Electric Cars = Power Plants?

When you think about that idea, it is a very, very bad concept.

Batteries are hugely expensive and make up most, if not a significant portion, of the vehicle cost. They are the most expensive way to store energy.

Batteries also have a limit on the number of charge and recharge cycles before they are trash.

So, are you willing to accelerate the demise of your car's battery pack just so the power company can get a little extra energy from you?

Unless you have charging stations at work, most vehicles are not at home charging during the day.

Sorry, I want to get the maximum life out of my $20,000 battery back, thankyou.

Electric Cars= Power plants x (2..3)

Of course electric cars will require more power generation plants and more grid to support the distribution. The better solution, in a lot of locations, is for distributed generation - a small generation facility that can be used as necessary or "when the wind blows" to recharge vehicles.

Here in NY the power companies severely restrict the amount of power that a local alternate energy source can sell back into the grid. So having my car act as a battery for the power companies won't pay me much and will reduce the life of the battery. I'm not going to sign up for that!

Maybe we need some change in those laws. Alternative generators should be able to sell back what ever they can produce. It's going to be a lllooonnnggg time before we can produce sufficient energy in the traditional manner to reliably satisify the growing requirements.

What a preposterous devise. You must have plenty of money which is why you're thinking of taking sides with those energy giants for fear of not making enough.

Think of something more admirable!

Several individuals in this blogg have made statements based on existing legislating and productivity. How much an individual can get paid by providing electricity to the grid is a very political issue, one that can be corrected to provide greater incentives equal to the current providers.

From what I have read, the costs of larger rechargable batteries is high due to shelved patents held by a major oil company. That is not the purpose of patents and therefore with good political leadership, we should be able to thawrt this type of behavior. I find it unconsionable when large Corps. buy and shelve patents to eliminate competition to the detriment of our society. As a libertarian I do see patent law as a means of providing recapitalization of the reseach and development costs but if a patent isn't being used, the owner should lose it. If a company is caught shelving a patent as a protectionist ploy, bad company. Current battery costs are also coming down and is a major area of current research and development that will require capitalization that we should explore. It is up to We The People to change some protectionist trends we have been experiencing and by putting our money together in a private capacilty, we can make things happen. If a investment bank is a major invester in fossil fuel technologies, why would the want to invest in "Green" tech. FYI: One of the major reasons that central banks become so powerful and are undesirable to free market advocates is that they can play such games as the central bankers and their member banks provide the only new source of money and as a smaller investment group you don't want to get on their bad side.

Rather than make unspecified charges of an anonymous oil company holding an unknown patent to an unknown battery/storage technology, please tell us the name of the company holding the patent and the name and patent number that they retain.

If you read this in some publication/blog/email/etc, and the source does not give you this information, then it is misinformation designed to further someone's misguided agenda at your expense.

Ask yourself one very important question: If this patent is so valuable (it must be for the oil company to "suppress" it), why wouldn't the oil company just commercialize it and make themselves even greater fortunes than drilling for dinosaurs?

Another way to put it, it is pure bollocks.

And Brave Sir Robin

As you did not follow the other "Sir & Hen Robins" south this year, for the winter I suggest that you prepare yourself for impending "Fowl" weather, that is heading for the Eastern U.S.A., including Maryland.

The Govt. forced Standard Oil to separate itself into many sub-corporations way back in the "Monopoly Bustin' Days" and if the oil companies are holding patents that are in this nations best interest to release into the public domain it can pass legislation to do this just as it can jump any patent claim that is in the best interest of the nations military, or in some cases suppress the development of said patent.

TMF

Uh, ignoring the whole battery issue for one minute...why on earth would you buy electricity from a power company, store it, and then sell it back at a reduced rate? The power comany will not give you back 100% of the going rate per kW, just like they currently do not if you contribute to the grid with solar, wind, etc.

And a better question would be, when everyone is driving electric cars, will off-peak hours as we know them still be the off-peak hours? Will there even be an "off peak"?

You are not supposed to ask that question. Go to the back of the class, put your hands on the desk, and I will see you for detention at 3:00PM.

Electric vehicles do can have a load balancing function but not with a sort of backfeeding. They can be charged with off-peak electricity and this can result a better load balance. In Hungary you can buy electricity on significantly lower price if you accept that the provider can control your consumption or a part of it. That controlled part can be used for the chargers.

All ready we have a serious issue with our ability to produce and transmit electricity throughout this nation. The peak hours begin three hours earlier on the east coast than the west coast. Attempting to chase the immediate need for electricity across this nation already is not working, from east to west or in any direction, as the weather plays a large part in this issue when the ice storms come a callin". Or are you not aware of the fact that a recent ice storm has left about 1 million folks with electricity, and some are expected to be with out this resource for as long as 17 days.

"Just how efficient is your EV when there is no operating grid to recharge all of those expensive batteries. One might say that it is very efficient as it is not using any electricity, "that it cannot get", on the other hand, You are likely going to have to remain where your as you cannot afford to get stuck out in a winter blizzard.

ICE's do provide a heat source as long as there is a fuel source and this also keeps the battery charged! Hydrogen produced from heated hydrides are a much better choice, oxy/hydrogen is still a good choice but is still in the technological advancement stage, mostly by independants who are still struggling to find ways to provide this fuel source efficiently and in significient quantities, and accomplish this safely.

Certainly the use of neighborhood EV's around local communities and for short commutes, that do not include the freeways and interstate highways, that have long life batteries, that can be replaced a reasonable prices, including the salvage values, "are a good idea as long as they owners can help with the recharge issue with alturnative power like wind and solar panels.

This will increase the overall cost of the "initial EV investment" but when one calculates in the fact that this extra electricity that you are using to recharge is adding up at the high rates for "killer watts", as you are allow just so many at the lower price and then the KWH price increases. I do not know anyone who isn't assesed at least some cost for the "above minimum use price."

Existing local transmission lines are carrying about all of the high voltage they can handel now. I have yet to read anyones information regarding the cost to the local monopoly, for increasing every home's electricity to accomodate the energy to recharge all of these dear little EV's, and "you can bet your sweet ass" the local utility commissions will permit them to increase your per KWH price to cover for all of these costs. And batteries generally need some kind of maintainance over their lifespan and just how many single moms' do you think can handel this issue.

It is really "Regretful" "IMHO" that all of these folks pushing for short and long distance use EV's don't publish the whole issue as a completed puzzel including all parts, so that we the public who is about to get soaked again could make intellegent choices regarding our future and present energy needs.

TooMuchFun

I could same more about "Common Sense" here, but folks don't seem to understand what it is anymore. They seem willing to believe that some "Flashy Politition, or Revrend Somebody" can "dream up an idea" and sooner or later it will happen, but "Nobody" "has any idea just where the income to get it done is comming from," But, "I know that the American Taxpayer is the only animal that can be skinned as long as he produces any income."

Hi TMF, seen from little Denmark, Europe, your best hope is the new president. Greed and non-management did a lot of damage to your great nation (and the world), and I sincerely hope BO can lift this enormous task that lies ahead.

moe

Hello Moe,

Your observation is quite on line with the facts, tho many will argue with some of my on personal opinions.

The current crisis with electricity not being available due to the inclimate weather clearly supports my observation that electricity should be produced closer to the end user. And; NG is the most obvious fuel to use as it is the cleanest available everywhere, as it can be piped long distances with out the exposure to weather and with out the energy losses experienced with high tension wiring.

As for the Govt./Pres. Obama/present/Democratic Leadership/in our legislature/ it isn't going to happen. There are simply, too many local influences, that direct what the Govt. as a whole, will vote into expenses and law.

