UN Climate Change Report

I'm not drinking your Koolaid

But it's antifreeze flavored!

I, "agree that climate change is happening". I cannot necessarily agree that it, "is mostly caused by human activity".

If human activity caused this climate change, what caused the other climate change/cycles that happened over the millions of years the Earth has existed?

I can't say that humans aren't contributing to climate change (global warming) because they may be.

Fast nuclear reactors will be recognized by the media when one blows up.

Until then, good news doesn't sell soap. Death and destruction sells soap.

AIR POLLUTION IS A BIG PROBLEM. That is caused by man, mostly. Massive volcanoes excepted.

If human activity caused this climate change, what caused the other climate change/cycles that happened over the millions of years the Earth has existed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

And I believe that all ice ages where proceeded by a short period of global warming?

Regards JD.

I so agree with man made climate change. Energy is abundant by the sun. HAARP is a catalyst.

Your response is, at best, uninformed and devoid of any facts.

Facts in which they keep on hiding secrets. Like how real is a microwave?

Nikola Tesla is brilliant. There is something amazing using natural resonance and stuff like ELF and the Hutchison Effect.

Resonance is a established science, one that can not be debunked, so I strongly believed all that is happening now is evidence of this weapon of mass destruction and a socio-economic tools of the 1st world country to manipulate and control the world.

You prove my point eloquently, with both responses.

Grasshopper, Grasshopper..............................You've done it again!

True to form, you have hijacked another member's thread to whine about injustices that you imagine others care about.

Pay attention: FAST BREEDER REACTORS is the topic.

I'm all for nuclear power, myself.

How 'bout you?

Sure I am....and I didn't hijack anything. FAST BREEDER REACTORS should have been the thread title.

Any mention of the UN and Climate Change, particularly in the same sentence and as the title of a thread, and at least half the members here are going to be pissed off from the start.

Not at the OP... but the UN sucks, and climate change is a political scam to steal money and establish government control over the global population.

The nuclear question almost became a footnote after reading about how the experts agree that humans are destroying the planet.

So, does that mean a yes or no on fast breeder reactors? I couldn't tell by what you just said.

Oh, never mind. It's all just a government conspiracy to take away your freedom.

Oh, come on! There has to be lots more that you don't like.

I have a problem with natural gas. That's the UNNATURAL way it is being harvested.

If you want to blame politicians for something I vote for this rape and plunder. Of, course, my suspicions are just hysteria. Fracking is really good for the environment and give us plenty of clean water as by-product.

It's good for you, no matter what the greenies say, right?

That is, unless...............................................

Exxon's Pro-Fracking CEO Is Suing to Stop Fracking Near ...

constipated again?

Nope. Just retentive.

Big deal. Ted Kennedy put a stop to wind farms off Martha's Vineyard.
Start a thread on the real death and destruction that fracking has caused, and we can talk.
In the meantime...walk or ride a bicycle to work.

Why don't you start a thread on the benefits of fracking.

Like, ""People are estimating it's about $1 million a day just being thrown into the air," says Marcus Stewart, an energy analyst with Bentek Energy."

That's 30%. But that doesn't count, I know. It's just more hysteria.

Much Of North Dakota's Natural Gas Is Going Up In Flames ...

Never mind.

Have it your way.

You still haven't made an on topic statement here.

<unsubscribe>

I'm a liar, too. Not really, I did unsubscribe, but I knew you'd have to have the last word, so I came back to look. Even if you are wrong..................................again.

I still think it's the height of hypocrisy for the CEO of Exxon to sue to keep trucks away from his estate.

I'm not angry at you, you're always good for a laugh, and I know you can't help it.

He's got my vote already. Maybe he can work his surgical magic on Congress and get at least a couple of brain's worth of intelligence and fair play out of the 535 heads he'll have to work with.

Do you really want me to start a thread about the benefits of fracking?
I suppose we could start with unemployment numbers. Are you sure you want to go there?

I like fracking

..........and, out prime minister, in Australia. says that coal is good for mankind!!!

......and "Abbott (our PM) swallows lumps of coal and coughs up lumps of coke"

He just opened another large coal mine the other day, in Queensland!!!!

