So who needs oil or nuclear power?

[Justice International]

You never heard of silicon deposits in the lungs from the dust......

Sure, but I'd sooner have in my lungs a little blown sand from the
beaches, or cement dust in constructing something cheap and simple
like this for its future benefits than a dose of radioactivity in
lumbering the future of the planet with nuclear energy to benefit any
nuclear industry. - So long as this present proposal works, of course.

And by the way, greening the planet is not simply a political
movement, as some try to imply. It is more the expression of our
species trying to escape the commercial grip that some have taken on
the rest on the principle that unless you pay you shall not live. And
that is fair enough. Life should not be only about money. But for some
that is all it is about, no matter at what detriment to the rest.

 

[[email protected]]

How true. But the cost of a few bags of cement compared to the
possible profit accruing to prospecting and mining refining and then
designing and building all the bits and bobs of an authentic power
station for use of said product PLUS all them dismantling costs . . .?

Besides, concrete is cleaner.

<snort> Now go visit a concrete plant.

/BAH

 

[[email protected]]

That is great idea.

It's been going on for decades.

.. There is no need for them in the frst place if proper
energy strategies are in place.

You said "if". That is precisely the problem which you keep
ignoring. You are assuming that any if is possible. It is not.

/BAH

 

[[email protected]]

We may well ask.

I have been asking. So far, nobody has been answering; all I
get is strong whiffs of bullshit.

Well, the seas' waves are free. It's just a matter of harnessing them
as cheaply as possible.

The harnessing isn't free? Already you are spending time, resources
and polluting something. Using sea waves aren't free anymore.

The electrical power is clean, though with a
little heat if used for that purpose. Anything else?

How can it be clean? How do you get the power from the sea
to your house? Wire. Ah, then that wire has to be manufactured.
All manufacturing has leftovers.

How are you going to use the power? Let me guess..to run
your computer. That is made of out of all kinds of nasty
chemicals, including petroleum. Or are you going to use
that power to cook? There are all kinds of pollutions
involved with cooking, from creating air pollutants to
shitting in the toilets. So, thus far, your not-free power
is highly pollutant.

..If the concrete
of ship or weight are junked, well, that is just more rock for the
fishes to swim round. I don't see much pollution there.

Ah, it's OK for you throw stuff away in places it has never
been before, but it is not OK for anybody else to do this
unspeakable act.

Grow up.

/BAH

 

[[email protected]]

Exactly. But what you see here is the mindset of the "Childish
generation" (which constitutes a significant fraction of current
western population), "I want everything and I want it now and I want
it free of charge and I accept no tradeoffs". And, yes, it is the
result of never having to do things yourself.

Yes. I'm resigned to the fact that this is my next mess
prevention project.

/BAH

 

[daestrom]

If we tried this, the gyroscope will precess until it its axis of
rotation is oriented on a north-south axis. At which time, it will
remain unaffected by earth's rotation.

Yes, I identified this issue in the paragraph you snipped. One would have
to stop the spinning rotor, and reset the axis, then spin the rotor back up
again. Nice of you to simply parrot what I've already discussed. Or didn't
you bother to read the whole message?

Also, the gyroscope will be
slowed down by one rotation per day, aka, $x$ rotations forward per
day and one rotation backward from earth's rotation. And conservation
of energy tells me that that one rotation difference/day is where the
energy it produces comes from.

Nope. Come now, apply some analysis to the situation. Spin the rotor at
10000 RPM. That is 1.44e+7 revolutions per day. From this, you subtract 1
and think it is some significant amount? Besides, as I've said before,
you'll have to stop the rotor and reset the axis when it reaches N-S and
restart the rotor after resetting the axis. At the very best, this is not
even 12 hours, so you've really only 'lost' 1/2 revolution. (start the axis
tilted towards the south and allow it to precess to the north).