As for "Greed", it exists everywhere in this nation. Far too many people would rather suck from the taxpayers, their existence, without ever having contributed anything at all. We have in this nation, hundreds of thousands of unwed mothers, who have never worked a day in their life as a gainful employee, of all ages, both over and younger than the age that the law considers adult in this nation, issuing multiple children, that will be on welfare until they are 21 yrs old or get out of Govt. paid/assisted college that extends as long as it can be made available by law.

Far too many CEO's being paid outrageous salaries and bonuses for performances they do not reach unless it is at the expense of the employed, or investor.

I personally blame the Investment Bankers all around this world for the present world wide economic crisis. Mostly for our nation I hold both Congress, and the Investment Bankers for permitting the uncontrolled and unrestrained price increases in gasoline and diesel fuels for accelerating the inevitable housing price collapse in this nation. Local tax assesors jumped on the bandwagon increasing every ones property taxes, creating windfall increases in local and state Govt. incomes and the local Govts. committed to spend as if there was never going to be a day when the bottom would fall out of this farce.

BO cannot get it done in 4 yrs and may not be there for 8 yrs.

In this nation Presidents lead a Congress that does not always follow.

TMF

Hi TMF, I realize that congress is influenced (lead?) by lobbyists who are paid to be non-democratic and promote greed. That is the dark side. The bright side is a guy with a common sense and a vision, who can speak for himself. The guy before was without these qualities, hence all dark. But a good laugh on "the daily show" with David Letterman, though :) . And I can understand your pessimism, even if I, maybe naive, want to see the good in folks. In my country we have a kind of republic primeminister, but he was forced to come up with some kind of green plan to overcome our bad economy. He made a 20 B$ traffic plan supported by almost all the politicians, where 15B$ was investment in public transport, only the rest in roads. Thats a lot of money as there are about 5.8 mill. danes all together to pay for it.

We have a reliable, strong and well-maintained grid here, and thats why I suspect we have been chosen, along with Israel, to test and install battery-change-stations all over Denmark to support EV's made by Nissan. This project has a budget of 120 million $. We have currently 200 EV's on the streets, the plan is to have 100.000 EV's in 2012. I think we have about 1.5 mill. cars in DK, it could be more. We pay 180% tax on new gasoline and diesel cars, so a small 4 person, 1.3 l french or german quality-car cost 40.000-50.000$. By reducing tax on EV's, that would equalize the difference in cost. Along with that I would wish for same kWh-price produced/used, that would spark small power-producers, the more, the better. I plan for some wind and solar grid connected. Currently only solar PV is same price. Along with that we have about 10-15% of national power coming from windturbines, we had a peak one night with a good storm of over 20%.

You mentioned NG, that would be Natural Gas, right? Here we use natural gas on small, local 1-5 MW powerplants, where the excess heat is used for centralheating, that is water in a closed loop to every house and a storagetank. Basically a 32-piston converted boat engine driving a generator. Overall efficiency about 85% of the energy contained in the NG, which we get form the North Sea. And we have a NG-net over the most of DK. It works well, but politics and a bad deal with Maersk took the good price out of it. But NG is not CO2 neutral and not forever, so I think, we still need to adress the consumption of power along with renewables.

So, I think the best for you would be investment in a reliable grid and some windfarms along with some solarpowerplants in the south to unite the US and make you free of the middleeast oil/politics/religion-issue and keep your money in your pockets.

Just my opinion.

Best regards, moe

Thanks Moe ,for your response and well received opinion.

The problem that exists in this country is that we have too many easy sources of fuel that is not clean, but is cleanable, like coal.

Then a second problem surfaces like just what to do with the heavy metals including mercury that are byproducts after the cleaning process. The TVA,(Tenneessee Valley Authority), a product of the 1930's depression recovery act, recently experienced a retaining pond failure. Killed millions of fish and other aquatic life and who knows what effect it may have had on mamels that also drink from that water source. I heard that downstream public supply water sources were also contaminated.

Our Great American West, you know the area where the Cowboys and Indians abound, is largely desolate and unspoiled by mankind. Now folks want to fill it up with wind turbines. It is well documented about the oil leaks that have occured in the Netherlands from wind turbines. Rushing to place wind turbines in that area when we have sufficient time to determine whether or not that is even a workable solution to our energy needs is unreasonable at this time. These turbines do not last for ever, un maintained, therefore maintainance access roads must be constructed. I have over flown this nation from coast to coast and I can assure you that we have already filled open spaces with entirely too many high tension electric power lines. They are effectively useless if the power generation source is closer to the end user. The companies that own these power lines will spend millions if necessary to influence our govt. to not encourage local power sources, and to approve grants for even more long distance power lines. The grid system is already a mess, why do we insist on even more of the same.

TMF

Why not just keep the electricity that you have and make a financial donation to the local producer, tax deductible of course so that this local producer can increase the pay checks for staff and CEO's and provide bonuses accordingly with the largest going to "Top Robin", the top robber of your energy costs as is paid to the local utility.

TMF

Toe moe Just read: http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/index.html

Perspective?

Hi Pajaro, I read most of it, and to me it seems a bit pathetic to claim that wind turbines are all bad. I saw the video of one turbine collapsing, but I didnt see all the turbines installed globally producing power. Every windy day year round. Would you stop flying every time you saw a plaincrash on tv? Would you stop driving your car, every time you heard the sirene from the ambulance? I think not, so lets get things in perspective.

Fluctuations?

I agree, that the numbers on the website are accurate. There are issues with windturbines, no doubt about it. But as a powerproducing source, the statement about fast fluctuations in power, that is not so. Fluctuations comes over several hours, making plenty of time to adjust hydroplants, nuclear plants and fossilfueled plants, which they do all the time due to fluctuations in CONSUMPTION. The graphics shown is for a hole year making it impossible to see the speed of fluctuation.We have never had a blackout in DK due to fluctuations, but that is an issue that has to be delt with. Nothing is perfect.

Perspective? again?

Another thing about the website are the fiddling with the numbers concerning one turbine against the total consumption. That is just crab. OK, the numbers arent wrong, but perspective is lacking.

The best argue for windpower, is that every windproduced kwh is NOT fossil- or nuclear-fueled.

I'm still green thinking....

moe

Hello Moe,

Why don't we really get things into "Perspective."

Why in blue blazes don't you folks perporting wind power get your dollars out and promote and construct a wind farm of your very own and sell what you produce to the "Grid". If it is such a damb good idea why not invest your retirement funds in financing the effort. "If you are lucky" you might get 20/30% of your investment back in about 50 years.

hypothetically;

wind turbines--------20/38% on a very best day (not often)

Hydro --------100% with stand by time for repairs (OPH)

Ng ---------100% " " " " " " " "

Nuclear ---------100% but NO body knows what the real cost is as we cannot compute the real total costs from the mining of the uranium through the production of the rods or pellets the transportation costs, construction costs and in the end the real cost to store the waste material for ever!

Damming up more rivers is clearly environmentally unsound.

Therefore by simple and brilliant deduction, when we would like to eliminate the energy losses through the long distance lines, and cease to continue to spoil the view of the land scape every where, and stop building these high tensions right through our residential neighborhoods that do not service our communities but do service some huge metro area many miles away, and we consider that cookie cutter copies, of already proven, the very best of designs of NATURAL GAS FIRED TURBINES, are far less expensive to produce than nuclear, and 80% more productive than wind and 100% more reliable than wind or solar, and don't screw up the rivers of this nation, I think the reasonable answer is right in front of you, but folks still don't get it, do they.

