How much energy we be talkin’ about?

I found a great graph from Lawrence Livermore National Labs, that illustrates the size of the energy world — the world that will soon be swallowed up by LENR technology:

The real question, of course, is, what is a quad?  Wikipedia states that a quad is 1 quadrillion BTU.  It is also 293,083,000 megawatt hours.  So there is a number we can work with.  

Rossi’s “hot cat” is proported to produce 1 megawatt of energy.  So running 1 hot cat for about 33 thousand years produces 1 quad.  Or running 33 thousand hot cats constantly for 1 year produces 1 quad.

Therefore at the current rate of energy usage, the US would use a bit more than 3 million hot cats.   According to the Wikipedia link above, in 2004 the world consumed 446 quads”.  To meet that need, we would need about 15 million hot cats.

Two conclusions can be reached here:

1, There’s plenty of market, the market will not be saturated overnight.

2,  This is not by any means an inachievable number of units.

Just sayin’

<— To main blog

About these ads

71 Responses to “How much energy we be talkin’ about?”

  1. Roger Bird Says:

    Very interesting. If you look closely, it looks like we import a tiny bit of electricity from Canada. However, we get exactly nothing from Scotland, except a lot of hot air. (:->)

  2. Hans PUFAL Says:

    Very interesting graph. It would in instructive to see the same analysis for the entire world’s energy and for other countries.

    Regarding your figures for the number of eCats. I would imagine that a substantial part of the 58 quads of rejected energy could be economized making the number of eCats correspondingly lower.

  3. Paul Fernhout Says:

    The solar part on the chart is shown as very small. However it is growing exponentially. In about 20 years at the current rate of exponential growth, solar could supply all our conventional power. That rate may increase even more as solar power reaches “grid parity” in cost almost everywhere in the next few years (as has been predicted, see Wikipiedia). So, this chart is misleading in that sense. LENR / cold fusion might be even better than solar for many uses (including small physical footprint), but solar by itself is rapidly changing the energy landscape.

    Also, I would like to see what this chart would look like if, forbid, someone turned off the Sun. How much solar energy would need to be replaced to grow our crops, to feed fish and livestock, to produce our lumber, to heat our homes, to keep oil pipelines from freezing against the cold of space, to purify water via replacing the hydrological cycle, and so on? To help imagine what such a world might be like, there is a sci-fi story called “A Pail of Air”. If you think about that scenario, then you will again see how misleading the chart is about minimizing how much solar energy currently contributes to our lives.

    Energy conservation (“Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”) and energy efficiency (“Negawatts”, like replacing an incandescent bulb with a LED bulb, or insulating a home better) is another thing left out of that chart.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      I don’t doubt that solar is on the horizon but I don’t see it in my community, except for small panels which power a few highway traffic signs.

      I did order four 3M LED bulbs today. I already had 3 or 4, and they are great. They emit a warm color and bathe the entire room in light.

  4. Anony Mole Says:

    It would be nice to see the “Rejected” % by energy source rather than just what is rejected by targeted use. Oh, well, cool graphic though. Also, back on the source site, the quads used in 2010 were 3 more than 2012! odd that energy usage would decrease don’t you think?

    Also, along these lines of world picture energy trends two items:

    1) http://pandoraspromise.com/
    2) http://carbontracker.live.kiln.it/Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf

    The first is a video about nuclear energy and how it is the only way out of this fossil fuel conundrum. (At this point, LENR remains a curiosity and shows no sign of being anything but. )

    The second is an economic report on the financial markets ignoring the over-expenditure / over-reliance on fossil fuels and how this may bite investors in the butt when/if fossil fuel usage has to / may be curtailed.

    Lastly, I just finished up “Super Freakonomics” where in it a think tank in Seattle makes the case, and I agree, that when it comes to climate change, if we all assume for the sake of argument that 400+ ppm CO2, shrinking Arctic ice cap, coral bleaching and rising century span temperatures mean global warming, that regardless of what society does it will be too little, too late and too optimistic. Good book generally. Their solution to theoretical global warming? Spraying sulfur dioxide (like what comes out of volcanoes and coal burning power plants) up into the stratosphere. Their basis: Mt. Pinatubo and the 1 degree (F) cooling affect it had on the planet.

