|
There are currently, 138 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
The power companies and O/U systems
Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 @ 17:34:39 UTC by vlad
|
|
From http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/052103.htm (Tom Bearden -Date: Wed, 21 May 2003):
Dear Eric,
Absolutely correct. For the MEG (or for any other overunity power system; there are several other legitimate candidates struggling with the development funding problem also), one does not foresee any sudden and drastic upset of the regular power grid! Why should there be? The market is so vast, and it will take so long to even dent it, that we will still be using much of that power grid 20 years after the overunity systems come on the market. First task is probably emergency use, where things like powerline failure in storms (or war) are addressed. Once robust and dependable units capable of powering individual homes are developed, then one will see a gradual interweaving and incorporating of such into the power companies and power systems themselves.
After all, who better knows the electrical needs of the cities, the communities, and the states and areas than the power companies? They have learned it over a great number of years and with great effort. One doesn't just "tinker" and knock that all down. Further, there's a great deal of difference between a power source and a power distribution system for a large area or a large city. Decentralization does not and will not progress "all at once". It will be a very gradual thing, and the eventual power systems will be mixtures of hopefully the best that has been so painfully learned over the years.
At least some of the power companies are turned so that they would be willing to accommodate such developments today, were they already finished to the "robust power source" level. The power company cannot gamble on something not yet proven in actual long term usage and experience! They would be breaking their trust to the American people if they did. So they will move cautiously and determinedly, once things are shown over time and verified solidly.
The real problem is in getting the funding to get to that "robust demonstrator and proven performance period under actual working loads and minor grids" that is the problem. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the scientific community so bitterly opposes it. You have the example of scientists stating flatly (and erroneously) that COP>1.0 means dirty old perpetual motion and that it is totally impossible. That's sad, since a common solar cell has a COP = infinity, even though its overall efficiency may be only 17% and it wastes 83% of the solar energy input to it. It's also sad that "perpetual motion" has become a catch phrase generating a knee-jerk reaction without thought. Actually, Newton's first law is the law of perpetual motion state. Once an object is placed in a state of motion it will remain perpetually in that state of motion until and unless an external force intervenes to change it into another motion state. And then it will stay in that second state perpetually until another external force intervenes, and so on.
So one certainly hopes that perpetual motion is alive and well, and that Newton's first law is okay and still working! Otherwise, all would be violent fluctuation and the organized macroscopic world we live in and observe could not even exist.
Further, that has nothing at all to do with proposing a machine that continuously performs work without any input. Such a proposal is ridiculous on simple logical grounds. Work is rigorously defined as the change of form of energy (NOT the change of magnitude of the energy in an external parameter, as presently used in classical thermodynamics). So to change the form of some energy in a process, the energy has to be input to it in the first place, so there is some available energy to change the form of! It's as simple as that, and it has nothing to do with perpetual motion. Perpetual just means "continuously without cessation". And that is exactly what an object moving in space does, until something intervenes. An object in a state of constant motion also does not require any input of energy to remain in that state of motion, and it does not do any work either. As we showed elsewhere, the pundits from a hundred years back to the present day make a grave logical non sequitur in equating perpetual motion (Newton's first law) with the forbidden notion that a machine can continuously work without any energy input available to it.
Anyway, caught up in such dogma, the scientific community does use its knee-jerk reaction and objects to any notion of producing practical COP>1.0 EM systems that extract their energy from the vacuum. This of course flies in the face of decades of particle physics, where the asymmetry of opposite charges proves to us that every dipolar circuit or system already continuously extracts and transduces usable EM energy from the vacuum.
But since the organized scientific community opposes all mention of development of vacuum-energy-powered EM generators, that torpedoes all the normal funding channels. It also subjects the persistent researcher to ad hominem attacks, etc.
Nonetheless, some progress is slowly being made, by several groups in addition to our own. Further, at least we now have sufficient good science behind what we are doing, that the young grad students and post doctoral scientists are beginning to understand the area. Once enough of those young tigers get unleashed, then in two years flat there will never again be an electrical energy problem on the planet, save to build the power units and get them to the areas where the power is needed.
Meanwhile, of course, there are also some very powerful interests that do not wish that done. So we will just have to see how it all plays out. In my view, the real hope is the young future scientists and engineers who get into the area. With enough of them taking it up, it will be done in spite of all the opposition.
But as its done, it will be a slow "growth" or "transformation", not an explosive thing changing everything at once. And the power companies and their expertise are going to continue to be needed, and they are going to continue to be the companies that arrange for or bring the power to where it is needed.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
------------------------------------------------------
Tony:
Jim (May 20) seems concerned about whether or not the MEG can adequately address the extreme dynamics of daily electrical energy demand in a typical home or business. Jim seems to be asking if multiple MEGs can be networked into a "grid" in order to buffer peak demands and low demands across many varied users.
