|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > October 2005 > So who needs oil or nuclear power?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
So who needs oil or nuclear power?
|
|
| acbiggs@mindspring.com 2005-10-08, 3:21 pm |
|
Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
the planet.
| |
| GeekBoy 2005-10-08, 6:21 pm |
| Don't waste your time with this technobabble.
<acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax.com...
>
> Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
> description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
> vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
> combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
> Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
>
> It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
> extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
> apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
> stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
> middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
> its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
> everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
>
> The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
> redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
> folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
> the planet.
>
| |
| Bill Ward 2005-10-08, 7:21 pm |
| On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:43:30 GMT, acbiggs@mindspring.com
wrote:
>
>Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
>description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
>vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
>combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
>Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
>
>It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
>extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
>apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
>stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
>middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
>its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
>everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
Wave action via tethered gyroscopes on a boat. Absolutely
no danger of making anyone wealthy.
>
>The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
>redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
>folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
>the planet.
Wanna bet?
Regards,
Bill Ward
>
| |
| Roger Coppock 2005-10-08, 7:21 pm |
| LIke the "self-winding" watch, this will provide power
and may even propel a ship. HOWEVER, there are
places on the sea called "Doldrums" where there are
no waves or air currents at all.
When I took my two-master through them, you could
use the sea for a mirror. We had to wait a couple of
weeks to catch a puff of wind. This scheme, like the
sails of my boat, would not work in the Doldrums.
Another related energy scheme is tidal force, where
bays are damed to generate electricity.
| |
| Melchizedek 2005-10-08, 8:21 pm |
|
Roger Coppock wrote:
> LIke the "self-winding" watch, this will provide power
> and may even propel a ship. HOWEVER, there are
> places on the sea called "Doldrums" where there are
> no waves or air currents at all.
>
> When I took my two-master through them, you could
> use the sea for a mirror. We had to wait a couple of
> weeks to catch a puff of wind. This scheme, like the
> sails of my boat, would not work in the Doldrums.
>
> Another related energy scheme is tidal force, where
> bays are damed to generate electricity.
So what are the downside of deploying floating solar panels which
electrolyze sea water, with regular LH2 ship traffic making pickup and
delivery? Sounds like millions of sq. miles of real estate that even
nature wouldn't care if it was patchwork covered over.
H2-powered ships with PV cladding could leave port virtually empty and
arrive home full. What's the downside?
| |
| Steve Bloom 2005-10-08, 8:21 pm |
|
"Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@USA.com> wrote in message
news:1128810762.955218.17200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>
> So what are the downside of deploying floating solar panels which
> electrolyze sea water, with regular LH2 ship traffic making pickup and
> delivery? Sounds like millions of sq. miles of real estate that even
> nature wouldn't care if it was patchwork covered over.
>
> H2-powered ships with PV cladding could leave port virtually empty and
> arrive home full. What's the downside?
>
With current technology, the downside is cost. There are a lot of promising
prospects for greatly enhancing the efficiency of solar, and what we need is
a "Manhattan Project"-type effort to bring them to fruition. With the
oilies in charge, we have no such thing of course. Prgress continues, but
much slower than it ought to and too slowly to have much short-term hope for
the kind of thing you describe.
| |
| dbohara@mindspring.com 2005-10-08, 8:21 pm |
| Roger:
Do you sail?
| |
| Happy Hippy 2005-10-08, 9:21 pm |
| Roger Coppock wrote:
> LIke the "self-winding" watch, this will provide power
> and may even propel a ship. HOWEVER, there are
> places on the sea called "Doldrums" where there are
> no waves or air currents at all.
>
> When I took my two-master through them, you could
> use the sea for a mirror. We had to wait a couple of
> weeks to catch a puff of wind. This scheme, like the
> sails of my boat, would not work in the Doldrums.
>
> Another related energy scheme is tidal force, where
> bays are damed to generate electricity.
>
Sure, require the tide to force
itself both into and out of the bay
through generators.
Aren't they doing that somewhere right now?
John
| |
| Melchizedek 2005-10-08, 9:21 pm |
|
Steve Bloom wrote:
> "Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@USA.com> wrote in message
> news:1128810762.955218.17200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> With current technology, the downside is cost. There are a lot of promising
> prospects for greatly enhancing the efficiency of solar, and what we need is
> a "Manhattan Project"-type effort to bring them to fruition. With the
> oilies in charge, we have no such thing of course. Prgress continues, but
> much slower than it ought to and too slowly to have much short-term hope for
> the kind of thing you describe.
Baloney. FUD from the oil, gas and coal carbon-lobby.
EMC was patented by the Black Talon Bullets, Winchester Ammo.
FUD-Meisters at Olin corporation over 40 years ago. It has been proven
in the commecial industrial metals industry that long. A series of 20
improvement patents were taken by Olin. In 1986 YOUR National Renewable
Energy Labs adapted the idea to Silicon -- after all, Si's melting
point is right in there among the various metals that EMC melts and
casts as ingots. NREL took out their patent on using EMC for PV SoG Si
ingot casting. Sumitomo Sitix in Japan and Seimens in Germany cast huge
quantities of the stuff, commercially, within the existing frameworks
of capitalism.
EMC PV SoG Si is mature and thoroughly proven. A chinese National
Laboratory has pages showing they are pursuing this agressively. The
patent is expired and anybody worldwide can ffollow the recipe.
EMC makes cheap Si PV fast in large bulk quantity. It is the lowest
cost, fastes technology known to the human race.
Computations show that solar panels covering 0.8 acres can power one
EMC furnace at 36KWs and that the solar power to duplicate 0.8 acres of
cells is 32 regular average sunny days. THat's about oncce per month
that the power supply duplicates by power of 2. In a year there are 12
duplications of powers of two:
2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 4096. THere's enough power in one 0.8 acres
to make 4,096 furnaces producing 17 GWs per year of new capacity. 4,096
x 0.8 acres is about 4 sq. miles of desert or prarie that nobody wants
anyway.
The same math covers floating doldrums.
Olin corporation has been a huge funder to science frauds to keep the
public ignorant and stupid. Olin Chlorine & Pollution supported
Lie-Factories receiving Olin loot...
http://www.mediatransparency.org/fu....php?funderID=7
http://www.mediatransparency.org/re....php?funderID=7
Heritage Foundation, The $8,320,835
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research $7,022,124
George Mason university $6,665,824
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace $5,015,660
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. $4,899,500
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, The $4,008,000
Columbia university $3,889,000
Pat Michaels & Fred Singer's base of some operations:
University of Virginia $3,479,066
Hudson Institute, Inc. $3,034,840
Council on Foreign Relations $1,392,000
Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation $1,375,000
Brookings Institution $1,217,000
Independent Women's Forum $776,000
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $735,000
Philanthropy Roundtable $729,000
Rockefeller university $500,000
Media Research Center, Inc. $495,000
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)
$484,250
Acton Institute For The Study of Religion and Liberty $390,500
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution $362,500
George C. Marshall Institute $350,000
American Law and Economics Association $316,398
Reason Foundation $276,500
Competitive Enterprise Institute $230,300
American Legislative Exchange Council $215,000
| |
| Androcles 2005-10-08, 9:21 pm |
|
"GeekBoy" <GeekBoy@Geeks.com> wrote in message
news:43482c80$0$13559$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
| Don't waste your time with this technobabble.
Or you.
*plonk*
Androcles.
|
| |
| LoreCaster 2005-10-09, 12:21 am |
| Melchizedek wrote:
> Steve Bloom wrote:
>
>
>
> Baloney. FUD from the oil, gas and coal carbon-lobby.
>
> EMC was patented by the Black Talon Bullets, Winchester Ammo.
> FUD-Meisters at Olin corporation over 40 years ago. It has been proven
> in the commecial industrial metals industry that long. A series of 20
> improvement patents were taken by Olin. In 1986 YOUR National Renewable
> Energy Labs adapted the idea to Silicon -- after all, Si's melting
> point is right in there among the various metals that EMC melts and
> casts as ingots. NREL took out their patent on using EMC for PV SoG Si
> ingot casting. Sumitomo Sitix in Japan and Seimens in Germany cast huge
> quantities of the stuff, commercially, within the existing frameworks
> of capitalism.
