Cheap Abundant Energy, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 24-8-2006 @ 07:20 AM by RedGolem
Originally posted by LAES YVAN
Use the hot core of the Earth to heat water into steam, and use the steam to turn generators. Wow, easy, clean, and nearly free. Of course there will be maintenance, and running costs like other business, but at least it isn't OIL.

Flip through this slide show:
geothermal.marin.org...


Thanks for the link, I am part way through it and there seems to be quite a bit of good information on it.
I read about the process of drilling to the magma quite a few years back. Like all the other forms of cheap abundant energy it never got put into use.


reply posted on 24-8-2006 @ 08:27 AM by Tom Bedlam
Originally posted by RedGolem
So the government is supresing some four thousand patents. Unforchant indeed. Hopefully people reading these pages on the net will bring some of the technology out. However the question I must ask is who is calling the shots to keep all this hidden from the public?


Valone's being somewhat less than honest here. Yes, 4,000 currently active gags is probably about right, but it's not "free energy patents". Chapter 17, sections 181-188 of patent law allow for suppression of the publishing (we call it a 'gag') of a patent. You still get a patent, of sorts, but it's not generally available to the public.

There's a "gag panel" that receives your patent if the first examiner thinks it may be something that should be looked at. They evaluate it, decide if it is a national security issue, and if it is, they 'gag' it.

Gags can fall into several categories, some are useful to the government and for those they sort of shop it around, if there's interest the gag panel chooses whom you may license to and gives you a list. Like, say, Lockheed.

If it's just a nasty nuisance, you can't use it until they let you. That typically doesn't last forever, most gags are lifted in a few years when it doesn't matter anymore.

About 500 gags a year are issued for small businesses and individuals. I think there are about twice that issued for large corporations. It's way up in the past few years, it used to be maybe a fifth of that.

If you get a gag and you have a clearance already, it's no big deal, Yet Another NDA. You get read onto your own invention, basically. They might issue you a bump for the scope of your invention if it's above your clearance.

If you're not cleared, it's a bit tackier. They come to your house and are sort of curt, I understand. You get a 20 year NDA, they have endless interviews to determine who you might have told it to, if you did, THEY get NDA'd in the same fashion.

edit: clarification:

The patent office gag panel doesn't do the shopping around by themselves, it's more like it gets turned over to DOE or whomever the patent falls under and they do it. But from the point of view of the gagged, it all looks like the PTO did it.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Tom Bedlam]



reply posted on 24-8-2006 @ 08:43 AM by Aelita
Originally posted by RedGolem
I read about the process of drilling to the magma quite a few years back. Like all the other forms of cheap abundant energy it never got put into use.


On the other hands, geothermal power plants aren't uncommon:

link


also, plenty of other info on the web.

The chief difference between this tech and the "permanent magnet motor" crap is that the former does not violate conservation of energy while the latter does.


reply posted on 24-8-2006 @ 09:00 AM by Tom Bedlam
Originally posted by RedGolem

Tom
Thanks a bunch for clarafying that part of the supresed patents.
So as the gag works on patents its for national security intrists, no suprise there. But the patents issued for the cheap abundant energy devices like we have been discusing hear would not have the gag order on the patent?

Just wanted to confirm that since I am not farmiler with all the workings on the patents.


Red,

If there WERE any suppressed energy devices, I guess you could use a gag on them.

However, it's my understanding, not ever having tried it personally, that if you attempt to file a US patent on a perpetuum mobile, they will make you demonstrate it, if they accept the filing at all. That sort of makes Valone's statement a little shaky in my perception. I'm not really sure how many "magnetic motors" or "Joe cells" patents would be accepted for filing in the first place.

If I had such a thing, I'd probably try filing it with the EU, I'm not sure they're quite as dismissive. But the EU couldn't gag a US citizen, if they even have a gag panel equivalent. Why have none of these people filed EU instead, to start with? Odd.

Also, some of the ones I think are very interesting, although I don't think they work, would be things like Kawai and Bearden, and those were NOT gagged.

It's been my experience (our merry band of engineers have a few gags) that there are certain ways to guarantee a gag. The lore amongst us military contractors is that usually any workable nuclear weapon patent will be gagged, as will production methods for war gases, or unique new crypto. Novel stealth tech often gets a gag, and of course anything too derivative of an ongoing SCI project gets a gag by default. There are a few other topics I feel queasy discussing that are sure bets.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of stuff that ended UP classified that still has its patents in the open with all the classified material lying right there. I guess they are afraid a post hoc gag would be too obvious.


reply posted on 24-8-2006 @ 02:36 PM by Aelita
Originally posted by StellarX
I actually understand enough of both to realise which had the largest implications for the 20th century and it's why i said what i did.


You have to agree that there is a large degree of subjectivity here, at best. I would argue that the atomic theory of matter pioneered in ancient Greece also had great implications and so did the periodic table.


It is quite silly to complain that there are no easy ways in science. The mathematics describing things like superconductivity or interaction of light with matter on the atomic level is complex and likely well beyond your understanding.


And likely beyond yours as well; so what? Do i have to understand the math that qualifies a scientific theory to understand it's possible implications and utility? Bah.


