What will the 'new' technology be?

Some musings...
electro-magnetics. This one field seems so open to further discoveries.
Yeh..it only SEEMS like it because Joe Public is soooo gulible as he has no idea about this stuff.

I don't think there is a 'new' power source out there...I think the big revolution is in consumer power (pun) intended...Energy efficiency, home combined systems, solar etc.
We also need to adopt a more utilitarian view of the car...wakeup guys they are not penis extensions whatever the ads tell you.

One of the big energy companies in the UK has just hiked Gas&Electricity prices. I'd love to see their customers leave 'em overnight and switch suppliers...it's easy enough to do online.
Yes we all need to be more enery efficient but the energy companies also need to stop ripping us off . They only get away with it because of customer inertia and the fact that most of us pay by direct debit and don't notice the Vampiritic sucking of our blood! (Whoops going off on one there)

To answer the Q...the 'new' technology will be the 'very old' technology....water sun wind...and man's ingenuity.

Must stop...exceeding brevquot.

Del

GA.

... No Buckeyballs. No zero-point forces. No Tesla. No HHO. ...

and no over-unity flywheels, "magnet motors" and similar fantasies.

It seems very likely that real workers, understanding and employing real science, will create the most valuable technological innovations.

Next big thing?

Gravity

Unified theory?

Hello imintowater.

Not sure if DaS Energy can be called genius, but our work using the Co2 pressure between Critical and Supercritical state provides 9,927 bar of gas pressure. This equates to an extra 90+ bar? pressure for every 1c temperature rise above the Critical temperature of Co2. What our working model does is convert gas pressure directly into water pressure and feeds that direct to a Francis hydro turbine.

The whole thing is full recycle and will operate using air temperature, because internal cooling of the Co2 means its at a lower pressure than when it rises from the heater, the more the Co2 is internaly chilled the greater the bar prssure of the water flow to the 92% efficient Francis turbine.

Further development is being frustrated by our inability to discover what size the refridgeration orifice is leading into the expansion cooling chamber of a compressor drive fridge.

Co2 vapour expansion, forces water into a hydro turbine discharging into sealed tank (C) atop the turbine.

Before the gas reaches the turbine float (F) falls open allowing the gas to escape lower containment and rise to water surface in sealed tank (C).

The gas passing through a small orifice into a large sealed tank (C) 1^st chills the gas as done in electric fridges.

The gas rising above the water in the large sealed tank (C) forces water from it, either directly to A/B or via the hydro turbine.

Large sealed tank (C) at refilling compresses the gas through small orifice into chamber (D) 2^nd chilling the gas as done in electric fridges.

Natural convection then takes place through the Heater with the expanding gas rising up to fill cylinder (A) forcing the water out through the hydro turbine.

DaS Turbine generator converts one litre of Carbon Dioxide bar pressure into one litre of water flow without pressure loss.

A doubling in either bar pressure or litres per second water flow doubles the turbine generator wattage output.

I can only cite other web sites and one saize water flowing at 1 litre per second at 9 bar pressure through a hydro turbine produces 729 watts.

My problem is being uneducated oldie with little computer skill I have to rely upon others for help, so I earlier placed the DaS Turbine on CR4 siten and am happy for non commercial others to use the design, but they cannot claim Patent rights.

Me thinks the biggest problem with it is has only one moving part, and its not a piston.

Cheers

Peter

This technology is fascinating to me, do you have any laboratory reports to substantiate these claims?

You are quite right ref the 'eureka' moment opening new doors for the benefit of all. The sad thing is as I have found over many years in the design field. Oppression of anything even slightly radical is the norm. I have designed many such products, only to be met with, how can you design that on your own. When the major OEM's have not come up with the same idea. The answer is normaly the majors are not in the slightest interested in rocking their own comfortable boats. I have said before that most large listed companies are extremely scared of the shareholders and prefer to increase dividends by higher volumes of the 'same' and keeping cost at it's lowest. Not supporting out of the box thinking

There is of course the global employment stats to consider. Some "Radical" designs will inevitably reduce headcount in the affected and likely redundant industry sectors. This is a worry of most governments and politicians. Plus of course the people employed in those redundant industries. So I accept that a balance must be struck.

