BS: Alternative energy sources

Subject: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:31 AM

I'm sure we have been here before but looking at the thread on nuclear power reminded me to get everyone looking again. I am looking for REAL alternaives here, not yer namby-pamby nuclear, wave or wind poweres:-)

I'll start

1. Nuclear fusion followed by fission, followed by fusion, followed by... It never runs out if you do it like that and there is no waste:-)

2. A giant rail running the earth in a geo-stationary position that is attched to huge bicycle type dynamos...

3. A bit nearer home - Cars. Use clockwork. Have wind-up stations in place of petrol stations. Employ people to do the winding or use cheap slave labour from the criminal fraternity;-)

4. Dilithium crystlas.

Any more?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 11:56 AM

(1) Fission works with elements downwards towards iron. Fusion works with elements going upwards. That's to say, to re- fuse a product of a fission reaction takes all the energy you got out back again.

(2) Do you know how far away the geostationary orbit is? It's about 22000 miles (the Earth's radius is about 4000 miles).

(3) This must be a wind-up. Use bikes and get fit. Walk. Don't travel so much unnecessarily. Live near where you work and the shops. Insulate the house. Don't have so many kids. Burn the lawyers.

(4) Unobtanium dilithide is better.

(5) Hope cold fusion works.

(6) Methane from poo. This may be a form of perpetual motion.

(7) geothermal power (what happened to that?)

(8) There must be a lot of power wasted when a region of meteorological high or low pressure passes over. If only we could convert that to motion, like a gigantic Newcomen engine...

(9) Find a way of extracting power from stupidity, it's an infinite resource.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:14 PM

Yay - Good man yerself, Paul.

Keep 'em coming...

What about all the energy wasted by the hot air on Mudcat;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:17 PM

Very good timing for starting this thread, DtG. I've been thinking about starting one to see what people think about this site I found...

http://www.focusfusion.org/what/whatis.html

The basic premise: focus fusion uses hydrogen-boron fuel, which its researchers say does not leave any kind of radio-active residue (unlike the other kind of fuels being researched today) and the source of heat is what they call a "plasma focus device". They say it's too early in their research to determine whether or not this method produces more fuel than it uses, but they say that the models they've been using suggest that it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM

Oops. Is this a taking the piss thread? Maybe I should start one of my own then...

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:18 PM

I'm sorta curious about that, too, Carol. But whatever. Anyway, here goes:

Two I can think of, off-hand.

I once read an article about the possibilities of placing large turbines underwater in the various currents around the earth, such as the Gulf Stream, to provide electricity. This would be the same principle as wind power. As far as I know, nothing has ever been done along that line. Main objection (similar to objection to wind farms re:   migrating birds) is that it might interfere with whales and fish migration, but with a little ingenuity, this could certainly be dealt with.

Another is a system that would work especially well on the moon, to provide electrical power for a moon base, but it would also work effectively in desert areas on earth. It's based on the fact that ground will absorb the sun's heat during the day, and radiate it at night. A system of pipes containing a fluid is buried in a large patch of ground (it could by acres or square miles, depending). Then, a large sheet of insulating material set on rails, covering half the area containing the pipes. During the day, the patch of ground beneath the sheet is shielded from the sun, so it grows cooler. At night, the sheet is rolled (the purpose of the rails) over the adjacent half containing the pipes. The following day, the sheet is returned to its original position, and so on, alternating day and night. The result of this is that the patch that is covered during the day grows colder while the patch with is covered at night (preventing it from radiating its heat away) grows hotter. This causes the fluid in the pipes to circulate like crazy, and it can by used to drive turbines. After the system is installed, the cost of maintenance would be minimal.

[Maybe I should keep this idea, come up with while figuring out some details for a science fiction story I never got around to writing, a deep, dark secret. I am reminded of Arthur C. Clarke's brief article entitled "How I Lost a Million Dollars in my Spare Time," in which he describes how some years before, he wrote an article about how three satellites set in geosynchronous orbit could provide communications links to the entire world. He didn't patent the idea because he didn't think it would happen for another century or so. Shortly thereafter, the first Telestar was launched. But wotthehell, I'm a generous guy. I'll give it to the world for nothing.]

But seriously, folks, I advocate that we place a large funnel over the Capitol Building in Washington, D. C. (the White House as well, and perhaps over state capitol buildings and city halls) to capture the vast quantities of hot air and pipe it throughout the country to provide heat for residential housing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bert
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:22 PM

Your funnel idea has one drawback Don, how would you get rid of the smell of all that shit.