Another product- prototype in early 2015- will reclaim substantial heat from coal-fired boilers AND capture fly ash and mercury fumes (condensed to liquid mercury) plus the water condensed will satisfy 65% of the tower's make-up needs. The cooled exhaust will then be processed to make "acid rain" on-site and turn it into "pure" sulfuric, nitric and carbonic acids then the "clean" exhaust will be processed into liquid CO2, oxygen and nitrogen so no exhaust.

The reclaimed heat will cut coal requirements by 38% and the reclaimed products have a market value equal to 150% of the cost of the coal, so the now-"profitable" system will pay for itself in 3 years then continue to produce an operating profit from a system that burns coal TOTALLY GREEN.

SO- your PM may actually be "right" even though he does not really know it yet.

Here in the US we shut down coal plants to satisfy liberal idiots and keep them voting for a particular party, then we export our coal to countries that don't possess the technology to burn it as clean as we do. Quite the con job.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303563304579447582374789164

The "good" news is that WE can still burn coal here as well rather than spending several million to burn less efficient and more expensive gas.

It sounds like an awesome system. Definitely worthy of it's own thread if there is information out there on it. This is the first I've heard of it.

If I wanted to play your silly game, I could find dozens of counter claims, but I won't bother.

We don't burn more coal here cause actually cleaning it up cuts into the obscene profits made by coal burners.

Now, with the fracking craze, we'll just switch to natural gas. All will be well.

Do you have a different atmosphere over there, in the good old US of A, than the rest of the planet???? .............just thought I'd ask!!

From experience of both the US and Au, it is odd, they actually do. They have an atmosphere of doom and gloom and constant threat, and greed for godly power over all earth, (except for China and Russia of course).

It was thought to be so good they even exported a lot of it to north of Injune and Roma, hoping it would multiply and erode your atmosphere. But in typical Aussie fashion, it was dealt with quickly, and contained within a small area.

You go to Injune or Roma you are just about in the "back of beyond"

Roma had the largest cattle selling centre in Australia............and I guess that they wouldn't know if anyone dumped their crap atmosphere there!!!!

Here is a photograph of the stockyards in Roma:

Yep, been here several times and really miss the place. It is home for myself. But with all things good for me, 457 visas are a pain in the butt. Lived all over Au and so far, it is the best country to live in, trust me on this fact. So don't let anyone screw it up. Just veto everyone for me to be back,'home'.

Worked in Injune on the gas fields, just as the flooding happened a few years back. Flying into Roma and driving up.

We have a lot of very vocal morons that have figured out how to band together and exponentially increase the moronic content of their "atmosphere". Just look at the good answers. (no offence, AH)

By chance, do you know the name of "another member" you mentioned?

Lehman57

Not to mention that the same people that hate fossil fuel, hate nuclear power.

The people that live "in" the planet are running a petition.

They only come out at night...through portals that are disguised as manhole covers.

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43964.html

Exactly---Just like 3 card Monty, or any of the sidewalk games that fleece unwary spectators….."Keep your eye on the …….(You add the subject..)…The U.N. and the Enviros keep moving the target, so no matter what data is discovered, it will not suffice to explain "today's problem..To find that out, you need to put in another quarter, like the old Peep shows… Then you get a supposedly "Respectable " organization, like the U.N. to shill for you (the shill in the card game, distracting you while the trick goes on, under your nose), and is bought off by the Game's operator ($ to this Dictator, $$ to that Dictator..) et cetera… Can't make this stuff up…. Somehow, I think Obama and Kerry are going for the next Global Environmental Czar positions, in their Political afterlives….

if you recall..........the ozone hole was going to fry all life on our planet.....they taxed the hell out of Freon and the government and Dupont continue to make a fortune.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/ the "hole has steadily closed"

Great links, Thanks!!

Remember when the climate change alarmists were considering dumping coal soot on the ice caps to absorb sunlight and warm the atmosphere?

Yeah baby...nothing like scientific consensus. Meanwhile, the political hacks were working on new laws.

Another good website is GlobalClimateScam.com----Good stuff with lots of links.

If everything works like it is SUPPOSED TO, in a few weeks the world will have ONE MORE alternative energy source that will make AS MUCH power wherever AND WHENEVER it is needed. It will produce NO pollution and have very little cost. It will also make heat (in the form of 100C or higher hot water).

