Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Hidden Science & Advanced Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-02-2010, 11:30 AM   #1
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default Is Free Energy A Shell Game?

I'm wondering about the search for free enrgy, not the possibility but rather the idea that while we're all looking for the magical science that allows a black box to be installed in our house producing a never ending supply of energy we are ignoring all the possible solutions to energy problems.

Renewables are well known, there are many possibilities for producing clean energy, there are many possibilities for non polluting cars, there are many ways to reduce our dependancy but these seem slow coming to market and almost forgotten.

Why does Barratts et al keep building houses using old ideas?

Why don't we have cars running on ethanol, alcohol or other 'clean' fuels such as steam?

Why don't we employ local power generating methods to produce power for towns such as river turbines?

Why don't we have small scale local or even personal power generators using local resources?

It seems that 'we' depend on 'them' to produce our energy and hope one day they will find a clean, efficient and sustainable method which will reduce the cost to virtually zero. Something that will never happen as it would destroy their profits.

Meanwhile there are many ways to produce our own clean, efficient sustainable energy but we seem to ignore them. Occasionally you get a trendy zero carbon building development which costs a small fortune to buy into, but they are actually few and far between.

We seem to have accepted this state of affairs and look at examples shown by 'Tommorrows World' as being something that will happen in the future - but it rarely comes. They are consigned to quaint ideas that maybe one day will happen or the pursuits of eccentrics. Why?

Why hasn't house building improved its methods as new ideas came along? Why haven't we demanded they do so?

Shell or Esso are petrol companies and will reject selling Ethanol on the pump unless they had a monopoly but why hasn't the government insisted the car manufacturers offer the choice of fuels for the cars and that garages supply alternatives.

Why hasn't the government insisted house builders adopt modern ideas?

Why hasn't the government encouraged local councils to pursue local solutions?

While we are looking for the perfect even magical solution are we ignoring the available solutions?

In effect, renewable energy is 'free energy' for us but we are not using them and only now are allowing big companies to invest in the ideas and continue to cahrge us at the going rate becuse it takes a large investment and high maintanence. Well of course it does, on a large scale anything would. But we could have reduced the costs by employing ideas locally using local natural resources.

Has 'Free Energy' become a shell game to distract us from the available solutions?
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-2010, 07:52 PM   #2
foobar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 331
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Why don't we have cars running on ethanol, alcohol
Ethanol is one form of alcohol. There are cars that run on it. Brazil ran a substantial number of vehicles on it for years (I don't know what proportion of their vehicles still run on it). The main disadvantage I'm aware of is that you need to use a lot of agricultural land to produce the basic raw materials for the scale of alcohol production if you're trying to run all a country's cars and delivery vehicles on it. Brazil had vast areas of fertile land they could turn over to sugar cane production, which is probably one of the reasons they did it.

Quote:
or other 'clean' fuels such as steam?
Steam isn't a fuel as much as it is a way of transmitting power. You've got to heat the steam up with something first, like a coal-fired boiler. That's how the majority of our electrical power plants work.

Quote:
Why don't we employ local power generating methods to produce power for towns such as river turbines?
Because having lots of small-scale generators using a range of different sources is more complex to maintain on a large scale and most people don't want to get involved in producing their own electricity and having to maintain and repair a generator etc... I don't know if you live in the UK, but if you would like to try something like this, there's some bureacracy involved but you can do it.

Quote:
Why don't we have small scale local or even personal power generators using local resources?
See above. Some parts of the country don't have much in the way of local sources.

Quote:
It seems that 'we' depend on 'them' to produce our energy
Electricity power generating companies are largely staffed by people just like you and I.

Quote:
and hope one day they will find a clean, efficient and sustainable method which will reduce the cost to virtually zero. Something that will never happen as it would destroy their profits.
Capitalism doesn't work like that. In the UK if you find a means of generating electricity sufficient for your own needs you're perfectly entitled to use it. I personally know of people who get a substantial proportion of their electricity from home generators running on biodiesel, solar or wind and one guy who makes sufficient surplus to sell it to the national grid at a profit. There's really no conspiracy stopping people from doing it, it's just a lot of work at first, and a lot of people just aren't interested.

Quote:
Meanwhile there are many ways to produce our own clean, efficient sustainable energy but we seem to ignore them.
We don't, we spend enormous amounts of public money on them at the moment, they just often aren't as efficient and practical as they're cracked up to be.

Quote:
Occasionally you get a trendy zero carbon building development which costs a small fortune to buy into, but they are actually few and far between.
I personally view global warming as a scam, but there are plenty of reasons to want to generate your own electricity, it's just not as easy as people think.

Quote:
Why hasn't house building improved its methods as new ideas came along? Why haven't we demanded they do so?
Because most people's energy bills aren't that big a proportion of their household income.

Quote:
Shell or Esso are petrol companies and will reject selling Ethanol on the pump unless they had a monopoly
They don't do that. They're involved in a lot of renewable energy schemes themselves.

Quote:
but why hasn't the government insisted the car manufacturers offer the choice of fuels for the cars and that garages supply alternatives.
Because very few people have non-fossil fuel cars so the government marching about insisting people buy them would be a massive, and at present pointless, disruption to the economy.

Quote:
Why hasn't the government insisted house builders adopt modern ideas?
They have. There are all kinds of energy efficiency regulations in place now.

Quote:
Why hasn't the government encouraged local councils to pursue local solutions?
Because 'local' in most cases wouldn't include people with the skills or motivation to go about building their own generators and maintaining them. It makes more sense for most people to just buy electricity from the national grid, just as most people don't try to purify their own drinking water.

Quote:
While we are looking for the perfect even magical solution are we ignoring the available solutions?
Very much so on this forum. Way too much pissing about with obvious cranks who think they've created infinite energy from some silly 'Heath Robinson' contraption of household magnets and waffle about 'vacuum point' this and that by people who don't know the first thing about Quantum Mechanics.

Quote:
Has 'Free Energy' become a shell game to distract us from the available solutions?
'Free Energy' from perpetual motion and 'over unity' devices are largely snakeoil being peddled by cranks. There's a whole business sector devoted to getting money out of people who like conspiracy theory and science fiction, and Orbo are firmly part of it, just as much as Alex Jones.

