Okay, so the millions don't have much to worry about. It was the billionaires that I was really concerned about.
Through what other means (the artificial scarcity of energy has worked really well for a long time) can the planet's billionaires maintain the L-curve distribution of income in the economy? This is the only question which must be answered before revolutionary energy technology can be allowed into the market.
As I've said before, remember that JP Morgan only financed Nikola Tesla's research until he realized that Tesla wanted to give electricity away to everyone for free.
Imagine a world where all the energy you'd ever need could be purchased by the kilowatt, for a reasonable cost - say, $0.50/watt. Suppose the most energy your house would ever draw is 10,000 watts (a hot day in Phoenix in July). For an initial outlay of "$5,000" (or so), the electrical needs of your home would be met forever.
Suppose this new understanding of the physics of light evolves to the point that it could power an automobile with just the surface area available on the roof.
Whatever will the millions of people who are employed by the energy industry do for work, when their jobs go *poof*?
Whatever will the hundreds of billionaires do with their "white elephant" investments in the energy industry? How will they maintain their status of living if their utility stocks can't pay dividends anymore?
The term "black swan" is applicable here. Most people here have so much faith in the "laws" of thermodynamics, that they can't imagine a world where that principle is just a special case of the universal law.
Feeding grain to animals in concentrated animal feeding operations is stupid. Farms should be run by farmers, NOT "absentee landlords" (like my dad & his two siblings, who inherited some ~200 acres from their parents. Grandma grew up on her farm, while Grandpa's parents owned their farm but never worked it). From the second link:
And yet it is not impossible to imagine a far different food and farming system than the one we have today, beginning with a long-term commitment to pasture-based farming. Many have been advocating for some time for an ambitious transformation in U.S. agriculture: away from soil-eroding feed grains toward deep-rooted perennial pastures; converting large-areas of the High Plains back to grass and grazing operations; diversifying the corn and soybean dominated Midwest. In fact, thousands of family farmers are managing appropriately-scaled, grass-fed meat, dairy and egg farms without raising animals in vile and sordid conditions. A smart pasture operation (SPO)—to pick up on a new phrase—is one of the easiest entry points for beginning farmers in current U.S. agriculture. Start-up costs are relatively modest and markets for healthfully raised animal products are underserved and growing rapidly. These pasture-based rotational grazing systems can be extremely resource efficient, and often have the advantage of not needing the energy- and capital-intensive inputs such as heating, ventilation, and cooling systems, housing construction, imported industrial feeds, and mechanized manure management systems. They rely on sound animal husbandry techniques and integrate farm animals into a healthy landscape, using manure as a source of soil fertility. But this will require whole new generations of farmers willing to join the ranks of this noble profession, and legions of consumers and an financial and production infrastructure to support them.
Many of humanity's health problems stem from the inappropriate use of grain crops. Grain-finished cattle have a fraction of the beta carotene and vitamin A as grass-finished beef.
Feeding cattle directly on land currently used to grow soybeans & corn would be a lot more productive. But I don't think all the "farmers" (who really just hire tenants to plant crops) would approve.
I meant to email you about some feedback I received, but I didn't get around to it & then I forgot. Sorry about that.
A few weeks back I sent an email to a blog with a post about an aircraft carrier being used to power a city. He too thought it was a horrible idea, but said it was original so he put it out for discussion. The responders agreed that Enterprise was not appropriate. But many felt that a "dedicated disaster response ship" could be useful, and that either something purpose-built, or a retired LHA would be good. One of the posters at the USNI said LHA-1 is currently awaiting it's fate as a target.
Ideas of every type have to be marketed before they can be implemented, and "Send the USS Tarawa" doesn't market like Enterprise.:)
I was sort of following your logic until you got to the part about selling a worn out fleet carrier to the Japanese.
It may be obsolete as a force-projecting aircraft carrier. But they just spent $600 million to refurbish it, so surely some use can still be found for it as some other type of boat. The Japanese wouldn't have to offer much: a token dollar would be fine by me.
If the Japanese Self Defense forces bought the boat, the US Navy could even remove the catapults and arresting wires as a condition of sale.
The main thing is to get some imaginative navy officers to do a study before the ship gets cut apart.
Last summer, when the oil geyser had been flowing uninhibited for over two months, I posted here about my idea for using the US Navy's portable nuclear reactors to power air pumps that would oxygenate ocean waters affected by the spill. The oxygen would feed the bacteria already present in the water that happily consume seeped oil.
The slick on the surface isn't "the tragedy" of these oil spills. Most of the tragedy is below the surface, where TV cameras and congressmembers won't see it.
One of the visitors said that it'd be difficult to pump air to the depths of the ocean, and suggested pumping oxygenated surface water instead. I took that and other feedback to write a short followup piece on Cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico.