>
> EMC PV SoG Si is mature and thoroughly proven. A chinese National
> Laboratory has pages showing they are pursuing this agressively. The
> patent is expired and anybody worldwide can ffollow the recipe.
>
> EMC makes cheap Si PV fast in large bulk quantity. It is the lowest
> cost, fastes technology known to the human race.
>
> Computations show that solar panels covering 0.8 acres can power one
> EMC furnace at 36KWs and that the solar power to duplicate 0.8 acres of
> cells is 32 regular average sunny days. THat's about oncce per month
> that the power supply duplicates by power of 2. In a year there are 12
> duplications of powers of two:
> 2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2 = 4096. THere's enough power in one 0.8 acres
> to make 4,096 furnaces producing 17 GWs per year of new capacity. 4,096
> x 0.8 acres is about 4 sq. miles of desert or prarie that nobody wants
> anyway.
>
> The same math covers floating doldrums.
>
> Olin corporation has been a huge funder to science frauds to keep the
> public ignorant and stupid. Olin Chlorine & Pollution supported
> Lie-Factories receiving Olin loot...
>
> http://www.mediatransparency.org/fu....php?funderID=7
>
> http://www.mediatransparency.org/re....php?funderID=7
> Heritage Foundation, The $8,320,835
> American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research $7,022,124
> George Mason university $6,665,824
> Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace $5,015,660
> Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. $4,899,500
> Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, The $4,008,000
> Columbia university $3,889,000
>
> Pat Michaels & Fred Singer's base of some operations:
> university of Virginia $3,479,066
>
> Hudson Institute, Inc. $3,034,840
> Council on Foreign Relations $1,392,000
> Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation $1,375,000
> Brookings Institution $1,217,000
> Independent Women's Forum $776,000
> Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $735,000
> Philanthropy Roundtable $729,000
> Rockefeller university $500,000
> Media Research Center, Inc. $495,000
> Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)
> $484,250
> Acton Institute For The Study of Religion and Liberty $390,500
> Alexis de Tocqueville Institution $362,500
> George C. Marshall Institute $350,000
> American Law and Economics Association $316,398
> Reason Foundation $276,500
> Competitive Enterprise Institute $230,300
> American Legislative Exchange Council $215,000
>
What's an EMC furnace? and that much power is even possible though
solar?! holy crap!
- Robin
| |
| Science Cop 2005-10-09, 1:21 am |
|
LoreCaster wrote:
> Melchizedek wrote:
[color=darkred]
> What's an EMC furnace? and that much power is even possible though
> solar?! holy crap!
> - Robin
ElectroMagneic Casting is a process formerly under patent, but now
expired so that anyone can do it. The description is in the Patent
Office records.
Simply it is a corral of stainless steel tubes with water flowing
through to cool them from melting. Auound these tubes is coils of thick
busbars which carry radio frequency ergery at high power, like 36,000
watts. THe EMF (Electromagneic Force) of the radio waves cooks the
contents between the corral of tubes to melting point. The bottom is a
heat-protected graphite platform which can be slowly lowered. Material
is poured in on top. The melted material is repelled from the stainless
tubes by the EMF -- it is called electromagnetic levitation.
THe platform is lowered at a slow rate. The molten material below the
coils cools and solidifies. But continuing to replenish the matetial up
top you can draw out large blocks of solid cast material.
With Silicon, this hardens with mutiple crystallization points or
domains, and produces MultiCrystaline (MC) or PolyCrystaline (PC)
ingots. MC PV is not as efficient as Cz PV MonoCrystalline stock, but
the EMC process is so much cheaper and faster that "who cares"? When
you can turn out 20 times or 40 times as much PV waferstock per day as
Cz and your waferstock is half as efficient you still have produced a
lot more PV cell material for lots less energy or investment.
EMC PV SoG Si is 13% to 14% efficient. I always use the more
conservative figure so that surprises are toward the good surprise
rather than towards the disappointing surprize. 13% PV will make 12
watts DV per sq. ft.
MC PV will still make some juice in cloudy or less than direct hours,
so the average hours of sunlight are claimed as 7 average full hours
per day. This would vary by season, and by local climate cloud-cover. 7
hours per day covers much of the USA. 5 hours average in New England.
In summer you might get 14 hours of use.
a 2000 sq.ft house covered with PV could generate 2000 x 12 = 24KWs per
hour for 7 hours. Most homes can't use 24KWs. It comes out as DC.
Conversion to AC is desired, but DC is directly usable by people who
want more of their energy going into useful power instead of the losses
by conversion to AC electricity. AC can be stored by selling it to the
grid and drawing it back at night. DC can be stored as H2. Then you can
run your car off it.
Decentralized EMC PV SoG Si furnaces are about the size of an SUV and
cost less to make and use much less technology than an SUV. Local
cottage industries can handle the demand for PV waferstock in every
town and city. It is a totaly clean industry. It can't ever be
monopolized and controlled from central Kremlins.
| |
| Science Cop 2005-10-09, 1:21 am |
| Time for an insulin shot. When my spelling goes dyslexic I know I need
one.
| |
| Science Cop 2005-10-09, 2:21 am |
|
Let me post this again with the spelling errors fixed.
LoreCaster wrote:
> Melchizedek wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> What's an EMC furnace? and that much power is even possible though
> solar?! holy crap!
> - Robin
ElectroMagnetic Casting is a process formerly under patent, but now
expired so that anyone can do it. The description is in the Patent
Office records.
Simply it is a corral of stainless steel tubes with water flowing
through to cool them from melting. Around these tubes is coils of thick
busbars which carry radio frequency energy at high power, like 36,000
watts. The EMF (Electromagnetic Force) of the radio waves cooks the
contents between the corral of tubes to melting point. The bottom is a
heat-protected graphite platform which can be slowly lowered. Material
is poured in on top. The melted material is repelled from the stainless
tubes by the EMF -- it is called electromagnetic levitation.
The platform is lowered at a slow rate. The molten material below the
coils cools and solidifies. But continuing to replenish the matetial up
top you can draw out large blocks of solid cast material.
With Silicon, this hardens with multiple crystallization points or
domains, and produces MultiCrystaline (MC) or PolyCrystaline (PC)
ingots. MC PV is not as efficient as Cz PV MonoCrystalline stock, but
the EMC process is so much cheaper and faster that "who cares"? When
you can turn out 20 times or 40 times as much PV waferstock per day as
Cz and your waferstock is half as efficient you still have produced a
lot more PV cell material for lots less energy or investment.
EMC PV SoG Si is 13% to 14% efficient. I always use the more
conservative figure so that surprises are toward the good surprise
rather than towards the disappointing surprize. 13% PV will make 12
watts DC per sq. ft.
MC PV will still make some juice in cloudy or less than direct hours,
so the average hours of sunlight are claimed as 7 average full hours
per day. This would vary by season, and by local climate cloud-cover. 7
hours per day covers much of the USA. 5 hours average in New England.
In summer you might get 14 hours of use.
A 2000 sq.ft house covered with PV could generate 2000 x 12 = 24KWs per
hour for 7 hours. Most homes can't use 24KWs. It comes out as DC.
Conversion to AC is desired, but DC is directly usable by people who
want more of their energy going into useful power instead of the losses
by conversion to AC electricity. AC can be stored by selling it to the
grid and drawing it back at night. DC can be stored as H2. Then you can
run your car off it.
Decentralized EMC PV SoG Si furnaces are about the size of an SUV and
cost less to make and use much less technology than an SUV. Local
cottage industries can handle the demand for PV waferstock in every
town and city. It is a totaly clean industry. It can't ever be
monopolized and controlled from central Kremlins. The metallic-grade Si
feedstock is still monopoly controlled. Once people have some high
temperature experience we can show them the path out of that trap too.
| |
|
|
"Bill Ward" <bwardREMOVE@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:43483ab8.98263516@localhost...
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:43:30 GMT, acbiggs@mindspring.com
> wrote:
>
>
> Wave action via tethered gyroscopes on a boat. Absolutely
> no danger of making anyone wealthy.
>
> Wanna bet?