Last edited by foobar; 28-02-2010 at 07:52 PM.
foobar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-2010, 09:14 PM   #3
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Ethanol is one form of alcohol. There are cars that run on it. Brazil ran a substantial number of vehicles on it for years (I don't know what proportion of their vehicles still run on it). The main disadvantage I'm aware of is that you need to use a lot of agricultural land to produce the basic raw materials for the scale of alcohol production if you're trying to run all a country's cars and delivery vehicles on it. Brazil had vast areas of fertile land they could turn over to sugar cane production, which is probably one of the reasons they did it.
Ok. Henry Ford suggested running cars on ethanol derived from Hemp. Hemp does not require such massive land areas to produce the raw materials and grows very quickly. The point is, if we used various fuels obtained from various production methods even if we could only replace a percentage of our cars with alternatives it would have made a difference to environmental pollution. I'm aware of Brazil and Cuba who have been running gas powered cars for decades. Cubans also make their own home-made synthetic engine oil due to the trade embargo's on Cuba.

Quote:
"There's enough alcohol in one year's yeild of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years." - Henry Ford

Link - http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml
Do you know different - please explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Steam isn't a fuel as much as it is a way of transmitting power. You've got to heat the steam up with something first, like a coal-fired boiler. That's how the majority of our electrical power plants work.
Yes I know that too, but I credit people on here with a degree of common sense, didn't realise I had to spoon feed you with details, the fuel required to power a steam engine can be less than required by burning petrol in inefficient engines for the same amount of work, hence less pollution and more MPG as steam engines can be more efficient. In other words, you can get more work per BTU (British thermal unit) in a steam engine than a petrol internal combustion engine. I know some countries (Germany and Norway I think) are converting some trains back to steam as they are more efficent than electric trains (D.C.). Modern engineering and advances in thermal insulation have made this possible.

Quote:
In practice, a steam engine exhausting the steam to atmosphere will have an efficiency (including the boiler) of 5%, but with the addition of a condenser the efficiency is greatly improved to 25% or better. A power station with exhaust reheat, etc. will achieve 30% efficiency. Combined cycle in which the burning material is first used to drive a gas turbine can produce 60% efficiency. It is also possible to capture the waste heat using cogeneration in which the residual steam is used for heating. It is therefore possible to use about 90% of the energy produced by burning fuel - only 10% of the energy produced by the combustion of the fuel goes wasted into the atmosphere.
Quote:
In the 1920s and 30s, Abner Doble produced a revolutionary steam car, which could out perform any gasoline powered car on the road, and yet return over 30mpg
Link - http://www.powercubes.com/steam.html
American car manufacturers did not produce cars that would do 30MPG until the 1990's.

Again, using a variety of fuels would allow us to burn waste or by products. Rudolph Diesel originally suggested using coal dust discarded from industry for fuel in his diesel engine. The same engine can also use bio diesel and Hydrogen. Diesel engines powered by Hydrogen clean the air as they drive along. Diesel engines combined with LPG produce 40% more power and virtually zero pollution as the combustion is near 99% efficient. I know this because I have an instructional DVD from Roy McAlister and Steven Harris who was a development engineer in the scientific labs of Chrysler / DaimlerChrysler doing vehicle development work for 10 years and consults professionally with Mr. McAlister in the vehicle, Energy, Hydrogen and Electrochemistry field. I understand Wankel rotary engines overcome the difficulties associated with burning Hydrogen as fuel in Internal Combustion Engines. Wankel engnes are also more efficient and less complicated but there are difficulties with longevity of the rotor tips.

In the 70's an American police force trialled steam powered cars and reported they outperformed petrol engines in every way but the police force could not wait for the vehicle to attain the required steam from cold. But that does not mean they would be useless for consumers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Because having lots of small-scale generators using a range of different sources is more complex to maintain on a large scale and most people don't want to get involved in producing their own electricity and having to maintain and repair a generator etc... I don't know if you live in the UK, but if you would like to try something like this, there's some bureacracy involved but you can do it.
Speak for yourself, some people would. Small scale generators would also provide local jobs. Iceland uses geothermic methods and produces energy very cheaply because they make use of available local resources. People not wanting to do it themselves is just lazy and irresponsible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
See above. Some parts of the country don't have much in the way of local sources.
Indeed but if I grow my own biodiesel I still have to pay tax and register as a maker of fuels and get the required licences. The government is making it difficult to do so and ignoring opportunities in favour of large scale inefficient power generation. I've heard of a sound engineer who lives by a river and has converted his old water mill to generate energy to power his home and studio and sell energy back but to do it know requires a lot of beaurocracy and licences IF you can get one, I've heard it is not easy to get such a licence nowadays for a water mill - what have you heard? I've heard of a BBC engineer who used inverted jam jars set into concrete to create a garden path that water was passed through to heat his swimming pool. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Electricity power generating companies are largely staffed by people just like you and I.
But not owned by us, nor do we or the country profit from them. If we made use of available resources we would reduce cost and pollution. I don't see what point you are making.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Capitalism doesn't work like that.
Capatalism doesn't always mean the best ideas come through as I explained in my 'Everlasting Lightbulb' post. You seem to think capitalism will ALWAYS result in the best and most efficient ideas coming to fruition - it doesn't. It allows the most profitable ideas to come through and they are often based on the most inefficient ideas as they generate the largest income. Fact of life, if you believe different you are mistaken.

I can give you another example. In the 70's Ampex produced magnetic tape and recording machines, their equipment was so well made that they hardly ever broke down and produced excellent results in sound recording. When they did break it was a simple matter for the sound engineer to buy and replace components such that the machines were hardly ever renewed. As a result of this Ampex went bust and ended up just producing tape. In short, it is not economically practical for a company to produce equipment that lasts a long time it is far more profitable to produce equipment that breaks so ensuring repeat orders. Capatalism relies on inefficiency other wise companise go bust. Sony and others have siezed on this and actively engineer equipment that will break requiring regular re-orders to sustain their market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
We don't, we spend enormous amounts of public money on them at the moment, they just often aren't as efficient and practical as they're cracked up to be.
We do now, why not 30 years ago. Why not let Ford introduce his Hemp car. Henry Ford stated their were forces at work in his own company that blocked his idea coming to market. I know of other examples such as paper production from Hemp in the early 1900's and still to this day such manufacturing of paper seems blocked by government.

Do you know why Satler's duck was not implemented - its because in the 70's the government studied wind, wave and nuclear power generation methods. They concluded that nuclear was the most efficient. 15 years later they admitted they made a mistake in the figure work and wave power was in fact more efficient. This was reported in mainstream newspapers. Do the research, I have.



Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Because most people's energy bills aren't that big a proportion of their household income.
Not a good enough answer too me. Its cheap, so sod it. Seems short sighted to me and looking at the enviromental problems we have been causing it is irresponsible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
They don't do that. They're involved in a lot of renewable energy schemes themselves.
And there are many stories of people with good alternative ideas that have been bought off or blocked by them. Again, do the research, I have.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Because very few people have non-fossil fuel cars so the government marching about insisting people buy them would be a massive, and at present pointless, disruption to the economy.

Rubbish. If the option had been available and the fuels available at local garages then people would have bought them. How many garages sell LPG? Every one of them? Not by a long shot. If LPG was available everywhere more people would take them up. If the technologies had been intoduced as they were conceived then it wouldn't be a massive disruption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
They have. There are all kinds of energy efficiency regulations in place now.
Now, yes, but how long have we been building house for. Are all Barrats homes now built to peak of efficiency using the best available materials and designs? I don't think so. They could easily have included into houses with gardens buried hoses underground to make use of geothermal and provide heat to the homes with only a small extra cost in relation to the long term benefits and probably many other ideas. The fact is government is only now requiring energy efficient ideas be implemented they have effectively ignored them for decades. As they have alternative transport technologies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Because 'local' in most cases wouldn't include people with the skills or motivation to go about building their own generators and maintaining them. It makes more sense for most people to just buy electricity from the national grid, just as most people don't try to purify their own drinking water.
Yes but if it was organised by local councils with proper training it would benefit people, communities and the environment


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Very much so on this forum. Way too much pissing about with obvious cranks who think they've created infinite energy from some silly 'Heath Robinson' contraption of household magnets and waffle about 'vacuum point' this and that by people who don't know the first thing about Quantum Mechanics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
'Free Energy' from perpetual motion and 'over unity' devices are largely snakeoil being peddled by cranks. There's a whole business sector devoted to getting money out of people who like conspiracy theory and science fiction, and Orbo are firmly part of it, just as much as Alex Jones.
It may well be. My point is perhaps its moot argument if we made use of all available technologies. These technologies have been available and ignored for decades as have efficient housing and efficient transportation.

Sater's Duck, wind power, geothermal, hemp powered cars, solar energy, solar water heating the list actually goes on and on, we're using some of them them now but systems such as Salter's duck were devised in the early 70's. As you have seen Tesla proposed many alternatives in the early 1900's where are they? - only just coming out now decades after their inception.

I know renewable energy isn't 'Free Energy' as the definition of it goes but they would all allow us to derive power cheaply and freely and non polluting to consume as we wished without depending on large corporations.

Last edited by pi3141; 01-03-2010 at 01:11 AM.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2010, 12:02 AM   #4
foobar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 331
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Yes I know that too, but I credit people on here with a degree of common sense, didn't realise I had to spoon feed you with facts, the fuel required to power a steam engine can be less than required by burning petrol in inefficient engines for the same amount of work, hence less pollution and more MPG as steam engines can be more efficient.
They sold quite well in the US until electric starter motors were added to internal combustion engines. People didn't like waiting for the steam cars to start up.

Quote:
American car manufacturers did not produce cars that would do 30MPG until the 1990's.
That's because most Americans didn't want them.

Quote:
Again, using a variety of fuels would allow us to burn waste or by products. Rudolph Diesel originally suggested using coal dust from discarded power stations for fuel in his diesel engine. The same engine can also use bio diesel and Hydrogen. Diesel engines powered by Hydrogen clean the air as they drive along. Diesel engines combined with LPG produce 40% more power and virtually zero pollution as the combustion is near 99% efficient.

In the 70's an American police force trialled steam powered cars and reported they outperformed petrol engines in every way but the police force could not wait for the vehicle to attain the required steam from cold. But that does not mean they would be useless for consumers.
Consumers tried them and didn't like them once a faster starting alternative was available.

Quote:
Speak for yourself, some people would. Small scale generators would also provide local jobs. Iceland uses geothermic methods and produces energy very cheaply because they make use of available local resources. People not wanting to do it themselves is just lazy and irresponsible.
People can't or don't want to do lots of things for themselves. They don't want to purify their own water, grow their own food, provide their own medical care. Who are you to tell them what they should or shouldn't do ?

Quote:
But not owned by us, nor do we or the country profit from them.
Anybody can buy shares in a power company.

Quote:
If we made use of available resources we would reduce cost and pollution. I don't see what point you are making.
It's unlikely we'd reduce cost.

Quote:
Capatalism doesn't always mean the best ideas come through as I explained in my 'Everlasting Lightbulb' post. You seem to think capitalism will ALWAYS result in the best and most efficient ideas coming to fruition - it doesn't. It allows the most profitable ideas to come through and they are usually based on the most inefficient ideas as they generate the largest income. Fact of life, if you believe different you are mistaken.
Socialist societies suffer lower standards of living and final economic collapse for a reason, you know.

Quote:
Not a good enough answer too me. Its cheap, so sod it. Seems short sighted to me and looking at the enviromental problems we have been causing it is irresponsible.
You're not a global warming believer are you ?

Quote:
And there are many stories of people with good alternative ideas that have been bought off or blocked by them. Do the research, I have.
I've read a few of these stories, but it always turns out to be from unreliable sources and the few I've followed up turned out to be bullshit. Give me some starting points for the ones that you think are reliable.

Quote:
Rubbish. If the option had been available and the fuels available at local garages then people would have bought them. How many garages sell LPG? Every one of them? Not by a long shot. If LPG was available everywhere more people would take them up. If the technologies had been intoduced as they were conceived then it wouldn't be a massive disruption.
When the government orders these garages to immediately be built the moment somebody thinks of a new fuel, who will pay for them to be constructed?

Last edited by foobar; 01-03-2010 at 10:48 AM.
foobar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2010, 06:31 AM   #5
supersmell
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 173
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Do you have a direct link to the claim that steam engines can be 90% efficient? That would require the maximum temperature of the steam to exceed 2000 K, and would need to be operated at very large pressures to have any isothermal expansion at all.
supersmell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2010, 01:24 PM   #6
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supersmell View Post
Do you have a direct link to the claim that steam engines can be 90% efficient? That would require the maximum temperature of the steam to exceed 2000 K, and would need to be operated at very large pressures to have any isothermal expansion at all.
Try Wiki -


Quote:
Efficiency
Main article: Thermal efficiency
The efficiency of an engine can be calculated by dividing the energy output of mechanical work that the engine produces by the energy input to the engine by the burning fuel.

