I am interested in free energy in 1973 while in 22 years. During a bus trip to Ann Arbor (Michigan), a Battle Creek, happened to see an article in a newspaper about an “electric motor less fuel” that would change the world!
When I arrived home, wrote a letter to the inventor, but he said that there is no other information could be at the time. It was another three years before I learned something more about this incredible invention.
Then, there is no equipment, internet, or search on Google or on-line patent or discussion groups, or YouTube, or other means to things quickly. However, were fantastic events in the energy sector. In 1982, I moved to Santa Barbara, California, to study physics with the beginning of Bruce.
Those who were amazing and many times that he didn’t know at the time, he was right in it. In fact, as the normal life. It’s just that our spare time, we left all these scandalous that we have experiments revealed that “free energy” are actually existed.
Little-known, 37 years later, he was among the “old” trying to help the younger generation to understand what happened in the first field that came from elementary school.
Most of these classic videos of energy has more than 20 years and occurred before the era of modern communication. However, they have laid the foundations of the modern free energy movement that is gaining ground each day. At that time, did not know that the first law of thermodynamics was wrong.
We had to learn, the hard way. Along the way, we also found that the General interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is so wrong. And, last but not least, Einstein’s general relativity also proved wrong. If you read this, who know that have fallen into a group of heretics.
This collection of classic energy videos presents some of the most direct and most obvious of these tests. Modern physics has already become his head, but I don’t know how in the evening newscast. If you are interested in a sustainable energy future for yourself to find out what is already known. This collection of classic energy videos is a great starting point.
Many of these movies cost $ 30 or more when they were first released. Most had very little traffic. Together, they represent an incredible archive. Now may have a package for a low price.
Learn why some people say “not all energy crisis! If this is true then what …read more
Joel, I’m still reading this stuff. As I am a bit wonky I read tugohrh the report to see if there were any assumptions that were made but not stated. There was a big one. They measured the value of each service as the direct sale of the good or product and that there is no other value added. This is too narrow. Below is my post on the link you gave: I read tugohrh the report there was one key assumption that was not stated for each of these. They counted the value of each item tugohrh the direct sale of the good/product as the value added. This is only part of the picture. The other part is in the contribution to GDP production. I am going to focus on electricity generation.Robert Ayers and Benjamin Warr illustrated in their recent book, The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity how exergy (fancy thermodynamic word for useful work) is a previously unknown degree of freedom in the economy. Now the economy has three degrees of freedom: capital, labor, and exergy.They showed conclusively that without our massive exergy input into the economy, we would not have seen the growth that we have over the past century. Coal accounts for about 20% of the nations primary energy input (source LLNL 2009 Energy graph). It is roughly 3/2 as efficient as oil production so it has a higher contribution to the overall exergy input into the economy (ICE’s ~20% efficient coal plants ~35%).Figure 6.4 in Ayers-Warr shows the Solow residual or as it is also commonly known the Technological Progress Function accounting for 80% of GDP. In the next chapter they show how exergy accounts for 99.8% of the TPF.Coal’s overall contribution to the US economy is 16% of GDP. From BEA the US economy was $10.4 trillion. Thus coal alone contributed $1.72 trillion directly to Gross GDP in 2002. The GED sited for all sectors in the paper was $184 billion, with utilities coming in at $62.6 billion. This is a significant oversight on their part.A good economist will argue that coal is fungible (replaceable) with other generation sources. It is to some extent. It costs money to replace the plants. It also costs money (tugohrh lost opportunity costs of premature replacement). So technically, yes they are replaceable. In practicality over the next several decades they may be fully replaceable, they are not today or within the next decade. In other words, coal added $1.72 trillion to the economy and it cannot be replaced without sacrificing GDP (standard of living).
Frank,I hesitated to propave this comment because it really doesn’t add much to the discussion, besides animosity. I especially take offense to your insinuation that energy is a partisan issue that only liberals can love wind, and every conservative loves oil. These are problems that are much too important for petty bickering and name-calling between political parties. And, bring some numbers, some experience, and some justification to the table before you call someone an idiot.Now, on the issue you bring up, bird and bat kill were a big problem in the 90 s, but less so today. Newer turbines are designed to discourage roosting and make the blades visible to flyers-by. It’s often quoted that more birds are killed by housecats every year than wind turbines.Secondly, whether or not you want wind turbines has absolutely nothing to do with oil. There is very little crossover between the power and transportation fuel sectors. The question of whether we should drill baby drill all over the U.S. is one that should be considered on a case-by-case basis, since the externalities are localized to first approximation. However, there’s significant evidence (e.g. Deepwater Horizon) that secondary externalities extend beyond the region you’re drilling in, so we need to have a consistent federal policy and oversight that guides the E&P companies with a high degree of certainty. We also need that policy to come from a Congress and regulatory agencies that’s not in the pocket of the very industry it should be policing.So, in short, yes oil will be with us for a long time, but I don’t think that should make us happy. It’s a problem, not an inevitability. Let’s start fixing it with technology and policy.