It is based on a totally new design steam engine (driven by an electric heater) which will allow it to make enough power to operate a generator that will produce over 300% of the power needed to drive the heater and accessories. Some of the electricity from the generator will drive the heater and accessories, but over 200% of the "input" power will be available for whatever use is needed.

The heat comes from a system condensing the "used" steam (to recycle the water) so it will be available any time the generator system is operating (essentially- forever because the system has a built in oil change system that allows it to continue operating while the lubricating oil is changed "on the fly"). The bearings are rated for 300,000 hours (about 35 years) and the rings will last at least as long.

If you need more heat than 100C water, you can easily use SOME of the power to make whatever heat is needed cleanly and safely. It will also provide cooling at a very low cost because the clean and very cheap power will allow buying the cheapest, lowest efficiency cooling machinery available. It can also provide very comfortable sites during cold weather because some of the power can be used for radiant heaters to provide comfort like standing in the sun.

It is compact enough that a system which will fit in an average home's basement can power everything in over 20 km around that site with NO fuel deliveries or dirty exhaust or site waste from burned fuel. It sounds like a large electric motor, so- anyone outside the site will not even know that it is there and anyone "inside" the site will barely hear it. Only their gauges will let them know that it is operating.

It will be able to provide power anywhere, including all those sites where you see the starving babies, so- in addition to powering the village, it will provide power (and heat) for the new factory that can be built NEXT TO the village, providing an income for the parents so the kids (and parents) won't starve any more and will be able to afford health care.

It will also work very well in high-density housing areas like hotels, motels, dormitories, low-rent housing and prisons where the "waste" heat can provide significant amounts of hot water to satisfy almost any load.

proof that comprehension is the most valuable attribute one can have. He reads, he writes, he works, he earns money, he probably reproduces. He is utterly clueless.

It sure sounds like some laws of thermodynamics are being violated.

In a later comment you said all the "bad" things produced by coal plants would be converted to useful products (pure acids, etc), but are your selling prices based on the current prices to enable sales to cover the costs? I suspect so. However, the current prices will not hold; they will head for zero because of the amount of the useful product that will become available.

Actually, the most "valuable" reclaimed product is fly ash.

(1) It is a prime raw material for gypsum board. (2) When added to a concrete mix- makes the concrete stronger. (3) When mixed with sand and a binder, it makes a great high-grade brick. So- all of it can be recycled, no matter how much you have.

The value of the most used acids in the world is obvious.

CO2, Oxygen and Nitrogen are the most used compressed/liquified gasses.

Replacing 65% of the make-up water for the tower is huge. Tower make-up is the number one user of fresh water in the US, so it is very likely the number one use any where in the world. Cutting that demand for a product that is becoming the new "oil" (fresh water) has huge value- beyond the cost of the water.

I do not see the "value" of these products being compromised. Perhaps there will be repercussions to the CURRENT suppliers of these products, but I do not see the "value" of the products being significantly compromised.

What is this again? A Solar steam maker?

No- it an electrically-powered steam maker that is energized by SOME of the power produced by the generator that is driven by the new design steam engine.

Steam does not care about the "thermal" value of the steam, only the pressure so, with the judicious application of pressure issues, it is possible to achieve huge power gains over current design engines- that operate at about 2-1/2 to 3% efficiency. Extracting the heat used to make the steam provides recovered water (still fairly hot) which further increases the engine's efficiency.

Condensing the "exhaust" steam also draws a vacuum on the "end-of-stroke" piston, providing additional driving pressure where there currently is only a "negative energy" action on the piston- requiring some "outside" force to bring the piston back to the top of the stroke.

You have invented a new world order of "energy" which could bring us to new heights of accomplishment.

"Condensing the "exhaust" steam also draws a vacuum................... force to bring the piston back to the top of the stroke."

Vision 450 Elevator: Small Vacuum Residential Elevators ...

Huge power gains as in being 30% efficient compared to your number will still mean it is 70 % in-efficient.

I like the way that you describe the steam as none-caring. Steam will not care, it just follows the well established steam tables and very carelessly indeed.

Is it manual work to push the piston back or how is this done?

Are you saying that this system is even better than perpetual motion?

and to Tribefa1952-

It is NOT perpetual motion- there is constant "new" energy usage, production and friction.

