What Hare-Brained Ideas are Being Explored, and Why?

Global Warming

Yes, the ultimate joke... A bit more specific please.

Recent thread on NASA Linking humans to global warming. In other NASA studies they admit the knowledge that increase sun activity can cause increased temperatures on earth. Then go on to say the there is recorded increases in sun activity. I am not saying that the humans have no effects on the climate. I disagree that we are the major cause. What about Chaiten, Popocatepetl and all the other active volcanoes I would say that they are having effects on the climate too.

What do they really want? Tell us do not use scare tactics!!

I think you are perpetuating bad science. I belong to the global warming cult. CO2, methane, and lots of dark substances have been added to the biosphere by human activity. sure, volcanoes add a lot but they are going all the time so it is accounted for. Mans activity is way more specific. Man hunts for hydrocarbons that got lost from the biosphere hundreds of millions of years ago. And our duststorm of life colours everthing darker.

"I belong to the global warming cult."

I making this statement explains your attack. There is usually no science in cult beliefs! Beliefs created by some one with an agenda. Which comes to the matter of the threads statement of being exploited.

Cults usually color every thing darker than they really are.

I was joking! Global warming is established science. People who deny it are the cult. People here are engaging in Nit picking like lawyers. The big change that humans have made is raising CO2 levels. global warming is one of many consiquences. CO2 is such an important substance besides its greenhouse abilitys. How many years until we get to the toxic limit for CO2? I think I quoted 5000 ppm. The additional CO2 in the oceans gives creatures without shells or bones a competitive advantage. On land, there are plants that are good at using CO2 and those not so good. Those that can use CO2 poorly will have the competitive advantage. Entire ecosystems will be upset because CO2 is a nutrient that used to be much less available. What happens when you give plants lots of one nutrient? answer- other nutrients become the limiting factors. I think the quicker plant growth will cause water stress earlier in the season. perhaps so much that some crops will not make it to harvest.

Good Data has been gathered over 30 years, true enough. Some of that good data extends 50 or more millions of years back and it shows some very alarming things. Things that we can learn from. Earth is not steady state. Also true. Currently, it is in an agreable state and it works for us. Adding all that CO2 might be like taking a sledgehammer to a working watch when we are one of the little spinning wheels in it. Engineering is not about gathering all the data anyway. It is about gathering enough data and doing something useful with it quickly.

"I think the quicker plant growth will cause water stress earlier in the season."

I agree that man contributes his share of CO2. That increase CO2 levels will help in elevating the average temperature. With this will come the melting of the poles which we are starting to see. With larger ocean surface area there will be greater evaporation with the increase saturation point I do not think water for plants will be a problem. More like us ducking violent storms. With increase of land released from the permafrost it will be able to sustain larger plant life taking back some of the carbon.

There may be changes to the climate in at lot of areas. Some good some bad.

I wonder if in the future they will make such a stink about global cooling and what man's blame in that will be.

The best scare tactics employed are the ones posted right above the gasoline pumps. If that doesn't encourage conservation, nothing will.

I'm glad that I only live 1.5 miles from work it can be walked.

I'm afraid nothing will. I've been watching people fill their tanks. In my area, almost everything is either prepay or credit/debit, so you can tell how people are paying. You can differentiate between credit and debit by seeing if they enter their pin number or just start pumping. An increasing number of people are paying by credit.

Hey TVP45.

It may not actually be "credit" per se.

On your debit card, if you use it as a debit card, the bank eats the fee; if you use it as 'credit' then the merchant gets stuck with the fee; either way, the monies come out of your checking acct; debit cards are not necessarily/generally hooked to your credit card.

Thats why the bank will give you points for using it as a Credit, they don't eat the fee.

I have used my debit card as 'credit" and it comes out my checking (Thats chequing for you cats, Del) not as a separate credit card bill.

So if you want to screw your bank, say "debit," want to screw the vendor, say "credit."

(BTW, thats why most vendors systems now default to debit... they don't want to pay the fee. The bank wants you to use it as a credit card, so the vendor pays the fee).

