So who remembers $4+ a gallon gas?

[mountaingoat]

I remember $4 a gallon gas.

I was happy about it. I saw people carpooling a lot more. I saw people buying and riding mopeds instead of SUV's. I saw people shopping and eating locally instead of driving 25 miles to a big-box store....

I am in complete agreement with you, but that's not the popular opinion. We started to see people change their commuting and driving habits when the cost hit that level. I thought that it would be the $5/gallon, but it occured sooner than that.

At what price does it need for there to be a paradigm shift in the way that people live and work? Will we start to see the sprawling suburbs become the "ghettos" as people move closer together? Or will we start to see more planned communities with bike paths going to the stores and restaurants, and town centers where people can walk to and congregate?

 

[wkmac]

I believe it's past due we moved on from oil and it's geopolitics. From the early 1970's till now, oil has been our national obsession and where has it gotten us? How many are dead and how much of our labor and future labor (taxes) are/will be spent to fuel this obsession? I wonder where we would be now if in 1970' instead of taking the route we took, we had taken the same manpower and labor (taxes) and walked in a different direction away from oil! At that point we'd seen our own domestic peak oil and ramped up the global quest for black gold. I'm betting the farm we'd be a whole lot happier as a nation and we'd not be facing the many problems we face either.

That said, the internal combustion engine as we know it is dead on arrival. The upper limit of efficency of a steel engine is 37% and even now with turbos, out engines at best are in the low 20% range. Where is the rest of that energy going? Out the tailpipe! If you walk up to an electric motor in a UPS facility, all will be in the 80% range and the new motors out there today are in the 95% range. Granted, if we all went electric tomorrow, the grid would overload as it's near capacity even now.

The answers are there but the question is, who's interests will dominate Washington and who will win the day?

Think local!
jmo

 

[pickup]

Certainly not...........well maybe once in a while.
I do listen to Quinn and rose, (quinns the best) , they are on xm radio also, out of Pittsburgh. He is the one who believes the earth keeps making oil from the constant pressure. I think its possible. And if it is a finite supply, we do need to find other fuels, but in the meantime, we should get fuel from where ever it is.
Anyway......it may all be over soon anyways.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message805921/pg1

hmm.. your link takes me to a forum where they are discussing a jellyfish crop circle and how it might relate to a "warning" of a solar storm.


Anyway, abiotic oil is an interesting dilemma(at least how I see it). I think that scientists are in agreement that methane is present on mars, jupiter, some moons of saturn, etc. Yet methane is considered a fossil fuel(formed from the degeneration of plant life and so you can throw cows farting methane under that category). Yet we don't think life exists on these bodies ,just mentioned, in our solar system. So either we have to accept that a supposed fossil fuel can be created without lifeforms. Or if not, we have to accept that there is carbon based life on such planets.

 

[pickup]

I believe it's past due we moved on from oil and it's geopolitics. From the early 1970's till now, oil has been our national obsession and where has it gotten us? How many are dead and how much of our labor and future labor (taxes) are/will be spent to fuel this obsession? I wonder where we would be now if in 1970' instead of taking the route we took, we had taken the same manpower and labor (taxes) and walked in a different direction away from oil! At that point we'd seen our own domestic peak oil and ramped up the global quest for black gold. I'm betting the farm we'd be a whole lot happier as a nation and we'd not be facing the many problems we face either.

That said, the internal combustion engine as we know it is dead on arrival. The upper limit of efficency of a steel engine is 37% and even now with turbos, out engines at best are in the low 20% range. Where is the rest of that energy going? Out the tailpipe! If you walk up to an electric motor in a UPS facility, all will be in the 80% range and the new motors out there today are in the 95% range. Granted, if we all went electric tomorrow, the grid would overload as it's near capacity even now.

The answers are there but the question is, who's interests will dominate Washington and who will win the day?

Think local!
jmo

first off, when you throw out the term "37 %", you're tying into a number that a lot of browncafers like to joke around with. another popular number for joking is 16.

that much being said, I will take your numbers at face value, especially those that pertain to the electric motor. While those numbers might be true, it takes electricity to power those motors and that comes from the power plants many of which run on coal and oil. Okay, presumably, the boilers of a power plants are much more efficient than a combustion engine, but you still are losing a lot of energy in another way.
How? Well, the steam. If you ever dealt with compressed carbon dioxide in a canister, you might know that when it comes out and becomes a gas under normal atmospheric pressure, it is very cold. that is because when a liquid becomes a gas, at that point, it is an endothermic process. it takes a lot of heat(energy to do so). In terms of water (I don't recall the kilocalories per mole but I once did know ) it is a lot more energy to move that 1 degree mark from 99 celsius to 100 than it does from 90 degree celsius to 98 for example.

On the other hand when matter goes to a grosser form such as gas to liquid, or liquid to matter, it is an exothermic process, energy is released in the form of heat. that's why your a glass of water in your freezer, once it starts forming ice, will stay at 0 degrees celsius until there is not a drop of liquid water left. Because as the ice is formed, the process releases heat.

Well, the power plant took advantage of some of the energy of this endothermic process by virtue of the steam that powered its turbines. but there is still steam left over and before it is recycled, it get cooled down(i.e transfers its energy to the colder water from the nearby river) . You lost quite a bit of energy.

Plus , you lose more energy as the longer the distance from the power plant to the usage point(where you plug in) the more energy you lose to the resistance of the wires.

So, the 90 percent efficiency rate of your electric motor is deceiving.

What is the partial solution? An array of solar panels on top of a ups building to power their electric devices.(with storage batteries) . the distance between this power plant and the point of usage is considerably less. No pollution (except that in the making of said panels and batteries), or better yet fewer batteries, put the energy back in the grid , with some energy loss mind you. but the grid is now your bank, you give and take. If you take more than you give, you pay , just as you do now. if you are even, you are even. If you give more than you take, than you are now a cash generating power facility. Of course, there will be a fee for the utility company for their infrastructure, as well as fees for their brokering.

There are many innovative solutions to the supposed energy crisis, but there is less ability to monopolize and profit from them and we all know, the robber barons like their monopolies(better yet , when no one realizes they are monopolies)

If I won the lottery, I would knock the cobwebs from my brain and put the work into figuring out this great stuff (ahh, the inventor fantasy, who hasn't had it?). get me a place like I envision satellite driver has and work my stuff out and once semi perfected, , put that schematics out there on the internet through a non registered computer on a public wifi so it couldn't be traced to me. So they (and we know who they are) couldn't shoot me because they wouldn't know who who is.

 

[soberups]

So either we have to accept that a supposed fossil fuel can be created without lifeforms. Or if not, we have to accept that there is carbon based life on such planets.

No, the hydrocarbons that exist on lifeless worlds were there when those planets were formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang.

If you sucked all of the methane out of Jupiter's atmosphere, the planet wouldn't be able to "create" any more.

Our sun is the source of all energy on earth (except for nuclear). Photosynthesis is the basis for all plant life, and all fossil fuels are nothing more than decomposing organic matter.

When we burn a gallon of gasoline, we are essentially burning sunlight that struck the earth billions of years ago.

Our earth is like a gigantic "piggy bank" of ancient solar energy that has been stored in the form of fossil fuels. Once we have depleted that piggy bank...and we are well on the way to doing so...our only energy source will be the sunlight that strikes the earth on a daily basis.

In terms of pure energy, we have enough solar "income" in one day to meet the needs of the entire planet for one year. What we lack...is a way to gather, harness and store that energy.

So instead of "getting a job" to capture that solar "income"....we just keep raiding that piggy bank and using energy from a billion years ago to pay our daily bills. And we fight wars and destroy the enviorment in order to keep our access to that piggy bank.