The function an engine is to convert one form of energy into another. In a steam engine, steam enters with a certain amount of stored energy and exits with a lower amount of stored energy. Some of the energy given up by the steam is converted into mechanical energy (i.e., a drive shaft with torque). You can NEVER recover all of the energy given up by the steam. There are always losses. You can take steps to minimize losses and theoretically approach 100% conversion, but you will never get more energy out of an engine than you put in. The engine you are describing somehow creates energy. (i.e., the energy output is greater than the energy input) That's physically impossible. Re-examine your numbers. Something is obviously wrong with them.

tribe - just a friendly note, there are many who have been trying to say this over and over. Pretty regularly, well intentioned people who don't quite comprehend come on and state the obvious, which is that they don't understand the first law. Thanks for the concise engine definition. Mr God will not be convinced that it applies.

Based on the previously noted pressures (and vacuum) in the 12 cylinders, the system will create a "raw" 76.5 HP which, when an assumed 10% FRICTION LOSS factor is applied will be an output of 68.9 HP.

Using the conversion rate of 1.35 HP per kVA, the gross power produced will be the generator's rated 50.0 kVA. Allowing for the 12 kVA steam power heater and the 0.78 kVA for auxiliary motors and loads, the remaining 37.22 kVA will be considered to be 29.8 NET kW (using the 0.8 power factor standard rating for generators).

Once we get the prototype operational, and are able to actually measure the kVA produced, we will KNOW what the true operating efficiency will be. Even IF the friction losses of the ball bearings and the Teflon rings were as unbelievably high as 70% the NET output would STILL be 4.2 kVA with a NET power rating of 3.4 NET kW.

One more use I almost forgot is powering transportation systems- of nearly ANY kind. It can be built compact enough to power virtually any auto, truck or boat and can even power prop-driven airplanes.

You truley must be a god!

Please bless us with your knowledge!

Try THIS website: www.cyclonepower.com

Here you will find actual working steam radial engines with no oiling system, self-contained, scalable from weed whacker size up to ~300 kW shaft power. Come back and discuss once you understand this, and the basic Carnot cycle vs. Rankine cycle vs. Brayton cycle (open and closed). Then we may be able to hold an adult conversation with you.

'X' being an unknown quantity and 'spert' being a drip under pressure = expert.

Brain fart there. I forgot that when the continent of fools speaks, the world needs to listen and obey.

And they all arrived by airplane, petrol driven cars and not one bothered to arrive by bicycle or walk. How does one arrive at a summit to agree and initiate pollution changes, when one just arrived with machine that pollutes. Hypocrite's?

I have now combined technology and shall now suck the Bull sh>> from the air. I shall leave Air Liquide to capture the other gasses to sell at profit.

For anyone that's interested, this is the single best video I've seen in regard to climate change. I just finished it, and it is worth the 1 1/2 hours to watch it. Not political, and pure data from start to finish. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

Very interesting link.

I liked it. There's nothing there to argue about.

The truth about the, "Why are they lying?", becomes self evident when the two politicians start to get angry and confused. The testimony from the scientist was supposed to prove AGW so they could move forward with their Bill to impose new rules and restrictions on their subjects.

He told them the truth and it didn't fit their agenda.

We are beating a dead horse, here.

Died from overheating, too.

No one doubts the climate changes, the question is whether it is anthropogenic global warming. 


Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is not possible to show an anthropogenic trend from just a few decades of data on a geologic time scale.

/But the IPCC still believes it can.

I don't think it is an all or nothing thing either. the questions are really:

1. To what extent do we contribute to change?

2. What is the true extent of the change?

I concur. . . 


And, putting things in perspective our present warm climate is a mere blip in the geologic history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid ice age temps have been the rule for the last several million years. As we begin the 21st century the terminology is deceptively changing toward "climate change" whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends--up or down--the headlines can universally blame mankind.

/Such tactics will backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.

To quote a famous American (Lincoln)- You can fool some of the people ALL of the time and ALL of the people some of the time.....

Quoting another famous speaker (Garry Trudeau/Doonsbury, I believe)- "And that's enough".

And then, there are just fools. Question is are they fools some of the time, all of the time or 300% of the time?

Even you cannot spend more than 100% of your time on CR4 with CR$P.