Had this explained to me by my bank manager who was coaching me to say "credit"

milo

There is a much better reason to use your debit/credit card as a credit only. I found this out from my banker. The funds are deducted the very same moment you use the card, that is not especially a benefit for you. However by using your debit/credit card as credit only, YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPOSE YOUR PIN # TO THE CREDIT CARD NUMBER THIEVES. THIS WILL MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR SAID THIEVES TO USE IT. And if you use it as a debit neither the merchandise nor the account is protected by any guarantee, by the money holder. If you buy something and you are not satisfied with it and wish to return it for credit and the seller refuses to cooperate, you can notify your credit card issuer and stop payment. That gives you a little bit of clout that you otherwise would not have.

TMF

Excellent points TMF.

Milo

The UN reports had to be toned down (censored) before release, because its conclusions were not liked by politicians. Do you doubt that we have increased the amount of CO2 in the air? and in the seawater? In the time of the dinosaurs, the earth was getting a lot less heat from the sun than it is now. So why was it hot? Animals the size of small planes flew. Perhaps there was a lot more CO2 in the air and it captured the heat? I think that if we put all that coal and oil carbon back into the biosphere, we will go back to that type of greenhouse effect. Only problem is that there is a lot more solar radiation now so you will have a hotter greenhouse.

"The UN reports had to be toned down (censored) before release, because its conclusions were not liked by politicians."

I accept that. From now on no one on CR4 may use the UN reports.

I also accept your statement as fact that "there is a lot more solar radiation now."

I conclude that the "lot more solar radiation now" is the causa sine qua non of any currently noticed above average temperatures.

The principle of occams razor (parsimony) says that this is enough.

Thanks.

milo

Nope. Not fair. You are taking one part of the equation and ignoring the other parts. It was less radiation acting on stronger greenhouse that made it hot 70 million years back. In the last hundred years, radiation amounts have not changed noticeably but the greenhouse gasses sure have. I think if humanity chooses to increase CO2 levels much more, it will bring us back to that powerful greenhouse effect but we cannot turn down to sun so the biosphere will become very hot indeed.

I have no doubt that human activity has increased the atmospheric (and, subseuently, the oceanic) CO2. What I seriously doubt is that the effects are as dire as projected. The projected CO2 levels for the foreseeable future are significantly lower than the historical record indicates has occurred in the past (unless, of course, you choose to arbitrarily limit your studies to the last 650,000 years or so). I also do not see Global Warming as nearly as threatening to my lifestyle as the alternative, which would be the advent of a new ice age...

First of all, there are many alternatives. Not just one. Second, CO2 is toxic at a much lower threshold than most people assume. 5000 ppm is the tlv for an 8 hr working day for a healthy adult. I do not know what happens if you are not healthy. Sure Ice is not nice but you can move south. Where do you go to escape the air that you breathe?

Into a greenhouse full of plants.

Indeed, human activity has increased atmospheric levels of CO2. Considering the current human population of 6.5 billion with each individual contributing roughly 2 pounds of CO2 daily merely through respiration, that is a load of 6 million tons daily merely by our existence and doing nothing else! Consider as well the vast loss of trees (carbon storage units) on the planet due to deforestation at our own hands. In view of these facts, it would seem that global warming attributed to fossil fuel consumption alone is merely hype and little else.

You think? What is the basis of your thought? Flying animals the size of small planes in the time of dinosaurs? An animal the size of a small plane cannot fly by muscle power so one of the basics of your thought is incorrect. Even with all of the archeological evidence available we cannot know how many of these beasts populated the earth, The configuration of the earth wasn't even the same as it is now so aside from the beasts, there were ocean circulation elements that cannot be known so the entire dynamic of ocean currents, which cool and temper the climate of the planet is not known.

All that said, your contention that these beasts, who subsequently died for no reason we know, have been encased in the earth like the contents of Pandora's Box now being released by demon man and will destroy the earth, is based on emotion. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, it is a theory at best. It is as valid as Aristotle who thought the earth was the center of the universe. Aristotle, while a genius, felt experiment was below him and that all knowledge could be gleaned from thinking alone.