I welcome anything good at cleaning up our messes. Especially a device this open and energy efficient. But let's not pretend that cleaning up the surface could possibly "prevent the tragedy". By the time this thing is out there cleaning up, most of the tragedy has already gone down.
While this thing might be okay for little oil spills, like the one from a few weeks ago, effectively responding to future underwater blowouts will require massive infrastructure and power. Like what could be stored on, delivered and powered by a retired nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
I just want the politicians to order the Navy to get some guys thinking about the idea: When Disaster Strikes, Send the Enterprise. Or maybe I'll write the Japanese embassy to suggest that they offer to buy the Enterprise, thereby saving the US Navy $millions in decommissioning costs. They have the infrastructure to refuel it, if required, and the motivation to dedicate it to disaster response.
MYT is a swing-piston engine that can be scaled to basically any size you want, from lawnmowers to semi trailers. The 14" prototype is appropriate for replacing a large diesel engine.
It was developed on a shoestring budget. At one point the prototype was running on diesel, but they switched it to run on compressed air for development and demonstration purposes.
It's basically a swing-piston engine. The inventor doesn't want to sell out, and has been looking for someone to loan him a couple million dollars ($4m) to build a factory. He did get enough to start development on a 6-inch version (appropriate for replacing a car engine) last year, but I think he ran out of money again...
Thanks for the comment. My friend is trying to figure out how to market her information. Like the other guy said, perhaps we should look up the plaintiffs in these lawsuits and send some letters.
Seems like you're damned if you do, damned if you dont...
There are always options, the difference is in who profits.
From the fine slashdot summary:
Propecia... can make men irreversibly impotent.
From the fine article:
In a small percentage of cases, symptoms persisted even after the medication was stopped.
For those men, "it's a life sentence," said lead researcher Abdulmaged M. Traish, a professor of biochemistry and urology at Boston University School of Medicine.
"No sex. No desire. Potential depression," Traish added.
Translation: taking the drug takes the man's ability to have an erection away. Just stopping the drug isn't enough to restore normal function. There's no way for the pharmaceutical industry to earn $2.5 billion dollars a year on unpatentable nutritional therapy, acupuncture needles, botanicals, etc, so it is better for "Wall Street" to lose a few lawsuits and let men think that they're irreparably damaged than to put a chink in their own armor. (Reference for "Wall Street's" takeover of medical education, which mostly limits doctors' training to drugs & surgery: 100 years of medical robbery).
I have a friend who uses acupuncture points to help men get their woodies back. She is developing several lines of informational products that show how to hold specific points to restore and enhance male sexual function. Her marketing advisor said to get this domain name: Energy Viagra For Long Lasting Sex, that by the time the "blue pill" trademark holder comes after her she'll be famous and won't need to use that domain anymore.
"Energy Viagra" is for impotence... I think her premature ejaculation package is almost done...
Put an email address into the box and she'll be sure to let you know how to order her DVDs.:)
I have an older friend on Medicare who recently went through some prostate troubles. The doctor prescribed one of those chemical neutering drugs. He took it for a couple days, then went on the internet to find out what it was really doing.
He eventually found a herbal liquid something-or-other which he thinks works 1000x better than the prescription, and his willie still works with the herbal formula to boot.
There's lots of information online about natural approaches to prostate health. I don't know which direction to point you, 'cause I've never searched on that subject.
But the life extension foundation usually has good information that's backed with research. Maybe start there, or send me an email & I'll ask about the specific formula my friend uses.
just modded you off-topic, when I meant to give a +1. Whoops - sorry about that.:)
. I found Algebra and Trigonometry were a lot more interesting when I was trying to work out problems I could see a purpose behind, rather than the stock story problems in text books.
A lady named Kathy wrote this to me from Dubois, Indiana the other day:
"What big ideas are important to little kids? Well, the biggest idea I think they need is that what they are learning isn't idiosyncratic -- that this is some system to it all and it's not just raining down on them as they helplessly absorb. That's the task, to understand, to make coherent."
Kathy has it wrong. The first lesson I teach is confusion. Everything I teach is out of context... I teach the unrelating of everything. I teach disconnections. I teach too much: the orbiting of planets, the law of large numbers, slavery, adjectives, architectural drawing, dance, gymnasium, choral singing, assemblies, surprise guests, fire drills, computer languages, parent's nights, staff-development days, pull-out programs, guidance with strangers you may never see again, standardized tests, age-segregation unlike anything seen in the outside world... what do any of these things have to do with each other?
Even in the best schools a close examination of curriculum and its sequences turns up a lack of coherence, full of internal contradictions. Fortunately the children have no words to define the panic and anger they feel at constant violations of natural order and sequence fobbed off on them as quality in education. The logic of the school-mind is that it is better to leave school with a tool kit of superficial jargon derived from economics, sociology, natural science and so on than to leave with one genuine enthusiasm. But quality in education entails learning about something in depth. Confusion is thrust upon kids by too many strange adults, each working alone with only the thinnest relationship with each other, pretending for the most part, to an expertise they do not possess.