Many good technologies have been bypassed by large companies because it didn't fit their market profile, was "not invented here" or simply not understood.

We live in 'market trader'. 'corporate investor', banking 'stupidity' times. Not a good time for the radical thinking Engineer looking for seed investment to further his designs. I welcome comments from like minded people who may know a way round this problem. Other than to file patents for every piece of innovation that they have in their heads. As the patent system is an antiquated extremely expensive method of protecting ones ideas. Unless of course you are one of those fortunate companies that are making a lot of money from re-engineering patents lodged but let lapse due to lack of funding. Much more to be said on the subject, but enough for now.

KennyT

Kenny T,

Couldn't agree more about Corporate practice. Patent right ceases with a 15% design change, Governments dont enforce Patents that's up to the Patent holder should they have the money. As for change and the opposition to it, one only has to look back to the invention of the combustion engine car, Carriage builders and Horse breeders were so opposed to cars, for a while they suceeded in having Government order a person carrying two red flags walk in front. Now the makers of combustion engines are doing all they can to stop alternate to the combustion engine reaching the people. They too for a while shall succeed for awhile, along with those opposed to burning less Fossil fuels. Never give up the laurels go to the ones in it for the long haul.

Cheers

Peter

imintowater, I hope you are correct in your belief.

However, as said by many of the posters here there will always be a reluctance to deviate from the known - just read some of the answers on this forum and you will see what I mean. A person may suggest something radical (I don't mean some of the crazy over unit stuff that gets posted on the internet etc, hmm maybe its not so crazy ???) and before you know it there is a barrage of posts citing existing physics laws, thermodynamics laws etc explaining why something won't work. What is needed is people who can think outside the box, people who come up with "crazy" ideas. Perhaps one of these "crazy" ideas might lead to a novel break through of somekind.

When I was young we used to watch Star Trek and we were amazed by the automatic opening doors, the tiny phones, the powerful computers and of course being able to beam a person from one location to the next. All of these things, with the exception of the beaming from one location to another, are now common place.

Technology has moved on a huge amount in the last 20 years and I believe that it will continue to do so. For example 20 years ago the internet was not even thought about by the masses, now it is virtually impossible (Ok, "more difficult" would be a better way of putting it) to do anything without an internet connection - how many of the posters here pay their bills online, bank online, purchase goods and services online, who goes into a travel agent to book a holiday anymore ?

Imagine if this kind of effort was put into "green technologies" - where would we be in 20 years ?

Regards

Mr. W.A. Snow

Right now I live in a state that is almost fully powered by renewable energy. The problem isn't really technology - it's a combination of politics and economics.

When it becomes better business with more votes to sell fossil-free energy that's what will be sold. At the moment a combination of existing technology renewables (wind / water / solar etc) could cover most of our needs most of the time in most of the world.

But the downside is that on the slow days - when the wind ain't blowin' and the sun ain't shinin' and the dams ain't full - the alternatives (coal / nuclear / gas / whatever) suddenly become massively expensive (infrequently used - lost economies of scale - unable to rely on peak-load business). Where I live, we sell renewable power to the neighbouring state on the good days and buy in coal power from them on the slow days - but that's still cheap because the state next door is almost fully coal-dependent. If both of us were renewable dependent, then we'd be in trouble on the slow days - both begging to the next state along who would sell to the highest bidder... and if they went renewable too... well, you get my point.

So right now we could all cut dramatically our dependence on fossil fuels, but only if we were prepared to close a lot of coal mines and either not turn on the lights some days or pay a lot of money to do so.