Man made global warming is a myth perpetrated upon us by politicians to point us in a direction that will squelch the growth of the western world to the benefit of the Third World and bring the Third World into a prominance they do not deserve. Remember the source fo the Global Warming report. The United Nations, a body that is so inept that it cannot even help the people dying in Burma. Your data if from that body, inept, corrupt, and run by world class criminals.

I see the little one man planes every other week. Large flying reptiles could fly because the air was denser due to more CO2. We cannot live if CO2 content goes much above 5000 ppm. That is not emotion. So, hot or cold, we cannot survive a high CO2 world Even war historians are coming round to the likelyhood that wars will be fought to stop people pumping carbon into the biosphere. I suggest you start buying magazines like nature and science to get up to date on the actual science. It is way past what the un says. The un report was watered down by political interference. And my data does not come from them. It comes from REPUTABLE science. Where does your data come from? You are blaming the 3rd world for un reports now? One of the top scientists writing the report works here in BC Do you know how much oil Chad produces? The ordinary people there get hardly a cent and we get all their oil! We are robbing the 3rd world blind. I do not think that is something to be proud of.

Wow so given the cyclic response of the atmosphere, and your comments, it sounds like the CO₂ conc. was much greater in the atmosphere 50 million years ago or so. What is the natural cycle for CO₂ conc. spikes in our atmosphere? Were the dinosaurs burning fossil fuels and the cause of early greenhouse warming events? Coal and Oil make up a relatively small, relatively new portion of the CO₂ sequestered in the geologic formations. So should we be more worried about the much larger, much older formations of CO2 sequestration that form much of the rock on earth, e.g. limestone, marble, dolomite. How much CO₂ do we get from the loss of limestone from the geologic formations? Maybe we should protect all the limestone formations and stop the release of CO₂.

The paleoclimate section of the UN report (available on line, but I don't have the link available right now), includes "records" going WAYYYY back, and one sees that there seems to be a correlation in peak CO2 and the onset of an ice age (my personal interpretation, based on examination of the graphics presented in both this document and several others I have seen in the past). The level of CO2 appears to have been historically much, much higher during the warmer periods than that projected for the next hundred years- and it was during the relatively short warm periods that life seems to have flourished (i.e., high CO2). It is only when one looks at the last 650,000 years that the levels of CO2 supposedly contributed by human activity indicate any cause to worry. If one goes back in history, even the recent measured increase in CO2 levels is not all that unusual. Of course, the further one looks back in history, the less confidence one has in the data. Beyond 650,000 years back, one needs to look at a variety of other indicators to extrapolate an estimate of CO2 concentration. What the historical record does seem to indicate is that a DROP in CO2 concentration is correlated with the advent of an ice age, and the drops tend to be precipitous. This is, again, a personal perspective, and based only on my personal analysis of the graphical presentation of the data, not a full-blown analysis of the raw data or even a crude assessment of the sources of the more ancient data. I could be wrong- but the UN report (at least those sections I have read) are loaded with similar disclaimers...

This is true of all paleoclimate data though. None of it is direct measurement, or has the level of precision we get from repeated direct measurements. So we only really have a high level of precision, and therefore high level of accuracy, for about the last 60 years or so. Additionally, the data used to establish a historical timeline is derived from many different dissimilar sources depending upon the time period, this leads to inherent errors derived from using different sources and methods (though these can be correltated at time frames where they overlap). Also, climate research does not seem to have the level of peer review you might find in physics research, it is sometimes under strong peer review and sometimes under something similar to archeological peer review (If you gain public and financial support it becomes a laws style of peer-review, you know the kind of thing where Alec Baldwin declares it a fact on TV and therefore it is). This lack of consistent peer-review processes tends to create large opportunities for the snake oil salesman to get in the process and present their psuedo-science in an attempt to obtain funding. This alone would make me question the validity of findings that compare the last 150 years to any period prior. There is just way too much junk out there in climate research now, and it is growing ever faster.

I think it's waste of time simply to gather such "bad" either "good' labels for scientific directions. To my point so much quite good ideas had been contaminated being bad treated by bad people with bad intentions. For instance nuclear power has controversial looks -- whether it profitable or dangerous for long prospective.

Be careful with any projects with prefix nano- and green- . Try to shun any stereotypes and look at root.

