posted 12-30-2003 03:32 PM            

Zero-Point Energy: Sailing The Sea of Energy

{exerpt from Turning the Corner: Energy Solutions for the 21st Century}




Classical physics dictates that the vacuum is devoid not only of matter but also of energy. The word usually suggests uninteresting empty space, but to modern quantum physicists, the vacuum has turned out to be rich with complex and unexpected behavior. They describe it as a state of minimum energy where quantum fluctuations, consistent with the uncertainty principle of physicist Werner Heisenberg, can lead to the temporary formation of particle-antiparticle pairs. Before the advent of quantum theory, classical physics taught that any simple, real-world oscillator, such as a pendulum, when excited, would eventually come to rest if not continuously energized by some outside force, such as a spring. Friction kills momentum. Then quantum theory came along declaring that an oscillator does not come to total rest but that it actually continues to "jiggle" randomly about its resting point with a very small amount of energy always present. Scientists call the energy produced by fluctuations of the electromagnetic and gravitational force fields in the vacuum zero-point energy (ZPE).

There is no doubt that vacuum fluctuations affect the behavior of microscopic particles and the world around us. In 1968, Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov speculated that gravitation might not be a fundamental interaction but rather a secondary effect associated with other nongravitational fields. Sakharov theorized that gravity might be an induced effect brought about by changes in the ZPE of the vacuum due to the presence of matter. His pioneering insight was based on the assumption that the electric component of the zero-point field causes charged particles to oscillate, and this vibration gives rise to a secondary electromagnetic field. The secondary electromagnetic field then reflects back onto the primary field. This subatomic cosmic dance results in an attractive force between the particles, thus causing gravitation.

Scientists radically disagree over just how much ZPE is available for possible extraction. Jordan Maclay, a former professor of electrical engineering at the University of Illinois in Chicago, who has secured funding from NASA to study the energy of the vacuum, has calculated that a region of vacuum the size of a proton could contain as much energy as all the matter in the entire Universe. Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, presently at the University of Texas in Austin, has an opposing view. Weinberg agrees that the total amount of ZPE in the Universe is abundant, but he believes that all of the zero-point energy available in a space the size of Earth is equal to the energy contained in one gallon of gasoline. Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman and one of Einstein's protégés, John Wheeler, calculated that there is more than enough energy in the volume of a coffee cup to evaporate all the world's oceans. Energy density in the zero-point field is just one of the hotly contested questions bouncing around the physics' community regarding this topic.

Modern zero-point energy research has languished with relatively little conventional interest or much funding, but scientific curiosity actually predates the formalism of quantum mechanics in 1925, which confirmed the existence of ZPE. Quantum mechanics asserts that just considering the fluctuation of the electromagnetic force, any given volume of empty space could contain an infinite number of vacuum-energy frequencies — and, therefore, an infinite supply of energy. Proponents believe that ZPE is energy from the vacuum continuum and is responsible for gravity and inertia as well as the Lamb shift and Casimir force. Researchers have called ZPE "zero-point electromagnetic radiation energy" or referred to it as "a flux of virtual particles," but, most important, nearly all agree that the quantum mechanical zero-point oscillations are real.

Most modern physicists understand that the vacuum is not a tranquil void but a quantum state with fluctuations having observable consequences. In recent years, evidence suggests that the electromagnetic zero-point field is not merely an artifact of quantum mechanics but a real entity with major implications for gravity, astrophysics, and technology. ZPE may represent a fundamental link about the relationship between relativity theory and quantum physics. Top-ranked physicists insist that research into zero-point energy is justified and should continue to be supported.

posted 12-30-2003 03:40 PM            

Race for New Energy

{exerpt from Turning the Corner: Energy Solutions for the 21st Century}




Scientists, engineers, and professional researchers are excited about a plethora of new emerging energy systems that, with sufficient financial and government support, might be developed and brought to market in time to help society make the transition from limited and polluting fossil-fuel-dependent energy systems to a future of clean, decentralized power generation.

Forward-looking scientists and engineers see a bright future of high-power energy packages, such as advanced batteries, inexpensive fuel cells, microgenerators of cheap electricity as well as decentralized power sources that will be affordable and environmentally clean. Modular, on-site heat and electricity generators will replace our current centralized utility-based energy system. This will be especially important in developing nations that cannot afford the extensive infrastructure of high voltage wires needed to distribute electricity. In fact, there are many new technologies in the theoretical or research and development stages that have the potential to convert energy into useful work.

Funding has always been a serious problem for the men and women exploring the frontiers of science. Pioneers in the emerging new energy field are self-motivated and usually nonconforming; they prefer to learn and discover new things for themselves as opposed to being taught from the textbook. When it comes to scientific investigation into truly new energy frontiers, guidance from past records is often of little help and, in fact, may hinder efficient progress. Inventors, who work solo or in small teams, must choose a project or route of exploration that they can complete by themselves. Isolation often results as researchers seek to protect the proprietary information that gives their work commercial value and secures the inventor's share of future profits.

Research into breakthrough energy systems is challenging, expensive, time-consuming, and, since most of the new technologies will not prove successful in commercial application, often frustrating. A major problem in the alternative energy field is that most conventional physicists and academics believe this kind of research violates the laws of physics and, therefore, is a waste of time. Many individuals working on their own feel that they are a victim of a "conspiracy of suppression" when, in fact, they are only battling the inertia of the established scientific paradigm. Some men and women working at the periphery of known science have not helped their cause by making outlandish promises and overstated claims of experimental success.

The search for 21st century carbonless energy systems will continue despite political and financial obstacles. In April 1998, the United States Department of Energy issued its Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES). Included among its five goals was: "Goal IV: Expand future energy choices — pursuing continued progress in science and technology to provide future generations with a robust portfolio of clean and reasonably priced energy sources." Included as two objectives are: 1) "Maintain a strong national knowledge base as the foundation for informed energy decisions, new energy systems, and enabling technologies for the future; 2) Expand long-term energy options." An independent study was performed by Alternative Energy Institute, Inc., on the DOE's progress under the CNES declaration, and it is clear that the DOE has not yet engaged in developing, much less maintaining, a robust knowledge base of future energy choices. There has been no expanded research into new energy systems or long-term energy options, mainly due to upper management decisions. Instead of investigating potential clean carbonless energy technologies, the DOE has endorsed natural gas use for future generations (it burns cleaner than coal or oil but is also a limited, nonrenewable resource), and supports using coal and nuclear energy to provide much of the nation's electricity.

Optimists claim that there is enough oil worldwide to last another 40 years. Some experts consider it to be much less. What then? Now is the time to make the decisions that will facilitate the transition from the pollution-ridden fossil fuel age to a future of clean and virtually limitless energy technologies. At this time, there is no new technology or renewable resource that can single-handedly replace oil as the energy product of choice. It will take a combination of well-designed, reliable, environmentally friendly, renewable and new energy systems to take the place of cheap petroleum. It is time to wholeheartedly support and implement renewable energies like wind, biomass gasification, and solar power, as well as the search for future power systems that will tap the sea of energy that surrounds us all. The 19th century philosopher Henry David Thoreau got it right when he said, "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them."

http://www.altenergy.org/#

posted 12-30-2003 03:53 PM            

Twenty-first Century Solutions: Turning the Corner

{exerpt from Turning the Corner: Energy Solutions for the 21st Century}




Technological optimism is a tenant of faith in Western science, but relying on major advances in new energy research as a quick and painless solution to the environmental/energy crisis would be a mistake. Energy systems take years, if not decades, to develop. Conversely, funding and coordinating a large-scale research effort along the lines of a "Manhattan Project" could yield dramatic progress in developing breakthrough energy and/or propulsion systems. The challenges are serious but not insurmountable. An informed and proactive public is vital to the grassroots effort that any social revolution demands. A new scientific paradigm, one that openly supports research in legitimate carbonless technologies, will help meet the energy requirements of future generations.