This nation needs to put people back to work promptly in order to get us out of this depression. There is simply two best ways to get it done. Construct new and bigger NG pipelines to where ever power is needed and at the same time start construction of new NG fired electric power plants where power is needed. For get about long distance high tension lines, as they likely will not be needed. Second produce an order to upgrade our interstate highway system promptly and create by passes with limited access around and or through if necessary, the huge metro areas. The interstate highway system has largely become nothing more than a commute from metro to metro, and was never intended to end up this way, after all it is considered a "National Defense Highway" not a convenient way for locals to commute to work! Wake up and see, you might have to pee!

TooMuchFun

The use of Common Sense always applies, avoiding it dooms one to failure, cost over runs, and Politicos quickly changing the subject and or avoiding a direct answer.

As I've stated in other threads, I'm a big proponent of Land_Based_Gas_Turbines.

Small, clean, relatively inexpensive and can be set up to burn almost any fuel. We have plenty of NG, so why don't we use it?

Another ATTABOY for you Bricktop!

TMF

Hello TMF, windpower is a good source, because it is mostly CO2 neutral. That is not so with NG. I agree with you, that NG is more reliable, but more than half of the energycontent in NG is blown into the sky, promoting global warming and pollution and costs. The small 1-5 MW pistondriven generators we have here have a thermal efficiency of around 80 % of the energycontent of NG, when the excess heat is used for househeating. Thats better, and a reasonable solution for the time being. Windpower can never stand alone, I know that. And I will not promote windpower alone, I just hope, that you can see, that burning fossil fuels mindlessly is not good. Thats my perspective. And about the financing part of turbines, do you believe, that the windpowerbuyers do business to loose money? They dont, as allmost every turbine, if it is installed properly on a reasonable site, pays back in about 15 years or less, thats the scenery here. When the turbine is paid for, only cost is maintenance, thus providing good money. I dont like high tension lines more than ýou do, but you have had a bad experince with installation and maintenance and proper dimensioning in the US, so you blame the lines instead of the greedy management. In DK we are putting the 20 kV lines into the ground, the company I work for dig 180 km of wire in the ground every year, so in 2017 all our 1800 km of 20 kV lines are in the ground, providing weatherindependent and very reliable power to consumers. We have started with the 60 kV lines, but the cables are still expensive, so its a bit slower. 150 kV and 400 kV is still wires on masts. If you had better powermanagement, mayby controlled by government or some kind of rules to serve the consumers and not capitalism, your powerlines could have been sufficient to cover the need. So, basically we agree, I can see your point in using NG, if you have a lot of it, and that would get you going for now, but in a longer timespan you have to address consumption and more CO2-neutral powersources. There are jobs in it too, we have a great export of turbines giving 10's of thousands of jobs, and in coastal areas the development of undersea turbines using the tides or seacurrent could be the next thing. And powersaving technologi, like EV's, just to make this post "on topic", need this infrastructure to work. We have a certain level of technology now, if we dont do R&D in power now, we will run out of sources sometime and we will make the climate and the world unstable, and I really hope that doesnt happen.

To finish this discussion, I am using my pensionfunds to raise turbines, and I can see thats better than stocks....

regards

moe, electrician

Good evening Moe, I am going to give you a good answer for your response. It is well received, but can you please tell me where you folks living in Denmark get all the money to do all of this stuff when we here in the U.S.A, likely the wealthiest nation on the planet cannot seem to even pay our income and property taxes.

Maybe it's because we are trying to keep the world free and simply can no longer afford to carry less responsible nations. Maybe we should stop giving away so many billions of dollars to help prevent the next world war.

TMF

Hi TMF, thanks for the GA!

Well, about the money I can tell you, that we have a very high taxrate of 40 % of our income. I can give you my example: I am an electrician, that means 4 years of training and theory, which I did in the early 1980's with a low income nowvalue 2000 $/month minus tax approx. 3-400 $ in all 1600$ or so. Today I earn 5000 $/month minus tax 2000= 3000$/month. The tax I, which I might say, pay happily(well, allmost) covers free healthcare, free education from kindergarten to professor, free roads(we have one 20 km bridge costing 50$ to drive each way), wellfare and a democracy, where honesty and fairplay are hightly appreciated. The tax makes our society work, though there are many discussions about who gets what from the state. We have now been represented with 600 troups in Irag and another 500 in Afghanistan and currently we have a destroyer in the Aden bay out of Somalia catching hijackers from cargovessels. And we have lost god men in roadsidebombs and battle. So we have taken a turn for the better. Dk is one of the nations in the world who gives 1 % of the total amount of money earned nationally to the 3. world in programs and direct support.

The powercompanies are and have been foreseing the need for constant upgrading and maintenance of the grid paid by consumers included in electrical bills. More than 3/4 of the price of a kwh is "transport" or tax for providing power to consumer. The left quarter are the price for producing the power, bringing the total price to 1.85 dkr which is about 25-30 cent for one kwh at the household. We are also exchanging the powermeters to smartgridmeters. The company I work for are going to change 22000 meters this year in a total of 300000 households, which is included in the bill. No extra fee for the consumer. We cover about 1/20 part of DK, mostly farmland and a few small cities. See www.hef.dk . I work primarily with fiberoptics as we have established a great backbone in our area. The investment in infrastructure makes all the difference, as companies can focus on development and production instead of compensating for outages. Thats why you are hit so hard, when the infrastructure doesnt work. The last 8 years of mismanagement from Mr. Bush have made you somewhat less wealthy, I think I heard that every american citizen now ows 10000 $ after Mr. Bush. That´s bad, and I dont envy you.

About the US role of de-stability in the middleeast, all the oilmoney make the arabs rotten because of corrupt leaders there and religion interpreted by analfabets. You cannot change perception with guns, to learn/change perception you need security and calm provided by prosperity and fairplay, so the people there can see and feel it matters to lay down arms. That costs a lot less than guns. But thats another story....

I hope to discuss with you another time

Best Regards

moe

"does not explain why they sued Panasonic, extracting $30,000,000."

Easy, if you fail to legally enforce your patent, you loose your rights to it. They did not have a choice or the patent becomes worthless. Plus, all that cash is not a bad thing either.

I know conspiracy theories are very enchanting, but as you said, there was no market demand then and there still isn't now. It is a nich market and no profit for big companies looking for large quantities of sales. End of story.

Guru, I can't believe you're not President. Your knowledge of patent law, free market damand and corporate corruption is astounding. You should run next time.

The battery or electrical storage is the key to the long term energy solutions and human inqenuity will solve the problem despite competition contrary to ist's use.

Hello Fello Bloggers,

I thought that I would join your little group and give it somthing possibly new to think about.

What if there was a way to power electric vehicles continuously without batteries as the main power source. Well, guess what gang, there is; and it has already been developed and patented. So while you are all discussing how to skewer the windmills while astride you various prognostications, I'll just go ahead and bring it out on the market.

Incidently, it is a way to allow you to keep driving the vehicle you already own, only now with my company's power system; your vehicle would be electrically powered. This change will also begin to eliminate the pollution problem "exhausted" from the 220 million i.c., powered vehicles in the US to start with.

About connecting back into the power grid; each vehicle "could be" utilized as a power producing unit as it's electric output can be inverted into whatever cyclic rate is needed (50 or 60 AC) and the output voltage rate adjusted to 240 volts-- so one could use the vehicle as a powering source to put back into the grid .

Happy talking. I'll be interested in seeing what your collective input is to this.

"I'll be interested in seeing what your collective input is to this."

That's great scotsman, but all you have here is just talk. Are we suppose to collectively guess what you've got here?

Hi Bricktop,

No, you're not collective supposed to do anything if you don't want to. My aim here was to "test the water" so to speak of this forum to find out what the reception to statements such as mine would be. Yours is the first one, and your responce sounds sceptable to me.

I really can't blame you Bricktop, as a name speaks a thousand words.