It's only my opinion. I have a right to be wrong.

Thank you. Even if I think you're wrong by stating classification is bad, you're right to point out that it happens so frequently! ;^)

The beauty of the open forum is that the wheat is openly and publicly separated from the chaff. My goal is to present an obvious chaff list to help the decision makers in their efforts to reach conclusions that are supported by facts, rather than wild speculation.

Everyone who has ever seen scarce resources squandered on an implausible project because its champion happened to be the slickest salesman since Valentino, knows what I'm trying to accomplish here.

Tick-tock,

I applaud your effort. Although I am a certified tree-hugging leftist, I am absolutely certain that we must drill in ANWR, for example. The question is whether we do it in a reasoned, measured manner that has minimal environmental impact or whether we wait till the last possible minute and then go hell-bent-for-leather and make a botched job of it. The nutjobs with their magnetic Buckyball machines do a good job of convincing the public that we don't have to deal with hard choices since free, easy salvation is just around the corner if only we burn all the books that mention Carnot or Joule.

One of the big challenges for you will be not the out and out fruitcakes who think aliens brought HHO to Roswell but the more moderate posters who use pseudoscience to advance a political agenda.

We could start with using RF to burn sea water. That's wrong.

Dead right tick tock. We don't want weirdos like Darwin and his ridiculous evolution when everyone knows god did it, and look at galileo wasting everyones time on nonsense about the world revolving round the sun.

That's the trouble with your list. I agree the perpetual motion schemes are a scam, but the morons who buy those will only buy something else. I have learned loads looking at the debunking on this site, but I have learned from reading a discussion, not a list that says "this list is bad".

However a list of real gems to go and admire would be a genuine bonus. It is the same in some ways, but it is saying "look at this stuff out on the lunatic fringes, and this is why we think it doesn't work." Just remember a long and distinguished list of those who the establishment said were wrong, and who the establishment attempted to destroy, before you are too judgemental.

Simon

According to some, the project I'm working on is 'lunatic fringe', but that's because they've been poorly educated in science, and call themselves 'businessmen'. They truly don't understand how an air conditioner works, but know that it has an ROI.

So, am I tipping at windmills?

The list I'm hoping to compile is what the 'lesser minds' are currently swept up in during this financial cycle.

We all know that we could do some good engineering *if* the cards ($$$, time, resources) are dealt in that magical way. But with so many players dealing off the bottom of the deck those projects languish while poorer hands take the cards we need.

If I asked: "Who is toiling on projects doomed to failure for technical reasons?" this thread would have 3 (maybe 4) posts right now. Remember I'm dealing with folks that think PV != 'Photo-Voltaic', but PV = 'Present Value'.

Thank you all for the input so far!

The $200 "I-Cat Spark Enhancer" (for motorcycles) makes me crazy. Several forums have had discussions on it, even a magazine's test (it failed) won't convince some people.

Manufacturer claims (exactly as shown in ad) :

• Changes spark "shape", produces "cooler" burn.
• Allows the air/fuel mixture to be completely burned through.
  
• Produces minimal emissions (zero under some circumstances).
  
• Dramatically increase power under load.
  
• Improves throttle response.
  
• Increased torque.
  
• Improved fuel economy.
  

Can't say I've ever heard of that one, but it's like the "Magnetic Fuel Booster" right?

How about subsidies for corn based ethanol for fuel?

oops, That was the result of LAWMAKERS.

milo

I for one loath things like the space shuttle and maglev trains....

Traditional Rockets and steel wheel trains kick their asses in terms of cost effectiveness. ... The performance gains do not justify their existence.

..other hair brained ideas..

Refined white sugar ... save it for the frosting..

Refined White Flour ... save it for the cake..

Hydrogenated oils ..

Solar cars / novelty toys..

Many of the large wind Turbines that cast a fortune to erect and maintain..

..the list is huge.. don't let me have all the fun.

Good point. I hadn't thought about something like maglev which is scientifically sound, but economically outrageous.

See this post by Bill Velek.

Pogo is Correct ! :)

Bill however is only 1/2 right.

rcb

Homeopathy.

Agreed!