And let's face it - which politician is going to stand up and say "we're sacking the coal miners, and the rest of you will all be paying $5 per kilowatt hour on the slow days...".

(And even if one did, the other side would pipe up with "... but not if you vote for me...".)

Hello RobertOz,

What if Coal miners and Power producers put their heads together and jointly funded new technology in making power that slashed Coal burning. Could not Coal miners charge more for their Coal and Power producers use less Coal making it a quid pro quo, especialy when the Power producer saves on Carbon taxes. Thus Power prices remain the same, both Coal miners and Power producers make the same money and Our Earth cops less Global Warming.

Cheers

Peter

Trouble is, the clean coal technology is very difficult to get going - I can't really see it as possible ... basically, if you burn carbon (coal) in oxygen to transform its energy to heat then you have a theortical limit on the energy you can get out of the coal (around 30MJ / kg for coal? - but don't quote me on this). When you get close to that limit (and coal stations are pretty efficient now) then there is nowhere you can go from there - you can't burn less coal for the same energy - thermodynamics gets you every time.

So carbon + oxygen ==> energy + CO2. There is nothing you can do about the CO2 except release it or store it. Sequestration - the storage option - is touted as the answer... but I haven't seen much evidence of it actually working. The trouble is there is nowhere to put the stuff.

Nature sequestered it for us over millions of years... but we just can't help sticking our finger in it and digging it out all the time... it's so warm ... and so cheap!

Hello RobertOz,

Wikipedia if my ruler serves me right has Supercritical Co2 temperature at 350K, which on line temperature conversion web site, converts to 76.85c. Wikpedia saize the bar pressure of Supercritical Co2 is 10,000.

Wikipedia Critical temperature of Co2 is stated 304.1K, which on line converts to 30.95c. Wikipedia Critical temperature Co2 bar pressure 72.8.

10,000 bar minus 72.8 bar is 9,927.2 bar pressure of force.

Coal fired power stations by in large use steam/gas turbines. Tarong Power Qld Australia fact sheet states it raises water temperature to 550c in order to produce 175 bar pressure. (450 tonne of Coal per hour)

Co2 can be cooled by passing it through water, and so can Steam/gas be cooled by passing it through water.

By these figures Steam/gas pressure driven turbines are not as efficient as a Co2 gas pressure driven turbine.

Cheers

Peter

Lester Lave, A CMU economics professor specializing in energy, appears to largely agree with you that the technology exists right now; only the will is missing. If you have insomnia, and a couple of hours to waste, here's an old, but prescient, link

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11771

thanks - greatly look forward to reading this in my (absent) spare time.

You mention politics and energy in the same paragraph. You might want to read the paper on Energy over Conservation *EQUALS* Freedom over Politics at http://www.iq-home.com/world_energy_crisis.htm.

Cheers,

Skip Stein

TVP45 and PW slack have nominated some prescient choices.

I believe that the next big thing will be solving the "economics problem" of solar and alternative energy. Instead of having to have large scale centralized power stations, A distributed self managing grid which collects power from photovoltaics at each node and storing some portion of it for Nocturnal use to supplement the large power stations. If the batteries in electric cars could charge freely from photovoltaics at work, then their batteries could also draw down as a residential supplement at night... Battery banks could be leased individually (paybacK would be from savings of having own power vs buying much more expensive power at night... or of resale to grid, though conversion losses might make that a showstopper...)

Most people seem to be ok with demand shaving schemes enforced by the local utilities, according to my read of response to posts here on the subject.

So distributed collection via an intelligently managed smart network could be the development that ushers in what I expect to be the next phase, The "electron economy."

Regarding flywheels, How does one get to better than 100% efficiency???

milo

easy - put magnets on the flywheel and run a nanotube around the edges - it'll get somewhere between 125% - 135% over unity then. (make sure you use monopole magnets).

Hybrid fusion-fission reactors coupled with magnetic containment.