    • Anony Mole Says:

      Simon, if I remember correctly you live in France and are not convinced of AGW. Along the lines of the below science discussion here’s a vast new document that attempts to further the analysis of this controversial subject and in part and especially that of your cold wet weather last year (2012). The pose the question and try to give evidence like any top-notch scientists would.

      http://www.ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        And now it’s global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year
        Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
        BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
        Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eMdovlPX

        Any change, hotter or colder, or no change at all, is the fault of AGW.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Anonymole, if you don’t like how MFMP does things, then I suggest that you do it yourself. If you want a job done to your specifications, then you should do it yourself. Oh, I’m sorry, you just want to complain, not actually do anything constructive.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Anony – I’ll read that document a bit later on, thanks. 26MB will take a while. Although I used to just accept the AGW thing because it appear as consensus, a couple of years ago I looked at the real climate data rather than the computer modelled outcomes and massaged data. As I’ve said before here, the data shows inconsistencies in collection method and the methods of producing the massaged dataset are just wrong. For example, if one weather-station ceases to be worked, then another that is maybe 100 miles away is used as the equivalent. With old countryside weather-stations being encroached by built-up areas and new weather stations being at airports, it’s not that surprising that the average measured temperature has risen.

        In the past, it seems that (from tree-ring data, ice cores etc.) the global temperatures have fluctuated pretty wildly with no help from industrialised humans. The problem with the idea of heat being retained by more CO2 can be seen each day and night, in the lag of ground-level temperature on insolation and the drop-off of temperature as the sun goes down. It’s coldest just before dawn, and those last hours before the dawn could radiate a lot more energy than they are doing at the moment.

        Logically, the temperature depends mainly on two things – how much energy we get from the sun and what’s happening to the water in the air and oceans. CO2 is a very minor effect in relation to these, and would in fact be very hard to actually measure. Various multi-decadal oscillations of ocean currents and temperatures (depending on the cycles of the Moon and planets, so gravity-driven) show up in the temperature graphs. On top of that we also have variations in the Sun’s output.

        As Iggy just pointed out, suddenly the Arctic ice has shown an increase against all AGW predictions. Give it another 5 years and see what happens. The AGW scare is based on mistaking cause and effect, in that rising CO2 levels are caused by global temperature changes. They do seem to be correlated, yes, but there’s really not much we can do about it yet except adapt to the changing conditions.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Good comment, Simon. I have always wondered what makes CO2 so magically important, at 1 part per 2600 or so, yet there is so much water, that everyone knows sucks up heat like a sponge. I have never seen or heard of clouds or oceans or glaciers of CO2.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        ShowBiz folks use CO2 clouds and fog for dramatic stage effects. That’s probably what gave the greenies their bright idea.

        If it works for Hollywood, why not for us?

      • Anony Mole Says:

        Well, what’s interesting is that some of the findings point to just normal perturbations in weather cycles; no AGW involved. As for Arctic ice coverage, who would expect extreme levels two years in a row? No one rational. Yet 2013 is still way off the mean: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  5. Simon Derricutt Says:

    It’s nice to see some new and perceptive contributors here – welcome.

    On fossil fuels, the prospect of “running out” keeps receding into the future. Theory says that when you’ve drilled down to pre-Cambrian levels, that’s the end, but it’s been found that in practice if you drill deeper there’s more oil. Old oilfields have thus been revitalised by deeper drilling. Possibly the theory is wrong as to how oil was produced.

    Personally, having looked at a lot of the data, I don’t see Carbon Dioxide as the root cause of Global Warming and the main cause as being the Sun’s output changing as well as various long-term cycles of ocean currents. Water-vapour is a very much larger driver of the climate and of weather. I’d like to see the pollution produced by fossil fuel burning reduced, though. Politically, too, if each country was self-sufficient in energy generation then I suspect there would be both fewer wars and also less money available for terrorists to buy their weapons. On Global Warming, let’s see what the trend is over the next decade, and whether we’re now going into a colder phase as some people predict.

    If the colder climate does arrive, then cheap energy will be very useful to us, both to keep ourselves warm and to run indoor farms since the growing seasons will change and become shorter. Here we should be looking to the example of the Dutch, since the Netherlands is the second-largest agricultural produce exporter after the USA. Surprising when you look at the relative areas.

