It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Beer_Guy
Back in the 1980s I built a redesigned prototype of Pogue's 200mpg carburetor. Many people were at the time. The ads for the plans were in all the popular magazines. At 15 bucks a pop it was quite a deal!
The problem is, they worked! I got 150mpg on a 72 Ford Torino Station Wagon with a 351 Cleveland engine. No Bull!
..
He gives the histories of different units and relates that while giving a lecture he mentioned that a tank mechanic had told him about W W 2 use of the Pogue system and was interrupted by a ex-tank driver who confirmed the story. Later, at another lecture, another military driver claimed 50 M.P.G. using a secret box carburetor. He states also about Detroit production test super carbs that would slip out to the market. He states his fears of suppression and his hopes for the survival of this technology.
Originally posted by Beer_Guy
I got 150mpg on a 72 Ford Torino Station Wagon with a 351 Cleveland engine. No Bull!
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
I haven't seen any evidence of suppressing technology; indeed, I have first-hand experience of how the oil companies do their best to nuture it (although for their own benefit, of course)
Again, the same reason -- the oil companies knew they couldn't surpress a new technology, so they tried to deal themselves in!
(1) PV production cost per watt was high, but with the breakthroughs we knew were coming, would soon below $1/watt.
(2) Gas prices were low now (1985) but by 1990 or 1995, they'd be at $3-4/gallon.
(3) the Federal tax credits generated by PURPA would last forever
Well, the cost of PV didn't go down, the price of gas didn't didn't rise that fast, and the tax credits went away. As a result, the energy companies realized that PV was throwing good money after bad, and they all pulled out, taking a big loss, but cutting a bigger one. It was a sound business decision on their part.
And PV, although I love the technology dearly, is still a cost effective solution for large-scale generation of electricity.
But my point is that the oil companies simply don't have the power you might think they do. Brazil, China, Japan, and India have to import almost all their oil, and they all have brilliant scientists, engineers, and technologists.
You don't think that, if there really were an alternative to the hydrocarbon economy, one of those countries wouldn't have developed a cost-effective replacement by now?
I read the site and didn't see any evidence for workable alternative energy at all. Would you care to point us to a particular technology?
I didn't see anything there that was a workable and cost-effective alternative energy source. The very first page, the author bemoans the fact that he doesn't have enough money to do any sort of research and development; but if his designs or concepts are workable and cost-effective, why aren't all the Third World and non-oil-producing countries jumping on the bandwagon?
Maybe there is something that works, but I haven't seen any evidence for it, and neither has anyone else I've spoken with.
It probably won't get you killed unless you short out a high-current circuit.
Godservant, I certainly share your frustration with the state of energy technology today. We are poisoning ourselves -- and quite possibly the Earth itself -- by burning hydrocarbons, and the money that we pay those thugs for oil is funnelled to the hands of islamofacist terrorists and other thugs, which drives up our defense costs, and ruins our economy and standing in the world.
And we should be looking at all possible sources of alternatives to burning hydrocarbons, whether it's nuclear power, PV, hydro, wind turbines, tidal bore turbines, or even stirling-cycle engines working off the temperature delta in the ocean.
Just as importantly, we should be embarking on a Manhattan- Projet-scale effort to conserve our existing stocke and maximize the effectiveness of domestic oil production.
But looking for conspiracies where none exist, and talking about energy sources for which there is no evidence, is detracting us from the very real task of developing and sustaining a common-sense energy strategy for the future of our planet.
Originally posted by Long Lance
I strongly disagree with the notion of energy out of nothing, tell me why such a thing should exist, pls.
Anything uses some kind of fuel, if it's abundant, it may appear as an infintely available resource, but it ISN'T, it just takes ages to deplete, that's all.
Energy is available in many shapes and forms, do you know the so called 'killer lakes' choke-full of CO2? just put a pipe into it and suck the water out, it'll then deflate all by itself under great pressure difference (harvestable energy) sometimes, it's methane, so you can get fuel + and pressure, a very valuable resource IF you see it as such.
PS: a final word on 'zero point' (or whatever) machines, if they work, you're tapping into something you don't understand at first, that's akin to probing a gas pipeline with a blowtorch, folks.