It is probably right, but vested interest will not allow it.
| |
|
|
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1128807125.782704.59310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> LIke the "self-winding" watch, this will provide power
> and may even propel a ship. HOWEVER, there are
> places on the sea called "Doldrums" where there are
> no waves or air currents at all.
It said to assist the main engines. Using a variety of energy sources, and
storage, a ship can use stored energy to get out of the doldrums.
> When I took my two-master through them, you could
> use the sea for a mirror. We had to wait a couple of
> weeks to catch a puff of wind. This scheme, like the
> sails of my boat, would not work in the Doldrums.
>
> Another related energy scheme is tidal force, where
> bays are damed to generate electricity.
| |
| Roger Coppock 2005-10-09, 7:21 am |
| Yes, I used to be Captain Coppock, "Master of Sail."
| |
|
|
"Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@USA.com> wrote in message
news:1128810762.955218.17200@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>
> So what are the downside of deploying floating solar panels which
> electrolyze sea water, with regular LH2 ship traffic making pickup and
> delivery? Sounds like millions of sq. miles of real estate that even
> nature wouldn't care if it was patchwork covered over.
>
> H2-powered ships with PV cladding could leave port virtually empty and
> arrive home full. What's the downside?
The downside is that people don't understand it because it hasn't been
around for 50 years. It is called ignorance...and self interest.
| |
|
|
"Happy Hippy" <J0HN@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:43485393$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>
> Sure, require the tide to force
> itself both into and out of the bay
> through generators.
> Aren't they doing that somewhere right now?
> John
St Marlo in France for the past 40 years and other places.
| |
|
|
"Science Cop" <sciencecop@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1128830442.248970.83090@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> LoreCaster wrote:
and[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
promising[color=darkred]
need is[color=darkred]
but[color=darkred]
hope for[color=darkred]
Renewable[color=darkred]
huge[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
4,096[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
> ElectroMagneic Casting is a process formerly under patent, but now
> expired so that anyone can do it. The description is in the Patent
> Office records.
>
> Simply it is a corral of stainless steel tubes with water flowing
> through to cool them from melting. Auound these tubes is coils of thick
> busbars which carry radio frequency ergery at high power, like 36,000
> watts. THe EMF (Electromagneic Force) of the radio waves cooks the
> contents between the corral of tubes to melting point. The bottom is a
> heat-protected graphite platform which can be slowly lowered. Material
> is poured in on top. The melted material is repelled from the stainless
> tubes by the EMF -- it is called electromagnetic levitation.
>
> THe platform is lowered at a slow rate. The molten material below the
> coils cools and solidifies. But continuing to replenish the matetial up
> top you can draw out large blocks of solid cast material.
>
> With Silicon, this hardens with mutiple crystallization points or
> domains, and produces MultiCrystaline (MC) or PolyCrystaline (PC)
> ingots. MC PV is not as efficient as Cz PV MonoCrystalline stock, but
> the EMC process is so much cheaper and faster that "who cares"? When
> you can turn out 20 times or 40 times as much PV waferstock per day as
> Cz and your waferstock is half as efficient you still have produced a
> lot more PV cell material for lots less energy or investment.
>
> EMC PV SoG Si is 13% to 14% efficient. I always use the more
> conservative figure so that surprises are toward the good surprise
> rather than towards the disappointing surprize. 13% PV will make 12
> watts DV per sq. ft.
>
> MC PV will still make some juice in cloudy or less than direct hours,
> so the average hours of sunlight are claimed as 7 average full hours
> per day. This would vary by season, and by local climate cloud-cover. 7
> hours per day covers much of the USA. 5 hours average in New England.
> In summer you might get 14 hours of use.
>
> a 2000 sq.ft house covered with PV could generate 2000 x 12 = 24KWs per
> hour for 7 hours. Most homes can't use 24KWs. It comes out as DC.
> Conversion to AC is desired, but DC is directly usable by people who
> want more of their energy going into useful power instead of the losses
> by conversion to AC electricity. AC can be stored by selling it to the
> grid and drawing it back at night. DC can be stored as H2. Then you can
> run your car off it.
>
> Decentralized EMC PV SoG Si furnaces are about the size of an SUV and
> cost less to make and use much less technology than an SUV. Local
> cottage industries can handle the demand for PV waferstock in every
> town and city. It is a totaly clean industry. It can't ever be
> monopolized and controlled from central Kremlins.
Can you re-write that without using capital letters.
| |
|
|
"Science Cop" <sciencecop@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1128831263.182060.176060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Time for an insulin shot. When my spelling goes dyslexic I know I need
> one.
Your spelling just went into acronyms confusing everyone.
| |
|
|
<acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax.com...
>
> Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
> description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
> vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
> combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
> Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
>
> It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
> extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
> apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
> stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
> middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
> its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
> everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
>
> The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
> redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
> folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
> the planet.
Those massive weights will sink the ship.
| |
| abelshapiro@pinex.com 2005-10-09, 1:21 pm |
| On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 08:59:45 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
><acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax.com...
>
>
>Those massive weights will sink the ship.
>
It seems that massive weight IS the ship. It's not such a stupid idea.
| |
| Richard W. 2005-10-09, 1:21 pm |
|
<abelshapiro@pinex.com> wrote in message
news:06dik1tbep8m1v167so78iupfulk3tsga1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 08:59:45 -0400, "Nog" <nognog@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> It seems that massive weight IS the ship. It's not such a stupid idea.
If one of those weights came loose it would go through the side of the ship.
The newer ships run low RPM diesel engines. So it would be rather difficult
to redesign it for this technology. The old T2 tankers from WW2 had steam
generators which powered a large DC electric motor. This technology would
seem to a great addition for those ships. But a total redesign for modern
ships would be needed, because of the efficiencies of the modern diesel over
the older steam ships of WW2
| |
| Androcles 2005-10-09, 2:21 pm |
|
"Science Cop" <sciencecop@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1128831263.182060.176060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Time for an insulin shot. When my spelling goes dyslexic I know I need
| one.
Mi wyres nead insulateng two, or I'get lysdecix, hic.
Adron.. er... Androcles.
| |
| abelshapiro@pinex.com 2005-10-09, 2:21 pm |
|
>If one of those weights came loose it would go through the side of the ship.
>
>The newer ships run low RPM diesel engines. So it would be rather difficult
>to redesign it for this technology. The old T2 tankers from WW2 had steam
>generators which powered a large DC electric motor. This technology would
>seem to a great addition for those ships. But a total redesign for modern
>ships would be needed, because of the efficiencies of the modern diesel over
>the older steam ships of WW2
>
Then for the electrical generation application, redesign them. This
seems to be at the same stage as putting a motor in a cart, then
having to evolve the cart into a car. For limitless free power, that
doesn't seem much to ask.
What's so sacred about ship design anyway, or cars for that matter?
For new ships, that's no problem. For existing ships I suppose the
weight would just have to be set in a frame within the hull.
Well, the problem of oil scarcity is is not going away, so something
will have to be done, and the state of Murmansk is not persuasive to
nuke, is it.
| |
|
|
"Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5YCdnfLTOpFCo9TeRVn-uQ@scnresearch.com...
>
> <abelshapiro@pinex.com> wrote in message
> news:06dik1tbep8m1v167so78iupfulk3tsga1@4ax.com...
and[color=darkred]
around[color=darkred]
>
> If one of those weights came loose it would go through the side of the
ship.
It was suggested that water and fuel tanks be the weights, and suspended
cargo holds too.
> The newer ships run low RPM diesel engines.
> So it would be rather difficult
> to redesign it for this technology.
What are you on about? The whole ship would have to be a new clean sheet
design.
> The old T2 tankers from WW2 had steam
> generators which powered a large DC electric motor.
That is still very common.
> This technology would
> seem to a great addition for those ships.
> But a total redesign for modern
> ships would be needed,
yep.
> because of the efficiencies of the modern diesel over
> the older steam ships of WW2
| |
|
|
<abelshapiro@pinex.com> wrote in message
news:nqhik1df8852dtvvu33lmro178s655u0qv@4ax.com...
>
ship.[color=darkred]
difficult[color=darkred]
over[color=darkred]
>
> Then for the electrical generation application, redesign them. This
> seems to be at the same stage as putting a motor in a cart, then
> having to evolve the cart into a car. For limitless free power, that
> doesn't seem much to ask.
