This piece on EnergyBulletin is brilliant, and by that I mean it makes arguments I like to make.
Can we simply switch out oil for other fuels? No:
The question is: can production from non-conventional sources such as the Alberta tar sands or synthetic fuels using coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology be ramped up to anything even approaching a supply deficit of 22 million barrels per day by 2015?
The answer appears to be a clear no.
Not by a long shot.
So what's the answer?
Rather than focusing only on what I see as futile and costly attempts to continue to grow the supply of liquid fuels, efforts must be redirected to the demand side:
- efficiency (doing more with less); conservation (just doing less);
- designing compact, walkable urban communities;
- emphasizing public transit including electric light rail;
- switching to biofuels and other renewable energy sources;
- relocalising organic food production, and so on
Word.
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Flat
Mr Green Posted 3:56 pm
02 Jun 2006
First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
"We support programs that increase the United States knowledge of the world and shape U.S. foreign policy" - Exxon Mobil Corporation's Public Policy
http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf
"In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today".
- Jon Thompson (President, ExxonMobil)
"When you're one step ahead of the crowd you're a genius. When you're two steps ahead, you're a crackpot." - Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)
"I have now struggled with this basic problem of electricity for more than twenty years, and have become quite discouraged, though without being able to let go of it. I am convinced that a completely new and enlightening inspiration is needed." - Albert Einstein
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: ... His eyes are closed. The problems that exist in the world cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"There is suppression launched against any Free-Energy inventor who succeeds or is very close to succeeding." - Thomas Bearden
"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. Through space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." - Nikola Tesla
"There are types of energy which lie outside the electromagnetic spectrum. Unfortunately, these research efforts have not been given recognition. For the most part, they have been performed by individuals without any support, whose work lies at the threshold of present-day science, and who are years ahead of science which is already established." - Edgar D. Mitchell, Ph. D
"It is characteristic of fundamental discoveries, of great achievements of the intellect, that they retain an undiminished power upon the imagination of the thinker. The memorable experiment of Faraday with a disc rotating between two poles of a magnet, which has borne such magnificent fruit, has long passed into every-day experience; yet there are certain features about this embryo of the present dynamos and motors which even today appear to us striking, and are worthy of the most careful study." - Nikola Tesla
"The fuel industry wants to sell oil, gas, coal and uranium. Yet with reasonable research and development programs this country could develop far more abundant, cleaner and safer energy sources." - Ralph Nader
"Various power groups know that if mankind has unlimited energy at its disposal, it becomes virtually impossible to control and manipulate people. With free energy a person is not subject to those who would control his transportation via fuel curtailment. One could live virtually anywhere since a readily available energy supply could be used to make any environment livable. Water could be taken from the air via condensation if necessary; and with water food could be grown. With unlimited energy available to a country, it could synthesize anything, including the atomic elements; therefore, that country is not open to international blackmail because of energy resource requirements. Stated in brief: ENERGY= FREEDOM."
- Dan A. Davidson
"When a magnetic pole is moved.
WORK MUST BE DONE against any force acting on it if it is moved in the direction opposite the force, and conversely, WORK WILL BE DONE (or extracted) by the magnetic pole when it moves in the force direction. Thus, NO WORK IS DONE in moving a magnetic pole around a closed path in a magnetic field. It follows that the WORK DONE in moving the pole ... from a point A to a point B is independent of the route followed. Otherwise (the pole) could be returned to A by another route on which MORE WORK IS EXTRACTED THAN WAS EXPENDED in the initial movement to A" The net effect would be that WORK COULD BE EXTRACTED by movement around the complete path without any other change in the system, giving the possibility of a perpetual motion machine that is contrary to the laws of mechanics."
- Encyclopedia Britannica
"We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We've done so much for so long with so little, we're now qualified to do anything with nothing"
- Anonymous
Want to learn more? http://MRGreen.biz
Permalink
CyberCelt Posted 7:28 pm
02 Jun 2006
1. Admit we have a problem
2. Separate oil & state
3. Jumpstart Detroit
4. Redesign American mobility for smart growth
5. Plug in America
6. Grow our gas
7. Rooftop revolution
8. Green the grid
9. Fund the future
10. Wean... to green
11. Low carb USA
12. Vote
Peak oil has passed. The time to find alternative energy production methods and to reduce our energy consumption is now.
Many years ago, friends were discussing how the changeover from a big oil-based society to a conscientious consumer-based system would occur. We were idealists in the 80s.
We decided that it could happen over time as the problem became the elephant in the room that everyone tries to ignore. Or, it could happen in a matter of a year or two, especially if we were in a crisis situation or during a massive shortage.
Well, some people do not see the elephant or choose to ignore it. There are many, many people that have become active on this issue. We have wind farms going in, houses going totally off the grid, solar panels going up, biodiesel fuel made from used cooking oil--and this is Texas, not known for its progressiveness.
It will happen or we will stand before God and explain why not.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. Carl Sagan
Permalink
Stentor Posted 7:39 pm
02 Jun 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:16 pm
02 Jun 2006
It's all a waste of time when we have so little time left to head off catastropic storm, drought, flooding and related weather disaster.
Plugin hybrids are the imperfect transition.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Mark Goldes Posted 11:04 pm
02 Jun 2006
Based on the enormous study of Global Warming, coordinated by scientists at Oxford University, without radically new technology that temperature rise could occur as early as 2050. Continuing to burn fossil fuels could now eliminate human, and most other, life on earth in less than 50 years!