Nationally, electricity is generated by a variety of processes, but coal, uranium, and, increasingly, natural gas, are the principal fuels. All of these methods of electricity generation are nonrenewable and contribute significantly to environmental degradation. Howard Geller, former executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, proposes that the: "US government should provide financial incentives to support innovative energy efficiency measures; stimulate expanded energy efficiency programs on the part of states and utilities; increase energy efficiency investments by federal agencies; and expand energy efficiency research and development, information and promotion programs."

In the United States, where consumer and industry demand for petroleum products, natural gas, and quality electricity is increasing each year, only a small fraction of households and businesses have upgraded their energy efficiency to the maximum degree that is cost-effective. Experts assert that fully half of the potential greenhouse gas reductions achievable by 2020 can be met by using technologies available today to improve energy efficiency in buildings, transportation, and industry.

In order to give clean, renewable, and emerging carbonless technologies a bigger piece of the power supply pie, subsidies to the fossil fuel industry must end, and the playing field must be equalized. For example, consider the remarkable history of the semiconductor/computer industry. The US government and military paid premium prices for early microchips, which gave semiconductor companies the time and money to improve the design and production technology of the circuit — eventually reducing costs for everybody. The US government can and should commit to purchasing a fixed and growing percentage of its power from renewable sources so that the financial might of the federal government can help create a vigorous market for new clean technologies. The boost could be quite significant; after all, through its departments and agencies, the federal government spends about $8 billion a year on energy — probably more than any other single consumer in the world.

To the US Department of Energy's credit, a new office has been established within the organization to serve in a strategic research management function. The Office of Advanced Energy Concepts (OAEC) is managing the new Breakthrough Energy Physics Research (BEPR) Program. The BEPR Program is a joint exploratory research effort between the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Science, and the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. The goal of the OAEC is to identify, research, develop, and push new, far-reaching concepts that have the potential to advance significantly a cross-section of DOE energy and transportation programs. Among the principal goals, objectives, and strategies, the BEPR Program will research, develop, and validate emerging theories, new ideas, and anomalous effects that can lead to breakthrough advances in energy storage and conversion. To ensure the maximum return on investment and to prevent duplication of efforts, the BEPR Program Plan will coordinate closely with NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Research Project.

If successful, the BEPR Program will go a long way toward securing US leadership in the breakthrough carbonless energy and propulsion technologies that will define the 21st century. Among the goals of the United States' 1992 Energy Policy Act: are 1) To maintain the technological competitiveness of the United States and stimulate economic growth through the development of advanced technologies; 2) To consider the obstacles inherent in private industry's development of new energy technologies and the steps necessary for establishing or maintaining technological leadership. The BEPR Program was initiated to fill a void in R&D activities that the US government wants to accomplish. If funded and implemented, the BEPR Program will accept proposals for small-scale, exploratory, high-risk research in the fields of science and engineering related to DOE's energy and transportation missions. This research approach is unique in that it begins with novel ideas but seeks credible supporting theories and/or hitherto unexplained effects in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as a basis for initial research exploration. This organization is empowered to work in an independent fashion and to conduct research as free as possible from the administrative burdens of a larger bureaucracy, and it is committed to engaging the brightest minds available to assist in this endeavor.

The world is at a critical crossroads. How we act in the next decade will mean the difference between passing on an impoverished planet, polluted and down to a bare-bones supply of energy-related natural resources, or a world on the mend, heading brightly into a future with endless possibilities. Who wants to explain to their grandchildren that our generation consumed oil so prodigiously that it polluted the biosphere, changed the weather, and negatively affected global climate patterns? Who will explain to them that gone forever is much of the planet's inexpensive oil supply, a vital commodity that has driven America's economy for more than 100 years, and provides medicine, plastics, and fertilizer to heal and feed the world's booming population? Hydrocarbon resources are a one-time gift from the planet and are now being consumed as if there were no tomorrow, with little consideration for future generations. Now is the time to make the decisions that will facilitate the transition from the pollution-ridden fossil fuel age to a future of clean and virtually limitless energy technologies. If not us, who? If not now, when?

http://www.altenergy.org/#

posted 12-30-2003 04:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Great job, Letxa! WOW!

---

Thanks. It was a long effort. Started last night until I was called away by my wife, then finished it up this morning.

quote:

---

You raised some interesting points on whether the energies he mentioned were authentic or not -- good research, too -- but when he rambles into more philosophical territory -- you seem to just be disagreeing with his philosophy more than anything and that is all one can do with philosophy-- either agree or disagree.

---

True, and actually my purpose was to research the supposedly-available free energy devices because if there is a conspiracy to keep these items in the dark, we must first have some reason to believe that the supressed technology actually exists. If we have no proof they even exist or have been developed I don't think it's reasonable to conclude there is a conspiracy to keep it away from the public.

On the philosophical stuff, I started to reply to those aspects so that I would, effectively, have answered the entire article. And I made a few comments that were, granted, rather pompous in regards to the philosophical part of his essay.

But let me make one thing clear... I'm not into New Age stuff, but a lot of the precepts of the New Age movement inasmuch as how we should behave in relation to others makes a lot of sense. It's not that I necessarily disagree with a lot of his philosophical comments, I just don't think it belongs in a free energy essay.

Given that I couldn't find any of the existing free energy technologies, his logic regarding energy=capital was flawed and, as such, his conspiracy theory is also flawed, it seemed the only thing remaining was the philosophical aspect of it. Which is fine, but I got the impression by the end of my research that, really, the "free energy" aspect was more of a hook to get people to read his philosophical opinions.

quote:

---

I said I thought the article was interesting, not totally valid in all ways. I had no idea of its validity. But you really did a great job in responding to it! BRAVO!

---

No problem. I'm glad I was able to come up with some post that met your expectations.

quote:

---

About Greer? I've read so many books on the alien subject, met and talked to alien abductees, listened to former military people who have worked on various projects, and read many of their testimonies to lightly dismiss the subject as "unreal" or a group hallucination shared by thousands of people. I have even seen UFO's myself, several times!

---

Cool. I've always kind of wanted to see a UFO, although at the same time I'm not sure I'd want to. At least not "up front and personal."

quote:

---

Through a telescope back in the late sixties when I was a teen, I saw an object make a perfect square in the sky! One time in the 80's I suddenly suggested my husband and I go out in the backyard and look up into the night sky, and we both saw a pong like object moving about irratically. It could have been a projection of some kind, but it was a UFO to any onlooker. My husband saw a saucer at low altitudes being chased by two jets in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, when he was 19. His brother and two friends and he all saw it together in the daylight! The saucer was complete with blinking lights around the edge. My husband and I both saw a boomerang shaped object either cast a shadow or actually shown in relief on the eclipsed moon just this past Nov. I reported the sighting to a well known report center and found it confirmed by at least 10 others who saw the same object, only closer, on the East coast in various states.

---

I certainly don't deny there are things we sometimes can't identify, and they are often in the sky.

The only "alternative" topic I've been more interested in than conspiracy theories is UFOs. Believe me, I am informed on that topic as well.

Inasmuch as UFOs are from another planet, I've gone from believing it earlier in my life to not believing them, and now I'm on the fence. I think a lot of it is hooey, but there are other things that just haven't been sufficiently explained.

quote:

---

I know people right now who have been abducted, bruises and all. For me, I KNOW the aliens exist. Period. Now, since I've been reading extensively on the subject for years and listen to those who have had direct experience in the government's black ops projects -- no selling of anything involved --- I do believe that Steven Greer's wanting to bring first, the UFO coverup to light, and secondly some newer forms of energy to our planet -- is "legit! "

---

His desire to do either of these is, I'm sure, legit. Whether he can achieve either is open to debate. Actually, not debate--it's just a matter of waiting and seeing if he can deliver any of what he is promising or trying to deliver.

quote:

---

If you admit to your own ignorance on this subject and simply say, well I don't know about any of this for sure, I will respect you more than if you simply wave it all away with a "humpff, that's nuts!" You know?

---

See above. I'm on the fence when it comes to UFOs. And, yes, that's the other "alternative" topic that I am sufficiently "learned" on.

As I have said elsewhere, I am a private pilot though I don't claim to have the thousands of hours of flight-time that, say, military pilots do. But I have done my share of flying at night. The night is a weird thing and your eyes can play tricks on you. Lights from the city can sometimes look like an aircraft in the distance, and vice versa. Even during the day it is amazing how you can be flying the plane and not see another aircraft 5 miles away that your copilot has in plain view and is trying to point out to you.

