Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Other Means

Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap

Recommended Posts

Stayed with the Greek side of our family for a few days in Athens.

Hot water was "rationed" due to it having to be heated by electrical heaters (=expensive).

All this with 40 degrees Celsius outside and torrid sunlight outside all day long!

Drove me c.r.a.z.y!

Best regards,

Thomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expert opinions from the International Energy Association can be heard behind this link (in Finnish besides interview parts).

Interesting English language tidbits can be heard in irregular intervals between 9 m 30 s and 15 m 10s.

Some guy talks about European energy sector mergers, sees them to offer some benefits and some negatives, but stresses out that electricity distribution networks should be set apart from the old state-owned and new mostly privately owned integrated energy giants, according to already existing Finnish model or so, if I'm not completely mistaken myself. Getting the supposed benefits (for consumers, I hope) from free competition inside Europe requires actual cross-borders competition between producers in this regard, even if progress to this direction has been relatively slow inside Europe (EU), due to inter-European wrangling.

Also, same guy offers a strong opinion against the current German government policy of getting rid of the nuclear energy altogether, especially if the country in question claims to be the leading country of new environment friendly and climate change conscious practices.

My opinion: Same can be said about Sweden, which might turn the overall Northern European situation hairy, IMHO. Grid is not capable enough to distribute energy all-European wide economically, starting from basic physics things like unavoidable current losses. We need electricity generating capacity in all corners of Europe (EU), IMO.

Especially if we as Europeans don't want to rely exclusively on natural gas imports (coal being a no-go, even if it is in the German plans to build 27(!) new plants), and speaking about potentially unreliable non-EU producers like Russia, Algeria and Libya. Also, one of the major corporate actors (= the Kreml) in this field, Russian Gazprom, is seen as a bit spooky, as it seems to involve itself more acquiring foreign assets than actually developing the reserves in Russia. (This was said by the other expert from the IEA.)

My opinion: As from our Finnish experience, we already have experienced the Russian companies (= the Kreml) can't always deliver the amount of electricity commonly agreed, based on grid problems and the fact that in peak load times they put their internal consumers first, even if we pay absolutely the top euro from it. Even though natural gas deliveries have being quite stable, probably Russia seems to favor her German and Nordic customers, partly because she has no other option as she hopes to get permission procedures to so smoothly in order to lay a new undersea natural gas pipeline to Germany (with extension lines to Finland and Sweden). What both German and Nordic countries should acknowledge, the main reason for this project from the Russian perspective is to overcome the dependency of existing pipelines situated in Eastern Europe, which in a way is a direct attempt to divide the EU, which might or not might not be in the best long-term interests of Germany, despite the strong backing by the German social democratic party, the SPD.

What ever the grand scheme of things, it is not possible to rely on imports what comes to electricity (and it's nuclear energy anyways), considering also those peak times occur in mid-winter, possibly leading to major problems for common customers.

Sounds that both of these IEA guys have valuable things to say to citizens of Europe. Considering also that popular majority support for continuing nuclear energy production in Germany and Sweden is recently beginning to emerge again. In the meantime, Finland offers a focal point for all those operators that are interested in this nuclear energy option what comes to already largely free functioning and competitive energy markets, even if these guys questioned do not say a thing about this angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend tells me T. Boone Pickens was on The Lou Dobbs Show last night on CNN and was, if anything, even more vociferous in his insistence on the need to move America away from oil. He's pushing hard for natural gas, which we're awash in, wants Congress to pass energy legislation with real teeth requiring all future government vehicles bought be able to run on it. He figures this alone would force the rise of the requisite fueling and support infrastructure. Further, it turns out U.S. manufacturers already make natural gas powered cars, just not for this market. If we continue on our present disastrous path and associated hyper hemorrhage of money to the oil exporters, T. Boone figures this country has a decade left. According to him, the U.S. has had no real energy policy for 40 years.

In other news, a Hollywood producer has taken delivery at the factory of the first fuel cell powered car. My friend tells me that a comparison of U.S., European and Japanese fuel cells made on the show was embarrassing to everyone but the Japanese, whose cell was tiny compared to the clunky U.S. and European produced versions.