Breakthrough technologies to replace fossil fuels are pregnant in a number of laboratories throughout the world. However, since they reflect new, not yet generally accepted, science, such work is extremely poorly funded. If this changes rapidly, a few sound emerging technologies are likely to rapidly trigger a huge economic boom.
The Manhattan Project was secret, centralized in a few places, and run from the top down by the government. What we need is to imagine a walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, and create what might be better called The Brooklyn Project. Such a program would encourage experiments and enterprise everywhere on the planet.
It is urgent that funds very rapidly encourage exploration of promising, revolutionary, new technologies that might supersede fossil fuels fast. Selling a bridge to The Brooklyn Project would seem an important way to insure the survival of our children and grandchildren.
See BRIDGEWALK on our website, magneticpowerinc.com
Mark Goldes, CEO
Magnetic Power Inc.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:08 am
03 Jun 2006
"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
"Various power groups know that if mankind has unlimited energy at its disposal, it becomes virtually impossible to control and manipulate people. With free energy a person is not subject to those who would control his transportation via fuel curtailment. One could live virtually anywhere since a readily available energy supply could be used to make any environment livable. Water could be taken from the air via condensation if necessary; and with water food could be grown. With unlimited energy available to a country, it could synthesize anything, including the atomic elements; therefore, that country is not open to international blackmail because of energy resource requirements. Stated in brief: ENERGY= FREEDOM."
- Dan A. Davidson
Such an energy source would go a long way toward ending the present mass extinction event.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:43 am
03 Jun 2006
Stentor writes:
"So the problem with unconventional fossil fuels is that they can't be ramped up fast enough ... yet their solutions include multi-decadal changes like 'designing compact, walkable urban communities' and local food production?"
In a trivial sense we can say the curves (production and consumption) have to meet in the middle.
For what it's worth though, I think there are smaller bars to leap on efficiency than on increased production. There are devices (refrigerators, cars, washing machines) on the market that double the current average efficiencies. (Bicycles are "in stores now!"). It might take decades for them to fully permeate the market, but early adopters can move now.
Early adopters (with the right choices) will save themselves money and earn themselves "micro" benefits long before mass society moves and "macro" effects are visible.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:50 am
03 Jun 2006
That's because, with a little better technology, small solar would be a dream. Unfortunately, right now, it only makes sense for high consumers, who want to offset the consumption of a large air conditioner or something.
As a case in point, I remember the Real Goods catalog with the cover headline "This California couple saved $500 a month by going solar with Real Goods."
... which of course means they were using more than $500 a month worth of electricity to start with.
Permalink
Gary Posted 3:47 am
03 Jun 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2006/06/01/us/20060604_BIOTOWN_FEATURE.html
While this might not go a long way to reduce global warming, if applied to a large scale, it would go a-ways toward reducing the hegemony of Big Oil. And in the long run, that would reduce global warming!
Permalink
Gary Posted 3:52 am
03 Jun 2006
Indeed it is COMMUNE-ism in its purest form. The community is getting together to provide a better way for the common good. And what is more American than that?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:42 am
03 Jun 2006
Yet, U.S. consumption continues to go up. One simple but never mentioned reason for that is that our population is also going up. The 2000 census found that we had added 32 million people in that decade (about 12%). The largest increase in our history. That should account for about 12 percent of our energy increase over those ten years. The next census will be interesting. If we are destined to have a billion plus poeple like China and India our energy consumption has nowhwere to go but up.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:05 am
03 Jun 2006
One of your choices is the Dan A. Davidson quote: narrow-minded, practical perhaps in the short term, but hardly a foundation for a loving global community that we would truly want to live in.
Schopenhauer is no doubt a great thinker, whom perhaps one appreciates best by reading him in the original German (which I cannot quite do). He is supposedly an admirable stylist. Wittgenstein seems to have thought highly of him. But he is a notorious pessimist, hardly a likely candidate to become an environmentalist hero. Cf. this, from the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. Schopenhauer:
<<Schopenhauer's thoroughgoing pessimism was neatly condensed in his turning Welt (world) into an acronym: Weh (woe), Elend (misery), Leid (suffering), Tod (death).>>
The quote from the above postings that I most cottoned to, actually, was not in Mr. Green's array at all, but is the closing tag of CyberCelt, attributed to Carl Sagan: "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
I love the idea of God, choreographing the Big Bang, having in mind the pleasure of people eating home-made apple pie.
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 9:15 am
03 Jun 2006
Misleading in what way? I do not want friends, I want to stop humans from killing Nature, blinded, and unable to see what will die in the process.
"One of your choices is the Dan A. Davidson quote: narrow-minded, practical perhaps in the short term, but hardly a foundation for a loving global community that we would truly want to live in."
Who are you kidding? If one would leave the city limits for once, and actually look at the world around them, they would notice that everything they value as 'Life', is nothing more than a pre-packaged product from a special interest group. I have never lived in the city and never will. As a child I burned wood for heat and waited for the wind and shadows to keep me cool. We raised our own farm and required very little from the outside world. Since when does all our Solutions to living come at an hourly rate? Since various power groups knew if people require something and they provide it... they become dependant on it and everything around it. You have obviously been a victem to this, and I find it unfortunate you are as closed minded as the people trying to protect their control of profits. I produce most of my own food, energy, and essentials... in the middle of nowhere. I have done this because I require independance. As more and more do the same as me, the less population will stay huddled together in their cement prisons. I suggest you consider being a friend to yourself and start thinking more like an Einstien. If you really want to make a difference; start thinking like Nikola Tesla. "Who is that".... He only invented AC current. The same power groups I speak of have suppressed his life's work in Free Energy.