Someday soon that piggy bank will be empty and we will have to figure out how to "pay as we go".

 

[soberups]

...There are many innovative solutions to the supposed energy crisis, but there is less ability to monopolize and profit from them and we all know, the robber barons like their monopolies(better yet , when no one realizes they are monopolies)...

You just hit the nail on the head.

Right now, the "cheapest" way to get a car from point A to point B is to power it with fossil fuels that are drilled from the earth, refined, and transported to the point of consumption by a handful of large corporations who wish to maintain that status quo.

The problem is that we, the end consumer, are not really paying for the true cost of that fuel at the pump.

The enviormental cost, as well as the cost of maintaining a huge military presence on the other side of the world to gurantee access to the fuel....is not being paid at the pump. It is being borrowed, and passed on to future generations.

If we had to pay at the pump for the true cost of a gallon of gasoline it would be far, far more expensive.

It would also open the door for new forms of energy to compete on a level playing field. Those alternate forms of energy are out there. They exist. They just cannot yet compete economically as long as fossil fuels are being "subsidized" at the pump.

 

[pickup]

You just hit the nail on the head.

Right now, the "cheapest" way to get a car from point A to point B is to power it with fossil fuels that are drilled from the earth, refined, and transported to the point of consumption by a handful of large corporations who wish to maintain that status quo.

The problem is that we, the end consumer, are not really paying for the true cost of that fuel at the pump.

The enviormental cost, as well as the cost of maintaining a huge military presence on the other side of the world to gurantee access to the fuel....is not being paid at the pump. It is being borrowed, and passed on to future generations.

If we had to pay at the pump for the true cost of a gallon of gasoline it would be far, far more expensive.

It would also open the door for new forms of energy to compete on a level playing field. Those alternate forms of energy are out there. They exist. They just cannot yet compete economically as long as fossil fuels are being "subsidized" at the pump.

this one is the easier one to respond to , so I'll hit it first- AGREED! 100%

 

[pickup]

No, the hydrocarbons that exist on lifeless worlds were there when those planets were formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang.
Pickup - that's a true statement, but one could argue that everything in this universe is a result of the big bang


If you sucked all of the methane out of Jupiter's atmosphere, the planet wouldn't be able to "create" any more.

Pickup- ahh, but if you burned it (assuming you had oxygen)and left the stuff within the planet's boundaries as opposed to sucking it out you would be left with CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere. Quirky thing about Jupiter with that atmosphere with a lot of pressure , storms, you think under the right circumstances that CH4 can re- form using the energy from the distant sun or the energy of that somewhat failed sun called Jupiter?


Our sun is the source of all energy on earth (except for nuclear). Photosynthesis is the basis for all plant life, and all fossil fuels are nothing more than decomposing organic matter.


Pickup- fossil fuels are basically composed of Carbon and Hydrogen atoms which life (as we know it here on earth) is also composed of. These atoms are also found in plentiful supply on other planets and can form compounds without life being part of the equation.




Our earth is like a gigantic "piggy bank" of ancient solar energy that has been stored in the form of fossil fuels. Once we have depleted that piggy bank...and we are well on the way to doing so...our only energy source will be the sunlight that strikes the earth on a daily basis.

our only energy source (with the exception of nuclear as a guy named soberups previously noted)

 

[pickup]

all that much being said about oil, i don't think (even if the abiotic theory is true and if so , probably very limited) that still helps as the bathtub of oil would still be draining out (the way we pump) at a rate faster than it would be filled up by this theoretical process.
However, one somewhat accepted theory of abiotic oi(scientists believe it accounts for a few drops in the bucket)l on earth is being used to explain the presence of methane on mars. here is the link http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010300/a010358/

 

[brett636]