Finally, I wanted to let you all know that the new issue of ATLANTIS RISING (digital download already available) has a hybrid car story I wrote after it practically fell into my lap. Turns out my mechanic knew and was in and driven around Goleta in the hydraulic hybrid Pinto invented by Gene Mollinet back in the early 1980s. Not only was this car a fully functioning hydraulic hybrid, but it used an extremely advanced energy from the vacuum device to power the hydraulic motor. There was a real company, real stock, public demos of the devices, newspaper coverage, etc. I personally spoke with some of the people who knew him, did work for him or knew of him, including the founder of Hybra-Drive, LLC the firm doing a hydraulic hybrid Hummer for the Army.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only was this car a fully functioning hydraulic hybrid, but it used an extremely advanced energy from the vacuum device to power the hydraulic motor. There was a real company, real stock, public demos of the devices, newspaper coverage, etc.

Perhaps if this vacuum energy technology and company is so real then with over 20 years head start it'll romp away with the multi-million prize and all our problems will be solved...

The Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize is a global competition offering $10 million in prizes to teams that can develop commercially viable cars able to travel 100 miles on one gallon of petrol, or the equivalent energy in another form.

http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oskosh truck just came out with a hybrid HEMITT. What makes it interesting is that it uses ultracapictors instead of batteries. I think it's really interesting that a small Wisconsin company can come up with better technology than Toyota or GM in regards to hybrid technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it mass manufacturable at a competitive price? How much does it weigh? What are the maintenance implications? What is the physical size?

All the best

Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turns out my mechanic knew and was in and driven around Goleta in the hydraulic hybrid Pinto invented by Gene Mollinet back in the early 1980s. Not only was this car a fully functioning hydraulic hybrid, but it used an extremely advanced energy from the vacuum device to power the hydraulic motor.

Ah yes....Gene Mollinet and his zero point/over unity "device".....yet another perpetual motion machine that has strangely failed to make any commercial impact.........who would have thought..

There was a real company, real stock, public demos of the devices, newspaper coverage, etc.

Well the newspaper coverage is in the link above, and lets face it, $100 gets you "a real company with real stock" - I had that much in one about the same time...... it sold wargaming books ...which I guess may have included fairy tales too.....

so people drove in this car.....did anyone actually examine the engine and the "vacuum device"??

Here's some more:

Free Energy Generators

Lajos (“Louie”) Szucs (Magnetic Field Motor) Democrat & Chronicle (Rochester, NY) Wed. Sept. 4. 1991

John W. Gulley (Electric Engine)

Eric Davenport (Dynamic/Rotating E/M Unit)

Alexsandr V. Chernetskii (Plasma Generator)

John Ecklin (Combined Motor and Alternator-Brushless Combined Motor and Alternator)

Arthur Adams (Strange Electrical Metal) Yorkshire Evening Post April 7 & 8, 1976; Daily Express April 10, 1976; Fortean Times, Oct. 1985

John O. Webb (“Perpetual” Motion Motor)

Frank D. Markhana (Perpetual Battery) U.S. Patent #4,390,605

Harry M. Brown (Magnasource Unit; Perpetual Power Corporation, Seattle, Wa.)

James C. Fletcher Electromagnetic Wave Energy Converter U.S. Patent #3,760,257 Sept. 18, 1973

Gene Mollinet (“LE M3” Self-Powered Energy Unit)

Goleta Sun, Tuesday, Aug 28, 198? pg. 3

Geoffrey M. Spence (Energy Conversion System) U.S. Patent #4,772,816 Sept. 20, 1988

C.E. Ammann (Atmospheric Generator) (Article Source Unknown.) Monday, Aug. 2, 1921 : “Denver Man Invents Generator That Takes Electricity From Air and Propels Automobile”

Fill yer boots....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, no. My thread. Keep yer perpetual motion machines, vacuum drives and sightings of Germans with a sense of humour in those "other" threads that I avoid.

Keep this to questioning Andreas as to why my elecy is still not "too cheap to meter".

Humph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it mass manufacturable at a competitive price? How much does it weigh? What are the maintenance implications? What is the physical size?

All the best

Andreas

Oshkosh truck makes stuff mainly for the military, so I'd imagine the cost and manufacturing capabilities were good enough for the DOD.

A3-1.jpg

This new hybrid HEMITT can carry a load of 13 tons, so the power is there. This could easily be transfered over to the commercial truck industry for the LTL companies.