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/SuppressedInventions/
"Various power groups know that if mankind has unlimited energy at its disposal, it becomes virtually impossible to control and manipulate people. With free energy a person is not subject to those who would control his transportation via fuel curtailment. One could live virtually anywhere since a readily available energy supply could be used to make any environment livable. Water could be taken from the air via condensation if necessary; and with water food could be grown. With unlimited energy available to a country, it could synthesize anything, including the atomic elements; therefore, that country is not open to international blackmail because of energy resource requirements. Stated in brief: ENERGY= FREEDOM."
- Dan A. Davidson
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:28 am
03 Jun 2006
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 12:56 pm
03 Jun 2006
The Great Pyramid as Water Pump
http://www.mrgreen.biz/ViktorSchauberger/
Who is VIKTOR SCHAUBERGER?
http://mrgreen.biz/archive/Complete%20Tesla/
Telsa - Man Ahead Of His Time
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/peakoil101/
Introduction to Oil Depletion
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/NathanStubblefield/
KENTUCKY FARMER INVENTS WIRELESS TELEPHONE - The Real Father of Radio
"I have solved the problem of telephoning without wires through the earth as Signor Marconi has of sending signals through space." - Nathan Stubblefield, 1902
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/magnetismhistory/
History of Magnetism and Electricity
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/MagneticElectricFields/
Magnetic and electric fields exist nearly everywhere
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/LifeAfterOilCrash/
Peak Oil: Life After The Oil Crash
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/InventorsBeware/
Energy revolution movement going on around the world the past 20 years
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/CIAGreen/
The latest investor in green energy - the CIA
http://goldhosted.net/mrgreen/Energy_Ignorance/
There isn't any energy crisis. It's simply A crisis OF ignorance.
http://goldhosted.net/mrgreen/N_Machine/
Placing a conductive metal (copper) between 2 magnets for power!
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/Oil_Industry/
Some interesting oil industry stats
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/sustainability/
Sustainability: Energy, Oil
http://www.mrgreen.biz/EarthEnergy/
Earth Batteries - Sitting on the 'World' Biggest Electric Generator
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/THEENDOFSUBURBIA/
Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/wrongbigbiz/
It would seem that I was wrong about big business
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/WorldOilGlance/
The Middle East remains the biggest player in oil
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/WilsonMachine/
Only generators from vehicles 1964 and BEFORE had permanent magnets
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/SearchandDeploy/
U.S. military's mission to go "green"
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/awareness
Oil, Population and the future
http://goldhosted.net/mrgreen/tesla/tesla-bib.txt
Nikola Tesla Father of Poly Phase Circuits and Radio
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/hyperscience
Origin of Mind, Origin of Energy, Origin of Matter
http://mrgreen.goldhosted.net/saudpastoil
Saudis Doing Well on Our Ticket (Looking Past Oil)
The industrialization age came and left with great force, it is now time to shed light on the information age and clean up our filth for the generations to come.
Want more information please visit http://www.mrgreen.biz
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 1:03 pm
03 Jun 2006
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 1:17 pm
03 Jun 2006
Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. As the population of suburban sprawl has exploded in the past 50 years, so too has the suburban way of life become embedded in the American consciousness.
Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream.
But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The End of Suburbia explores the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet approaches a critical era, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply. World Oil Peak and the inevitable decline of fossil fuels are upon us now, some scientists and policy makers argue in this documentary.
The consequences of inaction in the face of this global crisis are enormous. What does Oil Peak mean for North America? As energy prices skyrocket in the coming years, how will the populations of suburbia react to the collapse of their dream? Are today's suburbs destined to become the slums of tomorrow? And what can be done NOW, individually and collectively, to avoid The End of Suburbia ?
http://www.endofsuburbia.com
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 1:43 pm
03 Jun 2006
"We have at our disposal three main sources of life-sustaining energy- fuel, water-power and the heat of the sun's rays. Engineers often speak of harnessing the tides, but the discouraging truth is that the tidewater over one acre of ground will, on the average, develop only one horse-power. Thousands of mechanics and inventors have spent their best efforts in trying to perfect wave motors, not realizing that the power so obtained could never compete with that derived from other sources. The force of wind offers much better chances and is valuable in special instances, but is by far inadequate. Moreover, the tides, waves and winds furnish only periodic and often uncertain power and necessitate the employment of large and expensive storage plants. Of course, there are other possibilities, but they are remote, and we must depend on the first of three resources."
"If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful, and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations. The heat of the sun's rays represents an immense amount of energy vastly in excess of water-power. The earth receives an equivalent of 83 foot-pounds per second for each square foot on which the rays fall perpendicularly. From simple geometrical rules applying to a spherical body it follows that the mean rate per square foot of the earth's surface is one-quarter of that, or 20 3/4 foot-pounds. This is to say over one million horse-power per square mile, or 250 times the water-power for the same area. But that is only true in theory; the practical facts put this in a different aspect."