All the time the foundation, mounted firmly to the planet, is exerting a
force in the east-west direction and moving around the planet doesn't
account for some work done on the system by the planet?? In such a system,
one must set a frame of reference outside the planet, not use the ground for
the reference. Conservation of energy tells me that work done on the
mechanism by the planet means simply that the planet will lose kinetic
energy. A point that has been mentioned several times.

This situation also fully converges angular momentum from earth's
rotation, spin the gyro up. extract energy from precessing, spin down
a slightly slower gyro, and you get back exactly the energy you put
in, and the earth doesn't change rotation velocity.

The forces applied to spin the gyro up are not in the same plane as the
earth's axis. Spinning up the gyro while mounted vertically on the equator
does *not* increase/decrease the spin of the earth. If anything, the force
will act to precess the planet since the torque to spin up the rotor is at
right angles to the earth's axis. But stopping the rotor to reset it will
require a torque that *is* aligned with the planet's axis (since the gyro's
axis has now rotated)

The question becomes one of how efficiently one can spin up/down the rotor
so as not to waste as much energy resetting the axis as was extracted in the
past while the axis was moving.

Unworkable.

Theoretically, or practically? I've already conceded that 'practically' it
probably can't be made to work. But the theory is still valid.

daestrom

 

[Androcles]

| Hmm bird flu, hurricanes, heat waves, extreme weather, earthqakes -
| the plent is trying to shake us off its back.

What's a plent?
Androcles.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes. I'm resigned to the fact that this is my next mess
prevention project.

Rather "mess cleanup". It is getting kinda late for prevention.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[[email protected]]

Rather "mess cleanup". It is getting kinda late for prevention.

It's a combination. I am thinking of the bigger mess if no
prevention is done. I could clean and clean and clean until
my bones are dry, but will accomplish nothing if I don't also
address the people and circumstances that make the mess I'm
cleaning up. It was my hard and fast rule at work to never
do the same work twice. So the design of cleaning up also
had a primary goal to also prevent more of the same mess.

/BAH

 

[Vaughn]

Nukes, though seemingly clean are far from clean.

Off-topic for aeh and excessively cross-posted.

Vaughn

 

[[email protected]]

It's a combination. I am thinking of the bigger mess if no
prevention is done. I could clean and clean and clean until
my bones are dry, but will accomplish nothing if I don't also
address the people and circumstances that make the mess I'm
cleaning up. It was my hard and fast rule at work to never
do the same work twice. So the design of cleaning up also
had a primary goal to also prevent more of the same mess.

Well, your problem here is that the mess is primarily a matter of
mindsets. "Cultural", if you wish. These are very difficult to
address.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Arnold Walker]

Well, your problem here is that the mess is primarily a matter of
mindsets. "Cultural", if you wish. These are very difficult to
address.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

Agreed with you on the last paragragh.
You are not supposed to think about all energy sources are a target.
So terrorists threat is supposed to be a new unheard thought.
Granted ,the Golden Triangle.....native area folks name for the petro base
in the Gulf of Mexico.Has shown some of the effects that you can have.
But in most cases, the anti nukes are also anti oil infrastructure(you need
LNG,refineries,and wells
scattered).So they play the same game off California,Alaska,Florida, and
everywhere in between.
Then make noises like someone else did that.
You try x-ray excited (like the Grumman plane with Hf) or particle beam
excited(like the Texas Aggie Boron fusion reactor).
transmutation research and prototypes.To develope a alternative to dumping
nuke waste.
And they are talking an Abomb in every garage.
Hell,wasn't a it liberal president ,that gave Red China multi deployment
warheads.While
supporting this antinuke US plant building and research.
There is talk of the radioactivity for a hundred years in tearing down old
plant.
But never think about the half life of the material mined or refined.
Without the "end of mankind" doomsayeer problems predicted.
We used stick of Cobalt and Radium in industrial xraying for decades.
How do they think think the stuff got there to the lead pot in the xray
lab.....or for that matter how I survived
without cancer and all the real or imagined ills caused by nuke exposure.