26,000 pounds is pretty light for groceries, as the average is between 34-38 thousand, but all it means is making more runs per delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, no. My thread. Keep yer perpetual motion machines, vacuum drives and sightings of Germans with a sense of humour in those "other" threads that I avoid.

Keep this to questioning Andreas as to why my elecy is still not "too cheap to meter".

Humph.

This may seem crazy, but maybe the reason why there was a push for nuclear energy was because of the need for weapons materials during the cold war.

Now, the only possible way for the nuclear companies to exist is to take money from taxpayers. The bankers from London and New York won't touch nuclear for good reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may seem crazy, but maybe the reason why there was a push for nuclear energy was because of the need for weapons materials during the cold war.

Now, the only possible way for the nuclear companies to exist is to take money from taxpayers. The bankers from London and New York won't touch nuclear for good reasons.

You are mistaken in your second statement and if you'd read the link in the original post you'll see why.

Welcome to the forum BTW :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Some guy" - that would be me. :) Thanks for the feedback.

Did he use my "deal of the century" soundbite?

All the best

Andreas

Your bit seems to start at about 9:20

Now my ears are bleeding :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are mistaken in your second statement and if you'd read the link in the original post you'll see why.

Welcome to the forum BTW :)

But I've read the link in the original post. The article fails to ask why the bankers refused to give out loans to the nuclear companies. It's widely known that nuclear only exists because of of government subsidies, at least in the U.S. Why did all the major utility companies add wind power rather than nuclear? They aren't stupid or easily pressured; and if they saw nuclear power as a better option, they would go for it. I'm not an expert on energy sources, but simply following the trends of utility companies tells you that nuclear power has no future.

Would it be accurate to say that nuclear power is more popular in Europe because of more government intervention?

There are studies from hundreds of professors, all of which have conflicting views on nuclear power, so it makes it hard for average joe to decide on which authority he wants to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other Means,

Suggest you look up the Coler apparatus and the Strommzeuger. The source material on them's impeccable, being declassified WW II British intel B.I.O.S. (Basic Intelligence Objective Subcommittee ) data derived from inventor interrogation, hands on experience with the devices, as well as access to the relevant German patents and German scientists involved with them directly. going clear back to the mid 1920s.

http://www.rexresearch.com/coler/coler2.htm

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=52006

Further note the procedural similarity between Coler's Strommzeuger and what the article about the Mollinet LEM3 device says. Both rely on a kind of energetic priming before becoming operational and running that way indefinitely. Coler was using a 6 KW Stromzeuger to power his house, and the technology has been independently reproduced, tested and shown to work, albeit on a very small scale.

Oh, and while much of establishment science can't be bothered to run the experiments on the New Energy and much else, or rejects the evidence unread and crucifies the researchers (see Pons & Fleischmann, for example, despite 600 successful CF experiments worldwide, including Office of Naval Research, China Lake)) this guy has built dozens of such devices and run them, including recent successful lifter tests conducted in the NASA High Vacuum Facility at Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. I'll be happy to refer anyone seriously interested to proof that these devices are NOT perpetual motion devices, though they seem to break a stack of laws when viewed from this frame of reference.

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's Naudin's own replication of the patented Bearden et al. MEG Note that renowned scientist Myron Evans wades in with a paper solidly placing this and similar devices in the framework of contemporary physics. The book was printed in three volumes as MODERN NONLINEAR OPTICS, 2nd Edition, Myron W. Evans, Editor. The publisher was Wiley, known for authoritative scientific and technical books.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm

Bearden et al. MEG

http://www.cheniere.org/

Bottom Line? These sorts of devices, despite seemingly contradicting a pile of scientific laws (when viewed solely from our 3-D spatial frame of reference), a) work and B) can rigorously be shown to fit into contemporary physics, including Nobel prize discoveries. It's time to fund proper research and staff it with people whose minds aren't already made up and who have vested interests (rice bowls, reputations, academic positions, etc.) in seeing the experiments fail. Time for electrical engineering to catch up with physics!

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A friend tells me T. Boone Pickens was on The Lou Dobbs Show last night on CNN and was, if anything, even more vociferous in his insistence on the need to move America away from oil. He's pushing hard for natural gas, which we're awash in, wants Congress to pass energy legislation with real teeth requiring all future government vehicles bought be able to run on it. He figures this alone would force the rise of the requisite fueling and support infrastructure. Further, it turns out U.S. manufacturers already make natural gas powered cars, just not for this market. If we continue on our present disastrous path and associated hyper hemorrhage of money to the oil exporters, T. Boone figures this country has a decade left. According to him, the U.S. has had no real energy policy for 40 years.

