times more power
than we currently use, so our
> actual contribution is insignificant.

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 large cities. We can detect temperature
changes during traffic hours near cities.
 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.  IMHO the idea of personal and
portable ZPE, cold fusion, etc. devices
is suicidal.


Regards,
Paul





Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited



This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. 
Department.

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Harry Veeder]

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 large cities. We can detect temperature
> changes during traffic hours near cities.
> 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.  IMHO the idea of personal and
> portable ZPE, cold fusion, etc. devices
> is suicidal.
> 


I am intrigued by the notion of recycled heat.

However, your prejudice against free energy systems is based
on the assumption that they work by producing heat rather than
recycling heat.

If they are in fact producing heat, such systems would be suicidal.
But no one as yet can really explain how these systems do what
they do.   

I personally think it is time to reconsider the discredited caloric
conception of heat. I am not suggesting the caloric theory of heat
is a completely satisfactory theory of heat, but I am suggesting the
kinetic theory of heat isn't completely satisfactory.

Harry 

  

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Harry Veeder]

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 ***accumulated*** greenhouse gases that is our
> contribution to global warming. You burn a tankful of gasoline and its
> direct contribution to warming is un-measurable, but the effect of the CO2
> produced will continue for perhaps thousands of years, each day contributing
> to the blockage of cooling of the earth by radiation.

Heat production may be trivial today, but that may change in the future.
After all humanity now produces 10,000 times more heat than it did centuries
ago. Is it not possible that in the centuries to come, humanity might be
producing 10,000 times more heat than today?

Harry

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Kyle R. Mcallister]

- 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 evolution -->


Capitalism isn't perfect, and I am not in support of uncontrolled capitalism 
(which is not a free market, it is letting the big sharks eat the little 
fish), but what do you expect to use as an alternative? Communism sure 
worked wonders in the USSR. And China, it really works well there, where you 
can make $30/week working only 12hrs/day, 7 days/week. I agree we need 
something better than the current thing, where big business is killing 
progress, but how do we do it, and without crushing the "little guys" in the 
process?



3. Homo sapiens, modern. Family constitutes self,
mate, and children. To a somewhat lesser
degree parents, brothers, sisters. To a lesser degree
close relatives and friends. To a
significantly lesser degree other people.


Well where do I fit in? "Significantly lesser degree?" You cannot read my 
mind, you do not know what I do or how deeply I care for those around me, 
particularly those who are hurting. People I don't even know. I worry about 
those people every day. Sweeping generalizations are something like 
zero-tolerance policies: not especially useful. I have almost no immediate 
family, or should I put it, almost none worth talking to. In my case, the 
"other people" are generally cared for by me more than most family members. 
If your point 3 *is* generally correct, then I am more alone than I thought 
before. Which is pretty bad.



4. Homo sapiens, near future. Family constitutes the
entire world of people, and to a
lesser degree the animal and plant kingdom.


What do we eat?


5. Homo sapiens, far future. Family constitutes all
beings. :-)))


I wish Pellegrino and Zebrowski were here to argue that one with you ;) I 
somehow doubt the "big galactic family" exists, or will, without someone 
dominating and setting policy. Or look at it another way: even in a happy 
family, someone is in charge.


Just my $1.02, inflation adjusted.
--Kyle 

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Jed Rothwell]

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 than it did centuries
ago. Is it not possible that in the centuries to come, humanity might be
producing 10,000 times more heat than today?


We covered this topic here several times, and I covered it in the 
book. I recommend that energy intense manufacturing be conducted off 
planet in the distant future. Products should be brought to earth via 
a network of space elevators, and shipped via relatively slow (low 
energy, subsonic) transport.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Paul]

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 need for the "me me me" stage?  In all
 >> fairness here is humanities evolution -->
 >
 > Capitalism isn't perfect, and I am not in support
of uncontrolled
 > capitalism (which is not a free market, it is
letting the big sharks eat
 > the little fish), but what do you expect to use as
an alternative?