Meaning, not disconnected facts, is what sane human beings seek, and education is a set of codes for processing raw facts into meaning. Behind the patchwork quilt of school sequences, and the school obsession with facts and theories the age-old human search lies well concealed. This is harder to see in elementary school where the hierarchy of school experience seems to make better sense because the good-natured simple relationship of "let's do this" and "let's do that now" is just assumed to mean something and the clientele has not yet consciously discerned how little substance is behind the play and pretense.
But the one "black swan" that never gets talked about is "disruptive technology" that changes the entire energy equation.
Yeah, it's a bit like how most people don't plan their personal finances on the assumption that they'll win the main prize in lottery.
One must look for the black swan before it can be found. Or you can just presume that the existing model is mostly accurate, so what's the point, right? There's a saying about how science advances "one funeral at a time".
I guess the real issue is whether one favors James Clerk Maxwell's 20 equations & 20 unknowns or Oliver Heaviside's "restatement" down to the 4 equations.
Thanks for the list of things going for nuclear fission power.
US doesn't seem to do any of these things. Your military is a parasite that feeds off worthwhile projects.
The US Military is a jobs project that employs 2.5 million people - 1.55 million active, 850,000 reserve, 100,000 Department of defense. The education system in the US is severely dysfunctional, and the military is now the only place where young people can get all-expense paid vocational training.
That stuff is just speculative efficiency improvements. Sure, you take what you can get, but that's not always enough and you can't just count on a black swan event occurring without any assurance that it will.
Black Swans are unexpected because most aren't looking for them.
The irony of the present energy situation is that the established companies don't and can't invest in Research & Development, because if they made a breakthrough their cash cow (the hydrocarbon-based energy economy) would disappear.
How much does Intel invest in R&D? Apple? Microsoft? Energy companies only invest a tiny fraction of their profits in R&D (mostly focused on hydrocarbon-extraction), the rest gets distributed to shareholders.
My analysis of the situation was covered in a different post in this thread.
Something I think deserves more attention is the lock-in phenomenon: once you have an infrastructure around a certain technology, it's very difficult to change to something else, even if it's significantly better. Uranium vs. thorium is one such example...
Suppose you could get 25% more water pumped for the same amount of electricity, or generate 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam?
That's not much of a saving. And it probably is not petroleum powered.
The benefits add up.
An engine is a pump is a compressor. MYT-pump uses 25% less electricity to send water to a power plant, MYT-steam-expander (replaces turbines) generates 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam, MYT-compressors on the millions of business and home AC units use 25% less electricity to cool the same amount of space, and each of the millions of refridgerator compressors everywhere use 25% less power.
For the record, I made up "25%" (pulled it out of my..., if you prefer). I did ask Mr. Morgado 1-2 years ago if he had any numbers about how much better his invention was as a pump that other currently-available technology, but he didn't have numbers for that application.
But they have said a MYT-engine would power a car for well over 80+ miles on a gallon of gas, and that the design approaches the maximum theoretical efficiency for an engine.
Supply never exceeds demand for very long in an oil market. Where would the oil be stored?
I should have said "production capacity" instead of "supply". If demand suddenly falls, the oil will be stored exactly where it is: in the ground.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams
Nuclear power has one thing going for it:
* High Energy Density
Nuclear power also has several strikes:
* High maintenance - everything has to work all the time so that your plant doesn't explode and make hundreds of square miles uninhabitable
Even if a superior reactor design comes along, there's an incredible financial incentive to stick with the technology that was first developed and deployed (see the Wired story on thorium).
The best argument in favor of nuclear power is that "it may have problems, but it's all we've got". Nuclear advocates rightly point out that, compared to coal, oil, natural gas, and even hydropower (complicated), perhaps nuclear isn't so bad. Coal is abundant but dirty, oil is expensive and dirty, natural gas is cleaner but still poisons the ocean with CO2, and hydropower has it's own challenges.
But the one "black swan" that never gets talked about is "disruptive technology" that changes the entire energy equation.
One example: I've mentioned Global Resource Corporation's Microwave here before. This device uses specific microwave frequencies to release gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons from solids, such as coal (diesel, propane, butane). The company had a prototype that worked on tires, but they fell apart before they could get commercial versions of their technology to market. Luckily archive.org has a copy of their website: http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://www.GlobalResourceCorp.com. I remember reading about a cool patent that used Magnetic Resonance to figure out what specific microwaves a given sample of "trash" would need to be broken down...