Sober- You have said a few things in this thread that I seriously disagree with. Yes, $4/gal. gas definitely changed people's driving habits, and that was a good thing. The more important ideas you are missing out on is the impact on the economy when fuel prices rise, especially dramatically. Everything we consume is in some way tied to fossil fuels. When the price of the fuels rise so do the prices of a lot of goods and services. It costs farmers more to farm the same land, trucking companies more to move goods, and as a result everything increases in price. You and I, the end consumer pays these price increases and our standard of living decreases. There are alternatives in the works including organically produced oil, but these alternatives need time, and their time is not now. Its not the government's job to subvert the free market by making more efficient energy sources so expensive that the more expensive alternatives can compete. When an alternative energy source becomes efficient enough to compete with fossil fuels then it has a good chance of taking over. Until then taxing gasoline, coal, and natural gas to the hilt is going to do nothing but cost our country jobs.

 

[soberups]

The more important ideas you are missing out on is the impact on the economy when fuel prices rise, especially dramatically. Everything we consume is in some way tied to fossil fuels. When the price of the fuels rise so do the prices of a lot of goods and services. .

So if everything we consume is in some way tied to fossil fuels...is it wise for us to continue importing 70% of those fuels?

Every time we spend $100 on a barrel of imported oil...that is $100 that is leaving our economy and heading overseas.

Imagine how much stronger our economy would be if that $100 were instead being spent here in America, putting Americans to work producing alternative fuels instead of enriching some shiek from the Middle East.

There will come a point where fossil fuels will no longer be available at any price. All the money in the world cannot buy something that doesnt exist. Our survival as a nation depends upon being self-sufficient for our own energy need when that day comes. It is coming soon and we are nowhere near being ready.

 

[wkmac]

What is the partial solution? An array of solar panels on top of a ups building to power their electric devices.(with storage batteries) . the distance between this power plant and the point of usage is considerably less. No pollution (except that in the making of said panels and batteries), or better yet fewer batteries, put the energy back in the grid , with some energy loss mind you. but the grid is now your bank, you give and take. If you take more than you give, you pay , just as you do now. if you are even, you are even. If you give more than you take, than you are now a cash generating power facility. Of course, there will be a fee for the utility company for their infrastructure, as well as fees for their brokering.

There are many innovative solutions to the supposed energy crisis, but there is less ability to monopolize and profit from them and we all know, the robber barons like their monopolies(better yet , when no one realizes they are monopolies)

If I won the lottery, I would knock the cobwebs from my brain and put the work into figuring out this great stuff (ahh, the inventor fantasy, who hasn't had it?). get me a place like I envision satellite driver has and work my stuff out and once semi perfected, , put that schematics out there on the internet through a non registered computer on a public wifi so it couldn't be traced to me. So they (and we know who they are) couldn't shoot me because they wouldn't know who who is.

My point about the efficency of internal combustion verses electric motor was never meant to ignore the larger infrastructure of energy delivery systems but was just a single at the point of use component to component comparison. If you want to compare the larger picture of human scale costs, for oil you have to add in the costs of goepolitics or with coal, the costs of human impact to the local and their property where the coal is mined. The cost impact to private property and life quality when for example a sludge pond damn ruptures and floods a West Virginia mountain community.

No arguement from me about your points of electric generation and in fact I completely agree that the large scale generation and transmission of electric power is not an efficent process at all. I agree completely with what you said about solar power generation for example and sorry if you misunderstood but my closing comment, "Think Local" was all about that very thing. Why generate energy 100's or 1000's of miles away when we can literally do it at the point of use. Tesla may have done a wonderful thing in winning the day with AC power but had Edison won the day with DC, we may have been far better off in regards to point of use generation.

Also I'm a big fan of low voltage DC lighting and the sooner we move away from 120 VAC home lighting and towards 12/24 VDC lighting using LED technology for example, the better IMO. As for cars, sure there's electric but there's also other technologies including a compressed air powered car. Sure, it requires a compressor but who sez that compressor can't be driven by solar or wind. The inventer of the air car is also working on an onboard compressor that makes the air car a literal perpetual motion machine. Engineering sez this is impossible but it was once impossible to go to the moon or see the farthest galaxies so what's impossible?