"For instance, considering the United States, and taking into account the mean latitude, the daily variation, the diurnal changes, the seasonal variations and casual changes, this power of the sun's rays reduces to about one-tenth, or 100,00 horse-power per square mile, of which we might be able to recover in high-speed low-pressure turbines 10,000 horse-power. To do this would mean the installment of apparatus and storage plants so large and expensive that such a project is beyond the pale of the practical. The inevitable conclusion is that water-power is by far our most valuable resource. On this humanity must build its hopes for the future. With its full development and a perfect system of wireless transmission of the energy to any distance man will be able to solve all the problems of material existence. Distance, which is the chief impediment to human progress, will be completely annihilated in thought, word and action. Humanity will be united, wars will be made impossible and peace will reign supreme." Nikola Tesla, September 9, 1915 as recorded to the Manufacturers Record; September 9th, 1915."The Wonder World To Be Created By Electricity." To view the entire article, please see http://www.frank.germano.com/wonderworld.htm .as it is a fascinating journey into the mind of Tesla. I truly hope people are listening...
http://www.frank.germano.com/oceanpower.htm
Viktor Schauberger's Method For Extracting Power From the Ocean Depths
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 2:57 pm
03 Jun 2006
"San Francisco in the middle sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run, but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch that sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant.
There was madness in any direction, at any hour. If not across the Bay, then up the Golden Gate or down 101 to Los Altos or La Honda. You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning.
And that, I think, was the handle - -that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting - -on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark - -the place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of the speed that fueled that 60's. That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously... All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel."
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:27 pm
03 Jun 2006
please accept this apology for my unfairly critical comment on the quote from Dan A. Davidson. I had read it too hastily, and came away with an inaccurate impression of it. Now, in light of that wonderful quote from Nikolas Tesla, especially the last half-dozen sentences, written as World War I was raging, I re-read the words of Davidson, and saw them as no doubt you intend them to be understood.
Also, please know that I admire the industry and discipline and thoughtfulness that you display in compiling these lists, whether of quotes or of web pages. I am happy that in this forum you have the opportunity to share your thoughts with people who are much more learned and intelligent than I, and so competent to comment on them. And I hope that pleases you too.
Best regards.
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 8:26 am
04 Jun 2006
I know there is a little bit of green in all of us, sometimes it just takes someone else to let you know it still exists.
If you ever require assistance, we would be happy to help at any time. We can no longer compete, unity is stability.
Mr. Green.
"The Environment is everyone's business" - MRG
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 9:08 am
04 Jun 2006
The planet has 5 kms of breathable air.
We pollute it more and more each day.
Can YOU SMELL THE DIFFERENCE?
http://goldhosted.net/mrgreen/notourproblem/
Special Thanks to NASA for the high res truth.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:49 pm
04 Jun 2006
Personally I have lived in cities and in the countryside (and in a small town). I like cities.
As to the idea that "If one would leave the city limits for once, and actually look at the world around them, they would notice that everything they value as 'Life', is nothing more than a pre-packaged product from a special interest group." this strikes me as something that has little connection to the environment.
The term "special interest group" is usually used by conservatives (the far right especially) to attack workers, minorities, women, gays and (gasp!) environmentalists.
Many of the things that I value as "life" can be found in both the city and countryside, nor do I see any benefit to creating the false dichotomy of country vs. city.
It is worth noting that the internet exists because of work and ideas that generate from cities. Which is also true of the "green" ideas and technology that can help us avoid our problems.
It is also worth noting, that 9 billion people (the high estimate for peak world population) will not be able to live in the countryside, cutting down trees for heat. If they do, goodbye world.
So, attacking either "city" living or "country" living as a matter of course, does nothing to move us towards solutions to our problems.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:53 pm
04 Jun 2006
Dear Mr. Green,
What pray tell, do the quotes from Hunter S. Thompson have to do with "replacing oil and maintaining energy supply", or anything environmental?
We all get off topic (me too!) from time to time, but I fail to see any relevance to anything anyone is posting, nor any idea of what kind of response you expect.
Thanks,
patrick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:11 pm
04 Jun 2006
Maybe Bush and friends have made everything so terrifying, that this time the wave will roll right over the whole continent.
Chimpy the decider as an unconscious agent of change? We'll see.
If he gets his nuclear bunker buster attack on Iran (to win this election in order to avoid impeachment), that may trigger this cultural/political tsunami.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
mihan Posted 12:51 am
05 Jun 2006
You get energy in these processes because the resultant atom(s) weigh less than the original one(s). It is this tiny mass difference that accounts for the huge energy output of a nuclear reaction.
Fusion is not a feasible energy source (it takes too much energy to get the atoms hot enough and close enough), not that folks aren't trying, and, well, we are familiar with the drawbacks of fission. "E=mc^2" won't get us out of this mess.
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 9:10 am
05 Jun 2006
Since all things happen for a reason, it is interesting to speculate on why Einstein originally used that nomenclature.
With respect to the importance and implication of that ORIGINAL description of Einstein's famous equation, I am suggesting that the use of such nomenclature demonstrated Einstein intellectual linkage to the work of James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday --- both of whom preceded Einstein and for whom Einstein had great respect.
When one begins to understand the work of Joseph Newman, one realizes that something very important regarding the fundamental nature of ELectricity and ELectromagnetism has been overlooked in the past 100 years.
The article which described the nature of the original EL equation was published in 1996 in The New York Times under the by-line of Robin Pogrebin and it was entitled, "Einstein Paper Shows Science Can Be Artwork" --- subhead: "It's expected to fetch $6 million."
Joseph Newman has invested thousands of hours over the past 40 years in researching and understanding the nature of (electro)magnetic fields, among other observables. As his research proceeded, he developed a fundamental mechanical explanation (gyroscopic massergy interactions) for observable phenomena (light, heat & thermodynamics, gravitation, inertia, planetary motion) -- but his work began with a quest to understand the phenomena of magnetic attraction/repulsion and the phenomenon known as Fleming's Rule (the right-hand rule).