I personally believe that the next breakthroughs will be made in the area of geothermal energy recovery coupled with improvements in electrical transmission (perhaps superconductors). Being able to produce electricity remotely (to deal with emissions issues) while transmiting with minimal losses improves the cost picture significantly. There are many sites where geothermal energy could be harnessed for modest investments.

Re: the next "big thing" to (probably not) come down the pike.

We love electricity. Unsually, we use it to produce mechanical energy, using wires and electric motors to do what, in the 19th century, used to be done with steam, shafts, and leather belts. Leaving aside lighting, communications, and computing, we usually use electricity mainly to transmit energy from one place (Niagara Falls?) to another (a factory in Buffalo, NY?). Railway locomotives and cruise ships use electicity to couple diesel engines to the wheels or propellers and air conditioning compressors.

A problem is that it is difficult to store electrical energy. Supercapacitors, flywheels, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. are immature and expensive technologies. You cannot afford enough batteries or 12,000 miles of transmission lines to use solar PV cells to provide electricity to a city at night.

There is an economical alternative, "wet compressed air",WCA, as described in US Patent number 5,832,728. See http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/diesair/diesair.htm

As long ago as 1930, it was shown that a compressor and air motor could be more efficient than an electric generator and motor for transmitting power from a diesel engine to the wheels of a locomotive. Futher, it involved no scarce (priced copper lately?) or toxic materials. Fuel savings of about 25 per cent were claimed. The trick (not published, but kept as a trade secret) was to avoid discarding the heat of compression. Instead, the compressor was cooled with water, making steam mixed with the compressed air, and the mixture was fed to a steam engine (expander), where the condensing steam reheated the air. Very little heat was lost, hence the process was very efficient.

Add a simple, but patentable, component. Since hot air is easily stored in insulated tanks, a compressor-storage tank-motor system is an economical alternative to a generator-storage battery-motor system.The Department of Energy will say that is impossible, that air systems are only 15 % efficient. They are both ignorant and biased. Do you suppose those who have spent millions of dollars (many of your tax dollars) on researching improved batteries want to admit they should have looked at old technology? Similarly, diesel-electric locomotive manufacturers probably won't retool for diesel-pneumatic drive, even if there are fuel savings.

If you want an electric car to drive 200 miles and recharge in minutes (think auto xprize), you can't afford the batteries to store that much energy. However, about 2 or 3 cubic meters of WCA can do the job and drive the car with a simple "steam engine" (converted auto engine). (OK, use a pick-up truck or van to carry the air tanks, tho' they could be incorporated into a immensly strong platform chassis)

If you want to store a few megaWatt-hr of off-peak electricity, use the electricity to drive a compressor. You can store about 30 W-hr per liter of tank, so 30 megaW-hr can be stored in 1000 cubic meters, the volume of a few intermodal containers, or a small cave, or a surplus missile silo, or a big bag, under water, or... (Large containers lose releatively less heat) If you have an old coal-fired generating plant, paid for, you can use wind turbines to compress air and pipe it to the paid-for boilers, turbines, generators, switch gear, etc. So, for the price of the wind turbines, etc., you get electric power with no cost for fuel and no pollution, not even thermal pollution. If you have an old mine nearby, or some other storage volume, you can have "free" electricity 24/7. If you do something similar on an island or in an isolated village, you not only get "free" power, you can collect the condensed steam and have clean, potable water.

Most of the responses in this thread seem to look to the energy sector for the next great thing, which is probably not where it will occur, if history is any indicator. Back in the 1970's and 80's, we went through very similar concerns over energy- yet the "next big thing"- the internet, built on technologies available since the 1960's or so, was not envisioned as the "next big thing". It experienced unmanaged growth- it more or less took the controllers (i.e., politicians), who are only now beginning to try to control the phenomenon, until now to recognize how big it was going to get. Most "next great things" are birthed on the fringes, and, quite often, fix things that most people are not aware are broken.