My statements as to what my group has collectively accomplished over the years; is admittedly "way outside the box" of commonly accepted Classic Physics, which is actually not a problem in today's world. The great amount of what we have accomplished is based on the written works of Mr. Nicola Tesla; and if his works and understandings of what electric power generation was, and could be, (as he is the founder of all AC power) is not acceptable to readers of this discussions such as yourself, then there is no reason for me to go further and try to have a meaningful discussion; not an argument, but a discussion with you.

What "has been" (Tesla's work) and what has been "re-found", can be found in my 1992 US Patent 5,146,395/Sept 8, 1992/A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS.

If one carefully, and the key word here is "carefully", reads the Abstract of the Patent; one will find a workable, and obviously acceptable (at least to the US Patent Office and the examiner of my application, which is what I was after in the first place) definition of an electric power circuit, that once started from an external voltage source -- can continue to operate, supplying electric power to not only it's internal "needs" via it's regenerative feedback control system, which is an alternative to the more well known degenerative feedback control system, but also would continuously supply electric power, up to it's designed output peak, to an external load. The external load could be connected and disconnected at will, not effecting the operablity of the system one bit. This is actually "boilerplate" Tesla to those that are really familiar with his works.

The Patent was granted, based on exhaustive backup information supplied to the examiner through my patent attorneys, who had to be convinced first. What I had to prove to my attorneys first, was that there was, in print, acceptable text validating the claims I was making concerning my power generating system design and tests. Most importantly; these validating texts were based on readily available electronics and electrical power information text printed in modern, college level electronics textbooks.

Additional specific additional information was supplied to both my attorneys and the examiner concerning the non-applicability of Classic Physics to electronics and electronically produced "power". Simply put; that information proved to be the successful argument that Classic Physics can not be used to deal with the subject stated above because Classic Physics cannot be used to deal with anything as small as an electron, nor anything that moves at the speed that the electron is understood to move. Furthermore and beyond that; the additional information taken from current college level textbooks, specifically and successfully explained to both my attorneys and the examiner; that Quantum Mechanics was the medium that had to be used when dealing with the subjects at hand -- and not Classic Physics, as Classic Physics covers only a portion of the area in question and thus is lacking in validity.

The Patent, in it's entirety, was granted in just 13 months from it's submittion to the Patent office, late on a Friday afternoon. No changes were required nor even suggested for the entire text or subject matter of the artwork of the submittal. No additions or subtractions as to substance was required or even suggested on anything pertaining to the submittal. All of the claims made were granted without any changes asked to be made. The single thing that was required to be changed before the grant could be completed -- was that the Patent Artwork, which I had produced using early CAD programs, had to be reproduced by hand by a qualified Patent draftsman. It seems that CAD artwork was not yet deemed "proper" for a US Patent at the time. That subsequently has changed.

DOE and DOD did not object -- because of the validating accompanying information supplied to the examiner. This is even though it is well known that Patents proclaiming "perpetual motion", or "sustained action" are not even supposed to be accepted. To be very clear on this: my successful application never made any statement of any kind addressing those areas; and to this day, there has never been a challenge to the validity of my Patent.

My personnal electronics background is thanks to Class "A" Electronics, and Class "A" Radar schools, US NAVY, !962-1963; which is the equivalent of more than a standard BSEE degree from a major college. The schools taught us 8 hours a day, 5 days a week 365 days out of the year -- for 1 1/2 years; way more actual study time than standard college courses. Also, my classmates and I were introduced to the entire breadth of current information written on electronics and electric power generation up to that day, not just the favorite sections of required reading of a book probably written by the same professor teaching the course.

That was when I was introduced to Nicola Tesla's work; and my instructors were very helpful in starting the inquiring process within me that I have to this day that has afforded me the ability to work outside the box.

Lastly, for the first twenty years of this project; I was fortunate to have as a partnerin the project, a person who works for the Bonneville Power Administration as it's lead examiner for alternative energy sources, lead wind power expert, lead power generator examinor, former member of EPRI on electric motor design, plus a few other positions within the organizations. Mr. Nick Butler was known as "Mr. Power" by the leaders in the electric power generation industry in the Western Half of the United States and Hawaii. Also, for his last two years, I was fortunate to have the help of Dr. Ira Myers, Ph.D; lead investigator of alternative energy for the NASA Lewis organization at Cleveland, Ohio. Dr. Myers was very instrumental in helping me design the apparatus so that it would "work as designed". To that date; a great number of electric componenets that have been used in teh gestation of the system didn't even exist; so Ira and I had to come up with ways to get the results that we "knew" were available without having a lot of the electric solid state components that are now available. That learning experience has proven to be invaluable.

One thing that I didn't bring up in my initial subittal to this forum was the fact that after we realized what we were acgtually able to accomplish; at his lead, Dr. Myers and I designed an Argon / Ion Space Drive -- in 1995. Our drive was designed to take a space ship from docking at the Space Station to the planet Mars -- in 6 weeks; not 6 months. Dr. Myers thought that this time frame was indeed valid as Argon Gas is "everywhere" and we thus had a readily available "fuel" supply. NASA has used it's first Ion drive only recently and although it works as designed, it is extremely weak on output power. I has to carry it's own fuel supply because thehy didn't use Argon.

So, Bricktop: just talk?

I think not, but that's not for me to judge nor is it the point of this. If a discussion is to be had; then there is no place for sarcasm against something one knows nothing about. If that can be shelved; and if you are indeed truly interested in learning something that is possibly contrary to what you might be considering to be the basis for your beliefs; then there is room to talk. Remember Bricktop: I can back up the statements and claims that I have made in this forum with currently accepted college level printed text -- can you do the same?.

And what I have stated here goes right to the point of topic for this forum.

It's back to you, or anyone else that might care to join in.

Hey, you threw a line and I bit.

Good luck on your project> Keep us posted.

Don't get defensive just because someone asks you a question. And once called to task here, you have to come up with reasonable proof of your claims.

A great quote that the editor uses as his tag line:

"And when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

That pretty much sums it up for all of life, doesn't it.

Hi Bricktop,

No hurt here, so no fault. The patent has the key to the whole thing; and it is the validation you are requesting. It is also readily attainable.

The first tested "over-unity" output was obtained in 1982 at 103%. The maximum "output over input" was reached and verified in 1984 by an independant professional laboratory with the custom designed and manufactured mechanical generator being used at the time. That amount was 293% over input, perfect sinusoidal 120 VAC@60 Hz , with zero harmonics.

That test showed that there would always be a "maximum amount available" placed on all mechanical power generation systems -- which is 100% of what is used today. So that's when I took what I had learned of the Tesla based information and started to design totally solid-state power generation systems. Back in the 1990s it was very hard because of the lack of available solid-state components; but that is not the case today.

To the subject of this forum: because the initial output of my system is hight frequency, pulsed VDC; it is perfect for auto and truck use, in fact for any type of vehicle that uses an internal combustion engine. We have figured out to retro-fit the existing internal combustion engine and re-power it with our VDC output.

But, if the initial VDC is inverted into the proper cyclic rate of VAC; then the car/truck's output could theoretically be hooked into the power grid with the use of the proper rate step-up isolation transformers.

But the real gist of this whole thing is in my patent. Go read it. It's listed on the Internet.

"It's listed on the Internet."

Ok then, Give a name I can Google, or better yet, provide a link.

Hi Bricktop,

The patent info is: 5,146,395 / Sept 8, 1992 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS . It's listed under my legal name, Richard L. McKie. Go to the US Patent site and list the number. That's the way that I always got to it.

I read it, and it's completely vague. It says nothing about what is really happening. Your going to have to provide a lot more information to be taken seriously here.