> What's so sacred about ship design anyway, or cars for that matter?
> For new ships, that's no problem. For existing ships I suppose the
> weight would just have to be set in a frame within the hull.
Modern cargo ship do not last that long anyway.
> Well, the problem of oil scarcity is is not going away, so something
> will have to be done, and the state of Murmansk is not persuasive to
> nuke, is it.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-09, 2:21 pm |
| DAM !
Mothers Against Dyslexia!
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:_rb2f.11962$tS4.4954@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Science Cop" <sciencecop@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1128831263.182060.176060@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> | Time for an insulin shot. When my spelling goes dyslexic I know I need
> | one.
> Mi wyres nead insulateng two, or I'get lysdecix, hic.
> Adron.. er... Androcles.
>
>
| |
| dbohara@mindspring.com 2005-10-09, 2:21 pm |
| Roger:
C'mon down, we'll go sailing and NOT discuss politics or GW.
David
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-09, 4:21 pm |
| Are you the dyslexic one?
<dbohara@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1128878179.670395.23390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Roger:
>
> C'mon down, we'll go sailing and NOT discuss politics or GW.
>
> David
>
| |
| Richard W. 2005-10-09, 6:21 pm |
|
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:43494d90$0$95901$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5YCdnfLTOpFCo9TeRVn-uQ@scnresearch.com...
the
[color=darkred]
> ship.
>
> It was suggested that water and fuel tanks be the weights, and suspended
> cargo holds too.
Have you ever seen the size of the fuel tanks on a ship? The engines measure
fuel in tons per hour to propell the ship. Say you had a small engine that
used 8 tons of fuel per hour times 24 hours in a day, and go for a 10 day
cruise. Really some massive weights that still could go through the side of
a ship if they got loose.
>
> What are you on about? The whole ship would have to be a new clean sheet
> design.
That was pretty mich what I said.
>
> That is still very common.
>
Not as common as it was decades ago. Most of the newer ships that I have
worked on used huge low RPM diesels. A huge cost to run the steam ships were
the maintenance of the boiler and piping, not to mention the steam turbine
and reduction gear box. The diesels could be repaired under way, since they
could disengage a cylinder while the others were still running. Once a
cylinder was rebuilt of repaired, they could engage it again with the engine
running. No weeks of down time rebuilding a boiler and piping.
| |
|
|
|
| SC:
Time for an insulin shot. When my spelling goes dyslexic I know I need
one.
============================================================
If dislexia is where you get letters mixed up left and right, what
disease do these ng posters have where they cant tell top from bottom?
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-09, 8:21 pm |
| Yeah there is still a lot of bottom posters that totally disagree with their own
browsers setup and post at the top and the bottom.
Why would anybody post a header at the top and then somebody elses text
underneath it?
"BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1128894179.399367.173800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> SC:
> Time for an insulin shot. When my spelling goes dyslexic I know I need
> one.
> ============================================================
> If dislexia is where you get letters mixed up left and right, what
> disease do these ng posters have where they cant tell top from bottom?
>
| |
| Doug Huffman 2005-10-09, 8:21 pm |
| Because my apparently unique mail reader threads so I read each post in
chronoillogical sequence. To obviate whiners, it is easy to cut and paste
to the bottom - as a courtesy (paradigm; consideration, expectation,
requirement). Osculate my fundament.
"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Df2dnd919cKDBtTeRVn-vQ@golden.net...
> Yeah there is still a lot of bottom posters that totally disagree with
> their own
> browsers setup and post at the top and the bottom.
>
> Why would anybody post a header at the top and then somebody elses text
> underneath it?
>
> "BobG" <bobgardner@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1128894179.399367.173800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
Because my apparently unique mail reader threads so I read each post in
chronoillogical sequence. To obviate whiners, it is easy to cut and paste
to the bottom - as a courtesy (paradigm; consideration, expectation,
requirement). Osculate my fundament.
| |
| Don Kelly 2005-10-09, 9:21 pm |
| <acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax.com...
>
> Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
> description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
> vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
> combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
> Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
>
> It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
> extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
> apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
> stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
> middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
> its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
> everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
>
> The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
> redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
> folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
> the planet.
--------------
Essentially it depends on a transfer of energy between the ship and the
weight. This is possible but the "patent" blithely ignores a lot of
mechanics and dynamics. Several serious questions arise and no answers are
provided.
There is a lot of arm waving little meat and apparently no engineering in
this proposal and "so called" patent in what doesn't appear to be a patent
office publication.
I'm not saying that it cannot produce power- what I seriously question is
its practicality from an engineering and economic viewpoint.
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-09, 9:21 pm |
| Now you should easily see the difference.
Note how your top posted text, and all the posted texts, are associated with
each header but your bottom posted text floats on it's own and is totally
detached from the "who said what" information. Note how my top posted text
starts at one end of the post and is very easily found but the bottom posted
text has to be found in the midst of a bunch of rigth carets and bullshit
punctuation and not near the end or the beginning.
Bottom posting was never meant to be used, is very impractical and the browsers
never supported it.
"Doug Huffman" <doug.huffman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SNudnc4C6ZoMP9TeRVn-oA@comcast.com...
> Because my apparently unique mail reader threads so I read each post in
> chronoillogical sequence. To obviate whiners, it is easy to cut and paste
> to the bottom - as a courtesy (paradigm; consideration, expectation,
> requirement). Osculate my fundament.
>
>
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Df2dnd919cKDBtTeRVn-vQ@golden.net...
> Because my apparently unique mail reader threads so I read each post in
> chronoillogical sequence. To obviate whiners, it is easy to cut and paste
> to the bottom - as a courtesy (paradigm; consideration, expectation,
> requirement). Osculate my fundament.
>
>
| |
|
|
"Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3I-dncW9N4W3GtTenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
>
> "News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:43494d90$0$95901$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
wrote:[color=darkred]
> the
>
>
> Have you ever seen the size of the fuel tanks on a ship? The engines
measure
> fuel in tons per hour to propell the ship. Say you had a small engine that
> used 8 tons of fuel per hour times 24 hours in a day, and go for a 10 day
> cruise. Really some massive weights that still could go through the side
of
> a ship if they got loose.
I would assume you split the tanks up.
sheet[color=darkred]
>
> That was pretty mich what I said.
>
>
> Not as common as it was decades ago. Most of the newer ships that I have
> worked on used huge low RPM diesels. A huge cost to run the steam ships
were
> the maintenance of the boiler and piping, not to mention the steam turbine
> and reduction gear box. The diesels could be repaired under way, since
they
> could disengage a cylinder while the others were still running. Once a
> cylinder was rebuilt of repaired, they could engage it again with the
engine
> running. No weeks of down time rebuilding a boiler and piping.
Members of my family were ships engineers. They started with a shore based
Rolls Royce agents, having the ability to make parts by turning. According
to them very few serious repairs are done under sail as the crew just don't
have the knowledge and experience to do it. They can only do minor work and
ensure the engines are maintained and running. In theory you can repair
under way, but very rarely is it done - it mostly done by experts in port.
Most crews are Indian sub-continent and South East Asian, who are recruited
because they are cheap rather than their expertise.
| |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:43498E9D.15EF81C@hate.spam.net...
> acbiggs@mindspring.com wrote:
> [snip crap]
>
> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
> Perpetual motion machines
>
> Idiot.
You appear to be the idiot. It was about using inertia, the movement of the
ship. Find out what a PMM is.
| |
| mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu 2005-10-09, 9:21 pm |
| In article <2a4ik19mgf1306k6ffn49k7j5lvshaeolf@4ax.com>, abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:
>On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:09:23 +0100, "News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
>
>
>In any case, aren't we missing the point here. Its potential for
>generating clean electrical energy must be enormous. If one unit of a
>hundred thousand tons of inert concrete can generate 300 meg/W
>virtually forever without the need of fuel, that has to be considered
And if pink unicorns can generate unlimited energy, this also needs to
be considered:-)
Wolud you be interested in a lovely bridge. Very cheap, slightly
used, one previous (very careful) owner?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
| |
| abelshapiro@pinex.com 2005-10-10, 4:21 am |
| On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:56:52 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <2a4ik19mgf1306k6ffn49k7j5lvshaeolf@4ax.com>, abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:
>
>And if pink unicorns can generate unlimited energy, this also needs to
>be considered:-)
>
>Wolud you be interested in a lovely bridge. Very cheap, slightly
>used, one previous (very careful) owner?