Well, as I said, "When is humanity going to grow past
the ***need*** for the 'me me me' 
stage?"  Key word is "need."  I'm not suggesting
capitalism is or was of no use.  What 
happens when a child grows up completely deprived of
television, junk food, pornography, 
etc. and then suddenly moves out to meet the real
world of such temptations?  The poor 
Middle Eastern parents across the street found out. 
Their daughter and sons are now sex 
crazed in a modern society.  People learn from pain
and bad experiences. The point is, 
perhaps capitalism offered some real growth for the
modern world. So you ask, "what do you 
expect to use as an alternative?"  There is no
alternative for the *present.*  An 
idealistic society will only work when nearly 100% of
the people are of an extremely 
positive mentality.  When you can place an open box
containing $100,000 on your front 
lawn, come back next month and expect the money to
still be their, then perhaps humanity 
is ready for adulthood.  Until then, capitalism will
be the best option.  Hopefully in the 
next several decades idealist methods of sharing such
as GPL will dominate and evolve to 
something wonderful.



[snip]
 > Well where do I fit in? "Significantly lesser
degree?" You cannot read
 > my mind, you do not know what I do or how deeply I
care for those around
 > me, particularly those who are hurting.

That's why it was titled, " Average definition of
'family'"  Key word, *average*.



 > I worry about those people every day. Sweeping
generalizations are
 > something like zero-tolerance policies: not
especially useful.

Ask such a person who has a grown up daughter if they
would take them on board in their 
home if the daughter lost her job and had difficulty
finding another job?  I cannot 
imagine any parent saying "No!"  Then ask such a
parent if they would do the same for that 
homeless person begging on the street for food and
work?  Some people have evolved past 
stage 3 and dedicate their life to helping the world,
but most have not.



 > I have almost no immediate family, or should I put
it, almost none worth
 > talking to. In my case, the "other people" are
generally cared for by me
 > more than most family members. If your point 3 *is*
generally correct,
 > then I am more alone than I thought before. Which
is pretty bad.

Again, this is not about Kyle R. Mcallister.  It is
about the average person.



 >> 4. Homo sapiens, near future. Family constitutes
the
 >> entire world of people, and to a
 >> lesser degree the animal and plant kingdom.
 >
 > What do we eat?

Plenty, when science evolves to the degree it is a
blessing.  For now there are other 
options. There are a lot of people who eat nuts,
seeds, fruit, etc.  Does it kill a plant 
to pick the fruit?  This is all moot since our science
has not reached the degree of 
healthy synthesized foods.



 >> 5. Homo sapiens, far future. Family constitutes
all
 >> beings. :-)))
 >
 > I wish Pellegrino and Zebrowski were here to argue
that one with you ;)
 > I somehow doubt the "big galactic family" exists,
or will, without
 > someone dominating and setting policy. Or look at
it another way: even
 > in a happy family, someone is in charge.

Do you really think there was a beginning?  If so,
then what created that beginning? 
Sciences will continue to evolve and change. For now
they are pondering if time began with 
the big bang, but at the same time they theorize with
M-theory there are countless big 
bangs.  IMHO it seems a given that existence has
always existed.  For anyone who missed 
it, that would infinity, a concept no human can
comprehend. Infinity, as in without *any* 
beginning. Don't you think some orderliness would have
formed in infinite time, LOL? 
Again, infinity as in no beginning.


Regards,
Paul



 

Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Harry Veeder]

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 current rate humanity will become non-trivial
producers of heat.

> Why would a scientist put forth so much effort in
> building a machine that *adds* energy
> when it is far easier to build a machine that *moves*
> ambient energy?

If we only build the sorts of devices you are proposing
then, if too much ambient energy is *moved* into the motion of vehicles
and machines, we might be at risk of a global cooling.

What we need is a new philosophy of energy which subsumes the laws of
thermodynamics. Perhaps an ecology of energy...

Harry

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Harry Veeder]

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 produces 10,000 times more heat than it did centuries
>> ago. Is it not possible that in the centuries to come, humanity might be
>> producing 10,000 times more heat than today?
> 
> We covered this topic here several times, and I covered it in the
> book. I recommend that energy intense manufacturing be conducted off
> planet in the distant future. Products should be brought to earth via
> a network of space elevators, and shipped via relatively slow (low
> energy, subsonic) transport.
> 
> - Jed


Ok. The salient point of this discussion is that even if humanity
NEVER produced green house gases, it is reasonable to assume, all other
things being equal, that if heat production becomes large enough the average
global temperature would indeed rise.