You were 1000% right when you said:
"There are many innovative solutions to the supposed energy crisis, but there is less ability to monopolize and profit from them and we all know, the robber barons like their monopolies(better yet , when no one realizes they are monopolies)"

I'm as much against centralized "Corporate Power" as I am centralized gov't power and making you own power and being grid free is just as important as being gov't free. I might even rate grid free the more important of the 2. Consider one of my favorite publications, Conspiratorialist Today...just kidding...it's actually Home Power Magazine which has tons of great articles and ideas on the subject of self generating power. As for how we live, google Mike Reynolds and "Earthship". A more detailed look at Mike can be found in the documentary "Garbage Warrior" seen as recently as this past Sunday on the Sundance Channel.

The sooner we break from cartel oil and cartel electric power, the better off we will all be IMO.

 

[rod]

Sober- You have said a few things in this thread that I seriously disagree with. Yes, $4/gal. gas definitely changed people's driving habits, and that was a good thing. The more important ideas you are missing out on is the impact on the economy when fuel prices rise, especially dramatically. Everything we consume is in some way tied to fossil fuels. When the price of the fuels rise so do the prices of a lot of goods and services. It costs farmers more to farm the same land, trucking companies more to move goods, and as a result everything increases in price. You and I, the end consumer pays these price increases and our standard of living decreases. There are alternatives in the works including organically produced oil, but these alternatives need time, and their time is not now. Its not the government's job to subvert the free market by making more efficient energy sources so expensive that the more expensive alternatives can compete. When an alternative energy source becomes efficient enough to compete with fossil fuels then it has a good chance of taking over. Until then taxing gasoline, coal, and natural gas to the hilt is going to do nothing but cost our country jobs.

Look how grocerys went UP the last fuel spike -- funny how they never came down when fuel prices dropped

 

[brett636]

So if everything we consume is in some way tied to fossil fuels...is it wise for us to continue importing 70% of those fuels?

Every time we spend $100 on a barrel of imported oil...that is $100 that is leaving our economy and heading overseas.

Imagine how much stronger our economy would be if that $100 were instead being spent here in America, putting Americans to work producing alternative fuels instead of enriching some shiek from the Middle East.

There will come a point where fossil fuels will no longer be available at any price. All the money in the world cannot buy something that doesnt exist. Our survival as a nation depends upon being self-sufficient for our own energy need when that day comes. It is coming soon and we are nowhere near being ready.

Under the cap and trade law passed by the house we would be importing more gasoline which in turn would mean more imported oil. The carbon tax is applied not only to the oil, but is assessed against the refineries as well if the oil is refined into gasoline in this country. The carbon tax credit will not be applied to gasoline refined outside this country thus making it cheaper to refine oil outside our borders costing us refining capacity and jobs not to mention requiring us to import more oil.

 

[moreluck]

I think this is the bill that passed the House without the people reading it all......there were 300 pages inserted the night before, leaving no time for the folks to read it all.

What's the hurry?
Who's hiding what?
It's looking very suspicious!

I think voting should be delayed until all have a chance to read what they are passing.

Are they just trying to pass things fast ,thinking we won't notice the bad sections .

SLOW DOWN you Washington D.C. people !!! Do what we pay you to do !!

 

[pickup]

My point about the efficency of internal combustion verses electric motor was never meant to ignore the larger infrastructure of energy delivery systems but was just a single at the point of use component to component comparison. If you want to compare the larger picture of human scale costs, for oil you have to add in the costs of goepolitics or with coal, the costs of human impact to the local and their property where the coal is mined. The cost impact to private property and life quality when for example a sludge pond damn ruptures and floods a West Virginia mountain community.