No heat engine can be more efficient than the Carnot cycle, in which heat is moved from a high temperature reservoir to one at a low temperature, and the efficiency depends on the temperature difference. For the greatest efficiency, steam engines should be operated at the highest steam temperature possible (superheated steam), and release the waste heat at the lowest temperature possible.

In practice, a steam engine exhausting the steam to atmosphere will typically have an efficiency (including the boiler) in the range of 1% to 10%, but with the addition of a condenser and multiple expansion, it may be greatly improved to 25% or better.

A megawatt electrical power station with steam reheat, economizer etc. will achieve up to 50% thermal efficiency.[16]

It is also possible to capture the waste heat using cogeneration in which the waste heat is used for heating a lower boiling point working fluid or as a heat source for district heating via saturated low pressure steam. By this means it is possible to use as much as 85-90% of the input energy.

I took my info from here -

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/ste...fficiency.html

Quote:

To get the efficiency of an engine, divide the number of joules of mechanical work that the engine produces by the number of joules of energy input to the engine by the burning fuel. In general, the rest of the energy is dumped into the environment as heat. No pure heat engine can be more efficient than the Carnot cycle, in which heat is moved from a high temperature reservoir to one at a low temperature, and the efficiency depends on the temperature difference. Hence, steam engines should ideally be operated at the highest steam temperature possible, and release the waste heat at the lowest temperature possible.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In practice, a steam engine exhausting the steam to atmosphere will have an efficiency (including the boiler) of 5%, but with the addition of a condenser the efficiency is greatly improved to 25% or better. A power station with exhaust reheat, etc. will achieve 30% efficiency. Combined cycle in which the burning material is first used to drive a gas turbine can produce 60% efficiency. It is also possible to capture the waste heat using cogeneration in which the residual steam is used for heating. It is therefore possible to use about 90% of the energy produced by burning fuel - only 10% of the energy produced by the combustion of the fuel goes wasted into the atmosphere.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2010, 01:37 PM   #7
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Can I just say, I have spent a lot of effort answering questions that are NOT part of the the general question in the opening post, before I continue, and I will, can you not stay on topic?

You eventually gave me this answer -

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Very much so on this forum. Way too much pissing about with obvious cranks who think they've created infinite energy from some silly 'Heath Robinson' contraption of household magnets and waffle about 'vacuum point' this and that by people who don't know the first thing about Quantum Mechanics.
Which at least answers the question but goes on to attack this forum. To be honest, that answer would have sufficed.


With regards to your question -

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
I've read a few of these stories, but it always turns out to be from unreliable sources and the few I've followed up turned out to be bullshit. Give me some starting points for the ones that you think are reliable.
Have a look at this one to start and I will give you more.

Quote:
You will find here the exact transcript of the 30 June 1982 European patent Publication N° 0055134A1 allowing a car effectively running on water and little aluminum ( I Gk. at 1$ for 400 miles ) without any pollution whatsoever.

Link - http://keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm

Foobar, I notice you did not comment on Ford's Hemp Car or the quote -

Quote:
"There's enough alcohol in one year's yeild of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years." - Henry Ford
Will you comment on this please?

Last edited by pi3141; 01-03-2010 at 01:47 PM.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2010, 03:20 PM   #8
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
They sold quite well in the US until electric starter motors were added to internal combustion engines. People didn't like waiting for the steam cars to start up.
Correct. They also sold quite well until manufacturers added radiators to Internal Combustion Engines allowing them a greater range before overheating.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
That's because most Americans didn't want them.
Incorrect. The manufacturers did not want to produce them as it would have a negative on their economic model. This was admittied in a recent BBC interview with the head of GM research and development. To say people did not want engines that gave more miles for their buck is quite ridiculous.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Consumers tried them and didn't like them once a faster starting alternative was available.

Correct, that is why the American police force rejected them but that does not mean they aren't a better alternative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
People can't or don't want to do lots of things for themselves. They don't want to purify their own water, grow their own food, provide their own medical care. Who are you to tell them what they should or shouldn't do ?
If people knew their were alternatives then I'm sure many people would take them up. My point is alternatives have been surpressed. I'm not telling them what to do generally the government does that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Anybody can buy shares in a power company.
So what. Anybody that can afford shares can buy them but many people, especially in poorer countries would just like cheaper ways of living.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
It's unlikely we'd reduce cost.
Thats an opinion, and a bad one in my opinion. If a car can do 25MPG and another car can do 35MPG how does the car that gets more miles per pound not reduce cost?


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Socialist societies suffer lower standards of living and final economic collapse for a reason, you know.
Usually corruption. This is not a thread about political systems and I am not a socialist. Take that argument elsewhere please.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
You're not a global warming believer are you ?
No, I'm not. I just feel we should respect the planet and ensure we pass on a clean world undestroyed by the greed of corporations for our children and future generations. Is there something wrong with that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
I've read a few of these stories, but it always turns out to be from unreliable sources and the few I've followed up turned out to be bullshit. Give me some starting points for the ones that you think are reliable.
I've given you one already I will provide more. Need to search some links first.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
When the government orders these garages to immediately be built the moment somebody thinks of a new fuel, who will pay for them to be constructed?
Your twisting the argument, new garages do not need to be built but the fuels could be offered in existing garages. But to answer your question - how about the companies that have made good profits from the existing system.


Foobar, I made the point that capitalism does not always mean the best and most efficient products for the consumer comes to market. You have not answered this. I get the impression you believe capitalism will always ensure the best system comes to market. Is that what you believe?

You state that we don now spend enormous amounts of money on renewables but I have stated that we only do that now and have ignored them for decades. I can give you an example - when the Jason research facility advised Reagan that we could be heading for an environmental disaster in 40 years Reagan responded 'Get back to me in 39 years' This is clear evidence that governments have been ignoring advice and alternative systems for decades as I have previously stated. Can you prove otherwise?