Remember, you came to us, we did not come to you. So far, no one has shot you down or venerated you in any way. You have been welcomed with collective open minds. You can talk, and act like your being persecuted here, but you are not. Suggesting basic reading material is not helping your cause. Your condescending attitude is no help ether. Right now, your just another guy with grandiose plans, with absolutely nothing but empty words to back it up. We here are just a microcosm of what to expect in the real world.

Sorry, I can't really be any nicer than that. I don't have anything to prove here, you do.

Bricktop,

The horse can be led to water but one cannot force it to drink. The name Bricktop really fits you.

It is not my fault that you have demonstrated here that you don't have the capacity to carefully read and then collate specific facts that are contained in my Patent abstract. If you take the time to go back and read it this time; and then analyze what is contained there -- you will find that the language used in the Abstract describes 1.) the correct and accepted interactions between two electrical pieces of circuitry and their componenets that make up a resonant tank circuit, and 2.) the correct specific interactions between two resonant tank circuits, i.e., as in the Patent name.

It is not my fault that you don't have the demonstrated capacity to understand what you supposedly read, Bricktop; because this forum is NOT a case where you have your own private little "coffee clatch" to pontificate to. This supposedly is an open forum for both vetted and unvetted information to be presented to those that care to take it in and hopefully discuss it. Also; whether or not the information on this forum is understood by you is irrelevant.

As to whether or not you have the either the knowledge base or the ability to enter into discussions is not up to me to decide; but the vetted information, i.e., my Patent, and the college sources I named specifically was done so that any reader of this forum, with the ability to "connect the dots", would be able to find ample substantiation. for the Patent.

A vast number of people; "...a lot better than you, Gunga Din..." have found the information I gave to the forum to be correct and is accepted -- so either get back down off you high horse and possibly join in the discussion, or go back to your sand box and stop attacking me.

It is very interesting Bricktop that you use the term "collective minds" to describe this forum. Is that really the case; are all of you that have written inputs here on this forum are of just one idea and have only one voice supposedly speaking through Bricktop as your self appointed spokesman?

Or is it the case that you, Bricktop, haven't got a clue as to what electric resonance is or even recognize the descriptive term, how it was described in the Patent Abstract, and how resonance is being dealt with within the existing powergrid (which is the origin of this forum in the first place).

If you had any knowledge concerning what was described in the Abstract; you would have realized that what was described there was a vetted description that the Patent office found to be correct and acceptable in describing the "sustained action" possible between two resonant circuits. The key words, which you obviously totally missed, didn't understand, or couldn't comprehend the possibility of; are "sustained action".

The claim(s) for either "sustained action" or "perpetual motion" was never made within the application. But the abstract, which was written by my patent attorneys for the P:atent Application totally and suscinctly dedscribe "sustained action". The two college level sources that I introduced to this forum for use if anyone chose to do so, were the two main substantiating sources used in backing up the abstract's verbiage.

The fact that you missed the connection between the Patent Abstract and the two listed sources is of no concern of mine. You simply blew it.

The fact that you yourself write here "...I read it, and it's completely vague..." (your direct quote) demonstrates to anyone reading this forum that you either don't have the ability to digest and understand subtle nuances; or your just too prejudice to consider an alternative condition to what your intellectual level is capable of comprehending.

What you missed was direct connection between the title of the Patent, i.e., "...A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS..." a granted US Patent Abstract, which speaks directly to the interactions between two resonant electric tank circuits; the direct correlation of the Patent title and the Patent Abstract to the two listed college level text sources, which, when the information written in those two volumes are taken collectively, and which I specified to this forum; and the fact that, although the Patent never claims nor speaks of either "sustained action" or "perpetual motion"; the Abstract, because the Patent was granted in it's entirely: directly validates for the first time the case for electronic "sustained action" -- which actually has been the case since Nicola Tesla discovered and Patented "resonance".

But you missed all of this.

Your admission speaks for itself Bricktop because you have shown yourself to be "...the guy with nothing but empty words to back it up..." (your words, not mine) whatever it was that you are backing up. But that isn't correct; because you've been too busy attacking me here to have spelled out any position on anything that I have said. It's called CYA Bricktop, and your not very good at it.

I haven't "...shot you down..." either. You've done a much better job of accomplishing that than I could have of showing what a myopic, preducudice mind sounds and writes like.

I love it. "...We here are just a microcosm of what to expect in the real world...", again your exact words. Did you take the time, or have the fortitude, to ask the others people on this forum whether or not your viewpoint spoke for them also, or is this statement just another case of you blowing your male bovine pasture pastry out a certrain orifice that you sit on.

I would be interested in hearing from some of the other members of this forum to see if everyone thinks and attacks like Bricktop, or might be interested in a positive interaction concerning what I have available to discuss.

As for you Bricktop -- as I said; the name says it all.

It's one thing to question, and ,yes, even attack one's idea's. It's totally different to attack a person, call names, and even make fun of someone's name. You have pretty much stooped to the level of a 3 year old bully in the school yard.

First off, a patent means shit. And your endless name-dropping is a distraction that does nothing for you.

You can go on and insult me all you want, if fact, you were baited. I enjoy the insults.

There's 2 things you can do here. Put up, or shut up. No one here has the slighted idea how your contraption works. Or you can just sulk away, like the many others that have made unsubstantiated claims have done.

Or, better yet, put your machine into production, and make a billion dollars. That would really shut me up, wouldn't it.

Ah yes, the world according to Bricktop.

I was looking for some decent and civil discussion on this forum. As there doesn't seem to be either, I'll just read what is said by others and interact with them if I choose. As for you Bricktop -- go perform a physically impossible act on yourself since you've been doing nothing but playing with yourself anyway. Your not worth anymore of my time.

"I was looking for some decent and civil discussion on this forum."

Hum, all I asked for was cold, hard facts. All I got was insults.

If fact, you have nothing but insults, you are hollow. Your idea is hollow.

Why not prove me wrong. Show us a video of your contraption working. Show us something other than hot air.

I was never worth any of your time. Anyone that dares to ask you a question, or to ask you to show something, you blow off. I bet you get this everywhere. Get used to it, because everyone can see through your bull-shit.

Since I am a mechanical specialist, and not electrical, would you be so kind as to put the wording of the abstract into simple English so that I may understand the way your device functions? I have never been able to understand the writings of lawyers, not even my own.

Thanks.

Hi Dances with Trees and other Interested Parties,

I'l try to put this in a form that is understandable to a layman.

1.) Nicola Tesla discovered that there is a certain "electrical" condition in electronics that allows for the increase of both voltage and amperage to a maximum amount in a specific circuit -- without using transformers. That condition is called "resonance". In "mechanics", resonance can be also brought about, but back to electronics.

2.) A "tank circuit" is a circuit where a capacitor is connected in parallel between V+ (the point where the circuit's VDC voltage source is connected) and "ground" (-), which is a physical area/place in the circuit that has a lower voltage level (or zero voltage) in relation to VDC.

First a definition of VAC (or alternating voltage and thus current). The reason that I specified VAC here is that the voltage "alternates" up to V+, then down to zero. It continues "down" to V+ again but in the opposite direction, and then back up to zero. The plot of this waveforn is called "sinusoidal" with the cross-over or zero voltage point is a linear horizontal line going through the middle of the sinusoidal voltage wave form. It is the voltage that is produced from a revolving AC generator, but now to tank circuits.

3.) Pertaining to the two components making up the tank circuit; at a certain repedative frequency, the two components willl start to electrically "react" (within the tank circuitry itself) to each other, being connected in parallel to each other in the circuit. The reaction of the inductor is called "inductive reactance" and the reaction of the capacitor is called "capacitive reactance". These are two forces that oppose the movement of electrons in a circuit and are found not only in the components themselves, but also in the wire or traces connecting the two componenets together. They are everywhere in a circuit.