I must Disagree -- - Homeopathy works on animals and children - and me

After 25 years of terrible sinus problems - declared untreatable by civilian and Military doctors - I was given one treatment by a Homeopathic specialist - and am now 24 years with NO Sinus problems -

I know a dog alive after a Mojave Rattler bite - treated ONLY with homeopathic medicine.

I know a migrane sufferer who has reduced attacks by 90 % -

The gymnastics team my daughter was on used Arnica for bruises and sprains.

One high end Plastic Surgeon advertizes that he uses Arnica to reduce swelling after surgery, and boasts of reduced recovery times.

SPECIAL NOTE - there is ONE FDA approved drug that is based on the SHAPE of the molecule used in treatment - Which is the dominant theory of the mechanism

that actually does the work in Homeopathics - Passed FDA trials spring of 2006 IFIRCC

Yes - it is NOT obvious - and diagnosis is more art than science with Homeopathy

Only things like Bee stings and Poison ivy are obvious - reasonably testable.

Alergies are often treated succesfully - direct relationship -

</soapbox>

I do not agree with this one. :)

rcb

I respect your opinions and your experience (I'm also darn glad it's helped), but remain convinced it's a 'placebo' effect. Countless studies have shown the science behind this to be without foundation. However, if it's worked for you/family them I'm really pleased and wish you well - we'll just have to agree to differ on this one.

With respect & best wishes,

Kris

It is definately an "opinion" subject with many - I do not see how Placebo works on animals, and have SEEN dramatic effects on horses. It was STRANGE to see the horse change its posture and gait etc in minutes.

I am a hard core Tech. Computers, airplanes, genetics, - odd bits like Tesla's "Longitudinal Electricity" - I want to replicate the wireless transmission work - use it to charge my portable devices when I am in the house. Seeing light bulbs light up when they are not connected to anything is a trip. I still do not UNDERSTAND the physics.

Working on the engine project first - Back to college this fall to build it myself. Only way to finance the construction without giving the vultures control.

Preliminary modeling gave 80 to 110 MPG - then I started testing hydrogen and liquid additives - Now I expect 150 to 225 MPG. The fuel tricks are working in all vehicles I have tested so far ( 7 ) from a 460 ford to a 1.8 subaru vintage 1985 to 1998 -

Some lists I frequent are working on full up hydrogen systems - patents will be done in Europe to avoid the US political system.

-- rambling -

rcb

I would suggest that the homeopathy in question is that which is without scientific or observable base and as such is subject to the quackery that results from same.

As for me, when antibiotics failed to heal a severe wound I resorted to calendula (the effects of which were nothing short of astounding.)

There is no such thing as 'bad science'.

There is, however, quackery, disinformation, misinformation and ignorance.

There is some very poorly done experimentation 'sold' as science...'Bad Science' is just shorthand.

A while ago there was a revolting program on TV that basically said we'll soon have computers that think...their reasoning being some very dodgy experimentation with rats.
I won't bore you with too much detail but one 'experiment' had a rat wandering down a corridor with loads of equipment wired to it and electrodes implanted in it's brain... They said they could make the rat 'decide' to turn right or left... . It was very little to do with the 'thought' process...
Did Pavlov's Dogs 'decide' it was dinner time...??

They also studied a tiny slice of rat brain and simulated it on a computer and extrapolated this to..'we'll soon know how a human brain works'... Arrgh NO...you'll soon know how a tiny slice of rat brain works.

It was from the 'I pulled the legs of a spider and he became deaf' school of experimentation.

(If you don't get the reference.... kid takes spider into 'show and tell' at school..and shows his experiment..he says 'go forward' ..spider goes forward.... 'go back' spider goes back... pulls its legs off and the spider no longer obeys.
He concludes that pulling it's legs off makes it go deaf )
Now that's bad science.

Del (sorry for the high Brevquot)

Because I swim I therefore am fish......is not science.

Science can never be wrong (it wouldn't be science if it was).......only people who haven't quite figured out what they're looking for or at can be mistaken. Granted there are those whose research is based on monetary considerations who will tweak the results to their own self interests....but by and large it all gets sorted out in the laundry.

Modified H atom spin? That is hilarious!

I wonder when the kit will be available.