>
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
In this case, any doubt about it is fast vanishing.
| |
| abelshapiro@pinex.com 2005-10-10, 4:21 am |
| On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:18:13 GMT, "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote:
><acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax.com...
>--------------
> Essentially it depends on a transfer of energy between the ship and the
>weight. This is possible but the "patent" blithely ignores a lot of
>mechanics and dynamics. Several serious questions arise and no answers are
>provided.
>There is a lot of arm waving little meat and apparently no engineering in
>this proposal and "so called" patent in what doesn't appear to be a patent
>office publication.
>
Publication no WO 2005075287
>I'm not saying that it cannot produce power- what I seriously question is
>its practicality from an engineering and economic viewpoint.
>
>
>
>
> Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
>remove the X to answer
>
>
| |
| donstockbauer@hotmail.com 2005-10-10, 4:21 am |
| Electricity too cheap to meter, right????????
| |
| Justice International 2005-10-10, 4:21 am |
| On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:20:24 -0700, "Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
>Have you ever seen the size of the fuel tanks on a ship? The engines measure
>fuel in tons per hour to propell the ship. Say you had a small engine that
>used 8 tons of fuel per hour times 24 hours in a day, and go for a 10 day
>cruise. Really some massive weights that still could go through the side of
>a ship if they got loose.
>
Well, the weight is said to be static, and it's the ship that moves
around it. I guess it's the ship being loose all the time around the
static weight that provides the power. And if you make hull massive
enough, say of concrete too - Say, what's the cost of a hundred
thousand tons of concrete these days, and the return on three hundred
megs of electrical power for the foreseeable future?
>
>
>That was pretty mich what I said.
>
>
>
>Not as common as it was decades ago. Most of the newer ships that I have
>worked on used huge low RPM diesels. A huge cost to run the steam ships were
>the maintenance of the boiler and piping, not to mention the steam turbine
>and reduction gear box. The diesels could be repaired under way, since they
>could disengage a cylinder while the others were still running. Once a
>cylinder was rebuilt of repaired, they could engage it again with the engine
>running. No weeks of down time rebuilding a boiler and piping.
>
| |
| abelshapiro@pinex.com 2005-10-10, 4:21 am |
| On 9 Oct 2005 23:35:57 -0700, donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
>Electricity too cheap to meter, right????????
Right on!!!!
| |
|
| [ Please quote properly and do not top-post; quote the part
you respond to, attribute the quote, then put your response
underneath. Cut all that you don't directly respond to.
Corrected. ]
"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com>, went into the usual Merry-Go-Round
with:
>"Doug Huffman" <doug.huffman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:SNudnc4C6ZoMP9TeRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>Now you should easily see the difference.
>
>Note how your top posted text, and all the posted texts, are associated with
>each header but your bottom posted text floats on it's own and is totally
>detached from the "who said what" information. Note how my top posted text
>starts at one end of the post and is very easily found but the bottom posted
>text has to be found in the midst of a bunch of rigth carets and bullshit
>punctuation and not near the end or the beginning.
>
>Bottom posting was never meant to be used, is very impractical and the browsers
>never supported it.
>
The day YOU understand NOBODY, who knows, uses a freaking MicroShite
scripted Browser for NewsGroups is the Day you will realise just *How
Much* of your foot you can get by on...to stay erect!!
Your total argument {loose use} is complete BullShit buuut you know
that, the topic is one of your favorite trolls ,,ay GimmeButt aka
Gymmy BoB.
Today we expect no less from a slob using archaic software in a
miserable mode with a desire for maximum irritability. Luckily some of
us have thick skins, and a NewsReader!
--
posted in response to<Be6dnZs6udVvONTeRVn-sg@golden.net>
Be thankful you got a response to that publication [LOOSE USE].
| |
| acbriggs@mindspring.com 2005-10-10, 5:21 am |
| On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:45:35 +0000, "P. Lyttle"
<littlepomm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Don Kelly wrote:
>
>
>I'm afraid this method will seriously impair the stability of a ship. This
>depends in part on the fact that when a ship lists, some of its mass moves
>up. pulling that mass down again (by gravity) rights the ship. placing
>moving masses in a ship, (or liquids) will decrease the stability. look up
>'free surface' in shipping, for instance here:
>http://www.hansa-online.de/artikel.asp?ArtikelID=578
>
>P. Lyttle
But in the same way that ballast does, the mass would tend to decrease
the initial roll anyway, so that there's less to compensate for. - If
the suspension point is fixed and is low, that will tend to stablize
the vessel, and then they propose to use for energy what roll is left.
Where's the argument with that?
| |
| abelshapiro@pinex.com 2005-10-10, 7:21 am |
| On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP" <coasterpro@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Weight and design are not the issues here. The issues are practicality
>and energy density. There's no doubt that the idea of a swinging
>pendulum will generate energy (with some modification) on a swaying
>vessel. Putting aside for a moment the fact that large vessels such as
>cruise ships and cargo ships are designed not to sway... achem...
>these vessels weigh in at more than 80,000 tons and their engines
>output anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 horsepower or more. It doesn't
>take a rocket scientist, or even a first grader, to recognize that
>you're just not going to be able to extract enough energy out of this
>system to compete against a vessel with that much power. I would be
>surprised if the system managed to get those 10 foot props turning more
>than a couple of rpm. The vessel would move perhaps a couple of knots
>per hour. You might as well be riding the winds and tracking the
>currents because you're going to get to your destination a whole lot
>faster.
>
What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.
For the ship propulsion, well, we might suppose a hull rolling or
pitching about static cargo on platforms or in supported containers
would provide more than enough power. The size of hull and rate of
roll would be a factor to have to consider.
But it's the megawatt figure that interests me more. Because you make
it 100,000 tons, of just inert concrete, and you have that 300 megs,
indefinitely. Which is interesting.
>Other ideas for alternative power generation at sea extract energy from
>the rise and fall of the water against the ship's side. I like this
>idea because it works effectively on very large vessels. The amount of
>energy produced is still not enough for propulsion. Instead it will be
>used to power the electrics on board a cruise ship which would
>otherwise normally expend a noticeable percentage of its fuel powering
>lights, heaters and other equipment. They propose using floats moving
>up and down geared to turn a generator or bladders pressing against the
>water's surface to create a reciprocal air pressure inside a tube to
>turn a turbine. These ideas are much more promising for hybrid ships
>of the future in my humble opinion.
| |
| mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu 2005-10-10, 7:21 am |
| In article <h9dkk11jnkpveeapq9c9481occ95oasm85@4ax.com>, abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:
>On 9 Oct 2005 11:19:23 -0700, "C04573R0RP" <coasterpro@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>What does a 200,000 h.p. motor weigh, or the fuel tanks to power it? -
>No idea, but mental arithmetic suggests that 1000 tons, swinging
>through one foot per sec produces 4,000 hp or 3 megawatts approx.
Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
| |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:GQq2f.23$25.4946@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <h9dkk11jnkpveeapq9c9481occ95oasm85@4ax.com>,
abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:
>
> Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.
Will you supply some written arithmetic then.
| |
| abelshapiro@pinex.com 2005-10-10, 9:21 am |
| On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:51:34 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <h9dkk11jnkpveeapq9c9481occ95oasm85@4ax.com>, abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:
>
>Then your "mental arithmetic" is dead wrong. I suggest you try again.
>
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
>meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
500 approx ft lbs per sec x 1,000 tons = 4,000 hp. x 750 watts = 3
megs approx . Much wrong?
So, maybeI I have to repeat, who's the fool?
Best wishes for a swift recovery of your face and dignity.
| |
|
|
<abelshapiro@pinex.com> wrote in message
news:g6lkk1hns7v6kfa1t7bpsm0rictjj9539q@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:51:34 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:[color=darkred]
>
> 500 approx ft lbs per sec x 1,000 tons = 4,000 hp. x 750 watts = 3
> megs approx . Much wrong?
>
> So, maybeI I have to repeat, who's the fool?