Having read both sides of the story and not having first-hand contact with someone who has been abducted I'm on the fence. But I assure you I have an open mind on that topic.

Mostly, my comments regarding the credibility of Greer isn't that by believing in UFOs he loses credibility in my eyes. But he doesn't gain any credibility, either, even if he put together some Congressional hearing on the topic. Dee Snider from Twisted Sister has participated in Congressional hearings as have any other number of celebrities and, in some cases, wackos.

Again, not saying that Greer is a wacko... Just that arranging a Congressional hearing doesn't establish credibility. Although, more interesting would be to know what results that Congressional hearing had?

When it comes to the article in question, the first thing that caught my eye was him being on Coast to Coast and the Art Bell show. Whether you believe in conspiracies or UFOs or not, the Art Bell show is just mind candy and entertainment. If I were Greer I would steer clear of those programs because they reduce credibility in the eyes of most people. And the credibility that the public perceives is important. You can't go around accusing the government and others of massive coverups if the public doesn't believe you have any credibility. I mean, you can, but the government will ignore you and the public will let them ignore you.

quote:

---

Then, someone told us about Art Bell and of course I visit the Coast to Coast website as well. When any open radio station interviews an expert on the subject or presents a testimony of abductees -- I'm open to it if I happen to know when it's on. I sometimes listen to the programs through the computer. For me, it's a great way to learn!

---

I guess it's ok if it gives you ideas of things to explore or research, but as a previous fan and avid listener of the Art Bell program over a decade ago I really must state that even though everything sounded amazingly logical at the time, in retrospect and a decade later I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe that anything I heard on Art Bell was true. And many times, especially regarding UFOs, they were promising earth-changing events within "a few months." It's been more than a decade and nothing has happened.

That's just my opinion and perhaps it's outdated. I listened to Art Bell, as best as I can remember, from about 1990-1996. I haven't listened to Art Bell since I moved to Mexico.

quote:

---

And would you believe it, it doesn't affect my belief in Jesus as the Son of God, at all! It all fits!

---

I'm glad you believe in Jesus. So do I. And I completely agree that if aliens exist it doesn't conflict with my belief in Jesus as the Son of God. I agree it all could make sense. I just haven't been able to make my own conclusion regarding aliens yet. I'm glad you've had the opportunity and the contacts to make it an easy conclusion for you.

quote:

---

Now, I suspect that you're sitting there thinking I'm a nut, and finding yourself judging my credibity, as it where.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

Steven Greer, who is a medical doctor, a physician by trade, had nothing to gain from studying and compiling the information he has. He launched into it for the sake of truth.

---

That's entirely possible. It's just too bad that he had to sell DVDs or whatever. It's possible that he is completely serious, but that he "had nothing to gain" isn't completely accurate when he's selling product.

There are so many sites and sources of information on the Internet that are completely free and done for the betterment or education of society. I run one such site. It's technical, but I'm constantly receiving emails thanking me for making it available for free. With so many free sources of information on so many topics it is unfortunate that Greer would open up one more potential area of suspicion regarding his intentions by selling DVDs or whatever.

quote:

---

Again, As John Leer offered the question to Art Bell, back in Oct., would you want to government to tell everything it knows about the aliens and their agenda to the whole world?

---

Yes, I would like to know everything.

quote:

---

You see, when someone is ignorant to the experiences of others, they naturally can't relate. Once you inform yourself on this or any other topic that you're unfamiliar with, you can then make an assessment. Until then, you are only going by mere emotion.

---

Like I said, I unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) don't know anyone that has been abducted or even seen a UFO. And I count a decent number of pilots among my "friends."

Lacking such first-hand contact, it's difficult not to read the reports of abductions, etc. and completely believe them. I have read them and have them "filed away" in my brain--so as soon as I am personally convinced that the stuff is real, well, I do know what's going on. But what I need is something that can convince me of that. For you, perhaps, it was your first-hand acquaintances and perhaps actually seeing some stuff yourself. I haven't had that opportunity and, as such, I haven't reached a conclusion yet.

quote:

---

Back to the topic at hand. The energy situation? Solar electric and hybrid combinations of engines have been repressed in the last 15 years for use in vehicles due to the money interests. Anyone knows that. The Dems have tried to pass many a bill related to opening the already available alternative technologies to the various vehicle manufacturing companies (legislating), but the cost verses the profit margin reduction to transfer manufacturing was just too hard for the companies to accept.

---

I don't know that. As far as I can tell from my reading, I am aware of energy technologies that work but aren't efficient or cost-effective. As I said before, I oppose legislation requiring these technologies to be used until they are mature and commercially viable.

Also, in regards to automotive, I think it's mostly about energy storage--not creation. I agree that we should look at alternative fuel sources for cars. But, for example, if we choose hydrogen we still need to be able to produce that hydrogen. And not withstanding certain energy sources which proclaim to violate the conservation of energy law of physics, it's going to still take some fuel source to produce the hydrogen. Perhaps solar will work, but it needs to be more efficient before it can produce sufficient hydrogen to supply all the cars in the United States (unless we want to cover the state of Wyoming with solar panels which, some would argue, would be an improvement over the current scenery of that state).

So what they're really talking about there is energy storage, not energy creation. It's an important distinction.

quote:

---

Instead, they chose the short term greed satisfaction of selling larger engine cars in SUV's and trucks than outfit the technology.

---

These are two different issues. If we had free energy would you have a problem with selling larger cars and SUVs? People want SUVs because they like them and, well, gas is cheap enough that they can afford them.

So are we going to complain that gas is to cheap? Ironically, of course, some people do. They think it should be taxed more. But that's just artificially inflating the price to achieve a political goal because someone in power decided that we should. I'm sorry, but I don't want the government trying to influence my buying decisions. When a cheaper energy source comes along I'll adopt it without coercion.

quote:

---

Petroleum companies also lobbied against it as their interests would be threatened as well. Gasoline is a big money maker! Duh! Now that's obvious.

---

I don't deny that petroleum companies have an interesting in keeping us on petroleum. But I'm not convinced there is currently any other alternative anyway and, when there is, I'm not convinced that they will be able to stop it.

quote:

---

Even the recent energy bill still excludes the larger vehicles from fuel standards. We, as a nation of manufacturers are capable of transferring to better and less polluting fuels and engines than we presently have, and could have transitioned 15 years ago and be well on the way to alternative fuels and hybrid technology. Solar electric, natural gas engines, hybrids with electric and gas, pure electric,and others, are all just now coming out into the mainstream, but at a trickle. All vehicles could have been changed in their engine types by now -- all of them -- had the monied factions not paid the price of government intervention to prevent legislation promoting and forcing vehicle manufacturers to comply! Everyone knows this!

---

No, not everyone knows this. I agree that we should invest more in research, but again, just using fuel cells or hydrogen or whatever doesn't necessarily reduce our dependency on petroleum. We still need energy to produce the hydrogen stored in the fuel.

quote:

---

Parallels exist in the realm of medical technology and practice as well, as I mentioned, but we should do a study on another thread for that. It is a kind of conspiracy if you follow the money trail. The buying out of patents is also valid in stopping various inventions and cures. But, again, let's not go into it, now.

---

Yes, let's not. I don't consider myself fully informed on those medical conspiracies. I've heard of them in passing but it's not something I'm going to debate now. Actually, it's not something I'm going to read right now, either. Another conspriacy for another day.

quote:

---

So, as you can gather, I support Dr. Steven Geer and find him credible. He's not selling anything and has given much of his time to his Disclosure Project

---

Actually, he is.

quote:

---

he's working on forwarding the cause of cheap and plentiful energy. It's a valiant effort on his part. He hasn't forgotten the alien situation, by any means, it's just on the back burner for now.

---

Ok, that's possible. But, really, I think the knowledge of aliens is much more important to humans than free energy. I mean in the short- to medium-term. But if he can prove or make available information on either topic, hey, more power to him! (pun not intended)

quote:

---

Now this forum is called Chemtrail Central, and it would behoove you to read the postings and reports on the chemtrail part of this board to give you an introduction to the issue.