I have also given the example of Salter's duck and that the government erroneously concluded that nuclear was more efficient. You have not addressed this point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Ethanol is one form of alcohol. There are cars that run on it. Brazil ran a substantial number of vehicles on it for years (I don't know what proportion of their vehicles still run on it). The main disadvantage I'm aware of is that you need to use a lot of agricultural land to produce the basic raw materials for the scale of alcohol production if you're trying to run all a country's cars and delivery vehicles on it. Brazil had vast areas of fertile land they could turn over to sugar cane production, which is probably one of the reasons they did it.
You have not addressed or proved to me that running cars on alternatives such as Ethanol is unpractical due to the agriculture resources required as you previously stated. I have shown you a system invented by Ford in the 1930's that would have worked. Please make your point and prove to me why this system would be no good as you have stated. Lets not just skip over valid arguments without showing good reason.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 02:26 AM   #9
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Ethanol is one form of alcohol. There are cars that run on it. Brazil ran a substantial number of vehicles on it for years (I don't know what proportion of their vehicles still run on it). The main disadvantage I'm aware of is that you need to use a lot of agricultural land to produce the basic raw materials for the scale of alcohol production if you're trying to run all a country's cars and delivery vehicles on it. Brazil had vast areas of fertile land they could turn over to sugar cane production, which is probably one of the reasons they did it.
Here's a good article on Ethanol from Mike Brown Solutions website. He also has a page on the 100 MPG Carburettor myth (which I disagree with, considering LPG is successful at reducing pollution and increasing MPG it stands to reason vaporising carbs are an improvement) -

Quote:
Ethanol Nation

or How the United States Can Become Independent of Petroleum Products in Three Years

On the other end of the spectrum from the "all we have to do is pull hydrogen out of the water with wind generators and solar stills and use it in our automobiles" crowd is a group of people equally ignorant: the naysayers. There are always people who will tell you that, "it can’t be done" or "it isn’t practical."

David Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, is one of these characters. Professor Pimentel has published a report that says producing ethanol is more trouble than it’s worth: 129,600 British thermal units of energy are required to produce one gallon of ethanol, but a gallon will only give you 76,000 Btus of fuel energy. In other words, producing ethanol results in a net loss of energy. The report can be found in the newsletter of the M. King Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies #98/2. Notice he isn’t "shilling" for the Center for Ethanol Research.

There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning.

The first is that ethanol isn’t produced by using other ethanol. In the big distilleries, it’s produced by using natural gas as a heat source. On the farm, it’s produced by burning wood, corncobs, corn stover, and the like. You can’t take a corncob, convert it to Btus, and run it in your car (unless your car has a steam engine set up with a solid fuel boiler). When a college professor makes a statement this asinine, you have to wonder if he is aware of what hillbillies use corncobs for. Does his Ph.D. stand for "piled higher and deeper"?

Have you ever met or even heard of someone making ethanol who really cared how many Btus to the twig he was getting as he shoved them into the furnace? It takes heat to convert corn to alcohol. That heat can come from any burning solid.

The second problem this line of reasoning creates is that it ignores the First Law of Thermodynamics. That law is expressed as, Energy = Heat & Work. For example, 100,000 Btus of energy, if used in an engine that is 25% efficient, will result in 25,000 Btus of energy being used to do work and 75,000 Btus escaping as heat.

Professor Pimentel Pinkhands (all theory, no practical experience, no dirt or grease under his fingernails) overlooks the energy expended in manufacturing the tools and equipment necessary for oil production, let alone the energy expended in exploration, drilling, transportation, refining, distribution, and the like.

We are not even counting the cost of keeping soldiers all over the world in order to insure a steady supply.

The next question is how practical is it to convert from an oil-based economy running on gasoline and diesel fuel to one running on ethanol?

Let’s start with the numbers.

In the year 2000 Americans consumed 125,720,000,000 gallons of gasoline and 36,979,200,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Rounding off the figures for 2002, gasoline consumption was 131 billion gallons and diesel fuel consumption was 39 billion gallons. Given the current population, that’s slightly less than 1.5 gallons per person per day for gasoline.

Ethanol production at it’s highest ever was 2 billion gallons in 2002. That’s roughly 7 gallons per year per person. How do we go from 7 gallons per year to 1.5 gallon per day per person?

In the year 2000 there were 9,915,051,000 bushels of corn produced in the United States. Rounding off the production figures, 7 billion went to feed livestock. The remaining 3 billion went for other uses including exports. Assuming we could convert 10 billion bushels of corn to ethanol at the standard rate of 2.5 gallons per bushel, that would be 25 billion gallons of ethanol annually. That’s only 89 gallons of motor fuel annually per person, or one-fourth gallon per person per day.

Our livestock wouldn’t starve with this program. After you distill the alcohol from the corn, you wind up with distillers dried grains (DDG). Essentially, it is the starch portion (about 70%) of the corn kernel that is converted into ethanol. All the remaining nutrients in corn, such as the protein, fat, minerals, and vitamins are concentrated and come in the form of distillers grains, which can be fed to livestock wet or dry. Sometimes the liquid that is separated from the mash is partially dehydrated into a syrup and added back into the distillers grains which creates a product called distillers dried grains with soluble (DDGS). A bushel of corn, which weighs 56 pounds, will produce 17 pounds of DDG and 2.5 gallons of ethanol.

For cattle, you simply grind up corncobs and slop the DDG over them.

The question is, how do we go from enough corn production to increase the alcohol availability six times, from 10 billion bushels of corn a year to 60 billion bushels a year, in order to insure enough ethanol to meet our current domestic fuel needs?

The first, and most obvious way, is to increase corn production. As of the year 2,000 there were 2,172,289 farms in the United States, with a combined acreage of 943,090,000 acres. As long ago as 1890 corn yield was 40 bushels an acre. Today, the yield varies between 100 and 150 bushels.

Many farms outdo the average yield. In 2002 the winner of the National Corn Yield Contest was Francis Childs of Manchester, Iowa who set a new record of 442.14 bushels per acre. The previous record was from Childs in 2001 with a yield of 408.2 bushels per acre. Others in the competition had yields in the range of 200-300 bushels per acre.

Rounding off the farm acreage to 900 million, let’s see what we get. If all this acreage were in corn, we would have 90 billion bushels of corn, which could be converted to 225 billion gallons of alcohol fuel, as compared with the 125 billion gallons of gasoline we use now.

That’s about 100 billion gallons of ethanol we don’t really need. However, not all American farmland is suitable for corn production. It would only take two-thirds of the presently existing farmland.