Conventional physics has no explicit, fundamental, mechanical explanation for such phenomena. However, Joseph Newman DOES have a very explicit explanation: his Theory of Magnetic Attraction & Repulsion. Note that I wrote "theory" --- not "hypothesis". As one knows, of course, a theory is a corroborated hypothesis. And JN's Theory of Magnetic Attraction & Repulsion has been corroborated.
Thus, based upon empirical evidence, a true scientist is obliged to accept the hypothesis upon which that theory is based -- IF there are no other competing hypothesis and/or if that hypothesis has fewer unproven assertions than any competitors (Occam's Razor).
But an understanding of that theory paves the way for comprehending how JN's Theory of the Gyroscopic Particle (aka "Gyroscopic Massergy) explains ALL mechanical phenomena in the universe. The energy machine is simply ONE electromagnetic embodiment of the principle underlying that larger theory developed by Joseph Newman. [Note: JN also designed a gas embodiment and a static embodiment that encompasses that same principle.
Interestingly, Einstein's work is closely related to JN's theories. I hope you reviewed the documented posted on the website http://www.josephnewman.com/Einsteins_Equation.html regarding a very important nomenclature originally used by Albert Einstein --- that has been all but forgotten. Such an understanding on Einstein's part (by using such nomenclature) underscores the TRUE relationship of ELectricity/ELectromagnetism and the fundamental gyroscopic massergy identified by Joseph Newman.
Joseph Newman has taught that an ELectromagnetic field consists of "matter-in-motion". And that "matter-in-motion" is identified as a gyroscopic particle (term employed by J. Newman), also called "gyroscopic massergy".
In addition to Einstein's realization of the fundamental nature of an ELectromagnetic field (originally EL = mc^2) and Joseph Newman's explicit mechanical understanding of that field (consisting of gyroscopic massergies), both Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell recognized that such electromagnetic fields consists of REAL, PHYSICAL, MATTER-IN-MOTION.
Michael Faraday wrote:
"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space."
and
"How few understand the physical lines of force! They will not see them, yet all the researches on the subject tend to confirm the views I put forth many years since. Thompson of Glasgow seems almost the only one who acknowledges them. He is perhaps the nearest to understanding what I meant. I am content to wait convinced as I am of the truth of my views."
James Clerk Maxwell wrote:
"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally . All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."
That is an unequivocal statement by James Clerk Maxwell. And so that no one might later misinterpret his remarks, he added, with emphasis: "I WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD LITERALLY."
Maxwell also wrote:
"The Theory I propose may ... be called a Theory of the Electromagnetic Field because it has to do with the space in the neighborhood of the electric or magnetic bodies, and it may be called a dynamical theory, because it assumes that in that space there is MATTER -IN-MOTION , by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced."
It was such an understanding by Faraday and Maxwell of the true, physical nature of electromagnetic fields that influenced Einstein to originally describe his fundamental theory as EL = mc^2 (see below).
COMMENTARY REGARDING EINSTEIN'S EQUATION OF E = mc^2:
Most physicists are unaware that Einstein's famous equation was originally written by Einstein as EL = mc^2.
Since all things happen for a reason, it is interesting to speculate on why Einstein originally used that nomenclature.
With respect to the importance and implication of that ORIGINAL description of Einstein's famous equation, I am suggesting that the use of such nomenclature demonstrated Einstein intellectual linkage to the work of James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday --- both of whom preceded Einstein and for whom Einstein had great respect.
When one begins to understand the work of Joseph Newman, one realizes that something very important regarding the fundamental nature of ELectricity and ELectromagnetism has been overlooked in the past 100 years.
The article which described the nature of the original EL equation was published in 1996 in The New York Times under the by-line of Robin Pogrebin and it was entitled, "Einstein Paper Shows Science Can Be Artwork" --- subhead: "It's expected to fetch $6 million."
The Einstein manuscript was scheduled to be auctioned by Sotheby's in 1996.
To quote from The NY Times article:
"The manuscript in which Albert Einstein elaborated on his special theory of relativity is both momentous as one of the central scientific tenets of the modern age, and captivating as a window into how the gears turned in one of the greatest minds in history."
"The 72-page untitled manuscript was written in 1912, seven years after the 'special' theory was first published. the manuscript's further insights were widely disseminated, but the paper itself was not published; and except for a fleeting moment when the document was put up for auction in 1987, it has never been available to scholars or the public.
"Today, at Sotheby's the manuscript is to be auctioned once more. It is expected to bring $6 million, more than what a classic example of Monet's Water Lilies sold for last fall.
"Its value lies as much in its form as in its substance. In addition to offering a detailed review of Einstein's ground-breaking thesis on the relationship between mass and energy, E (equals) mc (squared), the document is also thought to be one of the few remaining Einstein rough drafts, rich with extensive revisions in the scientist's graceful handwriting.
"And in perhaps the manuscript's most striking example of Einstein's scientific gymnastics, he takes the equation EL (equals) mc (squared) and crosses out the "L," thus rendering the historic special theory of relativity -- energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light -- right before the reader's eyes."
END QUOTE
Personally, I find the use of the term "free energy" (as used by some) to be misleading at best and scientifically/economically inappropriate at worst.
However, I do believe it is quite possible to obtain from an electromagnetic system the following:
"Greater external energy output than external energy input." (EEO>EEI)
That is not the same as simply saying "more out than in".