    The reduced energy-use from 2010 to 2012 is not really that surprising considering the financial problems which make economising on energy-use more critical just to keep a business running. Things such as LED lighting have also become cheaper, better and more available, and lighting takes a surprising proportion of home energy consumption.

    We don’t yet know when or if LENR will be commercially available, so in the meantime getting the solar panels installed and getting nuclear solutions such as molten-salt Thorium reactors does look to be a good idea. No more Chernobyls or Fukushimas, please.

    • iggydalrymple Says:

      Simon, what’s your take on the proposed GeNiE Reactor? It seems to be a combination fission/fusion device.

      The GeNiE Reactor takes advantage of the efficiently produced high-energy neutrons in a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor design to produce power from un-enriched uranium. The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn’t rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn’t required enriched uranium and it doesn’t produce hazardous nuclear waste that is costly to handle. By fissioning existing hazardous waste, the GeNiE Reactor can generate power and mitigate existing hazardous waste at the same time. And by eliminating the need for enrichment, the GeNiE Reactor removes all requirements for uranium enrichment except for weapons production, thereby removing the uncertainty in the purpose of enrichment programs such as the current program in Iran.

      http://preview.tinyurl.com/DreamOfGeNiE

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – the GeNiE looks to be a good idea and certainly should work well. The fuel is cheaper and it doesn’t require a whole lot of preparation first, so both the input costs go way down and the waste is much cheaper to deal with safely. Basically it’s competitive with LENR on costs, except that here we know how it works and can build them now. What’s not to like?

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        What you are saying here is a bit weird.

        “Basically it’s competitive with LENR on costs, except that here we know how it works and can build them now. What’s not to like?”

        So you’re saying you know the costs of LENR even though you don’t know how LENR works, and can’t build LENR energy machines. How do you manage to know that – the cost of something you can neither understand not construct?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – we know the cost of Nickel, so unless the processing required to make LENR work is excessively expensive the fuel is dead cheap. Theory on Ni-H LENR is just not there yet, and neither is theory for Pd-D LENR, so we don’t know how it works but only that it is shown to work (sometimes). We don’t know when or if a commercial version will be available. For GeNiE the theory is solid, the fuel is cheap and we know it works reliably.

      So yes, I can make estimates on costs. They will certainly be within order-of-magnitude, but those show that both methods will be a lot cheaper than our current methods. While we’re waiting for an LENR solution, the GeNiE is a logical step to take, and won’t be undercut that much when and if LENR comes along.

      Nuclear waste storage costs run at around $1600 per kg per year. If GeNiE burns this and produces power from it, and the resultant waste is cheaper to handle as well as less problematical, then we have a win-win situation.

      The objective is to produce cheap and non-polluting energy. I don’t really care if that is achieved using LENR, fission or fusion. The GeNiE is a step in the right direction.

      • AlainCo Says:

        Yes, I see more interest in GeNiE as a nuclear waste incinerator, than, as energy source.
        Nuclear waste are not all equals. There are low activity waste (Coblat, iodium, tritium) that can be burried for few decades, or a century, not being a problem for the future.

        There are very high activity wastes, like fission products (lanthanides…), which are complex to handle, but in few yeard or decade they are quiet to manage, and can be burried, without fear for future generation to fall on them.

        The real problem is long life waste, transuranian like plutonium238. They are not very active, but they can be dangerous for thousands years.
        If you can transform them into high activity fission product, and store them for few decades, then burry them for a century… it is manageable for future generation.

        this is why “retreatment” is an important technology.
        If GeNiE does not work well, there will be room for fast neutron reactors, like next generation nuke, like molten salt reactor, or pebble bed reactors…
        the price of the energy would be too expensive compared to LENR, but cleaning the trash bin is priceless.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        The beauty of the GeNiE, assuming it works, it would leave no excuse for 3rd world countries to have uranium enrichment facilities, except to produce nuclear weaponry.

        The West could give Iran an ultimatum, continue on your path and we will attack, but dismantle and we’ll give you free GeNiEs.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The problem with that is that they WANT to be martyrs.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        “The problem with that is that they WANT to be martyrs.”