GRC's site talked about applying the technology to tar sands, to coal mining, breaking down hundreds of millions of used tires piled everywhere... How would the energy equation change if harvesting coal and tar sands didn't require massive amounts of energy?
Here's something else: according to an old story on money.cnn.com, the largest single use of electricity in southern California is pumping water. And very large amount of water is used to generate electricity.
So, with these twin issues... What if Raphial Morgado's MYT (Mighty) pump really is as good as he says it is? Suppose you could get 25% more water pumped for the same amount of electricity, or generate 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam?
Whereas Global Resource Corp's special microwaves haven't reached market because it was torpedo'd by mismanagement (or maybe there's a technical problem - I'm pretty certain that the science is sound), Morgado's pump is in limbo because he hasn't yet found anyone who'd lend him $4-million or $10-million to build a factory. He has plenty of offers to buy the technology outright, but he has the audacity to presume that he should be the one to profit from his invention.
Imagine if the demand for energy suddenly plunged by more than 25%. Oil is only going for $100/barell because demand roughly matches supply. If supply exceeds demand by a significant percentage, we'd be back to $1/gallon gas in a heartbeat.
Thanks for responding. I look at "Money" as just a construct that helps individuals value other people's labor. It's the organizing principle that guides our creative endeavors.
thanks for responding (these stories usually die after 12 hours...). It's been a while since I read those two links - it's always a rush to get something posted when one of these stories comes up where I have something to say, lest my comment get buried 1/2 way down the page.:)
Your pdf mentions that since the 70's, nearly all regulation and tax structures have been based on 'trickle down'. Well, we know how well that works (not at all).
The Federal Reserve system was started in 1913. The oligarchy has had a good idea of how to rig the game (the economy) for their benefit. Some decades they give a little, so the next they can accumulate more.
Right now the only viable replacement for nuclear power is coal.
Global Resource Corporation [GRC] has a neat technology that uses specific microwave frequencies to release liquid (diesel) & gaseous (propane/butane) hydrocarbons from solids like used tires, plastics, and coal.
But they haven't managed their company right (or they ran out of money), and haven't gotten past the prototype stage. Perhaps they're going to fold, or maybe Exxon-Mobil will buy up the patents to kill the technology. Or maybe GRC was infiltrated by big oil. Who knows.
There are energy options that are better than nuclear, they're just not profitable for the financiers & utility barons. Raphial Morgado says in one of the YouTube videos (one of these: SJSU demonstration) that his "Mighty Pump" is disruptive technology, because it makes every internal combustion engine everywhere obsolete. Nothing's safe with disruptive technology: every turbine, and every water pump is now obsolete too, and whatever will JP Morgan do when all those utility companies start defaulting on their loans (when their power infrastructure, bought on time, becomes unprofitable because of Mr. Morgado's pump)?
The reason wealth concentrates more and more is because of the Federal Reserve system, where the banks (NOT the government) create the money supply by making loans.
And now "Deficit Terrorists" are campaigning to slash federal spending. The real reason the federal debt is skyrocketing is because the banking system can't make loans like it used to, so the Federal Government has to be the "borrower of last resort", taking out loans from the "lender of last resort" (the Fed) and everyone else.
I don't remember the exact figure, but 40-50% of the Federal Government's debt is either held by the Federal Government (in the Social Security "trust fund"), or by the Federal Reserve (which is held to "back" the money supply). 100% of the interest paid to the ss trust fund is returned to the government, as are most of the Federal Reserve's profits (after operating expenses and a fat dividend to its owners, the private banking system).
If the debt were to be instantaneously paid off, all money would instantly vanish from the economy.
If the federal reserve system was nationalized, and the Department of the Treasury could issue debt-free "greenbacks" (like Abraham Lincoln used to pay for the Civil War), wealth would be much less concentrated that the current status quo.
The scary contamination in Tokyo is between 0.3% and 1.5% of the radioactive exposure you get from smoking one cigarette. Scary, isn't it?
You didn't say why cigarettes are radioactive. As I recall, in WWII the government took the tobacco industry's usual fertilizer (urea) to make explosives. The tobacco industry switched to Rock Phosphate, which they liked better anyways because it could be mined with a caterpillar instead of collected with farm hands.
Most of the phosphate rock in Florida as well as some other locales contains significant concentrations of radioactive Uranium. This becomes an issue when the processed phosphate rock is used for a wide variety of crops. Certain types of crops take up Uranium readily, and thus a health risk is posed to humans who consume such products. An example species that absorbs Uranium readily is tobacco, the use of which is already strongly implicated in human lung cancer from smokers.