If the use of windpower became widespread, would it slow down the rotation of the earth?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:24 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how far-flung some people think you need to go.

We have this humongous pumping system in place and operational, involving a gravitic mass of significant value in a geostationary orbit such that it displaces trillions of cubic feet of saltwater by a distance of from 1 to 10 feet over 700 times per year. If you can get some valid numbers for the actual number of cubic feet displaced you can do the math yourself.

How come we are so slow at using this built-in pumping system? We've been using Niagara Falls for almost 100 years now for power; it's worked out quite well overall.

Two others sources worth considering are clean fuel distilled from coal and (of course) hydrogen. Both require major infrastructures (the coal solution less os) but both are feasible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:42 PM

You've got a point, Bert. I hadn't thought of that! Scratch the funnel!

I've heard somr fairly wild ideas from time to time for using tidal power, Amos, but I'm curious. What did you have in mind?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:44 PM

Bert:

I seriously doubt that the use of wind-power would have any impact on the rotational velocity of the earth.

You're talking about very different orders of magnitude of mass, for one thing.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: greg stephens
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:24 PM

Well, it certainly would slow the earth down, but as Amos says: not very much. I personally favour just using less power, which is another way of looking at the problem. Turn your heating down a notch, put an extra jumper on. Insulate your house. Dont drive around so much. Dont eat foetal peas flown in from outer Gombolia. All that obvious stuff.
    But wind-up cars is obviously a usefuk thing to look into, possibly with the assistance of Sir JOhn from Hull's hamsters and asylum New Seekers.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Kaleea
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:44 PM

Way back in the early 80's, in the heart of Oklahoma oil country, my brother (actively anti nuke) wrote an article about 10 exhisting power sources NOT fossil fuels. Our uncles who were still hanging on in the independent oil biz were impressed.

p.s. It did not include anything about hamsters

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 03:45 PM

Kaleea:

Well, what did he say?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bert
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 06:59 PM

It was a joke really but I'll continue the argument just for fun.

Well, it certainly would slow the earth down, but as Amos says: not very much.

That's what they said when they first started dumping sewage in the oceans. It won't pollute them very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 07:09 PM

I remember a time, Bert, when there were popular phrases like the 'limitless oceans'. Wherever did those days go?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:31 PM

Im always interested in alternative energy..

agreed with above, the best way to save energy is conservation..
however there are more gadgets every year..

re cars:
I think there was a French car that works on compressed air..
It came out last year, dont know what happened to it.

there are hybrid plug-in electric cars right now, which essentially are converted hybrids with added lithium/ion battery banks (drawbacks are it increases weight by 170lbs, and invalidates your warranty on the other hand it can be plugged in and is sufficient for about 30km before kicking into gas engine mode) this would be an average daily commute so you could get quite a lot of mileage out of a tank of gas..
(of course it does require re-charging and uses electricity which still needs to be accounted for but typically that would be at offpeak hours)

Solar energy using mirrors focused on a sterling engine.
(Sterling Energy in California recently won a contract to supply
electricity - check out www.stirlingenergy.com) apparently it is still
the most efficient solar system - of course there are drawbacks too,
wind hail damage etc. but supposedly a 100square miles of their solar collectors would be enough to supply the total US electrical supply
-- quoted in Business Week article)

Recently Popular Mechanics had a few articles about alternative renewable energy-- and some good ideas were generating electricity from (chemical reaction with wasteprocessing plants) thus getting rid of poop and making energy - albeit it was a small amount - but enough to power a waste processing plant one day.

or small wind generators - even where wind is not high (average 11km per hour - but using a 5ft diam. windmill, which if the wind isnt high enough speed to recharge the batteries will store the charge as in a capacitor until there is enough to charge..

of course geothermal heat pumps..

using tidal power (floating grid of buoys using the up and down movement to induce electricity)

or tidal power in narrows, under water etc..

there is even a design for huge screens which would scrub c02 by having react with calcium and thus neutralizing it..
(i dont know why this cant be done on asmaller scale and simply attach it to car exhausts.. but Im not an engineer.)

cheers
Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: bobad
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 09:33 PM

Elbow grease.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 08:52 AM

Britain could produce about a dozen nuclear powerstationsworths of electricity by building the Severn barrage, and more still with tidal barrages across other estuaries. However, that would wipe out a vast area of intertidal zone that is the habitat of many of Europe's wading birds.