Even if we couldn’t use existing farmland, we could still convert to 100% ethanol use. There are a couple of problems we would have to overcome first.

The Problems

First, farming in this day and age is not always a profitable business. Oil production, by contrast is. Foreign imports and controlled markets drive the price down.

Second, there are a lot fewer farms now than we once had. When the Republic was founded prior to 1800, of the 3 million people in the United States, 90% of them were subsistence farmers. In 1900 there were 76,212,168 people in the United States (U.S. Census) but only 5, 610,983 farms. By the year 2000, we had over 280 million people but only 2,172,280 farms. In the period 1991 to 2001 farm acreage has declined from 981,736,000 to 941,210,000 acres, or 4 %. At this rate, in another 100 years, there will be no farm acreage left in the United States.

The Solutions

First, forget about the Government doing anything. If the Government gave corn-growing alcohol producing farmers the same subsidies ("corporate welfare") it gives the oil companies, corn production would expand six-fold in a year. Reform has to come from the bottom up, not the top down. For example, one man I talked to recently drives 150 miles to pick up a 55-gallon drum of alcohol that costs him $2.00 a gallon to run in his Volkswagen Bus and his Ford Explorer. The reason? He wants to do his part to cut down pollution.

Enough people like him would definitely lessen pollution. You’ve heard of oil spills. Have you ever heard of an ethanol spill?

Second, corn isn’t the only farm product you can make fuel from. Every soybean bushel will yield a gallon of diesel fuel. It’s actually easier to make than ethanol. The leftovers are a high-quality cattle feed.

Any fruit can be turned into ethanol. It’s easier than corn.

Supposedly, we have a manure glut from cattle, hogs, chickens, and turkeys. For 1997, the "glut" was 1.36 billion tons.

However, according to a Report On Pyrolysis, Bureau of Mines 7560 (1971) done in Philadelphia, with a tabletop model, 2,000 pounds of cow manure can be turned into 800 pounds of crude oil (you have to add carbon monoxide or hydrogen gas) under high temperatures and pressure in 30 minutes.

That is, we have the expertise, we have the land, we have the people, and we have the raw materials necessary to get off petroleum dependence. What we do not seem to have is the energy to get off our collective butts and get the job done.

Ironically, in 1962 a man named Donald Despain authored a book titled "The One and Only Solution to the Farm Problem," describing how allowing farmers a piece of the fuel production pie would keep our farmers solvent. That problem has now become everyone’s problem, not just the farmers.

How difficult and time-consuming would this be?

Let me use one example. Let’s say we had to replace one-third of our domestic gasoline consumption with alcohol as quickly as possible.

The time for a simple farmer to set up 100 55-gallon drums to produce 250 gallons of alcohol with a pipe full of rocks as a fractionating column to produce 190 proof (95%) alcohol is one day.

The time to ferment is three days.

The time to distill is one day.

That is, we could drop our dependence on gasoline by one-third in one week. In three years, we could end our dependence on petroleum forever.

Link - http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/index.html

Last edited by pi3141; 02-03-2010 at 03:27 AM.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 05:51 AM   #10
rikk
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Why fight with foobar... he knows everything. lol

http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm

Here's a little free energy for you.

2SGen PROJECT LOG BOOK


2SGen v1.0 is an amazing Solid State Generator very simple to build, you will observe some very interesting results about the properties of a toroidal coil with a ferromagnetic core when it is used with a neodymium magnet.

Updated 27/02/10 : Successful 2SGen replications by independants experimenters

Episode 6: The 2SGen hidden principle: the core magnetization/demagnetization process
Episode 5: Towards more output power with a new magnet/toroid setup with the 2SGen
Episode 4: Test of the 2SGen with a Nanoperm, a Nanocrystalline alloy toroïdal core
Episode 3: The Moving magnet experiment
Episode 2: Test of the 2SGen with and without the magnet
rikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 05:59 AM   #11
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Lol. Yeah I regularly check Naudins site, good stuff over there I got really into the Bingo fuel project and he's doing a sterling job replicating Steorn Orbo and Beardens MEG.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 06:38 PM   #12
foobar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 331
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Naudin's a crank too.

http://www.nuscam.com/pdf/garbage_physics.pdf
foobar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 08:35 PM   #13
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Thanks for the link. I'll read that tonight looks interesting.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 01:24 AM   #14
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
You're not a global warming believer are you ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
No, I'm not. I just feel we should respect the planet and ensure we pass on a clean world undestroyed by the greed of corporations for our children and future generations. Is there something wrong with that?

According to News Scientist this week, we're both wrong -

There's no war to fight over global warming
02 March 2010 by Alan Thorpe

Link - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527490.100
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 09:14 AM   #15
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Well i can't fault the analysis. My only question is what is Naudin getting from it? A commision from the book sales??

Seriously, either he is paid stooge or he believes he has something.

Same with Bedini, he has a business building amplifiers, has real patents and real inventions in commercial use (B.A.S.E. System used at Glastonbury festival and by Kiss F.M. and other recording studio's) Why the hell would Bedini put his name to all this if its just fraud.

Don't make sense to me.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 12:56 PM   #16
rikk
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 59
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Well i can't fault the analysis. My only question is what is Naudin getting from it? A commision from the book sales??

Seriously, either he is paid stooge or he believes he has something.

Same with Bedini, he has a business building amplifiers, has real patents and real inventions in commercial use (B.A.S.E. System used at Glastonbury festival and by Kiss F.M. and other recording studio's) Why the hell would Bedini put his name to all this if its just fraud.

Don't make sense to me.
I don't want to make out that Bedini is a fraud, but there are whole crews of people who are in the employ of the shadow government who's sole mission is spreading disinfo to keep people running in circles.

Last edited by rikk; 04-03-2010 at 02:03 AM.
rikk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 10:09 PM   #17
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rikk View Post
I don't want to make out that Bedini is a fraud, but there are whole crews of people who are in the employ of the shadow government who's soul mission is spreading disinfo to keep people running in circles.

Well you got to wonder haven't you? Bedini is a successful engineer and inventor. He came up with the data format for CD's. Builds high end audiophile amplifiers, invented the B.A.S.E system used by studios, radio stations and live gig's such as Glastonbury. He's no fool. I have emailed him (decade ago) he freely gave his controller plans to me. He is not peddling 'Free Energy' DVD's or books. As far as I can see you have an intelligent, successful man who is not trying to profit from this stuff. Bearden merely acts as some sort of advisor for him and together, with others, they developed the MEG. Bearden is the one selling books and DVD's and stands to gain financially from that. I have never questioned Bedini's integrity.