Just so you can get an idea of how this engine works-

A "regular" steam engine operating at 2250 PSIG with 12 cylinders, each with 0.334 inch stroke and being fed with 26.0 kW rated steam-producing input power would be able to generate 1.0 HP of energy, which could produce 0.73 kVA of power. 0.73/26 = 2.81%.

With OUR engine, using the same 26.0 kW rating of input energy to make 2250 PSIG steam and the same 12 cylinders but a different stroke length will be able to produce 160.3 HP which can make 118.75 kVA of power. 118.75/26 = 456.73% (BIG DIFFERENCE).

The system will have a NET output- allowing for energy used by the electric heater and misc. devices- of about 91.8 kVA of totally pollution free, almost cost free (12 quarts of automotive oil every 6 months) electricity.

Because of the operational standard for generators, they are ALL "kW-rated" based on an 80% power factor so this system will be "rated" at 73.5 kW AND 80,000 BTUH of heat (2.0 GPM of water from 55F to 140F).

Once it is started with about 30 kW or so of input electricity, it will be able to "run" for the next 35-40 years with only an oil change (on the fly) every 6 months and will be able to produce up to 73.5 kW (91.8 kVA) of output power at any time.

This was a reply to #65 for those that want to follow.

So the stroke length is all that needs to change? Are you changing by 160.3 times?

I can see where the steam gets additional energy in form of heat from friction by scraping along the cylinder walls. What I seem to fail to see is this concept being anything other than based on a mistake in the calculations.

As you know just above there in this post you violated fundamental physical laws.

You would heat up this planet so soon it would not be possible to live on it.

Even so we got told so often more length more power it is not always true.

The UN would have to know about it to prevent true global warming.

Burn the notes and scrap the sketches. This machine of yours is dangerous.

Alternatively fire the guy that manually pulls the cylinder back and messes with your results.

The "numbers" have been vetted by a very smart engineering department head of a large university.

There is almost NO heat from the piston movement because the rings are Teflon O-rings.

With the "original" engine, the pressure created 550 Lbs of force on the piston. Because the cylinder was being continually filled with HP steam that force was continually applied to the piston. The total piston movement was 12 x 0.334" = 4.008" and the engine is running at 600 RPM, so the movement in one second is 600 / 60 x 4.008 / 12 = 3.34 feet. Since the piston only saw pressure for 1/2 the revolution, the "Raw" HP is based on 50% x 550 x 3.34 Lb-feet or 1.67 HP but friction and piston return action will only "release" about 1.0 HP.

The "new" engine does not use a continuous charge of HP steam- just a quick shot which will make the 550 pounds of force at the start. As the steam expands, the force falls off until, at the end of the stroke, the force is almost "0". Therefore, the AVERAGE force on the piston is (550 + 0) / 2 or 275 pounds. As noted, the stroke is MUCH longer, so- even if the stroke was ONLY twice as long, the engine would produce the same power that the first engine did- actually more because the return stroke would be "powered" rather than parasitic.

The expansion of the steam from 2250 PSIG to 0 PSIG is a LOT more than 2 x 0.334", so the engine can make a lot more power.

Additionally, this engine uses ball bearings for the crankshaft, rather than high friction sleeve bearings AND the pistons are each "independent"- hinged on top- so the force produced by the piston is directly applied to the crankshaft with NO losses due to angular redirection of energy caused by the "normal" hinged connecting rods. Net effect is a LOT MORE power being applied to the output shaft driving the generator and, consequently, a lot more electrical power being produced.

There is NO "smoke and mirrors" being used here- just an absolute application of the laws of physics which are often overlooked. I have been "doing" 6-Sigma since before it had a name. When you pay attention to ALL of the losses in a system (and ALL of the laws of physics) and focus on how to overcome those losses, you can get what seems to be phenomenal results when all you have done is mentally "work" harder than those before you.

that "hinged piston" is very common, namely, as a con rod bearing assembly. Unless the cylinder itself is "hinged, which would incur a significantly larger loss penalty. Let's not get all philisophical about nature here. In what way is it different.

The piston has a hinge-point at the TOP of the cylinder head and a solid connecting rod. The "base" of the cylinder follows the crankshaft- swinging in an arc of about 15-20 degrees. That is why there is NO losses created by re-directing the linear force to the side (as is done with "normal" connecting rods).