I suppose a 30km Straits of Dover barrage would produce still more, but annoy all northern Europe's shipping. But a Mull of Kintyre barrage, now there's a thought- a 20km road/ rail bridge to Ireland included. Or even a dual Kintyre/ Galloway barrage. However, Scotland having provided all the oil for the 80s and 90s, they might baulk at providing England with power for all time, and there might be a secession creating a Scotland/ Northern Irish/ Republic state, energy rich but leaving England in the lurch.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 09:15 AM

Well, Carol, it is slightly tongue in cheek but who knows what will come of it:-) The silliest ideas sometimes turn out to be best. Let us call it a think tank and see if we can get government funding...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 10:25 AM

Peter, the problem with the calcium scrubbers to get rid of CO2 is simple, you need to get the calcium from somewhere.

The only significant form calcium is found in is as calcium cabonate, ie limestone. The reaction is below.


Limestone (CaCO3) + Heat --> Carbon dioxide (CO2) + Lime (CaO)

To make the lime, you have to first release the CO2 you can absorb with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:15 PM

LOL, DtG.

Just out of curiosity, has anybody read the contents of the link I posted? I'd be interested to know what other people think about the idea of focused fusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:32 PM

Yes, I had a look at it. It appears to be real science, no magic or wishful thinking involved. The problems of creating and controlling the plasma seem to be formidable, but perhaps it's not much harder than a fission reactor. It hasn't actually worked yet, but looks to be a relatively easily examined option compared to either fission or the large- scale fusion that has been tried, and has failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 12:41 PM

Thanks, Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 01:53 PM

During the Eighties I worked as a technical writer for a firm under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. The firm I worked for conducted inspections of houses that had been weatherized under a BPA energy conservation program. My job was to take a tall stack of inspector's reports on individual residences and boil it down to a six page report. If all was in order, BPA would cut a check to pay for the weatherization.

This whole thing came about when the Department of Energy commissioned the BPA and similar organization around the country to find new and inexpensive sources of electrical energy. After much scientific input, agonizing surveys, analysis, meetings, cussing and discussing, and more analysis, the BPA was dragged, kicking and screaming, to an inescapable conclusion:   the least expensive source of new energy was to eliminate waste. That dreaded word:   conservation.

Once they started funding their residential weatherization program and some savings figures came in, the Washington State government started an "Oil Help" program, similarly funding weatherization of residences that heated with oil. I worked on that program, too.

At least around here, the idea caught on. Seattle City Light is now supplying its customers with low wattage bulbs. We use them and they're fine. Just as bright and they last a lot longer than regular incandescent bulbs.

Conservation won't solve all the problems, but it will certainly help, and it's just an intelligent thing to do. Trade your SUV in on a hybrid car. Take the bus. Better still, get a bicycle. Go turn something off.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 05 - 02:01 PM

I read it and it sounds hopeful. I wish these guys had a grip on funding. At present their hard results look fine but are limited, and their hopeful projections are the very kind that make jaded investment people nervous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:13 AM

Apparantly whan using a static cycle connected to a generator you can generate .5kW per hour. Now then, assuming that 1/2 the population of the UK are fit enough to do it we could make using a static cycle for an hour a day compulsory. 30 million people = 15 million killowats! How much would that help? Not just that - Think of the fitness benefits and the saving to the health service.

We could also make it so that people who do more than an hour get cheaper electricity - therby helping the unemployed;-) Those that can't do it need a doctors note. those that won't do it are charged more for their power!

Eeeeeh, why won't anyone give me a job in government...

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: rumanci
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 10:18 AM

Heck ! Dave (tG)

You ought to pedal your wares
You make a great spokesman !

rum

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:20 AM

Yeah, but there's a risk he'd get tyred out...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:25 AM

I think that joke is wheely bad...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:01 PM

Well spoke, sir. Obviously we are building a strong chain here; let us hope it does not brake, and that Joe does not condemn us to having our handlesbarred.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: rumanci
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:06 PM

Gear we go again !
but we'd better tread softly
or somebody will punch our lights out

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM

"Apparantly whan using a static cycle connected to a generator you can generate .5kW per hour."

Well, kW doesn't have time in it (a watt is a joule per second), but you can't do that rate unless you're Superman. Lance Armstrong can do about 600W (0.6kW), but only for short periods. Real people can do 60-100W continuously.