Where to look for the next great breakthroughs? The real issues are the urbanization of the world (we recently passed the 50% urban mark- and more crowding means more exposure to and more rapid expansion of contagious diseases), water, and waste disposal. All are associated with excessive population growth. In many places, urban societies are being fragmented into gated islands for the privileged few surrounded by substandard conditions for the many; horizon-limiters, if you will. What we today see as the great innovations of the past (the automobile, electricity, radio, television, Gutenberg's printing press, the internet) were horizon-expanding.

New energy sources are looking only in the direction of "business as usual", replacing old forms with new sources. This is not innovation- this is putting bandaids on the situation. We should be looking at ways to expand our horizons while decreasing the amount of energy required to achieve this. Like the Internet. And making sure we can deal with the waste and secure a supply of water...

The way I see it if it ain't broken then it's incumbent on 'us' to break it.

in the late 1800's tesla was working on a ac generation unit it used magnets that moved around coils and caused a feild to be produced in the wire this the invention of ac power was born. seems along the way we have stoped looking for the reason why tesla moved the magnets in the first place. with new magnet discoveries as well as high speed 0 loss diodes there is no reason to move the magnets at all. tesla must have know about this at the time but like all things tesla it was put in the back room at GE or Edison. these folk have a lot of cool shit they will not let out of the valt. problem is people are looking just like tesla was and got the hammer a little to far off to the left and hit a new nail one not seen before. when this happens we can keep a closed mind and say there is no way to have this happen but we all know there is a pandoras box in the power industry as well as other dirty secrets that they just do not want to get out. well like most people in the USA if they find it homeland will steal it but not so here in canada and other countires. its time for the change its time to look at all the crap we have been using from the past and to move into today ! gas engines are less they 25 % efficient and develop heat that is a big problem. old style gens are a even bigger problen as they also have more copper then they need as well they also have a less they 35 % rate of efficancy. its to bad that they have to demand we cant change as if we could get all the power from the gens as well as all the power from the fuel we would not be in that mess we are in .

the times are about to change but as i can see we are short some batteries the problem here is lead floaties are the best way to go but for now we do not have access to 90 million cells to help build all the electric cars we need as well there will be other issues along the way. also there will be changes with the way we look at manufacturing in the future as well. its time we all wake up and smell the roses.

Tesla was just a man who liked to tinker and he found the secrets from the 1800 - 1900 's he did not tell people not to move forward ! put on your thinking heads and build some new and improved products now as the time is right !

Richard Willis

Magnacoaster Motor Company Inc

Hello Richard,

I am the Peter from post 6. I am an uneducated oldie on a invalid pension with highly limited funds, who does things by make it and see.

I have two Sons to whom I wish to bequeeve a better world not one undergoing Global Warming, and for this reason I have taken all steps to ensure another cannot apply a Patent to my work and shelve it.

For it shall not profit a man to have riches without a world he can live in, I have made my work available free to all but so far there have been no takers.

The model in post 6 I have run using compressed air, and steam by fire under part A,

I have not yet been able to trial Co2. Which according to Wikipedia has 72.8 bar pressure at 304K and 10,000 bar pressure at 350K. Leaving an available working pressure of 9,927 bar.

Lesser temperature differences create lesser bar working pressures.

A gas bar pressure of 9 flowing at 1 litre per second is required to produce 720 watts.

As the DaS Turbine internaly cools Co2 vapour then brings it out to heat at air temperature, the difference between the cool Co2 pressure and air heat Co2 pressure is the available working bar pressure.

This means the turbine shall spin no matter what the air temperature. The turbine RPM being governed only by what temperature cooling can be internaly gained against air temperature.

To obtain constant RPM not affected by fluctuating air temperature a constant temperature heat source is required.

Wikipedia graph of Co2 temperature-pressure shows Co2 pressure climbs at highest rate when above 1.5c.

Happy to provide all I have learnt at no charge to any one, but whoever goes to the effort will not be able to Patent.