 

[[email protected]]

Agreed with you on the last paragragh.
You are not supposed to think about all energy sources are a target.
So terrorists threat is supposed to be a new unheard thought.
Granted ,the Golden Triangle.....native area folks name for the petro base
in the Gulf of Mexico.Has shown some of the effects that you can have.
But in most cases, the anti nukes are also anti oil infrastructure(you need
LNG,refineries,and wells
scattered).So they play the same game off California,Alaska,Florida, and
everywhere in between.
Then make noises like someone else did that.
You try x-ray excited (like the Grumman plane with Hf) or particle beam
excited(like the Texas Aggie Boron fusion reactor).
transmutation research and prototypes.To develope a alternative to dumping
nuke waste.
And they are talking an Abomb in every garage.
Hell,wasn't a it liberal president ,that gave Red China multi deployment
warheads.While
supporting this antinuke US plant building and research.
There is talk of the radioactivity for a hundred years in tearing down old
plant.
But never think about the half life of the material mined or refined.
Without the "end of mankind" doomsayeer problems predicted.
We used stick of Cobalt and Radium in industrial xraying for decades.
How do they think think the stuff got there to the lead pot in the xray
lab.....or for that matter how I survived
without cancer and all the real or imagined ills caused by nuke exposure.

How indeed? You can ask them but don't expect an intelligent
answer.

Keep in mind, though, that there are two different types of "antis".
The first type is what was termed above "childish". They never heard
about tradeoffs, cost-benefit analysis and the like, they just "wnat
it all, and want it cheap, and won't accept any downsides", and they
sincerely believe that just because they want it, they can and will
get it. The second (rarer) type are those who would want to give up
on all the amenities of modern life, rewind back all the industrial
revolution and return to the "idylic" times of the preindustrian,
agrarian society. Those are at tleas honest and consistent though
(IMO) have a very poor grasp of what life in preindustrial society
was.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Don Howe]

How indeed? You can ask them but don't expect an intelligent
answer.

Keep in mind, though, that there are two different types of "antis".
The first type is what was termed above "childish". They never heard
about tradeoffs, cost-benefit analysis and the like, they just "wnat
it all, and want it cheap, and won't accept any downsides", and they
sincerely believe that just because they want it, they can and will
get it. The second (rarer) type are those who would want to give up
on all the amenities of modern life, rewind back all the industrial
revolution and return to the "idylic" times of the preindustrian,
agrarian society. Those are at tleas honest and consistent though
(IMO) have a very poor grasp of what life in preindustrial society
was.

The third type, which probably also incorporates the other two, is the
one that objects to all our efforts and all our needs being used to
siphon all the planet's production to the benefit of just one family
and those few who get some to stick to their fingers as they help it
on its way to the coffers of said family. Particularly when they have
the growing conviction that the loot and the treadmill of its
production is all fiction but they either still have to work to do it
or can't live. Or don't you know about fiscal reality?

If they can make this proposal work, good luck to them. Look at Kitty
Hawk and at a modern airport. Kitty Hawk is where they're at.

 

[[email protected]]

The third type, which probably also incorporates the other two, is the
one that objects to all our efforts and all our needs being used to
siphon all the planet's production to the benefit of just one family
and those few who get some to stick to their fingers as they help it
on its way to the coffers of said family. Particularly when they have
the growing conviction that the loot and the treadmill of its
production is all fiction but they either still have to work to do it
or can't live. Or don't you know about fiscal reality?

I'm sure you're trying to say something o fsignicance, by the above.
Unfortunately, the message comes through quite garbled. If you want a
response, you'll have to try to make it more intelligible.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[[email protected]]

Well, your problem here is that the mess is primarily a matter of
mindsets. "Cultural", if you wish.

Yes, I understand. It's quite distasteful to this ex-hippie.
Politics, like writing specs, is not fun.

..These are very difficult to
address.

Sure. That's why I choose what I can do, or rather, what I might
be able to do.

/BAH

 

[[email protected]]

Yes, I understand. It's quite distasteful to this ex-hippie.

Well, at least you are aware of how the situation developed.

Politics, like writing specs, is not fun.
Indeed.