        We could help facilitate that dream. I think that we would have already attacked, but for the fact that we’re developing better “bunker-busters”.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        And don’t forget that Obama is a pussy.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        You say “For GeNiE the theory is solid, the fuel is cheap and we know it works reliably.” Is that really so? Where is it working and what is the evidence that it is based on solid theory? Because an Internet search indicates only very tentative and disputed evidence of its reality. Or is this merely another Rossi-style free energy jape?

  6. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon

    This is from the Global Energy Corp website and it does nothing to verify your claim of solid theory and reliable working. Quite the contrary:

    “Q. How do you overcome the coulomb barrier?

    A. Several possibilities such as a stripping reaction or the equivalent to “tunneling” in solid state electronics have been suggested as a way to overcome the coulomb barrier. More research is needed to determine the answer to this question.

    Q. What technical challenges need to be overcome before this technology can be commercialized?

    A. Our GeNiE pilot reactors have demonstrated the ability to produce neutrons with enough energy to fission either natural uranium, enriched uranium, or existing hazardous waste. We are currently working to optimize the reactions and increase the flux of high-energy neutrons. Once this is achieved, many commercial applications are possible.

    Q. If this is real, you should all be dead because of the neutrons that would have been produced. How do you answer that since you’re obviously still alive?

    A. One of the properties of our experiments is that the neutron flux is several orders of magnitude less than that predicted by conventional theory. The current flux levels are not hazardous however we are currently working to optimize the experiments to increase the flux. We recognize the dangers of high-energy neutrons and take appropriate precautions.”

    This smells of snake oil. No commercial applications are currently possible. No theoretical explanation is available, and the predicted (and inevitable) neutron flux is not observed. Where have we seen this sort of thing before?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – in science, we normally believe another scientist is talking truth until he or she is shown to be talking out of their arse. In this case, the measurements look good so we’ll just have to wait and see. It normally takes quite a while between having a system working on the bench to having enough data to make a commercial version. They sound to me like they know what they are doing. It’s somewhat premature to mention snake-oil – if the measurements are correct then the theory will catch up with the facts and we’ll have some new theory.

      If things match the theory, we don’t call it research but technology.

      • Anony Mole Says:

        I wonder if The Royal Society’s basic premise of the Truth is not exactly opposite of what you state about believing scientists.

        ‘Nullius in verba’.

        But then again, “take no one’s word for it,” can not at all be fully true as this article gets into:

        ~~~~~

        http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/6/26/nullius-in-verba-surely-you-are-joking-mr-hooke-or-why-cultu.html

        “What’s distinctive of scientific knowledge is not that it dispenses with the need to “take it on the word of” those who know what they are talking about, but that it identifies as worthy of such deference only those who are relating knowledge acquired by the empirical methods distinctive of science.

        But for collective knowledge (scientific and otherwise) to advance under these circumstances, it is necessary that people—of all varieties—be capable of reliably identifying who really does know what he or she is talking about.”
        ~~~~~

        What’s fascinating about this whole grand yet perverse exploration of cold fusion is that it strikes to the heart of what science truly is. Science is obviously not a thing, but a process. The process by which we accept as true that which is presented for evaluation is different for each of us.

        Is it true then that there is no truth?
        (How’s that for an inverted tautology!)

        I do believe “take no ONE’s word for it.” But, eventually, we all must “take the MANY’s word for it.” The continuum of points at which we each toggle from disbelief to belief (or back again) seems so broad and varied that consensus may be but a dream. “Truth” a falsity.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Nice link, Anony. In the cases of both Cold Fusion and GeNiE we can believe it properly when they are being sold and a lot of people attest to their usefulness, in the same way as nuclear power stations are now. Most of us have never been in one, but we “know” they work. When enough people so attest, then we should accept it unless we have a pretty plausible story as to how we’ve all been fooled.

        Consensus of opinion has never guaranteed being correct, though, but in general it’s pretty good. After a while, anything that’s proved to be wrong (such as the earth being flat) will only be believed by a few people.

        Scientists do generally try to tell the best truth they know. They may still be wrong. With LENR we have a few thousand scientists saying it works since they’ve tried it, and in general the people who say it can’t work either haven’t read the papers or just believe it can’t work based on what they know. Our knowledge is not absolute, so the theories cannot be complete.