Jim needs to know that there are a number of cost-effective uninterruptable power supply (UPS) systems currently on the market that protect generators from widely varying loads. UPS systems provide peak power delivery capability of 3 or 4 times the rated peak output of the generator. They also protect (for a limited time) against generator outages. They can accept AC or DC input energy, too, and from multiple non-synchronized sources. Thus, synchronization of the MEGs is not absolutely essential. The efficiency of the UPS is an important factor in deciding which UPS to use. At best, one might hope for a UPS with a COP of 10:9. As such, synchronizing the MEGs would be nice in that it might do away with the need for a UPS for most users (but not all).
Jim also needs to know that extreme changes in power can be managed at the load side. Large users of electrical energy can now purchase systems that prevent high power peaks. These networked systems monitor and protect heavy electrical loads from internal faults, multiple coincidental start-ups, and source faults (such as phase imbalances and harmonic distortion). These systems also provide forward-looking load trends so that users can predict and prevent major load and/or source faults. Such power trend management systems (PTM) are too expensive and impractical for home use.
The systems described above may improve the marketability of the MEG, when it is ready. Keep in mind that many commercial electrical energy users will have UPS and PTM systems regardless of where and how they get their electrical energy.
Of course, it would also be swell if MEGs became an integral part of the existing electrical energy grids. Philosophically speaking, I cannot imagine why the power companies wouldn't buy excess electrical energy wherever they might find it in significant supply, especially during energy rush-hours. That's just one more reason to buy an MEG when they become available. Eventually, however, electrical energy transmission and distributions systems won't be worth the copper of which they are made.
Kindest regards,
- Eric
|
| |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
The greed of the U.S. National Laboratories (Score: 1) by vlad on Sunday, July 06, 2003 @ 18:26:49 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Also from the recent Tom Bearden correspondence:
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003
Tony,
Very simple answer. All the national laboratories file patents of their own. Most are rather "greedy" for patents (of course, not OFFICIALLY!). Any inventor attempting to work with them is simply a sacrificial lamb and potential dead meat, unless he is already part of a large and powerful corporation doing business with them and "ingrained" into the ongoing process.
Just ask Larry Fullerton in Time Domain here in Huntsville, what happened to him vis a vis a government lab. He wound up having to sue them to try to retain his patent, and the crazy courts awarded the government "equal rights" or in other words the ability to use it as they wished, on their own, right around Larry. Larry finally got the commercial funding he needed after a long struggle, and is well on the way to placing ultrawideband communications systems on the market now, since the FCC has finally (at long last) relaxed the rules to permit it.
Or also take a look at a typical lovely DARPA contract, such as the one they offered Bill Fogal to "help" him get his superluminal communication technology out. Buried up in the contract is a little ditty of a clause: The government reserves "march-in" rights." Guess what that means. A bureaucrat writes a single little memo, stating that the inventor they are "helping" isn't getting the technology out fast enough for the "government's needs". Therefore the "government" is exercising its "march in" rights and seizing the patent, etc. They then seize the patent and immediately funnel the work over to a "favored large contractor", who pours lots of GOVERNMENT CONTRACT MONEY and work into it and finishes it, and gets it available and markets it.
Then sometime later, say, the bureaucrat who wrote that memo (and a few others like it) retires early and goes to work with a cushy job as a VP of something or other, and with stock options, etc. Guess what company he goes to work for! Instant millionaire. Piece of cake.
I worked in aerospace for many years, and believe me a certain percentage of government contracts are "tainted" and absolutely fixed for the intended party. The business is dirty, and it has been for a long time. I also personally had some very bad experiences with government national labs a long time ago. I wound up right and they wound up wrong, but guess who paid for it through the nose. The dispute was over a certain very powerful nuclear effect from nuclear warheads, which the labs all stated was "against the laws on nature" and impossible. I took a terrible beating for briefing that the Russians had that capability, nevertheless. "Idiot" was the least of the epithets appended. Six months later Picatinny Arsenal noted that we had never in our history till then exploded a nuclear weapon built like the Soviets built theirs. So they put one in an underground test, built like the Russians built them. Bingo! There was the capability that was against all the laws of nature and utterly impossible - for which I had been so buffeted and beaten six months before.
Within about three more months, then, the same national labs who had so bitterly opposed it, began heralding a GREAT NEW SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY they themselves had made! Guess what that "great new discovery" was. The Chief Scientist of the organization I briefed so catastrophically later tried to hire me to work for him, but that was that and I wanted nothing further to do with such nonsense.
NRL and others also bitterly opposed the ultrawideband radar, and attacked the UWB pioneers with a special vengeance. Against the laws of nature, impossible, etc. At the time, one could buy commercially a little UWB radar set, used to detect voids in deep pourings of concrete. But careers were destroyed, etc. by these cur dog pack attacks. Today, the very scientists directly responsible for much of the pounding given to the UWB pioneers, pose as experts in ultrawideband radar. Draw your own conclusions. There are many examples; that is just a few.