Canada went through a 'drinking of pure distilled water' stage the consequences of which de-mineralized all participants............

Actually - demonstrated - the angle of the H atoms DOES change -

rcb

Well you got a 'good' rating from me! Soooo funny!

I have spent about twenty years trying to get a handle on how water works. That bond seems to be pretty much unavailable for normal persuasion.

When I have nothing else to do, I sit in front of a bucket of 'normal' H₂O chucking matches into it, wishing "EXPLODE DAMN YOU!"....

It refuses to do so. Must be the bucket I am using.... Possibly a Green Bucket will provide me with free energy forever....

Mark Addinall. Cairns. Australia.

The weird ones are pretty funny at times. But for me the biggest half-arsed idea is that wind turbines can somehow generate useable power. The thing that sets this idiotic idea above the rest, is that some countries have actually fallen for it at the cost of billions, whilst undermining the power distribution networks..... And screwing up nice looking hills.

Mark Addinall. Cairns. Australia.

Not to mention the shined up slicks that sell these turbines to unsuspecting townships/towns/villages the populations of which expect their meters to immediately start running backwards.

Love the sound of 'em also. Just the thing to stay awake all night listening to the mono-harmonic opera.

Ha! Wind farms are such a waste of money and time I am very suprised that anyone can support the bloody things. Not only pointless from the view of power generation, but they are also environmental vandals. We have one small wind farm here in Cairns. I'm thinking of buying a bulldozer to get rid of that one.

Mark Addinall, Cairns. Australia.

The area I live in is populated by rabid utopists pretending to know something about 'Green'...actually a psychiatric venting forum for their own inadequacies. They were instrumental in getting five of the things built. I live twelve miles away and can hear the compression waves coming off the prop tips(incidentally, the utopists are much louder).

The thing is .........I've lived off the grid for many years.

I'm five miles from the highway and I don't hear the traffic. I can, however, hear the wind turbines from twelve miles away (as the crow flies) ...especially when the atmospheric pressure is low. In times of high pressure I do not hear them.

What's interesting is that this phenomenon occurs at varying degrees of atmospheric pressure.

Granted that wind turbines are usefull in geographical areas where wind is the persuading factor. This was not the case here and I suspect those who did the study were the same who sold the goods.

It has become a fad.

Well one mans demonstrated application of science through engineering is another's "biggest half-arsed idiotic idea."

It is an idiotic half arsed idea. No where in the world has the implementation of wind power worked, with the exception of Antarctica. They don't generate base-load. At best they produce 30% of stated capacity. And the frequency of output climb and fall, and the gradient of the change, makes them impossible to manage effectively on any grid. It was a nice idea, been tried at a cost of billions, didn't work. Time to move on.

I've visited the Wind farms outside of palm springs California, and the sound is not an issue, its much less than that produced by the "normal" traffic on the highway.

Perhaps those of us concerned about the natural environment don't want plant that is "a little less" noisy than a California freeway being erected over pristine land. I live in Cairns, FNQ, Australia. I am surrounded by hills and mountains (little ones), rain forest, and have the Great Barrier Reef outside of my office door. I don't want to see this....

Or this...

Where my Rain Forest used to be. If destroying entire eco-systems in the name of 'saving the Errrffff' isn't a half-arsed idea, then I'm at a loss to think of one that is.

The usual state of most of Australia is tinderbox dry, with very few access roads into forest. We have a bad enough time with bushfires now, without building these stupid things up and down hills. The turbines have a nasty habit of catching fire from time to time. Again, if this is saving the planet, I fail to see how. Conversely, bushfire is a natural occurrence in Australia, we get them every year. Pretty bad ones every 2-3 years, debilitating ones every 10 years or so. If we erect a few zillion of these pointless things all through the bush, and after that, the bush that has not been destroyed by the implementation catches fire, as it will, what happens to this billion dollar plant? They will melt, crack, split, warp and fall down. Hoorah. Good plan.

And while fossil fuels were used in the original fabrication and installation of the wind generators, after that, all power produced and sold to the grid is "non combustion-producing neither co2 nor methane."