        While NASA are seriously considering how to make a Star Trek type of warp-drive work, can you really consider much else as being impossible?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Whether the Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun goes around the Earth is a matter of perspective. Be honest. How many times have you said that the Sun is rising or the Sun is setting or paid attention to the “movement” of the Sun or Moon. It is all a matter of perspective, and your self-honesty will attest to that reality.

        Science generally says that heat is something and cold is the absence of heat. But it is possible if one tries hard enough to see cold as something and heat as the absence of cold. I have not followed this line of perspective enough to know whether it has any prediction or control value.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        According to science, aren’t we, the earth, solar system, and galaxy all hurtling through space?

        If the earth is moving 20,000 miles per hour in “X direction”, and I fly an XR-71 2,000mph in the opposite direction, then I would actually be moving slower, not faster.

        Doesn’t speed impose a momentum effect that makes it more difficult to change direction? So if I’m moving through space at 1,000s of mph per hour, how is it that I can easily turn 90° at the street corner?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy is SOOO old that he hasn’t yet heard about the theory of Relativity. (:->)

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        Yes, I’ve heard about it…something a square MC. How does that explain why I have no trouble changing direction at the street corner?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Everything is relative to the frame of reference. Both you, the corner, and the next street, and the entire planet are going 22,000 mph or whatever figure you quoted. The speed of Earth is only a speed relative to something else. In this case, everything on the planet including you has a velocity relative to the Earth, not relative to the center of the galaxy or the Sun or whatever. Relative to you sitting there reading these words, the speed of the planet is exactly zero. When you get up to go into the kitchen, your speed is relative to the house which is relative to the planet. Your house is going exactly zero (hopefully) relative to the planet. Your velocity walking into the kitchen is 3 miles per hour, relative to the house. Your velocity relative to the Sun is irrelevant, unless of course you were falling into the Sun. The formulas for momentum and energy etc are ALL relative velocities. If you bump into the street light, the ‘v’ in e = 1/2mv2 is relative to the street light, not the Sun. Does that help.

        There is no absolute except the speed of light. All velocity is relative to something else.

      • brucefast Says:

        Honestly, Iggy, grasping relativity is relatively difficult. However, you get close when you say, “Doesn’t speed impose a momentum effect that makes it more difficult to change direction?” It is the change of direction that requires energy.

        If your car is hurtling down the road at 60 miles per hour and you push in the clutch, it doesn’t slow down very fast. To make it slow down fast, you must suck a lot of energy out — breaks. If you’ve done any trucking you soon get to know just how much energy breaks have to absorb to stop your vehicle.

        So if you are hurtling through space at 1000 mph, and want to turn, well you are now hurtling through space at 997 mph in the original direction, and 3 mph 90 degrees out. You have changed speed by a total of 6 mph, which didn’t take much energy. Predominantly, however, you are still hurtling through space at near 1000 mph.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        And Coriolis Force is NOT a force but an apparent force. So-called Coriolis Force causes moving objects in the Northern Hemisphere to APPEAR to move to the left, i.e. hurricanes moving in a counter-clockwise motion. The wind doesn’t actually curve to the left, but the earth moves to the right(beneath the wind path), and relative to a fixed observer on earth, the wind seems to curve to the left.

        To demonstrate this, imagine a turntable spinning in a clockwise direction. You stand on one side(stand on the ground, not on the turntable) of the turntable and I stand on the opposite side from you. I roll a bowling ball that’s wet with paint across the turntable toward you. From mine and your perspectives, the ball rolls in a straight line. But the path marked by the wet paint tells a different tale. It shows that the ball followed a curving path to the left.

        Us humans in the Northern Hemisphere are standing on a turntable spinning in a clockwise direction.

      • Anony Mole Says:

        That’s also why space ship designs with a central wheel around their waist that rotates while the ship moves forward at 90 degrees can never work. Under acceleration the path of a point on the wheel forms a cork screw through space that would forever be throwing people off balance who tried to walk/run/live on the inner surface of the wheel. A better design is like the wheel on a wheelbarrow who’s rotation is inline with the line of travel (axis perpendicular to travel direction). Artificial gravity would oscillate a bit depending on rotation speeds and thrust. But at least you could walk in a straight line.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        These statements of yours are decidedly weird:

        “Whether the Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun goes around the Earth is a matter of perspective.”

