--- Lawrence de Bivort wrote: > Is there any particular cognitive or sociological > key to the false or > exaggerated claims in the energy-engine field?
Most definitely - but it is far from a new phenomenon. On the biochemical level, I suspect that it is an adjunct, or even a perversion, of the same neural pathways which inbue most humans with the generalized 'need' for the "hero" (or divinity). "Need" does not necessarily negate an underlying level of reality, however; unless you also believe that modern science is nearly infallible (which is nearly the opposite perversion, and equally indefensible IMHO). Aside from theology, there is plenty of evidence of this kind of thing in Ancient times (mystical technology)- secret machines to build the Pyramids, Vimana, magic carpets, the Hebrew Ark and sono-weaponized Rabbis to bring down enemy walls (Jericho), Bessler wheels, etc etc... One of my favorites is the 'perpetual' "Botafumeiro" a famous thurible at the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela which was rumored to be in continuous unattended motion for many years, before it drew too much unwanted attention. In modern times, the fascination of this merger of technology and mysticism has been artfully captured in David Mamet's play "The Water Engine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water_Engine BTW the TV version of the play had a great cast and is worth viewing. And - just as life often imitates art - there is a whole misguided cult which has grown up around a more modern Charles Lang - his name: Stanley Meyer. Which brings up another facet of the phenomenon: Going hand-in-hand with the exaggerated claims of magic-tek are the even more exaggerated claims of "suppression" and high level conspiracy. Hey- the alternative-energy field is a treasure-trove for sociologists- in which small grains of truth are imbedded within massive tonnage of clinical-level pathology -BUT- and I cannot stress the contradiction enough - there are a few of us who realize all of this but still rationally suspect that "there is a way". IOW that the fascination of this merger of technology and mysticism - does indeed rest on kernels of truth which modern physics has largely missed, sometimes intentionally. That is why the "Z" word (ZPE) conjures up all kinds of quasi-mysticism.... to the point that it is best avoided, even though it rests on stronger science that many well-funded pet projects of the "mainstream". Jones --- Lawrence de Bivort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many thanks, Michel. I was traveling and missed the > discussion. The > introduction route that the article reports made me > wonder whether this > might be 'too good to be true.' How do I find my > way to the archives? > > Generally, to members of the list: > > On a much larger question, and not referring to the > compressed air car, I > wonder if the energy-engine field lends itself more > readily to exaggerated > (or even crack-pot) claims more than other fields? > > Is there something about it -- the universal and > eternal desire for a > machine that will do anything we want to for > nothing, the current worry over > energy sources, the sometimes counter-intuitive (to > the lay-person) > mechanics of energy conversion, the relatively cheap > entry cost for > newcomers to the field, the levels of interest and > publicity that attend the > announcement of such claims, etc. -- that makes it > vulnerable to successive > claims and disappointments? > > Is there any particular cognitive or sociological > key to the false or > exaggerated claims in the energy-engine field? > > Your thoughts? > > Lawrence > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:15 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: [Vo]:Re: Compressed air car > > Lawrence, > > We discussed Guy Negre's CAT cars about a month ago, > cf the archive look for > "compressed air" in the subject lines. IIRC we came > to the conclusion that > out of the ~12kWh mechanical energy the 300 bar 300L > compressed air tanks > can give you, about 9kWh must come from the > environment (expanding air gets > cold, and heat energy is taken from the environment > to bring it back to > ambient temperature and thus to its full original > volume). In effect it' sa > heat pump mechanism. Also Robin judiciously noted > that when you compress the > air at home, if you're clever enough to capture the > equal valued (9kWh) > compression heat e.g. for domestic hot water, the > 12kWh you will get only > cost you 3kWh! > > The article you quote tells clearly how the > auxiliary fuel is used for > longer trips: it heats the air even further to make > it occupy even more > volume... I must admit that I am a bit surprised > that this trick can be so > efficient that it yields 120 miles per gallon of > fuel, if this is for real > the guy must have put his finger on the most > efficient way to turn > combustion energy into mechanical energy! > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:32 PM > Subject: [Vo]:Compressed air car > > > Source: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7241909.stm > > "An engineer has promised that within a year he will > start selling a car > that runs on compressed air, producing no emissions > at all in town. > > The OneCAT will be a five-seater with a glass fibre > body, weighing just > 350kg and could cost just over £2,500. > > It will be driven by compressed air stored in > carbon-fibre tanks built into > the chassis. > > The tanks can be filled with air from a compressor > in just three minutes - > much quicker than a battery car. > > Alternatively, it can be plugged into the mains for > four hours and an > on-board compressor will do the job. > > For long journeys the compressed air driving the > pistons can be boosted by a > fuel burner which heats the air so it expands and > increases the pressure on > the pistons. The burner will use all kinds of liquid > fuel. > > The designers say on long journeys the car will do > the equivalent of 120mpg. > In town, running on air, it will be cheaper than > that." > > SNIP > > >