>
> Best wishes for a swift recovery of your face and dignity.
The power to weight ratio of electric motors is exceptionally high. The new
range of Mitsubishi EV cars will have motor in wheel hub arrangements,
replacing the large, bulky and heavy IC/transmission arrangements.
I have always wondered why electric motors were not used in prop planes to
drive the props, with centrally mounted Stirling engine(s) to provide the
energy for the electric motors. Also, the wings and fuselage top could have
structural PV panels as planes are invariably over the clouds in direct
sunlight.
| |
| daestrom 2005-10-10, 11:21 am |
|
<acbriggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:kg7kk1he8kjadti0kon3j3rb29e8a1hmlb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:45:35 +0000, "P. Lyttle"
> <littlepomm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> But in the same way that ballast does, the mass would tend to decrease
> the initial roll anyway, so that there's less to compensate for. - If
> the suspension point is fixed and is low, that will tend to stablize
> the vessel, and then they propose to use for energy what roll is left.
> Where's the argument with that?
P. Lyttle brings up some good points.
Suppose you have a mass suspended along the centerline of a ship. Normally,
the center of gravity of a ship is much lower than the center of bouyancy
giving you what is called the metacentric height. With the CG low, the ship
rides 'stiffly', rolls very little, and rights itself easily. With the CG
high, it rides soft, rolls more and rights itself more slowly.
Now, suspend some of the mass on a pendulum. First question is, "How 'tall'
a pendulum?" A very short one and the mass just sort of 'rotates' around
it's suspension point but doesn't move very far within the ship. Problem
with this arrangement is the only rotation you 'see' is caused by the roll
of the ship. (e.g. if the ship only rolls 5 degrees from side to side, your
weight only rolls 5 degrees relative to the energy extraction system).
If the pendulum is 'tall', then the weight can actually swing more side to
side. As the ship rolls to starboard, the weight (originally along the
centerline) will want to swing to starboard. The energy extracting
apparatus will exert a force on the weight that will tend to keep it towards
the centerline. But the weight must be allowed to actually move in order to
extract energy, so the result is the weight eventually swings to starboard,
just takes a little time to get there. As P. Lyttle pointed out, this is
*exactly* the same as a large open tank that is half full of liquid that
spans across the ship. When the ship rolls to starboard, water 'sloshes'
down to the starboard side, making the starboard side heavier. This
intensifies the roll and takes longer for the ship to recover.
As the ship rights itself, the weight (pendulum or water) on the starboard
side will eventually swing back, but it's movement is out of phase with the
ship itself. In worse case conditions, the natural frequency of the weight
(pendulum or water) resonates with the ship motion and the rolling becomes
so severe that all freeboard is lost (water comes over the rail). At that
point, the ship is lost.
The problem is known as 'free-surface effect' and is well documented in
marine engineering. In the case of liquid cargo, it is easily corrected by
making several smaller tanks and ensuring that all but one are kept
completely full/empty. Baffling within a tank can help to some degree by
not allowing the liquid to shift at frequencies near the natural roll of the
ship. Fuel tanks (which need to be consumed in route) are spread out
longitudinally, or separated into several smaller tanks. Or even sometimes
ballasted with seawater underneath the fuel to keep the tank flooded.
daestrom
| |
| acbiggs@mindspring.com 2005-10-10, 12:21 pm |
| On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:20:44 GMT, "daestrom"
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
><acbriggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:kg7kk1he8kjadti0kon3j3rb29e8a1hmlb@4ax.com...
>
>P. Lyttle brings up some good points.
>
>Suppose you have a mass suspended along the centerline of a ship. Normally,
>the center of gravity of a ship is much lower than the center of bouyancy
>giving you what is called the metacentric height. With the CG low, the ship
>rides 'stiffly', rolls very little, and rights itself easily. With the CG
>high, it rides soft, rolls more and rights itself more slowly.
>
>Now, suspend some of the mass on a pendulum. First question is, "How 'tall'
>a pendulum?" A very short one and the mass just sort of 'rotates' around
>it's suspension point but doesn't move very far within the ship. Problem
>with this arrangement is the only rotation you 'see' is caused by the roll
>of the ship. (e.g. if the ship only rolls 5 degrees from side to side, your
>weight only rolls 5 degrees relative to the energy extraction system).
>
>If the pendulum is 'tall', then the weight can actually swing more side to
>side. As the ship rolls to starboard, the weight (originally along the
>centerline) will want to swing to starboard. The energy extracting
>apparatus will exert a force on the weight that will tend to keep it towards
>the centerline. But the weight must be allowed to actually move in order to
>extract energy, so the result is the weight eventually swings to starboard,
>just takes a little time to get there. As P. Lyttle pointed out, this is
>*exactly* the same as a large open tank that is half full of liquid that
>spans across the ship. When the ship rolls to starboard, water 'sloshes'
>down to the starboard side, making the starboard side heavier. This
>intensifies the roll and takes longer for the ship to recover.
>
>As the ship rights itself, the weight (pendulum or water) on the starboard
>side will eventually swing back, but it's movement is out of phase with the
>ship itself. In worse case conditions, the natural frequency of the weight
>(pendulum or water) resonates with the ship motion and the rolling becomes
>so severe that all freeboard is lost (water comes over the rail). At that
>point, the ship is lost.
>
>The problem is known as 'free-surface effect' and is well documented in
>marine engineering. In the case of liquid cargo, it is easily corrected by
>making several smaller tanks and ensuring that all but one are kept
>completely full/empty. Baffling within a tank can help to some degree by
>not allowing the liquid to shift at frequencies near the natural roll of the
>ship. Fuel tanks (which need to be consumed in route) are spread out
>longitudinally, or separated into several smaller tanks. Or even sometimes
>ballasted with seawater underneath the fuel to keep the tank flooded.
>
>daestrom
>
Guy seems to have thought of the resonance factor, by including a
governor system to prevent it. And from the 'drawings' he obviously
favours low suspension by gimbals, and never mentions a 'pendulum'
once so far as I can see. And if the mass is a solid concrete block, I
don't see how that is like a half-full tank of water sloshing about in
any way.
| |
|
|
<acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lvukk157bhgn4ahfmrdgctnjvm0p9ek2mn@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:20:44 GMT, "daestrom"
> <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
and[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
some[color=darkred]
around[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
answers[color=darkred]
engineering[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
question[color=darkred]
This[color=darkred]
moves[color=darkred]
up[color=darkred]
Normally,[color=darkred]
ship[color=darkred]
CG[color=darkred]
'tall'[color=darkred]
roll[color=darkred]
your[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
towards[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
starboard,[color=darkred]
starboard[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
weight[color=darkred]
becomes[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
by[color=darkred]
the[color=darkred]
sometimes[color=darkred]
>
> Guy seems to have thought of the resonance factor, by including a
> governor system to prevent it. And from the 'drawings' he obviously
> favours low suspension by gimbals, and never mentions a 'pendulum'
> once so far as I can see. And if the mass is a solid concrete block, I
> don't see how that is like a half-full tank of water sloshing about in
> any way.
Gimbals should ensure no mass transfer of mass. Gimbals are a device
consisting of two rings mounted on axes at right angles to each other so
that an object, such as a ship's compass, will remain suspended in a
horizontal plane between them regardless of any motion of its support.
| |
| mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu 2005-10-10, 1:21 pm |
| In article <434a4394$0$3018$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>, "News" <Nospam@here.com> writes:
>
><mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:GQq2f.23$25.4946@news.uchicago.edu...
>abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:
>
>Will you supply some written arithmetic then.
>
Calculate the kinetic energy of 1000 tons at 1 foot per second.
Assume that you extract all of this energy (which you won't, but we're
being optimistic here) in a second. Assume that the waves renew the swing
within a second (which they won't, but we're being optimistic here).
High school exercise.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
| |
| mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu 2005-10-10, 1:21 pm |
| In article <g6lkk1hns7v6kfa1t7bpsm0rictjj9539q@4ax.com>, abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:51:34 GMT, mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>
>500 approx ft lbs per sec x 1,000 tons = 4,000 hp. x 750 watts = 3
>megs approx . Much wrong?
>
Yes.
The the kinetic energy of your block is barely 0.5*10^6*(0.3)^2 = 45 kJ.