There are a great number of fine people working at our national labs, of course, and this is not meant in any way to denigrate them or their excellent performance of duty. Thank God we have them, or those in the same national labs (about 9%, by the bell-shaped curve) with their own agendas would have long ago taken the country right down the tubes. It is those "good guys and ladies" in the organizations that keep them going.
The national lab situation desperately needs cleaning up, with a meat axe, and at least some of the work toward that end is now starting. The contract for running LANL, e.g., is now to be openly competed, breaking the stranglehold and the cycle of problems there that have been in the news media now for some time. Just read the news for yourself.
So for the small inventor, the national laboratories are NOT a candidate for a financial partner in any shape, form, or fashion unless he has taken leave of his senses. The exception would be only when the Director and Deputy Director (after all, Directors change too frequently!) both publicly are involved and approve the arrangements.
In that fashion, there appears to be no funded and staffed effort at any of the national labs to extract EM energy from the vacuum, not even in the entire Department of Energy. That is crazy, since you never hear the source charge problem discussed there, and the normal EM power system model assumes that every EM field, potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe has been freely created out of nothing at all, by their associated source charges. No one has to take my word for that; simply check the model itself and draw your own conclusions. It assumes the fields and potentials and their energy are produced by the source charge, and that is real observable EM energy, usable, that is so produced. Yet there is no OBSERVABLE input of EM energy to the source charge (easily shown experimentally)! So either one must totally discard the conservation of energy law (electrical engineering and classical Maxwell-Heaviside theory implicitly assume that it is violated by every charge, field, and potential and joule of EM energy in the universe) or else one must find, accept, and use the NONOBSERVABLE (virtual) energy input from the environment of the charge. Ugh! Can't be done in the conventional classical EE model; because it mistakenly assumes an inert vacuum (falsified for many decades by particle physics and quantum field theory) and also assumes a flat spacetime (falsified by general relativity since 1916).
So if an inventor who is working in the "supersystem" (the system, its active vacuum, and its curved spacetime) to extract excess energy from the environment (the active vacuum and the curved spacetime) tries to even communicate with the national laboratories, he finds an iron mindset that applies normal electrical engineering! Communication with such folks -- who ignore general relativity and quantum field theory as far as any electrical power systems are concerned -- is futile. The inventor will either get castigated and chewed up and spit out, or he may be ripped off if he nonetheless succeeds.
So as you might understand, the five of us who invented the MEG are strongly uninterested in even speaking to the national laboratories, except to those persons in them who we already know and can trust. Yes, there are quite a few folks in the labs who are indeed interested in EM energy from the vacuum. At best they may get a small pittance to have a man or two read the literature, go to conferences, etc. But there is absolutely no "power" commitment in the labs, and it appears none is going to be forthcoming.
A major reason, of course, is that much of the fortunes of the National Labs is dependent on "Big Nuclear" activity. So they have spent billions and decades on hot fusion, and have not yet added a single watt to the power line over and above what it takes to run their enormous equipments. Simply look at how they reacted to cold fusion. It threatened to pull their rice bowl off the table in front of them, and a great knee-jerk reaction ensued, with a vehemence and fury (and lies and cheating and faking experimental results) seldom seen in the scientific community.
The same "folks in power" who love Big Nuke and whose entire life and outlook depend on it, are also just as adamantly opposed to extraction of useful EM energy from the vacuum. The same vitriol and vehemence and fury is also directed toward that "threat".
In that climate, you may be able to understand why we avoid the national labs like the plague, except one group we do share considerable information with because they are excellent folks, known to us, and trusted by us.
But in a nutshell, that's what's wrong with the present set-up (particularly those who control things) at the national labs. And that's why any sane small inventor gives them a wide berth.
Let me put it this way. If the national labs wish to help on this project, then offer us (with no strings attached at all) the borrowing of a 500 MHz digital sampling scope with eight channels, all on the same time base, with high data rate sampling, and with the software for automatic integration under the curve, etc. and complete with all necessary probes. That's about a $75,000 package. Loan us one of those packages for a year, to help the effort. That would be an enormous help. So would the loan of some extraordinarily expensive field measurement meters for highly nonlinear situations and power meters for the same. But that is not going to happen; it isn't the style or intent of the labs. They really are very poorly set up --- either in organization or mindset -- to deal fairly or helpfully with small inventors. Big companies, yes. Small inventors, no.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|
|
|
Re: The power companies and O/U systems (Score: 1) by ElectroDynaCat on Sunday, July 06, 2003 @ 23:30:37 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Any system that would take away central control of energy is going to meet with staunch opposition . There is massive investment in the grid , the mutual funds and pension funds that depend on it for a reliable source of profits would collapse if the MEG actually works. It would be more suitable at first to engineer systems that could power isolated systems like remote weather stations, cellular transponders, and aircraft beacons. If this system could prove reliable it could move up to the big leagues. When the first O/U device actually is developed these are the areas that it will first be applied. |
|
|
|
|