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