The difference in that externally-produced energy output from that externally-inputted energy input comes from a source INSIDE that electromagnetic system.
Once atom alignment occurs in a permanent magnet, for instance, the matter-in-motion that comprises the magnetic field within each atom joins together at the instant of atom-alignment and subsequently extends beyond the boundaries of any given atom to create the magnetic field with which we are familiar: the physical lines of force.
Those lines of force are comprised of real, physical, matter-in-motion whose physical interaction with the matter-in-motion of an adjacent permanent magnet's (for instance) magnetic field --- results in magnetic attraction or repulsion, depending upon how those matters-in-motion in those two respective magnetic fields physically interact with one another.
If one precisely understands the mechanical characteristics of that matter-in-motion, it is also possible to properly harness and extract a portion of that matter-in-motion when it physically interacts with the matter-in-motion comprising the electromagnetic field of a coil of copper wire to which voltage has been applied (inputted) to align the atoms of that coil.
The result is that mechanical, electrical, and/or RF energy can be extracted from that system that exceeds the input energy (high voltage/low current) originally inputted into that system.
That is NOT so-called "free energy" in an economic sense because it costs money to obtain such permanent magnets and copper coils.
That is NOT so-called "free energy" in a scientific sense because the energy DOES come from somewhere: it is transferred from one domain to another: from within the permanent magnet and/or copper coil to along the copper coil and then outputted as electrical energy. (It can also be outputted as mechanical energy --- as in the torque of a rotary employed in such a system.)
Bottom line for me: from the beginning (over 22 years ago) what impressed me most about Joseph Newman's work was that he was he first person in history to develop an explicit, mechanical explanation for magnetic attraction/repulsion and the phenomenon of Fleming's Rule.
____END OF LETTER
Please visit the following website for additional diagrams regarding Joseph Newman's fundamental theory regarding magnetism:
http://www.josephnewman.com/more-info.html
These diagrams (several of many) only scratch the surface of Newman's work.
Best regards,
Evan Soule'
JNPCo./NECorp.
http://www.josephnewman.com
--------------------------------------------------
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 10:42 am
05 Jun 2006
"So, attacking either "city" living or "country" living as a matter of course, does nothing to move us towards solutions to our problems."
I agree, however one must see this confined reality as objective. Your mere perceptions of `life' are directly reflected by your interpositions of what may seam 'real' in your own environment. If one has been independent their whole life and see that life revolves around nature, and her cycles... rather than the next football game, the internet, politics, and every man-made creation. Yes, these things are tools... for pleasure or work... but not directly a sustainable way of life. Our urban living conditions are considered the biggest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. Tools can only help man-kind when they are used properly.
As pointed out by biodiversivist - "You should have read Give me a Break by Stossel.
On population issues:
"... there's no space problem. Our planet is huge."
That's right, the rapid population growth in third world countries and its associated poverty and environmental degradation is simply a matter of population density. Therefore, the answer to these problems is to spread out the billions of malnourished poor like peanut butter across the deserts and mountain ranges.
"The good news is with more people, we also have more smart ideas."
Right again, patent offices are being overwhelmed by ideas from the 2.8 billion people who live on less than $2 a day. Pakistan for example is estimated to have a population of over 300 million by 2050. That will be like moving everyone in the U.S. to Texas. We can expect to see a lot of great ideas coming out of there in the coming years."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/6/4/19279/31900/#1
Not all causes have bad effects, even if the cause is considered negative itself.
How many advertisements and propaganda does one intake on a daily basis while attempting to fit into modern society and urban living, mostly influenced, sustained, and run by large corporations catering to the Empire itself?
How many advertisements and propaganda does one intake on a daily basis in the middle of the forest?
Who will tell you MTV or American Idol is more important than saving the forest?
Who is the environ-`mentalist' now?
Who will have a skewed view upon the requirements and controlling factors involved in daily every day life?
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 11:11 am
05 Jun 2006
The Problem of Civilization
Derrick Jensen
Having long laid waste our own sanity, and having long forgotten what it feels like to be free, most of us too have no idea what it's like to live in the real world. Seeing four salmon spawn causes me to burst into tears. I have never seen a river full of fish. I have never seen a sky darkened for days by a single flock of birds. (I have, however, seen skies perpetually darkened by smog.) As with freedom, so too the extraordinary beauty and fecundity of the world itself: It's hard to love something you've never known. It's hard to convince yourself to fight for something you may not believe has ever existed. --from Endgame
http://www.sevenstories.com/Book/?GCOI=58322100619220
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 12:10 pm
05 Jun 2006
Supporters of the Iraq war airily dismiss chants of "no blood for oil" as a manifestation of the antiwar crowd's naïveté. They point out that Iraq's government still controls its oil and argue that we could have simply bought it on the open market.
Both of those claims are true on their face, but bringing Iraq's vast oil wealth under the control of foreign multinationals -- with U.S. firms the best positioned to develop it -- was always central to U.S. plans for Iraq. That Iraq's oil will continue to be "owned" by the "Iraqi people" is what differentiates classical 19th-century colonialism practiced by British officers in pith helmets from the neocolonialism the United States perfected in the second half of the 20th century. The newer brand can be summed up like this: We'll respect your sovereignty and abide by your domestic laws -- as long as we can help you write those laws to guarantee our firms' profits.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/36463/
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 1:07 pm
05 Jun 2006
That government once passed laws protecting the environment, so the profit motive wouldn't end up eliminating breathable air. That government once protected workers, so the profit motive wouldn't result in Americans toiling in sweatshops. And that government once demanded better wages, so the profit motive wouldn't result in a race to the bottom for poverty-level paychecks. But that government, as we all know, is long gone. Our government has been the victim of a hostile takeover. Over the last thirty years,Corporate America has applied its most effective business tactics to the task of purchasing the one commodity that's not supposed to be for sale: American democracy."
http://www.alternet.org/story/36341/
Permalink
bookerly Posted 3:35 pm
05 Jun 2006
Dear Mr. Green,
Sorry dear, your reply (???) to my posting was pretty much incoherent. (I will ignore the insults.)