Run the numbers- those energy losses are HUGE, before more is given up to the friction at the sleeve bearing.

I think we are all ready for you to save the world from the forces of evil lurking in kramarat's brain.

So, get on with it, man, get on with it.

I'm interested to see you bring about steam, generated by electricity generated by the steam that the electricity just made to generate the steam..........................oh, never mind.

Just do it. The world is waiting to be freed from the tyranny evil dirty coal.

Frack till we crack, cause the circus is back, Jack!

I am sure Kramarat is a good guy, he just challenges and makes you rethink.

As for the frac' gas, save the gas, fart in a bottle.

I find a .334 stroke and 600 rpm and the high pressure quoted to be WAY out of the envelope of usefulness...even if 'vetted' by a 'very smart engineering department head' of a 'large university'. Sounds like the "Peter Principle" to the maximum cycle.

Excuse me? What grade did you get in Jr. High maths. You are definitely off by an order of magnitude on the efficiency of basic steam engines. It is highly insulting to those of us familiar with actual enginerring. Stop pontifficating, and start documenting your blather before you inflict humanity with it.

As to "climate change" or "global warming" - the head of Greenpeace within the last couple of years, denounced global warming. With winter drawing near, I certainly look forward to a bit of global warming, at least in my back yard. Humans, in spite of their anthropocentricity (new word?) are insignificant in the universe. In spite of all the enviro-phobic nonsense, nothing majorly bad will take place, based on human input to the planet.

In the mean time, we will progress in technology, science, and hopefully philosophy to the point that mankind will continue to prosper in a time remembered for the progress of all mankind, the peace of all nations (wish), and an era of growth of real knowledge. Unfortunately, at this present time, we will be remembered for real science being thwarted by total and complete charlatans, self-appointed experts with no grounding in the truth.

How to tell a political hack: If his mouth is moving, and no evidence of the truth resides within. Also, if his mouth is moving faster and more frequently than anyone else in the room. Furthermore, the political hack will always be a "dog in a manger", meaning that he refuses to allow the herd to feed, but he has no use for the food himself. The political hack always has alterior motives: (1) to gain power at the expense of the unitiated, (2) lie in order to create some urgent crisis where none actually exists, and (3) to use verbal slight of hand to draw attention away from truth toward acceptance, "buy in" of the lies.

Check YOUR numbers. Those multi-million $ steam turbines that drive electrical power plants, charged with high pressure and seriously superheated steam only operate at 35-38% efficiency.

IF a "normal" steam engine- MUCH simpler to build so much lower in cost- could produce 28-30% efficiency (an order of magnitude higher than I noted) using only saturated steam, WHY would all of those "smart" people waste that much money on the turbines (which are a LOT more involved in operations as well) and those complicated boiler plants? To get another 5-7% efficiency when they can recover their total fuel cost with every power sale?

By the way, when I graduated HS, I was awarded the "Math Scholarship" award.

I have also won an International First Place in Industrial Systems for other designs that was awarded by ASHRAE- THE premier world-wide engineering society that has essentially written all of the energy codes in place around the world.

You are off by an order of magnitude, and there is no such thing as over-unity period. Go hand your award back, and stop inflicting us with this nonsense.

Why did you not open a new thread instead of posting here in this neat little UN Climate Change report thread?

I think your device is not saving Earth if it was that what you meant, but it sooner or later will destroy Earth if it is what you say it is!

Do you not see that by giving human kind a self-replenishing power source, that this will lead to heat collapse of this Earth? Every and even if so little friction in your system will create heat that will get trapped, it will accumulate. Everything the UN is fighting for is at stake. Do not proceed with this so harmless and helpful sounding steam machine. It will ultimately destroy this world.

Ok, seriously. You should have looked back at your post. You meant 45% efficiency, right? 450% is waaaaaay too much as you know. As usually a zero in the wrong spot makes all the difference.

Btw.

I never knew that "Sustainability" is a word of old. Found it in the mission of ASHRAE.

I have an interest in high pressure steam engines. What sort of valves do you use?

Sounds like you finally invented a perpetual motion machine! Congratulations!

Converting iron into gold should be child's play after achieving this amazing breach of the laws of physics!

We should establish first if fast nuclear reactors are indeed a green alternative and a true option for power generation.