No arguement from me about your points of electric generation and in fact I completely agree that the large scale generation and transmission of electric power is not an efficent process at all. I agree completely with what you said about solar power generation for example and sorry if you misunderstood but my closing comment, "Think Local" was all about that very thing. Why generate energy 100's or 1000's of miles away when we can literally do it at the point of use. Tesla may have done a wonderful thing in winning the day with AC power but had Edison won the day with DC, we may have been far better off in regards to point of use generation. Well, now we introduce Tesla into mix. Well, first let me say that part of the reason that Tesla won the day is that brushings were not needed in his system that were needed in Edison's system because the very nature of electricity generation is that the "juice" created is alternating . Edison needed brushings to flip with the flip of the current so to speak. Those brushings were often the first item to break. As for other stuff of Tesla's I read that nokia will soon have a battery that recharges from ambient radio waves(transmitted from radio stations) Ho, ho, tesla had this a century ago but J.P. Morgan thwarted it because his interests in copper and other metals would have plummeted . As part of the robber baron clique, I am sure he had other reasons as well, including being against decentralization of a power supply

Also I'm a big fan of low voltage DC lighting and the sooner we move away from 120 VAC home lighting and towards 12/24 VDC lighting using LED technology for example, the better IMO. As for cars, sure there's electric but there's also other technologies including a compressed air powered car. Sure, it requires a compressor but who sez that compressor can't be driven by solar or wind. The inventer of the air car is also working on an onboard compressor that makes the air car a literal perpetual motion machine. Engineering sez this is impossible but it was once impossible to go to the moon or see the farthest galaxies so what's impossible? indeed science fiction of today is science fact tomorrow, although did you know you are not allowed to patent a perpetual motion machine? Hell, a man by the name of Rudolph Diesel patented an engine that was called a diesel engine(heard of it?) that was designed to run on peanut oil and that's how he promoted it. Funny thing is I think he mysteriously fell overboard a ship and died (not sure exactly how, but it is great stuff for conspiracy , I mean, history buffs.)

You were 1000% right when you said:
"There are many innovative solutions to the supposed energy crisis, but there is less ability to monopolize and profit from them and we all know, the robber barons like their monopolies(better yet , when no one realizes they are monopolies)"

I'm as much against centralized "Corporate Power" as I am centralized gov't power and making you own power and being grid free is just as important as being gov't free. I might even rate grid free the more important of the 2. Consider one of my favorite publications, Conspiratorialist Today...just kidding...it's actually Home Power Magazine which has tons of great articles and ideas on the subject of self generating power. As for how we live, google Mike Reynolds and "Earthship". A more detailed look at Mike can be found in the documentary "Garbage Warrior" seen as recently as this past Sunday on the Sundance Channel.
"indeed to be off the grid, in more ways than one is a dream of many , and a nightmare of the few in control .
The sooner we break from cartel oil and cartel electric power, the better off we will all be IMO.Amen

 

[toonertoo]

hmm.. your link takes me to a forum where they are discussing a jellyfish crop circle and how it might relate to a "warning" of a solar storm.


Anyway, abiotic oil is an interesting dilemma(at least how I see it). I think that scientists are in agreement that methane is present on mars, jupiter, some moons of saturn, etc. Yet methane is considered a fossil fuel(formed from the degeneration of plant life and so you can throw cows farting methane under that category). Yet we don't think life exists on these bodies ,just mentioned, in our solar system. So either we have to accept that a supposed fossil fuel can be created without lifeforms. Or if not, we have to accept that there is carbon based life on such planets.

Yes, I was pointing you to the coast to coast kinda stuff that says we could all die in a solar flair on Monday, and nothing would matter anymore. And since I'll be beginning my vacation, isnt that just perfect? I finally get time off and the world ends.