---

I got an introduction. I posted the links I read (from this site) either in this thread or some other thread in the last 2 or 3 days.

As I said, I just didn't find anything that convinced me there was anything to it. If you did, fine. To me, it's like if someone refers me to a "flat earth" website. Sure, I'll read a page or two but if they don't make a compelling case quick I'm not going to spend any more time on it. There wasn't anything that struck me as convincing on what I read about chemtrails.

But if you feel differently, knock yourself out! I have enough on my plate with 9/11 and aliens.

quote:

---

I agreed with your research and your doubting of motives! Great! I happen to agree that supression of various technologies definately goes on.

---

Well, like you said, you're welcome to that opinion. And I'm not saying it doesn't or can't happen. The RIAA, for example, is certainly trying to make sure that their obsolete business model continues to exist.

But in the absence of evidence of "someone" supressing energy technologies or convincing evidence of a currently-workable alternative energy that could economically replace petroleum but is mysteriously being ignored, I just don't have any reason to believe it. This could change if/when I see such evidence.

quote:

---

And the tiers of various forces, disregarding his metaphor of capital equals energy, made a lot of sense to me, philosophically. I think the message is, those who make money off of present energy systems would naturally not appreciate a new one that could offer others free energy.

---

Oh, I agree with that. I'm sure oil companies will be just as freaked out as the RIAA is right now as they see their empire crumble. But crumble it will. Even the government hasn't been able to help the RIAA, and it won't be able to help the oil companies either. But for the RIAA to crumble, a new method of music distribution had to become available.

I honestly believe that the reason we're still using petroleum is because it's the cheapest alternative right now. That will change someday, and I look forward to that day.

quote:

---

Why no big government handouts to solar arrays and wind energy generators to get them going to light and serve power to their individual communities?

---

I'd rather burn natural gas or have a nuclear plant than clutter an entire hillside with solar pannels (which look ugly on that scale) or wind energy generators (which look ugly, have you ever seen that windmill farm in California? I've driven past it and it's impressive, but ugly. It also kill birds).

Also, solar and wind power only works where solar and wind is reliably available. It has to be stored for when it isn't which means the peak output of the generators has to be significantly more than what the population needs on a constant basis so it can be stored for when there isn/t wind or sun. And storage is another problem since one technology that hasn't significantly improved over time has been energy storage. Batteries aren't much more efficient today than they were 20 years ago.

Want to look for a conspiracy? Investigate why batteries haven't seen the same rate of improvements that computers and other technology has. Compared to computers, which are millions of times more powerful than computers from 20 years ago, batteries have remained basically unchanged. I'm not saying there is a conspiracy and I have never heard of a battery conspiracy, but for wind, solar, or many other alternative energies to become viable we need a way to store energy for when that alternative power isn't available. Until we get a more efficient way to store energy, a lot of the alternative power options are academic and not practical.

quote:

---

Yes,we're all free to equip our homes with solar panels or set up windmills to get us off the grid, but the costs are high and many homeowners can't afford the initial outlay.

---

My case exactly. As soon as solar panels become affordable you can bet I'll be putting some on my roof. This is what I'm talking about "commercially viable." Solar technology hasn't caught up with the economic efficiency of petroleum. When it does, me and millions others will buy solar panels and petroleum will take it's first step down the ladder of importance.

quote:

---

The deductions and tax benefits for the individual homeowner in this recent energy bill are a farce! I read the bill! This kind of bill should have been passed back in the 80's. You tell me why it wasn't? It's too little too late!

---

Probably because it currently doesn't make financial sense. What is the point of offering tax benefits to get homeowners to use technology that costs more?

quote:

---

Greed has prevented many new techologies that could have cleaned up our air quality by now! We all know it!

---

There may be some of that, but the evidence I have seen simply suggests that the alternative technologies, clean as they may be, are more expensive. That's why no-one wants them. At least not yet. When they're cheap then you'll find people buying them with or without tax breaks.

posted 12-30-2003 06:41 PM            

quote:

---

But let me make one thing clear... I'm not into New Age stuff, but a lot of the precepts of the New Age movement inasmuch as how we should behave in relation to others makes a lot of sense. It's not that I necessarily disagree with a lot of his philosophical comments, I just don't think it belongs in a free energy essay.

Given that I couldn't find any of the existing free energy technologies, his logic regarding energy=capital was flawed and, as such, his conspiracy theory is also flawed, it seemed the only thing remaining was the philosophical aspect of it. Which is fine, but I got the impression by the end of my research that, really, the "free energy" aspect was more of a hook to get people to read his philosophical opinions.

---

Well, I posted some articles on cold fusion and as far as the other technologies he mentioned, I don't know -- so I appreciate your research. Well, as far as using the word, "flawed", I think it would be better to acquisce to just diagree at times. He may actually see it this way and can prove it from his logic base. So if you find some aspects of an article as "not true" it still might contain some truth. If he was selling an energy related object, he just might be practicing a form of advertising called "sympathy purchasing". Was he selling his philosophy or an object?

About selling on the internet? I don't see anything wrong with people selling anything on the internet. Some products are legitimate (helpful, do what they say it will do) and some are not.

Letxa:

quote:

---

As I have said elsewhere, I am a private pilot though I don't claim to have the thousands of hours of flight-time that, say, military pilots do. But I have done my share of flying at night. The night is a weird thing and your eyes can play tricks on you. Lights from the city can sometimes look like an aircraft in the distance, and vice versa. Even during the day it is amazing how you can be flying the plane and not see another aircraft 5 miles away that your copilot has in plain view and is trying to point out to you.

---

I hear you. One has to go by their own experiences. But books and other people's experience provide a glimpse of their realities. We read fiction, and non-fiction for this purpose -- to expand our own experience through the experiences of others. When many others experience the same thing, you have increased the reality quotient as well. In our case, about our recent sighting, we were on our property in the country and viewing through a crystal clear sky at 7,000 plus altitude -- Black Forest.

Letxa:

quote:

---

.... I'm on the fence

---

That's fine. You're free.

Letxa:

quote:

---

....even if he put together some Congressional hearing on the topic.

---

Not just any issue is discussed at the Congressional level. I find that your judging of people without talking about the issue they were testifying about, is quite short sighted and smacks of stereotyping and bigotedness. What say you to this? Were they testifying about AIDS? Where they testifying about funding for cancer research? I think the issues that come to Congressional hearings are probably credible ones, don't you? Why would a committee even waste its time listening to bogus and ridiculous issues?

Letxa:

quote:

---

When it comes to the article in question, the first thing that caught my eye was him being on Coast to Coast and the Art Bell show. Whether you believe in conspiracies or UFOs or not, the Art Bell show is just mind candy and entertainment.

---

Michio Kaku, a renowed and well-respected physicist has been on this show. Well known doctors of medicine have also appeared. Credible astronomers appear, such as Phil Plaith. These kinds of shows are called "alternative" for a reason. They interview non-maintream writers, scientists, doctors, philosophers, and psychics. Sylvia Browne has also appeared on Larry King and Montel and she appears on Art Bell's show, too. Some guests are candy and others are quite credible. Again, the ability to stay open, to discern, and to sift the chaff with the wheat is always wise. But to close and broadbrush all guests on the Coast to Coast show as hokey no-nothings -- is closed-minded at best--IMHO! I don't agree that appearing on these shows reduces anyone's credibity at all. In fact, they tend to sell their books and spread their experiences and knowledge to a far greater degree. There are literally millions of listeners and site visiters!

Glad you don't see me as a nut!

Again, many people believe their messages in books or CD's will help others. I see no reason to judge anyone harshly for wanting to sell a book! I thought you believed in capitalism!

Letxa:

quote:

---

So what they're really talking about there is energy storage, not energy creation. It's an important distinction.

---

Yes, storage for vehicles has always been a problem, but the new hybrids recharge their own batteries. I don't mind sacrificing a few panels on my roof or a windmill in my yard (we're on 5 acres) for literally free energy in the long run. It's the initial outlay and storage is always part of the package. Batteries, you're right, are a problem, even in outfitting one's home for solar. You have to update them and clean them and it's an expense over time, too.