Yes, people should bike to get fit, but better do it commuting than on an exercise bike. I only wish my route to work wasn't 3 miles of hills (1 in 7 down, 1 in 8 up and 1 in 8 down coming, and the reverse going) with extreme HGV traffic all the way for company.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM

We're only about 8 light minutes from a wacking great star that's been pumping out zillions of kilowatts for billions of years. I'm sure that, if we really wanted to, we could harness a bit more of that for our own use (?)
Actually, I think we're going to be the first species to bring about our own extinction and we're locked onto that course, come what may.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Paul Burke
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 05:20 AM

Solar power, we could, DB. Sadly or fortunately just about two tenths of a trillionth of the Sun's power actually reaches the Earth, but it's still about 1.4kW/square metre at the equator on a fine day. Say 0.8kW/sqm at UK's latitude. But of course, most of it is absorbed by the clouds, dust in the atmosphere etc. etc.

Say we typically get a tenth of that, 80W/sqm. If we can get 100% conversion that's only 500 metres square for 20MW. But conversion is much lower, figures anyone?

We do really need some good, efficient

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:07 AM

The ring around the Earth need not be in geosynchronous orbit.
It would not need to rotate at all, but it would then be unstable and one side would fall down.
A gentle spin would be all that was needed to keep it up, but how would you draw energy from it?

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:47 AM

Conversion of PV power is well under 10%.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:14 AM

Ah but it does Keith - and that answers your question. If was in a geostationary orbit spinning slower that the earths rotation (or in the opposite direction) all we need is very tall pylons with wheels on the end going up into space to make contact with the ring. The wheels are of course huge dynamos and are connected back to earth down the very tall pylons with bits of wire...

Easy when you know how:-)

Now then. Anyone up to building a prototype out of meccano?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:16 AM

MIcrowave transmission would serve.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 08:41 AM

The giant pylons with wheels would indeed be a simple and elegant engineering solution.
I am more concerned with how you replace the energy you draw so that the ring does not slow down.
If the ring was more like a mill wheel, passing comets and asteroids would collide with the paddles and impart momentum.
You would just need to shield the side of the wheel that would face the oncoming flow of planetoids.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:47 AM

what I recall from university apprx 30-40% of solar energy is reflected, the remaining goes into latent heat (heating the temperature of the soil etc) and evaporation of water (the largest portion).
When I asked the professor how much actually goes to support life on earth - the answer was 'negligible' less than 1%.
or to put it another way..

according to Hubbert's peak.com the amount of

solar energy in 24hrs = total amount of oil reserves (past-future)

I should say the while pv solar conversion is not that efficient,
the solar dish mentioned above (made by stirling energy) focuses the heat on a stirling engine - and is approx 40% efficient (Id have to double check) but that's what I recall reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 12:37 PM

Spin of the wheel isn't too much of an issue - I was thinking more of the spin of the Earth providing the energy;-)

Bugger about the asteroids though - Could we use a giant tube of asteroid cream?

:D (tG)

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 01:39 AM

Carol C

Re your post on "focused fusion." I don't find sufficient detail to tell precisely how they intend to accomplish whatever they expect to do, but I'm a little troubled by their comment to the effect of "temperatures near one million degrees centigrade have been achieved in the laboratory," and are "near the temperatures required for focused fusion."

That sounds quite reasonable, but their schematic diagram shows this "one million degrees centigrade" in close proximity to one electrode made of copper and another made of brass. This suggests either extremely bizarre metalurgy, or an incomplete concept.

Pardon my doubts, but I am a bit dubious. And it does not look "scientific" at all to me, ... but then they didn't really provide any supporting theory.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 02:25 AM

Connect Amos to a gas turbine generator. He produces enough hot air to light up LA

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 09:11 AM

Well, there's pages and pages of highly technical stuff, so I'll try and simplify it a bit....

No, no, don't run away - you asked... and could you all please at least go 'la-la' in tune?

You can't just grab a lot of solar sells and shove onto batteries to store the charge - and that's DC anyway, and if you want to economically transfer the power any distance, it needs to be AC.

Firstly, there is something called Peak Sun Hours, charts of which can be obtained for each month for locations. You can get more energy in certain places at certain latitudes, at various times of the year, and it will rarely be the max rate a simple calculation might suggest. And don't forget that cloud, smoke etc will reduce this.

An average sort of solar panel is rated at say 80 watts. BUT... that's at a particular temperature of the panel surface and must be derated as the temp increases. Also that 80 watts is a clever bit of marketing, cause you can get a max output voltage and a Max output current, but not both at the same time....

Example: 80 Watts = 4.6A at 17.3V across the load (which must be the right impedance/resistance, but we won't go there...)

But if you want to run on the normal sort of standards the rest of the world uses, one would expect to use a '12V' battery to store the power. So you would need some sort of DC-DC converter to run the charger, thereby incurring losses. of course if you want to have a higher storage voltage, then you need to run several solar cells in series, and that has its own set of problems to ensure that things are kept under control.