Cheers

Peter

If technology is what you want, then the science behind the technology should already exist now, since technology is applied science. From what I see, it is about making things stronger and lighter, yet cheaper. A lots of things if can be made lighter affortably, will help to reduce the energy needed to move it. Less gas, electricity and compressed air will be use. Super strong structure will made longer bridges or taller building. Carbon nanotube looks promising if only it can be made longer and cheaper. I think non-metal like ceramics has also has a future. Both are abundant and not controlled by any cartel.

new technology will utilize the energies in the holograghic web which allows for our existance. like pulling energy from the air. This new line of thinking will send evolution of our Being forward in leaps and bounds. Medical leaps like we have never seen

Here are a few new technologies that caught my attention.....http://www.nextenergynews.com/news08/next-energy-news7.31.08b.html http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news5.30.08c.html this ultracap http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news3.31d.html http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.5b.html These 4 all sound good to me. Any comments? Don

What an odd collection of stories. Some are quite plausible, involving bacteria and catalysts and photosynthesis, e.g., for hydrogen production. Others, like the Heins generator, are completely off the wall. Is this just a clever technique to "sneak in" a few over-unity, free-energy schemes in the midst of valid possibilities?

Heins' comments on rewriting the laws of physics are the giveaway. That's a classic sign of a nutty claim - whether it be just misguided or a hoax. Physics can generally be divided into three areas: classical (pre 1920); modern (1900-present); and, theoretical (1940-present). Theoretical physics is being rewritten as I type. Modern physics is part established and part open to new discoveries. But, classical physics (which includes thermodynamics) is established. It's not questionable. It might be refined a percent or so, but it is as close to factual as we ever get in science.

I agree that the Heins motor is the furthest out as far as technology goes, but I wouldn't totally dismiss it as you do. I think the key to the future, as far as reducing our dependency on oil is electric cars. The only real drawback is storing the energy that is collected off the grid while you sleep at night. The battery technology is here now. One battery is the Altair Lithium Titinate cell but right now they are too expensive. Flywheel driven cars have a better chance now because of magnetic bearings (no friction). A man by the name of Jack Bitterly is close to having a car ready he claims and there may be others. There is an French air car soon to be released that stores air in safe carbon fiber tanks. It can be 80% recharged with special air compressor in minutes or over several hours a off the grid. Its electronics is very high tech. The whole car is glued together and I think it is made of fiberglass to save weight. Eestore has a capacitor they claim can be charged very rapidly and can drive a small car for quite a distance. Soon to be tested in the Canadian car called a Zenn. Living off the grid produces pollution but you would not be producing even more pollution when you drive your vehicle as does gasoline cars. None of these vehicles are availible yet but the recent spike in oil prices has spurred these types of techologies onward and I hope upwards. The next 3-5 years will be very interesting in the automotive arena. Don

Don,

The ultimate challenge is this: Hydrogen and charged batteries are secondary energy supplies, each less efficient and more polluting than the original source, which is usually a carbon-based electric generating plant. Until we can generate electricity (or hydrogen) by non-carbon fuels, all else is folly. Gasoline, or LNG, or LPG, is still the best energy source for cars today.

It is more efficient for the power grid to produce excess energy at night, but it really doesn't help the overall problem, unless you're talking about nuclear plants where the reactors run at essentially full-load all the time.