        “Science generally says that heat is something and cold is the absence of heat. But it is possible if one tries hard enough to see cold as something and heat as the absence of cold. I have not followed this line of perspective enough to know whether it has any prediction or control value.”

        Believe me – it has none. Try finding the photons of cold predicted by your “line of perspective”!

        But I suppose your main point is that whether LENR exists or not is a matter of pure “perspective”. Not a valid concept in my opinion.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Weird does not mean wrong. Relativity is weird. Quantum physics is weird. I explained the Sun and Moon idea clearly and distinctly. If you can’t keep up, the fault lies with you, not me.

        If we followed the cold vs. hot idea far enough, we might discover something interesting. But you don’t want to discover anything interesting. It might get weird for you and cause you anxiety and make you lose some sleep.

        “But I suppose your main point is that whether LENR exists or not is a matter of pure “perspective”. Not a valid concept in my opinion.” A point is that your understanding and discovery of whether LENR or anything else may or may not be true will be dependent upon your perspective. If you repeatedly, which you have done REPEATEDLY, refuse to look at the evidence, then you won’t discover whether it is real or not. If you clutch your disbelief to your heart rather than have an open mind, you will not discover anything new. This is what you do, Craig. This is why you will never discover anything new. To be a skeptopath is just is perception distorting as to be a true believer, only you don’t get laid by hippy chicks when you are a skeptopath.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – in the search for symmetry, there was a proposal of “anti-energy”. When matter and antimatter collide, they mutually destruct with emission of the same positive energy we currently know. Anti-energy and energy would mutually destruct to give nothing. From symmetry arguments, and the idea that energy cannot be created, you may be able to see the point there. A photon of this anti-energy would indeed be cold, in fact below absolute zero. Long time since I read this, so no links and I’m not going to go hunting for them, but you might find it fun to think about. There are some really far-out theories around in the Astrophysics world, some of which might even have truth in them.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “but you might find it fun to think about.” Dear Simon, you really are clueless when it comes to Craig Binns. He is not into fun thinking. He is into protecting the status quo and keeping his anxiety at a minumum. Your cluelessness is the result of your projecting your child-like innocence onto him, so don’t take it as an insult. Craig, however, can take it as an insult.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Here is a GREAT article: http://coldfusionnow.org/power-equivalent-to-the-sun-we-already-have-it/

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        “A photon of this anti-energy would indeed be cold, in fact below absolute zero.”

        So photons of heat are hot, and photons of cold are below absolute zero. Indeed. Are photons of light bright? Are photons of green light green?

        These things are indeed “fun to think about” while we’re waiting for Rossi to deliver us a bunch of hot photons. (But no neutrons.)

      • brucefast Says:

        In support of Roger’s “perspective” as I hunker down for winter in the sub-arctic. We frequently refer to keeping out the cold in these parts. So from our perspective, not a perspective of photons,but of frost, thinking of cold as the dominant trait makes total sense.

        Perspective has something to do with elephants, trees, tables and the like.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

      • Craig Binns Says:

        brucefast

        In your Arctic fastness you must be troubled by winter darkness too. This is transmitted by “dark photons”, which I have just devised a name for, which Simon is welcome to use when he wins the Nobel Prize for detecting them. Not “photons” but “skotons” from the Greek “σκοτος” darkness.

        Roger, you’re being very naughty again! And you are entirely in error when you state that I don’t regard these new photon ideas as “fun thinking”. I do; oh, I do!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Skotons is very good as a name. It is however, as it happens, Esperanto for a Scot.

        http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/skoto#Esperanto

        What’s the link between the Scots and darkness??

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I think that ‘skoton’ is perfect, since Craig is our resident grinch.

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig, I am troubled by winter darkness. I have a mild case of Seasonal Affective Disorder, and cannot wait until mid January when the world starts to brighten up again.

        That said, during the winter months a darkness shield (SAD light) protects my breakfast table. This device is very effective at repelling scotons.

    • usJim Says:

      Craig Binns Says September 6, 2013 at 8:12 pm

      “Q. How do you overcome the coulomb barrier?”