4.) I'll use a square wave VDC voltage input for this description, in that experience has found it to be the best voltage input form to a tank circuit. The circuitry also works better if the voltage source is only connected 50% of the time, especially at the resonant frequency. It is by increasing or decreasing the pulse rate of this 50/50 duty cycle (50% on, 50% off) square wave VDC input that the resonant frequency can be electrically found. It is found by viewing an ammeter that is connected in series in the VDC input line that is powering teh electric componenets that are producing the 50/50 input voltage signal. First it must be understood that because the "on" time is only 50% of the time, the "average" voltage that the tank circuit will "see" is half that used, i.e., if 12 VDC is needed to "power" the tank circuit; then a switchable 50/50 duty cycle VDC source of 24 VDC will be needed.

5.) At a specific frequency called the "tank circuit's resonant frequency", the two reactive forces of the two components, because they react opposite to each, cancel each other out within the tank circuit. This then sets up two different sets of operating condition.

a.) You will know when you are at resonance when the ammeter connected "in- line" to the tank circuit decreases to it's lowest smallest value. That's right, as the frequency is brought closer and closer to resonance; the required currrent flow (electron movement in and out of the tank circuit from V+ to ground (-) reaches it's "minimum value". If you keep increasing the frequency (the number of times that V+ is being turned off 50% of the time) the amperage will start to increase again.

b.) A second current movement of electrons sets up between one plate of the tank capacitor, through the tank inductor, and on to the other plate of the tank capacitor. A simple capacitor is a barrier with "electron storage areas or plates" on each side. Every time V+ is "connected, electrons in the circuit move toward one of the the capacitor's plates, thus "charging up". When the V+ is disconnected, the capacitor's stored electrons move back through the inductor toward the other plate of the tank capacitor.

6.) At resonance, if the wire making up the inductor and the connecting wires/traces to each side of the capacitor in the tank circuit section of the circuitry itself is multi-strand, or large; a very large amount of current flow governed solely by the resistance of the wire/trace alone, can move.

7.) This resonant "circulating" current is ALWAYS larger than the amount of current coming into the circuit from it's voltage source. Remember that the input current is also ALWAYS minimum at resonance.

8.) OK, then what is this good for; OK I'll tell you an important reason. In the radio medium, a tank circuit is called a "band-pass" circuit and that means this. The antenna of almost every radio used except the old crystal radio picks up every radio frequency that it picks up; and that can be a lot. Each radio staion has a specific "frequency" that it broadcasts on. When you "tune" your radio to pick up a specific frequency that you want to "hear" you are really basically changing the value of either the capacitor or the inductor in you radio tuner -- which is a tank circuit.

9.) Remember when the tank circuit resonated (described just above), it was at a specifric frequency. If that frequency is at the frequency of the radio station that you want to hear, that specific frequency signal will "pass through" the tank circuit, while the tank circuit stops all other frequencies from getting though to the rest of the electronics in your radio.

10.) Electronic Resonance is a very simple thing in electronics; but it has been misunderstood for a long time. Even though it is fully explained in the two text books that I cited, the subject is not well taught; thus it's existance is not well known nor understood as to what can be done with it.

11.) Remember just above when I described to you how a capacitior was "charged up" at the resonant frequency? As long as the V+ was connected, the capacitor would stay charged up, but take away (disconnect) V+ and if a dicharge circuit was connected to it; the capacitor would discharge. BUT, a capacitor is just like a Ni-Cad battery in that it can be charged and discharged up to millions of times a second. All one had to do was to come up with a way to "electronically disconnect" the capacitor out of the tank circuit and then connect it to power a load -- just like using a battery. Now, using a single tank circuit, that would mean that if it was only connected to a load 50% of the time, the load would only give an "average voltage" of 50% of the level that it was charged up to. ALso, remember just above that this is exactly the same situation concerning the voltage source to the tank circuit itself.

12.) What I realized was that to get "full" voltage to continuously power a "load" from capacitors; I could accomplish that by using two tank circuits (A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS). The use of two tank circuits also allowed for continuous, pulsed VDC to be delivered to a load at an amperage level much, much higher than would be requuired to "power" the generating circuitry itself (remember, minimum amperage required at resonance).

13.) The two tank circuits described in my Patent thus were set to "charge up" 180 degrees from each other. In other words; one would be charging up (under resonanat conditions) while the other (which had just been charged up under resonant conditions at the very same frequency) was connect to and powering an external load under VDC conditions. This then allows for a continuous, pulsed voltage source being available to power much larger loads.

14.) Above I stated that electric resonance allows for raising voltage levels without the use of transformers. Here is one way it's accomplished.

a,) The capacitor and inductor are connected in SERIES this time, with the V+and ground first connected "across" (V+ to one terminal/lead of the capacitor and ground (-) connected to the other terminal/lead) of another capacitor. This charges up the capacitor that will be used as the voltage source.

b.) This charged up capacitor is then connected to a circuit that has another capacitor and inductor connected in series. When this is continuous done at the resonant frequency of the two components making up the series resonant circuit; each, or both componenets will develop voltage levels "across" themselves individually higher to much higher that the voltage level of the discharging capacitor. The amount of this multiple increase in developed voltage is controlled by controlling the amount of current flow (electron movement) through the series portion of the circuit. This elevated "reactive step-up voltage" is no different, just a higher level, then the voltage contained initially in the capacitior powering the circuit.

15.) I can utilize this to increase the output voltage level to any load that I wish to connect to (up to 480 volts from 12 VDC "in") as I also use two of these series circuits to supply a continuous, pulsed voltage to the load.

16.) So what I have tried to describe to you here is a basic definition and descripotion of how the circuitry operates. Tesla did it and developed all of the apparatus himself in his lifetime. But at his death, almost all of his original works and apparatus were either lost or conviscated, depending on who is the source. There are a few books that have been written, some of which are poorly written and a couple that are "right on". The main thing is that electrical resonance, and it's mathematics, has been carefully worked out over the years; and to me, mathematics doesn't lie. It is what it is.

It took me three years to un-learn what I had been taught by well meaning US NAVY personnel in Class "A" Electronics and Class "A" RAdar Schools; and to relearn what was actually in the available testbooks -- and everything that I have tried to explain to you, probably poorly from a mechanical point of view, is in the electronics books that I cited earlier today. It's all there. If this peaks your interest, and you would like to converse more about it so that you might gain a better grasp of it; I'll make myself available through this forum.

Thank you I now have a much better understanding of your patent.

I have been following closely and am interested in the patent review. Won't you be so kind as to direct me/us to the information you claim you wish us to see?

I too have been following this and was able to locate 'a' patent at;

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5146395.html

Power is not my specialty so the whole thing is just so much gas, no idea if it is valid or not, I will leave that to the electrical engineering types to decide.

I did find the trip to mars theory interesting however, nasty acceleration and slowing would be interesting as well. sorry for going off topic.

Hi Dances with Trees,

I'm sorry that you take the position that what you don't consider your "specialty" you brand as "so much gas". I guess that it is your problem though. To elaberate a little on the Argon Drive system that Dr. Myers and I designed; there was to be no harsh acceleration or sudden deceleration in either direction in that they are constantly increasing or decreasing .

We ended up with an estimate that about 50 lbs of onboard Argon would be needed to get a ship with four astronauts in it to Mars and back with in six weeks transition time each way. The onboard "fuel" would be necessary for initial firing and initial acceleration.

Please understand that acceleration would be constant until the halfway point is reached, where the orientation of the ship would be reversed in order to start the deceleration process. Argon Gas already in space would be used in conjunction with the onboard "fuel" to maximize the rate of acceleration and deceleration. You would feel the speed change as that experienced in a train. It's not harsh at all, but it is constant -- in both directions.