If you're going to smoke, it's always better to use organic tobacco than tobacco that was fertilized with Rock Phosphate:
... Organic fertilizers such as organic vegetable compost, animal manure, wood ash and seaweed have proven to be sustainable and non-harmful to microbes, worms, farmers and eaters or smokers. Chemical phosphates may seem like a bargain compared to natural phosphorous, until you factor in the health and environmental costs.... Tobacco smokers can also use this information to avoid radioactive brands of tobacco. American Spirit is one of a few companies that offers an organic line of cigarettes, and organic cigars are also available from a few companies. You can also grow your own tobacco, which is surprisingly easy and fun.
Until the public has an accurate understanding of how phosphate fertilizers carry radiation, and why commercial tobacco causes lung cancer but cannabis does not, there will be many needless tobacco-related deaths, and increased resistance to the full legalization of marijuana.
-Radioactive tobacco: It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation!
My pet theory is that there was actually a combination of factors which led to the mid-20th century spike in lung cancer levels. The other factor, besides the irradiation of smokers' lungs, was the mass dietary switch from stable saturated fats (butter, lard) to unstable polyunsaturated fats (margarine). The lungs have a lot of fatty acids... Send me an email for a free report.:)
Soy is appropriate to use as a condiment. It's useful for replenishing nitrogen in the soil, but other beans can also be used for that purpose.
I'm thinking it would be better to use land currently devoted to soybeans to graze animals directly. If most the soybeans get fed to animals anyways, why not skip a step?
This would require much more labor. I think the oligarchy prefers being able to hire John Deere to plant/harvest their fields than having small-scale farmers with independent livelihoods.
They did the one thing that would jeopardize that flow.
Coincidentally, jeopardizing the flow of oil also causes the price to go up. "Q-Man's" income takes a hit, BP takes a hit on its Libyan investments, but makes it up with the overall price increase?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so the millions don't have much to worry about. It was the billionaires that I was really concerned about.
Through what other means (the artificial scarcity of energy has worked really well for a long time) can the planet's billionaires maintain the L-curve distribution of income in the economy? This is the only question which must be answered before revolutionary energy technology can be allowed into the market.
As I've said before, remember that JP Morgan only financed Nikola Tesla's research until he realized that Tesla wanted to give electricity away to everyone for free.
Imagine a world where all the energy you'd ever need could be purchased by the kilowatt, for a reasonable cost - say, $0.50/watt. Suppose the most energy your house would ever draw is 10,000 watts (a hot day in Phoenix in July). For an initial outlay of "$5,000" (or so), the electrical needs of your home would be met forever.
Suppose this new understanding of the physics of light evolves to the point that it could power an automobile with just the surface area available on the roof.
Whatever will the millions of people who are employed by the energy industry do for work, when their jobs go *poof*?
Whatever will the hundreds of billionaires do with their "white elephant" investments in the energy industry? How will they maintain their status of living if their utility stocks can't pay dividends anymore?
The term "black swan" is applicable here. Most people here have so much faith in the "laws" of thermodynamics, that they can't imagine a world where that principle is just a special case of the universal law.
Feeding grain to animals in concentrated animal feeding operations is stupid. Farms should be run by farmers, NOT "absentee landlords" (like my dad & his two siblings, who inherited some ~200 acres from their parents. Grandma grew up on her farm, while Grandpa's parents owned their farm but never worked it). From the second link:
Many of humanity's health problems stem from the inappropriate use of grain crops. Grain-finished cattle have a fraction of the beta carotene and vitamin A as grass-finished beef.
Feeding cattle directly on land currently used to grow soybeans & corn would be a lot more productive. But I don't think all the "farmers" (who really just hire tenants to plant crops) would approve.
Hi again,
I meant to email you about some feedback I received, but I didn't get around to it & then I forgot. Sorry about that.
A few weeks back I sent an email to a blog with a post about an aircraft carrier being used to power a city. He too thought it was a horrible idea, but said it was original so he put it out for discussion. The responders agreed that Enterprise was not appropriate. But many felt that a "dedicated disaster response ship" could be useful, and that either something purpose-built, or a retired LHA would be good. One of the posters at the USNI said LHA-1 is currently awaiting it's fate as a target.
Ideas of every type have to be marketed before they can be implemented, and "Send the USS Tarawa" doesn't market like Enterprise. :)
Here's those links:
http://conflicthealth.com/send-the-enterprise/
http://blog.usni.org/2011/03/19/send-the-enterprise/
I have a comment at each of those two links. I'll appreciate your response here.
I was sort of following your logic until you got to the part about selling a worn out fleet carrier to the Japanese.
It may be obsolete as a force-projecting aircraft carrier. But they just spent $600 million to refurbish it, so surely some use can still be found for it as some other type of boat. The Japanese wouldn't have to offer much: a token dollar would be fine by me.
If the Japanese Self Defense forces bought the boat, the US Navy could even remove the catapults and arresting wires as a condition of sale.
The main thing is to get some imaginative navy officers to do a study before the ship gets cut apart.