Letxa:

quote:

---

These are two different issues. If we had free energy would you have a problem with selling larger cars and SUVs? People want SUVs because they like them and, well, gas is cheap enough that they can afford them.

---

I'm not talking "free energy" here. I'm talking outfitting the SUV's with more energy efficient and alternative fuel engines. They're coming out with some smaller SUV hybrids, now, but my point was, they could have done this much sooner! The public will always buy big when gas is cheap and car manufacturers don't take the lead. Those same people who buy SUV's now, are the sames ones that bought small cars back in the seventies during the oil crunch. The public cannot be relied upon to transition their own vehicles into alternative fuels. The onus was on the manufacturers and still is. Small factions of the buying public are aware and opting for the hybrids and even converting their own cars, but not enough to make a dent in the pollution created or lessen the consumptive rate of gas perceptively.

Letxa:

quote:

---

I don't deny that petroleum companies have an interesting in keeping us on petroleum. But I'm not convinced there is currently any other alternative anyway and, when there is, I'm not convinced that they will be able to stop it.

---

I posted a gov site on this and if the gov knows the alternatives, there are certainly more alternatives out there.

Yes, I agree that solar panels should be more affordable and I'd like to think that as more people buy them, they will go down. But then that weird market rule comes in of supply and demand and it freaks me out and I can't understand it! Why is it when more people buy something, the price goes up? To me, the price should go down! If more companies made the dang things, maybe the price would go down?

Great blog! Couldn't respond to every line and hope you didn't mind my shortening some of them!

Read my other posts on energy! KNOWTHIS offered a great link (article) on the subject, too!

bc

quote:

posted 12-30-2003 08:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Well, as far as using the word, "flawed", I think it would be better to acquisce to just diagree at times. He may actually see it this way and can prove it from his logic base. So if you find some aspects of an article as "not true" it still might contain some truth.

---

I agree. I think his philosophical arguments were fine.

But the logic of the "four forces" that lead to us not having free power were based on what I have to say is a factually flawed definition of capital. Energy isn't capital. Currently you use capital to buy energy, and if it were free it would neither require nor produce capital.

I'm willing to say that I disagree with someone when it comes down to a matter of opinion, but in this case I must stand firm and say it's a matter of fact. Energy is not capital. And the rest of his conclusions depend on that theory.

If someone can explain to me why energy is capital, I'm all ears. But his logic seemed broken when I read it, and still seems broken as I reconsider it.

quote:

---

If he was selling an energy related object, he just might be practicing a form of advertising called "sympathy purchasing". Was he selling his philosophy or an object?

---

I just checked and he's selling all kinds of weird stuff. Actually, it kind of looks mostly like New Age herbs and oils, and stuff like that. I may have been more on target than even I thought.

quote:

---

About selling on the internet? I don't see anything wrong with people selling anything on the internet. Some products are legitimate (helpful, do what they say it will do) and some are not.

---

No, there's nothing wrong with selling on Internet. And there's nothing wrong with buying books from Amazon.com. But I think when it comes down to particularly controversial material, if one is truly interested in the cause he should make every effort to avoid the perception of ulterior motives.

That's just my opinion, but it always raises my supsicion when someone proposes a problem and then offers the solution in the form of something I have to buy.

quote:

---

Not just any issue is discussed at the Congressional level. I find that your judging of people without talking about the issue they were testifying about, is quite short sighted and smacks of stereotyping and bigotedness. What say you to this? Were they testifying about AIDS? Where they testifying about funding for cancer research? I think the issues that come to Congressional hearings are probably credible ones, don't you? Why would a committee even waste its time listening to bogus and ridiculous issues?

---

It can be to quiet constituents or get a group of people of their backs from a letter-writing campaign, etc. So many Congressional hearings seem like just spinning wheels, simple questions and answers that everyone knew the answer to before anyway. And when I see celebrities being ushered in as if they were experts on AIDS, my respect for the process of Congressional hearings just dropped a notch.

Granted, it's not all bad. Perhaps the UFO Congressional hearing was useful and not just a circus. When did it happen, approximately, so I can Google for it and read up on what transpired?

quote:

---

Some guests are candy and others are quite credible. Again, the ability to stay open, to discern, and to sift the chaff with the wheat is always wise. But to close and broadbrush all guests on the Coast to Coast show as hokey no-nothings -- is closed-minded at best--IMHO! I don't agree that appearing on these shows reduces anyone's credibity at all.

---

I'll concede that not everyone that appears on an Art Bell show is a nut, but I do stand by my position that appearing on those kind of shows doesn't help credibility precisely because the show often does have wackos on it. So you're never really sure if the one you're listening to is a wacko or the real mccoy. This is especially the case when the subject is the typical conspiracy, UFOs, and other stuff that the general public already is doubtful of. And if it comes to topics about violating a law of physics, it's easy to say, "Ok, tonight we're listening to a wacko."

quote:

---

In fact, they tend to sell their books and spread their experiences and knowledge to a far greater degree. There are literally millions of listeners and site visiters!

---

Oh, I'll agree with you there. If you have a book or DVD you want to sell and conspiracy folks listening to Art Bell is your target market, of course you want to go there. But I think that's where someone truly interested in the cause they are trying to promote should step back and evaluate how to best help their cause. By appearing on Art Bell and selling their wares to millions of Art Bell fans, or simply publishing their information in a respected science magazine, do a press release, or post it free for everyone on the Internet with no strings attached.

If their goal is money, Art Bell makes sense. If they really want to get their word out beyond conspiracy circles, take it to the people through channels that they, for better or for worse, are more likely to believe. Or even hear of.

Most of the people that don't listen to Art Bell but know he exists thinks it's nothing but fantasyland. They may be right, they may be wrong--but that's the perception.

quote:

---

Again, many people believe their messages in books or CD's will help others. I see no reason to judge anyone harshly for wanting to sell a book! I thought you believed in capitalism!

---

Like I said above, I have nothing against it. But the advancement of science should be free for all. It shouldn't be hawked as wares to a target market.

Again, if their goal is to make money, fine, they're doing that. But if they really are interested in advancing the public knowledge of UFOs or free energy or whatever, they should make every effort to make it clear to everyone that they're just doing it because they believe in it--not because they want to sell some DVDs.

And books costing $75 and DVDs costing $50, to me, sounds more like a good business than spreading the news of solid science.

quote:

---

The public cannot be relied upon to transition their own vehicles into alternative fuels. The onus was on the manufacturers and still is. Small factions of the buying public are aware and opting for the hybrids and even converting their own cars, but not enough to make a dent in the pollution created or lessen the consumptive rate of gas perceptively.

---

I think the public can be counted on to transition to alternative fuels when it makes economic sense. When the alternative fuel costs less per mile to use than the gasoline-driven car, people will consider paying an extra thousand or two for the vehicle. But, again, I don't think the technology has made it to that point yet. It needs to be improved. As soon as it makes economic sense, the public will not only accept it, they'll demand it. And the manufacturers will give the people what they want, not what the government wants.

quote:

---

Yes, I agree that solar panels should be more affordable and I'd like to think that as more people buy them, they will go down. But then that weird market rule comes in of supply and demand and it freaks me out and I can't understand it! Why is it when more people buy something, the price goes up? To me, the price should go down! If more companies made the dang things, maybe the price would go down?

---

When more people buy something the price only goes up if there's insufficient supply. So if there's only one company making solar pannels and suddenly a million people want them, the price will go up. But then other companies will say, "Hey! There's demand!" and they'll start making them too. As more companies enter the market the price will go down.

The price will also go down as the technology improves so they can be made cheaper.

quote:

---

Great blog! Couldn't respond to every line and hope you didn't mind my shortening some of them!

---

No problem, I don't have time to respond to everything in yours right now either. Wife tells me it is time to go out for dinner.

posted 01-01-2004 06:25 PM            

quote:

---

I think the public can be counted on to transition to alternative fuels when it makes economic sense. When the alternative fuel costs less per mile to use than the gasoline-driven car, people will consider paying an extra thousand or two for the vehicle. But, again, I don't think the technology has made it to that point yet. It needs to be improved. As soon as it makes economic sense, the public will not only accept it, they'll demand it. And the manufacturers will give the people what they want, not what the government wants.