Hope this helps.

I have tried to educate myself in the basics of Ion Drives and the use of Argon, but I have not managed to find anything about Dr Myers at NASA, perhaps if you could provide his/her first name I could refine my search. My mistake I found it, pardon me.

Dr. Ira Myers

I was able to find volumes of data on Ion drives, very prominissing indeed.

Hi Dances with Trees,

Every lifetime one may be lucky enough to meet people of the stature of Dr. Ira Myers. They "broke the mold" after him. I understand that he had worked within the NASA organization before it was even NASA, which is a very long time; so that says something of the man. He worked with me on specific areas of my project over a period of a couple of years, and came out to my home to work when we were "into" something that he didn't want to "let out of the bag". He also loved to hike in the Cascade mountains during our summer season, which was his "reason" for coming out from Cleveland. He was small in body, but to me, was a giant intellectually.

Without his help, my project probably would have taken a lot longer to reach fruition. Also, having positive correspondense on NASA letterhead paperfrom him on certain aspects of the project; went a long way in changing the attitude of people that automatically were just shoving the project aside because of their own prejudices and lack of correct knowledge about "energy generation". "...If it was good enough for him, it should be good enough for them..." he used to say to me.

During the last years of his association with NASA, they gave him his own laboratory in the Cleveland facility to work in and a couple of very good assistants. It was this time that I worked with him; and even though he was on the staff of NASA, he said that he had to be careful about what he said pertaining to our work together, because, even though he knew that I was correct in my assumptions that we were working on and that the project would, again in his words, "really shake up the world"; there were those in higher "pay rates" than he that could cause him to lose his "tenured position" within NASA, again, based on their own, incorrect assumptions concerning our work together.

He died rather suddenly, but he had lived a full and exciting life, working within NASA. I really miss him because he would have really enjoyed seeing what we built come to fruition, especially an Ion drive space engine, no matter what fuel was being used.

To me he was a great man.

As for why NASA didn't use Argon gas as the fuel for their first Ion Drive system -- you would have to ask them. Ira was very familiar with Argon gas and I suppose that's the reason that we used it in our design. The main thing about the drive was the fact that my system would have provided sufficient electric voltage /"power" if you will, to allow for a much larger "engine" and amount of ionization. Also add the fact that my electric power system would continue to operate at it's maximum rated ouput until it was turned off or reduced in voltage via system controls. My system does not require any "fuel" other that an initial VDC input that can be had from two small 9 VDC batteries, which also made the system extremely "portable". Ira locked on to this fact and ran with it; thus we ended up with the basic design that we did.

Hope that this helps you

Hi TexasCharley,

Whoa there. I'm not "claiming" that you do "anything", nor am I going to spoon feed you. I said that if you are interested; download my 1992 Patent from the Internet, read the Abstract which is on the front page; and then carefully analyze the sequence of events contained in it. What is contained there is considered to be the acceptable definition (at least to the US Govt.) of the "operation" of my solid state system.

If you understand what is written there; then you have 3/4 of the problem beaten; because "we are what we are taught". If you have the capacity to understand and accept information that is counter to what you might have formerly been taught (as I was), you will then be able to back to the text books and find "the rest of the story", so to speak, concerning what actually "is happening" in the field of electric power generation along with a lot of the published falecies concerning "energy".

I would further recommend two separate college level text books for reading and to use as source material. They are:

1.) "Electricity One - Seven" by Harry Mileaf. Can be purchased from the Hayden Press; and

2.) "Basic Electronics" by Bernard Grob. Can be purchased at most major college book stores.

These two books address a specific result of electric power generation from almost opposite viewpoints, in that the "points" not "stressed" in one are "stressed" in the other. This then gives you, the investigator, a very complete picture of what is going on.

Hope that this helps

I need to agree with Bricky about the defensive posture you have taken. I have researched your invention. More importantly I have researched what others are saying (were saying) about it.

I am very impressed by your level of commitment and the depth of the work which you have successfully completed.

I am not an expert on much -really only on how not to go completely insane raising 4 children and living life happily. Much of what I have read regarding your claims is miles above my level of understanding.

However, there are claims and statements made (by you) which are in opposition to the current laws of physics (as you know).

I suspect that the constant defense of your work has made you, well - defensive, in nature.

I encourage you to continue in our discussions. You are probably the most well received and substantiated OU proponent that has ever stepped in this arena.

However, as Bricky stated; these claims you make are very substantial and demand that we not be insulted as we are asked to entertain them as fact.

Best of luck,

Charles

1993 Seattle Times:

http://www.rexresearch.com/mckie/mckie.htm

and related:

http://keelynet.com/energy/mckie.htm

patent information:

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/5146395.html

http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/search_ajax.cgi?patnum=US+5146395

brief from 1991:

http://www.newenergytimes.com/FIC/F/F199111.PDF

Interesting reading and I have a far better idea of how this is supposed to work.

The big question still remains, patented in 1992 and here we are in 2009, so what happened?

I am not being argumentative, why have a group like green peace or others if the same ilk not embraced this technology? I would expect they would force the adaptation of such a device, California at very least, the US bastion of all things green, would love this sort of alternative. Why not?

Please elaborate.

Well, well, well, I could have given a rats-ass to actually research this clown, but you have done it for me. Let's see, he's been beating this dead horse for the last 17+ years, and comes to our little forum for exactly what? I feel honored to butt heads with this proven charlatan.

It looks like my assessment is spot on. He is used to rejection, no wonder the instant defensive position.

People have been trying to circumvent the laws of physics for the last 400 years, and so far, no-one has done it. Why does this guy think he's so special? He offers no proof, never has.

I asked for some proof, is that out of the relm of a valid scienctific discussion? I think not. All I got was insults and an attack on myself, and my very name.

Hi Texas Charlie,

I missed this and I apoligize for the oversight.

What I was specifically trying to have happen was for a reader to "take teh Abstgract" apart, and step by step plot out what each action of the two tank circuits are. What you will find (because it is oriented around a 360 degree circle) is that each descriptive step show that once started, there is no end to it. It just keeps continuing.

This is the point that where Physicists go apeplectic, and it's probably understandable in that Physicists are only taught by other Physicists. Therefore no opposing information on the subject is taught; even though today; it is being increasisngly commonly ackowledged that Classics Physicsit is only a small part of what "is in play". It is also increasingly acknowledged that Quantum Mechanics is the medium that defines electricity, what it actually is and isn't, and it's control and generation.

Understanding that the patent abstract represents, for first time, that the condition actually exists, to put it simply, "changes a few things" (my quote).

Because this actually is therefore the case; then a lot of things and positions, should possibly be revisited, but that is not for me to say at all.

My only point in bringing this point up is because the operational description being taught as "true" is, in fact, not true.

That information is for one to use as one wishes; but not to vilify. Simply because one may not be of a mindset to acknowledge the fact that as far as this subject is concerned; it has been acceptably proven that in fact the subject was being taught incorrectly. That's not the fault of the subject, but is for the reader to deal with the new correct reality. Wrailing against it, or not accepting it as being true does not change the fact that the subject has been changed to the new understanding.

This is the history of most things, and almost always, when a better, clearer, more correct definition of something is found; change has been brought about. It's alwasy been this way I think.

it has already been developed and patented

Where can we see a working prototype ? Is there footage on You Tube or similar, so I can get a clearer understanding of the device. With patent protection it should be safe to put up film of the device in action, and I guess it may help persuade potential investors.

Hi Kris,

I have specifically stayed away from "you tube" and the like as I don't have the need to have my face everywhere. To me, it is against my interests and the best interests of the company that I am starting that will have the job of producing the units, to splash information accross the Internet. It's just not good business practice. Being 64 years old probably places me as an "old foggie", but as a former pilot with US military experience; I am not comfortable with it as a medium and almost never use it unless directed to a specific site to view a certain item.