Harry

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Michel Jullian]

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).

Black body radiated power P goes as T to the power 4 (cf 
e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body ) so T goes as P to the power 1/4.

Therefore if P is doubled, T is multiplied by 2^(1/4) = 1.2, which takes us 
from our present ~300K to ~360K.

That's a 60°C global warming if I am not mistaken. If a means 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: [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 produces 10,000 times more heat than it did centuries
>>> ago. Is it not possible that in the centuries to come, humanity might be
>>> producing 10,000 times more heat than today?
>> 
>> We covered this topic here several times, and I covered it in the
>> book. I recommend that energy intense manufacturing be conducted off
>> planet in the distant future. Products should be brought to earth via
>> a network of space elevators, and shipped via relatively slow (low
>> energy, subsonic) transport.
>> 
>> - Jed
> 
> 
> Ok. The salient point of this discussion is that even if humanity
> NEVER produced green house gases, it is reasonable to assume, all other
> things being equal, that if heat production becomes large enough the average
> global temperature would indeed rise.
> 
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Paul]

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).
 >
 > Black body radiated power P goes as T to the power
4 (cf 
e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body ) so T
goes as P to the power 1/4.
 >
 > Therefore if P is doubled, T is multiplied by
2^(1/4) = 1.2, which takes us from our 
present ~300K to ~360K.
 >
 > That's a 60°C global warming if I am not mistaken.
If a means to eliminate excess heat 
more efficiently than passive radiation is not found
then unlimited power generation will 
be very dangerous indeed!
 >
 > Michel



Also it moves the peak blackbody radiation wavenumber
from 528 cm-1 to 666 cm-1.  Nice 
number, lol. :-)


Regards,
Paul Lowrance


 

Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel 
bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Kyle R. Mcallister]

- 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 said nothing about 
creation or God or anything like that. I said that I doubted there is a big 
happy galactic family out there, and that it is probably something more like 
Pellegrino and Zebrowski speculated about, namely, intelligent starfaring 
civilizations will not be afraid of utterly crushing any perceived threats, 
including us if we start to look like one.



Sciences will continue to evolve and change. For now
they are pondering if time began with
the big bang, but at the same time they theorize with
M-theory there are countless big
bangs.


M-theory is a religion.


IMHO it seems a given that existence has
always existed.  For anyone who missed
it, that would infinity, a concept no human can
comprehend. Infinity, as in without *any*
beginning. Don't you think some orderliness would have
formed in infinite time, LOL?
Again, infinity as in no beginning.


Again, I was talking about nothing like this.

--Kyle 

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Nick Palmer]

Mike Carrel wrote:

>


and
 >


I don't think even the most doomy Greens expect the problem to last that 
long! Green house  gas CO2 concentration "above the weather" (say 75,000 
feet plus) has a rather long "half life" but it is in the decades to low 
hundreds of years.


If CF and/or BLP live up to their promise, Earth could support at least a 
100 billion people in comfort because many areas that are barely habitable 
could be transformed (with due regard to impact on other species in the 
ecosystem).



Nick Palmer

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Robin van Spaandonk]

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 three things.

1) What we can use it for.
2) How much each of us has available.
3) How many of us there are.

Number 1 is dependent upon level of technological development. As our technology
becomes more sophisticated, we tend to find more uses for energy, but also each
use tends to become more efficient.

Number 2 could become nearly unlimited with various sources of new energy.

Number 3 may actually be self-limiting. In a number of modern western nations
with a high standard of living the population is actually falling. If we can
inject wealth rapidly into the third world nations, and raise their standard of
living up to our own, then there is a good chance that their populations will
also stabilize. A stable planetary population is the most important factor
limiting energy usage.

We also need to stabilize the global population for other reasons, e.g. esthetic
(who wants the whole world to be "concrete jungle"?), biodiversity etc.

New sources of energy are the surest means by which we can achieve the rapid
increase in standard of living that is necessary to achieve a stable population.

The alternative is that nature continues to regulate the population according to
the tried and true method known as "boom and bust".