You say "Our urban living conditions are considered the biggest misallocation of resources in the history of the world." Really? By who? Just by you?
This is a new and peculiar theory to me. But please, feel free to elucidate, tell us more. Why is this so. It is a pretty extreme statement.
You go on to say "Therefore, the answer to these problems (population) is to spread out the billions of malnourished poor like peanut butter across the deserts and mountain ranges."
First of all, you cannot just spread people out like peanut butter. You yourself said you will never live in a city (and other people, like you, may object to being moved about willy-nilly).
Secondly dumping people (spreading) them into a desert will kill them.
Thirdly, if you are serious (I suspect not), how would this actually happen?
You go on to say "Right again, patent offices are being overwhelmed by ideas from the 2.8 billion people who live on less than $2 a day. " That is interesting news, do you have a source for this? I have never heard it before.
You post some nice links, thanks!
But you also tend to make wild statements (ignoring the insulting ones (grin)), that you never follow up on, or explain when asked.
Listen, no one here accepts anything I say just because I say it. I have been challenged, and have offered explanations, sources, or apologies where I thought they were needed. You should expect to do the same.
Patrick
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 4:56 pm
05 Jun 2006
On population issues: "... there's no space problem. Our planet is huge."
This was a reference to a previous post, not mine
I am not here to connect the dots, regurgitate into a malleable form... any information, for any readers, (your brain is quite capable of doing that).
Mr. Green can't change someone's view upon the world, because it is relative.
My statements never lack even minimal backing with reference, if you interpret them with a clear understanding of the research I try to present.
as mentioned in MY previous post about suburbia....
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/preview1.htm
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/preview2.htm
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/preview3.htm
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 7:18 pm
05 Jun 2006
http://green.top-site-list.com/green-thread13.html
http://mrgreenbiz.wordpress.com/2006/06/06/archive-updates-7/
I can no longer update this website with information due to time restraints. If you would like to join the Green Gonzo Groups and I ... please feel free to join our forum, topsite and blog.
http://green.top-site-list.com
http://green.top-site-list.com/forum.html
http://mrgreenbiz.wordpress.com
Please feel free to contact us for more information, comments, feedback, partnerships, desire a 'Green-off debate' or just need some people to share information with.
Thank you for listening to my ranting, it was never directed at anyone... they are all general statements for educational purposes only.
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 7:25 pm
05 Jun 2006
Tell me what's wrong with society
When everywhere I look I see
Young girls dying to be on TV
They wont stop 'til they've reached their dreams
Diet pills, surgery
Photoshop pictures in magazines
Telling them how they should be
It doesn't make sense to me
Is everybody going crazy?
Is anybody gonna save me?
Can anybody tell me what's going on?
Tell me what's going on
If you open your eyes
You'll see that something is wrong
I guess things are not how they used to be
There's no more normal families
Parents act like enemies
Making kids feel like it's world war III
No one cares, no one's there
I guess we're all just too damn busy
Money's our first priority
It doesn't make sense to me
Is everybody going crazy?
Is anybody gonna save me?
Can anybody tell me what's going on?
Tell me what's going on
If you open your eyes
You'll see that something is wrong
is everybody going crazy?
is everybody going crazy?
Tell me what's wrong with society
When everywhere I look I see
Rich guys driving big SUV's
While kids are starving in the streets
No one cares
No one likes to share
I guess life's unfair
Is everybody going crazy?
Is anybody gonna save me?
Can anybody tell me what's going on
Tell me what's going on
If you open your eyes
You'll see that something
something is wrong
Is everybody going Crazy?
Can anybody tell me what's going on
Tell me what's going on
If you open your eyes
You'll see that something is wrong
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 9:53 pm
05 Jun 2006
The so-called corporate purchase of government, reported in the quote above, is basically the norm of governance throughout American history. It is, in short, nothing new. Since exploiting America became big business, corporations have ruled America with an iron fist. (If you want to see how this came about, read Mathew Josephson's enticing history The Robber Barons, though I suppose there's an ancestry tracing elite rule in America back further.) The government has, in that respect, always been a tool of big business. Wages were low, profits high. Throughout its history the US has routinely overthrown governments in Latin America for the sake of business interests, too. With the labor surplus provided by immigrants (and imported slaves from Africa), a consumer society was eventually built.
The consumer society in the US was itself forced to confront the problem of economic instability. The US economy had what was called the "boom-bust cycle," where economic prosperity only lasted so long until a period of saving instigated by the wealthy (followed by labor repression to keep wages down) brought on economic downturns.
The business elites who ruled America thought they could end the boom-bust cycle through a debt economy, in the 1920s, but that collapsed in the downturn of 1929-1932, in which one quarter to one third of the working-class was thrown out of work. This happened in an economy where the top 5 per cent of the popularion received about one third of all personal income. (See Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States for this stuff.) The main structural problem at that time was that the American public was in general too financially poor to buy all the stuff the American economy produced.