Funding for the full project is already in place and my company, Gamma Star (Technologies) International, Ltd. is being positioned as a Canadian Corporation, because of very restrictive practices put in place by US utilities pertaining to independant power produces being connected to the US grid.

The system as it is presently being finalized, continually supplies 2 Phase / 240 VAC (120 VSC per phase at 60 Hz or 50Hz where required) / 200 Amps. This solid state unit has been down sized to weigh around 10 lbs. per phase, or 20 lbs per home sized unit for a US based units. Becase the "phases" are independantly constructed, 3 phase European power at 240 VAC 50 Hz is redily available.

250 complete units, when installed in a customized 40 ft. trailer, will supply 10 MW of output power. This, when connected to the proper sized step-up transformers for isolation purposes, can be connected to the grid where ever required. This is the plans of the new US government, so my system's design is ready at the proper time. There undoubtably will be holdups to this happening; but they will most likely be political in nature.

The units power output will be controlled through existing utilities as that is the best and fastest manner to get power costs down at the home user level. That is contracturally possible because of the extremely low cost of the power generated by my systems. Individual units will be made availabe on a case by case process if there is no other means of getting power to the required load. The units will not be made available for sale, but will be available for lease if the power requirement is a large one. Individual home leasing is not being envissioned at this time.

If there are more questions, please ask me.

Are you seeking Canadian support because of financing/investment or because of the regulatory restrictions concerning plugging in to the US power grid?

Hi TC (Texas Charley),

You are either very perceptive with this question, our have found out just how screwed the alternative energy producer actually could be.

There have two Federal Programs that directly effect all of us in this endeavor, even if they (the other guys) don't know it.

They are the 1935 Public Utility Company Holding Act (PUHCA), and the 1978 Federal Power Act (PURPA).

The first act was used to help break up the monopolies that the banker J.P. Morgan put together, and also specifies that as a holding Co. that the organization, if domestically owned, can't own more than 10% of any power generating facilities it controls; the second is the act that governs alternative power generation and all of the "hoops" that the "generator" have to go through in order to connect to any electric grid and sell their product.

The second act was initially set up so that the utility basically "had to purchase any and all alternately generated power at what was termed the "avoided cost", which is the cost that the utility would have to pay another utility for electric power purchases.

That "purchase amount" has been reduced over the years and it has been changed somewhat; but it is my understanding that both acts have been shifted to where they are now under the control of FERC, which, in my eye, has been nothing but a political debacle for the last number of years.

We have specifically decided to incorporate in Canada because the '35 Act also stipulates that if the company is incorporated as a foreign owned company, that company can own all generation facilities it controls, even in the US.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why we have incorporated "off shore".

Also; I found more problems from going to the US Department of Energy's website. It turns out that for some time now; power utilities have been allowed to put in place restrictions to those who would act to connect their generation system to the grid if the ouput is anywhere 1 MW or more. This flies directly opposite to the expressed position taken by President Obama; and is totally counterproductive in my estimation.

We are extremely careful to speell out, and we do not state; that my system is a electrtic power generator, but is a "power factor correction unit" that specifically does exactly that in that it can only work "in phase" with what is on the grid.

Hope that this clarifies where I am coming from as a business

But PUHCA was overturned by Energy Policy Act of 2005 which became law in 2006.

And I understand that PURPA would actually benefit a group such as yours by allowing you to establish yourself as a "qualifying facility" or a QF. If a QF is recognozed then the state regulated facility/utility must purchase your power. Also PURPA hardly exists as originally written - heavily ammended now.

Huh, You ARE one hell of a researcher there TC. GA, _{(back me up on this people, K?)}

I guess I just have a 6th sense on this stuff, _{(next time someone else can be the point man, OK?)}

No worries friend. Something about giving a guy a rope and letting him tie the knot comes to mind.

Tex.............Ga ga ga. That goes for you too Brick.

Perfect!

Thanks for the feedback, Scotsman7.

I'll listen for future news of Gamma Star with interest. Hopefully you can let CR$ knowe of how things go. Good luck to you with future progress.

Hi Kris,

Thank you for the kind thoughts. If asked in the future by either yourself, TexasCharley, or others that would be interested; I will think about answering; but again, considering the firestorm and critism that I ran into from certain parties on this forum; because it was allowed to happen; I will have to think about it.

I consider myself a civil person, and in the past, have tried to maintain that position. I must admit that I fell away from that position when my initial presentations here were so forcefully degraded. I am somewhat proud of what we at GSI, as a group, have been able to produce over the last thirty years that we have "been at it". Unfortunately though, I replied back in kind to the critisms , and that does not reflect well on my partners.

Had there been anything coming my way as far as protection from the language used against both myself personally and/or my project from the administrator of this forum; I wouldn't have any problem with positively interacting again. However; as that entity has let both the language used and the situation stand as written; I will have to think about just forgetting about it.

It's too bad, because the stated aims of CR4, as read when joining, are not what has been allowed, and that is totally the responsibility of the administrator of this forum -- whom I can't even find a way to contact to place a request for regress against what has transpired.

I hope you understand my position.

I'm not a lawyer, but am somewhat familiar with the liabilities of providing active moderation on on hosted online forums such as this. (we have similar where I work) If an online forum is "actively moderated," the host can be held responsible for the remarks posted by the posters- after all, they are actively managing it, so they can be held to account for their management.

An unmoderated forum is treated differently. Since it is truly a public space, the host is not held to such strict account. On this site, the moderator's philosophy is to pull a post only if it is totally inapproriate, rude, spam, or potentially harmful (like how to make say nerve gas using common household chemicals, toiletries, and the furnace thermostat, for example-kids, don't try this at home! )

Otherwise, its a free market for ideas. May the best facts win! With no mommy moderator aprons to hide behind. So those who bring facts and data and listen and communicate rather than pontificate find a home here. Folks that like to pick scabs and "Tell folks how its gonna be" or host a "New age revival meeting" all conclude that the temperature here can be a little on the warm side. This is the result of friction of rubbing two (or more) critical thinkers the wrong way that does this.

But thats why you idn't see any moderators. No blood was spilled.

Some folks might have had a bad case of nausea, perhaps, but no blood or open wounds.

Bring facts and data- enjoy discussion. Shoot off the wild claims cannon- and you will get to enjoy the heat, smoke, fireworks and boom.

milo

Milo,

I trulyt appreciate what you are saying here, but with no civility present (which I am used to in the circles that I have traveled during my adult life) it simply boils down to one man's "facts" is another man's "claims", to use your venacular here.

No matter what I try, I lose--- so I just going to give up on it.

Civil manners and decent interaction don't have to be explained to people that are used to it.

So be it.

I wish I could find a Gamma Star web site, my search engine must be broken again, all I get is porn sites??? Need to virus scan.

I read many of the posts and agree battery life will be shortened but I feel the conversion efficiency is very poor and should be looked at. The loss in charging electronic and chemical reactions in the battery will typically be 25%, add another 15 to 20% from converting energy from the battery to the grid and you end up with a very inefficient system with cycle losses of 40 to 45%. The company I work for has developed a very efficient energy storage system ideal for electric grids. It can connect directly to high voltage DC Transmission Lines with a combined charge-discharge cycle loss less than 5%. For AC storage systems the combined cycle loss can be as low as 15% the most efficient in the world. The website is www.1-LTL.com currently under revision, update expected to be complete by Friday, 13 Feb, tel:403-536-9990 (mountain time zone).

In my company's case the problem is raising money to set up a pilot manufacturing line, not oil companies. The amount is small, a few Million but not easy to find in this financial market. Dave K.