One process that has gotten some press lately is using solar power to make Hydrogen. Then once you have hydrogen you can store it or burn it. Hydrogen can also be used for welding. When hydrogen is burned water is the exhaust by product so that can't be bad can it? Here are a few sites to check out if you are interested. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17887/ http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20134/?a=f http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Solar_Hydrogen

Don

I agree that using solar to make hydrogen is a good way to make the solar mobile and able to be stored. There is still some pollution associated with that (while the exhaust is water, the manufacture of the solar cells and the operation of the unit can have a carbon footprint and involve some nasty chemicals.) and there may be water supply problems to solve. But, that's good technology for the US to investigate by building some pilot plants to see how some of the problems can be mitigated.

ok so i was reading this i think you are dead right about the carbon foot print to make the solar as well as the mess they leave behind. its time for a change as this movment thing dates back to 1831 (do you know who said this ? i do *) and has chained us to movment for way to long. the only reason they used movment was so that they did not kill the magnets the old style magnets went dead after being used face to face. the new magnets can handle 500 years. the other missing link was the diodes as if there not fast enough they will burn out. this means you need to find a way to turn them off and on with no movment. its not that hard i stumbled on it building a pulsed dc drive motor just have to get all the right parts.

heins has a nice unit and has no clue as per how to make the energy as i have chatted with him also have a copy of the plans same as gary mcgratten has as well. heins has no new plans just old ones.

the real power in the future is to switch the rare earth magnets off (can't do it yet ? pitty) and on by pulsing power in you can break the feilds and let them pull back into the coil and collect the power. use the vortexes on the magnets to your advantage the power comes out fast and it needs to be slowed back down to use it as well as to rectify the power back into a DC feed. AC power in the coils can get as high as 3000 volts you have to use batteries to slow the freqency down to use it or you will melt all the boards.

the other problems are as easy to solve as you have seen just have to think outside the box (motion box that is) . solar will be a dead fish in the next few year they are way to toxic to use on farm land and will cut into our areas to grow food as well as there is a price war about to begin and this will add power to the masses as a cheap offering and this will cut down on the amount of transmission lines we need as you can do local grid generation in the same area as the houses are as well as home units to get you off this mess we call a grid.

the first car company that uses one of the new units will make them the leader of the pack. they will also put them way out in front of the pack. its time for the change and i know its about to happen.

magnets are the next fuel and the Vorktex will be the king. it will be the new fuel and will power anything from cars to boats - trains to planes - homes and business.

history is about to change gears and its not a new oil !

this unit i have was with the help of the people that got me over some big problems along the way and i thank them from the bottom of my heart.

Richard

www.magnacoaster.com

* _{^{Michael Faraday (1791-1867), made the next giant step on the long road leading to modern day electric power. The impetus that set him on his series of epoch-making experiments was news of Oersted's discovery of electromagnetism. Faraday reasoned that if electricity produces magnetism, then why shouldn't magnetism produce electricity? Finally, in 1831, his experiments revealed a great truth...electricity could indeed be produced by magnetism. The critical component of his discovery, however, was that magnetism must be accompanied by motion. Unlike Oersted, who accidentally stumbled upon his discovery of electromagnetism, Michael Faraday worked diligently toward his goal until he achieved it. If Oersted discovered the magic doorway that would lead to the age of electric power, it was Faraday who unlocked the door. His public wondered what use could possibly come from producing a small current by moving a magnet near a length of wire--the Genie still needed to be tamed to become man's tireless servant. Faraday understood the far-reaching possibilities and is said to have replied: "What is the use of a new-born baby?" Further example of Faraday's wit is in English folklore. The Prime Minister is said to have asked him what use could be made of his discoveries. Faraday allegedly responded, "Someday it might be possible to tax them."}}

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I'm afraid I disagree with your position, however. Magnets are not an energy source, except in the same sense that a tall hill is.

"except in the same sense that a tall hill is."

good analogy

_{^{<<Faraday understood the far-reaching possibilities and is said to have replied: "What is the use of a new-born baby?" Further example of Faraday's wit is in English folklore. The Prime Minister is said to have asked him what use could be made of his discoveries. Faraday allegedly responded, "Someday it might be possible to tax them."} >>}

_{Exactly the same quotes are attributed to Benjamin Franklin and a few others.}

I see on you site you have house sized units for sale. Are these just projections or are the units ready to go? If so, are they tested and proven? Do you have a factory where these motors are built? I'm sure many of us would like to know more about your motor-generator for example some pictures and specs of the finished product. Thanx in advance. Don

Hello, both,

can? DaS Energy enter this discusion, it is working demonstration, and solar ested steam! an Solar.