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Robin van Spaandonk]

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
> >> unlimited "free energy" such energy usage will
>explode
> >> worldwide.
> >>
> >>
> > Actually, our collective rate of energy usage
>depends upon three things.
> >
> > 1) What we can use it for.
> > 2) How much each of us has available.
> > 3) How many of us there are.
> >
> > Number 1 is dependent upon level of technological
>development. As our technology
> > becomes more sophisticated, we tend to find more
>uses for energy, but also each
> > use tends to become more efficient.
>
>It's more complex. For example, the gasoline engine
>replaced the horse.

Thank you for making my point. With an improvement in technology came an
increase in energy consumption, and since then the technology has been refined
so that it is becoming more efficient. When we change to electric/CF vehicles,
it will become more efficient again.
[snip]
>I think Gaia's self-defense and humanities undeveloped
>emotional nature will take care of 
>over population within the next decade or two. My
>concern is not for the humans that 
>survive such upcoming changes, as such humanity will
>become responsible. It's the idea of 
>handing an irresponsible world portable energy
>*adding* devices such as cold fusion and ZPE.

If your second law violating technology actually works, then I would be quite
happy to rely on that to stabilize the World population, however if it doesn't
pan out, then I think we need to look to the energy adders, because otherwise we
are going to witness catastrophic deaths on a vast scale, IOW the "bust" side of
"boom and bust". 
[snip]
> > The alternative is that nature continues to
>regulate the population according to
> > the tried and true method known as "boom and bust".
>
>That's a great concern. Humanity first ***needs*** to
>wait for adulthood before offering 
>energy adders such as cold fusion to 7 billion people.
> Such devices at best are for deep 
>space.

The energy adders would not be a major problem, if we could stabilize the
population at no more than say twice it's current size, though I would prefer to
see it considerably less than it's current size, e.g. 1 billion?
Note that this need not cause anyone any grief. We simply need to expand the
trend of falling population that has already taken hold in some Western nations
to the whole planet, which means that we first need to rapidly increase the
standard of living of all people.
One indicator that the planet is already over populated is the dwindling fish
stocks World wide.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Paul]

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 of energy
  production is exponential. Given
  unlimited "free energy" such energy usage will
 >> explode
  worldwide.
 
 
 >>> Actually, our collective rate of energy usage
 >> depends upon three things.
 >>> 1) What we can use it for.
 >>> 2) How much each of us has available.
 >>> 3) How many of us there are.
 >>>
 >>> Number 1 is dependent upon level of technological
 >> development. As our technology
 >>> becomes more sophisticated, we tend to find more
 >> uses for energy, but also each
 >>> use tends to become more efficient.
 >> It's more complex. For example, the gasoline
engine
 >> replaced the horse.
 >
 > Thank you for making my point. With an improvement
in technology came an
 > increase in energy consumption, and since then the
technology has been refined
 > so that it is becoming more efficient. When we
change to electric/CF vehicles,
 > it will become more efficient again.

You are merely missing the depth of the issue, as it's
more complex than efficiency. There 
are other factors involved besides efficiency such as
power, weight, size, cost, noise, 
simplicity, etc.  For example the Wankel engine was
invented for its power to weight ratio 
and not efficiency.  To this day the Wankel engine is
still used for its high power to 
weight ratio despite being an inefficient gas-fired
internal combustion engine. 
Efficiency is not the only motivating factor involved
in new technology through out the 
life span of any particular technology.  In a
nutshell, new technology may or may not 
improve efficiency over its life span.  For example,
over time new technology was 
introduced to CPU's at the cost of efficiency for
speed.  On the other hand there has been 
new technology that focused on efficiency over other
factors.  Other factors could be 
cost, size, etc.



 > [snip]
 >> I think Gaia's self-defense and humanities
undeveloped
 >> emotional nature will take care of
 >> over population within the next decade or two. My
 >> concern is not for the humans that
 >> survive such upcoming changes, as such humanity
will
 >> become responsible. It's the idea of
 >> handing an irresponsible world portable energy
 >> *adding* devices such as cold fusion and ZPE.
 >
 > If your second law violating technology actually
works, then I would be quite
 > happy to rely on that to stabilize the World
population,

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. Albeit a low photon count, but such a
device could easily be 400 nanometers 
square, thereby allowing 7 trillion devices in one
thin square meter panel.



however if it doesn't
 > pan out, then I think we need to look to the energy
adders, because otherwise we
 > are going to witness catastrophic deaths on a vast
scale, IOW the "bust" side of
 > "boom and bust".