Eventually, it was decided (by the Roosevelt Administration, in response to an extremely volatile labor situation) that if America was to be able to buy the stuff its economy produced, without causing another 1929, the government would have to take a strong hand in building a consumer economy. This meant financial guarantees for the money supply, and for the rich, but it also meant giving the public enough money to buy stuff, rather than the mere use of government to break strikes and invade less-well-armed nations for the sake of business interests. This new notion, of government intervention to build consumerism, was supported by the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, who later helped found the World Bank. It took off with the deficit spending of the US government during World War II, and came into full flower with the consumer economy of the 1960s. But it's important to keep in mind that the consumer economy probably wouldn't have happened if the strikes of the 1930s hadn't forced Roosevelt's hand.
That consumer economy is what produced what we, today, call "environmentalism." Popular environmentalism, in the modern sense (and not just in the Sierra Club sense of "conservation") was kicked off with the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, but was largely inspired by Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. Silent Spring, published in 1962 brought to the public the notion that corporate pollution could bring about an "environmental crisis," which (of course) occupies the pages of Gristmill to this day.
What happened was that the economic growth of the consumer economy proved to have the side effects of pollution and resource depletion, on a scale never seen before. Since 1970, then, the world has slowly woken up to the notion that the consumer society is in fact consuming the world to death, although many of the polite folks at Gristmill won't dare to state it in such terms. Donella Meadows et al.'s publication of the "Club of Rome report" in the 1970s reinforced this notion. It scared the hell out of the elites.
The current economy, however, is governed by a further development in American economics; neoliberalism. In the 1970s, it was decided by the elites that the guarantees that created the consumer economy would have to go back to relying upon the creation of debt (like in the 1920s), rather than being based upon higher wages per se, and that the exploitative anti-labor economy of the 19th century would have to be reintroduced. In response to the activism of the 1960s and the economic dislocation of the 1970s, the elites decided that the world needed an economy based on total corporate domination, so that corporate profit opportunities could be guaranteed regardless of what bad things happened to the world as a result. The foundational document of this era was a piece by Samuel Huntington, written for a 1975 anthology published for the Trilateral Commission, titled "The Crisis of Democracy." In this piece, Samuel Huntington argues that America is suffering from an "excess of democratic power," that the masses are making excessive demands upon government as a result, and that they, the masses, will have to be "cooled out" as a result. Thus you had the regimes of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, all supporting elite neoliberal or neoconservative dogmas which advocated the "cooling out" of the masses.
The post-1970s global economy has generally experienced slower growth rates than the economy of the period between World War II and the 1960s, when the modern consumer society was built in the US. This may be a result of the world's increased indebtedness, though it's difficult to move from correlation to cause in economics. The corporate world has, however, tried to make up the difference between the global growth rate and the desires of investment bankers by ransacking the world economy and by increasing its share of the surplus. (See Harry Shutt's The Trouble With Capitalism for further elaboration.)
The neoliberal economy, like the economy of the 1920s, is headed for the shoals. The problem now is the same problem as existed then. With the elites hogging too much of the economic pie, the world's working classes will be unable to afford that which they produce. When the current debt economy collapses, then, perhaps it will again be time for a renewal of labor militancy to force the government's hand, like it did in the 1930s.
The solution, however, will have to be different; for the world can no longer afford a universal consumer economy in ecological terms. The consumer society of the "American Way of Life" is just too high-intensity, too wasteful. To sum up, a quote from Kees van der Pijl's essay "International relations and capitalist discipline" (in the collection Phases of Capitalist Development") might spell out the current reality adequately: My thesis is that a crisis of exhaustion is threatening a global society held together by capitalist discipline... This crisis can be specified as follows. First, a crisis of exhaustion of the biosphere will most directly compound the ongoing processes of original accumulation-urbanzation in the poorest parts of the world. Second, a crisis will occur of the internationalization of capital, characterized by a regression from international socialization of labour to disjointed circuits of money capital with a strongly speculative bent, undermining the world's productive capacity. Finally, there will come a crisis of the geopolitical expansion of the Lockean heartland (i.e. that part of the world that benefits most centrally from capital accumulation) -- entailing a withering of transnational civil society and a regression to bellicose imperialism.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:06 am
06 Jun 2006
That is not to say that I follow all the economic details. E.g. the closing quote from Van der Pijl is rather over my head. Still, for the most part, I can follow closely enough to recognize here a valid description of modern economic history.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:20 am
06 Jun 2006
by Richard Heinberg
http://www.energybulletin.net/16393.html
This is an excellent geopolitical summary of international oil and methane supply.
Earth-friendly alternatives to carbon-based economies will not require pipelines. Pipeline politics will resist alternatives. We may need to go beyond public and popular advocacy.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:05 am
06 Jun 2006
As capitalist discipline penetrates the world ever more invasively, three crises arise:EcologicalFinancialGeopolitical.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Mr Green Posted 12:28 pm
08 Jun 2006
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Oil Dependence and Economic Risk
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Place: 216 Hart Senate Office Building
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html
View The Hearing using Real Player.
http://foreign.senate.gov/archives/2006/archive060706.ram
Download the condensed Audio Version.
http://rapidshare.de/files/22524928/greenspan_address.mp3.html
Document Transcripts
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2006/GreenspanTestimony060607.pdf
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2006/LugarStatement060607.pdf
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2006/BidenStatement060607.pdf
More information, and reactions available here.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/7/222044/3922#more
Permalink