On Sunday 31 December 2006 21:16, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "thomas malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 4:32 PM > Subject: [Vo]: What Energy Crisis? > > > What energy crisis? IMHO, the energy crisis you face is an inability to > > generate a suitable income. I have the same problem. > > We will, as time goes on, need more and greater sources of energy. > Specifically, ones we can set up here in the USA, and not have to worry > about zinc-plated dictators and Islamic whackjobs overseas. > > > Over the past year we have discussed a number of areas which might > > provide an unlimited source of pollution free energy. Among them are the > > writings of Hal Puthoff, last week I posted a review of his paper on > > EVO's, adding ? after comments that I don't understand. I also mentioned > > the Frank Tippler's paper on generating anti matter. > > I think I will get attacked for this but..... > > What has the ZPE hype ever gotten us? I remember a bunch of stuff years ago > about doing something sort of screwy with hydrogen, I think along the lines > of "squeezing" it through capillaries or somesuch that was supposed to make > the ground-state orbit of electrons shrink around the hydrogen atoms, > giving off energy. Then presumably the ZPE (which supposedly held up the > electron in the ground-state orbit) would "refill" the atom, and get us > back to normal sized hydrogen. It was sort of...far out. To be honest, we > don't even know that ZPE exists in the sense that people rant about. > > Robert L. Forward had an interesting line of thought about interconverting > energy and momentum, specifically angular momentum ---> energy. It was a > nice idea, could be possible. But how do we DO it? > > Antimatter is not an energy source, it is an energy storage medium, and a > very inefficient one at that. So is gasoline. Thing is, time was on our > side for fossil fuels, and we got here after the hard work was already > done. In that sense, all cars are solar powered, there is just a rather > crummy conversion state in between. > > Now, if you want to get into violating baryon number and lepton number, > maybe there is some way to "burn" matter into energy directly, say, make > some sort of thing that converts 50% of your matter feed stock into > antimatter, and the leftover 50% of normal matter does the rest. Better > convert an equal number of baryons and leptons too, otherwise we get into > charge conservation violations. If we can do that, then we are all set. But > how do we do that? > > At some point, people were making blocks of very heavy, poisonous metals > and got the idea to set a couple blocks close to each other, and then > energy came from apparently nowhere. Who would have ever thought that > something so *stupid* would ever do anything? Yet, here we are with nuclear > reactors. The point is, the answers are undoubtedly there; but finding them > is probably a mixture of (hopefully correct) insight, prayer, and pure damn > luck. Trying to avoid aplastic anemia in the process is also probably a > good thing. Now back to the subject.... > > We don't even NEED a breakthrough right now. We can build solar > concentrating thermal collectors in the desert, and wind farms as well just > to be safe, and solve this whole bloody problem. With today's technology. > Actually 1970's technology. But I seriously doubt it is going to happen > with Republicans or Democrats in power. Who else is there though? I don't > know. > > > If nothing else, we have fossil fuel reserves enough to last for 1000 > > years. Now there are a number of problems which are going to have to be > > resolved, like where to get enough air to burn it, and your children will > > have to convert to Islam. > > Fossil fuels are far more valuable, I think, as chemical feedstocks than to > be literally sent up in smoke. We need them for fertilizers, plastics, all > sorts of synthetics, etc. Why waste them by burning them up? No, we need to > make our electricity from the only known fusion reactor that actually works > and self sustains (the Sun, for those denser'n lead), and make our own > synthetic fuels from them. > > I too hate the idea of "conservation". So why not build ourselves such an > energy resource that we no longer need to conserve? And one that is clean > to boot? I have serious doubts that we are causing "global warming", but if > we have a nice solution that doesn't pollute, why not use it? > > --Kyle
Absolutely agree on the conserve part. Conservation never made anybody prosper. It only caused depression and stagflation as industry started to leave to cheaper labor countries. After all, it was energy production that raised us up from muscle labor intensive backbreaking work and made us more productive than slave economies, bringing prosperity to us and to our families. Now to give away our energy advantage is to invite the return of slave economics. It is that simple. Business looks for the cheapest way of doing a job. If energy is not available for smart people to do the job because they are 'conserving and having fewer children', then business will leave that place and go to the place with the most cheap hands to do it manually the old way, like the ancient Babylonians. Slaves. And the slavery will come here too. It will come in little ways like the 'illegal immigrants'. These will depress wages, and you will see them everywhere doing odd jobs that used to be done by citizens. It will be said that citizens do not want the work, but the empty words will only mean that the citizens will not do the work for peonage wages. More immigrants will come and wages will gravitate still lower. The end would be when creditors of citizens ask the government for the ability to make and enforce indentured servitude on debtors. Excuses for doing this abound. Take child support payments. Everybody wants to 'help the children' don't they? Look at our prison systems. G Gordon Liddy wrote in the seventies that most of the residents of the American penal system were 'non-support cases'. That is in reallity a debtors prison system. This is not to excuse the 'gaddy daddies' among our citizens and illegal aliens, but only to show how easy it is to justify maintaining de facto labor indentures in a modern society. There are plenty of debtors now. People that remember the good old days and refused to let go of the dream long after it faded to dust. From indentured servitude to labor contracts in perpetuity to slavery to the old slave market is only a short series of steps backward into a dark past that will become a horrific future if conervationists have their way. By the way. Slavers often use and used religion to encourage the having of many children. This was done for generations in the American south to overpopulate the place in order to create labor surplus market conditions. In the south, kickbacks were often the norm, and supervisors ran roughshod over employees that were little more than scared rabbits. Now the would be slavers have a new source of overpopulation. When our citizens showed responsibility and had fewer children so as to be less a footprint on the environment, this created a population 'vacuum'. This vacuum created by our so called good judgement is now being filled by the refuse of the world so that they can take the jobs we thought to provide for our children. Now that's justice, aint it? It is time the American people woke up while we still have a country to wake up in. Standing Bear PS. somebody invented a solar cell that is converts over forty percent of its recieved sunlight into electricity. Now I spent a great deal of time in our good old southwest. And one thing that really stands out is how hot the sun is in the deserts. We have huge areas of them. I could fry eggs on a smooth rock on the shores of Pyramid Lake in Nevada or Mono Lake in California. Once built, solar facilities' maintainance would consist mainly of just dusting the collectors in a well run facility.