---

Sorry, the vehicles are already available and have been for five years! People aren't stampeding to get them, even though some get 70 miles to the gallon. Sorry, your theory doesn't hold water!

People like their big cars and trucks, don't mind paying to fill them, and unless the people are forced through economic means or through fewer choices from the manufacturer, the people will always waste!!!!

If you lived here, you could see! In states that mandate certain fuel standards, like California, the hybrid vehicles are much more popular and the market is larger. Even here in Colorado, they have only this past year (2003) had a model at Toyota and Honda of a hybrid vehicle. Saturn has had one for 3 years, but no model to look at these years and the salesman laughed when I asked him about the Saturn hybrid I had found online three years ago. I drove the Honda Civic hybrid and was so surprised at its power and comfort! It's the car I'm chosing next, and we'll probably sell our small SUV. How many are choosing to do this? A small fraction of the buying population chose fuel efficiency over those who choose power, glitter, status, and size over fuel consumption savings, ANYDAY!

I know what I see!

bc

posted 01-01-2004 09:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Sorry, the vehicles are already available and have been for five years! People aren't stampeding to get them, even though some get 70 miles to the gallon. Sorry, your theory doesn't hold water!

---

What vehicles are you talking about? Efficient gas-powered cars that have weak engines and people, well, want a car that "goes?" Or are they alternative energy?

What is the price difference on the cars that get 70mph? How many does it seat comfortably?

quote:

---

People like their big cars and trucks, don't mind paying to fill them, and unless the people are forced through economic means or through fewer choices from the manufacturer, the people will always waste!!!!

---

No, not always. I need to know more about the cars you are referring to and then I believe I'll be able to explain why they haven't been adopted. But please tell me what sort of car you're talking about.

quote:

---

If you lived here, you could see! In states that mandate certain fuel standards, like California, the hybrid vehicles are much more popular and the market is larger. Even here in Colorado, they have only this past year (2003) had a model at Toyota and Honda of a hybrid vehicle. Saturn has had one for 3 years, but no model to look at these years and the salesman laughed when I asked him about the Saturn hybrid I had found online three years ago. I drove the Honda Civic hybrid and was so surprised at its power and comfort! It's the car I'm chosing next, and we'll probably sell our small SUV. How many are choosing to do this? A small fraction of the buying population chose fuel efficiency over those who choose power, glitter, status, and size over fuel consumption savings, ANYDAY!

---

They are all valid considerations. I definitely want sufficient power. Glitter and status doensn't matter to me, but it matters to some. Those that can truly afford glitter and status, though, aren't the largest part of the population. But fuel consumption is a big enough consideration for me that I got a Honda CR-V 4-cylinder mini-SUV instead of some large 8-cylinder monster. So it IS a matter of economics.

quote:

---

I know what I see!

---

posted 01-01-2004 10:21 PM            

Honda Insight

Toyota Prius

posted 01-02-2004 12:06 AM            

Sorry. Call it the Mechanics curse.

I wouldn't be caught dead riding in either of those.

In fact...id ride a beetle (an old one) before id ride in one of those.

They look like a good stiff wind could blow them over...and boy..I can imagine what you would look like in an accident in one of those things.

20 thou for THAT? Get real!

I'd step up to a 4 cyl Accord if I were you for 2 or 3 thousand more.

My DREAM alternative energy zero emmission vehicle?

Propane powered Converted 1969 Chevelle SS 454

posted 01-02-2004 12:56 AM            

Honda Insight
2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000
2004 Latest Model

2004 Honda Insight
MSRP: $19,180 - $21,380

Invoice Price: Not released

2003 Last Year's Model

2003 Honda Insight
MSRP: $19,080 - $21,280

Invoice Price: $17,824 - $19,876

Vehicles below are grouped by generation. Vehicles with similar body styles and specifications are listed together. 2000 - 2002 Honda Insight



Year Kelley Blue Book Value Reliability
2002 $13,100 - $13,800 No Data
2001 $11,900 - $12,550 No Data
2000 $10,550 - $11,250 No Data

Here's a group discussion on hybrids you can join, Letxa! For free!
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/gridable-hybrids/
------------------------------
Buyers hop on hybrid bandwagon
By Shane Graber
Post-Dispatch
11/24/2003

The Toyota Prius was chosen as Car of the Year by Motor Trend Magazine.
(Jerry Naunheim Jr./P-D)

Pablo Weiss was a card-carrying Caddy driver until he decided recently that enough was enough.

Weiss believed he had burned enough fuel in his day. He decided to go hybrid.

So Saturday, Weiss, who for three years has driven a Cadillac DeVille Concours, put his now eco-friendly money where his pavement is. He bought a Japanese-made 2004 Toyota Prius, which was named "Car of the Year" last week by Motor Trend magazine. Weiss' car arrives in two months.

"I've never bought a Japanese car in my life, but Detroit won't get its act together," said Weiss, 35. "I'm sick and tired of the oil companies and the unrest in the Middle East.

"I'm buying the hybrid."

So are a lot of people. Automakers are preparing to introduce about a dozen new hybrid models over the next two years, according to J.D. Power and Associates. Hybrid sales are expected to reach 40,000 units this year, but will jump to more than 177,000 annually by 2005.

Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. decided to up its production plans of 36,000 hybrid cars for 2004 to about 47,000, according to Paul Daverio, Prius' product manager.

Several St. Louis-area customers, including Weiss, are on a waiting list for hybrid cars.

"They're tough to find," Weiss said. There are three hybrid cars available in the United States - Toyota's Prius and two Honda models, the Civic Hybrid and the Insight.

A hybrid car offers better gas mileage by switching between a gasoline or diesel engine and an electric motor. The car recharges itself during the drive and does not have to be plugged in.

The first hybrid electric model in the U.S. market was the Honda Insight in 1999. The Toyota Prius debuted the following year, and the Honda Civic Hybrid went on sale last year. The first sport utility vehicle hybrid, the Ford Escape, will reach dealerships next year.

Still, the hybrids likely won't have a huge impact on the industry for some time. The vehicles are expected to represent about 1 percent of the market by 2005 and reach 2 percent market share by 2008, according to J.D. Power and Associates.

"Sales should increase dramatically as more hybrid vehicles, especially in segments other than compact cars, become available," Walter McManus, J.D. Power and Associates' executive director of global forecasting, said in a news release. "But we still don't expect hybrid-electric vehicles to become mainstream any time soon."

Some automakers have postponed their hybrid production plans, said Jeannine Fallon, a spokeswoman for edmunds.com. The site is an automotive consumer information service. Several companies are waiting to see how the three models on the market do, she said.

The Prius caused a local stir last year when the Missouri Department of Transportation bought several of the cars. Highway Commissioner Bill McKenna said the purchase violated the state's "Buy American" law. The transportation department insisted the purchase was legal under Missouri's Domestic Product Procurement Act because there were no domestic manufacturers of hybrid vehicles.

Experts warn that hybrids aren't the ultimate vehicle. Gabriel Shenhar, Consumer Reports' senior auto test engineer, said consumers aren't saving as much as they might expect.

"It's really hard to realize bang for the buck here," Shenhar said. "What you're getting is a good feeling that if you're driving a hybrid you're driving technology that's advanced and out there. And you're making a statement, which is worth the premium for some people, I guess."

Shenhar's magazine compared the 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid model, which gets 36 miles per gallon and sells for about $21,000, with the 2003 Honda Civic EX, which gets 29 miles per gallon and sells for an average of $17,000.

"It would take you about 20 and a half years in gas savings to pay back the extra money you paid for the hybrid," Shenhar said. (The 2004 models get much better mileage.)

Even the so-called tax break is about to fade away, according to Smart Money.com. In 2002, the IRS gave hybrid owners a $2,000 tax incentive.

In January, that incentive will be cut by 25 percent, to $1,500. In 2005, the amount drops to $1,000 and by 2006 it falls to $500. It will be phased out entirely the following year.