Last summer, when the oil geyser had been flowing uninhibited for over two months, I posted here about my idea for using the US Navy's portable nuclear reactors to power air pumps that would oxygenate ocean waters affected by the spill. The oxygen would feed the bacteria already present in the water that happily consume seeped oil.
The slick on the surface isn't "the tragedy" of these oil spills. Most of the tragedy is below the surface, where TV cameras and congressmembers won't see it.
One of the visitors said that it'd be difficult to pump air to the depths of the ocean, and suggested pumping oxygenated surface water instead. I took that and other feedback to write a short followup piece on Cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico.
I welcome anything good at cleaning up our messes. Especially a device this open and energy efficient. But let's not pretend that cleaning up the surface could possibly "prevent the tragedy". By the time this thing is out there cleaning up, most of the tragedy has already gone down.
While this thing might be okay for little oil spills, like the one from a few weeks ago, effectively responding to future underwater blowouts will require massive infrastructure and power. Like what could be stored on, delivered and powered by a retired nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
I just want the politicians to order the Navy to get some guys thinking about the idea: When Disaster Strikes, Send the Enterprise. Or maybe I'll write the Japanese embassy to suggest that they offer to buy the Enterprise, thereby saving the US Navy $millions in decommissioning costs. They have the infrastructure to refuel it, if required, and the motivation to dedicate it to disaster response.
Angel Labs homepage
MYT demonstration at SJSU - youtube videos
MYT is a swing-piston engine that can be scaled to basically any size you want, from lawnmowers to semi trailers. The 14" prototype is appropriate for replacing a large diesel engine.
It was developed on a shoestring budget. At one point the prototype was running on diesel, but they switched it to run on compressed air for development and demonstration purposes.
It's basically a swing-piston engine. The inventor doesn't want to sell out, and has been looking for someone to loan him a couple million dollars ($4m) to build a factory. He did get enough to start development on a 6-inch version (appropriate for replacing a car engine) last year, but I think he ran out of money again...
Thanks for the comment. My friend is trying to figure out how to market her information. Like the other guy said, perhaps we should look up the plaintiffs in these lawsuits and send some letters.
Seems like you're damned if you do, damned if you dont...
There are always options, the difference is in who profits.
From the fine slashdot summary:
From the fine article:
Translation: taking the drug takes the man's ability to have an erection away. Just stopping the drug isn't enough to restore normal function. There's no way for the pharmaceutical industry to earn $2.5 billion dollars a year on unpatentable nutritional therapy, acupuncture needles, botanicals, etc, so it is better for "Wall Street" to lose a few lawsuits and let men think that they're irreparably damaged than to put a chink in their own armor. (Reference for "Wall Street's" takeover of medical education, which mostly limits doctors' training to drugs & surgery: 100 years of medical robbery).
I have a friend who uses acupuncture points to help men get their woodies back. She is developing several lines of informational products that show how to hold specific points to restore and enhance male sexual function. Her marketing advisor said to get this domain name: Energy Viagra For Long Lasting Sex, that by the time the "blue pill" trademark holder comes after her she'll be famous and won't need to use that domain anymore.
"Energy Viagra" is for impotence... I think her premature ejaculation package is almost done...
Put an email address into the box and she'll be sure to let you know how to order her DVDs. :)
I have an older friend on Medicare who recently went through some prostate troubles. The doctor prescribed one of those chemical neutering drugs. He took it for a couple days, then went on the internet to find out what it was really doing.
He eventually found a herbal liquid something-or-other which he thinks works 1000x better than the prescription, and his willie still works with the herbal formula to boot.
There's lots of information online about natural approaches to prostate health. I don't know which direction to point you, 'cause I've never searched on that subject.
But the life extension foundation usually has good information that's backed with research. Maybe start there, or send me an email & I'll ask about the specific formula my friend uses.
just modded you off-topic, when I meant to give a +1. Whoops - sorry about that. :)
. I found Algebra and Trigonometry were a lot more interesting when I was trying to work out problems I could see a purpose behind, rather than the stock story problems in text books.
John Taylor Gatto has essays about this phenomenon. The Seven Lesson School Teacher has this passage:
But the one "black swan" that never gets talked about is "disruptive technology" that changes the entire energy equation.
Yeah, it's a bit like how most people don't plan their personal finances on the assumption that they'll win the main prize in lottery.
One must look for the black swan before it can be found. Or you can just presume that the existing model is mostly accurate, so what's the point, right? There's a saying about how science advances "one funeral at a time".
I guess the real issue is whether one favors James Clerk Maxwell's 20 equations & 20 unknowns or Oliver Heaviside's "restatement" down to the 4 equations.
Thanks for the list of things going for nuclear fission power.
US doesn't seem to do any of these things. Your military is a parasite that feeds off worthwhile projects.