I've had extensive training in physics, not sure about your background. Then again, yes, in many cases you need to understand the math to see the implications. For example, when you solve a problem of neutrons undergoing diffusion in a structure containing various materials, you need to spot cases when the solution becomes unstable, i.e. there is chain reaction. Or, if you aren't good at math, you will need someone else's interpretation of it.

Einstein did far far less original work than Maxwell did and even the few bits he did contribute was notwhere near as important as the work of Maxwell.


I frankly don't care whether Einstein was superior to Maxwell in any way or manner. What is important that these were great scientists, and to put pop-science charlatanes from Ireland on the same scale seems quite silly. Some people probably like these pseudo inventions because they invariably involve water, magnets, D-cell batteries etc etc, i.e. stuff that everybody has tinkered with at some point -- hence easy to visualize and sort of appreciate. On the other hand, the fundamental nature of conservation of energy is indeed somewhat esoteric and requires a fairly deep knowledge of physics to full understand its implications. Such as
Noether's theorem

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Aelita]


reply posted on 25-8-2006 @ 11:03 AM by Regenmacher
Some snippets from a recent interview with Steorn's Sean McCarthy:

Steorn Live Chat Transcript 24-Aug-06
Q: Are you afraid that corporate big business or government entities might have you whacked?

Sean_McCarthy: No, I have worked most of my life in the energy business and do not buy into conspiracy theories!


Q: Did the Irish or any other government approach you?
Sean_McCarthy: No

Q: What level of qualifications do the 50 scientists out of those who have applied have? Are we talking professors or what?
Sean_McCarthy: We have not had a chance to review the applicants in detail. We are seeking people from the world of experimental physics.

Q: Is there a cut-off date for selection of the panel of 12?
Sean_McCarthy: Yes, the end of this month. We will be issuing a press release on this soon.

Q: What is your definition of “free” when used in the term “free energy”?
Sean_McCarthy: A direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics - that is free energy.


These men think they're about to change the world -Guardian UK

The saga continues, so place your bets. Will Sean McCarthy and Richard Walshe change the world forever or become another Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann?


reply posted on 25-8-2006 @ 03:19 PM by StellarX
Originally posted by Aelita
You have to agree that there is a large degree of subjectivity here, at best. I would argue that the atomic theory of matter pioneered in ancient Greece also had great implications and so did the periodic table.


Well subjective as it may be i thought we were talking about late nineteenth century scientific break troughs.... If you want to suddenly widen the scope you should probably tell me about it before hating me over the misunderstanding.

I've had extensive training in physics, not sure about your background.


Could have fooled me... The obsession with Einstein should have given away the 'higher' education level...

Then again, yes, in many cases you need to understand the math to see the implications.


If the observations/findings can not be expressed in words one probably has no business trying to call it science.

For example, when you solve a problem of neutrons undergoing diffusion in a structure containing various materials, you need to spot cases when the solution becomes unstable, i.e. there is chain reaction. Or, if you aren't good at math, you will need someone else's interpretation of it.


There is no scientist in the world that does not depend in large on second hand information he never tested for himself. If every scientist had to re qualify everything in his text book we might very well have science ( civil application end) worth talking about but at this stage that is not really happening. Their just researching what they get grants for and believing what they were told; no different from the rest of us.

I frankly don't care whether Einstein was superior to Maxwell in any way or manner. What is important that these were great scientists, and to put pop-science charlatanes from Ireland on the same scale seems quite silly.


Frankly Einstein should not be mentioned in the same breath but i am no fan boy so i have no vested interest in attacking Einstein any more than he deserves for all that plagiarism. It is funny how many 'crazy' ( according to their peers) people end up being the the real discoverers of reality and i think the general level of weirdness might actually be a good standard towards finding likely genius. That's just me and if you like boring old science that arrives at it's conclusions five decades after the mavericks said so that is your deal entirely. Just don't expect much sympathy when i attack the vapid defense of the conventional science and their protectors.

Some people probably like these pseudo inventions because they invariably involve water, magnets, D-cell batteries etc etc, i.e. stuff that everybody has tinkered with at some point -- hence easy to visualize and sort of appreciate.


Why do you think people like George Bush? It's obvious that people like things within their mental grasp as their arrogance demands that their ignorance not be the horrible handicap that is obviously is. That being said i have sympathy with the belief in these 'simple' things as long as our science establishment has such obvious hardship in explaining simple things like magnets ( magnet's don't do work according to their theories) and the true nature of energy.

On the other hand, the fundamental nature of conservation of energy is indeed somewhat esoteric and requires a fairly deep knowledge of physics to full understand its implications.


I have no problem with the conservation of energy as long as people do not assume closed systems where there are clearly non in evidence. To simple state that a 'machine' like the Irish one is not a over unity device based on the principle of conservation of energy is showing a profound ignorance of the very science you profess to be defending.

Such as Noether's theorem


Talk about plagiarism. I should hazard a guess and assume your female then?

Interesting.

Stellar

[edit on 25-8-2006 by StellarX]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 6 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags