And this is the coolest damn water spout I have ever seen with a lightning
bolt down the middle.  Do you know they still do not know what causes
lightning?



On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:24 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jim,
> BTW, I worked for the same company as this guy for 10 years @ Sandwell
> Engineering (I was in their Atlanta office but went/back & forth to
> Vancouver, BC)
> "Dr. Stephen Ramsay is a professional engineer and mathematician
> specializing in engineering meteorology and risk assessment with Sandwell
> Engineering, Vancouver, B.C."
>
> I understand the hot/cold air vortex concept.  I really don't have much of
> an idea of the energy/efficiency balance.  Their claim:
> “When the vortex is less than 20 meters in height, [generated power] is
> invisible,” he says. As the vortex size increases, the amount of energy
> produced increases exponentially, Michaud’s theory predicts."
>
> They need to prove they will get an exponential increase in energy. I
> don't necessarily agree with their theory.  Mesoscale tornadoes are
> generated beneath strong jet streams rotating and pulling a strong vacuum
> from above and also generating gravitational waves in the atmosphere as
> predicted by Einstein and shown clearly over Moore, OK and Joplin, MO and
> During Hurricane Sandy.  Here are a couple of pictures from my research, I
> have more on my blog
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stewart
> darkmattersalot.com
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:35 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> See slide 19 of:
>>
>> http://vortexengine.ca/PPP/AVEtec_Business_Case.pdf
>>
>> Bottom line:
>>
>> If LENR doesn't pan out as an electrical generating system, Atmospheric
>> Vortex Engines are the next best thing.
>>
>> If LENR does pan out as an electrical generating system, Atmospheric
>> Vortex Engines are not only still hard to beat, at 300 mil/W capital cost,
>> 0 variable operating cost and 1mil/W fixed operating cost, but they can be
>> used with the larger centralized energy users (there will be _some_) to
>> relatively efficiently (up to 20%) cogenerate from the waste heat.
>>
>
>

Reply via email to