I live up north. In these parts remote starts are highly valued so that the car can be a bit warm when you get in in the morning. Considering that Rossy’s e-cat needs to be heated up to a few hundred degrees, then the steam engine needs heating up, instant start will not be part of the new energy catalyzer world.
However, we will live in a world where energy is all but free. So why not just leave the engine running. What if the e-cat was kept at full operating temperature and there was a small secondary steam or stirling engine that keeps the battery charged? What if the secondary engine also could keep the interior temperature constant? If heat was called for, keep the car warm all night or all week. If cooling is called for, run the air conditioner as needed. How easy is that? How convenient is that?
It sure is nice to think of a world where energy is free.
Tags: air conditioning, car, cold fusion, Dr. Rossi, e-cat, remote start
May 22, 2011 at 11:44 pm |
This is crazy! I emotionally reject the very idea of such energy wasting behavior
.
May 23, 2011 at 7:59 am |
BB
Agreed one hundred percent!
Please also look at the next page: “Wouldn’t this be fun?”
“I want lots of toys: personal watercraft, fishing boat, quad, snowmobile, etc. All of these toys require an engine, somewhere around 100 horsepower would be sufficient for each case.”
BruceFast fantasizes about having all these toys – running all night and all week.
The things that turn some people on! (And keep them running all night!)
May 23, 2011 at 8:58 am |
I think you guys have hit on an important cultural perspective. We conserve energy because it has cost — monetary and environmental. But what happens when energy has neither monetary nor environmental cost? When cars need new energy cores once every five years whether they need ‘em or not, the monetary cost of the energy becomes truly negligible. Reducing the amount of nickel in the world by a wee bit (there’s bucket of the stuff), and similarly increasing the amount of copper is also negligible. Neither could possibly be viewed as environmentally destructive.
May 23, 2011 at 9:42 am |
Yes, but zooming about in “personal watercraft, fishing boat, quad, snowmobile, etc” has significant environmental costs, if lots of people indulge in it, quite apart from the cost of fuel.
Your reaction to the goodies you expect from these supposed new found sources of wealth is reminiscent of what happened to the native North West potlatch ceremony following the European introduction of new commodities. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
“After the influx of manufactured trade goods such as blankets and sheet copper into the Pacific Northwest caused inflation in the potlatch in the late 18th and earlier 19th centuries. Some groups, such as the Kwakwaka’wakw, used the potlatch as an arena in which highly competitive contests of status took place. In some cases, goods were actually destroyed after being received, or instead of being given away.”
We need prosperity, but not wasteful use of fantasised superabundance.
June 5, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
OK, that rules out calling the product “SuperAbundantFantasy”. How bout “Goldilocks Energizer”
September 19, 2011 at 10:20 pm |
I’m thinking people will get used to very warm homes, long, long showers and nice big SUV’s. The world will be much more comfortable.
October 30, 2011 at 11:04 am |
I look forward to the Rossi E-Cat with extremely keen hope and anticipation. However, more and more toys will not make a person happy. True happiness comes from within and not having to worry about paying the mortgage.