If you manage to extract it in a second, you get 45 kW. And it won't
be renewed in a second.
If you think in terms of up and down motion, the block will be going
up and down with the ship, gimbals or no gimbals. It is only the
differences in kinetic energy that you'll be extracting.
All these simple schemes have been evaluated ad nauseam over at least
a centtury. Would there have been anything there of a magnitude
approaching your numbers, they would've been in use for a long time by
now.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
| |
| P. Lyttle 2005-10-10, 2:21 pm |
| News wrote:
>
> <acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:lvukk157bhgn4ahfmrdgctnjvm0p9ek2mn@4ax.com...
> and
> and
> some
> around
> the
> answers
> engineering
> a
> question
> This
> moves
> up
> Normally,
> ship
> CG
> 'tall'
> roll
> your
> to
> towards
> to
> starboard,
> starboard
> the
> weight
> becomes
> that
> by
> the
> sometimes
>
> Gimbals should ensure no mass transfer of mass. Gimbals are a device
> consisting of two rings mounted on axes at right angles to each other so
> that an object, such as a ship's compass, will remain suspended in a
> horizontal plane between them regardless of any motion of its support.
I will try this one more time...
in order for a mass to release energy it will have to move downward, helped
by the gravitational field. (the mass will convert its potential energy
into kynetic energy.) The energy will have to be restored by the movement
of the ship. As she rights herself she will have to move the mass back
upward, against the gravitational field. (The mass will have to be
'recharged' by moving it upward.)
Therefore the ship will lose stability, i.e. the ability to regain her
vertical position, as the beforementioned mass will bleed this
self-righting force.
It has nothing to do with resonance, just energy exchange.
P. Lyttle
| |
|
| SC:
A 2000 sq.ft house covered with PV could generate 2000 x 12 = 24KWs per
hour for 7 hours. Most homes can't use 24KWs.
================================================
Right now there is extra coal and steam generating capacity in the east
as folks start going to sleep. The excess gets shipped west where the
lights are still on. This rolls westward across the continent for a
couple hours. With distributed PV as you describe, I imagine it would
work the opposite.... the extra in the west where the sun was still
shining would get shipped east to run the TVs till Jay Leno did his
monolog.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-10, 4:21 pm |
| NO!!!! Then the group would fall apart for lack of challenge!
What fun would that be?
<abelshapiro@pinex.com> wrote in message
news:i45kk1981nfa6k1n445jna1fpdmoasc992@4ax.com...
> On 9 Oct 2005 23:35:57 -0700, donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Right on!!!!
| |
|
| DH:
chronoillogical sequence
====================
Haha. This is where the time sequence has no logic.
| |
| Joshua Halpern 2005-10-10, 9:21 pm |
| News wrote:
> <acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:lvukk157bhgn4ahfmrdgctnjvm0p9ek2mn@4ax.com...
>
>
> and
>
>
> and
>
>
> some
>
>
> around
>
>
> the
>
>
> answers
>
>
> engineering
>
>
> a
>
>
> question
>
>
> This
>
>
> moves
>
>
> up
>
>
> Normally,
>
>
> ship
>
>
> CG
>
>
> 'tall'
>
>
> roll
>
>
> your
>
>
> to
>
>
> towards
>
>
> to
>
>
> starboard,
>
>
> starboard
>
>
> the
>
>
> weight
>
>
> becomes
>
>
> that
>
>
> by
>
>
> the
>
>
> sometimes
>
>
>
> Gimbals should ensure no mass transfer of mass. Gimbals are a device
> consisting of two rings mounted on axes at right angles to each other so
> that an object, such as a ship's compass, will remain suspended in a
> horizontal plane between them regardless of any motion of its support.
>
Gimbals are not perfect
josh halpern
| |
| Duane C. Johnson 2005-10-10, 9:21 pm |
| donstockbauer@hotmail.com wrote:
> Electricity too cheap to meter, right????????
To cheap to meter never meant
"To cheap to charge for".
Duane
--
Home of the $35 Solar Tracker Receiver
http://www.redrok.com/led3xassm.htm [*]
Powered by \ \ \ //|
Thermonuclear Solar Energy from the Sun / |
Energy (the SUN) \ \ \ / / |
Red Rock Energy \ \ / / |
Duane C. Johnson Designer \ \ / \ / |
1825 Florence St Heliostat,Control,& Mounts |
White Bear Lake, Minnesota === \ / \ |
USA 55110-3364 === \ |
(651)426-4766 use Courier New Font \ |
redrok@redrok.com (my email: address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com (Web site) ===
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-10-10, 9:21 pm |
| <OnCrapDuty@nui.week.nui.goals> ses:
>[ Please quote properly and do not top-post; quote the part
> you respond to, attribute the quote, then put your response
> underneath. Cut all that you don't directly respond to.
> Corrected. ]
OUCH !!
ho-kee Boss me unah-stan now !
I do better nex tyme ho-kee ???
>The day YOU understand NOBODY, who knows, uses a freaking MicroShite
>scripted Browser for NewsGroups is the Day you will realise just *How
>Much* of your foot you can get by on...to stay erect!!
>Your total argument {loose use} is complete BullShit buuut you know
>that, the topic is one of your favorite trolls ,,ay GimmeButt aka
>Gymmy BoB.
>
>Today we expect no less from a slob using archaic software in a
>miserable mode with a desire for maximum irritability. Luckily some of
>us have thick skins, and a NewsReader!
>
Kindly keep your wise advice circulating.
Thank you
--
Solar Flare [was] Gymmy Bob
| |
| Richard W. 2005-10-10, 10:21 pm |
|
"News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
news:4349ad2d$0$65292$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
>
> "Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3I-dncW9N4W3GtTenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
> wrote:
> Members of my family were ships engineers. They started with a shore based
> Rolls Royce agents, having the ability to make parts by turning. According
> to them very few serious repairs are done under sail as the crew just
don't
> have the knowledge and experience to do it. They can only do minor work
and
> ensure the engines are maintained and running. In theory you can repair
> under way, but very rarely is it done - it mostly done by experts in port.
> Most crews are Indian sub-continent and South East Asian, who are
recruited
> because they are cheap rather than their expertise.
The repair while under way can and was done by the crew on single cylinders.
They had replacment parts stored all over. Only the major overhauls were
done in port that I saw. Then they tore everything apart and rebuilt the
engine. While the ship was being reskinned and painted.
There were some other styles of engines that had to be done as you say.
| |
| Richard W. 2005-10-10, 10:21 pm |
|
"Justice International" <amazin@teleline.es> wrote in message
news:qv2kk19h7n2ge9iiqf1e64d81bu9k64t1o@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:20:24 -0700, "Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
the[color=darkred]
suspended[color=darkred]
measure[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
> Well, the weight is said to be static, and it's the ship that moves
> around it. I guess it's the ship being loose all the time around the
> static weight that provides the power. And if you make hull massive
> enough, say of concrete too - Say, what's the cost of a hundred
> thousand tons of concrete these days, and the return on three hundred
> megs of electrical power for the foreseeable future?
>
All that weight would reduce the amount of cargo you could haul. One problem
I see for the size of the ship is, the larger they get the less they roll
from the waves. So power output would be reduced.
Just how do you get the power from a moving ship over to shore where it's
needed?
| |
| abelshapiro@pinex.com 2005-10-11, 4:21 am |
| On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:38:25 -0700, "Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>"Justice International" <amazin@teleline.es> wrote in message
>news:qv2kk19h7n2ge9iiqf1e64d81bu9k64t1o@4ax.com...
>the
>suspended
>measure
>that
>of
>
>All that weight would reduce the amount of cargo you could haul. One problem
>I see for the size of the ship is, the larger they get the less they roll
>from the waves. So power output would be reduced.
>
> Just how do you get the power from a moving ship over to shore where it's
>needed?
>
One type of ship for transport, another for electrical production.
The idea in the description is that power is normally transfered
ashore as rotation via principle nodes, he says, rather than as
electrical power, as such amounts of energy would be difficult to
contain. It's all there if you read it, and it all hangs together,
but whether it would work or not . . . Well, they will have to try it.
| |
|
| > The power to weight ratio of electric motors is exceptionally high. The
> new
> range of Mitsubishi EV cars will have motor in wheel hub arrangements,
> replacing the large, bulky and heavy IC/transmission arrangements.