      Probably above your education level (used to be ‘pay grade’), but, Hagelstein goes into depth on this subject in the 2014 MIT IAP LENR/CF lecture series … not that you would comprehend it …

      • Roger Bird Says:

        There is no need to putdown anyone. Being able to break out of boxes has nothing to do with IQ. My sister-in-law breaks out of boxes all of the time, simply because she trusts me. Her capacity to trust is a skill. Her IQ is probably average.

        Craig is just as intelligent as you or me, perhaps even more so. It is his capacity to trust or to understand degrees of trust or to know when to trust and how much to trust that is reason why he does not believe in LENR. I think that he has looked at the evidence and understood what it said, perhaps even better than me. But he doesn’t trust himself or the testers, etc. etc. He probably won’t trust LENR until it is sold at his local home improvement store.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        My education level used to be a “pay grade”? I don’t remember that.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I’m like Craig. My education level failed to reach paygrade.

  7. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Skotons Discovered!

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Priza_Technologies_Inc.%27s_Z_Point_Energy

    Have fun with this, Craig. The third terminal outputs cold energy… and he only wants $2M to develop the invention further.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Thanks Simon. I missed your post. So Sterling Allan is looking for money again to go and visit some scammer or maniac with a magic energy machine. It’s a great pity that even he has given up on Rossi. (Still no news from Rossi, by the way? I’m getting worried. Maybe he’s been dematerialised by the gamma rays coming out of his e-cat.)

      Anyway Sterling doesn’t need money to travel an hour flight from Salt Lake City, when he could equally well use his teleportation expertise and zoom off to Mars with Obama.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – things might seem pretty quiet on the new energy front, but if you read that one you should have had a laugh. Sterling is at the moment calling Mark Dansie (a personal friend of mine) a demon for not being positive about all the scams Sterling is unearthing and thinks are going to work despite a lot of evidence against. It’s so terrible to ask for proof that something works.

        On Rossi, there has been the odd announcement – looks like the next 3rd party tests are due somewhere September 2014, but don’t hold your breath on this. I think the timescales are reasonable, as it happens, and now Rossi has a lot more people involved he’s claiming less and most likely achieving more. In the same way, Defkalion are getting more real, and we see that what they really have is lab-scale rather than the claimed production scale but that the lab results are encouraging – just not as advanced as they used to claim. As to if and when they get saleable systems out, your guess is as good as mine but I’m probably somewhat more optimistic than you are.

        The reality is that the engineering, and understanding how to reliably produce heat from LENR, is going to take years of messing around (also known as research). If it was easy, lots of people would have done it. You may have seen Dennis Cravens’ work at the recent NI week, though – he seems to have got something that’s reliable though a small output.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, you have absolutely no clue, even though you have been told and you have witnessed NUMEROUS times that Craig is a pathological skeptic. You are projecting your good heart and healthy intellect onto Craig, and doing so is not seeing Craig as he really is. Craig doesn’t believe ANYTHING beyond what lamestream science has given him permission to believe. In fact, he positively and aggressively DISBELIEVES anything outside of the box. He says and probably thinks that his attitude is all about the scientific method, but it is really about following the crowd and maintaining the dominance of the scientific powers that be.

        I got an LOL out of how your addressed him. It is like a child care worker talking to a terrorist, really. I usually comment that you are a fabulous person who I admire and appreciate. But don’t try to become a psychologist this lifetime. Really. But thank you for the entertainment. I really enjoyed it.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – I’ve no intent to be a psychologist, but I do think I’d enjoy discussing things with Craig over a pint. Craig will believe all the LENR stuff when he can buy one and it works, which isn’t that unhealthy an attitude after all. There are a whole lot of high-up scientists who also say it can’t happen, after all – one of those things where you have to look at who’s saying what and work out who’s likely correct.

        It was Rutherford who said that chemical energies were not enough to affect the nucleus, but that was a century or so ago. He said that after trying various ways of affecting the rate of nuclear decay. As it turns out, he was wrong on that and there are a few non-nuclear processes that can affect the rates of alpha and beta decay. One guy I know has reported an increase in gamma-rays from a cavitation experiment, and another got excess heat in his test but didn’t have a Geiger counter at the time. You can disbelieve strangers, but when a friend gets the same results it’s much easier to accept them and test things further. One way or another, it looks like within the next year or two there should be several ways of getting cheap nuclear-based energy at a personal use scale. LENR is only one of those ways.