The US Military is a jobs project that employs 2.5 million people - 1.55 million active, 850,000 reserve, 100,000 Department of defense. The education system in the US is severely dysfunctional, and the military is now the only place where young people can get all-expense paid vocational training.
So it's not all bombs and bullets.
FYI, Velcro was invented by a Swiss.
Interesting, thanks. :) Velcro
That stuff is just speculative efficiency improvements. Sure, you take what you can get, but that's not always enough and you can't just count on a black swan event occurring without any assurance that it will.
Black Swans are unexpected because most aren't looking for them.
The irony of the present energy situation is that the established companies don't and can't invest in Research & Development, because if they made a breakthrough their cash cow (the hydrocarbon-based energy economy) would disappear.
How much does Intel invest in R&D? Apple? Microsoft? Energy companies only invest a tiny fraction of their profits in R&D (mostly focused on hydrocarbon-extraction), the rest gets distributed to shareholders.
My analysis of the situation was covered in a different post in this thread.
Something I think deserves more attention is the lock-in phenomenon: once you have an infrastructure around a certain technology, it's very difficult to change to something else, even if it's significantly better. Uranium vs. thorium is one such example...
Suppose you could get 25% more water pumped for the same amount of electricity, or generate 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam?
That's not much of a saving. And it probably is not petroleum powered.
The benefits add up.
An engine is a pump is a compressor. MYT-pump uses 25% less electricity to send water to a power plant, MYT-steam-expander (replaces turbines) generates 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam, MYT-compressors on the millions of business and home AC units use 25% less electricity to cool the same amount of space, and each of the millions of refridgerator compressors everywhere use 25% less power.
For the record, I made up "25%" (pulled it out of my..., if you prefer). I did ask Mr. Morgado 1-2 years ago if he had any numbers about how much better his invention was as a pump that other currently-available technology, but he didn't have numbers for that application.
But they have said a MYT-engine would power a car for well over 80+ miles on a gallon of gas, and that the design approaches the maximum theoretical efficiency for an engine.
Supply never exceeds demand for very long in an oil market. Where would the oil be stored?
I should have said "production capacity" instead of "supply". If demand suddenly falls, the oil will be stored exactly where it is: in the ground.
(p.s. good to see that you're still alive. :)
Uranium mining isn't exactly an environmentally-friendly activity. It's been especially tough on native americans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Rock_uranium_mill_spill, for example.
But is nuclear power more dangerous than coal, oil, and every other currently-available power source that can be used in large quantities? No.
There, fixed that for you.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams
Nuclear power has one thing going for it:
Nuclear power also has several strikes:
Even if a superior reactor design comes along, there's an incredible financial incentive to stick with the technology that was first developed and deployed (see the Wired story on thorium).
The best argument in favor of nuclear power is that "it may have problems, but it's all we've got". Nuclear advocates rightly point out that, compared to coal, oil, natural gas, and even hydropower (complicated), perhaps nuclear isn't so bad. Coal is abundant but dirty, oil is expensive and dirty, natural gas is cleaner but still poisons the ocean with CO2, and hydropower has it's own challenges.
But the one "black swan" that never gets talked about is "disruptive technology" that changes the entire energy equation.
One example: I've mentioned Global Resource Corporation's Microwave here before. This device uses specific microwave frequencies to release gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons from solids, such as coal (diesel, propane, butane). The company had a prototype that worked on tires, but they fell apart before they could get commercial versions of their technology to market. Luckily archive.org has a copy of their website: http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://www.GlobalResourceCorp.com. I remember reading about a cool patent that used Magnetic Resonance to figure out what specific microwaves a given sample of "trash" would need to be broken down...
GRC's site talked about applying the technology to tar sands, to coal mining, breaking down hundreds of millions of used tires piled everywhere... How would the energy equation change if harvesting coal and tar sands didn't require massive amounts of energy?
Here's something else: according to an old story on money.cnn.com, the largest single use of electricity in southern California is pumping water. And very large amount of water is used to generate electricity.
So, with these twin issues... What if Raphial Morgado's MYT (Mighty) pump really is as good as he says it is? Suppose you could get 25% more water pumped for the same amount of electricity, or generate 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam?
Whereas Global Resource Corp's special microwaves haven't reached market because it was torpedo'd by mismanagement (or maybe there's a technical problem - I'm pretty certain that the science is sound), Morgado's pump is in limbo because he hasn't yet found anyone who'd lend him $4-million or $10-million to build a factory. He has plenty of offers to buy the technology outright, but he has the audacity to presume that he should be the one to profit from his invention.
Imagine if the demand for energy suddenly plunged by more than 25%. Oil is only going for $100/barell because demand roughly matches supply. If supply exceeds demand by a significant percentage, we'd be back to $1/gallon gas in a heartbeat.