But for Jordan Heiman, 78, an engineer and recovering gas guzzler, it's not about the money. He just got his second Toyota Prius. He bought his first one in 2000. His dealer delivered his second one last month.

"I've been in conservation for three decades," he said. "I've tried to support the environment every way I can. I even convinced three or four of my friends to get one."

==================

Hybrids now sold in U.S.

Toyota Prius 2004
Suggested price: $20,510
Miles per gallon: 60 city; 51 highway
0 to 60 mph: 10 seconds

Honda Insight 2004
Suggested price: $19,180
Miles per gallon: 61 city; 68 highway
0 to 60 mph: 10.5 seconds

Honda Civic Hybrid 2004
Suggested price: $19,650
Miles per gallon: 46 city; 51 highway
0 to 60 mph: 11 seconds

Source: Edmunds.com, Honda, Toyota

________________
http://www.hybridcars.com/oil.html

oil dependency

Every time I squeeze that oil into my tank, I think about where it comes from and what it took to bring it here. Did you know that Persian Gulf countries account for 25 percent of U.S. oil imports, with Saudi Arabia (atrocious human rights record) providing 14.5 percent? Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the second largest source of oil in the Middle East, providing 600,000 barrels daily. What do you think he did with the profits?

An estimated one-third of America's $300 billion annual defense budget goes to safeguarding the transport of oil from the Persian Gulf. Do you think there's a connection between oil and Gulf Wars I and II, and bombings in Afghanistan?

According to Environmental Attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, senior counsel for the National Resources Defense Fund:

If we raise fuel efficiency standards in American cars by one mile per gallon, we would get more oil than would be in two arctic national wildlife refuges
Raise it by 2.7 miles a gallon to eliminate all the oil that we import from Iraq and Kuwait combined
Raise it by 7.6 mpg, we eliminate one-hundred percent of our gulf oil imports into this country
When I think about this, I want to ditch my car completely. Of course, I can't. I hope for technological breakthroughs with renewable energy sources in the not-to-distant future. In the meantime, I try to drive less. And I drive a hybrid. Ready to get details about the Civic Hybrid, Prius, or Insight ?

__________________

___________________ http://www.hybridcars.com/mileage.html

mileage

You usually don't get what the sticker promises, but I am averaging just over 40 combined city/highway driving. Here's my rough calculation based on driving 15,000 miles per year and pay $1.50 per gallon.

For every 10 mile increase in miles-per-gallon, you save:

$250 per year in gas
Approx. 12 fill-up's per year (saving time/hassle)
How much money and time could you save? Compare the mpg of your car vs. these 2003 hybrids (even if they get slightly less than these numbers):

Honda Insight: City 61 Highway 68
Toyota Prius: City 52 Highway 45
Honda Civic Hybrid : City 48 Highway 51

Now that I'm on this bent to squeeze every extra mile out of a gallon, I drive slower, maintain a constant speed, and avoid abrupt stops (unlike those idiots who speed up to a red light).

--------------------------

Well, I think I exaggerated the mileage a bit from my memory of my visit to the Honda dealer, but every little bit of gas consumption conservation, helps! The guy at hybrids.com says he loves driving his car and the power is just fine. I test drove the Civic hybrid and it's pick up was amazing! Cruising speed is just fine, too!
http://www.hybrids.com

All of this hybridization is market driven, depends on people's tastes, and the price of gas is also a big part of it. But gas won't always be plentiful and we're at the mercy of the Middle East in the midst of our consumption, which also pollutes. All I was saying is that these types of engines and others even more efficient have been kept out of the market even when our technologies could have created them. Legislation could have put pressure on the manufacturers, but it never passed. Now they're coming out, but if people don't buy, they'll repress the production for sure!

Why is it that children grew up just fine being carted around in sedans for many, many years and plain old station wagons, before the manufacturers even created SUV's and trucks? Trucks used to be only used in the country. Now huge SUV's and pickups are driven by city folks and suburbanites. If anyone says -- oh, we must have a minivan or SUV and lots of room because of kids -- BS! We've grown fat on our assumptions and we suck at the oil tit like fat cows ready for slaughter! Sorry, we create our own supression through mass notions, we're at the mercy of laws and manufacturers, and the oil companies as well. And I see the tastes, the ads, the commercials, the people who buy, who get in debt over their heads just to drive a big new car -- and it stinks! I like cars, too, but our Nissan Exterra will have to go! Only 22 mpg, and that's not enough to assuage my guilt! I only drive it about twice a week, so that helps, but the Honda Civic hybrid is my choice and we'll sell the other and get that!

_________________________________ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33199-2003Dec26.html

U.S. Carmakers Slow To Join Hybrid Parade
Detroit to Focus on Trucks First
By Greg Schneider

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 27, 2003; Page E01

You can test-drive a 2004 Prius at Alexandria Toyota, but if you buy one you can't take it home. The waiting list stretches at least to April.

"I didn't expect this much interest," said sales manager Mike Baird, who has 65 Priuses on back order.

The gasoline-electric hybrid car that started as a fad for environmentalists has become a full-fledged phenomenon. It is Motor Trend magazine's "car of the year" and one of the fastest-selling vehicles in the nation.

Washington is one of the top regions for sales of Prius and other hybrids, which also include the Honda Insight and Civic Hybrid, in part because Virginia allows hybrid cars with specially issued license plates in high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. Area residents buy about 10 percent of the hybrid vehicles sold in the United States, according to the Electric Drive Transportation Association.

Despite the technology's growing popularity, Detroit automakers seem to be playing catch-up again to their Japanese rivals, with no similar products expected from the Big Three until next year. But it isn't simply a matter of being caught flat-footed. U.S. automakers -- and some Europeans, as well -- remain skeptical about hybrid technology, and plan to approach it differently than Toyota and Honda.

Led by General Motors, Detroit will start offering hybrid technology in trucks before cars, concentrating on improving the gas mileage of some of the biggest guzzlers in the fleet. "I think what they're doing is actually going against the grain in terms of putting the hybrids in the worst fuel economy vehicles in their lineup, because that is where the consumer is going to see the greatest benefit," said Walter McManus, an industry expert with J.D. Power and Associates.

The differing strategies are laying the groundwork for a hybrid showdown in the marketplace. "Toyota will set the agenda on the car side, but it's going to be GM setting the agenda on the truck side," said Arthur M. Spinella, an auto industry consultant with CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Ore. "There is going to be quite an intense little battle between the two of them, and everybody else is going to be sucked into their wake on this one whether they like it or not."

Hybrid technology uses an electric motor to supplement a gasoline-fueled engine. The two power systems work together in different ways; the Prius uses electric power for starts and low speeds, then switches to the gas engine. Honda uses its electric motor to boost the gas engine when accelerating or climbing hills.

Both recharge their batteries automatically through on-board generators and by recovering energy during braking. The result is better fuel economy -- roughly 55 miles per gallon in the Prius, and about 60 mpg in the Honda Insight -- and lower emissions of greenhouse gases.

The two-seat Insight was the nation's first commercially available hybrid when it was introduced in 1999; the Civic Hybrid and the Prius both came out the following year. Since then, Honda has sold about 46,000 of its two models, and Toyota has sold more than 60,000 Priuses.

The Prius really took off in October, when Toyota rolled out the redesigned 2004 model. Bigger and more stylish than its clunky-looking predecessor, the '04 Prius was the fastest-selling car in America in both October and November, taking an average of a little more than five days to sell once a car hit the showroom floor, according to Power Information Network LLC.

Toyota has already increased production of the Prius. It had planned to build 36,000 for sale in North America next year but said this month that it will make 47,000 Priuses because of high demand.

Industry observers speculate that Toyota has been losing money on the Prius, which sells for about $22,000 and cost millions of dollars to develop. Though sales are growing significantly, the cars are niche vehicles compared with the vast armadas of cars and trucks that pour from North American factories.

What's more, low gasoline prices mean it would take the owner of a Civic Hybrid many years of fuel savings to make up for the extra cost of the hybrid versus a conventional Civic.