But I can't fault the analysis in that PDF, I admit I only followed the PDF and assumed the facts in it to be true, I need to compare the details with Naudin's site but the PDF worked from Naudin's own results. I just can't see what is going on here. Check out Shawn Bishop's credentials -

http://www.universe-cluster.de/news/...-Astrophysics/

He's no idiot.

I don't trust James Randi one second who he mentions in the PDF, but still, you got to wonder what the hell is going on.

When I originally read Bearden's site (decade ago) he stated on the site that Yang and Lee discovered Scalar Waves and won a Nobel for it in the 1950's. I took that at face value as it seems such a claim could easily be verified and he would be stupid to try and falsify a claim like that. If you read Beardens site now, it no longer makes the same claim. Thats suspicious.

Here's the Nobel link for them -

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...aureates/1957/

Clearly, this is not the truth, they did not discover 'Scalar Waves' to be honest, I am shocked by that. if indeed, a new 'wave' had been discovered then clearly there is a path to a new physics, thats what 'sucked' me in to this. New discovery in Physics, takes a while to filter down til its use is put in practice and just maybe along the way the PTB have 'surpressed' the relevance etc. Seemed highly plausible to me.

To be honest, I haven't given up hope, but my confidence has taken a knocking!!
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 12:00 AM   #18
white horse
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK PLC
Posts: 3,621
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
I'm wondering about the search for free enrgy, not the possibility but rather the idea that while we're all looking for the magical science that allows a black box to be installed in our house producing a never ending supply of energy we are ignoring all the possible solutions to energy problems.
Yes a very good question.

Here is what I understand about 'free energy'.

Forget the term free - it is not free. It is no different to any other energy. It has come from somewhere like all the other energy.

It depends on thinkng of the entire Universe as a soup of energy. It is everywhere, all around us.

Now this isn't as far out man as it first might seem. But think about it. We like in a galaxy of enourmous mass that is spinning very fast, it involves an enourmous amount of energy; similarly our Solar System is spinning like a wobbly wheel, and the Earth and Moon are spinning and acting on each other. And of course there is the Sun, which we gain energy from constantly. 'I read somewhere' that the Earth grows by 1 Kilogram each year in light from the Sun!

So - here is the punch line. When GCSE physics books teach you about physics and you get to the Laws of Thermodynamics which are immutable.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the sum of all the energies in the system is a constant.


The main highlighted problem is that standard physics would then describe events in a theoretical 'closed system' and work the laws through their paces with various elements. However, as physicists like the excellent point out, you cannot detach yourself from the outer universe, therefore there are no closed systems except the universe itself. Even theoretically.

I think it was Nassim who claims that Werner von Braun discovered this independantly of Tesla while he was working for NASA. He realised that his rockets were never on during orbits, and always by a constant and measurable amount. Werner von Braun then realised that the rocket was getting a 'kick' from the rotation of the Earth that added energy to it. It's small, but it is constant and permanent. You just have to find it.

Sounds plausable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Renewables are well known, there are many possibilities for producing clean energy, there are many possibilities for non polluting cars, there are many ways to reduce our dependancy but these seem slow coming to market and almost forgotten.
There are but the car industry is enourmous. It destroyed the railways in the 60s and the car has been king ever since. Basically they want/need you to buy a brand new car every 3 years!

Remember things have changed - modern industry is marketting led rather than engineering led - and profir driven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post

Why does Barratts et al keep building houses using old ideas?
Beggars belief doesn't it?!

A few years ago I was loking into product research for renewable energies. All kinds of crazy stuff; from improvements in current technology and lookinginto new technology; but getting funding was a joke. All sources of funding help required specific and detailed business plans and if that did not show a clear trail towards profit it would be rejected. It was all about sticking with the current modern orthodoxy. I retreated from a lot of that because I realised that there was no will to change. Those with the power to change things wanted to keep us enslaved.

So anyway, one of the projects was focussing on house building from start to finish;

The motto I used was not

Reduce - Reuse- Recycle

My slogan was Rethink - Reduce - Reuse - Recycle.

So we wanted to look at houses/homes altogether.

And you know what. It runs coounter to the current modern orthodoxy. Because you end up with the same generalised solutions; that is a greater emphasis on community and sharing resources. It would require a greater degree of cooperation between neighbours and communities.

But that was not what was wanted by those in charge. They wanted division. Individual only. Pah!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post

Why don't we have cars running on ethanol, alcohol or other 'clean' fuels such as steam?
As I remember even back in the 80s Honda R&D had developed a car that ran on H2O.

About 10 years ago there was a community, in the West Country I think, that was using local traders to run their cars on used chip-shop oil (filtered). They were busted by teh Inland Revenue for evading Fuel Duty. Instead of sending people to congratulate on a brilliant example of renewable use they sent the tax man to threaten them with jail. I think these days there are actually a lot more of these groups now. (I think you have to agree to pay a duty on the cash value of the fuel; so it is very low on veg oil instead of petrol, it is a token gesture really. It's kinda liek beign at school. Here we are trying to expand our consciousness and you are just focussing on fucking rules!

The will is against folks like you and me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post

Why don't we employ local power generating methods to produce power for towns such as river turbines?

Why don't we have small scale local or even personal power generators using local resources?
Definitely fundamental to the answer.

Good comments and good questions OP.
white horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010, 02:15 AM   #19
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Thanks for the reply, its a good one. It was getting a bit lonely on this thread!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by white horse View Post
Forget the term free - it is not free. It is no different to any other energy. It has come from somewhere like all the other energy.

It depends on thinkng of the entire Universe as a soup of energy. It is everywhere, all around us.
Yes, this is what I have come to think - just can't find the 'proof' or convince any physicist about it!