Now the charger itself needs to be regulated, as the battery needs to be charged at certain current ranges within certain voltage ranges to ensure that the maximum storage life of the battery is obtained for economy reasons. (more losses in the charger/regulator) You also have to consider the internal resistance of the battery which changes with the voltage state (Peukert's Law).

Further more, rechargeable batteries are an arcane art too - a '12V' car battery voltage varies from a max of about 14.4V down to whatever is deemed to be an effective voltage for the circuit it is in, and the construction type of battery it is. A 350AH battery can't be run to recover 100% of charge, as you would seriously shorten the life of the battery. Some battery types are designed to give a greater depth of discharge (deep discharge cells), but you can effectively over a reasonable design life store and recover say about 70% of the AH rating.

I don't know about you, but my head's spinning, and I for one am glad that there are professionals trained to do this sort of stuff. Look, I don't pretend to really understand all this stuff.... Get someone with a P.H.D. if you REALLY want to know more...

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 04:46 PM

Robin -

The recently announced layoff of 30,000 General Motors employees is a secret plot. They have discovered a new highly efficient non-poluting vehicle technology, but the expense of putting it into production requires a rapid recovery of the manufacturing investment.

Since even a vastly superior vehicle can be sold only to people who's existing car is uneconomical - or has enough problems otherwise to convince them to junk it, they must let the used car market "dry up" so that a large percentage of drivers will need their new vehicles.

Once the used market is dominated by real junkers, they intend to announce their new vehicles, sell as many as possible, and then sell their automotive divisions to the Chinese - who will find the market already saturated with clean vehicles that will last virtually forever, and China will go broke.

I know it's true, because I heard it from a drunken PhD in a very high class bar.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 05:12 PM

Thank you, Old Guy, for yet another example of your brilliant insight and depth of thought, not to mention your keen sense of relevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 07:27 PM

Ah JiK!

In Vino, Veritas!

And thus the God-Fearing American Capitalist Democracy will Triumph over the Evil Communists Again!

Ronib

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:53 AM

John

The focused fusion site refers to having achieved 1 billion degrees - not 1 million.

Carol,
This year the quest for a sustainable fusion reactor took a leap forward in the discovery that larger test vessels to magnetically suspend plasma for fusion were more effective than smaller vessels.

This sort of contradicts the claims of the focused fusion people who say smaller is better.

In the 80's I had several friends who worked for the University of Rochester laser fusion lab. They would use enormous amounts of electricity in a split second to blast, compress and fuse a few atoms. To my knowledge this technique has still not achieved any sustainable results.

I have never invented a field of science or discovered a new phenomenon but I have been able to take off the shelf parts and reassemble them for new purposes.

Perhaps you recall Burkes book 'Connections' that shows how most inventions are a reassembly process and almost never a linear process.

That is why I believe that cheap production of hydrogen gas is possible using the common ultrasonic devices that chemistry labs currently use to speed up / catalyze chemical reactions.
Coupling these devices with my specific acoustic lens chamber will "cold boil" / cavitate pure water and seperate H from O more efficiently and thereby provide cheap H for use in the fuel cells of cars, buses, trucks and possibly trains and ships.

I found there were more nay sayers to my concept of cheaper H production here than there was to focused fusion. I would have thought that a sleek website that concludes with asking for your money would have generated more skepticism than it did.

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: Alice
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:49 AM

Amos mentioned clean fuel from coal. We have a new Democratic governor in Montana, as of the last election, who has made clean alternative energy a focus of his administration. New technology now can be used in creating electricity from coal that does not pollute the air or water. Here is a bit about what Montana is doing to create a change in energy use toward clean alternatives, including wind power, biomass, synthetic fuels, solar/geothermal :

Coal to Liquids conversion
A page on the synthetic fuels project in Montana
"At 120 billion tons, Montana's coal is, in liquid terms, one quarter the size of the entire Middle East oil reserve..."
"Are there other applications of this technology?
In addition to making liquid fuels, coal gasification can be used to generate electricity with virtually no emissions and, looking toward the future, can be used to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells."

Alternative energy projects and links
Click here

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Alternative energy sources
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 12:10 PM

Thanks JiK.

Donuel, I don't think skepticism is necessarily the best first response from me just because the site asks for money. But I do appreciate getting responses from people about what they thought of the premise itself and how it is being approached by the people doing the research.

Good luck with your invention.