Shown working model external heat self filling pulse hydro turbine Steam power.

1 Litre, gas piston positive action pump conected Francis hydro turbine, 1 litre per second at 9 bar produces 720 watts.

Pure water draw off or full recycle. Solar accepted replacement to Stirling Engine.

Home made pipe and ball DaS Valve turbine.

Smaller size greater physics and opurtunity for replacement of old technology.

Can you weld to 10,000 bar? Autoclave make the pipe, the pipe makes everthing.

Refiderant gas Co2 is returned from compressure as liquid +31.1C and 74 bar pressure. DaS dispenses with the compressure of 10,000 bar and instead heats.

One moving part allowing Co2 behavior Crogenic of compression force temperature by heating combustion pulse rotation hydro turbine.

Turbine rotation 60 RPM, 9.529 megawatts, 1 litre per second hydro flow.

1 litre natural gas gas burn per second 1200C

10 to one mix.

10 litres heat 1000C.

5 1000C litres heat producing 50 100C heat, 0.79408 megawatts, 39.704 megawatts.

3,970 sites 1oKw >1 litre per hour Natural gas 1 bar pressure.

Simple Engineering by those untaught but knowing of the principal.

Known reserves of current Methane conversion by diesel piston technology developing 140 Kw 120 litres per hour, DaS Turbine 330Kw.

Solar ring 10 to1 suns 360 tracking booster, kit form flat pack.

Cheers

Peter

yes we have units now leaving our small facility

we are gearing up to open up the manufacturing in Cambridge ontario

i have also been on dragonsden in canada 70 minutes later i had a great deal

as i hear you cant get to see it if you live in the USA no idea why i think they want you to buy it off itunes.

we have a total of 17 MW going in the spring to windsor ontario for ongrid.

we have orders on the deck for most of the first quarter of 09 production.

i have a new timeing device no longer a motor to time the input power.

life has been moving ahead as we bring the unit out in 2009 still have to book the trade shows and see where we will land first.

we have suppliers for all our parts lined up as well as a few more patents in the works

our plastics suppliers are all saying we can produce 3000 a week starting in feb - 09

as well there looks to be a new subdivision going in with no outside hydro.

Richard

Hi Richard,

Your site says that your small unit is 7kW, and has an output of 12 volts x 100 amps x 4 ports. That would be 4.8 kW. The input to this device is not clear from your site. Are you saying that a 7kW input yields a 4.8 kW output?

You mention 3000 per week. Would that be 3000 of the small units ($12,600,000 revenue per week) or 3000 of the large units ($45,000,000 revenue per week).

Your site (on this page) does not describe the input to your "Vorktex Home Unit 12kW." Elsewhere on your site you say that a 12V, 1 amp input produces a 57kW output. Therefore, is it reasonable to assume that this home unit would require a .25 amp 12 V input? A few AA rechargeable batteries strung together in series can supply .25 A at 12 V. Is that all I will need to power my entire house?

If you send me one of your small units, I'd be happy to test it for the edification of CR4 engineers.

Ken

I think it will be softwareless control systems.

(See discussion under "Software is Mostly Unnecessary" in this New Technologies & Research Section.)

CharlieM

The force of power you talk about is called web power. It is the fabric of energy we exist in. It is an array of partical energies that have a specific order. The partical array formula is known as [WROYGBIV]. It exists on the x,y and z axis in an offset pattern which strectches out what might seem foreever. From this web all phsycal things are created. The web itself does not move. It is all that exists that passes through it. It will be the ecceptance of this truth with the knowledge of the low level of energies which must be utilized, that will propell us forward. It was through my quantum physics study that I came across this energy. It is also an energy which which defines gravity as a pushing force and not pulling.