But regardless of 'Free Energy' there is, as you point out, energy all around us, sun, wind, wave, earths magnetic field. All we need to do is tap into these however and wherever they can be most beneficial and we literally could have energy for nothing. This was my opening point, modern well designed houses, geo thermal heating, solar water heating, solar panels delivering power to a 12V electrical system (most equipment in the home operates 12V but the power supply module converts 240V down to 12V and we lose loads in heat, not to mention the unreliability factor 'engineered' into the power supplies ensuring they break every 5 years so we must renew. The vacum tube was a huge advance, why must they design the power supplies to break so we have to throw away perfectly good tubes - crazy!!!!) Use gas or hydrogen for heat and cooking. (Edison suggested every house had a 'bath' outside with a lid, a man would deliver a plate of Iron to your door every morning like the milkman bringing milk. You drop the plate into the bath, close the lid and let it rust to produce hydrogen for heating and light) By employing multiple strategies we could easily produce our own power, as you say - we live in a sea of energy, we just ignore it or rather, 'they' have educated us to ignore it and be dependent on 'them' for their profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by white horse View Post
But that was not what was wanted by those in charge. They wanted division. Individual only. Pah!
Exactly The biggest lesson we could all learn is cooperation but thats exactly what 'they' don't want. Hence our schooling is all about individual competition, if you understand go to the head of the class and reap the rewards, if your classmate doesn't, let him fail, he will do all your menial jobs in the future. Such a shame we treat people this way. i read this in a couple of books called 'This Book' and 'That Book' lent them out, not seem them since, as has happened with a lot of books I've bought and passed on to others.


Quote:
Originally Posted by white horse View Post
About 10 years ago there was a community, in the West Country I think, that was using local traders to run their cars on used chip-shop oil (filtered). They were busted by teh Inland Revenue for evading Fuel Duty. Instead of sending people to congratulate on a brilliant example of renewable use they sent the tax man to threaten them with jail. I think these days there are actually a lot more of these groups now. (I think you have to agree to pay a duty on the cash value of the fuel; so it is very low on veg oil instead of petrol, it is a token gesture really. It's kinda liek beign at school. Here we are trying to expand our consciousness and you are just focussing on fucking rules!
Yep, I read about an MP in Wales, doing the same thing, IRS raided his house, dozens of them. Threatened to ruin him, he had to register as 'Maker of Fuels' and account for, fill forms and pay tax every month, if he was ever late, down came the IRS to threaten him. He wrote on his blog, if you do what I'm doing you better make sure if you go on holiday someone will fill in the forms and send them off for you otherwise, when you come back from holiday, IRS will have seized your house, possessions, bank acount and you'll be looking at prison for tax fraud - is this the way to treat people who are trying to improve the planet?? All that used chip oil poured down the drains, clogging the sewers, requiring constant maintenance could be stopped and put to good use, reducing pollution and helping heal the sick polluted world we live in. What a shame, the government should be charged with crimes against humanity for enforcing these rules. Sick b*st*rds!! But whats more sick is that we just take it without a wimper!

Quote:
Originally Posted by white horse View Post
The will is against folks like you and me.
Amen to that. The world is against people like you and me. I find it incredible, but most are so dumbed down they are, as another poster on this thread put it - to lazy to bother or care. Commercial capatalist slaves. While others are so 'educated' they can't see the world for what it is and believe capatalism will save the day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by white horse View Post
Good comments and good questions OP.
Thanks dude. Good luck!!
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2010, 12:40 PM   #20
pi3141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,547
Likes: 100 (79 Posts)
Default

Hi Foobar, I'm still waiting for a few answers from you. I have cut and pasted a few quotes from the preceeding thread for clarity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
It seems that 'we' depend on 'them' to produce our energy and hope one day they will find a clean, efficient and sustainable method which will reduce the cost to virtually zero. Something that will never happen as it would destroy their profits.
You stated

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Capitalism doesn't work like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
Ethanol is one form of alcohol. There are cars that run on it. Brazil ran a substantial number of vehicles on it for years (I don't know what proportion of their vehicles still run on it). The main disadvantage I'm aware of is that you need to use a lot of agricultural land to produce the basic raw materials for the scale of alcohol production if you're trying to run all a country's cars and delivery vehicles on it.
I stated

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Henry Ford suggested running cars on ethanol derived from Hemp. Hemp does not require such massive land areas to produce the raw materials and grows very quickly.
I quoted

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
"There's enough alcohol in one year's yeild of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years." - Henry Ford
I stated

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
Capatalism doesn't always mean the best ideas come through as I explained in my 'Everlasting Lightbulb' post. You seem to think capitalism will ALWAYS result in the best and most efficient ideas coming to fruition - it doesn't. It allows the most profitable ideas to come through and they are often based on the most inefficient ideas as they generate the largest income.
I also stated

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
I know of other examples such as paper production from Hemp in the early 1900's and still to this day such manufacturing of paper seems blocked by government.
Here is some quotes to back that claim up -

Quote:
The USDA Bulletin #404 concluded that hemp produces 4 times as much pulp with at least 4 to 7 times less pollution
Also

Quote:
Hemp produces 4.3 times more pulp fiber per hectare. Hemp paper products can be recycled seven times while paper made from wood-pulp can only be recycled three times.
I also stated

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
And there are many stories of people with good alternative ideas that have been bought off or blocked by them.
To which you responded

Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post
I've read a few of these stories, but it always turns out to be from unreliable sources and the few I've followed up turned out to be bullshit. Give me some starting points for the ones that you think are reliable.
I have also referenced as an example

Quote:
Originally Posted by pi3141 View Post
You will find here the exact transcript of the 30 June 1982 European patent Publication N° 0055134A1 allowing a car effectively running on water and little aluminum ( I Gk. at 1$ for 400 miles ) without any pollution whatsoever.

Link - http://keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm


So, to recap, I've suggested -

Ford's Hemp powered and produced from Hemp car running on Ethanol produced from Hemp or Potato.

Paper production from Hemp being more efficient and having less environmental impact than traditional paper production.

Salters Duck as a method for producing electricity more efficiently (cost effective) than nuclear.

An 'everlasting lightbulb' has been produced (in a variety of ways) with significantly greater life span than normal bulbs resulting in less environmental impact, cheaper product in the long run for the consumer.

A car running on water and a small amount of Alluminum

And I have asked if you believe capitalism will ALWAYS result in the best and most efficient products coming to market.


Are you still researching these suggestions or will you now answer if they are or are not 'bullshit' ideas as you stated most turn out to be.

I'm not trying to be confrontational but I am interested to hear your thoughts and I do not like to let valid points be forgotten or dismissed without explanation, when I myself am able to recognise and accept when I am wrong and admit such. To not address these points and allow them to be forgotten would make debating you very on sided.
pi3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:18 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.