Unfortunately it appears with high probability such
catastrophic deaths will occur 
regardless, but I agree any effort should help
minimize the death count.



 > [snip]
 >>> The alternative is that nature continues to
 >> regulate the population according to
 >>> the tried and true method known as "boom and
bust".
 >> That's a great concern. Humanity first ***needs***
to
 >> wait for adulthood before offering
 >> energy adders such as cold fusion to 7 billion
people.
 >> Such devices at best are for deep
 >> space.
 >
 > The energy adders would not be a major problem, if
we could stabilize the
 > population at no more than say twice it's current
size, though I would prefer to
 > see it considerably less than it's current size,
e.g. 1 billion?

Twice present pollution???  Unfortunately within the
next decade we'll all see it's 
already a problem, a nightmare.  It would be a problem
even if we stabilized at half the 
pollution.  That's probably moot since any appreciable
pollution is unacceptable.

If we peer a little deeper we'll see air pollution is
merely one problem of many. Again, 
portable "free energy" machines would cause an energy
usage explosion in highly focused 
areas called cities. That is why the development of
FRE is vitally important as compared 
to cold fusion, ZPE, etc.


Regards,
Paul Lowrance




 > Note that this need not cause anyone any grief. We
simply need to expand the
 > trend of falling population that has already taken
hold in some Western nations
 > to the whole planet, which means that we first need
to rapidly increase the
 > standard of living of all people.
 > One indicator that the planet is already over
populated is the dwindling

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Harry Veeder]

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. Albeit a low photon count, but such a
> device could easily be 400 nanometers
> square, thereby allowing 7 trillion devices in one
> thin square meter panel.


Perhaps the assembled components make a weak battery?

Harry 

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Harry Veeder]

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 people will act
> irresponsibly, and ignore clear &
>> present dangers. People sometimes do that, but not
> always.
> 
> All human behavior studies I've seen have demonstrate
> people in modern society usually
> hoard *if* they can get away with it.


Because generally it is a society run on the shame of having "less", rather
than on the fun of having "more".

Harry

Re: [Vo]: FRE

[Paul]

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 destruction.  The idea is
energy from the air and ground are 
moved to say a television or electric automobile
motor.  The television and electric motor 
would heat up the air and ground, thus completing the
cycle.  Of course if say the car 
hood is slightly above room temperature then some of
the energy is radiating to space, 
unless you live in smoggy Los Angeles. ;-)   On the
other hand, air would be blowing on 
the electric motor, thereby cooling down such air,
which would cool the environment.  So 
we have a small temperature gradient from the electric
engine (and its nearby 
surroundings) and the FRE (Free Recyclable Energy)
device (and its nearby surroundings). 
One area is hotter than room temperature, while the
other is cooler than room temperature. 
  If it were outside then the hotter area would
radiate some extra energy above normal out 
to space, while the cooler area would radiate *less*
energy than normal out to space.  Of 
course the two would not precisely cancel, but it's
close enough for government work. :-) 
   Who knows, maybe in 1000 years such FRE devices
could counteract humanities 
contribution to global warming.

On the other hand, such a FRE device could actually
add energy to the planet by decreasing 
the radiated energy to space relative to the energy
received by the Sun.  One could 
accomplish this by placing the FRE device outside and
the load inside.  The cold FRE 
device would cover a certain amount of ground that
would normally radiate FIR radiation to 
space.  Therefore, the cold FRE would radiate less
energy to space than normal.  The 
indoor load would be heat synced to the earth.  This
would result in less energy escaping 
the planet. :-)  Blackbody radiation is relative to
T^4. Who want to do such a thing in 
this day and age given global warming?


Regards,
Paul Lowrance



 

Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com

[Vo]: Re:[VO]: FRE

[RC Macaulay]

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 and watch the scene unfold. Imagine a gravy train with 
biscuit wheels( the world economy).. The train doesn't fly off the track on a 
tight curve, It doens't crash into another train, it doesn't collapse a 
bridge 

The biscuit wheels get soggy from the gravy and slowly sinks into the track and 
rolls over on it's side. No noise, no shouting, just a few watching with awe.. 

Richard



Blank Bkgrd.gif
Description: GIF image