That equation -- higher cost plus low volume of sales -- is unpalatable to profit-conscious decision-makers in Detroit, no matter how trendy hybrid technology becomes. J.D. Power, which surveys automotive consumers, has scaled back its predictions of future hybrid sales from 500,000 to 350,000 per year by 2008.

"Unless we can get the high volume with these technologies they really aren't going to have the kind of impact we need to deliver. . . . We simply can't put them out there and subsidize them for the long term," Lawrence D. Burns, GM's vice president of research, development and planning, said last month in announcing changes to his company's hybrid plans.

GM delayed the debut of its first major hybrid. The Saturn Vue, a small SUV, was to have a hybrid power system in 2005, but now will offer a scaled-down hybrid system in 2006. Instead, the company committed to offering higher-powered hybrid systems on the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon SUVs and the Chevy Silverado pickup in 2007, promising fuel savings of 30 percent on those big trucks.

While far slower than Toyota and Honda in coming to market, GM will offer hybrid systems on a bigger scale and on vehicles that, all told, consume far more fuel. Ford is taking a similar -- but smaller-scale -- approach, planning to debut a hybrid system on its Escape SUV next year. At the same time, Chrysler plans to market a diesel-electric hybrid version of its Dodge Ram pickup in 2004.

All three companies have faced technical hurdles in developing the products, but they are in no rush. DaimlerChrysler, for example, has put less into hybrids than in developing efficient diesel technology, which is popular in Europe.

DaimlerChrysler has watched Toyota's investment in the Prius and is not convinced that it's worth the trouble. "If you do the arithmetic on the Prius, you don't save enough fuel to pay for the hardware. In any traditional business sense, that isn't sustainable. So it isn't logical for that to become dominant or standard," said Bernard I. Robertson, senior vice president for engineering technologies and regulatory affairs at DaimlerChrysler.

That attitude worries environmentalists, who want Detroit to join the hybrid race full throttle.

"Both Honda and Toyota understand that this technology is the way to go, that consumers want it, and that really helps them to gain the technological lead over the Big Three," said Brendan Bell of the Sierra Club. "They're going to be so far behind by the time they finally get hybrid systems out . . . that no one will want to buy their vehicles."

Detroit's relaxed approach could be a miscalculation, said Spinella, who surveys recent car buyers.

"The numbers are small now, but clearly when we do customer surveys the number is going to be a lot bigger," he said. Early hybrid buyers tended to be older, wealthy males with an environmental streak, he said. Now, the average age and income are coming down, and more women are buying hybrids.

"Basically," Spinella said, "they're slowly becoming more mainstream."

_________________________________

Guess you could consider me a conservationist as my motivation is not only gas savings, but pollution prevention mainly. Those of us who can afford a large car and buy a hybrid, should be comparing our large car savings to the small hybrid, rather than the regular small car price compared to the hybrid small car price. When you compare your savings, it adds up in every category, fuel efficiency, cost of running and maintainance, and pollution factors. I have to add, that oil independence from the M.E. and more complete transition to alternative energies is my ultimate short-term goal, which all told, adds to peace in the world.

Hopefully the hybrids will catch on!

bc

posted 01-02-2004 12:59 AM            

What are the specs, mech?

Ultimately cool! Love it!

posted 01-02-2004 01:05 AM            

If Zero point technology ever arrives....I plan on Recycling a LOT of classics...heck..I'd LOVE to do the work.

posted 01-02-2004 01:26 AM            

Regarding the Chevelle. Not bad for a GM. Now here's a REAL car, but alas, a gas guzzler. A Dodge Challenger R/T (426 Hemi). This used to be my dream car - I even owned this print. I was Plum Crazy over this one huh? Has anyone every heard the term - Scat Pack? Ha!

posted 01-03-2004 02:00 AM            

As for the Honda Insight, it looks like the retail price for an automatic 2WD with air conditioning is $21,380. Last year I bought a Honda CR-V (mini-SUV) automatic 4WD with air conditioning for $20,500. The CR-V is roomier and certainly more comfortable than the Insight.

So that's the problem with hybrids. They're weird looking and are more expensive than an equivalent non-hybrid car.

posted 01-03-2004 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
I have conservative tastes and prefer a car, not a bubble or a bullet riding down the road.

So that's the problem with hybrids. They're weird looking and are more expensive than an equivalent non-hybrid car.

---

Oh you men! LOL!

And what's wrong with driving a bullet anyway. Bullets FLY don't they? Guess its depends on what you mean by a bullet!?

And speaking of bubble cars - remember these - or are you too young?

Here's a 1975 Pacer (they have NOTHING to do with pace cars! heh, heh)

posted 01-03-2004 11:26 PM            

A high school friend of mine had a primer grey AMC Gremlin.I think he put a Javelin engine in it or something.

He souped that thing up and had mags on it. Everyone laughed at him untill they saw that he could smoke many cars at the stoplight.

Personally...I wouldn't be caught dead in one..but his SCREAMED.

Give me a Javelin anyday.

posted 01-04-2004 04:53 PM            

My third car was a lemon but I loved it! A Datsun "Fair Lady" 1600 sports car '69 -- a two seater, white, with red leather interior! Always a pain in the butt with blown headgaskets galore and finally sold it to a mechanic for his wife! He probably put a new block in it! I wish I had kept it -- a collecter's item, now!

My husband's brother drove a Duster and my fiance in college drove a Dodge Dart, black! Hehehe -- with the biggest engine!

I never blew anyone away on the road, JBE, gotta hand it to ya!

I love those cool muscle cars! Wish they were not gas hogs, though, but converting them to propane is cool!

bc

posted 01-11-2004 06:01 PM            

I apologize for not contributing any links to my previous post in this thread.
Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia (which then beloged to Austria/Hungary monarchy) which is unlucky for him and all of us too because if he had the opportunity to work and live off his inventions here, he'd probably never sell his patents to US. There were , of course, no power magnats in the Balkans at the time, so there would be no/less resistance to his inventions.

Tesla links: http://www.nickf.com/tesla.htm
http://www.mall-usa.com/BPCS/alpha_tesla.html
http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bogdan/tesla/
http://www.halexandria.org/dward170.htm

Tesla power methods! http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/tesla-lightning.htm
http://www.braincourse.com/wirelessa.html
http://www.drbrainzlab.com/labalternative_energy.html
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/geothermal.htm

Energy sources/alternative energy: http://www.sharelynx.com/misc/alternative3.php
http://www.halexandria.org/dward720.htm

I hope I'm not repeating anybody's posted links!
Enjoy your reading

posted 01-12-2004 05:43 PM            

Yes, we've talked about Tesla on other boards and realize that Eastlund worked off of Tesla's theories!

Tesla himself, however, was always a peace person! He even had a pet dove! It's interesting to note that he also lived in our town in Colorado for one year, developing theories about the electro-magnetic fields and properties.

The problem isn't with the inventors, nor the technology, the problem is with the military experimentors who would use the technology for unethical and wrong purposes!

Try doing a search on HAARP! http://www.radarmatrix and http://www.viewzone are two sites to start investigating your Eastlund technology projects. His patents are the ones that the Air Force and Navy are using! Tesla was only a pioneer in the field and he was a good man!

JBE, can you give him the link to our MOD Tesla discussion?

posted 01-12-2004 07:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by m3th0d:
So...this is a car-lovers thread now? LOL

---

Yeah, we did go off into the gas guzzling era there didn't we? hee, hee.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
JBE, can you give him the link to our MOD Tesla discussion?

---

Sure, no problem: http://emfx13.proboards17.com/index.cgi?board=general&num=1067573750&action=display&start=0

posted 01-12-2004 08:30 PM            

I just really hate those tiny plastic go-cart cars.

Its amazing what aa google search/bot will yeild.

I typed in "free energy"

Check out this site. (Crackpots only apply)

posted 01-26-2004 04:50 PM               

To Mech: Thank you for promoting the project. I believe in sharing the good that will come out of making this a reality, and had to laugh as I saw how it affected some of the other members ego's (It is truly hard to comprehend that this may actually be happening). I had this experience many times with post's. Always, with every output there seems to be an equal and/or opposite reaction eh?

Peace, Love and Light!

Kraig