In other news, a Hollywood producer has taken delivery at the factory of the first fuel cell powered car. My friend tells me that a comparison of U.S., European and Japanese fuel cells made on the show was embarrassing to everyone but the Japanese, whose cell was tiny compared to the clunky U.S. and European produced versions.

Regards,

John Kettler

T. Boone stands to benefit enormously from both private and public investments if his plan were adopted. I'm not saying that he doesn't have good intentions and intelligent reasons for this campaign, but he is no neutral party and it's not like this is the first time he's made big, risky investments.

I'm wary of anyone who advocates for government policy that will channel taxpayers money into his own pockets. If T. Boone wants cash for his project from me, he should only ask for it from me directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oshkosh truck makes stuff mainly for the military, so I'd imagine the cost and manufacturing capabilities were good enough for the DOD.

Which means it is probably unaffordable for anyone who is not spending taxpayer's money.

By your logic, one has to applaud Lockheed for being able to produce the F-22, which is technologically far advanced over the Airbus 320, and wonder what that says about Lockheed's technological abilities compared to Airbus.

All the best

Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep this to questioning Andreas as to why my elecy is still not "too cheap to meter".

Humph.

That claim was bollocks then, and it is now.

All the best

Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

akd,

That thought crossed my mind, too. Even so, right now, we're on a train headed over not merely a cliff, but into the Grand Canyon. T. Boone at least offers a survivable train ride.

For real excitement, though, if you like wind power, consider this: artificial tornadoes

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080625-pf-vortex-engine.html

If you're going to do wind power, why mess about? Besides, imagine the associated notices to pilots. "Caution! Avoid approaching within x of the facility between angels

0 and 20,000 feet! Man made tornado!"

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I've read the link in the original post. The article fails to ask why the bankers refused to give out loans to the nuclear companies. It's widely known that nuclear only exists because of of government subsidies, at least in the U.S. Why did all the major utility companies add wind power rather than nuclear? They aren't stupid or easily pressured; and if they saw nuclear power as a better option, they would go for it. I'm not an expert on energy sources, but simply following the trends of utility companies tells you that nuclear power has no future.

Would it be accurate to say that nuclear power is more popular in Europe because of more government intervention?

There are studies from hundreds of professors, all of which have conflicting views on nuclear power, so it makes it hard for average joe to decide on which authority he wants to follow.

No, it wouldn't be.

The reason why it is not popular in the US relates to life cycle and mostly broken and unfavorable law system.

In nuclear, there isn't any major externalities to talk about, the whole process is being "priced" accordingly and can be read from balance sheets, whereas in other forms of generation there are lots of costs that are not incurred to their "rightful owners" and are thus omitted.

Whether we apply "polluter pays" or not, taxpayer can do it too, you know! :)

You got the get the carbon and other such emissions down even in power generation (not just traffic and other pet peeves), failure to do so will probably lead to both 1) customer rejection of US produced products and 2) penalty tariffs levied on US exports in the probable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I've read the link in the original post. The article fails to ask why the bankers refused to give out loans to the nuclear companies. It's widely known that nuclear only exists because of of government subsidies, at least in the U.S. Why did all the major utility companies add wind power rather than nuclear? They aren't stupid or easily pressured; and if they saw nuclear power as a better option, they would go for it. I'm not an expert on energy sources, but simply following the trends of utility companies tells you that nuclear power has no future.

Would it be accurate to say that nuclear power is more popular in Europe because of more government intervention?

There are studies from hundreds of professors, all of which have conflicting views on nuclear power, so it makes it hard for average joe to decide on which authority he wants to follow.

Even if what you've stated is correct it has nothing to do with the question under consideration, which is what is the best way to proceed with power generation. Besides, given the environmental pressure that the nuclear industry was working under they wouldn't have been a good bet anyway - pretty soon that pressure will be working in the opposite direction. Ironic really.

Really, it's either that or go to a very low energy economy, and those aren't fun.

John Kettler - I never follow any of the links you give, I just wait for them to be disproved in the following post. If you want to start a thread with these things in please do so, please don't discuss them here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...