 

[wkmac]

Well, now we introduce Tesla into mix. Well, first let me say that part of the reason that Tesla won the day is that brushings were not needed in his system that were needed in Edison's system because the very nature of electricity generation is that the "juice" created is alternating . Edison needed brushings to flip with the flip of the current so to speak. Those brushings were often the first item to break. As for other stuff of Tesla's I read that nokia will soon have a battery that recharges from ambient radio waves(transmitted from radio stations) Ho, ho, tesla had this a century ago but J.P. Morgan thwarted it because his interests in copper and other metals would have plummeted . As part of the robber baron clique, I am sure he had other reasons as well, including being against decentralization of a power supply

As for Nokia, you are correct according to this. Tesla advocated that nature itself was an electrical generator (I completely agree) and it was possible to tap into that process and draw free power from it. Your comment on J.P. Morgan pertains to Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower and Morgan's belief that Tesla's idea of free energy lacked the ability to provide any monetary return. Story has it Morgan asked Telsa where will we put the meter and Tesla stood there silent! Don't you just love that!


Brushings? You mean brushes or brushless? I'm not familar with brushings so if it is that, fill me in as I'd like to know. If you meant brushless, yeah you are still correct in that Tesla after working for Edison redesigning his DC generators, left Edison over a pay dispute and began work on his AC polyphase system which led to his creation of the brushless AC induction motor and of course the alternator but typically Faraday and Pixii get the earliest credit there. Tesla gets credit for the high frequency alternator and this was the heart of his polyphase system which became the standard.

The AC motor itself is a generator because if you turn the stator inside the armature and attach a good Fluke meter to the lead wires at the peckerhead, you'll observe a measure of electric current and the faster you turn, the more current you'll get. The same field that produces work when electric current is applied also produces electric current when rotated absent an external electric source. Stick that in your pocket for free should the ultimate balloon ever go up!


So much of what Tesla did, we may never know as upon his death J.Edgar Hoover ordered all his secret writtings and notes to be seized and noted as Top Secret. Tesla had been working on energy weapons and what many now call Scalar Field Theory. What was there I guess no one will ever know but the allegations are enough themselves to provide at least 3 seasons of X-Files TV shows and Mulder and Skully would never have to worry with intergalactic aliens.


You mentioned the first diesel engine running on peanut oil but did you also know that Henry Ford's first fuel was Hemp oil until he was convinced by Rockerfeller to use a waste product from kerosene production as a fuel source. That waste was called gasoline and is it not interesting that our Tesla invented an igniter that would later be called a spark plug!

"indeed to be off the grid, in more ways than one is a dream of many , and a nightmare of the few in control .

Reading that last comment I'm reminded of a statement uttered by someone else (can't remember who) but I quote it often and to your comment above, it fits perfectly IMO.

"Some want to rule the world, most of us just want to live in it!"

Enjoyed the conversation!
Take care.

 

[pickup]

As for Nokia, you are correct according to this. Tesla advocated that nature itself was an electrical generator (I completely agree) and it was possible to tap into that process and draw free power from it. Your comment on J.P. Morgan pertains to Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower and Morgan's belief that Tesla's idea of free energy lacked the ability to provide any monetary return. Story has it Morgan asked Telsa where will we put the meter and Tesla stood there silent! Don't you just love that!


Brushings? You mean brushes or brushless? I'm not familar with brushings so if it is that, fill me in as I'd like to know. If you meant brushless, yeah you are still correct in that Tesla after working for Edison redesigning his DC generators, left Edison over a pay dispute and began work on his AC polyphase system which led to his creation of the brushless AC induction motor and of course the alternator but typically Faraday and Pixii get the earliest credit there. Tesla gets credit for the high frequency alternator and this was the heart of his polyphase system which became the standard.

The AC motor itself is a generator because if you turn the stator inside the armature and attach a good Fluke meter to the lead wires at the peckerhead, you'll observe a measure of electric current and the faster you turn, the more current you'll get. The same field that produces work when electric current is applied also produces electric current when rotated absent an external electric source. Stick that in your pocket for free should the ultimate balloon ever go up!