You put the recognition before acceptance, which is the wrong way to do.

And then there is Energygod which solved the energy problem with a simple steam engine while unknowingly pushing the destruction of this planet in the close future.

If he was really to generate 450% of usable energy out of anything that is there to begin with, we will burn through less fuel with more heat generated ever. We will literally burn in hell on Earth. Only the overunity police can help us now.

I assert that the future of nuclear energy should be based on economic factors, not political delusions. One must look at the costs and benefits. Unfortunately, the costs will probably include bribing the politicians and keeping them bribed.<P> I think we can all agree that, on average, the climate has warmed since the last ice age, 10 or 12,000 years ago. However, that's an average. There is little evidence of warming over the last 18 years, even though mankind has continued to burn fossil fuels.<p> It has been said (usually attributed to Einstein) that to repeat an experiment expecting a different result is insanity. Our political leaders propose an expensive experiment. They want to reduce the use of fossil fuels, mainly coal, by perhaps 30% in the expectation that it will result in a decrease in the rate of global warming. The experiment has already been performed. During the Great Depression, the 1930s, when smelters and factories and such shut down, fossil fuel consumption, mainly coal, was reduced by perhaps 30%. The result was the <greatest> rate of global warming yet recorded. It would seem our political leaders are insane. <p> As an editorial comment on insanity: We are now experiencing high unemployment and have been for about 6 years. They keep doing the same things, expecting a different result. If we look at history we see that the Progressive president, Wilson, progressed the USA into war (by 1930, 350,000 plus veterans had "died prematurely as a result of their service" and 68,000 were still in VA hospitals in 1942), inflation, and, after the war, high unemployment. Harding took over in 1921 pledging a return to "normalcy". He systematically deProgessed the country, and in about a year unemployment was down to about 2.4%, a record no other peacetime president can claim. Why is that politicians and media types don't ask what Harding did, what "normalcy" looks like?

It has already been shown that boiling Hoover Hogs over HOBO city campfires resulted in the high rate of global warming during the great depression, or was it songs being written by Woodie Guthrie?

All of this "sic" crap, is precisely that: Ambitious, but still Rubbish. I would much rather devote time to silly contraptions that might or might not set me free from the grid that (1) I can make with my own hands, and (2) will not reduce my paycheck to a pile of ashes.

It may be painfully obvious to me, and not to you, so I will posit that the post war years were characterized by a vastly healthier nation (we stopped the death and injury) along with a return to high proficiency (those really good soldiers who were once welders or doctors or contractors) were now highly motivated to return to civilian life, and that the vast expenditure of moral turpitude and cash that was previously being spent to maintain a vibrant infrastructure (at least much more vibrant than it was during the war, since there was a deficit of labor and will to perform it, instead being dedicated to winning the war) was now available for projects to benefit Americans instead of to destroy the enemy. You would hope that postwar nations recover quickly, and the usually do. Leaders probably don't have a lot to do with it. unless they are trying to get their buddies at Haliburton paid. (sorry, besides, that war was more like Grenada than Germany)

The future of nuclear energy should be based on the merits of the technology balanced against the costs of production, which include many societal and economic issues, as well as enormous potential environmental liabilities of fuel acquisition and waste. Same as for any other energy production So no, it is a terrible idea to let the money decide. Neanderthalism. That's where we are right now.

When I suggested decisions on the basis of costs and benefits, of course the "hidden" environmental costs would be included. My point was that "global warming" is not a significant cost, except for the political costs of addressing it regarding nuclear power. My comments on "normalcy" referred to post WW-1. The Progressive Wilson administration practiced "wartime communism" and, after the war, would not relinquish power, hence the awful economy. With a change of administration, the budget was balanced, taxes were cut, government run enterprises were privatized, etc. with the result an economic boom.

For the benefit and satisfaction of all- There will be NO further posts until I open a new thread discussing the results of the prototype.

Go back to discussing climate change- yea or nay.

According to this thread, polar vortex there is no climate change. Al Gore made it all up.

I'm looking forward to your success.

If it doesn't succeed then we will just have to go back to harvesting vacuum energy.

It's already being used. It pulls every piston down on every power stroke of every engine. It even works on horizontally opposed, and radial engines.

The bar, the whole bar and nothing but the bar. Disclaimer: results may vary with altitude.