Originally posted by Yarium
Some things I'm going to say:
1. I don't believe in Free Energy. From a physics standpoint, there is NO SUCH THING as free energy. Energy systems are closed. Matter systems are closed. You cannot create nor destroy energy or matter - simply convert them into other forms.
There is actually a very funny referance. Compare the idea of Energy to a game. Here's the rules:
1. You MUST play the game (everything that exists has energy in some form or another).
2. You can never win the game (you can never reach above 100% efficiency - since energy cannot be created)
3. Hell, you can't even break even (you can never reach 100% - some energy is always lost)
4. You can't quit the game, except on a very cold day (you can never reduce energy to 0, except at Absolute Zero)
5. It never gets that cold (the moment you try to do something to something at Absolute Zero, you introduce energy, and it's no longer Absolute Zero)
There will always be a by-product to any energy we create.
Hydrogen Fuel cells combine Oxygen and Hydrogen. The outcome is water and energy. That's great, and we all love water. But that also means we have to produce Hydrogen (whilst it does make almost all of the visible universe, it's so light that it doesn't like being on earth very long) - which, tada, costs energy... more energy than we get out of the Hydrogen Fuel cell.
The goal is to make the conversion rate of Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and then back from Hydrogen and Oxygen back into Water again, as close to 100% efficiency as we can, so that we're wasting very little energy.
So now, Telsa's use of the earth's magnetic field as a power source. What will this do to the earth's magnetic field? Will it weaken it? What kind of by-product, except energy, is there? How do we do it exactly? What's the best way to do it? None of these have been answered.
So yes, we may be able to reach something close to 100% efficiency on energy, but we'll never get there, and there'll always be a byproduct of some kind, even if it's miniscule.
Even Wind power has a byproduct - that being that there's less wind. Sure it's not much of a byproduct, but we're reducing the energy in the wind, and changing it into electricity.
Finally, corporations are not "evil". Governments are not "evil". They're doing what they do. The problem is that at the points where they're inefficient, they do things in a manner that is evil.
Corporations, and governments, are not seeking world domination - it's just that the goal of a company is to grow, since growth equals profit, and profit equals good.
As said earlier, when an oil company backs out of a subsidy for some brand new technology, it's not because they're trying to stop it from usurping their company (since they'd get profits from the technology as part of the agreement for subsidising it) -
but because they're making a business move because the technology doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The money they've invested would be BETTER spent elsewhere to make more money sooner AND later.
Governments try to get people behind them so that the party remains in power. If the party remains in power, then the senators/MPs/whatever also remain in power, which means they get paid, which means they can continue living the good life.
Remember this about ALL corporations and ALL governments; they are badly chopped up bodies, running around without a real head, rapidly losing blood.
Everyone's working in their own worlds, and no one really has ANY clue what is really going on.
Originally posted by StellarXNo i do not think any of those governments would benefit by trying to do so even if they had the will to try go against the current systems
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by Long Lance
Energy is available in many shapes and forms, do you know the so called 'killer lakes' choke-full of CO2? just put a pipe into it and suck the water out, it'll then deflate all by itself under great pressure difference (harvestable energy) sometimes, it's methane, so you can get fuel + and pressure, a very valuable resource IF you see it as such.
Sounds like a plan to me even if i, and many others, have far better ideas.
Well we have known about the non diverged energy( whatever energy from the source dipole is not diverged into the circuit) flow since Maxwell's time and we know that energy not intercepted is not energy lost to the universe.
There is no excuse to behave as if energy that we do not intercept is not in fact there.
Stellar
Originally posted by Beer_Guy
I just hang my head when someone points out that the law of thermodynamics says that I can't do something. I think there are many many things in physics and in nature that we just aren't aware of yet and the law of thermodynamics is "mostly" right, but not completely right.
Originally posted by wadefrazier3
Somebody who has borne the brunt of what the Above Top Secret world dishes out addresses a forum supposedly devoted to the subject, and not one response even acknowledged that such a world exists. This will be my last post here. I was not pleasantly surprised.