>
> I have always wondered why electric motors were not used in prop planes
> to
> drive the props, with centrally mounted Stirling engine(s) to provide the
> energy for the electric motors.
Because a simple shaft is more efficient and lighter than using a generator
and motor, and there is no particular advantage to that design, and
Stirling engines can be heavier than standard otto cycle engines of the
same power output.
CM
| |
|
| > Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
> description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
> vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
> combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
> Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
No, it is simply a way to capture some of the wave energy that rocks the
boat. It would be limited by the size of the waves and the size of the
ship, and would not be very efficient. There are more efficient designs to
capture wave energy.
> It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
> extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
> apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
> stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
> middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
> its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
> everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
Quite the opposite - try any really large project without funding and it
will go nowhere.
> The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
> redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
> folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
> the planet.
Nope, way too limited power output.
CM
| |
|
|
"CM" <cm@cm.not.really> wrote in message
news:EEJ2f.1412$y14.306@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
the[color=darkred]
>
> Because a simple shaft is more efficient and lighter than using a
generator
> and motor, and there is no particular advantage to that design, and
> Stirling engines can be heavier than standard otto cycle engines of the
> same power output.
Stirling engines are about twice the efficiency of IC engines. Free
floating piston Stirlinsb are lighter and are ideal for this application.
With two IC engines you have twice the weight. With one specially designed
engine to produce electricity and tow "very small" electric motor must surly
be more efficient (and lighter). Stirling engines operate better in high
altitudes than IC engines.
| |
|
|
"Richard W." <raweich@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JJadncUhieF6mNbeRVn-ug@scnresearch.com...
>
> "News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote in message
> news:4349ad2d$0$65292$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
based[color=darkred]
According[color=darkred]
> don't
> and
port.[color=darkred]
> recruited
>
> The repair while under way can and was done by the crew on single
cylinders.
> They had replacment parts stored all over. Only the major overhauls were
> done in port that I saw. Then they tore everything apart and rebuilt the
> engine. While the ship was being reskinned and painted.
>
> There were some other styles of engines that had to be done as you say.
What is becoming common is a number of engine sets (large truck sized), that
also supply backup. These can be taken in or out easily enough for exchange
or re-con. The ships engineers are merely operators and servicemen
(changing oil and the likes) and do no major overhauls whatsoever - that
means a cheaper crew and more cost-effective in operating the engines. Any
problems with the engine set and the set is turned off until port bringing
in a reserve set. The engines can be slid out of the bulkheads and craned
onto a truck on the quay. Large mass produced truck sized engines are
cheaper than large, virtually hand made, ships engines
Using this method and an electric propdrive, the engines are just generators
and can be positioned for ideal weight distribution in the ship.
| |
| Hurricane Guy 2005-10-11, 8:21 am |
| Actually there are many ways to capture natures power, A simple way on
a ship maybe something as simple as outriggers capturing "differential
wave inertia" The ships mass being greater, the outriggers would move
up and down with the waves, waves that don't effect the ship as
radical. If each stroke was stored in a battery the resultant energy
could be used to propel the ship somewhat. Also if the ships drive
happens to be electric, it can work just as a hybrid auto concept (not
one of the inefficient ones made by the American auto cartel), it can
have multiple energy sources i.e. wind, solar, fuel cell, wave action,
bio-diesel, wave action, what ever technology comes up with. can be
paralleled together with electric drive. Capacitors are an equal or
better solution than the old battery only method. Capacitors store
instant energy and discharge it just as rapidly without as much wasted
energy.
Lead acid batteries produce hydrogen when being charged which is good
if captured and reused, otherwise it's just wasted energy that is lost
into the atmosphere like so many scam American Auto Cartel Vehicles
AACV's.
The question is "So who needs oil or Nuclear Power?"
The answer is nobody but the profiteers, the power cartels who sell it,
scam it gouge it.
Americans don't need it. Oil and Nuclear are the big boys way of
hooking us on drugs - energy drugs.
Over population is the real problem;
Bad leadership, bad Management is the cause;
Scare tactics, fear, terrorism are some of the motivators;
Fake manmade shortages, phony supply and demand schemes are the manmade
effects that perpetuate the use;
Part Solutions:
Closing the borders are one of the part solutions;
Stopping Immigration except for special circumstances is another part
solution;
Admitting and coming to terms with "the over population crisis" is
another part solution;
CORPORATIONS: Large Corporations have to be broken up end
de-monopolized into small enough sizes they can be dealt with.
Regulations need to be made where Corporations are limited in size and
cannot buy other corps under the big corp.
Getting rid of old ineffective thinking by getting rid of the present
leadership and management who persists to follow the same course no
matter what the people want is another major part solution;
Both political parties are corrupt giving the appearance of a "choice"
when there is clearly no choice. This means both political parties have
to be ousted. They are both responsible, providing no leadership in a
forward direction. They both have to go and be replaced with a true
democratic leadership based on citizenship popular type election.
McDonalds can run the elections until we get an honest government who
will take the people and our elections serious. McDonalds can
instantaneously count millions of hamburgers within milliseconds on a
hourly basis. Our electoral system cannot get it right doing it once
every four years. Who's kidding who?
Oil and Nuclear fuel are big scams, people need to wean themselves from
that to green energy which is not controlled by a cartel but by
individual people.
Bruce
| |
| jmfbahciv@aol.com 2005-10-11, 8:21 am |
| In article <zrw2f.25$25.5335@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <g6lkk1hns7v6kfa1t7bpsm0rictjj9539q@4ax.com>,
abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:
abelshapiro@pinex.com writes:[color=darkred]
>Yes.
>
>The the kinetic energy of your block is barely 0.5*10^6*(0.3)^2 = 45 kJ.
>If you manage to extract it in a second, you get 45 kW. And it won't
>be renewed in a second.
>
>If you think in terms of up and down motion, the block will be going
>up and down with the ship, gimbals or no gimbals. It is only the
>differences in kinetic energy that you'll be extracting.
>
>All these simple schemes have been evaluated ad nauseam over at least
>a centtury. Would there have been anything there of a magnitude
>approaching your numbers, they would've been in use for a long time by
>now.
And, instead of bathtub gin, we'ld all be generating bathtub
juice.
Why doesn't somebody just build one in your bathtub and see?
/BAH
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-10-11, 10:21 am |
| On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:44:53 GMT, abelshapiro@pinex.com wrote:
>But it's the megawatt figure that interests me more. Because you make
>it 100,000 tons, of just inert concrete, and you have that 300 megs,
>indefinitely. Which is interesting.
That power would be quickly absorbed by drag on the hull from the extra
draft.
--
Bob
| |
| Bob Adkins 2005-10-11, 10:21 am |
| On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:05:50 +0100, "News" <Nospam@here.com> wrote:
>Stirling engines are about twice the efficiency of IC engines. Free
>floating piston Stirlinsb are lighter and are ideal for this application.
Stirling engines have been around a long time, and yet are rarely seen. If
they were of any great value, they would be popping up all over the place.
--
Bob
| |
|
|
<acbiggs@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ml0gk19ksshiu3n6jddbvce8p72fa9qhc5@4ax.com...
>
> Excuse me. At www.justice-publications.com/GRAVITY.pdf there is the
> description of a novel method of propelling ships and of generating
> vast quantities of electrical power ad infinitum, both without
> combustion, without chemical reaction and without pollution.
> Apparently it was published by the Patent Office on August 18th.
>
> It says that the method is available for anybody to use and is
> extremely low technology. It certainly looks ridiculously simple and
> apparently it produces about 500% p.a. on outlay. But the inventor
> stipulates that it must be undertaken without the assistance of
> middlemen or outside funding, which he says otherwise would put it and
> its consumers into the financiers' hands yet again, as with oil and
> everything else we use. Which I suppose is true.
>
> The article suggests that within five or ten years it will make oil
> redundant except as a lubricant, which will take the wind out of some
> folks' sails, won't it, and should make a refreshing change all around
> the planet.
>
I need lots of nuclear power. It's much cleaner and environmentally
friendly.
| |
|
| |