These are just the two technologies that
Thanks for responding. I look at "Money" as just a construct that helps individuals value other people's labor. It's the organizing principle that guides our creative endeavors.
It's late, and I got up at 3am this morning to drop some people off at the airport for a 7am flight, so I'll just refer you to my response to the other guy: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2056568&cid=35663008 :)
thanks for responding (these stories usually die after 12 hours...). It's been a while since I read those two links - it's always a rush to get something posted when one of these stories comes up where I have something to say, lest my comment get buried 1/2 way down the page. :)
Your pdf mentions that since the 70's, nearly all regulation and tax structures have been based on 'trickle down'. Well, we know how well that works (not at all).
The Federal Reserve system was started in 1913. The oligarchy has had a good idea of how to rig the game (the economy) for their benefit. Some decades they give a little, so the next they can accumulate more.
If you liked the first two links, I also suggest Ellen Brown's book, Web of Debt, and also her blog: http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/.
Was about to submit this comment, then another site came to mind: The American Monetary Institute is worth recommending too.
Thanks again. :)
Right now the only viable replacement for nuclear power is coal.
Global Resource Corporation [GRC] has a neat technology that uses specific microwave frequencies to release liquid (diesel) & gaseous (propane/butane) hydrocarbons from solids like used tires, plastics, and coal.
But they haven't managed their company right (or they ran out of money), and haven't gotten past the prototype stage. Perhaps they're going to fold, or maybe Exxon-Mobil will buy up the patents to kill the technology. Or maybe GRC was infiltrated by big oil. Who knows.
There are energy options that are better than nuclear, they're just not profitable for the financiers & utility barons. Raphial Morgado says in one of the YouTube videos (one of these: SJSU demonstration) that his "Mighty Pump" is disruptive technology, because it makes every internal combustion engine everywhere obsolete. Nothing's safe with disruptive technology: every turbine, and every water pump is now obsolete too, and whatever will JP Morgan do when all those utility companies start defaulting on their loans (when their power infrastructure, bought on time, becomes unprofitable because of Mr. Morgado's pump)?
(Plug: I mentioned the Mighty Pump in my recent post that advocates having dedicated disaster response ships)
The reason wealth concentrates more and more is because of the Federal Reserve system, where the banks (NOT the government) create the money supply by making loans.
And now "Deficit Terrorists" are campaigning to slash federal spending. The real reason the federal debt is skyrocketing is because the banking system can't make loans like it used to, so the Federal Government has to be the "borrower of last resort", taking out loans from the "lender of last resort" (the Fed) and everyone else.
I don't remember the exact figure, but 40-50% of the Federal Government's debt is either held by the Federal Government (in the Social Security "trust fund"), or by the Federal Reserve (which is held to "back" the money supply). 100% of the interest paid to the ss trust fund is returned to the government, as are most of the Federal Reserve's profits (after operating expenses and a fat dividend to its owners, the private banking system).
If the debt were to be instantaneously paid off, all money would instantly vanish from the economy.
If the federal reserve system was nationalized, and the Department of the Treasury could issue debt-free "greenbacks" (like Abraham Lincoln used to pay for the Civil War), wealth would be much less concentrated that the current status quo.
Required reading:
Money and the Crisis of Civilization
A Bailout for the People (pdf).
The scary contamination in Tokyo is between 0.3% and 1.5% of the radioactive exposure you get from smoking one cigarette. Scary, isn't it?
You didn't say why cigarettes are radioactive. As I recall, in WWII the government took the tobacco industry's usual fertilizer (urea) to make explosives. The tobacco industry switched to Rock Phosphate, which they liked better anyways because it could be mined with a caterpillar instead of collected with farm hands.
If you're going to smoke, it's always better to use organic tobacco than tobacco that was fertilized with Rock Phosphate:
My pet theory is that there was actually a combination of factors which led to the mid-20th century spike in lung cancer levels. The other factor, besides the irradiation of smokers' lungs, was the mass dietary switch from stable saturated fats (butter, lard) to unstable polyunsaturated fats (margarine). The lungs have a lot of fatty acids... Send me an email for a free report. :)
Soy is appropriate to use as a condiment. It's useful for replenishing nitrogen in the soil, but other beans can also be used for that purpose.
I'm thinking it would be better to use land currently devoted to soybeans to graze animals directly. If most the soybeans get fed to animals anyways, why not skip a step?
This would require much more labor. I think the oligarchy prefers being able to hire John Deere to plant/harvest their fields than having small-scale farmers with independent livelihoods.
They did the one thing that would jeopardize that flow.
Coincidentally, jeopardizing the flow of oil also causes the price to go up. "Q-Man's" income takes a hit, BP takes a hit on its Libyan investments, but makes it up with the overall price increase?
Just speculating.