Sure. That's why I choose what I can do, or rather, what I might
be able to do.

That's very wise.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Scott A Crosby]

[[ Trimmed the followups ]]

news[email protected]...

Yes, I identified this issue in the paragraph you snipped. One would have
to stop the spinning rotor, and reset the axis, then spin the rotor back up
again. Nice of you to simply parrot what I've already discussed. Or didn't
you bother to read the whole message?

I'm going with the principal that there's a fatal flaw, which seems
certain, then I'm trying to figure out where it is.

I'm certain there must be a flaw because the gyrogenerator violates
the conservation of angular momentum. If it is extracting energy from
earth's rotation, it would have to slow that rotation. Where is that
angular momentum disappearing to?

Ergo, either newton's laws are wrong, or there is something that is
being overlooked.

Nope. Come now, apply some analysis to the situation. Spin the rotor at
10000 RPM. That is 1.44e+7 revolutions per day. From this, you subtract 1
and think it is some significant amount? Besides, as I've said before,
you'll have to stop the rotor and reset the axis when it reaches N-S and
restart the rotor after resetting the axis. At the very best, this is not
even 12 hours, so you've really only 'lost' 1/2 revolution. (start the axis
tilted towards the south and allow it to precess to the north).

If the gyro is spun up to 1.44e+7 revolutions per day and despun to
1.44e+7-1 revolutions per day, then energy has been removed from the
system. Given that our generator performs work as its axis of rotation
precess, then conservation of energy makes it seem likely the work
done in precessing is exactly equal to that lost rotational energy.

And yes, I'm assuming that we spin up the gyro's, let the axis
precess, and then despin the gyro's, change the axis of rotation, and
repeat.

The forces applied to spin the gyro up are not in the same plane as the
earth's axis. Spinning up the gyro while mounted vertically on the equator
does *not* increase/decrease the spin of the earth. If anything, the force
will act to precess the planet since the torque to spin up the rotor is at
right angles to the earth's axis. But stopping the rotor to reset it will
require a torque that *is* aligned with the planet's axis (since the gyro's
axis has now rotated)

I think we can get rid of this complication if we assume that the
gyroscope's are spun up in counter-rotating pairs.

Theoretically, or practically? I've already conceded that 'practically' it
probably can't be made to work. But the theory is still valid.

I think it is theoretically incomplete because it seems to violate
conservation of angular momentum of the earth.


Scott

 

[Steve Spence]

Keep in mind, though, that there are two different types of "antis".
The first type is what was termed above "childish". They never heard
about tradeoffs, cost-benefit analysis and the like, they just "wnat
it all, and want it cheap, and won't accept any downsides", and they
sincerely believe that just because they want it, they can and will
get it. The second (rarer) type are those who would want to give up
on all the amenities of modern life, rewind back all the industrial
revolution and return to the "idylic" times of the preindustrian,
agrarian society. Those are at tleas honest and consistent though
(IMO) have a very poor grasp of what life in preindustrial society
was.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
[email protected] | chances are he is doing just the same"

You missed the third type. Those of us who live a fairly normal
lifestyle, but have reduced consumption through more efficient
appliances and wiser usage patterns (compact fluorescents instead of
incandescents, and shutting off lights when not in use, adding more
insulation, and getting rid of phantom loads. By reducing our energy
consumption by over 60%, and making the last 40% from renewable sources
like wind and PV, We've removed ourselves from the electric power grid,
and with biofueled vehicles, have removed ourselves from the fossil
transportation grid. With rain water harvesting and greywater recovery,
no aquifer water is being used, and only 12vdc solar powered pumps are
necessary to move the water around. with sun and wood heated water, our
homes stay warm in winter, with fewer emissions and load on civilization.

 

[Steve Spence]

How's life in the cloth house, Spense? Ready to move up to a bigger
tent yet?

I don't have a cloth house. Maybe you are confused. You can see my
off-grid home at
http://www.green-trust.org/wiki/index.php?title=Our_Solar_PV_System