So much of what Tesla did, we may never know as upon his death J.Edgar Hoover ordered all his secret writtings and notes to be seized and noted as Top Secret. Tesla had been working on energy weapons and what many now call Scalar Field Theory. What was there I guess no one will ever know but the allegations are enough themselves to provide at least 3 seasons of X-Files TV shows and Mulder and Skully would never have to worry with intergalactic aliens.


You mentioned the first diesel engine running on peanut oil but did you also know that Henry Ford's first fuel was Hemp oil until he was convinced by Rockerfeller to use a waste product from kerosene production as a fuel source. That waste was called gasoline and is it not interesting that our Tesla invented an igniter that would later be called a spark plug!



Reading that last comment I'm reminded of a statement uttered by someone else (can't remember who) but I quote it often and to your comment above, it fits perfectly IMO.

"Some want to rule the world, most of us just want to live in it!"

Enjoyed the conversation!
Take care.

Yeah, I probably should have stated brushes as opposed to brushings. I don't know as much about electricity as I used to . However, I believe the term "brushings"(a bad derivation of the word "brushes") is used when you take your power tool to the repair shop. Most of the problems are due to the "brushings"(brushes) falling apart . This is a common term used in the construction and hardware industry when talking about electric power and the brushes inside. My bad. My father had a ton of power tools and was always on the phone with the repair shop and the term"replaced brushings" was on the bills he received.
You are obviously a little more hip to electricity than I am. However, I believe that edison's generator was basically a ac generator that delived dc current through the usage of commutators and brushes. The brushes would fall apart and pieces of them would fall into wrong places creating short circuits. Tesla even pointed out to edison that it would be better to go with an system that delivered ac current(which we have today) and edison essentially agreed with him in theory but I believe he indicated to Tesla that he was already financially committed to a dc system (to much work was already done in that regards). Now if Tesla were with Edison when he was first laying down the plans for the system, Edison might have gone along with this change. But by the time Tesla came over to the states and joined Edison, Edison's plans were already in concrete, i.e somewhat materialized.

I'll look into this more on a later date. but I am in the ballpark.

No, I didn't know that about Henry Ford's fuel of choice. Interesting. The more you get into this , the more the conspiracies become a single conspiracy. You have a separate thread about the federal reserve. I think you know how deeply entrenched the rockefellers are with that entity. I

Yup, know about hoover grabbing Tesla's papers after he died. I am sure we are seeing some of the military applications of these papers in today's world. Very interesting man , Tesla. Would have been regarded as the inventor of the radio as opposed to marconi. The way things turned out the way they did, is that marconi allied himself with an english business firm and Tesla allied himself with a german business firm and then ww1 broke out. Tesla lost out on this particular claim to fame as a result of the war. Although , I think many now in the know recognize him as the true inventor of radio. Shame most school kids never heard of his name . I know I didn't encounter this name until many years after i graduated.

The truth is out there. Enjoyed the conversation as well.

 

[Babagounj]

I think this is the bill that passed the House without the people reading it all......there were 300 pages inserted the night before, leaving no time for the folks to read it all.

What's the hurry?
Who's hiding what?
It's looking very suspicious!

I think voting should be delayed until all have a chance to read what they are passing.

Are they just trying to pass things fast ,thinking we won't notice the bad sections .

SLOW DOWN you Washington D.C. people !!! Do what we pay you to do !!

I agree.......this vote then read policy is foolish.
Why must every bill be passed so quickly , just because O says so.
..................
Cap & Trade is all about climate change bs..
Its a scam to make "carbon credits " our new monetary unit.
Every other country that has tried this failed.
Plus since we do not currently have a "energy problem " why is Congress doing anything about it ?
.......................................
To keep our funds here instead of giving them to some middle east shiek, I have a great idea. Lets drill for oil in & offshore America.
Go tell those tree huggers to get real. We have plenty of oil here & the production will actually create real paying jobs.