Point one. Do you suppose that the maintenance on these things happens by magic? How do engineers get to the things? How are the lubricated? Do they ever get taken back to base?

How much 'fossil fuel' is used to do this? None? A little bit? A bloody lot?

Point two. As they are so really bad at generating power, coal, gas or nuke has to be built to support the grid in the event of no or little wind. Which is most of the time. Net result, one power generating set of plant at the cost of three. One traditional, one wind, and the same cost again for integration, balancing and new nationwide SCADA. Pointless waste of money on a huge scale.

Having grown up in steel mill town, I think they are pretty attractive.

I grew up and worked in coal mining towns (Doncaster UK) and spent a bit of time as a coal miner in my formative years. I have also live in a steel mill town (Sheffield, England, you might have heard of it) and spent a fair bit of time working for British Steel.

None of the ugliness of a steel mill can compare to this level of eco-vandalism being pushed onto us by the 'Green' mindset.

no luddite am i.

No engineer either.

Mark Addinall. Cairns, Australia.

milo

Your opinion.

My engineering cred speaks for itself.

milo

Has anybody done the arithmetic on the cost of these WT things?

1) to initially purchase one

2) erect it

3) maintain it (including the replacement of bearings/bushings etc), cleaning the props, lube

4) usefull lifespan in years

and then to compare the above to actual generating value..........?!

Tis good t'hear the Scots finally have a cool breeze to invest in. Certainly beats the inherant hot air .............

Veni Vidi Visa

They ha' to do something with the cash fr' d' single malt, now tha' they've infected the rest o' the world with their MADNESS:

Vidi Vici Veni

milo Apologize for the attempted pronunciation, me Great Great Grandad was a Scot, ye know...

Having run a wind turbine of my own as a major part of a hybrid system that really kicked in during rainy season when the PV chargers were producing 10% of their full-sunshine output, I cannot agree that they are useless. Without the wind turbine we would have been without sufficient power for almost half of the year.

Fair enough. For small scale remote power requirements for projects off the grid, any power engineering is good. I have put in hundreds of hybrid systems here in Australia, mostly solar and diesel, to power remote telecommunications system. It is even better if you have constant high wind where and when you need it. Making assumptions is bad form, but from the address can I assume that your project was in the cold and windy bits of Scotland? If so, what you have described is a GOOD engineering outcome. It produces power for your project. Well done.

(FYI, we spent similar amounts on the windgen (400W) and the two PV panels (45W each) and got about the same amount of power from each over the year.)

That sounds about right. You purchased plant to provide 90W of solar and got, 60W? And spent the same amount of money to purchase 400W of wind, and still got 60W?

These are the numbers I object to when aimed at a nation wide base-load generation scheme.

Mark Addinall. Cairns, Australia.

Folks looking at wind might like http://www.massmegawatts.com

Actually a version of a design in the Whole Earth Catalog, updated and modified for

a much larger installation. Nicely done - easily built by a handy sort to handle smaller loads with much better cost/benefit ratios.

rcb

I remember the wind turbine that USED to exist on the island of Cuttyhunk three decades ago. It's gone now. No replacement. I guess it was just ahead of its time. Two decades back, I remember the wind farms east of Oakland, CA. That was a 'prime' area for power due to the winds funneled through the pass in the hills. Unfortunately, few of the structures were actually rotating. Hmmmmm . . .

Just Google "overunity". You'll see thousands of devices.

Tad

I am trying to build an engine to harness the enormous power of popcorn.

Popcorn, releases 100 time the energy on popping as is required to increase it's temperature by 70 degrees. A small car prototype works very well and I have been able to feed the exhaust to a herd of goats, thus being quite green, although on trips I leave the exhaust to local flocks of pigeons (which have grown numerous as my trips increased) I use the dung from the goats as initiating fuel and after that I burn goat hair as a wicking agent to maintain max efficency. I get 180 miles per bushel and so far local people are reasonable, as long as I go to their area only once. Repeated visits cause increases in tar and feather online shipments (which I monitor...just in case, after a few incidents).

I would like a development partner to provide funds and to act as a tarred an feathered negotiator because tar stings my nether regions...

Those interested please PM me.

That is a really bahhhd post.

did I get your goat?