[Vo]: abundant recycled energy
Burning fossil fuels adds a burden new thermal energy plus waste heat to the planet plus pervasive heat where CO2 added to the atmosphere holds heat for a long time. Clean fusion will add new thermal energy plus a burden of waste heat to the planet without adding pervasive heat. FRE will absorb as much heat as it releases without directly involving greenhouse gases. FRE will support many people doing a lot of things. How much energy people use will depend on personal attitudes as socialized. I think that most people will be reasonable about energy use and appreciate elegant design. The psychological advice of not paying attention to undesirable behavior may keep people from pointless behavior. For example, the behavior of destroying something rather than giving it away will not persist. Therefore things will be restored and repaired where reasonable. Also, I don't think many women will change their clothes more than ten times a day just because clothes will be cheap and easily cleaned and repaired by robotic menders. I don't know if people will stop covering themselves with blankets when they sleep just because they can heat a room with a lot of fresh air cheaply for there is a custom in India of piling a lot of blankets on a guest as a gesture of hospitality to help them relax and get to sleep. Quiet cordless refrigerators, cheap stoves, small personal washing machines and cordless big sharp T.V. will allow people to nest if they are so inclined. Cheap energy will allow communities to create new ecological features. Estuaries can be created rather than destroyed. This will require careful consideration because there is a role for bare coasts. If more people live in the tropics so there is more building cooling than heating than there can be an energy surplus that can be used to extract CO2 from the air and decompose it. This may be worth doing. The synthesized carbon would be very pure. Energy can also be deliberately microwaved away from the planet. I don't think that thermal infra red can be preferentially directed from one radiative panel to another by lenses. I would substitute an infra red rectenna as a practical means for converting background infra red to electricity. I believe that the diode array is the most practical energy recycling device. I would prefer calling it Cheap Recycled Energy because cheap is easier to support than free. Aloha, Charlie
[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 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
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 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
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
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
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
- 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
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
[Vo]: Another Google Video about cold fusion
See: "Phenomenon Archives: Heavy Watergate, The War Against Cold Fusion" This is mainly composed of clips from "Fire from Water." It is kind of an angry version of "Fire from Water." http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=222951174860205&q=cold+fusion Duration: 46 minutes Views: 15,925 - Jed
[Vo]: Another Variant of Cold Fusion
Have you all seen this? Have I just not been paying attention? http://www.science.edu/TechoftheYear/TechoftheYear.htm Craig Haynie Houston
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 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]: Another Variant of Cold Fusion
- Original Message From: Craig Haynie > Have you all seen this? Have I just not been paying attention? Ha... you were the one looking at the Penthouse centerfold instead ... eight hits for that ol' buzzard in the Vo archives last year: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l%40eskimo.com&q=Bussard++
RE: [Vo]: Another Variant of Cold Fusion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606 Regards, Dean McGowan Original Message Follows From: "Craig Haynie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Subject: [Vo]: Another Variant of Cold Fusion Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:51:53 -0600 Have you all seen this? Have I just not been paying attention? http://www.science.edu/TechoftheYear/TechoftheYear.htm Craig Haynie Houston
Re: [Vo]:
Wesley Bruce wrote: Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.'s message of Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:33:32 -0700: Hi, [snip] Some half-baked ideas from memory on previous lists (somewhat jocularly): Buying cheap land under high tension power lines. Selling energy stocks ( and the many subsidiary industry stocks) short. Starting filling station remodeling companies. Buying Neodymium (The Chinese have already cornered that market :-( ). Making retrofit car engines. Inventing heat dissipation technology for portable devices. Selling road and sidewalk heaters to melt snow in north east cities. Build perpetual hot air balloons. Selling power back to the power companies (~US$60.00 per day for a residential generator unit). Desalination plants. No more concern for energy efficiency in homes, vehicles -- the end of the insulation business. No more interest in the middle east at all -- let them go their own way. Extracting gold from sea water. Making gasoline from air and water. Disinfecting drinking and pool water by boiling it. Selling scrap power plant parts. Dismantling wind farms and hydro plants. Replace broadcast antenna towers with perpetually hovering helicopters. Completely new airplane designs where no fuel has to be onboard, and efficiency doesn't matter. Self heating soup cans. Self cooling soft drink cans. Car air conditioners and heaters that are on all the time. Send your car up into the air ( hot air balloon or helicopter rotor) or around the block 'til you call it back -- no parking places needed. Buildings supported by compressed air (should be more immune to earthquakes as well as cheaper). They are worse than half-baked, they are suicidal. Let's hope that humanity has enough sense to avoid such stupidity. We currently have a global warming problem, *at least* partially driven by the greenhouse effect. While FE would solve that problem, extreme profligate waste will create a new problem of direct heat overload. It is therefore imperative that efficiency measures be continued along with the introduction of FE. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means. You folk's need to read the old fusion facts papers on cold fusion the planetary heating proble was dealt with a decade and a half ago by Hal Fox et al. oups never write at 3 am when you have dyslexia. lol That should read: You folk's need to read the old fusion facts papers on cold fusion. The planetary heating problem was dealt with a decade and a half ago by Hal Fox et al.
[Vo]: Comet
Anyone been able to see the new comet (McNaught)? http://www.spaceweather.com/ Brightest in 30 years or more... some Vids are on YouTube
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 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