        With quite a few people across the world running these sorts of experiments in the back shed as well as in properly-equipped laboratories, the future in energy is looking a lot better than it was a few years back. It’s sad that Sterling is glomming onto people who aren’t going to deliver rather than looking at the people who are really heading in the right direction, but the small steps are not as exciting as the big unfounded claims.

    • iggydalrymple Says:

      We need ChemE Stewart from vortex to chime in. Many of his posts include a references to dark matter. Now he’s blaming doppler radar on fish kills and autism.

      http://darkmattersalot.com/

    • Anony Mole Says:

      I’ve been reading a good book that helps with the analysis of controversial subjects, “Thinking – Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. If some of you need help learning how to dig through the detritus of this and many other topics, this book may help.

  8. Craig Binns Says:

    Here’s how far things have got in the development of the fabled energy machine that’s going to revolutionise the universe! From “E -cat World” 4 March 2014.

    “Andrea Rossi has said that he himself tried to replicate the Pons and Fleischmann effect without success, and that maybe helps him understand the response of those in the scientific community who couldn’t replicate it either. His own efforts have taken a different approach to achieve an excess heat effect, and reading a little between the lines in his response here, Rossi may be expressing confidence that he is able to reliably and consistently replicate his effect, and in doing so will be able to engage the scientific community from a position of strength.”

    This is after years and years of promises and demonstrations! Time to go home, folks. The show’s over, I think.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, you are just the Rock of Gibraltar, aren’t you. No, the show has not yet begun. If you were to look at Rossi’s progress carefully and without a lot of negative bias, you would notice that he is making progress.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Where are the magic nickel to copper transmutation machines under your stairs heating your house that he was going to produce using his own cash in 2012? Eh, where are they? No machines, and he’s using other people’s cash through “licensing”. This is traditional tried and true scamming.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I thought that he had given up on the licensing. He is working with Industrial Heat now. Now tell me that Tom Darden and J. Vaughn are being fooled and you at a very great distance are so much more insightful than they are.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        Who’s appealing to authority now? Industrial heat can’t be fooled? What happened to the licencees by the way? Has industrial heat refunded their money?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Dear Craig,

        I don’t know much about the licencees. I don’t know if they even gave Rossi any money or if their money has been refunded or if Rossi / IH still have an obligation to them or what. I don’t hear them screaming “bloody murder”, or “crooked con-artistry” or whatever it is people cheated out of their money scream. And with the Internet it is real easy to the one’s complaints out to the public.

        I do know that Cherokee Investment Partners was a going concern and they wouldn’t throw it all away on some nitwit free energy goof-ball.

        I also know that it is a long way from a glowing cylinder to a viable product. The glowing cylinder blows away the denial of mainstream scientists, but it does not put money in the pocket of a utility company. Remember, the utility company only cares about money in their pockets. They may be intrigued by a glowing cylinder and may even help fund it, but installing one that gets quenched because of too much cold water or some other engineering problem does make them happy campers.

        Roger

    • Anony Mole Says:

      Here’s a piece I wrote, maybe y’all read it already, but it’s a set of rather ‘far-out’, fringe style arguments on the topic:

      http://anonymole.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/replacing-the-fossil-fuel-oligopoly-nfe-nearly-free-energy/

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Anony,

        Did you see that GE just invested $1.4 BILLION into distributed energy systems: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/03/ge-invests-big-in-distributed-energy-combined-heat-and-power/ That doesn’t seem to set right with your theory about the oil dollar.

        Roger

      • Anony Mole Says:

        Smaller, distributed power generation is an excellent idea. Central power, whether energy or political, often creates more problems than solutions. Autonomy is a great equalizer. But such distributed power systems still use fossil fuels, all priced in the $. I don’t see why Exxon, Gazprom or PetroChina would complain about such systems. This is no threat. In fact this is just the opposite, further confirmation that fossil fuels will be nearly impossible to unseat as the dominate energy source for the planet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: