View Full Version : Solomon Technologies - "Electric Wheel" electric motor propulsion systems


lockhughes
06-18-2002, 02:34 AM
I was stunned when I first read about what these guys are doing:

http://www.solomontechnologies.com/

It's pretty much an academic exercise now, but I was trying to sell my club membership on the merits of going with an electric pontoon boat rather than a displacement hull diesel-powered craft, as a replacement for our Club's tender, which operates as a 40-passenger private ferry on a 1 mile run between our Club and the city, across Toronto harbour.

I've put together the scraps of my investigations so far, as a Yahoo Group site, at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QCYCTender/

But about these Solomons? Anyone here with experience with these drives? Anyone think they're not bloody *amazing*???

Regards

Laughlin Hughes
Tornado Kc234 "High Heels"
QCYC
Wards Island, Toronto

trouty
06-24-2002, 04:36 AM
When you look at my plasmoidal induction scalar electromagnetic propulsion system (pat pend) you'll see that it's performance peramaters far exceed those of the electric wheel depicted above.

Of course the reduction in input energy costs also make plasmoidal induction propulsion the system of the 21st century!

The phase locked conjugate pair waveform scalar electrical energy of the plasmoidal induction engine is the secret to this system. That and the latent energy trapped within time are the keys... E= Delta TC squared, s what it's all about Tesla really is the one who discovered it.

This is basically what makes it tick!

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%209%20Feb%201993/fig2.jpg

Now - I'f I could just find a barge the size of the Queen Mary to carry the damn batterys! ;o)

Cheers!

Polarity
06-24-2002, 07:58 AM
Laughlin

Thats a very interesting site, I wrote to them about a 85hp replacement for my new boat. - I will let you know - it does look as though it might be prohibitively expensive though, compared with dropping in a recon diesel.

If it could be "designed in" with the batteries and genset as part of the permanent ballast that would be a major benefit. For where I am going ( see www.polarity2.com ) I would need to look at heating the battery compartment due to the performance drop.

Always looking for something new!

Cheers

Paul

lockhughes
06-24-2002, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by trouty
When you look at my plasmoidal induction scalar electromagnetic propulsion system (pat pend) you'll see that it's performance peramaters far exceed those of the electric wheel depicted above.

Wow. Trouty, I have no idea what you are talking about! Sorry! I really know zip about all this stuff. Trying to learn, but you're way, way over my head. Could you translate? Were you kidding?

Lock

lockhughes
06-24-2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Polarity
Laughlin
Thats a very interesting site, I wrote to them about a 85hp replacement for my new boat. - I will let you know - it does look as though it might be prohibitively expensive though, compared with dropping in a recon diesel.
Hi Paul. Expensive, maybe, if you're looking *only* at purchase/install costs? I checked out your Polarity2 site (v.nice!), and I'm guessing (deisel) refueling might be a bit more problematic than regenerating while under sail? High lats. might drop solar output, but wind generators?

If it could be "designed in" with the batteries and genset as part of the permanent ballast that would be a major benefit. For where I am going ( see www.polarity2.com ) I would need to look at heating the battery compartment due to the performance drop.
yeah. brrrrrrr! :) That's interesting though (cold temp. performance drop). Something that the eboat message threads I've seen haven't touched on.

Lock

ps... I knew those two, that did the NWP in the Hobie... specially made carbon-fibre version... Took `em out for a sail when they first got a Hobie to learn about cat sailing.

Portager
06-24-2002, 11:46 AM
I reviewed the Solomon Technologies web site and their approach seams sound to me. I noted that they are using DC generators and AGM (Absorbent Glass Mat) batteries. This is technically sound and for the right application it is certainly feasible.

One thing to keep in mind in considering the operating cost is the batteries are consumables. Depending on your level of discharge you will get between 400 and 1,000 charge/discharge cycles out of them. Then it will be another $1,800 dollars to replace them. By the way, does Solomon Technologies agree to provide replacement batteries at this price? This is a highly discounted price for Lifeline AGM batteries (probably close to their cost) so I would make see if they will provide your next set at a comparable price.

The cost trade-off looks much better is you can eliminate the generator and use regenerative power or shore power to recharge the batteries. My main complaint would be the battery charger. At 8 amps and using a charge acceptance of 0.95 it is only restoring 7.6 Amp hours per hour. If the batteries are 50% discharged and you only bulk charge it will 4.15 hours to recharge. It would be nice to have a faster charger.

It appears that when they talk about achieving hull speed they mean the square root of the length and not 1.xx time that. Portager (my dream boat) will achieve 1.15 times the square root of the water line length (6.8 knots) with 15 HP but the displacement speed actually goes up to 1.6 times the square root of the water line length or 9.8 knots which requires 68 HP. I plan to use an 80 HP engine which will give me about 10 knots maximum cruising speed. If I went to Solomon Technologies diesel-electric hybrid propulsion I would be limited to 5.8 knots. Those extra 4 knots take a lot more horse power but sometimes the 69% faster speed would be nice to have. For example it would be the difference of 17 hr versus 10.2 hr on a 100 NMi passage.

The feasibility of the system is very application dependent. It works well on displacement sailboats that can tolerate the weight of the batteries and intend to sail most of the time. It also works well on a boat that only makes short trips like your pontoon boat. It doesn't work as well on lightweight multi-hull sailboats because of the weight of the batteries. It also does not work for long range power boats. The worst application is any type of planning boat.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

ewhel
06-24-2002, 01:51 PM
HI Folks....David Tether here. Have been forwarded a bunch of email stuff that suggested you all had questions....so I checked in and logged on! Having read the emails with interest I will submit one basic premise....We have studied this something fierce for 6 years. Several basic things about fossil fuel motors...they are here to stay for awhile because it is hard to achieve the power densities with any other medium(and the big three/Oil companies won't let you any way), Fossil fuel motors are over rated(motor torque rating at some RPM where you can't use it constantly, Parasitic losses are on brand new pumps, impellers, alternators (with charged batteries) and with new belts, they are oversized to be able to push a prop at start-up rpm's, and anyone that thinks the average boat transmissions are 98% efficient needs a new drug. Also...through there support systems have to be entirely variable and have Idle capability
Having said this....the average generator, because it is ballanced and blueprinted to make electricity with a ballanced load can convert fossil fuel into electricity at about 45 to 70% efficiency. Now the battery pack becomes your second fuel tank and allows the generator to only run at it's optimum efficiency. The battery pack is your source for quick, on demand high demand, current draws. What happens is that whenever you use fossil fuel it is always converted at the highest efficiency. This also allows one to adjust the batteries and generator to the mission profile....large batteries with small gen...small batteries with large gen...small batteries with small gen....large batteries with large gen.
Didn't want to ramble on just a beginning primer....

Portager
06-24-2002, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by ewhel
anyone that thinks the average boat transmissions are 98% efficient needs a new drug.

I won't decent to the level of exchanging petty insults. I will, however provide the following information to support my statement.

COTTA TRANSMISSION COMPANY LLC BELOIT WISCONSIN 2001 http://www.cotta.com/tech3.htm "Cotta's rule of thumb for losses is 2% of the rated input HP per loaded gear mesh - "worst case"."

For a marine transmission with one "loaded" gear mesh 98% is reasonable.

Freeware Propeller Calculator <http://www.yosc.ukgateway.net/propcalc.xls> they assume a 3% power reduction for each gear box and a 1.5% power reduction for each bearing.

I won't squabble over 1% you can call it 97% if you like.:)

Nautica Magazine / Propellers <http://www.nautica.it/info/motore/eliche_e.htm> " SHP (Shaft Horse Power) is the power actually delivered from the engine to the shaft thus to the propeller, about equal to the BHP (Brake Horse Power, meaning the maximum engine horse power as tested at the factory) minus about 3% of power loss at the gearbox and 1.5% per bearing."

Seams to support the 97% rule of thumb. I would like to point out however that with helical cut gears you can do considerable better and reduce the noise level at the same time. These gear boxes are normally used only on high power applications where cost isn't the main driver but heat build-up is a problem.

::: Howard Arneson Tribute ::: <http://www.howardarneson.com/articles/article7r.asp> "Remarkably, there is virtually no power loss from engine to prop [with the Arneson Drive]. Most stern drives create a 15 to 17 per cent loss of efficiency because of their complicated gear composition. The Arneson Drive, however, avoids this and only about one percent loss is created by minimal bearing friction."

I suspect that the Arneson Drive that the article is referring was using higher cost gearboxes, but the main reason I provided this reference is to shed some possible light on the disagreement. If David is using a Sail drive or thinking of the efficiency of a stern drive that could explain the discrepancy. Just a thought.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

trouty
06-25-2002, 05:42 AM
It'd be nice to think I was joking and all this scalar electromagnetics stuff would just dissapear, but the truth of the matter is, it actually works!:eek:

Thats why the US patents office granted a patent a few weeks ago.

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/patent_meg.htm

Yep - the electronic wheel is great - BUT imagine how good it will be when - you don't need to keep charging and discharging batterys to power it but you harness the free energy trapped within time, ony using the battery source once to initiate the system!

Free energy - are you with me here?...

No diesel fuel - no hydrogen cell no nuthin - just a MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator).

Course - you can couple MEGs inline for additional power, and if you want to you can run them thru the electrioc wheel to power a propellor - but how agricultural is that? :rolleyes:

Bout the only thing missing is the guy standing at the prow beating the drum! ;)

Noo - once people cotton onto scalar electromagnetics - the world as we know it today in terms of energy needs will be totally changed as if in the blink of an eye - forever more.

Think back to pre 1943, and Hiroshima/ Nagasaki...

Who'd a ever thought there was enough energy trapped within the atom to do that much damage to whole citys full of people?

Who'd have ever thought that we'd have whole US naval Carrier battle groups & submarines at sea, powered by - nuclear reactors - harvesting the energy trapped within the atom?

What "momentous discovery" led us to nuclear energy?...

Well - Albert Einstein had a bit to do with it...when he formulated his "general theory of relativity" (never loan munney to relatives) :D...er no - sorry, I mean E = MC2

Sooo....Now I come along telling you that Tesla's discovery of scalar electromagnetics, has given us E=TC2 where T is delta T or change in time, and suddenly - I'm telling a big joke???:confused: :confused:

Why is it so "unbelievable" that there could be as much energy trapped within time as there is withing the atom?:confused: :rolleyes:

You see, it's something like the atom before 1942....the energy was always there - we just werent smart enough until then to realise a way to harness that energy trapped within the atom.

In the same way - there is the same amount of energy trapped within time...IF we just understand the physics that allows us to harness that energy. The MEG or motionless Electromagnetic Generator as described in the patent and depicted here:-

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/megtitl.jpg

is REALITY people - it's real - it works - the energy is free!

Just think for a few seconds...what that means in terms of "boat design" never mind about the implications for our western oil based economies and all the wars we are about to fight in the middle east and caspian basin over oil.....just think what "unlimited free energy" means to the world!

Hows it work?...

Well, if you have the time - you could start reading here and sooner or later the penny will drop!

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%209%20Feb%201993/index.html

Now - the guy who has compiled all this is a former US Colonel (RET) involved in computer nuclear holocaust war simulation modelling for the US military, so he's no dummie.

It's a big subject that will have (in due time) huge implications for vessel propulsion......among other things!

I'm personally of the opinion that MEGS coupled to plasmoidal induction hydrodynamic drive engines, will be the "future" for vessel propulsion...BUT I could be wrong!

I guess only "time" will tell...

In the mean "time" practice reciting what Tesla knew almost 100 years ago...

That E=TC2 where T is delta T or change in time.

If you care to really stretch the grey matter...resolve this.

E=MC2 (Einstein)
also
E=TC2 (Tesla)

Therefore,

If
E=MC2
&
also
E=TC2

Then it follows that

MC2 = TC2

Therefore it follows that

M=T (where T is delta T or change in time)

So, troutys theory of the space time continuum...

Mass = Change In Time

Ponder the implications of that for a wee while...I'll be asking 20 questions whenI get back!
:D

Cheers!

lockhughes
06-25-2002, 08:16 AM
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/patent_meg.htm
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%209%20Feb%201993/index.html
M=T (where T is delta T or change in time)
So, troutys theory of the space time continuum...
Mass = Change In Time
Ponder the implications of that for a wee while...I'll be asking 20 questions whenI get back!
:D

Thank you Trouty. Will read. How about a demo? Where are your prototypes? Any working models we can play with?
Lock

06-25-2002, 08:50 AM
Hi Mike
Originally posted by Portager
One thing to keep in mind in considering the operating cost is the batteries are consumables. Depending on your level of discharge you will get between 400 and 1,000 charge/discharge cycles out of them. Then it will be another $1,800 dollars to replace them.

Ok. thanks!... Though I'm not sure what constitutes a "cycle" at this point, if the batteries are being almost constantly charged - shorepower,wind and solar, whether alongside or underway?
I'm guessing that volts/#batteries/charging amps/etc can be optimized for the particular application - regular ferry service schedules, in this case. 1/2hr on, 1/2hr.off, etc.

By the way, does Solomon Technologies agree to provide replacement batteries at this price? This is a highly discounted price for Lifeline AGM batteries (probably close to their cost) so I would make see if they will provide your next set at a comparable price.
hehe... I won't count on THAT. But, I might bet, that our battery/ storage technologies will continue to improve in the years ahead, so this replacement/storage cost will continue to be driven down.

The cost trade-off looks much better is you can eliminate the generator and use regenerative power or shore power to recharge the batteries.
Eliminated - for the ferry thingee anyway. The whole object of the (my) exercise is to get the fossil OUT of the boat!

My main complaint would be the battery charger. At 8 amps and using a charge acceptance of 0.95 it is only restoring 7.6 Amp hours per hour. If the batteries are 50% discharged and you only bulk charge it will 4.15 hours to recharge. It would be nice to have a faster charger.
Mike, I'm guessing that you're referring to a charger that Solomon specs for their systems? Something onboard? If the charger were shoreside, I suppose there are more options, to get that faster charging...

It appears that when they talk about achieving hull speed they mean the square root of the length and not 1.xx time that. Portager (my dream boat) will achieve 1.15 times the square root of the water line length (6.8 knots) with 15 HP but the displacement speed actually goes up to 1.6 times the square root of the water line length or 9.8 knots which requires 68 HP. I plan to use an 80 HP engine which will give me about 10 knots maximum cruising speed. If I went to Solomon Technologies diesel-electric hybrid propulsion I would be limited to 5.8 knots. Those extra 4 knots take a lot more horse power but sometimes the 69% faster speed would be nice to have. For example it would be the difference of 17 hr versus 10.2 hr on a 100 NMi passage.
Sorry Mike - I don't "do" displacement anymore <grin>... Happy puttering around at 10-20knots under sail, on two hulls. Much of the materials I've read so far emphasize long/skinny as better for electrics. Would Portager gain from a double-ender/canoe/ fantail whatever hull? Or is the design "sawed-off"?

The feasibility of the system is very application dependent. It works well on displacement sailboats that can tolerate the weight of the batteries and intend to sail most of the time. It also works well on a boat that only makes short trips like your pontoon boat.
Yeah! :)

It doesn't work as well on lightweight multi-hull sailboats because of the weight of the batteries. It also does not work for long range power boats. The worst application is any type of planning boat.
Thanks again Mike. Again, I'd be placing my hopes with improvements in storage/regenerative technologies... I've been trying to follow along on wind-generator technologies too, and expect these to improve as well. This one's pretty cute:
http://www.marlec.co.uk/products/prods/rut503.htm

Cheers
Lock

ewhel
06-25-2002, 10:20 AM
Well folks, I wonder how many users run their 18HP Yanmar at 3,600 RPM's continuously(13.4KW). That's where it is rated at! Can you run it there continuously? Negative. What HP can you run it at continuously? (HINT...about about 15 for the first year or two) What is the hp load of a fully charged battery VS a partially charged battery that just started a diesel engine loaded with VHF, depth finder, radio and a couple lights turned on. Does Yanmar use those super efficient transmissions when selling product to Hunter, Catalina or J. ?
I too was amazed when I took a 22hp diesel out of my boat and put a 10HP electric motor in and had significantly more power and response. It sent me back to the white board to calculate why. I found out that there is the advertised perfect world...and then there is reality. Our HP and efficiencies are Pure,not over stated, at the prop and will be the same 10 years from now as they are today. They push the prop directly without transmissions (except the Electric Wheel that uses a transmission only for slow speeds and it is frictionally eliminated a cruise).
Battery Cycles...typically depleting the battery by 80% comprises one cycle....if you keep it above 50% you never cycle and that's what our diesel electric systems are designed to do. In an emergency you can go to 80% depletion by this is typically done. I have AGM's in my boat (the Casey on web site..1939 , 20,000 lb 28 footer) that have been there for 4 years with no degadation. We expect them to last for 6-8 years. What will you have done in maint on a diesel in 6-8 years....if you go to sea much you will have done 18-26 oil changes and filter changes, mabey a rebuild, mabey and new transmission, 6 transmission oil changes...and spent several hundred hours waiting for your diesel to warm up for 10 minutes so you can use it for 10 minutes...or even 5 minutes (10 minutes is Yanmar's suggested warm up time). I would much rather have a generator that always turns on runs at optimum efficiency...and oh by the way...where there was a 15-18HP yanmar , there can be a 4KW cacooned generator and 4Kw electric engine that you won't hear either running.
Continuous Running....We have a boat(CAL 34) that regenerated it's way from Los Angeles to Tahiti....we have a Cheribini 44 that came to Maryland from England on 300 gals of fuel with Ice Maker, AC, Electric stove and oven, freezer and microwave all the way. We have a Conser 47 CAt that motored for 96 hours continuously and motor sailed from Florida to Maryland using the motors to increase speed and generate while sliding down waves. We also have a boat that uses wheel chair batteries and a 4kw generator which altogether is lighter than the comparable diesel engine. Our motors are powerful enough to stop a 20,000 lb 47 ft cat from 7.5knots to 0 knots in 35 feet and to accelerate that same cat to 7.5 knots in two boat lengths...this boat would have had twin 30HP diesels...it has twin 12hp Solomon Motors. The proof is in the pudding.
P.S. I am not being petty...or arrogant....I am merely stating the facts as we have found them out. There is Ideal and Reality. I too was amazed at what our new inventions could do.I must go now but will return....you can always take a trip to Maryland and see for your self.

Polarity
06-25-2002, 01:22 PM
Hi David and welcome to the site, glad you could make it!

It certainly does look impressive and as you say the proof of the pudding...

I would like to propose that what we may have here (any other Eliyahu M. Goldratt/Theory of Constraints http://www.goldratt.com/ fans out there?) is a problem with accepted measurements.
The HP / BHP of a "drive unit" seems to have always been accepted as a reflection of the ability of that "drive unit" to move a boat through the water at a certain speed, and at certain speeds in differing conditions. If what you have said is accurate either

a) there is a massive loss between the advertised rating of the engine and what comes out at the prop.
or
b) the measurement is wrong.

My first thought was that the Ewheel suffers the same losses at the shaft as an engine. BUT I believe that friction increases with speed so if the prop has a bigger pitch/dia and therefore spins slower this would reduce this. BUT is that enough to explain the differences highlighted by David? - I am not so sure...

Just maybe we should look at option b) .. is HP a totally inaccurate way to measure the effectiveness of an drive unit for a boat?

What would an effective measurement consist of ?

Fuel efficiency (consumption of joules/....x)
noise
weight of drive unit
acceleration (apply f=ma to the above cat example)
response to varying loads (ie waves)
rpm of shaft
what force generated, when...

Gotta rush out and I will hack it around later, but if any mathematicians would like to pick up on this... :confused:


Paul

Portager
06-25-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by ewhel
Well folks, I wonder how many users run their 18HP Yanmar at 3,600 RPM's continuously(13.4KW). That's where it is rated at!

Actually Diesels have multiple ratings. The most commonly used (and the two used by Yanmar) are the maximum power rating which can be maintained for a short period of time and the continuous power rating which can be maintained essentially indefinitely. Going to http://dieselmarine.com and looking up Yanmar engines you see that Yanmar has two current engines rates at 18 HP maximum, the 2GM20 http://dieselmarine.com/index.cfm?EID=030C0204 and the 2GM20F http://dieselmarine.com/index.cfm?EID=030C000F . The spec sheet for the 1,2 &3GM models is at http://www.yanmar.com/marine/pdfs2/123GM.pdf . Yanmar provides both the engine output power without marine gear and the propeller power output curve. This is also known as the propeller demand curve. This curve assumes that a fixed pitch propelled is designed to be fully loaded at the maximum engine speed. Therefore at lower speeds the propeller is under loaded and the curve shows the maximum power that the propeller can accept at this speed. If you provide more power, speed increases. This is the maximum power that any engine or motor can deliver to the water through the propeller at that speed. Using the Yanmar 2GM20 maximum continuous rated speed the engine can deliver 16 HP but the propeller can only accept 15 HP. This is true horse power delivered to the propeller.

So what does that mean? Using the Greatheart 36 (designed by Michael Kasten) as an example (because I'm familiar with it and I know where to find the powering curves) http://www.xsw.com/gh36/
Graphing the power curve data produces the attached graph. The data shows that at 10 HP the Greatheart 36 will maintain 5.8 knots but with 15 HP is can achieve about 6.35 knots. This shows that the 10 HP electric wheel can perform within 0.55 knots of the speed of the 15 HP diesel. Does this mean that the electric wheel has the same power as the diesel? No! It only shows that to go 1.17 times hull speed (defining hull speed as the square root of the length at the waterline in feet) requires 50% more power as it requires to go 1.07 times hull speed.


Battery Cycles...typically depleting the battery by 80% comprises one cycle....if you keep it above 50% you never cycle and that's what our diesel electric systems are designed to do.

I am sorry, but that is just not true! According to Northern Arizona Wind & Sun http://www.windsun.com/Batteries/Battery_FAQ.htm#Lifespan%20of%20Batteries , "A battery "cycle" is one complete discharge and recharge cycle." and "Battery life is directly related to how deep the battery is cycled each time. If a battery is discharged to 50% every day, it will last about twice as long as if it is cycled to 80% DOD. If cycled only 10% DOD, it will last about 5 times as long as one cycled to 50%."
Here are the graphs that Concord provides for their Lifeline AGM batteries http://www.lifelinebatteries.com/graphs.asp . Click of the "Life Cycle Performace Against Leading Gel Cell Battery" graph.


Continuous Running....We have a boat(CAL 34) that regenerated it's way from Los Angeles to Tahiti....we have a Cheribini 44 that came to Maryland from England on 300 gals of fuel with Ice Maker, AC, Electric stove and oven, freezer and microwave all the way. We have a Conser 47 CAt that motored for 96 hours continuously and motor sailed from Florida to Maryland using the motors to increase speed and generate while sliding down waves. We also have a boat that uses wheel chair batteries and a 4kw generator which altogether is lighter than the comparable diesel engine. Our motors are powerful enough to stop a 20,000 lb 47 ft cat from 7.5knots to 0 knots in 35 feet and to accelerate that same cat to 7.5 knots in two boat lengths...this boat would have had twin 30HP diesels...it has twin 12hp Solomon Motors. The proof is in the pudding.

This is great, but it is not what I call continuous running. It is motor sailing and using regenerative charging. Basically using excess wind energy to recharge the batteries. This is fine for a sail boat that wants to sail most of the time, but what about a powerboat or a motor sailor that wants to run into the wind for an extended period of time.

Continuing with the Greatheart 36 example. GH36 is 36' long and weighs 22,000 lbs fully loaded. Using the ST37 which costs $11,600 and provides 6 HP GH36 can achieve 5 knots at full power. The endurance at this power level is 2.9 hours (which by the way is 100% depth of discharge) so range is 14.5 Nmi. Using the twin ST37 costs $21,934 and provides 12 HP for a maximum speed of 6 knots. Endurance is 1.45 hr and range is 8.7 Nmi. Using the ST74 provides 12 HP and 6 knots speed (same as the twin ST37) and cost is $15,902. Endurance is 1.5 hr so range is 9 Nmi. Note, since you indicated that the batteries should not be discharged more than 50% these ranges should be cut in half. These ranges and speeds are adequate for exiting most harbors and getting to where you can switch to sail, but not much more.

To provide continuous running then the generator would need to be large enough to maintain the power draw from the motor. For the single ST37 this is 36 amps X 144 volts = 5.184 kW. Using the 7 KW generator to provide some margin adds $11,750 to the cost of the ST37. If the generator were 80% efficient, this would require an engine with a continuous rating of 8.69 HP. With an 8.69 HP engine driving the prop GH36 could achieve about 5.6 knots versus the 5 knots with the ST37. For the ST74 the power load is 72 Amps X 144 volts = 10.368 kW. Using the 12 KW generator adds $13,750 to the cost of the ST74. The engine to drive the generator at 80% efficiency will require 17.4 HP. With a 17.4 HP engine driving the prop GH36 could achieve about 6.6 knots versus the 6 knots with the ST37.

The Greatheart 36 would be powered by a 3JH3E engine which produces 36 HP continuous (40 maximum), providing a continuous speed is 7.5 knots. The retail cost of the 3JH3E with transmission is $10,447. Greatheart 36 is intended to use the alternator on the main engine to recharge the battery banks (as most sail boats do) so a generator is not required.

Regards;
Mike Schooley

lockhughes
06-25-2002, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Polarity
Just maybe we should look at option b) .. is HP a totally inaccurate way to measure the effectiveness of an drive unit for a boat?
What would an effective measurement consist of ?

Fuel efficiency (consumption of joules/....x)
noise
weight of drive unit
acceleration (apply f=ma to the above cat example)
response to varying loads (ie waves)
rpm of shaft
what force generated, when...

vibration
smell
heat (loss)
available environmental rebates on some taxes <grin>
number of moving parts <hehe>
which would young folks ask for, if you asked them which they'd prefer?
whether any noise/smell/vibration/whatever bothers passengers?
(makes `em feel ill)
promotional value to a business, club or agency?

Lock

lockhughes
06-25-2002, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Polarity
What would an effective measurement consist of ?

how well the technology lends itself to optimizing weight
distribution into the boat?

Polarity
06-25-2002, 06:10 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of effectiveness of movement through the water - but I see your point! :)

The things you mentioned are up for debate (except for tax of course - that is always certain...) depending on how important they are to the vessel/ownners/operators.

What I was getting at was that if we say HP is a valid measurement of boat performance.. how we can get the same performance with different numbers??
If 2 scientists measure a building, one says its 20 x's the other says its 30 x's then they are either measuring it differently or the value of x changes with the weather/day of the month/person measuring etc! - what the don't say is "oh well lets call it 25 x's ...." or "your x is shorter than mine and therefore wrong!"
:confused:

Hey, don't mind me I am challenging a convention that has only been around since 1807... Trouty is working on much more inertia than that!

Cheers

Paul


Paul

Portager
06-25-2002, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Guest
Though I'm not sure what constitutes a "cycle" at this point, if the batteries are being almost constantly charged - shorepower,wind and solar, whether alongside or underway?
I'm guessing that volts/#batteries/charging amps/etc can be optimized for the particular application - regular ferry service schedules, in this case. 1/2hr on, 1/2hr.off, etc.

OK lets just run through some numbers. I don't know anything about your boat other than it is a pontoon boat and you like to go 10 to 20 knots. Lets just assume it is a very streamlined design so that 6 (Solomon Technologies) HP is adequate for you to achieve your speed goals and you can use the smallest Solomon Technologies system, i.e. ST37. At maximum power, it will draw 36 amps out of your 12 batteries at 144 volts. This is 5.18 KW of power. In a 1/2 hour trip you will use 18 amp hours of the batteries 105 amp hour capacity or 17%. If you fully recharged the batteries before you made another trip, each trip would be one cycle with a 17% depth of discharge (DOD).

With the 8 amp charger that Solomon Technologies sells you can restore 7.6 amp hours per hour (assuming 95% charge acceptance for AGM batteries), so in 2.4 hours you could fully recharge (actually it would take a lot longer because you won't be in the bulk charge mode and the charge acceptance rate drops off, but lets just keep it simple for now:)). In your 1/2 hour at the dock you can recharge 3.8 AH. So the net result is every hour the batteries loose 18 - 3.8 = 14.2 AH. If you make 7 trips and before the 7th recharge you will have used 18 x 7 - 3.8 x 6 = 126 - 22.8 = 103.2 amp hours. With 12 - 105 AH batteries, they would 98% discharged. Since more than 50% DOD significantly reduces the cycle life of these batteries, you will either need to restore more power between trips or use more batteries. With 24 batteries you could make 7 round trips and not exceed 50% depth of discharge.

If you had a higher current charger you could restore more power at the dock and you could have fewer batteries on the boat. If you limit the charger to a 20 amp 220 volt circuit that would be 4.4 KW input and at 85% efficiency it would provide 26 amps to the batteries. This would allow you to recharge 12.35 AH in a half hour at the dock. Then after 8 trips the battery power balance would be 18 x 8 - 12.35 x 7 = 144 - 86.45 = 57.55 AH which is 55% DOD with only 12 batteries. The problem with this approach is 144 V battery chargers are hard to find and 26 amp 1440 volt chargers well you know.

Another point to consider is most battery manufacturers want you to fully recharge or at least 80% before using the batteries again (i.e. they do not like partial charging and reuse). I have never gotten anyone to explain what problem this actually causes other than invalidating the warranty.
Now you said that you want to use solar, so lets go shopping for your solar panels. West Marine has some at http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/commerce/command/ProductDisplay?prmenbr=201&prrfnbr=7457&outlet= These are a 50 Watt panels (they produce 50 Watts under ideal conditions) for $430 per panel. They are 48" X 13". Now since you are in Toronto Canada you won't actually be able to the get the full 50 Watts due to the atmosphere transmittance at your latitude and you will have to angle them to be perpendicular to the sun or reduce their power by the sine of the incidence angle. Lets neglect the atmospheric attenuation due to the latitude. We will assume that you mount them at an angle and when the boat is at the dock they are facing the sun and when the boat is underway they face the sun 50% of the time. Since the 50 Watt power is the peak at high noon and it drops off lets assume that you effectively have an 8 hours charging day. Now if we mount a row of solar panels on the roof side by side for 24 feet we can fit 22 solar panels up there. 22 panels x 50 watts/panel x 8 hours x 3/4 charging time per hour = 6,600 Watt hours. If we assume that you have a ideal power converter to convert the power to the battery voltage and the battery charge acceptance is 95% then we have 6,600 x 0.95 / 144 volts = 43.5 amp hours per day or 5.4 AH per hour on the average. The cost of the solar farm is 22 x $430 = $9,460 (US not Canadian). Now the power budget per trip will be use 18 AH per trip, recharge 3.8 + 5.4 = you still loose 8.8 AH per trip. The low point after 7 trips will be 18 x 7 - (3.8 + 5.4) x 6 = 126 - 55.2 = 70.8 which is 67.4% DOD for 12 batteries but only 33.7% DOD for 24 batteries. The low point after 8 trips will be 18 x 8 - (3.8 + 5.4) x 7 = 144 - 64.4 = 79.6 which is 75.8% DOD for 12 batteries but only 37.9% DOD for 24 batteries.

Wind: You could add a wind generator to the boat such as http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/commerce/command/ProductDisplay?prmenbr=201&prrfnbr=103809&outlet= for $899 (US) you could get up to 30 A at 13.5 V in 25 to 30 knot winds, but after converting to 144 volts it is 2.8 Amps per wind mill. Since you need 18 - 3.8 - 5.4 = 8.8 additional charging Amps to break even you will need 3 wind mills (assuming a constant 25 to 30 knot wind). The problem is putting the wind mills on the boat increases the wind resistance and since the power require to overcome drag if proportional to velocity cubed you will have a net power loss (you will loose more power going one way that you gain on the way back). In addition you don't want one wind mill in the wind shadow of another and these things are going to make the boat very ugly. I recommend you plant the wind mills on shore. In fact you could put the solar panels on shore also and use them to charge a set of batteries. Then when the boat returns, you could do a battery bank to battery bank charge transfer. I talked to an Electrical Engineer and he indicated that this is theoretically feasible, but you would need to develop high power control circuitry. $$$$$ ;)

I'm guessing that you're referring to a charger that Solomon specs for their systems? Something onboard? If the charger were shore side, I suppose there are more options, to get that faster charging...[/B]

See discussion above. The problem isn't putting the charger on board it is availability. If you look on Electric Vehicle pages you might find something. Here is a charger that will provide 15 amps at 144 volts. http://www.zivan.it/ing/prodotti6.htm

Sorry Mike - I don't "do" displacement anymore <grin>... Happy puttering around at 10-20knots under sail, on two hulls. Much of the materials I've read so far emphasize long/skinny as better for electrics. Would Portager gain from a double-ender/canoe/ fantail whatever hull? Or is the design "sawed-off"? [/B]

Portager is a semi-displacement hull form. It will do 9.68 knots with 68 HP and 16 knots with 180 HP. I only plan to use about 80 HP so I maintain 9.5 knots into headwinds and seas. Portager's sister design, the Greatheart 36 is a double-ender, but since the waterline length is shorter and the displacement is higher Greatheart is slower. Greatheart and Portager are both long relatively and slender for monohull. Having spent too much time on very fast boats (with big guns), I prefer a slower and much gentler ride.

P.S. attached (I hope) is the Greatheart 36 power vs. speed curve that didn't make it into my previous post.

Cheers
Mike Schooley

Michael.Schooley@DRS-STS.Com

ewhel
06-26-2002, 09:45 AM
The point seems to have been missed.....we have motored a boat continuously for 96 hours off of a generator without using regeneration. On this boat they doubled the fuel economy and ran the AC at the same time. You do have the option, and many of our users do, to use just batteries for the purist that is using only regeneration and just for getting out of the slip. For the cruiser a diesel generator is required....but because it also has a battery pack the generator always runs at optimum efficiency. Not as most cruisers do, which is use a 36 hp engine running at 1,400 RPM's (20%efficiency and hard on the engine) and it's alternator to charge a couple of house batteries that barely make it through the night with minimal electric ammenities. Our diesel electric hybrids don't worry about watts. And they have all the comforts of home...mabey not for the purist but definately for the cruisers...and that's power boat cruisers as well. As a matter of fact, the generator is tied to the batteries and senses the voltage drop and starts by itself...even if you aren't on the boat it will charge the batteries and then turn itself off.
YES.....we cost more....in some cases almost double the price, but we are better, cleaner, quieter and will outlast any fossil fuel motor by about 20 years. Our motor design life is 250,000 hours(the typical diesel is 7000-10000 hours and because they don't get used enough and maintenanced properly thats about 7-10 years), it will be the last motor you buy...no rebuilds, new fuel injectors, alternators, water pumps, oil changes (accept generator and it is easy to get to...no pumping oil out), no smell in your boat, instant on/off, instant fwd/reverse....need I go on. Yes we cost more but it is worth it. 10 years from now when you are putting a new diesel in your boat our motor won't even need repainting. You also have the piece of mind....let's talk about MTBF(mean time between failure) on a diesel that has 900 moving parts VS an electric motor that has 3 moving parts.
Yes....it cost's more....but it is modular.....buy the motor and batteries this year and get the generator next year....you can still get out there, you just have to keep an eye on charge...then when you decide to cruise or want more ammenities add the generator...if fuel cells become affordable,add one of them.
PS.....it's an electric motor....give us 2 years to get the price down and we will be cheaper than that diesel.

Portager
06-26-2002, 02:21 PM
First, let me say that I have nothing against you or your technology. I like your system and the concept of electric sailboats, although I don't intend to own one. I am even willing to evaluate hybrid diesel-electric propulsion systems with what I believe is an open mind (although I am sure it doesn't appear to be from your perspective). That being said, as a systems engineer, when you make statements that I question the validity of or that I think are somewhat misleading, I feel a need to discuss that. I agree with the majority of your post, however I do question the following statements.

Originally posted by ewhel
we have motored a boat continuously for 96 hours off of a generator without using regeneration. On this boat they doubled the fuel economy and ran the AC at the same time.

Can you provide test data to support this claim? Were the speed and conditions while motoring the same? Was the boat operating at its design or intended cruising speed? The reason I question this is because the energy balance doesn't add up. I understand that the generator is able to run at the optimum speed and power loading to operate at optimum specific fuel consumption and if you are motoring at slow speed, or the generator is oversized, the generator could have lower total run time. However, as we have already discussed, the combined efficiency of the generator and electric motor is significantly lower than the transmission. Therefore, the only time the diesel-electric system should exceed the efficiency of the diesel-mechanical system is if speed were operating considerable off optimum or the engine were badly miss sized for the boat. A cheaper way to achieve efficient operation over a wide speed range is to use a controllable pitch propeller.

For the cruiser a diesel generator is required....but because it also has a battery pack the generator always runs at optimum efficiency. Not as most cruisers do, which is use a 36 hp engine running at 1,400 RPM's (20%efficiency and hard on the engine) and it's alternator to charge a couple of house batteries that barely make it through the night with minimal electric ammenities.

I agree that many cruisers are ignorant enough to do this and that most manufacturers undersize the battery bank and alternator to reduce cost, however a fairer comparison would be to put the same 1,260 AH battery bank in both boats. Then the battery bank would be sufficient to supply the house load throughout the night except for extreme conditions. If it is necessary to run the main engine to charge the batteries, then the boat should be equipped with the largest alternator available, such as the Balmar 98-12-300-BL (310 amps max at 12 VDC) or the 98-24-220-BL (220 amps max at 24 VDC). By driving the alternator by the ratio of the alternator maximum speed (6,000) / the engine maximum speed (3,600 for the 36 HP Yanmar) (6000/3600= 1.66) the alternator can produce very significant power levels at slightly elevated speeds. For example, with a drive ratio of 1.66 the alternator would spin at 2,000 RPM with the main engine at 1,200 (which is typically a fairly smooth speed for a 4 cylinder). At this speed the 98-12-300-BL produces 170 amps X 12 VDC = 2 KW, and the 98-24-220-BL produces ~110 amps X 24 VDC = 2.6 KW. If the 1,260 AH battery bank were 50% discharged the 98-12-300-BL could bulk charge (bring the bank to 80%) in 2.2 hours. Granted this is longer than your DC generator will require (0.9 hr with the 5 KW, 0.65 hr. with the 7 KW and 0.5 hr. with the 9 KW), however it is 3.4 times faster than an 80 amp alternator could do it. Using the same 12 batteries in a 24 volt 630 AH bank, the 98-24-220-BL could bulk charge this battery bank in 1.7 Hr. By sound proofing the engine room and using a quality muffler, the 36 HP engine running @ 1,200 RPM could be made as quite as the cocooned DC generator.

Another attractive alternative that I am considering for my boat is to use a hydraulic alternator. Since I plan to have a variable displacement hydraulic pump to power my SCUBA tank compressor, I can have an alternator driven by a hydraulic motor. In this configuration the alternator spins at 5,000 RPM producing 230 amps at 24 VDC (5.5 KW) regardless of engine speed. The hydraulic alternator reduces the 1.7 hr. engine run time to 0.8 hr. The minimum engine speed is controlled by the hydraulic power demand, so the engine runs only as fast as it has to produce the required power level and it operates at optimum efficiency. Since I don't want the hydraulic system to be a mission critical (or should I say vacation critical) system, I'll have a back-up alternator mounted on the engine with a belt drive but with the belt removed. If the hydraulic system fails while underway, I'll disengage the hydraulic pump and install the belt on the back-up alternator and continue without the hydraulics (of course I won't be able to fill my SCUBA tanks either).

Our diesel electric hybrids don't worry about watts. And they have all the comforts of home...mabey not for the purist but definately for the cruisers...and that's power boat cruisers as well. As a matter of fact, the generator is tied to the batteries and senses the voltage drop and starts by itself...even if you aren't on the boat it will charge the
batteries and then turn itself off.

My boat will be equipped with a battery monitor and auto starter to accomplish the same objective. For safety there is an interlock that only allows the engine to auto-start if the transmission is in neutral. As a failsafe the boat can call me on my cell phone to warn me that the batteries are getting low if I forget to leave the transmission in neutral or something else prevents the engine from running (low fuel level, low oil pressure, ...). I'll admit that my approach is more complex, but I accomplish the same objective and it costs less.

YES.....we cost more....in some cases almost double the price, but we are better, cleaner, quieter and will outlast any fossil fuel motor by about 20 years. Our motor design life is 250,000 hours(the typical diesel is
7000-10000 hours and because they don't get used enough and maintenanced properly thats about 7-10 years), it will be the last motor you buy...no rebuilds, new fuel injectors, alternators, water pumps, oil changes (accept generator and it is easy to get to...no pumping oil out), no smell in your boat, instant on/off, instant fwd/reverse....need I go on. Yes we cost more but it is worth it. 10 years from now when you are putting a new diesel in your boat our motor won't even need repainting. You also have the piece of mind....let's talk about MTBF(mean time between failure) on a diesel that has 900 moving parts VS an electric motor that has 3 moving parts.

It isn't fail to compare your motor reliability to the diesel engine reliability when you have a diesel engine driving a generator to power the motor. You need to compare the MTBF at the system level, i.e. "engine + generator + motor" versus "engine + transmission". In other words, your motor plus generator are essentially an expensive transmission.

I think you need to make your comparisons on a fairer basis.

For a sail boat that only uses the engine as an auxiliary and never motors to windward the all electric system might make sense and it is cost competitive with the auxiliary. The down side is, you need to sail and do regenerative charging or add solar or something to produce electrical power. It isn't good for someone who hangs on the hook a lot.

For someone who wants to motor to windward for extended periods they will need to have the generator and the cost is about double that of a conventional propulsion system. The plus side is the generator doesn't need to run as long as the main engine to recharge the battery bank and you have instant-on propulsion. You can also put the generator almost anywhere as opposed to the main engine which must be located at the end of the drive shaft. This could be an advantage for boat arrangement and maintenance access. There could come a day when internal combustion engines are not allowed in certain sensitive areas and the diesel-electric system would allow you to motor through these areas without waiting for favorable winds or an electric tug. On the down side, I still do not believe the efficiency of the diesel electric is better, so I argue that range and mileage will suffer slightly (unless you use sail and regenerative charging to make up the difference).

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

Portager
06-26-2002, 02:27 PM
Do over.

ewhel
06-26-2002, 06:16 PM
Well...my friend....I am a systems engineer too...as a matter of fact one of the worlds leading experts on electromagnetic signature analysis(Check out 1985Society of Flight Test Engineers Symposium Doc)...I also built the worlds largest thermoneuclear detonation simulator .... big whoop...Your "Facts" are mixing apples and oranges and aren't facts at all. They are the hype that some fossil fuel manufacturer has sold you. Fact: A 12" diameter brushless DC motor can push a bigger, more aggresive, prop than a FF motor twice it's horse power thereby eliminating losses that the comparable FF motor has(20% increase in apparent power for DC motor). Fact: The US Navy's Office of Naval Research recently announced that the new DD-21 Class Destroyers...now DD-X projects....will be Diesel Electric Hybrids with brushless DC Motors and Diesel Generators. This is being done for better efficiency, ease of maintenance and longer life(Generators live longer than FF motors hooked to props because they run cleaner and more efficiently). All the same reasons we did it...we are just 5 years ahead of them(log on to ONR and select Electric Ship info). Fact....Generators are more reliable than FF motors pushing props because the run more efficiently all the time(They also typically last twice the number of hours). Fact: A Conser 47 Catamaran with no mast motored from Tampa, Fl to Fort Pierce, Fl off of a generator and had AC on too with less fuel than twin 30hp Volvo's. Fact: I don't have time to mess around with folks that want to play convoluted email games.....If there are any serious questions I will be glad to answer them....otherwise I thank you for the opportunity to chat.
Dave Tether

Jeff
06-26-2002, 06:40 PM
Dave, first thank you for taking the time you have spent explaining things so far and giving us some data. I do understand that your time is probably very limited. But realize that you first criticize us for accepting the “hype that some fossil fuel manufacturer has sold you” but then you also criticize us for trying to understand a system that most of us probably haven’t even considered in the past. It's certainly not an "email game". Not everyone is a systems engineer like yourself that's worked with this enough that the facts are crystal clear. I for one need to digest this information in stages with facts and comparisons I can evaluate and build upon before I can just accept something. Otherwise we would be accepting all the “hype” at face value. Now granted it's not your job to educate the world, but please don't think we are just playing a game with you. We are not.

Willallison
06-26-2002, 07:20 PM
I know way too little about this subject to add anything constructive in a technical sense. What I will say however, is that those who participate in this forum are all eager to learn. We sometimes have strong opinions about things and are only too happy to express them, but we are equally happy to be proven wrong.
Dave, I think that what Mike (Portager) is getting at is that in order to convince him ( or us) that we should toss away conventional power systems in favour of something new, we need some hard data to back up your claims. Don't take his scepticism personally - I know he wouldn't intend it to be - shut him up with some facts.....
Many of the partcipants in this forum are professional naval architects, others (like myself) are studying to be, and some are simply boat / design nuts. If you have something which could revolutionise the industry, it would be in your own interest to prove its worth here.......

Portager
06-26-2002, 07:42 PM
Dave;

Please don't take offense. As Will said I would love for you to prove me wrong. I challenge you to prove me wrong. I just hope that you do it before I start construction so I have time to change my plans once I am proven wrong.

For those who wish to follow Dave's reference to ONR, the URL is http://www.onr.navy.mil. I could not the Electric Ship info link but I did find some info by searching on "Electric Ship". Here they are to make it easy.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/onr/media/download/fncs_fact_sheets/electric_ships.pdf

http://www.onr.navy.mil/news/7%5F25%5F00.htm

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

trouty
06-27-2002, 05:07 AM
Hey, don't mind me I am challenging a convention that has only been around since 1807... Trouty is working on much more inertia than that!

Hey don't mind me - while the systems engineers are stuck within their maxwellian vector theory, they will never grasp the new field of scalar electromagnetics...

Whilst they lumber on with inneficient systems that allow a circuit to connect to the source - they will never harness the potential energy trapped within time...and always be limited to how much energy they can harness from solar, wind or prop regeneration.

Their system will work - it's just no where near as efficient (or "free") as is scalar electromagnetics.

The Electric Wheel to me looks like a great "drive system" to take advantage of the electrical potential harvested from time if only it's inventor weren't apparently wearing blinkers - but hey - he's a thermonuclear sytems engineer - what can i posibly teach him?
;)

There are so many things we don't understand about the universe today.....

Maybe I'll spill a few more profound secrets yet - ya'll come back now ya hear! It ain't over till the fat lady sings!

For those of you too lazy to at least consider the possibility i might be right about scalar electromagnetics...heres the technical detail!

"THE FINAL SECRET OF FREE ENERGY

ã T. E. Bearden 1993

Some Definitions

The Quantum Mechanical Vacuum: First we need some definitions. We start by assuming the quantum mechanical vacuum.1 Empty "spacetime" is filled with an incredibly intense flux of virtual particles. It is a plenum, not an emptiness. We shall be interested only in the fantastic flux of virtual photons, for we are discussing electromagnetics.

Energy and Potential: Energy is any ordering, either static or dynamic, in the virtual particle flux of vacuum. EM energy is any ordering, either static or dynamic, in the virtual photon flux (VPF) of vacuum. That is, for a particular kind of "field" energy, we simply choose the so-called quantum particle of that field, and consider only that kind of virtual particle flux.

Potential is any ordering, either static or dynamic, in the virtual particle flux of vacuum. Hey! That's exactly the same definition as energy. Quite correct. Energy and potential are identically the same. Neither is presently defined correctly in physics.

Energy is normally defined as "Energy is the capacity to do work." That's totally false. Energy has the capacity to do work, because work is correctly defined as the dissipation (disordering; scattering) of energy (order). The scattering of energy is work. It is not energy! I.e., energy is not definable as its own scattering!

Look at it this way: A man has the capacity to catch fish. That is true, but it is not a definition, since a definition must in some sense be an identity. You cannot say that a man is the capacity to catch fish! That may be a submitted definition, all right, but it is false. Similarly, energy has the capacity to do work; that is one of its attributes. But energy IS the ordering in the VPF (we are referring from now on primarily only to EM).

Scalar and Vector Potentials: The scalar potential is any static (with respect to the external observer) ordering in the VPF of vacuum. The vector potential is any dynamic (with respect to the external observer) ordering in the VPF of vacuum. We shall be interested in the electrostatic scalar potential. So it is a static ordering -- a stationary template -- in the VPF of vacuum, much as a whirlpool is a stationary ordering (template, form) in the rushing flow of a river.

The Scalar Potential Has An Internal Structure

The Structure of the Scalar Potential: According to rigorous proofs by Whittaker2 and Ziolkowski,3 any scalar potential can be mathematically decomposed into a harmonic series of bidirectional wave pairs. Figure 1 shows this Whittaker/Ziolkowski (WZ) structure. In each pair, the forward-time wave is going in one direction, and its phase conjugate (time-reversed) replica wave is going in the other. According to the so-called distortion correction theorem4 of nonlinear phase conjugate optics, this PCR wave must precisely superpose spatially with its partner wave in the pair. The two waves are in-phase spatially, but 180 degrees out of phase in time. The wave is made of photons, and the antiwave (PCR wave) is made of antiphotons. It follows that, as wave and antiwave pass through each other, the photons and antiphotons are coupling and uncoupling with each other, because the antiphoton is a PCR photon, and PCR's precisely superpose spatially with their partner. A photon or antiphoton has wave characteristics, because it has a frequency; if the wave aspects are perfectly ordered and perfectly correlated, then so are the photon's particle aspects.

A Potential Is An Ordering Across the Universe: So we have -- astoundingly -- perfect VPF inner ordering infolded in the electrostatic scalar potential! We also have perfect wave/antiwave ordering infolded in there. When you collect a simple set of charges on a small ball or in a region, the scalar EM potential from that set of charges reaches across the universe. In it you have an infinite harmonic series of phase-locked time-forward EM waves going out from the charges to all distant points of the entire universe. And you have an infinite harmonic series of phase-locked time-reversed EM waves coming from all points of the universe, back to the "collected charges" source.

A Potential Is A River of Energy: The point is, you have established a mighty, hidden, 2-way river of energy between that collection of charges and every other point in the universe. There is infinite energy in each of those infolded waves and antiwaves. But in a localized region, the energy density in each wave is finite. Since in finite circuits the potential interacts with a localized set of mass, we shall be concerned with the local energy density (joules/coulomb) of the potential.

But forget the conventional myth of visualizing the potential as pushing a unit charge in from infinity "against the force field" -- there isn't any force field in the vacuum, as is well-known in quantum mechanics. Also, Newton's third law requires all forces to occur in pairs -- each pair consisting of a force and its 3rd law reaction force. From that viewpoint alone, there is no such thing as an EM forcefield or force field wave in the vacuum. There are just gradients of the vacuum potential present in the vacuum. In the vacuum, an EM wave is actually a wave of the phase locked gradients of the electrostatic scalar potential and of the magnetostatic scalar potential. And each such gradient wave is simultaneously accompanied by its phase conjugate gradient wave, because of Newton's third law.

Newton's third law requires forces to occur in pairs of equal but antiparallel forces.

Both wave and antiwave co-exist simultaneously in the vacuum EM wave.5 Therefore it's a stress potential wave, not a force field wave. It's more like an electromagnetic sound wave,6 and so it is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse wave. In the EM vacuum wave's interaction with matter (the so-called "photon" interaction), the wave normally half interacts with the electron shells of the atom, giving translation forces, while the anti-wave half interacts with the atomic nucleus, giving the Newtonian 3rd law reaction (recoil) forces (waves). The EM wave in vacuum is an electrogravitational wave.

Energy Is Internally Infinite and Unlimited: A static potential -- which is identically excess energy -- is internally dynamic and infinite. Energy is internally infinite and unlimited! But it has a finite energy density in a local region of spacetime. Since energy interacts with matter locally, we shall be concerned with the local energy density (joules per coulomb).

A Principle of Great Importance: The only way you can have a "chunk" or finite amount of energy to dissipate in a circuit as work is to first have a potential's local energy density interact with a local finite mass collector. The normal interacting mass collector is the free electrons (the free electron gas) in the circuit. You can have, e.g., (joules/coulomb x coulomb); (joules/gram x grams); (joules/m3 x m3); etc.

Voltage, Force, Potential Gradients, Loads, and Work: Now let's look at circuitry aspects. Conventionally they are a mess. Voltage is "essentially" defined as the "drop in potential." In other words, it's the dissipation (disordering) of a "finite amount" of potential gradient. But the only way you can get a "finite amount" of infinite energy/potential gradient is by first interacting the potential gradient's internal, finite, excess energy density with a finite "collector" mass. E.g., (joules/coulomb available for collection) x (coulombs collecting) = excess joules collected on the interacting coulombs, available for dissipation.

So voltage is really the dissipation of a finite collection of excess EM energy/potential gradient. The dissipation of potential or of its gradient is not potential! You cannot logically define either potential or energy as is own dissipation!

We presently use the notion of "voltage" in two completely contradictory ways in electrical physics. Here's how we got the confusion: We take a potential gradient (which has a local energy density), and we "collect" it across some charged masses in a locality -- usually the free electrons in the free electron gas in our circuitry. That is, we express the finite energy density of the potential gradient (before collection onto charges) in the local region in terms of energy per coulomb. The potential gradient actually is a change to the ambient potential, and so it contains an excess energy density (the magnitude may be either positive or negative). We then collect this potential (actually this potential density) on a certain number of coulombs, which places tiny little gradients of potential across (coupled to) each free electron. The local excess energy density of the potential gradient multiplied by the amount of collecting mass gives the amount of excess energy collected (on the interacting charges/coulombs). On each collecting particle, that little gradient, together with the coupling particle, constitutes a tiny force. F is not just equal to ma (non relativistic case); instead, F º (ma), where (mass x acceleration) is considered as a unitary, inseparable thing. So that little potentialized electron (that little EM force) moves itself around the circuit. In the load (scatterer), the little potentialized electron (the little force) is subjected to jerks and accelerations, thus radiating energy (shucking its gradient). Since this is done in all directions in the scatterer (load), that gets rid of the gradient, reducing the "little force" (potentialized electron) to zero because the little potential gradient is lost due to radiation.

Collecting And Dissipating Energy

Energy Dissipation and Collection: Without further ado, we consider the scalar potential's local energy density in terms of joules per coulomb. That is, in a specific glob of charges (i.e., in finite circuits), the amount of energy collected from a potential gradient onto the finite number of charges receiving/collecting it, is equal to the number of joules of energy per coulomb that is in the potential gradient, times the number of coulombs collecting (receiving) the potential gradient. The current is the activated (potentialized) coulombs per second that dissipate their potential gradients during that second. The current multiplied by the time the current flows gives the activated coulombs that dissipated their activation (potentialization) during that flow time. Dissipating, activated coulombs multiplied by the excess energy collected per activated coulomb gives the energy dissipated (the work or scattering done) in the load.

We define collection as the connection of a potential gradient (a source) to the charged masses in a circuit element (the element is called the collector), which for a finite delay time does not allow its potentialized free electrons to move as current. In the collector, during this delay time these trapped electrons are "activated" by potential gradients being coupled to them.

Technically, that delay time in the collector is known as relaxation time,7 in the case of the free electron gas8 (in a wire or in a circuit element). A collector then is a circuit element that has a usable, finite relaxation time. During that relaxation time, the trapped electrons are potentialized without movement as current; each collecting/receiving free electron gets a little gradient across it, but no current yet flows. In other words, during this finite relaxation time (collection time), we extract potential from the source, but no current. Thus we extract energy (potential), but no power (which is voltage x amperage). During the relaxation time, we extract from the source only a flow of VPF, which is continually replaced in the source by the vacuum's violent VPF exchange with the source's bipolarity charges. We do not extract power from the battery/source during relaxation time, but we extract free energy density. That free energy density, coupling with a finite quantity of electrons, gives us a collected finite amount of energy. With that background, let's start again, and go through this in a useful "free energy" manner.

The Electron Gas. We refer to the conventional model of the free electron gas in a wire.9 Although the electrons in this gas actually move by quantum mechanical laws and not by classical laws, we shall simply be dealing with the "on the average" case. So we will speak of the electrons and their movement in a classical sense, rather than a quantum mechanical sense, as this will suffice very well for our purposes.

When one connects a circuit to a source of potential gradient (say, to a battery), the first thing that happens nearly instantly is that the potential gradient races onto the coupling wire and heads down it at almost the speed of light. As it goes onto the wire, this gradient "couples" to the free electrons in the free electron gas. However, inside the wire, these electrons can hardly move down the wire at all; they can only "slip" once in a while, yielding a "drift" velocity of a fraction of a cm/sec.10 On the surface, things are just a little bit different. Most of the "current" in a wire, as is well-known, moves along the surface, giving us the "skin" effect. [For that reason, many cables are stranded of finer wires, to provide more skin surface per cm3 of copper, and hence more current-carrying capability per cm3 of copper.]

So, initially, little gradients of potential appear on and across each free electron, with a single little Ñf on each electron, and coupled to it. The couplet of [Ñf·me], where me is the mass of the electron, constitutes a small DEe. [This is rigorous; the conventional EM notion that an E field exists in the vacuum is absurd, and it is well-known in QM that no observable force field exists in the vacuum. As Feynman pointed out, only the potential for the force field exists in the vacuum,11 not the force field as such. Or as Lindsay and Margenau pointed out in their Foundations of Physics, one does not have an observable

force except when observable mass is present.12]. We have stated it even stronger: Not only is F = ma, but F º ma (nonrelativistic case).13 Since no observable mass exists in vacuum, then no observable F exists there either.

Force, Coupled Gradients, and Electron Translation

Electrons Coupled to a Potential Gradient Move Themselves. The point is, when activated by a "coupled potential gradient," the activated electron moves itself until it loses its activation (its coupled potential gradient).

Let me say that again, in a little more detail. Forget the standard notion that a force field such as the E-field causes electrons to move. Also forget the notion that the E-field is given by E = -Ñf. In foundations of physics, those equations are known to be incorrect for the vacuum. EM force fields are known (in QM foundations theory) to be effects, existing only in and on the charged particles, and not existing separately at all,14 or in the vacuum at all.15 Instead of E = -Ñf, in the vacuum the correct equation would be something like this: PE = -Ñf. In this case, we have correctly stated that the potential gradient PE provides the potential for producing an antiparallel E-field in and on a coupling/collecting charged mass, and the magnitude and direction of that potential gradient will be given by -Ñf, if and only if a charged mass particle is first introduced so that it couples to PE.

At any rate, the activated/potentialized electron moves itself. The reason is that it constitutes a force. Force º (mass x acceleration) (non relativistic case). So the potentialized/activated electron is continuously accelerating. However, it is prevented from easily moving down the wire directly. To begin to do that, it essentially has to first move to the outer skin of the copper conductor.

The Collector: We now consider a circuit element that we called a collector. (It could be a special coil made of special material, a capacitor with doped plates rather than simple conducting plates, or any one of a number of things). The objective is for the collector to be made of special material so that it has a free electron gas whose electrons are momentarily not free to move as current (they continue to move violently around microscopically, but essentially with zero net macroscopic translation) for a finite delay (relaxation) time, while they are settling themselves upon the surface and preparing to move as current. Let's call the electrons NNTE (no net translation electrons) during that finite delay (relaxation time). During that "no-current" delay time, the NNTE electrons become potentialized/activated by the potential gradient impressed across the collector. So at the end of the NNT time, the NNTE electrons are potentialized, and each is of the form [Ñf·me].

The Secret of Free Energy

Two Circuits/Two Cycles: We are going to use two circuits and two cycles, as shown in Figure 2:

(1) We shall connect a collector to a primary source of potential (to a battery) during the short time that current does not yet flow, but potential does. (In other words, during the relaxation time of the collector, we allow the VPF to flow onto the NNTE electrons of the collector and potentialize (activate) them, but do not yet allow the electrons themselves to flow as current, but only to move transversely in the wiring and collector.) This is cycle one of a 2-cycle process: This is collection of a specific amount of current-free potential gradient -- power-free energy -- off the potential-source (the battery) onto a collector. During the collection cycle/time, current does not and must not flow (we are discussing the ideal case). We are freely "charging up" the collector as a secondary battery/source.

(2) At the end of the collection (potentialization/activation) time/cycle in circuit one, the potentialized collector (the charged secondary source) is sharply switched away from its connection to the primary potential source (the battery), and at the same time it is instantly switched into a separate closed circuit with the load. This is important: In cycle two, the potentialized collector (with its finite amount of excess trapped EM energy) and the load are connected in a completely separate circuit, and one that is closed, with no connection at all to the original source of potential (in this case, to the battery). Specifically, this "load and potentialized collector" circuit is completely separate from the primary source; during cycle two the primary source (the battery) is not connected to anything.

In other words, all we've taken from the primary source (the battery) is current-free, force-field-free potential gradient. So to speak, we've taken a "chunk of potential gradient" from the source, nothing else. You simply multiply the potential gradient's local energy density (the so-called "voltage", which is really excess joules per coulomb) by the number of coulombs of charge that is "activated" (that "collects" this voltage or excess joules/coulomb) in the collector. Specifically, we have not taken any power from the battery itself, and so we have not done any internal work inside the battery upon its internal resistance, by a "closed circuit electron flow" back into the battery. We have not permitted such a flow.

Instead, we are using the activated collector as a temporary, secondary battery. We will utilize this secondary battery in a conventional manner to power the load, which will also kill the secondary battery (dissipate its trapped EM energy). But that will not affect the primary source. The primary source is never used to directly power the load. It is only used as an infinite source of potential gradient (i.e., as an infinite source of energy density).

The Standard Power Extraction Circuit

The Conventional Circuit: We digress momentarily: In the standard electrical method, the potential source (which is a bipolarity) is connected across the load. This connects both the external load and the internal resistance of the battery itself in series, as the "total circuit load." Electrons then pour through the external load circuit and through the internal battery resistance, from the "electron rich" polarity of the source to its "electron poor" opposite polarity. The scattering of energy in the internal battery resistance is actually doing work to upset the chemistry that is maintaining the battery's charge separation (the bipolarity). In this manner, the source's separation of charges (which is the "gate" furnishing the potential/energy gradient) is being destroyed as the current flows, and this in turn destroys the source of the potential gradient.

In other words, normally we, engineers, are trained to kill the bipolarity, which kills the potential source itself! Incredible as it may be, we, engineers and scientists, have been trained to utilize the free "trapped EM energy" furnished by nature through the source, to destroy the source of the energy/potential, with the same vigor as they power the external load! In fact, our teachers simply have never learned any other way to do it except this deliberately "self-destructive" manner!

A Waterwheel Analogy

Imagine, if you will, a waterwheel that powers a mill, with a sluice gate upstream in a river, that diverts some river water into the sluice carrying water to the wheel when the sluice gate is opened into the river. The diverted water flows down to the waterwheel, turning it, and the spent water is fed back into the river below the mill site. Now what fool would connect a pulley onto the waterwheel, with a rope running from the pulley to the sluice gate, so that when the wheel rotated, part of the rotational power also was utilized to close the sluice gate and shut off the water, stopping the waterwheel? If one did so, when the sluice gate was opened, the waterwheel would rotate only until the sluice gate was closed, shutting off the water. Then one would laboriously have to pay to reopen the sluice gate again, then again, then again. No self-respecting "waterwheel engineer" would do such an unthinkable, insane thing. But that's exactly what we engineers, electrical physicists, and scientists have been trained to do! We have no energy engineers or energy scientists at all; instead, we have all been power engineers and power scientists. We have all been energy source killers! In this paper, we shall try to do better, and rectify "one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history," as Tesla called the conventional electromagnetics.16 By being energy engineers, we shall only have to pay for our energy source once, and then we shall draw as much energy from it as we wish.

External Load Power Is Free; Only The Power In The Source Costs

Here's the magic secret of free electrical power: The power in the external load is absolutely free, and it always has been free.17 In any load circuit, the only power you have to pay for, and have ever had to pay for, is the power you incorrectly use to kill your own primary source. The only power that "costs" more effort/dollars is the power erroneously utilized inside the source to "close the gate" and kill the primary source. Your electric power company doesn't pay for any of the collected energy on your load circuits that is dissipated to power your house. Instead, the power company charges you for its own ignorance. It charges you for its insane use of its own freely extracted electrical energy to continually kill the bipolarity in each of its generators, thus continually killing the free electrical source of that generator's energy.18

In any electric circuit, we can continue to indefinitely power the external load indirectly from a source, so long as we are not so naive as to use any of the free energy we extract from the primary source to dissipate back inside the primary source itself and shut it off!

And we can easily and freely multiply electrical potential. As an example, given a single good source of potential, a hundred radial wires can be connected to the source. The same potential will now appear at each of the ends of the hundred wires. A switcher/collector unit can then operate from each radial line's end, and power external loads, without "loading" the original primary source. This "cascading" can be continued indefinitely. A single power plant, e.g., can power the entire electrical grid of the United States. And a single automobile battery can power a large, agile, electric automobile at highway speeds, with sports car acceleration, with unlimited range, without "refueling," and with no noxious chemical exhaust.

Obvious Impacts

Environmentalists should immediately see that the chemical pollution of the biosphere by mechanista and processes to obtain energy can be dramatically reduced, to almost negligible levels. There need be no huge oil tanker spills, for there need be no huge oil tankers. There need be no worrisome radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants, or abandoned hazardous nuclear plants when their life is finished, because there need be no nuclear power plants. There need be no noxious exhausts from jet airplanes (which are really what is diminishing the ozone layer and punching holes in it), automobiles, trucks, buses, innumerable coal-fired and oil-fired power plants, etc.

The Electronic Smog Problem

In fairness we point out that, as the usage of free electrical energy mushrooms, we will be dramatically increasing the low-level EM signal density of the environment, and that too is biologically detrimental. Although beyond the scope of this paper, that cumulative biological damage mechanism has also been uncovered by this author. A formal paper is presently in preparation for presentation in March 1993 at the annual meeting and conference of the Alabama Academy of Science.19 The paper will also present an entirely new definition of cancer, give its exact long-term cumulative mechanism, and give an exact, scientifically proven mechanism for eliminating cancer, leukemia, and other debilitating diseases such as AIDS. For our purposes here, we simply state that we understand the EM "electronic smog" biological damage mechanism, and how to go about developing a total counter for it. Eventually, we would see a small "counter unit" added to each power unit, alleviating the "electronic smog" problem and preventing biological damage.

Only Dissipate Energy From a Collector, Not the Source

Completion of the Collection Cycle: But to return to the completion of our collection cycle (cycle one). During collection, we have not extracted power from the source. That is vital. We have not moved the gate through which our source is furnishing free energy. We have not diminished our primary source. From our previous definitions of potential, we have indeed extracted trapped energy from the primary source, because we placed its "local energy density" across a certain finite collector/mass, instead of extracting power (dissipating energy inside the source or battery to spoil its chemistry and deplete its charge separation).



All Energy Is Free

Here's the incredible truth. The entire universe is filled with mind boggling free energy everywhere, in the simplest of things. Simply scrape your feet on the carpet, and you will collect perhaps 2,000 "volts" on your body. At that time, hidden EM energy is flowing from every point in the universe to your body, and from your body back to every point in the universe. We know that all macroscopic matter is filled with stupendous amounts of electrical charge. So an incredible river of energy -- a great flux -- is driving every single thing, from the smallest to the largest. Opening a gate to extract trapped EM energy is simple. Just collect a bit of charge, or scrape your feet hard, or comb your hair briskly. All we have to do is not be stupid and close the gate once we've got it opened!

God has been most kind. We have nothing but free energy everywhere. All energy is furnished to us freely! It's our own blindness that has made us into energy source killers. All we have to do is open our eyes to the truth of nature's incredible energy bounty. We must just freely collect that bountiful fruit from Nature's tree, instead of chopping down the tree and killing it.

Dissipating The Collected Energy

The Work Cycle: We focus again on cycle two. Shortly after the now-potentialized collector is connected to the load at the beginning of cycle 2 (the power cycle, or energy dissipation cycle, or work cycle), the potential gradient across the potentialized collector is connected (transferred) across the free electrons in the load circuit. We assume that the material of the collector and the switching time have been designed so that, shortly after switching to the loading/work cycle, the activated/potentialized free electrons in the electron gas in the collector reach the skin of the collector, and are free to move as current.

So just after the beginning of cycle two, each of the free electrons in the load circuit now is potentialized and free to move down the wiring. Each potentialized (activated) electron has its own little individual potential gradient across it and coupled to it, due to the overall potential gradient from the collector. Remember, prior to coupling to charges, this potential gradient moves through the circuit at light speed. An EM potential gradient coupled to a charged mass constitutes an EM force field (excess trapped EM energy per coulomb, times the number of collecting coulombs). Now each little free electron with its potential gradient forms a little E-field (force/charge), and that little E-field (force/charge) is free to move. That's all it takes to move (accelerate) the little activated electron's mass through the load (the scatterer). We strongly stress that the potentialized/activated electron moves itself. It doesn't care whether or not the external battery is attached or not. It is its own little motorboat, with its own little engine driving it.

As the little potentialized electrons reach the load (the scatterer), they bang and clang around in there erratically. That is, the "scatterer" (load) causes spurious accelerations ("scatterings") of these self-driven electrons. As is well-known, when a charge is accelerated, it radiates photons. What actually happens is that these little "jerked around" electrons shuck off their little potential gradients in the load (in the scatterer, or the "jerker-arounder") by emitting/radiating photons in all directions. Hence the heat that is produced in the load; the heat is just these scattered photons. The theory of calorimetry already states that all the excess energy (on the potentialized electrons) will be dissipated as this heat (scattered EM energy).

When all the potentialized electrons have radiated away their potential gradients in the load (scatterer), they are no longer potentialized. The free electron gas is again "quiescent" and no longer potentialized/activated (again, we are talking about "on the average" from a classical viewpoint).

Repetition and Review

Notice What We've Done: We took some trapped EM energy density (a chunk of potential gradient, a "voltage" before current flows) from the source, by switching that potential gradient (energy density, which is joules per coulomb) onto a collector (containing a certain number of coulombs of trapped charges) where the potential gradient activates/potentializes/couples-to these temporarily non translating electrons. So the finite collector collected a finite amount of excess energy [joules/coulomb x collecting (trapped) coulombs] on its now-excited (activated) free electrons. Then, before any current has yet flowed from the source, we switched that potentialized collector (with its temporarily restrained but potentialized electrons; with their finite amount of excess trapped EM energy) away from the source and directly across the load. Shortly thereafter, the relaxation time in the collector expires. The potentialized electrons in the collector are freed to move in the external load circuit, consisting of the collector and the load, and so they do so. The scattering "shock collisions" due to the erratic electron accelerations in the load shake off the little potential gradients on the conduction electrons, emitting photons in all directions, which we call "heat." In shaking off the photons, the electrons lose their little potential gradients, hence lose their activation (excess EM energy).

Rigorously, we have extracted some energy in trapped form, and allowed it to dissipate in the load, "powering the load" for a finite discharge/dissipation time and doing work.20 Contrary to the conventional electrical power engineering, we have also done this without doing any work inside the source to diminish its ability to furnish potential gradient.

What Is Energy In An Electric Circuit?

Energy in an Electric Circuit: Here's the principle loud and clear. Energy in an electric circuit involves only the potentialization and depotentialization of the electron carriers in that circuit.21 It involves only the potential gradient (the joules per coulomb) collected by the circuit to potentialize its electrons, and the number of coulombs of electrons that are potentialized during the collection phase. Electric circuits simply utilize electrons as carriers of "potential gradients," from the source to the load, where these gradients and the activated electrons constitute excess trapped EM energy. In the "shocking/scattering" occurring in the load, the jerking (acceleration) of the electrons causes these activated (trapped-energy-carrying) electrons to shuck off their potential gradients by emitting them as scattered photons (heat).

If one is thoughtless enough to allow the primary potential source to remain in the circuit during the "work" phase, then one is using the potentialized electrons to also go back into the primary source and scatter energy from its internal resistance (internal load), thereby disorganizing the organization that was producing the source potential and energy in the first place. If one does that, then all the while one is getting some work (scattering of energy) in the load, one is also steadily getting some work done inside the primary source to steadily destroy it! Literally, one is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Continued Operations: But back to our circuit. After we complete one full collection/discharge cycle, we wish to continue producing work in the external load. So we simply switch the collector back away from the load and onto the primary source, collect some more current-free potential, and again independently switch the collector with its repotentialized free electrons back across the load. We can repeat this two-cycle process to potentialize the external load and power it as long as we wish, from a battery or other source of potential, and never take any power at all from the primary battery. We do not need to drain the battery or source at all, in order to power a load, unless we attempt to power it directly. Powering the external load is always free!

Nature has been most kind, and we have been most ignorant. You can have all the trapped electrical energy you wish, from any source of potential, for free. You can power all the external loads you wish, for free, by using a collector as a secondary source, and simply shuttling potential between the primary source and the collector.22 But you cannot have power for free from (in) the potential source. If you allow current flow in your collection cycle, you are depleting the separated charges inside the battery that are furnishing the source potential.

The Coal-Fired Locomotive

Rigorous Analogy of a Coal-Fired Locomotive. Now here's an exact analogy, to assist in understanding. Imagine a coal-fired train, and a fireman shoveling coal. He has an external load/scatterer of energy (the fire in the firebox under the boiler). He has a primary source of potential/energy (the coal car). No fireman in his right mind would ignite the coal in the chute of the coal bin, to try and get some heat energy into the firebox! [That is, he would not attempt to extract power from the source. Yet that's exactly what all we engineers are trained to do at present.] Instead, the fireman takes out (collects) a finite amount (a shovelful) of coal (trapped energy). Coal per se (the potential gradient) has a certain energy density per unit volume (trapped joules per unit volume of coal) and the shovel (collector) has a certain volume. Accordingly, the shovelful of coal contains a certain amount of trapped joules of energy. In the fireman's shovel (the collector), the energy remains in totally trapped form, as coal not afire and without its trapped energy being dissipated as work. [He doesn't act like a fool and ignite the coal in the shovel either!] He then throws that shovel of coal (collected trapped energy) onto the fire (scatterer), completely separately from the coal bin/source. He continues to repeat his shoveling cycle, and each shovelful of coal added to the fire dissipates additional energy, powering the load.

The Free Energy Principle

All potential gradient (trapped excess energy density) is free for the taking.23 The potential is due to the violent VPF exchange between the vacuum and the separated bipolar charges furnishing the source potential gradient. The energy of the entire universe is flowing through that source potential. You can have as much of this internal VPF flux energy (potential) as you wish, as often as you wish, so long as you don't demand current (which is power, or the rate at which the energy is being freed and dissipated). It's really simple. You can have all the trapped energy you wish, from any source. You cannot connect to the source and start to dissipate the energy as power, however, without starting to close the "gate" from which your free trapped energy is coming.

In other words, here's the iron rule: If you draw current, you kill the bipolarity gate furnishing the potential gradient (source of energy density). In that case, you kill the source. If you do not draw current, you do not kill the bipolarity gate and you do not shut down the source. In that case, you can continue to "use" it and extract trapped EM energy from it forever.

Definitions Again

Definitions: I'll put down some simple equations, that may help to explain it more exactly. First we repeat some definitions.

Energy is any ordering imposed upon the virtual particle flux of vacuum. EM energy is any ordering imposed upon the virtual photon flux of vacuum. Static energy is an ordering (a template) which is stationary with respect to the external observer. Dynamic energy is an ordering (a template) which is not stationary with respect to the external observer.

Potential: Any ordering imposed upon the virtual particle flux of vacuum. Scalar potential is an ordering (template) that is not moving with respect to the external observer. Vector potential is an ordering (template) that is moving with respect to the external observer.

The scalar EM potential is any static (with respect to the external observer) ordering imposed upon the virtual photon flux of vacuum. Etc.

Note again that energy and potential have exactly the same definition. Potential is in fact trapped energy. Scalar EM potential is static EM energy (to the external observer) or trapped (collected) EM energy. In other words, if one takes off a differential of potential onto a fixed number of coulombs, one takes off a certain magnitude of trapped EM energy. In other words, one takes out a shovelful of coal from the coal car.

Importance of Separation of Charges

We Must Not Dispel the Separation of Charges In Our Source: The difference in our coal-fired train analogy and our electrical circuit is that, in the coal train, the coal in the coal car is not automatically and continually replenished. Also, the coal in the coal car has already been collected by the mass of the coal car, so it is not infinite. In the electrical circuit, the potential gradient in the primary source is continually replenished, automatically, and it is infinite (though it has a finite energy density). The reason is simple. EM potential (in the normal sense) is actually a virtual photon flux exchange between the vacuum (the entire vacuum, all over the universe) and a charged particle or collection of charged particles.24 Thus the potential (gradient) is a powerful energy flux, pumped by the vacuum and the entire universe, that continues automatically, so long as we do not allow the collected charges in our bipolarity source to be dissipated. In terms of a battery, we achieved separation of charges inside the battery by chemical action, and we paid for that initially. Once separated, the charges essentially stay separated (because of the chemistry) unless we foolishly do something to dissipate them, such as upsetting the chemistry, so they are no longer separated positive from negative. So if we don't do anything to these separated charges, they continue to be driven by their fierce exchange of virtual photon flux with the vacuum/universe. If we then simply extract some of that flux exchange, without moving the charges, we are directly "gating" trapped EM energy from the vacuum/charged particle VPF exchange.25

The Potential Is Infinite And So Is Its Energy Content

You Can't Dip The Ocean Dry With a Spoon: Let's say that another way. The charged particles in our potential source are in a constant, seething, equilibrium exchange of trapped EM energy with the entire universe. That energy exchange is so enormous that, if we gate some of it out to collect on some other "temporarily frozen" charges and potentialize/activate them, the vacuum flux doesn't even miss it. It's like dipping a spoonful of water out of the restless ocean. The hole is instantly filled, and the water replenished. We can dip with that spoon as much as we wish, and the ocean will never run dry, but will simply continue to furnish us water, spoonful by spoonful.

The same is true in our electric circuits. We can have all the potential (trapped EM energy density) we wish, for free, from a single source, so long as we do not allow work to be done inside the source to close off our "gate" and kill our primary source.

The Twisted Concept of Voltage

Before We Develop Some Pseudo-Equations: In the equations we wish to develop, we have one problem, due to the lack of insight of conventional electrical physicists. That is, they have insisted upon "measuring" and expressing both the infinite potential (nondissipated) and a certain quantity of potential (dissipated) in volts. So they say "a potential of so many volts." That's nonsense, and totally erroneous. Rigorously, a voltage is a drop or a dissipation of so much (a finite amount of) collected excess potential/energy. You "measure" the voltage in a voltmeter by impressing a potential gradient upon the electron gas in the circuitry, wherein you collect or get in your voltmeter so much [(joules/coulomb) x coulombs]. A tiny current (coulombs/second) from this internal collection then flows for a finite time through the resistance of the voltmeter. So you dissipate (joules/coulomb) x (coulombs/second) x (seconds), which gives a certain amount of energy dissipated as work in moving the needle of the voltmeter. The voltmeter is calibrated so that it effectively indicates the collected energy per coulomb that was dissipated, and it calls that entity voltage. It involves a finite amount of energy that has already been dissipated as work, and it's a measure of the local energy density of the potential in terms of joules/coulomb. It is not a measure of the potential proper. It's after the fact; the extracted (collected) potential gradient it actually refers to existed in the past, before the work (dissipation of the collected trapped energy) was done. To refer to the potential before its dissipation as "voltage" is precisely the same as confusing the future with the past. A "potential (difference) of so many volts" is actually a statement that "a potential difference of so much energy per coulomb" could be dissipated in a load, if it were connected to the load so that a finite amount of energy was collected, and this finite load-collection was allowed to dissipate as power (volts/coulomb x coulomb/sec) for a finite time, yielding work. It's even worse, but it would take a textbook to straighten out this one error in EM theory.

So we'll leave it at that, and we'll adapt the notion of potential the way it is corrupted in electrical circuit theory. There it's used not really as energy, but rather as excess energy per coulomb of potentialized charge. I apologize for that difficulty, which is not of my own making, but I must use the conventional notion if we are to greatly clarify the pseudo equations.

The Equations of Free Energy

The Pseudo-Equations: Let us use the following subscripts and letter convention, and develop the nomenclature needed:

T = trapped d = dissipated or dissipating

m = translated (moving) K = energy

V = volts = potential drop (potential dissipated) = previously collected potential radiated away as heat in a load, doing work on the load in the process. Unfortunately, we shall also have to speak of a potential gradient that is not being dissipated, so we shall have to speak of "trapped volts" which is erroneous, but complies with the common usage.

f = electrostatic scalar potential. Coul = coulombs

i = amperes = Dissipating potentialized coulombs per second flowing, so amps are something translating, always. Amps are excited coulombs, per second, that are dissipating their excitation. With superconductivity excluded, you only have amps when you have a potential drop across a load. So we will speak of amps as "dissipating," meaning that potentialized electrons are traveling through a load, dissipating their activation (gradients) in the load by radiating scattered photons (heat).

n = number of electrons in a coulomb = 6.3 x 1018 electrons/coulomb

Here are the pseudo equations (superconductivity is excluded):

ampm = could/sec = n electronsm/sec = n electronsd/sec [1]

Df = VT (as conventionally referred to). It would be volts if all [2] of it were dissipated, but it is not yet dissipated, so it is sort of "trapped volts". Erroneous, but the common use. So we will speak (somewhat distastefully) of "trapped volts" and "dissipated volts."

Vd x ampd x sec = watts x sec = power x time = work = Kd [3]

Vd x could/sec x sec = (work) = Kd [4]

In the switching, we switch KT to Kd so

KT Þ Kd [5]

But VT x coulT = KT [6]

Or

[VT] = [KT] / [coulT] = trapped energy/trapped coulomb [7]

[KT] = [VT] x [coulT] = amount of trapped energy, each cycle [8]

So that's what we were getting at. The amount of trapped energy you can transfer (in other words, how much coal you get in one shovelful) depends upon the number of trapped electrons you have in the trapped free electron gas in the collector, and the potential gradient you apply to those trapped coulombs to potentialize them.

Relaxation Time and Semiconductors

Relaxation Time: The time it takes for the free electrons in a conductor (or material) to reach the skin of the wire after potential is applied, is, of course, called the relaxation time. During that time, the free electrons in the gas are "trapped" insofar as producing current (dissipation of the potential) is concerned. However, immediately after the relaxation time ends, current begins and dissipation of the trapped energy begins.

In copper, the relaxation time is incredibly rapid. It's about 1.5 x 10-19 sec. However, in quartz it is about 10 days! So as you can see, we need to get somewhere in between these two values, and so we will have to "mix" or "dope" materials. We must get a sufficiently long relaxation time so that we can switch and collect comfortably in cycle one, then switch into cycle two for dispersion of the freely collected energy in the collector. However, the relaxation time we get must also be short enough to allow quick discharge in the load, as soon as we switch the primary source away from the collector. Actually, we need a degenerate semiconductor material instead of plain copper.

Degenerate Semiconductor Material: A semiconductor material is intermediate between a good conductor and an insulator. It's a nonlinear material, and doped. A degenerate semiconductor material is one which has all its conduction bands filled with electrons, and so it thinks it is a conductor. That is, a degenerate semiconductor is essentially a doped conductor, so to speak. As you can see, we can increase the relaxation time in our "conductors" connected to the source by making them of degenerate semiconductor material. What we're talking about is "doping" the copper in the wire, and in the collector, so that we can have plenty of time to collect, and switch, and discharge, and switch, and collect, etc.

Now in a doped conductor (degenerate semiconductor), we can tailor the relaxation time by tailoring the doping. We must dope the copper before we make the wire. Why would we wish to do that? We want to overcome the single problem that so far has defeated almost all the "overunity" researchers and inventors.

WHEN YOU CONNECT TO A SOURCE, YOU CAN ONLY EXTRACT CURRENT-FREE POTENTIAL -- FREE "TRAPPED EM ENERGY" -- DURING THE ELECTRON RELAXATION TIME IN THE CONNECTING CONDUCTORS AND SUCCEEDING CIRCUIT COMPONENTS. AFTER THAT, YOU'RE STEADILY EXTRACTING POWER, AND THE ENERGY EXTRACTED FROM THE SOURCE IS BEING PARTIALLY DISSIPATED IN THE RESISTANCE/LOADING OF THE CIRCUIT, AND PARTIALLY DISSIPATED IN THE INTERNAL RESISTANCE OF THE SOURCE. IN THE LATTER DISSIPATION, YOU'RE ALSO DISSIPATING YOUR SOURCE BY DOING WORK ON IT INTERNALLY TO KILL IT.

Good Copper Wire: Bane of Overunity Inventors: Many destitute inventors, tinkering and fiddling with overunity devices, finally get something (a circuit or device) that does yield more work out than they had to input. At that point, they usually conclude that it's simply the specific circuit configuration and its conventional functioning that produces the overunity work. However, usually as soon as this configuration is more carefully built with very good materials, boom! It isn't overunity anymore. The inventors and their assistants then desperately bang and clang away, getting more frustrated as the years pass. The investors get mad, sue for fraud, or get in all sorts of squabbles. The scientists who tested it and found it wanting, pooh-pooh the whole thing as a scam and a fraud, or just a seriously mistaken inventor. Scratch one more "overunity" device.

Most of these inventors got their successful effect (and possibly erratically) when they were struggling with inferior, usually old, usually corroded materials. Actually, the more inferior, the better. The more contaminated/doped, the better!

The moment you wire up your circuit with good copper wire connected between the battery or primary source and any kind of load including the distributed circuitry loading itself, you can forget about overunity. You will lose it in the copper, after the first 1.5 x 10-19 second!

Think of a really good conductor such as copper as an essentially linear material. Linear means energy conservative. Overunity can only be done with a highly nonlinear effect. So your "conductors" have to be made of nonlinear materials. In fact, they have to be made of degenerate semiconductor material. For the type of circuitry we are talking about, the copper has to be doped and then made into "doped copper" wiring. You also have to utilize the primary battery only to potentialize a collector (secondary battery/source), and then use this secondary battery source to conventionally power the load while also killing itself.

The Wiring And the Collector Must Be of Degenerate Semiconductor (DSC) Material.26 A good materials scientist/engineer, together with a decent electrodynamicist, can readily design and tailor some doped copper wiring so that the material in the wiring is a degenerate semiconductor material, with a target (desired) relaxation time. That's what you should use to make the wiring to connect up your source to the collector with, and that type of material is also what you use in your collector. You can use either a coil or a capacitor as the collector, but its "conductive" material has to be degenerate semiconductor material -- in short, it must be doped to have the proper relaxation time. From the collector to the load, however, obviously you want to use a good conductor material. Ordinary copper will do nicely there.

Once you do that, you're in business. When making the DSC material, simply tailor the relaxation time to something which is easily switched. For example, take one millisec. With a relaxation time of that long, switching is easy. In fact, one could even use good mechanical switching. Or easily use inexpensive ordinary solid state switching, without having to go all the way to nanosecond switching.

Then, in the collector, you calculate the number of "trapped coulombs" you have. Take the "trapped voltage" (current-free potential's energy density per coulomb) you extract from the source during the electron relaxation time after the collector is connected. Multiply the number of trapped coulombs in the collector by the trapped voltage during collection, and you have the amount of energy in joules that you extract FOR FREE, without paying for it, from the source during every collection cycle.

Sources, Collectors, and Power

Tapping Vacuum Energy. You're getting the excess electrical energy directly from the vacuum, as we briefly pointed out above. The vacuum will freely replenish all the "trapped voltage" you extract from the primary source during the electron relaxation time. It won't replenish a single bit of "dissipated voltage" (power) you extract from the source.

Note that the same considerations apply in the collector. It's got to have a somewhat longer electron relaxation time. Its electrons stay "unrelaxed" during the collection cycle, and allow for some additional switching time to connect to the load. The "trapped voltage" across the collector multiplied by the number of trapped coulombs in it, gives the number of joules of FREE EM ENERGY you extract and get into and onto the collector (the shovel). In other words, that's your "shovelful of coal." You then throw the "shovelful" onto the fire/load -- you simply disconnect the collector from the primary source and connect it across the external load. The collector (secondary battery) now powers the load and its own internal resistance, "killing" itself while furnishing the energy for powering the external load as well.

The Source Can Be Almost Anything: You can use as a source a simple elevated wire, to "tap" potential from the 200-300 volts/meter between earth and ionosphere. Here again, you need to utilize calibrated, doped wire.

Finally, you must adjust the repetition switching in accordance with the discharge time through the load. In other words, you have a serial process as follows:

(1) extract trapped energy (potential) from the source onto the collector, Dt1.

(2) Switch the collector off the source, onto the load, during time Dt2.

(3) Wait while the collected energy in the collector discharges through the load, during time Dt3.

(4) Switch the collector back off the load and onto the potential source, during time Dt4. That completes one cycle.

The serial timing simply is [Dt1 + Dt2 + Dt3 + Dt4].

If you balance all the doping and the materials design, and correlate the switching, you can get all the free energy you wish. Properly utilized, a single car battery can be used to power an electric automobile indefinitely. Or even to power a battleship. In the real world, of course, you will inevitably have a tiny bit of loss as you go, because there's a finite (though high) resistance between the two poles of your battery. Handling that is a piece of cake. Simply run a separate little collection circuit to collect a little bit of trapped EM energy from the slowly leaking source, and ever so often feed the collected energy back into the battery as power, to "reseparate" the charges (charge the battery) and replace the small amount of the primary source's potential gradient that has been lost. The battery, load, and "trickle charger" then become a closed-circuit free-energy source that will last for years and years.

Limited Only By One's Imagination: Of course you can see many variants; this is just the "master key." You can have multiple collectors, collecting trapped energy simultaneously or in sequence off a single source, and pooling their collected energy to more powerfully power the load. You can utilize a very high "voltage", such as in the Swiss electrostatic overunity device, to increase the energy collected per coulomb in each switching (in each shovelful) in accord with equation [8]. For a battery, you can set a separate little collector/load device to trickle-charge the battery, overcoming the small normal "leakage current" that does occur in batteries and in real circuits and devices. The opportunities are endless. You can put in a unit to take mostly only power-free energy from the "power line" feeding your business or home, reducing your utility bill by -- say -- 90%. Or you can simply build a small home power unit to do the whole job, for only a few hundred dollars. This simple secret can be used to power the world, cheaply and cleanly, and to clean up the biosphere.



Conclusion



Well, there you have it. I've given you the benefit of what required most of my adult life to discover. The definitions advanced in this paper are rigorous. It took years of sweat and tears to come up with them. They're simple, but they will change your entire understanding of electromagnetics, power, and energy once you grasp them. Please read them, and ponder them, several times. One or two readings will not be sufficient to fully grasp what is said here.

Also, hopefully, by this time, the reader is beginning to experience the same emotions as I experienced when I finally discovered how simple it all really was. First one wants to laugh for about two hours at how truly ignorant we've all been. Then one wants to cry for about two hours for the same reason. This could all have been done a century ago, if we had ever really understood electromagnetics.

We've had this electromagnetics around for over 100 years -- Maxwell's book was published in 1873. We got it wrong, starting right with Maxwell and his use of the material ether, which was almost universally assumed at the time. Still, by using quaternions, Maxwell succeeded in packing a great deal more in the model than even he himself recognized. When the vector aspects interacted to form a zero resultant translationally, those active interactants were still in there and still fighting and interacting. The scalar component of the quaternion remained, and infolded those struggling vectors and functions of them inside itself. In short, it captured the case where the electromagnetic energies are involved in translation actions which nullify each other translationally (electromagnetically). However, the energies are still in there in the continuing interactants inside the zero vector resultant. As such, they are trapped EM energy. And it is the trapped EM energy inside a mass -- not the mass per se -- which is responsible for gravitation. In other words, Maxwell's theory already correctly captured the unification of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field in 1873.

Then Heaviside et al forced Maxwell's theory into a vector framework, throwing out the scalar component, and discarding the unification of gravitation and electromagnetics along with it. Serious errors were made and still exist in many of the fundamental definitions; in fact, many of them aren't definitions at all. Nearly every engineer and physicist can readily calculate potentials -- all, of course, on the "dissipation" side where the potentials are actually the amount of potential that was collected upon a collector and then dissipated. I could find hardly a single physicist who really knew what a scalar potential was prior to a finite amount being collected and dissipated as voltage. Yet 99% of them firmly believed they understood the potential.

So now you have the results of this researcher's long and arduous quest for the golden fleece. Please go forward with it, to make this a better and cleaner world for everyone.

Just remember that the control and use of energy is personal power. The control and use of absolute energy is the control and use of absolute personal power. In the old adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Please use it wisely.

NOTES AND REFERENCES



1. For a good discussion of the modern quantum mechanical view of the vacuum, see I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's plenty: the vacuum in modern field theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 333-391. See also T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academic Publishers, New York, 1981 -- particularly Chapter 16, "Vacuum as the source of asymmetry." See Timothy Boyer, "The classical vacuum," Scientific American, Aug. 1985, p. 70; Walter Greiner and Joseph Hamilton, "Is the Vacuum really Empty?", American Scientist, Mar.-Apr. 1980, p. 154; Jack S. Greenberg and Walter Greiner, "Search for the sparking of the vacuum," Physics Today, Aug. 1982, p. 24-32; Richard E. Prange and Peter Strance, "The superconducting vacuum," American Journal of Physics, 52(1), Jan. 1984, p. 19-21; R. Jackiw and J.R. Schrieffer, "The decay of the vacuum," Nuclear Physics B, Vol. 190, 1981, p. 944. See Paul Davies, Superforce, Simon and Schuster, 1984 for a layman's overview of modern physics, including the modern view of the vacuum.

2. E. T. Whittaker, "On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355. Since the scalar potential actually consists totally of a set of hidden bidirectional EM waves, then scalar interferometry is possible, and not just an oxymoron as it would seem without considering the inner wave structure of the scalar potential. Two scalar potentials (each of which is a multi-biwave set) can interfere; it is just a special kind of multiple wave interferometry between their internal wave compositions. This is a major point of profound impact on physics. Whittaker in fact showed that all classical EM could be replaced by such scalar EM potential interferometry. See E. T. Whittaker, "On an expression of the electromagnetic field due to electrons by means of two scalar potential functions," Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372. Further, scalar interferometry has been proven; today it is called the Aharonov-Bohm Effect. See Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, "Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory," Physical Review, Second Series, 115(3), Aug. 1, 1959, p. 458-491. For confirmation and discussion, see Bertram Schwarzschild, "Currents in normal-metal rings exhibit Aharonov-Bohm Effect," Physics Today, 39(1), Jan. 1986, p. 17-20. For an extensive discussion of the Aharonov-bohm effect and an extensive list of references, see S. Olariu and I. Iovitzu Popescu, "The quantum effects of electromagnetic fluxes," Reviews of Modern Physics, 57(2), April 1985. Modern scientists have generally been unaware of the inner wave structure of the interfering potentials and have utilized only quantum mechanical theory for the interference. Consequently, they have been able to experimentally establish the AB effect for only a few thousand Angstroms distance. With the Whittaker formulation, the AB effect becomes distant-independent, because the necessary potentials can be fabricated as laser-like beams, simply by assembling the proper Whittaker multibeam set. Also, Ignatovich pointed out that the Schroedinger potential can also be decomposed into just such an internal bidirectional EM wave set. See V.K. Ignatovich, "The remarkable capabilities of recursive relations," American Journal of Physics, 57(10), Oct. 1989, p. 873-878.

3. See Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Exact Solutions of the Wave Equation With Complex Source Locations," Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 26, 1985, p. 861; "Localized Transmission of Wave Energy," Proc. SPIE, Vol. 1061, Microwave and Particle Beam Sources and Directed Energy Concepts, 1989, p. 396-397; "Localized Transmission of Electromagnetic Energy," Physical Review A, Vol. 39, p. 2005; "Localized Wave Transmission Physics and Engineering," Physical Review A, 1992, (in Press); "Localized wave transmission physics and engineering," Proc. SPIE Conference on Intense Microwave and Particle Beams II, Los Angeles, CA, vol. 1407, Jan. 1991, p. 375-386. See Richard W.Ziolkowski, Amr M. Shaarawi, and Ioannis M. Besieris, Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.), Vol. 6, 1989, p. 255-258; R.W. Ziolkowski, and D.K. Lewis, D.K., "Verification of the Localized Wave Transmission Effect," Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 68, 1990, p.6083; Richard W. Ziolkowski, Ioannis M. Besieris, and Amr M. Shaarawi, "Localized Wave Representations of Acoustics and Electromagnetic Radiation," Proceedings of the IEEE, 79(10), Oct. 1991, p. 1371-1378; I.M. Besieris, A.M. Shaarawi, and R.W. Ziolkowski, "A bidirectional travelling plane wave representation of exact solutions of the scalar wave equation," Journal of Mathematical Physics, 30(6), 1989, p. 806; A.M. Shaarawi, I.M. Besieris, and R.W. Ziolkowski, "A novel approach to the synthesis of nondispersive wave packet solutions to the Klein-Gordon and the Dirac equations," Journal of Mathematical Physics, 31(10), 1990, p. 2511; "A nondispersive wave packet representation of photons and the wave-particle duality of light," UCRL-101694, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1989; "Diffraction of a classical wave packet in a two slit interference experiment," UCRL-100756, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 1989; "Localized energy pulse trains launched from an open, semi-infinite, circular waveguide," Journal of Applied Physics, 65(2), 1989, p. 805; R.W. Ziolkowski, D.K.Lewis and B.D.Cook, "Experimental verification of the localized wave transmission effect," Physical Review Letters, 62(2), 1989, p. 147; R.W. Ziolkowski and D.K. Lewis, "Verification of the localized wave transmission effect," Journal of Applied Physics, 68(12), 1990, p. 6083; M.K. Tippett and R.W. Ziolkowski, "A bidirectional wave transformation of the cold plasma equations," Journal of Mathematical Physics, 32(2) 1991, p. 488; A.M. Vengsarkar, I.M. Besieris, A.M. Shaarawi, and R.W. Ziolkowski, "Localized energy pulses in optical fiber waveguides: Closed-form approximate solutions," Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 1991.

4. For a precise statement of the distortion correction theorem, see Amnon Yariv, Optical Electronics, 3rd Ed., Holt, Rihehart and Winston, New York, 1985, p. 500-501.

5. Both wave and antiwave co-exist in the vacuum simultaneously, forming a stress wave. The entity that is stressed is the rate of flow of time. In the common interaction with matter, the time-forward half of the stress wave normally interacts with the electron shells of the atom, giving electron translations forces. The time-reversed or anti-wave half interacts with the nucleus, giving the Newtonian 3rd law reaction (recoil) forces. The so-called "EM wave" in vacuum is a gravitational wave. It is a wave of oscillation of the rate of flow of time. It is rather like a sound wave in air, as Tesla pointed out, and it is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse "string" wave.

6. As pointed out by Nikola Tesla. Tesla was correct, and all the textbooks with their transverse "string" waves are in error. There are no strings in the vacuum!

7. E.g., see Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar, Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, p. 113.

8. E.g., see Clayton R. Paul and Syed A. Nasar, ibid., p. 100-101. See also Raymond A. Serway, Physics For Scientists And Engineers, With Modern Physics, Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA, 3rd Ed., Updated Version, 1992, p. 752-755.

9. Sommerfield's theory of metallic conduction was based on Drude's concept that the outer valence electrons of a conductor, which do not form crystal bonds, are free to migrate through the crystalline lattice structure, and so to form an electron gas. At room temperature, by quantum mechanical considerations, these free electrons are moving randomly, but at an average velocity on the order of 106 meters per sec. E.g., see Martin A. Plonus, Applied Electromagnetics, McGraw Hill, New York, 1978, p. 54-58, 62-3, 376-7. If you wish to know just how much power exchange is driving the collisions of the electron gas in a copper wire, here is an illustration. In one cubic centimeter of copper wire, the power exchange in and out of the electron gas is some 4 billion billion watts. That's the equivalent of 4 billion large electric power plants, each of 1,000 megawatt capacity. And one cubic centimeter of copper is a lump about the size of the end of our little finger.

10. E. g., see Raymond A. Serway, ibid., p. 743-744 for a discussion and calculation of the electron drift velocity in copper.

11. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, New York, Vol. 1, 1963, p. 2-4. In the classical EM theory launched by Maxwell and later modified by Heaviside et al, this problem did not exist for the original theoretical formulation. In that formulation by Maxwell, and continued by Heaviside, a material ether is assumed for the model. The Michelson-Morley experiments of 1887 destroyed the notion of the material ether, but the classical electromagnetics model has never been corrected to rectify its very serious foundations flaw in this respect.

12. Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of Physics, Dover Publications, New York, 1963, p. 283-287. Note on p. 283 that a "field of force" at any point is actually defined only for the case when a unit mass is present at that point. In spite of this, most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field. E.g., see J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975, p. 249. Note that holding such a concept is tantamount to holding on to the material ether, and assuming that the vacuum itself is "measurable" or "observable."

13. The formula F = ma is simply an algorithm for calculating the magnitude of the force. It states that "the magnitude of the force is equal to the magnitude of mass that is accelerating, multiplied by the magnitude of the acceleration." No such "equals" formula is a definition; it is only a calculational algorithm.

14. This falsifies one of the assumptions in the common notion of the scalar potential; that its gradient in vacuum is a force field. Let us falsify another part of the conventional concept of the potential. Take the notion of forcibly pushing in "against the field" of a trapped charge, a unit charge from infinity. At any point you stop, the work n you have done on the unit charge is equal to the value of the potential, so it is said. Actually, you pushed in a one-coulomb collector, and have collected and dissipated as work n joules of energy on that one coulomb. In other words, the energy density of the potential there, if collected and dissipated on a collector, is n, where n is joules per coulomb (NOT joules!). To prove it: suppose we go out on 10,000 radials from that point, and push in from infinity 10,000 unit charges from infinity. Then, the total work done "against the potential gradient ("field", in common language) is now 10,000 n. This makes no sense at all from the conventional view (which carefully refrains from multiple collectors!). It makes good sense from our view of the potential as having infinite energy but a finite energy density. In that case, the more collectors, the more energy collected, for dispersal as work.

15. For a discussion, see Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, 1959.

16. Nikola Tesla, "The True Wireless," Electrical Experimenter, May 1919, p. 87.

17. The power in the load is always the time rate of dissipation of energy that has just been freely collected by the load for dissipation.

18. One can foresee a day in the not too distant future when any power company continuing to do such an unthinkable thing will have a class action suit brought against it by its customers!

19. T. E. Bearden, "Mechanism for Long-Term Cumulative Biological Effects of EM Fields and Radiation," March 1993 (in preparation).

20. Precisely analogous to a heat pump's operation - which as is well-known can readily be "over unity" in its efficiency. The maximum efficiency of the heat pump is about 8.22. E.g., see David Halliday and Robert Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd Edition Extended, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1988, Volume 1, p. 510-519. Good heat pumps normally have about 4.0 efficiency.

21. External power in an electric circuit refers to the dissipation rate (in the circuit's external load) of the potential gradients on the activated/potentialized electrons. Internal power refers to the dissipation rate in the circuit's bipolarity source.

22. We call strong attention to T.W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), No. 1, 1991, p. 23-41. In this important paper, Barrett shows that a higher topology EM, such as quaternion EM, allows many things to be accomplished with circuitry that are not apparent to a conventional vector or tensor analysis of that circuitry. He also shows the Nikola Tesla's circuits accomplished this higher topological functioning.

23. It is easy to test this. Connect several different wires to a single source of potential gradient. With respect to ground, the end of each one of those wires has the same potential gradient as does the original source with respect to ground. If you connect 10 wires to a single "100-volt" potential gradient source, you will have ten 100-volt potential gradients appear. You can use each of these ten potential gradients as a primary source. From each of these new primary sources, you can branch ten more, and now have a hundred potential gradient sources. You can treat each of these hundred new sources now as a primary source. To each one, you can add a switcher, collector, and external load, and drive all 100 loads. Or instead, you can put ten switcher/collector/external load circuits with each of the hundred new primary sources, and power all 1,000 external loads. Energy/potential is free from any source, so long as you do not demand power from the same source.

24. Per Whittaker and Ziolkowski, this VPF exchange -- from consideration of its wave aspects -- consists of a harmonic series of bidirectional waves.

25. We are easily permitted to have free energy and violate the "local energy conservation law for a closed system." This is because the system is not closed, and so instead we must apply local energy conservation for an open system with a hidden source. In any given time interval, the energy taken (scattered) from the system as external work cannot exceed the sum of the unscattered trapped energy that was in the system initially and the unscattered energy that flowed into the system during that time interval.

26. You can actually do away with the separate collector, and utilize the doped copper DSC material itself as the collector. However, you will not be able to collect nearly so much energy in each collection cycle, for dissipating in the load in the subsequent work cycle".

More trouty knowledge to follow.

:D

Cheers!

lockhughes
06-27-2002, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Portager
OK lets just run through some numbers. I don't know anything about your boat other than it is a pontoon boat and you like to go 10 to 20 knots. Lets just assume


whoa Mike! ... I appreciate the analysis, but... the speed limit in the harbour is 6 knots (for ordinary mortals). The maximum the ferry can go is 6, though it'd be nice to know it can be cranked to 10 in a pinch.

I'm not sure, but I believe this changes everything? Puts the idea again with the realms of current (no pun intended) technology?

they do not like partial charging and reuse). I have never gotten anyone to explain what problem this actually causes other than invalidating the warranty.
ouch... I was thinking, with constant recharging through the day (1/2 of every hour), that the "cycle" would be 24hrs. That the recharging while in use (1/2hr.shorepower per hour, plus solar/ wind if/as available) would not be enough to keep up for ever, but enough to keep things above 50% DoD by the end of the day, then a full recharge overnight while tied up alongside?

I gather that fast rechargers are faster, sure, but that a slower recharge is better, so things could be optimized to hit a full recharge just in time for the next mornings startup?

I suppose the battery manufacturers are clear about what they consider "partial" charging? They're saying that if you've used their battery, you must stop using to recharge? I'm going to poke around some web sites. See what they put in writing...
Lock

duluthboats
06-27-2002, 08:46 AM
Trouty, and we thought you were just a fisherman. :D Well I have read most of this thread along with my morning coffee. Trouty, when do the sea trials begin?

Dave, I’ll be watching the progress on your system with much interest. When this thread started I dismissed it. It is far easier to stay with stuff I know. Many great ideas have been pushed aside because they are unconventional. Changing people’s minds can be very frustrating. Please take the questioning for what it is, a search for knowledge not an attack. If it’s the marine industry you’re after it would be hard to find a larger or more diverse group than right here. I hope you continue to stop by here to answer our questions and update us on your progress. Good luck.

Gary

Portager
06-27-2002, 09:33 AM
Lock;

I said that I assumed that 6 HP would be enough to meet your speed objective, not that it would go 10 to 20 knots.

You need to size your maximum and average loads and research hull forms and select one that allows you to meet the harbor speed limit with 6 HP or less.

Battery manufacturers problem with partial charging is that it is contrary to how they test the batteries. I don't think there is any problem with partial charging, but they don't want to stick their neck out and promise it will work in a way they haven't tested.

All I was trying to do is provide some realistic perspective. Some people like to jump on the green power band wagon because they think it is the right thing for the environment, which is fine. However, it is going to have to make economic and engineering sense before the general public will buy in.

I suggest you look at some of the electric launches that are currently available (I've seen some for sale on the used market). It would be better to you to get the complete package which is already engineered to work as a system and warranted.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

06-27-2002, 12:24 PM
Trouty - Read up to the part about "cumulative biological damage mechanism has also been uncovered by this author", but have had to file away for later (need pocket-style cc). Thanks

Mike Said:
All I was trying to do is provide some realistic perspective.
...........................................................~~~~~~~~~~~~~

... and that's all I'm looking for Mike :)

Mike Said:
However, it is going to have to make economic and engineering sense before the general public will buy in.

True. Agree. `Cept the general public buys into all sorts of stuff that makes no sense whatsoever, so it's worth a try <smile>

Mike Said:
I suggest you look at some of the electric launches that are currently available (I've seen some for sale on the used market). It would be better to you to get the complete package which is already engineered to work as a system and warranted.

I see some gorgeous little ferryboats out there, real shippy- looking little vessels (electric, of course). Gotta be an easier sell to the Yacht Club, than a modern multihulled craft.

Don't know if you can see these pics:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/QCYCTender/lst

I may have said earlier, if I were king of this berg, I'd have the Club organize a boatbuilding (student project, club members, interested parties) and layup a woodie . Finish her bright. But she'd have two high performance hulls and be electric. She'd be a "system"... and "gorgeous", I hope.

And now, back to my sizing my maximum and average loads and researching hull forms and selecting one that allows me to meet the harbor speed limit with 6 HP or less.

Thanks Mike (and all)

Lock

Portager
06-27-2002, 01:18 PM
"True. Agree. `Cept the general public buys into all sorts of stuff that makes no sense whatsoever, so it's worth a try"

OK, maybe I should have said in mass. In my mind the "green" movement isn't successful until it captures a significant percentage of the market.

"I see some gorgeous little ferryboats out there, real shippy- looking little vessels (electric, of course). Gotta be an easier sell to the Yacht Club, than a modern multihulled craft. "

So true. In addition a long and slender monohull will achieve 6 knots and carry the weight of passengers and batteries better than a multi-hull. Multi-hulls greatest advantage is light weight, but electric vehicle are intrinsically heavy. So how do these fit together? : confused:

At 6 knots all boats are in displacement mode, so maximizing your displacement speed will improve your efficiency at 6 knots. I would look at displacement hulls with a length of >=36' so that your operating speed is <= to the square root of the length in feet.

The Compromise 47 is a beautiful boat and Beckmann has a lot more at http://www.steamboating.net/eboats.html

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

06-27-2002, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Portager
Lock said:
"True. Agree. `Cept the general public buys into all sorts of stuff that makes no sense whatsoever, so it's worth a try"

OK, maybe I should have said in mass. In my mind the "green" movement isn't successful until it captures a significant percentage of the market.

I'm prepared to start somewhere Mike.


Lock said:
"I see some gorgeous little ferryboats out there, real shippy- looking little vessels (electric, of course). Gotta be an easier sell to the Yacht Club, than a modern multihulled craft. "

Mike said:
So true. In addition a long and slender monohull will achieve 6 knots and carry the weight of passengers and batteries better than a multi-hull. Multi-hulls greatest advantage is light weight, but electric vehicle are intrinsically heavy. So how do these fit together? : confused:
At 6 knots all boats are in displacement mode, so maximizing your displacement speed will improve your efficiency at 6 knots. I would look at displacement hulls with a length of >=36' so that your operating speed is <= to the square root of the length in feet.

Hmmmm... so Mike. For a given displacement, a well formed set of multi-hulls wouldn't be any more efficient (require less energy to propel) than a single-hulled displacement vessel?

Apart from which may be the more efficient configuration at 6 knots, the "two legs" provides a more stable platform no? Our harbour is choppy with all the boat traffic in the height of the summer. I just find the mono's so "tippy" now - we do have some fairly "chunky" powerboats and ferrys in this harbour, which make the rest of us tend to bounce around a bit.

Also, if you've stepped aboard the bridgedeck of a larger cat, with it's wide open,airy salon, etc., and almost 360° views around the boat, it's a different feeling for me, than stepping down into the belly of a displacement craft. I like the pontoon boat thinking as much because it can be reconfigured easily. With a full canvas enclosure over the whole deck, it can be zipped off in stages, opening the boat up for fair weather. We're sailors -we're used to canvas biminis etc around the cockpit <smile>

And I believe the power multihull won't need the same broad beam that the sailing multi's use. Can't have this sucker too beamy, `cause the Club hauls all our boats out in the winter, up a marine railway and down a fairly narrow row of ways loaded with cradles (and boats).

All along, I've been assuming that the lighter the craft is, the more this would translate into energy savings over the life of the craft. You were the first person BTW to mention calculating
maximum and average loads and researching hull forms. Odd when I think about this - most of what I've read (on electric propulsion) hasn't dwelt on this much... They talk xxxxxx lbs displacement, but do these figure assume the boat is fully crewed and provisioned? Not sure...

The ferry gets "interesting" perhaps, because its all up weight does vary greatly on the trips, from empty (just the driver) to full (driver plus 39 bodies plus buggies of gear and groceries, dogs, etc)...

I'm don't know what the standard allowance for passenger weights are, but if I use 170lbs per passenger including gear that's a swing of over 6500lbs from empty to full. Because the craft is otherwise "stripped out" (no galley, no head, no bar <sigh>), the lighter the craft (when empty), the greater this swing from min. to max. weight will effect the performance - for better or for worse?

In other words, I'm trying to design a craft that'll take 40 people fully loaded, but the truth is, for most of it's runs it is less than 1/2 full. Gets back to the idea of maybe having three motors (one for each pontoon), with the option to not employ the middle motor much of the time.

The Compromise 47 is a beautiful boat and Beckmann has a lot more at http://www.steamboating.net/eboats.html

Yeah. I grabbed a pic of the 47 for my site. But when I look at her, all I see is a heavy wooden(looking) superstructure. More weight, more energy required to push her?

Lock

duluthboats
06-27-2002, 10:02 PM
"Because the craft is otherwise "stripped out" (no galley, no head, "

A boat for hire, 39 passengers, with no head? In the US I think the law would require you to have many things you might not think nessasary.

Gary

lockhughes
06-27-2002, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by duluthboats
"Because the craft is otherwise "stripped out" (no galley, no head, "

A boat for hire, 39 passengers, with no head? In the US I think the law would require you to have many things you might not think nessasary.
Gary

Honest Gary - she does a 10 minute trip, one way. The Coasties don't require a head
Lock

lockhughes
06-27-2002, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by ewhel
If there are any serious questions I will be glad to answer them....otherwise I thank you for the opportunity to chat.
Dave Tether [/B]
Dear David
I wanted to say thank you for your posts here.

I have a serious question for you, please.

I would like to try and promote electric propulsion in the sailing community. I have one application which, I think, may be extremely suitable to present battery and electric motor options. And I wonder about many of the other tenders I see working and playing in the waters around the Club and in the harbour.

Today, in Ontario, a working committee of our provincial legislature made recommendations to our Premier that Ontario get a lot greener. Very specific recommendations shutting down gas/coal, and promoting non FF development. In Ontario right now, this means electric. Fuel cell and wind development.

http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_06.27.02/news/enviro.html

I don't know if anything will ever come of this report.

This last week in Southern Ontario, we suffered (?) through three days of SMOG alert warnings.

There is a rebate for the 8% Provincial Sales Tax here. For alternate-fueled vehicles licenced under our Highways traffic act. A new alt-fuel bus gets 100% of the tax paid, rebated. I have written the Premier to ask if he would kindly amend the regulation so it'll read vehicle or VESSEL (licenced by our Transport Canada.) I believe this would be in the spirit of the regulation!

Anyway, I digress.

My Yacht Club recently decided to go ahead with a "classic" displacement craft, diesel powered, as a private 40-passenger ferry to operate across one mile of Toronto harbour for the summers. There is a six knot speed limit in the harbour.
This purchase decision took two years of hard work and anguish for many club members and execs, working through the options. (ever belonged to a club, David? <smile>)

I may have been asleep at the switch. I'm not a Senior (voting) member there, just a Drysailor. But I've been a member there for maybe 8 years, and I sorta care anyway.

While I may not be able to sway my fellow club members to re-open this, I know there are other Clubs that use club boats (if not their own boats) in applications that may also be appropriate for electric. But I think I may be able to come up with a reasonable proposal. If I can show a (much) lower purchase cost, and significantly lower operating costs - for the little ferry service we run.

If our Club did make the switch. If they did sell off the oil burner, and recommission an electric craft, she would be the first all-electric vessel that has operated in Toronto harbour for some time. This under the nose of a 5-million metropolitan area, and many, many other yachtsmen.

Anyway David. I know nothing about boat design, electrics or electronics, or diesel or gas engines. I know a little bit about small boat sailing, and I'm pretty good with knots.
I am trying to educate myself just a bit, so that I can, I hope, ask intelligent questions!

I realize your time is valuable. I, for one, would like to assure you that your posts here are very much appreciated, and I personally, hope in some way to make this effort on your part worthwhile for Solomon Technologies, or at least, the electric boating industry as a whole.

My serious question?

Would my 40-passenger ferry project make economic and engineering sense, when compared to a displacement diesel powered craft?

I think that's not a fair question - it's a thousand questions rolled into one. But if I am fortunate, and get one or two answered by you, well, that'll be a couple of question less to go!

Thank you
Fair winds, and leave a clean wake.

Laughlin Hughes

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QCYCTender/

Portager
06-28-2002, 12:21 AM
There are many on this forum that know much more about hull forms and efficiently powering them than I do. I will differ to their experience, after I finish putting my foot in my mouth.

To improve performance you want to minimize weight, reduce wetted surface area, reduce form or shape drag and increase length.

Weight: The heaviest part of a monohull is the ballast that is required for stability. Since you will have a load of batteries and you can mount them very low, I do not think you will need additional ballast. The monohull is actually a more efficient structure than a multi-hull. It does not need a platform to tie the two hulls together and one large tube (hull) of a given volume will always weigh less than to smaller tubes with the same combined volume and the same length.

Wetted surface area: This should be obvious.

Form drag: I know that the monohull will need to be wider than the multi-hulls for stability, but many people overlook the interference effects of multi-hulls. According to my Naval Engineering book, at some speeds the bow wave coming off one hull can cause increased drag on the other. You need to make sure that the hulls are spaced wide enough to avoid this at 6 knots. This might be hard since you said that you can't accommodate too much beam.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

lockhughes
06-29-2002, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Portager
OK lets just run through some numbers. I don't know anything about your boat other than it is a pontoon boat and you like to go 10 to 20 knots. Lets just assume it is a very streamlined design so that 6 (Solomon Technologies) HP is adequate for you to achieve your speed goals and you can use the smallest Solomon Technologies system, i.e. ST37. At maximum power, it will draw 36 amps out of your 12 batteries at 144 volts. This is 5.18 KW of power. In a 1/2 hour trip you will use 18 amp hours of the batteries 105 amp hour capacity or 17%. If you fully recharged the batteries before you made another trip, each trip would be one cycle with a 17% depth of discharge (DOD).

Mike - (if we can leave that mono-multi option alone for now...<smile> )
You worked all this out, but doesn't this change a lot, knowing that the max. speed permitted is 6kts? And you don't reference any displacement? Won't the size/weight of the craft affect this also? And, why 144 volts?

Lock

Portager
06-29-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by lockhughes


You worked all this out, but doesn't this change a lot, knowing that the max. speed permitted is 6kts?

Yes, and now that I know you want to carry 40 passengers that changes it a lot also. I question the assumption that you could do 6 kts with a 6 HP motor.

And you don't reference any displacement? Won't the size/weight of the craft affect this also?[/B]

Yes the exhaustive approach would be to do a conceptual design of each option.

And, why 144 volts? [/B]

Because that is what Solomon Technologies use in their system. I note that they run some boats on 120 VDC instead of 144 VIC. Maybe Dave could explain why this is?

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

DickPilz
07-03-2002, 01:24 PM
I would like to see a marriage between the Solomon Technologies Electric Wheel and the WhisperGen generator/heater for use in a monohull sailing cruiser.

The WhisperGen (http://www.whispertech.co.nz) is a Stirling Engine .75KW DC generator that also provides 5 KW of available hot water for heating using about 16 litres of diesel per day at maximum output.

I'm on the Upper Left Coast and a warm boat is a happy boat:)

So, the WhisperGen produces 18 KW per day, which should provide enough for lights, stove, electronics, and A/C while anchored. With a battery bank large enough to motor out of harbor, the regen should cover most of my needs. As long as I have a large battery bank for one, why not use it for both.

The only (!) drawback is cost. It costs about $10K. Of course you get some reliability and longevity with it. Every 2000 hours, check the burner and overhaul every 50,000.

Portager
07-03-2002, 01:30 PM
Sounds like a good application of the WisperGen. I have been trying to figure out a way to use it efficiently. The biggest problem with WisperGen is, if you don't need heat it is a mighty inefficient generator. The second biggest problem is cost.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

DickPilz
07-03-2002, 01:36 PM
Yeah, the WhisperGen is really an efficient heater that produces 18 KW on the side. But like I mentioned, I'm in the Northwest and I can get frozen not 50 miles from here, so heating capability is a big plus.

If you factor in the cost of a large heater with the cost of a small, but very reliable genset, it only looks twice as expensive as it should be:)

Portager
07-03-2002, 03:59 PM
Check this out.

http://www.polarpowerinc.com/products/heat_exchanger/heat_exchanger.htm

It is a heat exchanger that goes on your generators exhaust. It will recover a lot of waste heat from you exhaust. The efficiency of the engine is about 34% and the efficiency of the heat exchanger is ~33%. So you will be using almost 67% of the energy produced by the engine. In addition about 12-15% of the heat goes into the water jacket of the engine. If you are recovering that you are up to 80%.

While your are Polar Power checkout their "Marine Micro-Cogen" systems http://www.polarpowerinc.com/products/generators/marien_micro_cogen_lomb.htm

Stay warm.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

DickPilz
07-08-2002, 04:57 PM
Two quick coments:

I'm adverse to an engine mounted heat exchanger becuase of the engine. I am willing to pay a premium for a quieter solution, when not sailing. It is primarily an aesthetics issue for me. Plus, the WhisperTech has an 85-90 percent efficiency as a heater alone, so that is a bonus.

Why does Solomon spec a 144 volt sytem for some and a 120 volt for others? Because some people don't want the weight/cost of 12 12-volt batteries and are willing to accept the reduced performance provided by the less-expensive/lighter package of 10 batteries.

07-10-2002, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by DickPilz
Why does Solomon spec a 144 volt sytem for some and a 120 volt for others? Because some people don't want the weight/cost of 12 12-volt batteries and are willing to accept the reduced performance provided by the less-expensive/lighter package of 10 batteries.

Well, two batteries saved = approx. 140lbs. weight, and about one cubic foot of space. That's pretty easy.

It's the $$$ cost I have trouble with, and "reduced performance".
Looks like the batteries (that Solomon specs) are about $212US a pop. So say $450 saved with 10 batteries insteada 12.

But wouldn't the additional 2 batteries (20% more than 10) mean smaller DoD's for the battery bank? ie, more cycles before the batteries need to be replaced?

Lifeline publishes one graph
http://www.lifelinebatteries.com/lifecycleper.htm

which appears to show that the diff. between 40% and 50% DoD translates as the diff. between 1,000 and 1,500 cycles before replacement... But I don't know how significant the additional two batteries would be, in terms of DoD...

Lock

ewhel
07-10-2002, 12:36 PM
Gentlemen....Solomon Technologies 120/144 questions....our motors are voltage dependent(the higher the voltage the more RPM's it is capable of) and when we do a diesel electric hybrid where the generator keeps that voltage above 120 then we can go with only 10 batteries. When we sell a system that is using only batteries we go to 144 so that there is a larger spread in voltage (full charge 162vdc to 80% discharge at 120vdc). We are presently thinking about sticking to 144vdc for all boats. Now, having said this....DO NOT GET HUNG UP ON the Batteries and weight...if you have 10 group 31's ...it weighs that same as 12 group 27's...it is entirely adjustable to mission profile. And as a diesel electric hybrid (see Ted Turners 40ft Condor Trimaran) the batteries can be adjusted to only last 20min.(UU1 Deep Cycle Wheel Chair batteries) becuse when the generator comes on it will motor you as long as the fuel lasts like any other boat. He has just enough batteries to take care of his "normal mission profile and cycle of use". He TYPICALLY only needs the motor for 5 to 10 minutes to get out of the slip and 5 to 10 minutes to get it back.....under normal conditions he has all the power he needs with 10 20LB batteries....when every thing goes wrong he turns generator on and uses fossil fuel.
Dave Tether

lockhughes
07-10-2002, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by ewhel
Gentlemen....Solomon Technologies 120/144 questions....our motors are voltage dependent(the higher the voltage the more RPM's it is capable of) and when we do a diesel electric hybrid where the generator keeps that voltage above 120 then we can go with only 10 batteries. When we sell a system that is using only batteries we go to 144 so that there is a larger spread in voltage (full charge 162vdc to 80% discharge at 120vdc). We are presently thinking about sticking to 144vdc for all boats. Now, having said this....DO NOT GET HUNG UP ON the Batteries and weight...if you have 10 group 31's ...it weighs that same as 12 group 27's...it is entirely adjustable to mission profile.

Help David - I'm HUNG UP on batteries and weight! <smile>

It sounds to me as if the more batteries you add, the less your depth of discharge (all else equal). So things become a trade-off between the additional energy needed (and space) to carry `round the extra weight, vs. the replacement cost of the batteries, which'll shrink as you can get more cycles between replacement because of the smaller DoD?

Thank you for your post

Lock

Portager
07-10-2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Guest
It's the $$$ cost I have trouble with, and "reduced performance". Looks like the batteries (that Solomon specs) are about $212US a pop. So say $450 saved with 10 batteries insteada 12.

It is only a nit, but Solomon uses either AGM31 in their single system, which are group 31 batteries that are 105 AH and 69 lbs and $150 each or AGM4D in their twin systems which are 4D batteries that are 210 AH, 135 lbs and $240 each. So if you use the AGM31 you would save $300 and if you use the AGM4D you save $480.

The AGM31 figure to $1.42/AH and the AGM4D are $1.14/AH, so if you need a lot of amp hours you are better off with the AGM4D. OTOH getting 135 lb versus 69 lb batteries into the boat is physically more challenging.


But wouldn't the additional 2 batteries (20% more than 10) mean smaller DoD's for the battery bank? ie, more cycles before the batteries need to be replaced?

Using 120 volts instead of 144 volts will reduce power by 5/6, so you will have 5 HP instead on 6 HP or 8.33 instead of 10. This means that your ferry will go proportionally slower for a given efficiency. In reality you will design the most efficient hull form you can and then select the power level that provides the speed you desire.

Your calculations are essentially correct, if speed/power is held constant, then fewer batteries will mean deeper depth of discharge which equates to shorter battery life and higher operating cost. If you design the system so that your daily DoD is 40% and the ferry operates 365.24 days per year, then you will replace the batteries about every 4 years. Likewise at 50% DoD you will replace batteries every 2.7 years and at 60% DoD you will replace batteries every 2.3 years.

Once you figure out your daily power requirements, then you can play with the battery options and optimize your life cycle cost. For example lets just say you determine your daily power requirement are 100 amp hours at 144 volts. To do this with one set of AGM31 batteries would require a 100/105 = 95% DoD. At this DoD you would get about 365.24 cycles and you would replace your batteries once per year $150 X 12 = $1,800/yr = $ 4.92/day. Is you use 12 AGM4D batteries the DoD = 100/210 = 47.6% so you get about 1,000 cycles or 2.73 years cost is $210 X 12 = $2,520 every 2.73 years or $923/yr = $2.53/day. If you use 24 AGM31 batteries DoD is 100/(2*105) = 47.6%. Cost will be 2 X 150 X 12 = $3,600 and cost per day is $3.60.

Another factor to keep in mind is we commonly treat battery capacity as though it is constant, but the definition of end of life is when the fully charged capacity is less than 80% of the new battery fully charged capacity. So the AGM31 batteries will actually have 84 AH capacity at their end of life and the AGM4D will have 168 AH capacity. As you can see, when you start approaching the end of battery life the DoD actually increases because capacity is decreasing, which causes a shortening of the battery life.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

ewhel
07-11-2002, 12:19 PM
Gentlemen...First...our motors are designed to be capable of 4KW (6HP) at 120VDC....that means you can actually get more power out of them at 144VDC (but we limit the control so you can't...sorry!...they last longer). Depth of discharge is really independent of voltage...but for one principle...in watts ...voltage and current are inversly proportional...and...the true measure of how much depth of discharge you can get on a battery without doing damage to it is current....lower current and you can discharge them lower. To blanket applications with generalized statements doesn't work with lead acid accept when you talk current. Batteries do not like high current draws....that's why we went to a higher voltage. 4KW...at 24VDC=166amps(bad do not discharge more that 40-50%).....at 120vdc=33amps(much better and you can take them down to 60%)....at 144vdc=27amps (even better still and we have taken them to 80% without any damage). It' all in the current...actually we recomend to our users that they only do this in emergency and when they do reduce the throtle control to 2KW(or about 13.5 amps) so damage is prevented. More volts actually yields larger depth of dischare because of reduced amperage to produce the same power.
Also....we are not trying to send every one out there with just batteries! 3/4 of the boats we have done todate are diesel electric hybrids...think about this.....a 4KW diesel generator weighs in at about 200 lbs. with fuel (or 3 group 31 batteries). This means you could go with less amp hours for normal operation but still have the ability to have unlimited motoring if necessary. The key is NORMAL, or cycle of use, or mission profile, or standard operational scinario. The size of the generator(or shore charging capability) and batteries are both on a sliding scale. You must first figure out what your cycle of use is. Also, there is no where in anything I have read or experienced that indicates if you use 30% of the batteries power that it comprises a whole cycle. We have AGM that have been routinely charge and discharged to 40% hundreds of times with no degradation in performance at all.
This is not how FF motors work and there is more to think about.....BUT....you can taylor a diesel electric hybrid/electric system to your specific needs and minimize energy usage or increase energy usage with more power and ammenities. I personally chose more power....Yes I have a 28 ft. sailboat with TV/VCR, Microwave, electric stove, refrigerator, stereo and electric back masager......for me more power.

<Admin Edit: Post moved into the main thread>

ewhel
07-12-2002, 10:44 AM
Gentlemen...sorry the other post for answers to the 120/144 quandry was poseted in the wrong place...I somehow pushed the wrong buttons....now...some questions:
1. What is the typical efficiency of a Generator making 85% of the KW it was designed to make?
2. What is the typical efficiency of a fossil fuel motor through it's normal cycles of use(No...not motoring for two weeks to cross the Atlantic....normal cycle of use...idling at warm up...around dock...in weather...etc.)?
3. What was the typical HP of a steam engine and what size prop did it push?
4. How does that differ from todays Gas motor? Todays Diesel motor? Why are diesels thought of as "more powerful"
5. How important is torque to overall system efficiency and propeller size/efficiency?
Hope this helps.

07-12-2002, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by ewhel
Gentlemen...sorry the other post for answers to the 120/144 quandry was poseted in the wrong place...I somehow pushed the wrong buttons

`s OK David. Wasn't hard to spot. Thought this particularly interesting:
We have AGM that have been routinely charge and discharged to 40% hundreds of times with no degradation in performance at all.

....now...some questions:
1. What is the typical efficiency of a Generator making 85% of
[questions deleted here]
5. How important is torque to overall system efficiency and propeller size/efficiency?
Hope this helps.

Hehe... HELPS??? Just makes my head spin David.

My quandary (?) with electric gets back to a wide range of load and wind/water conditions. Our "sheltered waters" can kick up 3ft.waves and 60kts of wind some days. Very rare, but needs to be considered. Plus the boat (40-people ferryboat) I'm interested in can be running from 1 person to 40 persons plus gear.

I'm leaning toward something like a Bobkat 1050 with seats removed (39-passenger + driver limit) to make more cargo room:

http://www.boatloft.co.za/fe10.htm

Or something like the Aquabus C60:

http://www.mwline.ch/references.htm

These are both catamarans...

I'm also interested in what Water Taxi, Inc. and Canal Boats are launching for Fort Lauderdale (interesting, they went monohull):

http://www.watertaxi.com/WaterTaxiHome/WTHome.Asp

My very uneducated thought on the range of power requirements (from light ship, flat water & dead air to 40 persons, gear, 60kts wind and 3 foot waves with chop), would be twin motors/props at the light end of conditions, and a THIRD (electric) outboard in the middle of the transom, which could be lifted entirely out of the water when not in use, but pressed into service if/as needed. Something like James M. Graham's Reservoir Runner.

http://www.qis.net/~jmgraham/resrun.htm

Question is, could twin ewheels handle things if/as things get hot and heavy? I don't think the battery bank would be much of a concern (all else equal), as I believe the heavier conditions would mean a deeper DoD in the short-term. (We have more light air days on Lake Ontario in the summer - when the boat runs for longer hours - and windier days spring and fall, when the boat operates for fewer hours daily.) This just seems to me to be perfectly complementary, electric propulsion-wise!

BTW, I don't see the waves as much of a hinderance for a slippery hull(s) - more the winds and fully loaded craft. I'd be looking at a pretty slippery superstructure as well, to minimize windage.

Lock

ewhel
07-15-2002, 09:40 AM
Loch.... Sorry for the questions but I am hoping that some of the respondents will soon realize what we are talking about here and I won't have to spend to much time arguing with folks that don't get the point. The questions....here are the answers:
Torque is all important to pushing props...our motors are somewhere between a steam engine and a diesel...diesels develop more torque than gas engines and our motors develop more torque than diesels...this means you can have a bigger, more agressive prop....that means you will have more ballard pull/push which will give you better ability to punch through waves. Case in point: We did a Cheribini 44 that had a 50HP perkins and a 17"14pitch three blade....in heavy weather and waves it lost speed from 7 knots down to 4 1/2 knots. It now has a Solomon 74 and a 20"16pitch 3 blade and does the same 7 knots but in heavy weather only looses 1 knot down to 6. (This Cheribini left England in January gales and came accross the Atlantic to Tortolla....I think the English channel is probably as rough in January as your gonna see....)
Not to worry...Solomon does not do Fast at this point...we do slow and powerful(Fast will come later).

07-15-2002, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by ewhel
[B]Loch.... Sorry for the questions but I am hoping that some of the respondents will soon realize what we are talking about here and I won't have to spend to much time arguing with folks that don't get the point.

David - please take it (the heated stuff) just as discourse. Reason will prevail, and if not, just tack around <smile>

The questions....here are the answers:
(answers del'ed here)
pull/push which will give you better ability to punch through waves.

Gotcha. You should let me scratch my head a bit more though, first ...

Punch through waves? Hmmmm... I'm actually more concerned about punching through WEEDS. Seriously, our lagoon has mats of broken weeds on the surface, and growing from 4-6 feet down.

I like what the good folks at Asmo Marine are saying.

http://www.karvi.com/technology/tech-speednozzle.htm

I'd like to see twin steerable korts/speednozzles at the end of the rudder shafts, replacing rudders. Could you characterize an electric setup like this, with the korts, as "QuisineArt" for weeds?
Also wondering how much weeds can degrade prop efficiencies, if the props are fouled, even a bit.

Not to worry...Solomon does not do Fast at this point...we do slow and powerful(Fast will come later).

hehe... cool.. Thanks David

Lock

ewhel
07-16-2002, 07:38 AM
Lock...I have heard about Court Nozzles...and the Lifeboats we are doing with Alexander Ryan have them. They will only help prop efficiency and like everything that pushes water, blade surface area and slow turning speeds are the key to optimization. To answer your question about degradation in prop performance based on weeds....I don't really know other than we can probably assume that it will take more weeds to foul a larger prop than a smaller one....as far as the nozzles...they can only help prop efficiency.

ewhel
07-16-2002, 12:08 PM
Sorry.....that is Kort nozzle....and spelling used to be my strong suit. So I guess none of the experts decided to answer the questions about prop size.....well here ya go.
Steam launches had props in the order of 26"-40" because the engines were not more that 200-300 RPM's. The resultant efficiencies were incredible...some times transferring 85% of the power to the water in movement. Typical prop efficiencies today are 40-50%loss for gasoline and 35-45% for diesel engines. Brushless DC Electric motors do not have a torque curve like these motors...they have a torque plateau...or constant torque, it is the same at 1 RPM as 1000 RPM's. These motors can push very large diameter props with ease because they do not have to build velocity to build torque....the same motor can push a 16", 17", or even a 20" prop. Taking advantage of this phenomenon allows the boater gain what would have been losses on other systems...amazingly these gains are as much as 30% of the power being expended. When you think of it in Horse Power....if you had a 50HP diesel and lost 40% to the prop you would be loosing 20 HP. This also means that if you could decrease prop loses to only 20% you could push the same boat to the same speed with a 30HP motor. The key to boating efficiency is props...the bigger and slower the better.
Now add to this a substantial reduction in complexity...what number of parts is a diesel engine and it's transmission comprised of?......oh....about 1,500. How many of those parts can cause a hard failure and complete loss of propulsion?....oh...about 1,000. How many moving parts does a Brushless DC motor have?....1 (ONE, UNO, UN). How is Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) calculated ?.....simply put.....Number of Parts X Possible Failure Modes...The higher the number of parts the lower the mean time between failure. This is why the US Navy's top analyst's at Office of Naval Research are hell bent to have Electric Ships...Better MTBF...less tools...easier to understand...easier to replace...better prop efficiency....
Oh...did I mention that Solomon motors have a design life of 250,000 hours......compare that to your diesel....planned obsolence...what....we don't play that!!

Portager
07-17-2002, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by ewhel
Steam launches had props in the order of 26"-40" because the engines were not more that 200-300 RPM's. The resultant efficiencies were incredible...some times transferring 85% of the power to the water in movement. Typical prop efficiencies today are 40-50%loss for gasoline and 35-45% for diesel engines.

In Dave Gerr's propeller handbook the graph on page 80 shows that the maximum propeller efficiency of 79% is achieved for Bp values (N*Pd^2/Va^2.5) between 4 and 5 and delta of 80 to 90 where N = propeller speed in RPM, Pd = power at propeller in HP, Va = Vs*(1-Wf) where Vs = vessel speed in knots and Wf = wake factor and delta = N * Dp / Va where Dp is the propeller diameter. For displacement vessels Wf is a function of the hull block coefficient and is provided in a graph on page 68. The lowest Wf value of 0.64 occurs for a block coefficient of 0.8. Using N=200 rpm, Pd = 6 HP, Bp reaches 5 at a speed of 17+ knots and 4 at 19 knots. Solving for the propeller diameter that provides a delta of 90 at 17 knots yields a required propeller diameter of 2.75 feet or 33 inches. If you increase power then the value of Bp goes up and the speed where a 79% efficiency can be achieved increases. Decreasing power to 1 HP returns a Bp is 5 at 14 knots. I think that reaching a propeller efficiency of 79% is very difficult and exceeding 79% is impossible.

Brushless DC Electric motors do not have a torque curve like these motors...they have a torque plateau...or constant torque, it is the same at 1 RPM as 1000 RPM's. These motors can push very large diameter props with ease because they do not have to build velocity to build torque....the same motor can push a 16", 17", or even a 20" prop. Taking advantage of this phenomenon allows the boater gain what would have been losses on other systems...amazingly these gains are as much as 30% of the power being expended. When you think of it in Horse Power....if you had a 50HP diesel and lost 40% to the prop you would be loosing 20 HP. This also means that if you could decrease prop loses to only 20% you could push the same boat to the same speed with a 30HP motor. The key to boating efficiency is props...the bigger and slower the better.

It is true that electric motors have a flat torque curve and gas and diesel engines tend to develop their maximum torque and power at higher speed than high efficiency propellers operate. That is why most gas and diesel engines have transmissions. It is also true that an engine needs to supply adequate power and torque to meet the propeller demand. This is the reason that diesels can out perform gas engines. Most gas engines do not meet the torque demand curve so they are torque limited.

For boats that operate at less that 35 knots you always use the largest propeller that the boat can accommodate with sufficient clearance to achieve the maximum efficiency. Many times the propeller diameter is limited by the maximum draft requirement. For a given propeller diameter (limited by clearance and draft) and assuming a properly sized transmission the propeller efficiency for the electric motor and diesel engine should be the same. Typical propeller efficiency for displacement craft is 55% but with good design 60% to 65% is achievable. The diesel drive will have a 2% to 3% power loss in the transmission.

You could achieve an 8% to 10% improvement i.e. 60% goes to 64.8% to 66% (NOT 68% to 70%). You could also get an 8% to 10% improvement from counter rotating propellers.

Now add to this a substantial reduction in complexity...what number of parts is a diesel engine and it's transmission comprised of?......oh....about 1,500. How many of those parts can cause a hard failure and complete loss of propulsion?....oh...about 1,000. How many moving parts does a Brushless DC motor have?....1 (ONE, UNO, UN). How is Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) calculated ?.....simply put.....Number of Parts X Possible Failure Modes...The higher the number of parts the lower the mean time between failure. This is why the US Navy's top analyst's at Office of Naval Research are hell bent to have Electric Ships...Better MTBF...less tools...easier to understand...easier to replace...better prop efficiency....
Oh...did I mention that Solomon motors have a design life of 250,000 hours......compare that to your diesel....planned obsolence...what....we don't play that!!

You are comparing the MTBF of your motor alone to that of the diesel engine and transmission. While this is acceptable for the electric only boats, most are hybrid diesel electric. For the hybrid system you need to compare the MTBF of the diesel engine, generator and motor to that of the diesel engine and transmission. If the diesel engines are the same, then you are left comparing the generator and motor to the transmission.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

trouty
07-21-2002, 05:17 AM
Don't you guys listen at all?

No batterys - hook up them electric wheels to MEGS ...Motionless Electromagnetic Generators...end of problem!:rolleyes:
Batterys - sheesh - we've sunk back to that level already?

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/megtitl.jpg

Go read the patent.

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/patent_meg.htm

It's inside 12 months availability folks.....no need for batterys - London to New York non stop. :cool:

You want "FAST"? :confused:

No problem couple a few Megs in series - you got all the fast you can handle!

Imagine this http://www.fountainpowerboats.com/Products/RaceBoats/images/42rc.jpg - without the fule bills! :idea: :cool: :D

I dunno guys - talk about leadin a horse to water and not makin it drink! :rolleyes:

Look it's too simple....

Albert Einsteins theory of relativity (neva loan munney to relatives :D ) gave us the nuclear age

E=MC2

This powers Air Craft Carriers, Submarines & whole City's.

Beardens Scalar Potential gives us this, The secret to the energy trapped within the space / time continuum.

E= Delta TC2 where delta T is change in time.

Resolve the two and what do you have?

E=MC2
E=DeltaTC2

Therefore

MC2 = DeltaTC2

Therefore

M=Delta T.

Thats right, Mass = Chage in time, & without "change in time" this pissant electric ferry for Canada could damn well "hover" across the water cos it'd have no mass! :rolleyes:

It's sooo simple and you "learned folks keep dismissing it outta hand - I'd a expected better from an electric wheel expert frankly!:D

C'mon guys - lets get with the program eh?;)

Cheers!

ewhel
07-21-2002, 08:17 AM
Ahhh....Mike....but the Diesels are not the same....it is the duty cycle of any deployed aparatus that comes into play in the MTBF calculation. The generator has a favorable duty cycle and the inboard diesel does not. The generator is ballanced and blueprinted to make electricity with a ballanced load...it starts...goes to optimum efficiency and stays there. The inboard diesel is often started then just shut off....or idled for long periods...or used to charge batteries at an inefficient RPM...or run too hard because of bad weather and currents. The generator is unaffected by this because the batteries are a buffer allowing it to always be in it's happy little environment making electricity. Check with any boater that has had generators in his boat and you will find that they survived several engines and were easier on oil and filters. We have also found that because they are also used for house power they get used more often which is another bad part of the diesel inboards cycle of use.It doesn't get used enough....the oil drains off of the cylinder walls and pistons...and when it does start it bare metal grinding...that's why Yanmar tells everyone to let the diesel Idle for 15 minutes before use....wait a minute...most folks only use their sailboat motors for 10 minues.

lockhughes
07-21-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by trouty
Don't you guys listen at all?

`Been trying to read Tom Bearden's paper Trouty. Tough slogging for us little guys, ok?

Thats right, Mass = Chage in time, & without "change in time" this pissant electric ferry for Canada could damn well "hover" across the water cos it'd have no mass! :rolleyes:
It's sooo simple and you "learned folks keep dismissing it outta hand - I'd a expected better from an electric wheel expert frankly!:D
C'mon guys - lets get with the program eh?;)
Cheers!

Hey, I asked you for a prototype to play with... but "inside of twelve months"? I can wait. The designed life of the oil burner I want to replace is 50yrs. BTW, don't sell out to the battery mfgrs., OK?

Lock

ps... if we can chuck the batteries, maybe I can get that bar I want on the boat, with the weight saved... yah!

lockhughes
07-21-2002, 03:07 PM
Just a thought on refueling - diesel or gas vs electric...

What are the chances of filling up with dirty diesel or gas that can gum up the works?

and

What are the chances of filling up with "dirty" electricity? With the right charging electronics, I assume this is impossible...

I'd rather have electronics doing the "filtering" rather than have to deal with replacing fuel filters, whatever...

Just 2 cents

Lock

tom28571
07-21-2002, 06:19 PM
Trouty,

A couple of comments on the MEGS delta T thing.

It this technology is a powerful as you say, why mess around with powering boats. It can power the world!!!

We went through a bout with cold fusion a few years ago and that disappeared in a shambles.

Some few years before that we were told that nuclear power would make electrical power too cheap to meter. Say what???

I am not dumb but can not find the reason why MEGS doesn't violate the principle of conservation of energy which has never failed us since we got up on two feet.

As far as I know delta T is part of every source of power that we have ever made use of.

Can you give any references where the principles of MEGS has been explained in layman's terms in the scientific press? I don't mean the uneducated layman but one educated in engineering principles.

You have made some denegrating remarks about the lack of understanding or intelligence by members of this forum. Since some of these people seem pretty smart, maybe the fault lies in the clarity of your claims and explanations.

I am not trying to slam you but do need more information in order to get interested. Where's the beef?

Portager
07-22-2002, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by ewhel
Ahhh....Mike....but the Diesels are not the same....it is the duty cycle of any deployed aparatus that comes into play in the MTBF calculation. The generator has a favorable duty cycle and the inboard diesel does not.

OK, maybe the duty cycle is different, but you still need to include it in the MTBF calculations. The point is that it isn't correct to compare the MTBF of an electric motor to that of a diesel engine. You need to compare the MTBF of the system (with realistic duty cycles). Now that would be useful information.

The generator is ballanced and blueprinted to make electricity with a ballanced load...it starts...goes to optimum efficiency and stays there. The inboard diesel is often started then just shut off....or idled for long periods...or used to charge batteries at an inefficient RPM...or run too hard because of bad weather and currents. The generator is unaffected by this because the batteries are a buffer allowing it to always be in it's happy little environment making electricity. Check with any boater that has had generators in his boat and you will find that they survived several engines and were easier on oil and filters.

I would do this and I know I would find just the opposite, but that wouldn't be fare. AC generator engines do not last nearly as long as main engines because they must maintain a constant speed, regardless of the load, to produce power at the correct frequency. DC generators claimed to last longer, but since very few boats have adopted them so far, it would be difficult to find valid life cycle data.

We have also found that because they are also used for house power they get used more often which is another bad part of the diesel inboards cycle of use.It doesn't get used enough....the oil drains off of the cylinder walls and pistons...and when it does start it bare metal grinding...that's why Yanmar tells everyone to let the diesel Idle for 15 minutes before use....wait a minute...most folks only use their sailboat motors for 10 minues.

On the subject of warm up time. Do your generators allow the engine to warm up at low speed before going to their optimum speed and loading?

I looked into the US Navy's selection of diesel electric propulsion for DDX. www.ces.clemson.edu/powsys2002/ppt/P5/TB.ppt The enabling technology is super conducting motors, which are the key to making an electric drive energy efficient. http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWS/MMNov27.html .

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

lockhughes
07-22-2002, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by tom28571
Trouty,
It this technology is a powerful as you say, why mess around with powering boats. It can power the world!!!
First boats, THEN the world <grin>
L

trouty
07-22-2002, 07:17 AM
:rolleyes: Like this is "new" technology guys?...Oh C'mon - this isn't new or that hard to understand - all you have to do is sit on your "Mass" - ive derriere's and read :D - how hards that?...

OK, you darn Americans started all this off you know - hubbard for a start took a lot of the stuff Nicola Tesla started and ran with it for a while - he'd a done a lot better if the OSS (later to become your CIA) hadn't roped him into working for them, where he eventually headed your 60's LSD program....

OK, you want to follow it all thru eh?

Try these few links for starters and sorta work your way up to the tough stuff. If I, a simple layman (who can get + and - mixed up jumpstarting a car with a red n black leads) can understand it - I'm quite sure an electric wheel inventor should have no trubble! :p

Start with Hubbard and work your way to Bearden...

http://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm

http://www.altenergy-pro.com/device09-2.htm

http://www.nuenergy.org/jakelj.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%209%20Feb%201993/index.html


You all seem to accept that Nuclear energy works - yet seem to ridicule the idea, that any other understanding of electrical / magnetic, gravitic energy principles could deliver us other alternative energy sources from this universe, which is quite a contradiction in terms don't you think?

I mean - the energy trapped within an atom is so powerfull it could destry the entire world - and yet the energy in the ether of space (time) isn't capable of doing something similar?

Read about Hubbles electric powered BOAT guys - sailed contunous for 3 days in the US in the 1920's without external power source!

Here we are almost 100 years later and esteemed boat designers / and supposed electrical experts still haven't cottoned on yet? :rolleyes:

Gimme a break - If I jolted your a$$es with 1000 volts from a MEG , you'd still be sitting here chewing bandwidth debating the merits of batterys!:eek: :D :rolleyes: :p

Just take the time out from your busy routines guys - to have a little read here n there and to consider the "alternate" electrical theorys postulated and you'll see that tyhey are in fact quite valid - they do work and have worked for almost 100 years now.

I'll talk electric propulsion of boats with you - WHEN you catch up...ok?

Cheers!

trouty
07-22-2002, 08:20 AM
It can power the world!!!

Tom,

Indeed why mess round with boats - when it can in fact power the world!.

Sitting here as we are on the verge of WW3, the US about to invade Iraq, to secure the last of the worlds fossil fuel oil / gas, for the USA's insatiable (and wastefulll IMHO) appetite for energy, having just secured the entire Caspian basin reserves in it's recent "Pipemenistan" bombing campaign the question you ask is quite ironic really.

Your own citizens have been the principal discoverers of alternate electrical energy for almost 100 years...and yet here the USA is usurping the worlds last fossil fuel reserves from the very towel headed, mud hut living afghanis and soon Iraqi's with a carpet of bombs.

Why?

Coz the USA can't function (read survive) unless boat fuel is a back a gallon! (or less).:rolleyes:

Since the arabs screwed the oil spiggotts off - the US economy is collapsing daily...as evidenced by the recent continuing market collapse.

Why a buck a gallon to power a boat?

Cargo ships once out at sea and full steam - switch from light diesel to running on bunker oil - at about 6c a gallon!

The world is about to go to hell in a handbasket - over the US' insatiable appetite for oil - so much so that you've just taken delivery of your first shipment of "Russian" oil! :eek:

Hows it feel to be dependant on your former cold war enemys for oil now? :(

I'd say it's high time the US took a long hard look at the Texas oil cowboys running the country, and started to make inroads into their alternate technologies BEFORE we - the rest of the world get saddled with the bio warfare and nuclear fallout which will be inevitably associated with the US current insatiable thirst for oil.

This joke is a little sad - albeit quite funny, given the current world situation,...

3 boat captains all standing on a bridge fishing

The first Capt, a full blood Iroquoi Injun, laments the fact - that his people are almost totally extinct now, thru disease, interbreeding with the white man, firewater abuse etc..

The second Capt, a Muslim, says how his people are doing great - they all sit for 18 hours a day, bangin their towel heads against a wall and reading the Koran, they breed like flies, and now occupy fully 70% of the Earths habitable landmass, increasing 5% per annum!

The 3rd Capt, a Texas oilman, leans back against the bridge railing, rolls a smoke with one hand, lights the match on the a$$ of his rawhide jeans, ignites the smoke, draws back a deep lung fulla smoke, and slowly exhales it all - all the while looking the Muslim Capt. square in the eyes...and says...

"Yeah, but - we aint played Cowboys n Muslims Yet!" ;) :D :p

Soooo...

Why boats?...and not the world?
...ahh scuse me - who said I wasn't plannin to power the whole world? :cool: :p

Remeber, vote trouty 1 for benevolent dictater!;) :D

Cheers!

ewhel
07-22-2002, 09:03 AM
Cheers ? After that lambasting?....well we could grind England up and use it for top soil in Texas....na....you Englishmen are kinda cool...yes we are 20% of the worlds population using 80% of the worlds energy but we also provide the police force to keep it safe! Yes we are a target for every jealous tyrant....but they squash like bugs when they get too far out of line. How about all the cool things that have come from our think tanks...which, by the way, are usually an excellent blend of humans from all cultures....that's what makes America great....we are the world...here there are Jews that marry Muslims...and Russians that marry Pol's and Germans. We need that energy to promote life and liberty and the pursuit of....well....protecting every one else.

ewhel
07-22-2002, 09:25 AM
Mike...the reason we sometimes leave the MTBF data out on diesels is that we don't really need them...some of our customers are doing just fine on regeneration with no fossil fuel on the boat at all..They use solar and shore power to charge. But most of the cruisers use generators...and we have them on our demo boats here...
You are looking at the "old" electric ships...the new ones will not rely on superconductors...that's the only AC and Traction drive initiatives...the new DD-X Electric Ship will have DC generators and multi phase PWM DC motors. This program was started as DD-21 and is now DD-X. Why...it's just more efficient and less cumbersome to work with. It's also modular.....I replaced a 540lb. diesel&Transmission with a 140lb Generator and 60 lb motor....either the motor or generator I can get out to replace with my bare hands...the 540lb diesel took pulleys and winches and 3 men and a lot of skinned fingers. Modularity is a wonderful thing for marine propulsion....and did I tell you that our motors will operate under water?...or with a gallon of water in them. Sure the generator may break or you pick up a load of bad fuel...but the motor will still dock the boat....that generator is just one way to get energy. Can you imagine this scenario....I get bad fuel...the gen dies....I send out distress call....the DNR(in Maryland that's department of natural resources) or the Coast Guard shows up....or Tow Boats US....and I can tell them...No I don't need to be towed all the way back to land...just give me a recharge! For sailboats...they just wait for wind....do some sailing...and they recharge themselves. How does that affect MTBF?

trouty
07-22-2002, 01:43 PM
OK, so you can't get the hang of MEGS - all too complicated..

So - no MEG to power the Electric wheel motor then!:(

Ok - well - how about an Orgone implosion powered "Joe water cell"? :confused:

You layman types should be able to rig up one a these no sweat! ;)

http://educate-yourself.org/fejoewatercell.html

Or those who find beardens technobabble a little difficult to follow might prefer this recent synopsis for the layman.

http://educate-yourself.org/megscalardevice29mar02.html

This extract gives a few tantalising details about timing and availability.

"The first MEG units to be produced for sale will output 2.5 kilowatts of free electricity. Forever. They should be in production about a year from now. Facilities for manufacturing the device are being set up in an unnamed "friendly nation."

This free electricity will flow indefinitely, without much, or any maintenance. The units may be hooked together to provide more wattage, so four of them would provide 10 kilowatts. After some production experience units will be made which output 10 kilowatts each. With a couple of those units a house could get off the electrical grid."

......

So - what sorta displacement speed can we get outta our Ferry using the electric wheel whith 10 kilowatts input? :D

Will we be able to turn it into a hover ferry?

The mind Boggles.....Cold electricity anyone?

http://educate-yourself.org/coldelectricityvideo.html

Of course we have the usual array of oxygen / hydrogen cells etc http://educate-yourself.org/fewaterasfuel28jan02.html

Soooo - ahhh why is it again we need to monopolise the worlds oil supplies?...the rationale for that musta escaped me somewhere!

Cheers..

tom28571
07-22-2002, 03:56 PM
OK Trouty,

I'm going to try to explore this Scalar Electromagnetics to see if I can get some understanding of it. Bearden claims that scalar physics does not violate the inviolate energy laws that were drumed into me in school and by a life of work and observation of physical phenomena. Unlike you, I have had formal and informal training in physical sciences. Maybe that is the root of my skepticism.

However, let me say that if sliced bread or any other great advance in history had you as an introductory ambassador, we would all still be painting pictures on the walls of caves.

Portager
07-22-2002, 05:12 PM
Trouty;

If you want to talk about free energy, I suggest you do it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

trouty
07-23-2002, 03:48 AM
5 pages talking about batterys!:rolleyes:

Ya might as well have spent 5 pages talkin about coal fired steam boilers for vessel propulsion - face it guys - outdated technology! :D :p

Next you'll be wantin to put a sail on this thing!;)

hehehe...

Ohhh - and Tom...ahh - you don't still paint the walls a your cave?... sheesh we still do..."hey honey - throw another brontosaurus rib on the fire will ya - I hear the Rubbles are due over for a feed soon!" :D

Cheers!
C'mon Mr Slade - pull the goddam tarradactyles tail already will ya - I wanna knock off n go bowlin with Barney! nyuk nyuk nyuk!
:cool: :D ;)

ewhel
07-23-2002, 09:53 AM
Trouty,

The only thing I can say is I love free energy, that's why I sail a boat that regenerates....and you mentioned Orgon energy .....have you read Wilhelm Reicht? Seems you might be on to something.....I also love Tessla...and at Solomon we don't care where the energy comes from....as batteries, ultra capacitors, Tessla coils, Solar , fuel cells,flywheel storage batteries or what ever new improvements that get invented, they only enhance what we are doing. 90% of the systems on the boat are electric already...usually only propulsion is fossil fuel....why not make them all electric...and if we have to burn fossil fuel because of power density...let's always do it at the highest possible efficiency(least emissions naturally follows). Let's also allow for other renewable inputs that can then enhance total system efficiency.

trouty
07-24-2002, 11:59 AM
Wilhelm Reich...no "t" and yes - I've read a little of him.

Another of the free energy professors that seems to have been deliberately "oblitereted" bye the military/industrial/oil interests of the USA!

2007 his scientific works are due for release - he claimed the world would not be ready for his work for at least 50 years after his death (in 1957).

An interesting synopsis of his orgone theory here.

http://www.orgone.org/articles/ax9rourke-a.htm

Cheers!

:idea:

ewhel
07-25-2002, 07:16 AM
Sorry for the diversion from electric boats in this forum...but I have read one of Wilhelm's books and it was incredible...they put Wilhelm in jail, where he died of pneumonia, but his lab assistants went into hiding and eventually republished his books and lab tests in the 70's. Made me want to build and Orgon box 10 years ago.
Now...back to Electric Drive systems....what is horsepower? Came from horses then was converted to everything that moved...but what assumptions were made during that conversion. What was the controversy over steam engins when they came out....relative to other horsepower calculations....? Hint....Torque...is all important...and all calculations are relative...and over the years the relativity has been specifically focused of FF motors...that have been overstated, measured in a range where you don't or can't use them, based on fuel/oil used and accepted as good enough for Government work....Not by me.

08-01-2002, 07:52 PM
Some good technical papers by Lynch Motor on sizing electric motors for sail boats
http://www.lynchmotor.com/240.htm#1.3%20%20BOATS

Mike D
09-14-2002, 12:02 AM
I am not sure if this is the right thread to use or not. The tangled yarns that contributors are spinning as they weave, shuttle back and forth is truly warped, and I feel stranded or at least entwined or enlaced in a knit of knots with knuts.

This first paragraph refers to crazies on various other sites, as we all know there are no crazies on this site

There are many points raised and some of them are inter-related so it becomes difficult to address one subject with raising others. So let me work my way through a few.

Propellers
Prof. Burrill was the acknowledged world’s expert on propellers about 60 years ago. Much of what he did is classic. For example, in the 30’s he developed a new type of propeller and gave permission to a Dutch researcher to use it and further develop it if he wished – this is now the Wageningen B series and it crops up all over the net. Cavitation had become a serious problem and he developed a new approach, published his findings and a diagram he prepared is still used. The US Navy, for example, calls for its use in propeller design on new projects etc – it also crops up on the net on many sites. Well, Prof Burrill was fond of saying that it was simple to design a propeller but very difficult to design a good one.

On every site I have visited that deals with boats I find the same theme and Prof. Burrill was on the nose!. I have seen advice from one boater to another suggesting he takes such and such a propeller and tries it instead of so and so’s. So when I read of the impossible claims of efficiencies rising by extraordinary jumps I am no longer surprised.

Often the original propeller was a dreadful choice so almost anything would have worked better. Although I hesitate to advise on the total boat I can discuss the propeller and drive train and speak from years of hands-on experience. There is a world of difference in the operating characteristics of small, fast, boat propellers and big, slow, ship propellers but they all obey the same laws.

There is a propeller design diagram that will solve any design problem and it is a pain in the ass to use. The Kt-Kq diagram but it is specific to a propeller type and you can’t use it for a Wageningen and a Gawn, you can only use THE Wageningen or THE Gawn types or whatever type or manufacturer you are using. The diagram's name is simply K meaning a coefficient and t for thrust or what you get out of the propeller and q for torque (hello ewhel) or what you put into it.

Any fixed blade propeller has a design operating condition and it has a small range beyond which all hell breaks loose. The design condition is basically what vessel speed and propeller rpm do you want or what speed and diameter do you want? So the propeller characteristics of rpm, power hence torque, diameter, blade area ratio and pitch can be matched to the vessel and its drag. Then figure out the other speeds with the screw in an off-design condition.

Naturally if you change the ship or boat speed the resistance changes and there is a different demand on the drive system or engine and this causes a drop in propeller efficiency because the operating range or band is quite narrow.

At low speeds the power changes in proportion to the cube of the speed approximately. By slow I mean the famous V/RootL so the things I am most familiar with are say around 500 feet or so running at say 15 knots giving V/RootL =0.67 whereas a boat 25 feet long at the same speed has V/RootL = 3. At such high values the cube law no longer applies and power will vary with speed to the sixth or higher power. So a change of one knot on the boat has a much greater effect on proportional power demand than on the big ship. And there’s the problem and why there are so many conflicting experiences in the boating community – there is no such thing as an efficient propeller for a fast boat unless it always goes fast.

It has too many operating regimes with conflicting requirements so a good propeller at say 10 knots is not very good at 15 and a disaster at 25. There is a dramatic improvement when a Controllable Pitch (CP) propeller is used – not Variable Pitch – almost ALL propellers are variable pitch. The ordinary propeller is NOT fixed pitch – it is fixed blade. The pitch quoted is normally the pitch at 70% of the propeller radius from the shaft centre-line. The CP propeller is much more expensive than the FP because of the blade changing mechanism in the hub and the sensing devices and controls on the engine.

So if the boat operates at only very high speeds there is no point in having CP as the proposed operating band is tight and inside the design band.

If the boat operates at only two speeds the propeller is usually a compromise based on the operating profile. If it is high speed 2/3 of the time then the propeller design would be biased towards high speed, in the long run it gives the lowest operating cost taking into account fuel costs, repairs/maintenance and so on.

The Kt-Kq diagram may be used to review the whole operating regime. There are many references to Bp~Delta diagrams but these are the handiest for the design condition but not so good for the others and useless for the Bollard Condition – what is the “pull” when the boat is stopped, hence the name. It was tested simply by tying up a line to a bollard with a dynamometer or load cell in the line to measure the pull. In the Bp~Delta diagram. Bp = N*P^(1/2)/Va(2 ½) and Delta is N*D/Va where N = rpm, P = power, Va = propeller speed of advance. As V is zero the terms equal infinity and so the diagram cannot be used for the bollard condition. The Mu~Sigma diagram is essentially tailor-made for the bollard condition.

So a tug is a good vessel to explain what happens outside of the design range. A tug has three basic operating conditions;
Pushing a massive ship towards the quay and the wind is blowing the ship away from the dock and going nowhere – the Bollard Condition
Towing something and actually moving at some obvious speed – Towing Condition
Racing to get somewhere, perhaps a ship in distress and it’s an emergency – Free Running Condition.

So what do you design it for? I will deliberately keep it simple and neglect any constraints such as sea-keeping, rolling in waves, weather etc. I will also skip the analysis of operations and make simple, easy to understand comparisons.

The design condition should be the second one – Towing. The only thing to specify would be a tug speed, full power would be absorbed at that speed. So if you tow big things you would have a slow speed, small things at a faster speed so pick a number. That would depend on what the traffic is in your area but the usual is to specify about half the free-running speed. I’ll only cover a diesel-driven, fixed blade propeller.

Now here’s the rub. At the bollard condition you have a torque overload, you aren’t moving and the propeller is trying to draw more power but the revs are dropping because it can’t absorb it, fuel is still being injected for high power but the turbo-blower is linked to the engine and there isn’t enough air to burn the damn stuff. Hence the dense black smoke.

In or very close to the Towing Condition everything balances, power, revs, speed, thrust – the whole nine yards.

Now Free-Running, this is just the tug, nothing under tow and Full Ahead. The propeller is under-loaded but it tries to draw more but there’s no load so it turns faster trying to put more rpm with the max torque. Now we have the engine racing and we still don’t have full power – your manual shift car in bottom gear and your foot on the gas pedal.

Better engine control systems and much more effective turbo-blowers reduce what I have described but they cannot solve the problems – you can break any law you want and get away with it except those of Mother Nature.

On a typical tug the revs would fall about 10% at the bollard condition and you would get a pull of around 28# per hp for something designed for the Towing condition described above and it would fall to about 22# per hp for something designed for a faster speed.

This can be improved by fitting a Kort nozzle – named after it’s “inventor”, the German Dr. Kort. Typically a tug would have a 4 bladed propeller with a pitch ratio of about 0.7, a bit less if a high free running speed was not needed and a bit more if it was important. So a “normal” propeller would give us a thrust factor of about 610 (applied to a complicated formula) but using a Kaplan propeller in a nozzle would give us over 800, better than a 30% increase but we would not go as fast! A Kaplan propeller – say you took a 5 foot diameter propeller to fit a 4 foot nozzle, you would cut the tips away and you would have a home-made “almost Kaplan.”

If you fitted a CP propeller in a nozzle you’d have a 20% increase or more and you would also go faster, about one knot, because you have changed the pitch ratio from around 0.7 or 0.8 to 1 or 1.1 or so. At the other end the pitch ratio fell to 0.6 or less, the revs were maintained and so the thrust increased.

In the free-running mode without a nozzle the engines are over speeding so the revs are pinned to some maximum value at a lower torque and you go as fast as you can but only use about 2/3 of the power. A nozzle with a fixed blade propeller causes more drag so there is no point in that but the CP screw will adjust so the nozzle will not help go faster even though it improves the bollard pull.

The rule of thumb for a nozzle was to fit one if the Bp coefficient was greater than about 45, see the formula above with all units in imperial measures. Say the propeller turned at 200 rpm, the power was 2,000 hp and the speed of advance was 10 knots we would have a Bp of only 28.3 – no nozzle. But if we increased the revs to about 1,000 it would seem a nozzle would help. The problem again is that the propeller would need a total redesign and the efficiency would drop off but the nozzle would help and we’d be back to square one - except the propeller is quite different so don’t just stick a nozzle on and hope for the best.

There are other things that help –a variable speed gearbox that can improve design characteristics so helping to give a better operating design range.

A Father-Son arrangement that is common on fishing boats. For example, a deep sea trawler has to be fast to get to the fishing grounds and then slowly drag this huge bag behind it trapping fish then race home again. So it is common to fit two engines, one gear-box and one shaft/propeller. The father is the big engine and the son is the smaller one usually about 50 or 60% of the power of its dad. So you have three choices Father, Son or Holy Ghost

Two things have really puzzled me over the years
Why CP propellers were only for ships – now it is encouraging to see that they are beginning to make inroads.
Why people did not have a better way of selecting a propeller.

These two images may make you salivate. They are scanned images of a pair of calculators made and given away(?) by Caterpillar. I inherited them from a colleague who retired years ago and he was given them by a Cat rep. who regularly visited the yard. I have no idea if they are still available but I doubt it.

Both scales show on an image, not back and front of one scale on an image. Other than the names only the Propeller Calculator has any identification. Look at the Analysis Chart and then across to the lower left and you see © 1961, Caterpillar Tractor Co.( which is on both slides) and Form No. 40-20428. I’ve lost track of the number of people who have asked me to help with their propellers and general things about speed and power. These slide rule calculators were a God-send

http://C:\aaaLL My Files\AAAAACMD\Forums\Boat Design\CatSlide11.gif
http://C:\aaaLL My Files\AAAAACMD\Forums\Boat Design\CatSlide22.gif

The propeller chart might help you, although it has Bp on the bottom scale it does not use Delta but you still get a good idea of what goes on (for the screw type as noted on the extreme upper far left). The chart should settle any arguments about 85% propeller efficiency – it is possible, of course, but you would be trying to fit a propeller bigger than an ocean liner on a runabout.

The term Va is needed for Bp, Delta and also the thrust formula on the prop chart. As a vessel moves through the water under the action of a propeller some water moves with it so that the speed of the vessel through the water is greater than the speed of the propeller through the water. This is the effect of the wake and Va = V*(1 – Wt) where V is the boat speed and Wt is the Taylor wake factor. Be careful if you see any references to the Froude wake factor, it is quite different and not the same at all – avoid it.

Unfortunately I can’t help you with wake factors. They depend on all kinds of things relating to the vessel and the propeller so you have the situation where the vessel could be increased in size with all dimensions in proportion – 10 times longer, 10 times wider, 10 times the draft but the same shape, for example, but the propeller changes in a different way so the wake factors change. All my technical books are about ships so the factors are quite different to those for small boats and the like –sorry. There must be a site that shows small craft wake factors.

I hope this has helped, I have tried to simplify things to get the point across so a professional designer or nav arch may disagree on some points but it would be minor.


To be contd – drive systems and losses in efficiency
Michael

Mike D
09-14-2002, 12:06 AM
First:

Mike D
09-14-2002, 12:08 AM
Second:

Polarity
09-20-2002, 10:39 AM
Hi Lock

This of any interest to you?

http://www.depcopump.com/canal.htm

Paul

owhorchukwu
02-03-2004, 01:45 PM
[i would like to know the design of water cooling system in slow speed deisel engine(15000kw)

FlyByBoat
07-02-2004, 04:54 PM
And where are we suppose to leave this feedback, ah I see ! The Eq doesnt take long to ponder. The boat motors interest brought me here. Remember that Einstein said " Time is a figment of our imagination !" And it is so true. He was the first to write about Galactic Space. All things in the universe are moving. Huge Planets and micro-scopic gases just swirling around with each other like a big pool of water carrying stuff with it, except theres no final pool, its like a perpetual ring at the water park, just going around and around covering there old footprints. Kinda like a guy trapped on a small island -he he ! But this parade of stars and planets is the mass. You see, that was Einsteins Mass. Overtime it moves. Yep. Given no time ( which doesnt really exist) the mass wouldnt move. Movement transfers energy ! Movement does not create energy. Its movement over time transfering the energy. The energy does not come from the Time, it comes from the movement of mass. So no, T does not equal M, regardless of the equation. You can have mass without the time, but you cant have energy without Time.


It'd be nice to think I was joking and all this scalar electromagnetics stuff would just dissappear, but the truth of the matter is, it actually works!:eek:

Thats why the US patents office granted a patent a few weeks ago.

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/patent_meg.htm

Yep - the electronic wheel is great - BUT imagine how good it will be when - you don't need to keep charging and discharging batterys to power it but you harness the free energy trapped within time, ony using the battery source once to initiate the system!

Free energy - are you with me here?...

No diesel fuel - no hydrogen cell no nuthin - just a MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator).

Course - you can couple MEGs inline for additional power, and if you want to you can run them thru the electrioc wheel to power a propellor - but how agricultural is that? :rolleyes:

Bout the only thing missing is the guy standing at the prow beating the drum! ;)

Noo - once people cotton onto scalar electromagnetics - the world as we know it today in terms of energy needs will be totally changed as if in the blink of an eye - forever more.

Think back to pre 1943, and Hiroshima/ Nagasaki...

Who'd a ever thought there was enough energy trapped within the atom to do that much damage to whole citys full of people?

Who'd have ever thought that we'd have whole US naval Carrier battle groups & submarines at sea, powered by - nuclear reactors - harvesting the energy trapped within the atom?

What "momentous discovery" led us to nuclear energy?...

Well - Albert Einstein had a bit to do with it...when he formulated his "general theory of relativity" (never loan munney to relatives) :D...er no - sorry, I mean E = MC2

Sooo....Now I come along telling you that Tesla's discovery of scalar electromagnetics, has given us E=TC2 where T is delta T or change in time, and suddenly - I'm telling a big joke???:confused: :confused:

Why is it so "unbelievable" that there could be as much energy trapped within time as there is withing the atom?:confused: :rolleyes:

You see, it's something like the atom before 1942....the energy was always there - we just werent smart enough until then to realise a way to harness that energy trapped within the atom.

In the same way - there is the same amount of energy trapped within time...IF we just understand the physics that allows us to harness that energy. The MEG or motionless Electromagnetic Generator as described in the patent and depicted here:-

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/megtitl.jpg

is REALITY people - it's real - it works - the energy is free!

Just think for a few seconds...what that means in terms of "boat design" never mind about the implications for our western oil based economies and all the wars we are about to fight in the middle east and caspian basin over oil.....just think what "unlimited free energy" means to the world!

Hows it work?...

Well, if you have the time - you could start reading here and sooner or later the penny will drop!

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%209%20Feb%201993/index.html

Now - the guy who has compiled all this is a former US Colonel (RET) involved in computer nuclear holocaust war simulation modelling for the US military, so he's no dummie.

It's a big subject that will have (in due time) huge implications for vessel propulsion......among other things!

I'm personally of the opinion that MEGS coupled to plasmoidal induction hydrodynamic drive engines, will be the "future" for vessel propulsion...BUT I could be wrong!

I guess only "time" will tell...

In the mean "time" practice reciting what Tesla knew almost 100 years ago...

That E=TC2 where T is delta T or change in time.

If you care to really stretch the grey matter...resolve this.

E=MC2 (Einstein)
also
E=TC2 (Tesla)

Therefore,

If
E=MC2
&
also
E=TC2

Then it follows that

MC2 = TC2

Therefore it follows that

M=T (where T is delta T or change in time)

So, troutys theory of the space time continuum...

Mass = Change In Time

Ponder the implications of that for a wee while...I'll be asking 20 questions whenI get back!
:D

Cheers!

Guest
09-29-2004, 06:58 PM
I take it all this was a lot of hot then. There was a post around 7/2002 that said a product would be coming to market in a year. I haven't seen it. I guess we can file this with the 300mpg carburetors and other myths and legends. Maybe pipe dream is a better term. I haven't tried to research the patent given but suspect it is a hoax or doesn't generate enough energy to be useful.

LEE POEL
11-17-2004, 09:04 PM
I Need A Hull Design For 40 Foot Fiberglass Fishing Boat

Sean Herron
11-18-2004, 01:55 AM
Hello...

These monkeys have done their homework - and then some - sound technology if you can find a drunkard owner willing to massage his investment with appropriate goop for a saltwater environment...

Fantastic installs - same as diesel electrics in WWII - waiting for LESS batteries - big ass Lithiums...

See http://www.solomontechnologies.com/Solomon%20new/Article%20Nimble.html ...

You will need a kilowatt to Horse on a bit converter... :)

To date - batts are ballast - as they were - and Japan needs to kick into our needs yet again...

It can - has - and will again be done - to any HP - it is only a matter of owner or builder preferance - personally - I would take the big ass diesel - only because I KNOW big ass diesels... :)

But these peeps are on their way - no doubt - corrosion would be my first hurdle to guess upon - that based on inspection of an install of same on a Nimble Kodiak - owner was lazy - did not oil fog the 'motor' - bad corrosion on outer casings - no worse than same on poorly maintained outboard - so Soloman has a go for me...

Yup - good thread - sort of - can I introduce you to my coffee table or basement muck up photos of my plasma mookie drive - FlybyBoat by math (a 30 year old burp in 2nd year- with no appreciable application) - 2 and 2 is 32 less 30... :)

Lets talk spark ovals and compression ratios - so every 'hick' - and those who bite the bits at Ford - with a real engine mock - can plug his or her bits into the muck - yes...

I will only have time for one question - 'when you get back' - to test all us 'simple pokes' - the energy is free - which was my first guess that you have yet to pass 5th year - GREAT - now print me some 20's and meet at the 7 eleven with your blow up doll - lets talk about spherical intersections of relational time - is it a flat plane or is it same with mass (gas) questions - or am I just a muck in the mud... :)

SH.

FAST FRED
11-18-2004, 06:33 AM
Most of the "inefficency" of a small diesel is caused by the Mfg asking for it to be set up to turn the prop at max rpm , so as you throttle back the loads become managable for long periods of time , by reducing power.

Unfortunat;y this only works at 80 or 90% of rated engine RPM, once you get down to 1200 or 1400 the engine is seriously underloaded , and the service life / efficency suffers.

A transmission with more than ONE speed would be the simple and inexpensive cure. Marine 2 speeds are now being mfg , and avilable .18 speeds are avilable out of trucks for the really finicky.

A EGT gage would be required not to overload the engine at low speeds.

Sure seams easier that 10,000 lb of batterys to get out of the harbor, or the daisy chain inefficencies of generating power , creating electric , storing /using the electric and an aditional heavy electric motor.

Water taxi , maybe , trip to China? , hardly.

FAST FRED

brian eiland
12-16-2004, 11:05 PM
The Dec/Jan 2005 issue of Professional BoatBuilder has a really excellent article on the subject of diesel-electric propusion by Nigel Calder

brian eiland
12-21-2004, 12:40 PM
Brian wrote:
I haven't had a chance to review this material, but it looked as though it would be of interest to those folks following this technology. you might also visit their multihull forum, and the archive section (http://steamradio.com/mailman/listinfo/multihulls) in particular for more discussions on this subject.

______________________________________________


Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:47:34 AM EST
From: "Bruce Bibee" <BBibee@BCA.LACITY.ORG>
To: <multihulls@steamradio.com>
Subject: [MHml] Diesel Electric Propulsion

I looked into the electric propulsion concept some time ago for my 'ideal'
catamaran. I only expect to use the electric propulsion in the first/last 5-10
miles for maneuver in marina's, moorings, and anchorages. I would like to avoid the diesel component and recharge by regeneration, wind, and/or solar.

Hi Bruce,

Based on what you have said then our motors would be ideal, in regards to
Hp=Kw then there is 744watts = 1Hp the weight of this model is 11 kilo's and
costs £895.00 each, the slower the motor the greater the torque which is
what is required in a marine application, yes by connecting the 3 batteries
in series you will have 36v and you can make strings of these to get the
desired amp hours.

The motor controller will cost anywhere between £200.00 to £500.00 depending on which make and model you choice would think that a curtis or sevcon would be good, see details via our web site.

It is possible to build in regen into the drive system and it can also be
driven from a generator if required. Regards Trevor

Sent: 16 September 2004 16:49
To: trevor@lmcltd.net
Subject: RE: boat motor

Hi Trevor! I was planning on mounting the motors in waterproof nacelles
with the motor shaft running through a gland or 'O' rings to keep out
the water - they will only be submerged around 2'. I expect to attach
the two bladed propellor directly to the motor shaft. I was also
considering pumping air into the nacelle so that air leaked out when the
motor was in use and prevented water from getting in. I anticipate
mounting the nacelle on a hinged bar so that the nacelle can be swung up
and out of the water when not in use - to reduce drag, fouling, and
corrosion. The specs on the 36V motor look good - the maximum rpm is
relatively low (to reduce cavitation on the propellor) - do you have the
conversion factor to convert Nm to horsepower?. How much does the motor
weigh? cost (USD)? and what is its outside diameter? I presume that I
can run the motor from a bank of three deep discharge sealed 12V
batteries connected in series - and by putting another series connected
bank of three in parallel with the first bank the run time can be
extended. The way I interpret the chart is that if I were to connect the
motor to a single bank of three series connected 230 amp-hour batteries,
I could run your motor at full load at 1,275 rpm for an hour which would
deplete the batteries by 117 amp-hours or about 51% of their capacity.
The amount of distance this would take the boat would, of course, depend
on how fast the motors pushed the boat through the water which is
dependent on the boats drag. The goal here is 5-7 knots.

What does the motor controller cost and how does it vary the power to
the motor? I would prefer a controller that uses a chopper rather than
resistance to vary the speed of the motor since recharging the battery
bank is going to be a problem since the main way will be to use the
motor as a generator while the boat is sailing.

Can one of these motors be connected to a small diesel engine to create
a generator set that would produce enough power to directly drive the
motor driving the propellor? This might be used to use the motor over a
more prolonged period of time. If so, what is the size of such an
engine?

>>> "Trevor Lees" <trevor@lmcltd.net> 9/15/04 22:34 >>>
Thank you for your email.

It is not possible to produce 10 - 15Hp @ 12v using our technology and they
cannot be submerged in water the salt will react with the brushes and breakdown very quickly.

I would suggest our motor LEM-200-D135 @ 24 - 48v would be more suitable with a Curtis controller, see attached performance curves and if you feel this is what you require then we will supply further details.
Regards Trevor Lees

Sent: 15 September 2004 21:34
To: sales@lmcltd.net
Subject: boat motor

I need a pair of electric motors, each of which will be submerged in salt water
and directly spin an 18" 18 pitch propellor up to about 1000-1500 rpm to drive a 40' sailing catamaran. The boat normally uses a 12 volt system for internal electrical use so this would be ideal - especially since battery recharge seems to be this voltage for solar and wind generators. Alternately, the props could be left in the water while sailing to act as generators and recharge the batteries. A motor controller for variable speed and forward/reverse would also be required. I am not really sure what to ask for but it should be as thin as possible to reduce drag from the motor housing and probably be in the 10-15 hp range. Do you have any dealers in southern California?

another related exchange

Hi Bruce

Many folks have built a wide variety electric propulsion systems for marine use.
The type of system you have described is available (for a price) or... you can
build and experiment with your own. At 12V, the current required would be too much to provide horsepower in that range.

Volts x Amps = Watts. 742 watts = 1 horsepower.

Virtually all efficient systems of this type are inboard, an outboard drive is
woefully inefficient.

Here are some links to get you started:

The best electric marine drives- http://www.solomontechnologies.com/

See these links to get an idea of what is required to propel your vessel-
http://www.solomontechnologies.com/Solomon%20new/installations.html
http://host.wallstreetcity.com/wsc2/Autoflag.html?Button=Get+Story&DB=SQL&SID=230b9902&Symbol=SOLM


Many folks use a permanent magnet motor and regenerative controller to build
their own system-
http://www.evparts.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=&product_id=3555

Follow this thread at boat design.net, look for postings by Lock Hughes-
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=676

Some electric boat projects-
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/index9.html

Lots more eboat links-

Electric Boat Association of the Americas
http://www.electricboat.com

Solar Electric Boats
http://www.mindspring.com/~jimkerr1/sebref.htm

Electric Boat Conversion Info
http://www.mindspring.com/~jimkerr1/sebc&t.htm

Electric Boat Component Suppliers
http://www.mindspring.com/~jimkerr1/sebcomp.htm

Cloud EV - Electric Racing Boats
http://www.cloudelectric.com/generic.html?pid=53

Beckman Electric Drive Systems
http://www.steamboating.net/electric.htm

Duffy Electric Boats
http://www.duffyboats.com/products/products.html

ElectraCraft Electric Boats
http://www.electracraft.com

Electro Cruise Electric Boats
http://www.electrocruise.com

Black River Electric Boats
http://pages.intrstar.net/~brb

Aqua Watt Electric Motor Yachts
http://www.aquawatt.at/start.html

Electric Launch Company
http://www.electriclaunch.com

Ray Electric Outboards
http://www.rayeo.com

Roy LeMeur Olympia, WA

My Electric Vehicle Pages:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evpage.html

Informative Electric Vehicle Links:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evlinks.html

EV Parts/Gone Postal Photo Galleries:
http://www.casadelgato.com/RoyLemeur/page01.htm

Hello Bruce,

Thank you for your email, and your interest in the Campbell Sailer propeller.

Based on the information that you have provided, we would recommend CS3x18x12 for your installation. These are Campbell Sailer, three blade, 18" diameter, 12" pitch for a xx" shaft. This size is recommended to give you a good cruising rpm and still have reserve for head wind and seas. If you decide to use 2 blade props our recommendation would be a 18" pitch x 13" diameter.

The 3 blade prop is a more efficient and smoother running propeller. Because of the narrow blades there is less drag than a standard 2 blade prop. Our props are more efficient than a standard prop due to the cupped blades and leading edge foil. This design has less slip by 12-15% compared to the Michigan Wheel.

We would need to know the shaft diameter and rotation.

The 3 blade propellers would cost you US$585.00 each and the 2 blade props cost is $530.00 plus a shipping and handling fee of $45.00 to $50.00. It would take us 6-7 days to make these propellers and approximately 2-5 days for delivery depending on where you are. We accept checks by mail, or credit cards by mail, fax, or phone.

We would be pleased to discuss this recommendation with you, simply drop us a note and we will call.

The Campbell Sailer prop with the cupped blades and the leading edge foil is a
very efficient high thrust prop.
The blade design produces less slippage than any standard prop. It has more
thrust in forward and reverse which will spin the prop in the free wheeling mode to charge your batteries. Because of the blade design cavitation is greatly reduced. Between 400 to 1500RPM is ideal. It seems this is rather experimental and if necessary the pitch can be changed in either direction 3-4".
Smooth sailing, Norm Ross norm@westbynorth.com
_______________________________________________
Multihulls mailing list
Multihulls@steamradio.com
http://steamradio.com/mailman/listinfo/multihulls

mattotoole
12-21-2004, 01:04 PM
Brian, thanks for the links! Also, there's a Nigel Calder piece in the latest issue of Sail magazine, which I got yesterday. It's just one of those typical magazine blurbs, but he does say he'd go with diesel-electric if he were building a boat for himself today. This from an acknowledged guru on boat systems.

Two things I've been thinking about --

One, using battery only w/ regen for fast sailboats (multihulls, etc.), where one would only be motoring in and out of marinas. Some of these boats are fast and powerful enough that good regen is a given. I believe Salomon has equipped at least one trimaran like this.

Two, using NiMH batteries to cut the weight of the battery bank in half. The problem is getting an appropriate charging system built. Also, large NiMH batteries are expensive, and available in only a couple of sizes.

I have some skepticism about these systems too, but I haven't thought it all out yet. There are definately some questions I'd like to hear answered by Dave Tether.

On to reading your links over the next few days.

brian eiland
12-21-2004, 02:04 PM
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:12:36 AM EST
From: "Brian Rodwell" <b_rodwell@hotmail.com>
To: multihulls@steamradio.com
Subject: [MHml] electric propulsion

I was fairly excited about using electric propulsion for a cruising
multihull. I checked out what would be needed for a fairly long (70') but
relatively light (15ton) cruising catamaran. The approach seemed to stack
up:
one big diesel for the generator instead of the conventional 3 diesels
two fixed blade propellors that could be hoisted clear of the water

For most of my requirements (short duration manouvering) it looked fine.

Then I looked at one particular requirement - on some occasions I will want
to travel at 8 knots for 24 hours under electric motor only. Getting this
level of continuous power from batteries is not feasible. By my
calculations this dictated a generating capacilty of 50hp. Generators this
size are not cheap. I didn't keep my exact calculations but the all up
cost was greater than the conventional alternative.

I am sure the technology associated with electric propulsion is improving
faster than the technology for conventional propulsion. There will be a
point where, even for my requirements, electric propulsion will be more
investment cost effective. But not today accoriding to my calculations. I
am publishing this partly to share my thoughts but also to invite assertions
to the contrary. Please publish your views.

Alaskagator
01-21-2005, 06:32 PM
Dave and Mike,

Could you two please get together and agree on a conversion factor from HP to watts. Dave uses the standard 1 HP= 746 watts (6 HP = 31 amps @ 144VDC) whereas Mike is using 1HP= 864 watts (6 HP= 36 amps @ 144VDC). If one of you is using the incorrect factor, then how about correcting any posts that used the wrong numbers. Also, Dave in your example using a 50 HP engine that had 40 % losses, you say that a 30HP motor with 20 % losses is equivalent - I get 37.5 HP could you show your math to straighten me out. And last but not least, Dave could you tell me what effect regeneration has on boat speed. I would expect that the energy needed to turn the prop for regeneration would reduce speed ? Thanks guys for the stimulating discussion.

FAST FRED
01-22-2005, 06:50 AM
When using a tiny alternator belted of the shaft on a 28ft lwl 33ft cutter with a 20X 13 prop the boat would loose a Knot in most conditions , more in light air IF the prop was spinning.

The diameter of the Spinning prop is the same as a sea anchor of the same diameter in terms of loss of speed.

We are considerably OVERCANVASED (as its not a racing boat) so a larger boat (with less SA to disp) would slow even more .

Aint no free lunch!

FAST FRED

Alaskagator
01-26-2005, 12:00 PM
You might want to check out http://web.fischerpanda.de/w09_product_eng_154_product.html for electric drive information from another manufacturer.

BOATMIK
08-30-2005, 05:26 AM
I take it all this was a lot of hot then. There was a post around 7/2002 that said a product would be coming to market in a year. I haven't seen it. I guess we can file this with the 300mpg carburetors and other myths and legends. Maybe pipe dream is a better term. I haven't tried to research the patent given but suspect it is a hoax or doesn't generate enough energy to be useful.

I agree, the purpose of patents is to protect novel ideas. There is no requirement to prove that the idea works or is economically viable or anything practical.

You can patent any idea so long as it is not similar to something that is
1/ Currently well known
2/ something already patented.

Patents are a form of registration only. You pay some money to get the registration.

Then if you can show the idea works and is useful, then you have proof that you thought of it by a particular date - it is YOUR idea.

Note that if someone else can prove they thought of the idea first EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PATENT (eg through a dateable photo or other dateable evidence) then your patent will be proven invalid.

If you submit an idea that the patent office thinks is impractical they will warn you that they think it will not work, but if you insist they will be happy to take your money for your idea even if they think it won't work.

So to be really clear - HAVING A PATENT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE IDEA WORKS.

Boatmik
:?:

brian eiland
11-17-2005, 10:56 AM
In an effort to 'tie' some of these electric drive discussions together at times at various intersections,
I thought this subject matter might well be integrated in this subject thread as it appears as though there are some number of new 'Peripheral Driven Prop' arrangements coming on line and/or being researched. These concepts lend themselves well to the electric driven concept.

I posted this message on another forum today,

"Exciting New EPS Thruster (& Propulsion)"

The results of the Design at METS awards, announced at this morning's Breakfast Briefing, appear to prove that the wheel can be reinvented according to the Jury, who named the EPS Silent Thruster from Van der Velden Marine Systems of the Netherlands as the overall winner.

This product redefines the bow thruster, eliminating the usual arrangement of a central hub and gearbox. It instead uses exchangeable blades that are connected to an outer ring; this floats on ceramic bearings and is powered by an integral motor in the casing. The solution is elegant, well designed, and promises a number of advantages over conventional concepts
_________________________
....from their website...

In addition to fixed thrusters they are now working on retractable systems as well as
utilizing the concept of the EPS as a means of propulsion !!

I posted this as well, "Maybe the ceramic bearings aren't all of the technology that has allowed the emergence of this new propulser. It appears as though the preipheral drive power is an electric motor of some sort integrated into the outer ring. This would make sense with all of the new talk of diesel/electric systems."

....for more visit http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthr...5517#post65517 (http://http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthr...5517#post65517)

brian eiland
11-17-2005, 11:06 AM
And here's a rather interesting summation by Richard Kastelien under another thread:
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=65416&postcount=10

caribmon
11-17-2005, 11:32 AM
Electric Drives - Propulsion of the Future
(http://www.boatbuilding.com/article.php/ElectricDrivesFuturePropulsion)
by Richard Kastelein (http://www.avanteyachts.com)

In my opinion, electric powered boats have definite advantages. They are environmentally friendly, and very quiet; they run with only a whisper of sound. They are reef friendly, quiet in harbours, are cheaper to run and emit no pollutants.

So why are we still using fossil fuels and Marine diesel engines to provide propulsion for ocean going vessels?

Consider the typical internal-combustion engine. From the time a charge of fuel ignites in a cylinder, it has to push pistons, turn a crankshaft, turn a camshaft, open valves, pump water, pump oil, turn an alternator, and submit to reduction from a transmission to step the engine's thousands of revolutions down to something a propeller can use. By the time that's done, the engine's efficiency is somewhere below 25 percent. Also, diesel engines are rated at their maximum rpm - and on sailboats are rarely operated at that speed.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/solomon.gif (http://www.solomontechnologies.com/)

By contrast the the efficiency of Solomon Technologies (http://www.solomontechnologies.com/)' electric motor is a percentage in the low 90s. Here's how it works: When the system is switched on, DC current from the batteries enters an electronic controller, which produces expanding and contracting magnetic fields in the motor's stator windings. These magnetic fields attract and repel the fields from three permanent magnets, made from neo-dymium iron boron, that are attached to the rotor.

The controller electronically modulates the pulse width to increase or decrease speed. At 13 inches wide, the motor provides ample contact with the shaft to produce high torque at low rpm, enough for the motor to turn particularly large propellers. Fixed three-bladed 18/18 (diameter/pitch, in inches) propellers are typical in many of STI's installations. From the flowing electrons to the turning prop, the shaft passes through only two bearings and a stern gland - and no transmission, all of which accounts for its high efficiency. Furthermore, with the electric motor, the relationship between rpm and torque is linear: You can use it to turn the boat's prop at 1 rpm or 10 rpm or 50 rpm or 100 rpm. An internal-combustion engine needs to cross an rpm threshold before its propeller is put in gear; otherwise, it would stall.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/cat_port792sm.jpg (http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/cat_port792.jpg)

Probably the most amazing aspect of the STI's electric drive is its ability to produce electricity with a low-speed, high-output alternator driven by the prop shaft when a boat is under sails. In other words, the device is converting the prop's rotation into stored energy.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/panda.gif (http://www.whisperprop.de/E_1FEF76507EF4738DC1256E68003E64FC_E36441ECDF56C39E00256CC3003DC55C.html)

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/whispergen.gif
(http://www.whispergen.com/main/dcwhispergen/)
Other new developments in this area of Electric drives are being addressed with companies such as ASMO Marine (http://www.asmomarine.com/2005/asmo_uk/01.shtml) and Fischer-Panda (http://a) for utilising electric propulsion in production craft as well as Fast Electric Systems (http://www.feys.org/) and MW Line (http://www.mwline.ch/) in Switzerland for using straight electric drives in larger vessels.

For those that prefer a little more muscle in terms of power - and would prefer to have a dual propulsion system - the hybrid diesel-electric may be the answer. Whilst it's more environmentally friendly - straight electric is not practical for some commercial operators, powercats and motorsailors for a variety of reasons including availability of shorepower, horsepower issues, or lack of a backup system.

For those who prefer a dual system there's a couple of options.

One is using DC generator (http://www.glacierbay.com/ossa_powerlite.asp) input for electric drives. What's the difference in fueling up a DC generator with diesel to top up batteries in order to directly drive a propulsion system (http://www.whisperprop.de/E_1FEF76507EF4738DC1256E68003E64FC_4B98D8064B3A843400256CC3003DC55F.html) ... and just using a normal diesel engine? Lots.

There is a huge amount of savings in terms of fuel consumption as well as a much quieter generator as opposed to a chugging diesel. The emission differences are also significant. The downside is the size and weight of the battery banks needed and more money initially invested (which is eventually recouped through fuel savings). The DC Whispergen (http://www.whispergen.com/main/dcwhispergen/) is powered by a Stirling engine (http://www.whispergen.com/main/stirlingcycle/) that needs no oil, is almost completely silent... it operates unobtrusively with a noise level similar to a domestic air-conditioner.

Lightweight, compact and efficient, the WhisperGen converts over 90% of the fuel supplied into heat and electricity.

Then there's the Vetus option (http://www.vetus.com/elec_propulsion/hybrid_installation.cfm) - where electric propulsion is integrated into the diesel engine much like the hybrid cars one sees on the road today. The general idea is to use the diesel engine when you want the power and switch to electric propulsion when you want some peace and quiet. When motoring under diesel power, the electric motor, driven by the diesel engine, functions as a dynamo, charging the batteries for the next round of electric propulsion. It's a nifty system.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/vetus.gif (http://www.vetus.com/elec_propulsion/hybrid_installation.cfm)

This technology is more than viable... the US military is planning to shift over a significant proportion (http://mixedpower.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=240) of their vehicles to hybrid technology in the future. The Humvee will be replaced by the more efficient Shadow RST-V - which is the US Marine Corps' first 4x4 hybrid-electric tactical vehicle.

Richard Kastelein (sales@avanteyachts.com)
Avante Yachts LTDA (http://www.avanteyachts.com/)

brian eiland
11-17-2005, 06:36 PM
Glacier Bay has adopted a whole systems approach to this relatively new diesel-electric technology for small vessels. By systems I am referring to the production end of the system with in-house diesel/electric DC generators, then the output end with DC motors to power the craft, run air-con, refrigeration. and more to come.

This could mean not having to search around for different manufacturers of the various components and worrying about the electrical compatability of these various units from different sources. With time hopfully the field will open up with more suppliers and more compatability.

Meanwhile here are a couple of PDF files on Glacier Bay's stuff that aren't readily found on their site surprisingly. http://boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=61065&postcount=5 (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=61065&postcount=5)

These explain some of the basics.

caribmon
11-18-2005, 03:18 AM
Welcome to the future in powering the next generation of yachts
by Richard Kastelein (http://www.avanteyachts.com)

Red text is linked to websites as are logos.

There are a number of reasons why we could see the emergence of Fuel Cell Technology (FCT) affecting the marine industry - and interestingly enough - it will most likely be wedged in from from the consumer and government demographics, and not from industry. Amongst government pencil pushers there is an increasing concern for more legislation to reduce marine based harbour pollution. And since the marine industry has a history of being early adopters of new technologies (see GPS systems), it may be the low hanging fruit for the next generation of boatbuilders.

There is strong lobbying in the middle to high-end luxury cruising market to create electric only bodies of water - which is also a force.

Hydrogen: it’s the fuel of the future.

Not only does it reduces our dependency on fossil fuels - which are priced sky high and not looking to come down with huge increases in demand from China and India for oil - it also eliminates pollution and has within it the power to protect our planet’s air, oceans, and inland waters.

The revolutionary hydrogen-based power and propulsion systems being developed today will provide tomorrow’s yachtsmen with a clean-energy alternative that delivers benefits far beyond the reach of traditional internal combustion engines.

But, like any new technology that relies on a large distribution network, fuel cells have always been plagued with the “where do I fuel up?” factor and pricing.

This problem may very well be conquered in the near future as crude prices continue to rise and boaters are forced to alternatives - therefore marine 'gas stations' will start stocking hydrogen, methanol, alcohol and other choices.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/haveblue.gif (http://www.haveblue.com/)

HaveBlue (USA), are working not only on fuel cells but also employing an onboard hydrogen production system for power provision when the tanks are empty.

This hydrogen comes from either shore based power, or onboard wind / solar system. So far their prototype, XV1 sailboat demonstrator, (http://www.haveblue.com/xv1/index.htm) has been launched and went through extensive trials during 2005. The current 2005 cost of the fuel cell and fuel production system is, according to HaveBlue, US$300,000 - $500,000, making it currently impractical for most purposes... but it is predicted to be substantially be reduced over the next six years. Commercial models are expected in 2006. HaveBlue’s current fuel cell is a Hydrogenics 10kW HyPM PEM unit from Ovonic Hydrogen (http://www.ovonic-hydrogen.com/home/home.htm) .


http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/max.gif (http://www.max-power.com/fuelcell/index.html)

Marine Fuel Cells (MFC) from Max Power (http://www.max-power.com/fuelcell/index.html) are in interesting new addition to the market. They are popular in Germany and distributed by the all-powerful Plastimo marine network. They are ecologically friendly and certainly have the capacity to cut into the fossil fuel trade. And more importantly, the fuel cartridges are being distributed through Plastimo's networks and are expected to soon be available at most marine petrol stations in the near future - most likely in Europe.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/cell.jpg

It’s still a bit pricey at US$10 per day (a cartridge costs US$30.00 and lasts three days) to run the MFG - it is a competitive player and provides clean power. Having said that, the rising cost of fuel (petrol is over US$6 a gallon in the Netherlands) will certainly add to the attraction of the MFC.

There are no moving parts and its byproduct is simply a small quantity of carbon dioxide, a bit of pure water & some heat. And Unlike other types of fuel cells (like generic Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cells) which require pure hydrogen as a fuel, methanol-based fuel cells enable this electrochemical process without the need to reform complex hydrocarbon fuel molecules (including methanol) into pure hydrogen.

What is a MFC you ask?

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/fuelcell.jpg

An MFC is a device that converts the chemical energy of a methanol and an oxidant (air or oxygen) into electricity. In principle, a fuel cell operates like a battery. However, unlike a battery however, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce electricity and heat as long as methanol and an oxidizer are supplied.

An MFC can supply power for all 12v on board equipment providing power while in an idyllic anchorage or on a long passage in total silence for the ever-increasing list of 12v equipment; electronics, refrigerators, microwaves, inverters and even water makers all of which are being fitted to sailing and power yachts.

The MFC can deliver 100 amps per day of clean 12v DC power. The unit is compact and easy to use… and installation is rapid with no need for insulation, wet exhausts or cooling water inlets.

“But 100 amps per day isn't 2 kilowatts!!”

You’re right it is not, it's 50 watts, but your 2 kilowatts genset is only running for 2 hours every 24 hours at the most. So that's already only 166 watts in 24 hour terms. Then add to that the 220v to 12v battery charger efficiency (about 50%) further reduces that to 83 watts in 12v fuel cell terms. Then you have the charge efficiency to include in your calculation.

Capable of running 24 hours a day, the fuel cell continually supplies power as needed. This "constant power" approach reduces the charge/discharge cycles imposed on house batteries, thereby significantly increasing their service life. Its power output therefore needs to be considered over a 24 hour period. This is a revolution in yacht power management as up until now yachts needed to store power generated in a short period for use over the day.

Power from the main engine, a generator, or shore power were the only dependable power source a yacht had. None of these could run 24 hours day and all had a high nuisance factor. A fuel cell is producing power constantly 24 hours a day and the yacht is consuming power 24 hours a day. This means that your battery bank is only there to supply, momentary surges in power consumption & stock excess fuel cell power for future momentary surges. In a word - you never really discharge your batteries, they are constantly held at between 70-85 per cent of their full charge. Most of the time equipment such as the fridge and electronics or autopilot are in effect being powered directly through the fuel cell.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/ballard.gif (http://www.ballard.com/be_a_customer/power_generation/fuel_cell_powergen#)

MTU and Ballard were first to develop and build a yacht worldwide (http://www.mtu-friedrichshafen.com/en/ps/ps_031022_1.htm#p1) with a certified (German Lloyd) fuel cell propulsion system. "No 1", as the boat has been called, is completely emission and noise-free and the nautical propulsion system is completely environmentally friendly. This is particularly significant for Lake Constance, where the boat is based as its the largest drinking water reservoir in Europe and supplies water to millions of people.

For those that are serious about utilising fuel cell technology in a big way on larger yachts - Ballard of British Columbia (http://www.ballard.com/be_a_customer/power_generation/fuel_cell_powergen#) are global leaders in proving larger scale solutions (cars, trucks and busses) starting at one KW. Ballard also supplies the fuel cell modules for the Mercedes Benz A-Class fuel cell vehicles. In terms of integrating hydrogen fuel cells as mean of power for a boat - Ballard already has the solution. See the Ballard presentation by clicking here. (http://www.ballard.com/resources/animations/animations/FuelCellLong/index.html)


Other links...

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/hydrogenics.gif (http://www.hydrogenics.com/products_modules_hypm10.asp)

The Hydrogenics HyPM fuel cell power (http://www.hydrogenics.com/products_modules_hypm10.asp) module establishes the benchmark in commercialized multi-kilowatt fuel cell power modules. The versatile HyPM has been recognized as a superior packaged fuel cell power solution by world leading Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and system integrators and is well-suited for today's early adopting markets over a wide range of applications.

HyPM's versatility is highlighted by its outstanding performance either as a standalone power generator or as a primary component in a hybrid configuration when combined with electrical storage devices such as batteries or ultracapacitors.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/mill.gif (http://www.millenniumcell.com/fw/main/Overview-27.html)

Millennium Cell (http://www.millenniumcell.com/fw/main/Home-1.html) specialised in hydrogen battery technology for portable devices - in both the military and industrial sectors. Portable electronic devices used in the military, medical, industrial and consumer markets all require a better battery. To meet this challenge, Millennium Cell is developing hydrogen battery technology in partnership with corporate and government entities. Based in Eatontown, New Jersey, Millennium Cell employs 40 people, primarily in technology development.


http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/plug.gif

I think a marine adaptation of Plug Power's GenSys™ (http://www.plugpower.com/products/prime.cfm) would be very interesting... it's combined heat and power fuel cell systems are designed to generate continuous, clean, efficient and reliable power on-site. Operating in parallel with the normal land-based grid, GenSys systems convert readily available fuels into electricity and heat for stationary applications.

http://www.avanteyachts.com/joomla/images/fct_logo.gif (http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/IndDirectListOrgByName/0,1659,,00.html)

Every link you will ever need for fuel cell technology is likely found by clicking here (http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/IndDirectListOrgByName/0,1659,,00.html) or on the Fuel Cell Today logo above.

So what is a fuel cell anyway?

A ‘Fuel Cell’ is a device that converts the chemical energy of a fuel (hydrogen, natural gas, methanol, gasoline, etc.) and an oxidant (air or oxygen) into electricity.

In principle, a fuel cell operates like a battery. Unlike a battery however, a fuel cell does not run down or require recharging. It will produce electricity and heat as long as fuel and an oxidizer are supplied.

Both batteries and fuel cells are electrochemical devices. As such both have a positively charged anode and a negatively charged cathode and an ion-conducting material called an electrolyte. Fuel cells are classified by their electrolyte material. Electrochemical devices generate electricity without combustion of the fuel and oxidizer, as opposed to what occurs with traditional methods of electricity generation.

Fuel cell construction generally consists of a fuel electrode (anode) and an oxidant electrode (cathode) separated by an ion-conducting membrane. Oxygen passes over one electrode, and hydrogen over the other, generating electricity, water and heat. Fuel cells chemically combine the molecules of a fuel and oxidizer without burning or having to dispense with the inefficiencies and pollution of traditional combustion.

Fuel Cell Functionality

Fuel cells generate electricity from a simple electrochemical reaction in which an oxidizer, typically oxygen from air, and a fuel, typically hydrogen, combine to form a product, which is water for the typical fuel cell. Oxygen (air) continuously passes over the cathode and hydrogen passes over the anode to generate electricity, by-product heat and water. The fuel cell itself has no moving parts – making it a quiet and reliable source of power.

Fuel Cells vs. Traditional Electricity Methods

In traditional methods of generating electricity, the fuel and air are burned, generating a high-temperature gas. In the case of a coal-burning power plant, heat is transferred from this hot gas to high pressure liquid water that is boiled. In the case of a gasoline, diesel or gas turbine engine, the hot gas itself is at high pressure. The high-pressure steam, or hot gas, is expanded in a mechanical device (e.g., cylinder, turbine) and ultimately turns an electrical generator.

In a fuel cell, the same basic chemical reactions occur, but generate electricity directly as an electrochemical device and therefore, never goes through the step of being a high-temperature gas through normal burning. This direct conversion of chemical energy to electrical energy is more efficient and generates much less pollutants than traditional methods that rely on combustion.

Which is Better?

As mentioned above, the direct conversion of fuel and air to electricity is much more efficient than internal combustion engines and other methods of generating electricity. Therefore, fuel cells can generate more electricity from the same amount of fuel.

Furthermore, by skipping the combustion process that occurs in traditional power-generating methods, the generation of pollutants during the combustion process is avoided. Some of the pollutants that are significantly lower for fuel cells are oxides of nitrogen and unburned hydrocarbons, (which together cause ground-level ozone), and carbon monoxide (a poisonous gas).

Richard Kastelein (sales@avanteyachts.com)
Avante Yachts LTDA (http://www.avanteyachts.com)

yipster
11-18-2005, 05:56 AM
H2O
the fuel of the future
and all that say its not available, hard to store and transport or to expensive, i'll answer:
look at the sun

yipster
11-20-2005, 04:25 PM
Thanks for the emerging technology’s breakdown Richard, well sorted out interesting stuff now or soon available. Let me explain my thoughts a little: The ultimate source for hydrogen is water and only when H is burned with O we can speak of a truly clean reaction back to H2O. While trying to rebuild a 220v digital TV receiver to12v I was sputtering why analog senders are taken out of the sky in favour of digitally jammed signals we can only decode against payment I was thinking of hydrogen I was reading about again. I don’t think it matters much if we use power balls or cartridges, capsules, litres or gallons, oxide pellets or other commercial tricks. Point is we want energy, lots of it and as cheap as possible. I think it would make much more sense to have a boat sail on hydrogen than a city bus since more than half the price of hydrogen today is in transport and storage. I know that today’s lowest cost hydrogen is a by product of chemical factory’s but self made hydrogen is already almost as cheap as gas at the pump nowadays. (assuming 4 times more energy in hydrogen than regular) In my imagination a boat should be able to produce and use H and O autonomously in a closed circle where the engine works on both. Ok maybe a little extra hybrid energy. Often I wonder if such a system isn’t already available, to me it seems so easy, H is the simplest atom around, a bit of electron manipulation must be within our grasp. I was cleaning out my book shelf’s and came across Disney’s 1959 “our frend the atom” I opened and started reading…

Why is the atom so big? Rutherford discovered in 1911 the positive charged atom ( proton, atom weight 1 ) before that time negative electrons already were measured to be 2000 times lighter. In those days of uranium and radium, hydrogen did not get much attention. One positive proton and one negative electron together is Hydrogen, the basic and simplest atom. If these two H atom parts were as big as marbles and placed 50 meters apart the proton and electron of one hydrogen atom would be attracted to each other by a forge of 400 million tons. Niels Bohr and Einstein quarrelled over this model. Nature keeps the two separated by gravity. When scaled back from marbles to reality forges are smaller also but still incredible big. Bohr calculated the negative electron has to rotate the positive proton at least 7000 billion times a sec to stay in orbit and in this fast flight the electron forms a peel. In a way like the fast turning blades of a prop form a disk. Bohr’s model solved the big volume of the atom that actually consist of two tiny parts. It also explains how Rutherfords fast alpha particles could enter the atom trough its peel, like shooting bullets trough a proppellor. When 2 H atoms collide the protons never toutch. The electron(s) makes the atom behave like a hard small bal. H is the simplest and most common atom and when atoms join other atoms they form a molecule trading electrons. Bohr found most space empty, if all the empty space from a human body could be removed the actual particles would shrink to the size of a sand grain. Or 5000 battleships and aircraft carriers can shrink to the size of a tennis bal while weight would remain, its scary to imagine such an object.. and on and on goes the book to atomic airplanes and the last wish of the fisherman that found the genie in the bottle that granted him tree wishes, his last wish was peace and energy because only than the atom will truly be our frend the book ends.

I got other books but reading this simple old story now in the bin made me really wonder again what is so difficult…

D'ARTOIS
11-20-2005, 06:28 PM
The world is modelled around physical laws. A few have been circumvented whilst staing in full effect - of course the search for another powersource will continue - even against the policies of the general oilindustry and politicians.

I was ever intrigued by the Wankel engine (Dr Felix Wankel was the only one who got rich of it) till I found out that although the NSU RO80 was the most comfortable car I ever had, had a short lived engine, using a lot of fuel and worn out after 30.000 kms.

New technologies won't come so quick anymore: the Politicians ( the enemy of mankind) will control everything that gives the human being free mobility (our last resort: sailing boats) even that, bit by bit is taken down: Mare Librum, created by the Dutchman Hugo de Groot in the 17th century, will not excist anymore within a decade to go.

So even if one finds out something to overcome the H2O problems, the politicians will find their way to block any advantage the citoyen might have.

Meanwhile, on our estate in France (my sister to be precise) the tractors and generators are already running on biodiesel. It is not legal but the farmers don't care anymore.

I sincerely hope that someone comes with a solution. I have sported the NSU Wankel and a bit later the Citroen Birotor Engine (only 5000 build) also from Dr Felix - the problem might be that we are looking within the boundaries of the piston engine - the answer might not be there......

cyclops
11-20-2005, 07:27 PM
Turbines do not have a wide speed / torque range. Parts are outrageous in cost. Most practical types have a piston somewhere.

JonathanCole
11-20-2005, 10:19 PM
Yipster,

We already have most of it solved.

The energy utilized by humans up to now has mostly been stored as the result of extremely long duration geological processes (petroleum, coal, uranium). All you have to do is extract it from the earth and you have a fuel in a conveniently portable form of storage. It is not hard to make hydrogen, but it is more problematic to store it. The best thing would be if you could store it as water and create hydrogen on demand as you need it. But doing that requires a lot of energy which you would have to store on board the vessel/vehicle. I guess the point I am trying to make is that STORAGE is the difficult part. But many people are working on it and some very promising technologies are prototyped and in development. Many are nanochemical engineering based systems for storing and releasing hydrogen sufficiently densely to compete with liquid fuels. And as Sean says, it must be cost-effective. For example:
A different class

Published: 18 November 2005 03:00 PM
Industry Channel: Chemical & Process (http://83.219.63.174/Channels/Default.aspx?liChannelID=3&liSlotID=113)
Source: The Engineer Online


Using building blocks that make up ordinary plastics, but putting them together in a whole new way, University of Michigan (http://www.umich.edu/)researchers have created a class of lightweight, rigid polymers they predict will be useful for storing hydrogen fuel. The work is described in the current issue of the journal Science.

The trick to making the new materials, called covalent organic frameworks (COFs), was coaxing them to assume predictable crystal structures, something that never had been done with rigid plastics.
"Normally, rigid plastics are synthesised by rapid reactions that randomly cross-link polymers," said postdoctoral fellow Adrien Côté, who is first author on the Science paper. "Just as in anything you might do, if you do it really fast, it can get disorganised." For that reason, the exact internal structures of such materials are poorly understood, making it difficult to predict their properties. But Côté and colleagues tweaked reaction conditions to slow down the process, allowing the materials to crystallise in an organised fashion instead of assembling helter skelter.
As a result, the researchers can use X-ray crystallography to determine the structure of each type of COF they create and, using that information, quickly assess its properties.
"Once we know the structure and properties, our methodology allows us to go back and modify the COF, making it perform better or tailoring it for different applications," said Côté.
Côté collaborated on the work with Omar Yaghi, who is the Robert W. Parry Collegiate Professor of Chemistry at U-M. Over the past 15 years, Yaghi has taken a similar approach to producing materials called metal-organic frameworks (MOFs).
On the molecular level, MOFs are scaffolds made up of metal hubs linked together with struts of organic compounds. By carefully choosing and modifying the chemical components used as hubs and struts, Yaghi and his team have been able to define the angles at which they connect and design materials with the properties they want.
Like MOFs, COFs can be made highly porous to increase their storage capacity. But unlike MOFs, COFs contain no metals. Instead, they're made up of light elements – hydrogen, boron, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen – that form strong links (covalent bonds) with one another.
"Using light elements allows you to generate lightweight materials," said Côté. "That's very important for hydrogen fuel storage, because the lighter the material, the more economical it is to transport around in a vehicle. The strong covalent bonds also make COFs very robust materials."
Although the main thrust of the current research is creating materials for gas storage in fuel cells, Côté, Yaghi and colleagues also are exploring variations of COFs that might be suitable for use in electronic devices or catalytic applications.
"This is the first step to what we think is going to be a very large and useful class of materials," Côté said.
http://83.219.63.174/assets/getAsset.aspx?liAssetID=20531
Crystalline sheets produced in covalent organic frameworks (COFs)


http://83.219.63.174/Articles/292805/A+different+class.htm

Or you can make something with solar energy, like zinc powder that you can put in water to make hydrogen. Like what the Europeans and Israelis are working on:
http://www.physorg.com/news5653.html


Or the Dane's latest approach of storing ammonia in salt tablets which will release hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.htm


The hydrogen economy will be here soon if the evil empire (and I don't mean the soviet union) doesn't suppress the work that is leading us to the solution.

Deering
11-20-2005, 10:38 PM
We're currently using fossil fuels at a rate 100,000 times faster then they're being produced. That is how one defines the term "unsustainable".

trouty
11-21-2005, 08:11 AM
The world is modelled around physical laws. A few have been circumvented whilst staing in full effect - of course the search for another powersource will continue - even against the policies of the general oilindustry and politicians.

I wouldn't be so sure!

[quote]Pipelineistan, Part 1: The Rules of the Game
By Pepe Escobar
Asia Times
1-28-2
War against terrorism? Not really. Reminder: it's all about oil.

A quick look at the map is all it takes. It's no coincidence that the map of terror in the Middle East and Central Asia is practically interchangeable with the map of oil. There's Infinite Justice, Enduring Freedom - and Everlasting Profits to be made: not only by the American industrial-military complex, but especially by American and European oil giants.

Where is the realm these days of former US secretary of state James Baker, former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, former White House chief of staff John Sununu and former defense secretary and current Invisible Man Dick Cheney? They are all happily dreaming of, and working for, the establishment of Pipelineistan.

Pipelineistan is the golden future: a paradise of opportunity in the form of US$5 trillion of oil and gas in the Caspian basin and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. In Washington's global petrostrategy, this is supposed to be the end of America's oil dependence on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). This is of course the heart of the matter in the New Great Game - compared to which the original 19th-century Great Game between czarist Russia and the British Empire was a childish tin soldier's diversion.

Afghanistan itself has some natural gas in the north of the country, near Turkmenistan. But above all it is ultra-strategic: positioned between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, between Turkmenistan and the avid markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan. Afghanistan is at the core of Pipelineistan.

The Caspian states hold at least 200 billion barrels of oil, and Central Asia has 6.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas just begging to be exploited. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are two major producers: Turkmenistan is nothing less than a "gas republic". Apart from oil and gas there's copper, coal, tungsten, zinc, iron, uranium, gold.

The only export routes, for the moment, are through Russia. So most of the game consists of building alternative pipelines to Turkey and Western Europe, and to the east toward the Asian markets. India will be a key player. India, Iran, Russia and Israel are all planning to supply oil and gas to South and Southeast Asia through India.

It's enlightening to note that all countries or regions which happen to be an impediment to Pipelineistan routes towards the West have been subjected either to a direct interference or to all-out war: Chechnya, Georgia, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia and Macedonia. To the east, the key problems are the Uighurs of China's far-western Xinjiang and, until recently, Afghanistan.

More, much more than Afghanistan is involved. What's at stake is Eurasia. Zbigniew Brzezinski, stellar hawk and Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, used to wax lyrical on Eurasia: "Seventy-five percent of the world population, most of its material riches, 60 percent of the world's GNP, 75 percent of sources of energy, and behind the US, the six most prosperous economies and the six largest military budgets." Brzezinski is on record stressing that the US would have to make sure "no other power would take possession of this geopolitical space".

The numbers are clear. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, in 2001 America imported an average of 9.1 million barrels per day - over 60 percent of its crude oil needs. In 2020, the country is projected to require almost 26 million barrels per day in imports. So Pipelineistan, in the Caucasus and in Central Asia - for the West and Japan but especially for America itself - cannot but be the strategic-military No 1 goal.

In this geostrategic grand design, the Taliban were the proverbial fly in the ointment. The Afghan War was decided long before September 11. September 11 merely precipitated events. Plans to destroy the Taliban had been the subject of international diplomatic and not-so-diplomatic discussions for months before September 11. There was a crucial meeting in Geneva in May 2001 between US State Department, Iranian, German and Italian officials, where the main topic was a strategy to topple the Taliban and replace the theocracy with a "broad-based government". The topic was raised again in full force at the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001 when India - an observer at the summit - also contributed its own plans.

Nor concidentally, Pipelineistan was the central topic in secret negotiations in a Berlin hotel a few days after the G-8 summit, between American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials. And Pakistani high officials, on condition of anonymity, have extensively described a plan set up by the end of July 2001 by American advisers, consisting of military strikes against the Taliban from bases in Tajikistan, to be launched before mid-October.

More recently, while most of the planet that has access to news was distracted by New Year's Eve celebrations, and only nine days after Hamid Karzai's interim government took power in Kabul, Bush II appointed his special envoy to Afghanistan. It comes as no surprise he is Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad - a former aide to the Californian energy giant UNOCAL. Khalilzad wasted no time in boarding the first flight to Central Asia. The Bush II team now does not even try to disguise that the whole game is about oil. The so-called brand-new American "Afghan policy" is being conducted by people intimately connected to oil industry interests in Central Asia.

In 1997, UNOCAL led an international consortium - Centgas - that reached a memorandum of understanding to build a $2 billion, 1,275-kilometer-long, 1.5-meter-wide natural-gas pipeline from Dauletabad in southern Turkmenistan to Karachi in Pakistan, via the Afghan cities of Herat and Kandahar, crossing into Pakistan near Quetta. A $600 million extension to India was also being considered. The dealings with the Taliban were facilitated by the Clinton administration and the Pakistani Inter Services Agency (ISI). But the civil war in Afghanistan would simply not go away. UNOCAL had to pull out.

American energy conglomerates, through the American Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC), are now resuscitating this and other projects. Already last October, the UNOCAL-led project was discussed in Islamabad between Pakistani Petroleum Minister Usman Aminuddin and American Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain. The exuberant official statement reads: "The pipeline opens up new avenues of multi-dimensional regional cooperation, particularly in view of the recent geopolitical developments in the region."

But there are practical problems with these "new avenues". Specialists at the James Baker (who else?) Institute in Texas stress that the main beneficiaries would be Turkmenistan and Afghanistan - which in itself is not a bad idea: Afghanistan would make a little money and perhaps be a little more stable. As far as the gas is concerned - liquefied and exported from Karachi - it would be too expensive compared with gas from the Middle East.

UNOCAL also has a project to build the so-called Central Asian Oil Pipeline, almost 1,700km long, linking Chardzhou in Turkmenistan to Russian's existing Siberian oil pipelines and also to the Pakistani Arabian Sea coast. This pipeline will carry 1 million barrels of oil a day from different areas of former Soviet republics, and it will run parallel to the gas pipeline route through Afghanistan.

Khalilzad is a very interesting character indeed. He was always a huge Taliban supporter. Four years ago, he wrote in the Washington Post that "the Taliban does not practice the anti-US style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran". Khalilzad only abandoned the Taliban after Bill Clinton fired 58 cruise missiles into Afghanistan in August 1998, in retaliation for the alleged involvement of Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Only one day after the attack, UNOCAL put Centgas on hold - and two months later abandoned plans for the trans-Afghan pipeline.

A little more than a year ago, Khalilzad was reincarnated in print in The Washington Quarterly, now stressing his four mains reason to ged rid of the Taliban regime as soon as possible: Osama bin Laden, opium trafficking, oppression of the Afghan people and, last but not least, oil.

Afghan diaspora sources in Paris acidly comment that Khalilzad will be regarded as nothing less than a traitor by fiercely proud and independent Afghans. Born in Mazar-i-Sharif in 1951, he is part of the Afghan ruling elite. His father was an aide to King Zahir Shah. Khalilzad was studying at the notoriously conservative University of Chicago when Afghanistan was invaded by the Red Army in December 1979.

Later he became an American citizen and a special adviser to the State Department during the Reagan years. He was a strident lobbyist for more US military aid to the mujahedeen during the anti-USSR jihad - campaigning for widespread distribution of Stinger missiles.

Khalilzad was undersecretary of defense for Bush I, during the war against Iraq. After a stint at the Rand Corp think tank, he headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defense Department and advised Donald Rumsfeld. But he was not rewarded with any promotions. The required Senate confirmation would raise extremely uncomfortable questions about his role as UNOCAL adviser and staunch Taliban defender. He was assigned instead to the National Security Council - no Senate confirmation required - where he reports to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Rice herself is a former oil-company consultant. During Bush I, from 1989-92, she was on the board of directors of Chevron, and was its main expert on Kazakhstan. Chevron has invested more than $20 billion in Kazakhstan alone. As for The Invisible Man, Vice President Dick Cheney, he was for five years a director of Halliburton, one of the top companies rendering service to the oil industry: present in 130 countries, 100,000 employees, turnover of almost $20 billion, a member of the Fortune 400. Cheney did a lot of business with the murderous Myanmar dictatorship, and invested heavily in Nigeria.

Both Cheney and Bush II spent an important part of their careers in Arbusto, a small company directed by Cheney. Arbusto never made money, but was handsomely supported by very wealthy Saudis. Among the shareholders there was one James Bath, very cozy with Bush I and chief money launderer for shady Gulf superstars, including one Salem bin Laden, one of the 17 brothers of Osama bin Laden.

All American secretaries of state since World War II have been connected with the oil industry - except two: one of them is Colin Powell, but in his case the president, vice president and national security adviser are all part of the oil industry anyway.

So everybody in the ruling plutocracy knows the rules of the ruthless game: Central Asia is crucial to Washington's worldwide petro-strategy. So is a "friendly" government in Afghanistan - now led by the always impeccably dressed and fluent English speaker Hamid Karzai. It does not matter that independent minds from Central Asia in exile in Europe unanimously ridicule Karzai as nothing else than a Taliban himself, and his Northern Alliance ministers as a bunch of crooks.

As for US corporate-controlled media - from TV networks to daily newspapers - they just exercise self-censorship and remain mute about all of these connections.

[url]http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html[/url]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pipelineistan, Part 2 - The Games Nations Play
By Pepe Escobar
Asia Times
1-28-2

Two months ago, the White House was deliriously happy with the official opening of the first new pipeline of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium - a joint venture including Russia, Kazakhstan, Oman, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil and a bunch of other minor players.

This $2.65 billion pipeline links the enormous Tengiz oilfield in northwestern Kazakhstan to the Russian port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea: from there, the sky - ie the world market - is the limit. Bush II, according to the White House, is developing "a network of multiple Caspian pipelines that also include the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Supsa, and Baku-Novorossiyisk oil pipelines, and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline". So one of the key nodes in the American petrostrategy is composed by Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.

The pipeline consortium for Baku-Ceyhan, led by British Petroleum, is represented by the law firm Baker & Botts. The principal attorney is none other than Texan superstar James Baker - secretary of state under Bush I and chief spokesman for the Bush II 2000 campaign when all gloves were off to shut down the Florida vote recount.

Texas-based, scandal-prone Enron, together with Amoco, Chevron, Mobil, UNOCAL and British Petroleum, were all spending billions of dollars to pump the reserves of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Baker, Scowcroft, Sununu and Cheney have all closed major deals directly and indirectly on behalf of the oil companies. But now the Enron scandal has just exploded right in the face of the oil industry - and Bush II's administration. It will be very enlightening to see what the American tradition of investigative journalism will make of all this.

Enron once had a market value of $70 billion. It filed for bankruptcy in December 2001 after admitting it ovestated its profits by almost $600 million. Paul Krugman wrote that "Enron helped Dick Cheney devise an energy plan that certainly looks as if it was written by and for the companies that advised his task force". The Enron big-time crooks - close pals of Cheney and Bush II - dwarf any Asian "crony capitalists" Americans were carping about before and after the Asian financial crisis.

There's no shortage of crooks in the oil industry. Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have intimate relations with Israeli military intelligence. A so-called "former" Israeli intelligence agent, Yousef Maiman, president of the Mehrav Group of Israel, is nothing less than "Special Ambassador", official negotiatior and even policymaker responsible for developing the enormous energy resources of Turkmenistan.

Maiman is a citizen of the gas republic by presidential decree - signed by the Turkmenbashi himself, the fabulously megalomaniac Saparmurad Niazov, former member of the Soviet Politburo. Maiman, according to the Wall Street Journal, is actively involved in advancing the "geopolitical goals of both the US and Israel" in Central Asia. He certainly does not beat around the bush: "Controlling the transport route is controlling the product." Nobody knows where Mehrav's money comes from.

Mehrav's planned pipelines bypass both Iran and Russia. But after the conquest of Afghanistan, oil sources in Singapore say Mehrav may consider dealing with Iran. It's all to do with the importance of the Turkish market. Russia and Turkmenistan are fiercely competing to conquer the Turkish gas market. Considering the strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel, the Israeli game remains preventing Turkish strategic dependence on Iran. Turkey is a NATO member and a key US ally. The US and Britain routinely strike against Iraq from Turkish bases - from which they patrol the unillateraly-declared Iraqi "no-fly zones". These "no-fly zones" are obviously not sanctioned by the UN.

Mehrav is also involved in a murderous project to reduce the flow of water to Iraq by diverting water from the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers to southeastern Turkey. And Magal Security Systems, an Israeli company, is also involved with Turkey: it will provide security for the 2,000 km-long oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

Crook-infested Enron - the biggest donor to the Bush campaign of 2000 - was ubiquitious: it conducted the feasibility study for the $2.5 billion trans-Caspian pipeline being built under a joint venture signed almost three years ago between Turkmenistan and Bechtel and General Electric. The go-between in the deal was none other than the Mehrav Group. Chairman Maiman spent a fortune hiring the Washington lobbying firm Cassidy and Associates to seduce official Washington with the trans-Caspian pipeline project.

The intrincate relationship between Israel, Turkey and the US means that as much as the trans-Caspian pipeline, the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline is also absolutely crucial. It could be extended to bring oil directly to thirsty Israel. During the Clinton years, oil giants were under tremendous pressure to build East-West pipelines. But all of them preferred to build North-South pipelines - much cheaper, but with the inconvenience of crossing Iran, an absolute anathema for Washington.

Russia already has a contract with Turkmenistan to purchase 30 billion cubic meters of gas a year. This represents a big blow to the US field of dreams, the trans-Caspian gas pipeline. This also means that Russia will never let go of its sphere of influence without a tremendous fight. The Central Asian republics are on its borders, Russia has dominated them for centuries and they are home to millions of Russians. Russian is still the language they all use to do business with each other.

Thanks to master political chess player Vladimir Putin, Russia is now on the cosiest terms possible with Washington - and US-Iran antipathy is apparently receding. Russia may eventually become a partner in at least some of Washington's petrostrategy games in Central Asia - like the Caspian Pipeline Consortium. The regional map also reveals that Iran, besides holding important gas reserves, offers the best direct access from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, where oil and gas can be quickly exported to Asian markets.

Iran assumes, not entirely without reason, that it is the rightful guardian of Central Asia because of centuries of ethnic, historical, linguistic and religious ties. And Iran is very conscious that American military links and now physical presence in Central Asia are part of a strategy to encircle it. But even amid so many geopolitical and ideological pitfalls, the fact remains that as long as the US is militarily involved in Afghanistan, there will be some sort of US-Iranian diplomatic engagement.

Under the control of the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), pipelines from Central Asia will also reach China's Xinjiang. Oil sources in Singapore stress that this will certainly spell a slump for the sea routes across the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Washington is more than aware through its think tanks of the consequences: an extremely likely strategic realignment between China, Japan and Korea.

The Chinese have their sights on only one terrifying prospect: the encirclement of China by the US. UNOCAL is dreaming about profits. Washington is thinking about the robust Chinese economy. Whatever "war against terror" distractions, China remains the key strategic competitor to the US in the 21st century. With Afghanistan in the bag, UNOCAL dreams of monster profits in the Asian market - much higher than in Europe - while Washington closely monitors the Chinese economy: growth of 8 percent in 2000, 7 percent in 2001, and needing all the oil and gas it can get. Chinese strategists are working around the clock to develop local forms of energy production.

What happens next will be closely linked to the deliberations of the Shanghai Five, now Shanghai Six, or more burocratically, the Shangahi Cooperation Organization (SCO): China and Russia, plus four Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Takijistan and Uzbekistan). Manouvering with extreme care, China is using the SCO to align Russia economically and politically towards China and northeast Asia. At the same time, Russia is using the SCO to maintain its traditional hegemony in Central Asia. The name of the game for solidifying the alliance is Russian export of its enormous reserves of oil and gas.

Since the NATO war against Yugoslavia and the de facto occupation of Kosovo - where America built its largest military base since the Vietnam War - China and Russia have their minds set on Chechnya and Muslim Xinjiang. For the moment, at least, America has absolutely no way of interfering in these domestic problems, since China and especially Russia are endorsing the war against terrorism.

The Taliban were never a target in the "war against terrorism". They were just a scapegoat - rather, a horde of medieval warrior scapegoats who simply did not fulfill their contract: to insert Aghanistan into Pipelineistan. All the regional players now know America is in Central Asia to stay, as Washington itself has been stridently repeating these last few weeks, and it will be influencing or disturbing the economy and geopolitics of the region. The wider world is absolutely oblivious to these real stakes in the New Great Game.

The US at the time of the Gulf War did not show any interest in replacing "Satan" Hussein. That would seriously compromise the American design to establish bases on the Arabian peninsula on the convenient pretext of helping poor Arab sheikhs against the Iraqi Evil Monster. More than a decade later, Satan Hussein is still there, Bush I is now Bush II, and assorted Pentagon hawks are still fuming, trying to fabricate any excuse to blow Saddam back to Mesopotamian ashes. But Saddam will not be attacked, because Saddam is the ultimate reason for American military bases in the Gulf - a splendid affair because on top of it all it is a free ride, the expenses being paid by the ultra-flush sheikdoms. Now, after the (also unfinished) New Afghan War, American forces are already establishing themselves in Central and South Asia to once again "protect the interests of the free world".

It is never enough to remember that after the end of the communist regime in Afghanistan, the American strategy was to deliberately let Islamic extremism go wild - a perfect way to scare the unstable regimes in the Central Asian neo-republics. Islamic fundamentalism has always been a key card in the American strategic design since the Cold War days when the CIA subcontracted to the Pakistani ISI the arm-them-to-their-teeth policy regarding the mujahideen. It is always easy to forget that the good-guys-turned-bad-guys were once were hailed by Ronnie Reagan himself at the Oval Office as "the moral equivalent of the founding fathers". America has been trying hard to "get" Afghanistan - the heart of Asia in Antiquity, the Pipelineistan crossroads of Asia nowadays - for more than 20 years. In the process, the mujahideen transformed Afghanistan, with CIA blessing, into the world's leading producer of heroin, opening the crucial and ultra-profitable drug pipeline Afghanistan-Turkey-Balkans-Western Europe. More than a martini, oil-arms-drugs is the classic CIA cocktail. This "Drugistan" road has just been spetacularly reopened after the fall of the Taliban.

Pipelineistan is not an end in itself. Oil and gas by themselves are not the US's ultimate aim. It's all about control. In Monopoly, Belgian writer Michel Collon wrote: "If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere." If the US controls the sources of energy of its rivals - Europe, Japan, China and other nations aspiring to be more independent - they win. This explains why pipelines from the Caucasus to the West have to be America-friendly - ie Turkish or Macedonian - and not "unreliable", meaning Russian-controled. Washington, always, has to control everything: that's what Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger always said. The same goes for the military bases in Saudi Arabia, and now in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There's no business like war business. Thanks to war against Iraq, the US has its military bases in the Persian Gulf. Thanks to war against Yugoslavia, the US has its military bases in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia. Thanks to war against the Taliban, the US is now in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not to mention the base in Incirlik, Turkey. The US is also in the Caucasus - in Georgia and Azerbaijan. Iran, China and Russia are practically encircled. There's no business like show business. Raise the curtains. Enter Pipelineistan. (Applause).

((c)2001 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [email]ads@atimes.com[/email] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

[url]http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA26Ag01.html[/url]

Canadian Television Openly Questions 911 'Problems'
From Eyes On America
[email]editor@eyesonamerica.org[/email]
1-27-2

On Monday, 28 January 28, 2002, "Insight MediaFile," available on Vision TV in Canada, will try to answer the following question: "What Happened on 9/11 and why aren't the mainstream media asking that question?"

On the last edition of "Insight MediaFile" (first broadcast on 21 January) the show's host -- media critic Barrie Zwicker -- dared to suggest in his weekly commentary that the CIA, Pentagon and White House may be complicit in the horrendous events of Sept. 11th, 2001.

That commentary was the first in a series on MediaFile that will deal with this important issue. MediaFile is perhaps the first current affairs TV program in Canada to raise this possibility.

Barrie Zwicker says that following that show, "the program's senior producer, executive producer and program director decided we'll devote the whole of next Monday's program [28 January] to 'What Happened on 9/11 and why aren't the mainstream media asking that question?' It will lead off with our most extended viewer feedback segment ever, followed by the media panel on that topic, followed by Part 2 of my series. All commercial-free."

A RealAudio clip of his 21 January 2002 commentary can be viewed at: [url]http://clients.loudey[/url] e.com/imc/mayday/mediafile.ramhttp://clients.loudey e.com/imc/mayday/mediafile.ram

A transcript of that commentary follows:



*** begin transcript ***

What really happened on Sept. 11th? 9/11 - Part 1

For four months I've been waiting in vain for the North American media to pursue questions about the startling events of September 11th. Here's what I want to know:

The multiple hijackings are unprecedented. The first occurs at 7:45 in the morning. It's a full hour before the first plane hits the World Trade Center. But it's an hour and 20 minutes -- and after the second plane hits that the President allegedly becomes informed. Think about that.

Then, he gives no orders. Why? He continues to listen to a student talk about her pet goat. Why?

It's another 25 minutes until he makes a statement, even as flight 77 is making a bee-line for Washington, DC.

In the almost two hours of the total drama not a single U.S. Air Force interceptor turns a wheel until it's too late. Why? Was it total incompetence on the part of aircrews trained and equipped to scramble in minutes?

Well, unlike the U.S. Air Force, I'll cut to the chase. Simply to ask these few questions is to find the official narrative frankly implausible. The more questions you pursue, it becomes more plausible that there's a different explanation: namely, that elements within the top U.S. military, intelligence and political leadership which are closely intertwined are complicit in what happened on September the 11th.

Why U.S. complicity, you ask?

Well, to stampede public opinion into supporting the so-called war on terrorism, to justify a war on Afghanistan for a future oil pipeline, the grab for Middle East oil, big budget increases for the military, and the general drive for global domination by the American Empire.

I know it sounds incredible.

But here's some historical context from this book, Body of Secrets. Its author is James Bamford. Bamford until recently was Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News tonight with Peter Jennings. I learned of this book on ABC's website.

Bamford's information comes from interviews. With, for instance, the former dean of the U.S. intelligence community. And from government documents. It takes 80 pages to list Bamford's more than 600 information sources.

Here's the story. It's 1962. John F. Kennedy is U.S. president. Robert McNamara is Secretary of Defence. And Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer heads the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The CIA has failed in its illegal Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

JFK decides, Bamford writes, to back away from military solutions to the Cuban problem.

But Lemnitzer, the CIA and others at the top remain obsessed with Cuba. Writes Bamford: "As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly go soft on Cuba, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade -- quickly slipping away. --attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead--"

Continues Bamford: "Lemnitzer and the other chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion--"

Lemnitzer comes up with Operation Northwoods.

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba--casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

An elaborate variation: create "an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft--" "At a designated time the duplicate would be--loaded with--selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]"-- "the destruction of (that) aircraft will be triggered by radio signal."

The Cubans would be blamed.

Finally, another variation is described by Bamford: "On February 20th, 1962 (John) Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral--on his historic journey. Lemnitzer "proposed -- that should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, ëthe objective is to provide irrevocable proof that--the fault lies with (Cuba)--" "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."

Thus, Bamford notes, "as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glennís possible death as a pretext to launch a war."

The Operation Northwoods plan shows the Pentagon was capable, according to Bamford, "of launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting a (war on Cuba)."

Can we be sure, therefore, that complicity by the Pentagon in the events of Sept. 11th is entirely out of the question?

Next week, a more precise look at the events of that fateful day.

And what about bin Laden? I'll have more on him too. And the arrests of people named as terrorists around the world.

*** end transcript ***

[url]http://eyesonamerica.org/[/url]
A White Knight Talking Backwards
Spy Case In Canadian Courts Suggest US Naval Officer Had Foreknowledge of 9-11
by Michael C. Ruppert - From The Wilderness
[Copyright 2002, Michael C. Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications, [url]www.copvcia.com[/url], all rights reserved. May be reposted, reprinted or distributed for non-profit purposes only when this statement appears with the text.]
[url]http://www.copvcia.com/[/url]

TORONTO, [Filed January 25, 2002] – Delmart Edward “Mike” Vreeland, an American citizen whose claims to being a US Naval Lieutenant assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) are being increasingly corroborated in open court, has been in a Canadian jail since December 6, 2000. On August 11 or 12 of 2001, the date is uncertain, after trying to verbally alert his Canadian jailers to the coming World Trade Center attacks, he wrote down key information and sealed it in an envelope which he then had placed in jailers’ custody. Exactly what the letter said is unknown at this point. The letter has fallen into a black hole of national secrecy with the lid sealed by two governments. What is known is that when the envelope was opened on September 14th it set off alarms in the US and Canada. According to reports in The Toronto Star, a burgeoning court record, and his lawyers, the envelope mentioned Osama bin Laden, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and imminent attacks.
The US wants Vreeland back in the States on a Michigan warrant for credit card fraud – using his own credit card. Vreeland, convinced that a return to the US means certain death, wants to stay in Canada in a witness protection program. His lawyers Rocco Galati and Paul Slansky, two former Canadian prosecutors, agree with Vreeland’s assessment. They should. Both have been the victims of harassment and threats including dead cats hung on porches and car windows smashed out in car burglaries.
The position -- less defensible by the day -- of the United States government, as represented by Crown Solicitors in Toronto, is that all of this is nonsense. Vreeland, says the Navy, was discharged as a Seaman after a few months of service for unsatisfactory performance in 1986. He has never had anything to do with intelligence according to 1200 pages of Navy records filed in Toronto Superior Court.
On its face the official US position is absurd. And the courtroom prowess of Slansky and Galati in making a mockery of the straight-faced presentations of opposing counsel and the US government are eerily unnoticed by any major media and, apparently, also the judge.
“How is it,” says Galati, “that the Navy says that he was only in the service a few months and then send us a 1200 page personnel file? Some of the entries are obvious forgeries or alterations and the sanitizing of his records was done so hurriedly that some dates of medical exams in the 1990s were left intact.”
In a January 10, 2002 tactic worthy of Perry Mason, with the greatest possible risk to his client if it failed, attorney Slansky got the judge to agree to let him call the Pentagon from open court. Using a speaker phone, in front of at least six witnesses, Slansky first dialed directory information and got a number for the Pentagon switchboard. Then, calling that number he asked the Department of Defense operator to locate the office of Lt. Delmart Vreeland. Within moments the operator had confirmed Vreeland’s posting, his rank as a Lieutenant O-3, his room number and given Slansky his direct-dial number.
All of this is a part of the court record.
On January 17, as this writer sat in the courtroom, another mind numbing event occurred.
As Vreeland sat shackled in a corner, closely flanked by two guards, the Crown Solicitor sought to debunk Vreeland’s assertions that he had been assigned to travel to Moscow to review and retrieve highly technical and classified documents pertaining to Russian and Chinese efforts to counter the proposed US “Star Wars” missile defense system. [Ed Note: We believe this to be a cover story]. “Why,” said the Crown Solicitor, “would the US choose, in a case involving some of the most highly technical intelligence, a random seaman with training in the tool and die field.” The point that someone discharged in 1986 with no special training and rank would be sent to review technical documents sounded reasonable – assuming that Vreeland’s background was as the Solicitor argued.
The reasonableness vanished a few moments later as the Crown Solicitor argued that Vreeland, who has been in jail and without access to a computer for thirteen months, had somehow cracked the Pentagon’s personnel records and inserted his name, an office number, and telephone extension into the Pentagon database.
No one except for Vreeland and attorney Galati seemed to notice the contradiction.
The Crown Solicitor ventured further through the looking glass by then arguing that Vreeland, having certain papers in his possession at the time of his arrest, had memorized Russian and Albanian documents and then had translated them from memory. Vreeland doesn’t speak Russian or Albanian. The judge, waking up for this one, asked the Solicitor to restate the point. The argument then became that Vreeland had an unnamed colleague go to an unspecified web site, print Russian and Albanian documents for him, and then used foreign language dictionaries to translate them.
Vreeland’s extradition process could take years and his time in jail has not been easy. There have been threats, illnesses and his every move is watched. Galati and Slansky wonder how long his psyche will hold up. The history of jailhouse deaths of key witnesses leans heavily in favor of Vreeland’s belief that he could be killed at any moment. His apparent strategy is to not reveal any accurate Top Secret material to either his lawyers or the press, hoping that his silence will provide him with some support from US clandestine services. This a standard approach taken in dozens of similar cases researched by FTW in the past They include the cases – well known in research circles – of William Tyree and Michael Riconosciuto. Tyree has been jailed on a questionable murder conviction since 1979 and Riconosciuto on a variety or drug-related charges since the early 1990s. Both men have been directly connected to CIA and other intelligence operations by official documents.
“We don’t need to know and we don’t want to know the secret details, “says Galati. “They’re not necessary for us to do the job of keeping our client alive and in Canada. He faces a special danger in the US because he has also been an informant against an organized crime family in Michigan where the criminal charges originate. The most he is facing there is two years but we believe he might not live for two days in that system.”
Additional press reports indicate that Vreeland’s intelligence work was connected to drug smuggling – a much more likely reason for his trip to Moscow. And the history of the relations between Naval Intelligence and the mafia is documented as far back as the Second World War when ONI officers made deals with convicted mafia don Lucky Luciano and his Lieutenant Vito Genovese to protect New York docks and assist with the subsequent Allied invasion and occupation of Italy.
Mike Vreeland is one man who, in a rational world, could totally expose the complicity of the US government in the attacks of September 11th. No one has disputed what he wrote and stuffed into that mysterious envelope. In a rational world that would be the most pressing and public inquiry of all. The two questions remaining are whether Vreeland will live and whether or not he will ever tell what he knows. That may be a mutually exclusive proposition.

FTW has retained the services of freelance journalist Greta Knutsen in Toronto to report on developments in this critical case for our subscribers. Important updates will be posted and sent out via subscriber bulletin to our readers as they become available.

[url]http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/01_25_02_vreeland.html[/url]

Did 'Rogue' US Agent Vreeland Warn CSIS Of September 11?
By Frank Editor
(October 16, 2001)
1-22-2
The admission that the death of a Canadian diplomat in Moscow was murder may lend credence to the fantastic story arising from an extradition case in Toronto, in which a man claiming to be a US Naval intelligence officer says he warned the RCMP and CSIS of the September 11 attacks months in advance.

Delmart Edward Vreeland claims he travelled to Moscow in the Fall of 2000 to obtain military documents regarding Russian counter-measures to US anti-missile defence. His purpose was to see they got into the hands of CSIS, and to fool Ottawa into believing it was a Canadian discovery, so Canada and other allies might be inclined to drop their objections to "Star Wars."

His contact was a "systems analyst," Marc Bastien, said to be a CSIS agent working out of the embassy. Vreeland says he sensed something fishy with a Russian go-between, and handed over a dummy bag before travelling to Toronto, where he was arrested on December 6 on an immigration warrant.

Only days after Vreeland's arrest by Toronto police, Bastien was found dead in Moscow. Though he was only 35, the death was attributed to "natural causes." The body was returned to Canada for autopsy. Sources with the Mounties have since confirmed that Bastien indeed was murdered.

Among the Russian documents Vreeland says he retrieved was one describing impending terrorist attacks in the United States, naming Osama bin Laden as an agent and the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as likely targets.

Vreeland, with his lawyer, Paul Slansky, took the information to both CSIS and the RCMP last summer, but he was blown off as a crank.

The US Navy claim that Vreeland was discharged in the mid-80s, having failed boot camp, but there is evidence to suggest the military is altering his service record. For example, in a phone conversation recorded from jail in August-before, Vreeland contends, his entire record could be wiped from the system - he is clearly told by a petty officer at a US naval base that computer files confirm his rank as Lieutenant. An impossibility if he'd dropped out of boot camp.

If his claim is true, then why is the US hounding this man, and why does he fear for his life if he is extradited? Perhaps because Russian foreknowledge of September 11th is a can of worms best left unopened.

[url]http://www.frankmag.net/storydetails.asp?storyid=93[/url]
From Eyes On America [email]editor@eyesonamerica.org[/email]
~~~~~~~~~~
Was Vreeland Right? Was Canadian Embassy Worker Poisoned?
1-22-2
OTTAWA (CP) - A Quebec coroner's report suggests poisoning was behind the mysterious death 13 months ago of Marc Bastien, an employee at Canada's embassy in Moscow.

The report says Bastien, 34, died Dec. 12, 2000, after drinking a mixture of alcohol and clopazine, an anti-depressant used to treat schizophrenia.

Initially, Canadian officials said the death was of natural causes.

Bastien had been drinking in Moscow bars and coroner Line Duchesne said a concentrated form of clopazine may have been slipped into his drink.

Bastien, who handled information systems at the embassy, was found dead the next morning in the bed of his Moscow apartment.

Duchesne said she agreed with RCMP and Moscow police in believing the computer specialist was the victim of a person - "maybe a woman" - who slipped a clopazine tablet in his drink.

Foreign Affairs spokesperson Reynald Doiron said late last week police continue to study the circumstances of Bastien's death. "There's still some information to be obtained. We may eventually find out the details that we're missing."

Monique Richard, Bastien's mother, dismissed the coroner's report as guesswork.

She said she and her husband Gaston Bastien had waited six months for the report and were disappointed: "It's full of hypotheses, possibilities and undecided elements. There's nothing official in it."

American Delmart Edward Vreeland, who is fighting extradition from Canada on fraud charges, says he tried to warn Canada's spy service of the Sept. 11 attacks. He claimed Bastien was murdered in Moscow.


[url]http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten[/url]


Canadian TV Breaks 9-11 / CIA Complicity Story
1-30-2
[5 minute introductory segment can be viewed here with realplayer:

[url]http://clients.loudeye.com/imc/mayday/mediafile.ram[/url] ]

VISION TV, Canada

For four months I've been waiting in vain for the North American media to pursue questions about the startling events of September 11th. Here's what I want to know:

The multiple hijackings are unprecedented. The first occurs at 7:45 in the morning. It's a full hour before the first plane hits the World Trade Center. But it's an hour and 20 minutes -- and after the second plane hits that the President allegedly becomes informed. Think about that.

Then, he gives no orders. Why? He continues to listen to a student talk about her pet goat. Why?

It's another 25 minutes until he makes a statement, even as flight 77 is making a bee-line for Washington, DC.

In the almost two hours of the total drama not a single U.S. Air Force interceptor turns a wheel until it's too late. Why? Was it total incompetence on the part of aircrews trained and equipped to scramble in minutes?

Well, unlike the U.S. Air Force, I'll cut to the chase. Simply to ask these few questions is to find the official narrative frankly implausible. The more questions you pursue, it becomes more plausible that there's a different explanation: namely, that elements within the top U.S. military, intelligence and political leadership which are closely intertwined are complicit in what happened on September the 11th.

Why U.S. complicity, you ask?

Well, to stampede public opinion into supporting the so-called war on terrorism, to justify a war on Afghanistan for a future oil pipeline, the grab for Middle East oil, big budget increases for the military, and the general drive for global domination by the American Empire.

I know it sounds incredible.

But here's some historical context from this book, Body of Secrets. Its author is James Bamford. Bamford until recently was Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News tonight with Peter Jennings. I learned of this book on ABC's website.

Bamford's information comes from interviews. With, for instance, the former dean of the U.S. intelligence community. And from government documents. It takes 80 pages to list Bamford's more than 600 information sources.

Here's the story. It's 1962. John F. Kennedy is U.S. president. Robert McNamara is Secretary of Defence. And Admiral Lyman Lemnitzer heads the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The CIA has failed in its illegal Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

JFK decides, Bamford writes, to back away from military solutions to the Cuban problem.

But Lemnitzer, the CIA and others at the top remain obsessed with Cuba. Writes Bamford: "As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly 'go soft' on Cuba, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade - quickly slipping away. -attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead-"

Continues Bamford: "Lemnitzer and the other chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion-"

Lemnitzer comes up with Operation Northwoods.

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba-casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

An elaborate variation: create "an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft-" "At a designated time the duplicate would be-loaded with-selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]"- "the destruction of (that) aircraft will be triggered by radio signal."

The Cubans would be blamed.

Finally, another variation is described by Bamford: "On February 20th, 1962 (John) Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral-on his historic journey. Lemnitzer "proposed - that should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, ëthe objective is to provide irrevocable proof that-the fault lies with (Cuba)-" "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."

Thus, Bamford notes, "as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pretext to launch a war."

The Operation Northwoods plan shows the Pentagon was capable, according to Bamford, "of launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting a (war on Cuba)."

Can we be sure, therefore, that complicity by the Pentagon in the events of Sept. 11th is entirely out of the question?

Next week, a more precise look at the events of that fateful day.

And what about bin Laden? I'll have more on him too. And the arrests of people named as terrorists around the world.

PART 2

Next, more troubling questions. Part 2 in my series of commentaries about the events of September 11th.

As you've heard in the panel discussion, a common explanation as to why no U.S. military interceptors took to the skies on September 11th until it was too late, is that it was "simple incompetence."

Well, let me deal with the "incompetence theory." By first taking you back to October 26th, 1999. That is the day the chartered Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart crashes, killing all on board. This from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report: 9:19 a.m.: the flight departs 9:24: The Learjet's pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control 9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 * minutes the controller tries to establish contact. 9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone. It's standard procedure, followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs. 9:54 - 16 minutes later -- the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection. Total elapsed time: 21 minutes.

So what does this prove? Well, it proves that standing routines exist for dealing with all such emergencies, for instance loss of radio contact. All personnel in the air and on the ground are trained to follow the routines, which have been fine-tuned over decades, as the Learjet incident illustrates.

For large scheduled aircraft, tracked throughout on radar, to depart extravagantly from their flight paths, would trigger numerous calls to the military, especially after two have hit the World Trade Centre and now one is speeding toward Washington, D.C.

It flies over the White House, turns sharply and heads toward the Pentagon. Everyone ñ and I mean everyone ñ now knows these planes are very bad news. It's been reported on all TV networks for more than half an hour that this is a terrorist attack.Ý

Now, Andrews Air Force Base is a huge installation. It's home to Air Force One, the President's plane. It's home base for two combat-ready squadrons of jet interceptors mandated to ensure the safety of the U.S. capital. Andrews is only 12 miles from the White House.

On September 11th the squadrons there were: The 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, equipped with F-16s The 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron of the 49th Marine Air Group, Detachment A, equipped F/A-18s

This information was on the website of the base on September 11th. [POSSIBLE (cuts)] On September 12th, Andrews chose to update its website. I find it odd that after the update there's no mention of the F-16 and F-18 fighters. The base becomes, according to the website, home to a transport squadron only.

Yet at 6:30 the evening of September 11th NBC Nightly News, along with many outlets, reported: "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly - a protective cover over Washington, D.C."

Throughout the northeastern United States are many air bases. But that morning no interceptors respond in a timely fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews squadrons which have the longest lead time and are 12 miles from the White house.

Whatever the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence Theory." Incompetence usually earns reprimands.

This causes me to ask - and other media need to ask - if there were "stand down" orders.

Next week, bin Laden was a longtime close ally of the CIA, according to the CIA itself. Why did he suddenly turn against them? Or did he?

[url]http://www.visiontv.ca[/url]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.
The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation.
He asked that only the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some lawmakers have proposed, the sources said
Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.
"The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism," Daschle told reporters.
But, Daschle said, he has not agreed to limit the investigation.
"I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the overall review of what happened," said Daschle, D-South Dakota.
"But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why," he said.
Cheney met last week in the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees and, according to a spokesman for Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, "agreed to cooperate with their effort."
The heads of both intelligence committees have been meeting to map out a way to hold a bipartisan House-Senate investigation and hearings.
They were discussing how the inquiry would proceed, including what would be made public, what would remain classified, and how broad the probe would be.
Graham's spokesman said the committees will review intelligence matters only.
"How ill prepared were we and why? We are looking towards the possibility of addressing systemic problems through legislation," said spokesman Paul Anderson.
Some Democrats, such as Sens. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, have been calling for a broad inquiry looking at various federal government agencies beyond the intelligence community.
"We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong," Torricelli said.
"The best assurance that there's not another terrorist attack on the United States is not simply to hire more federal agents or spend more money. It's to take an honest look at what went wrong. Who or what failed? There's an explanation owed to the American people," he said.
Although the president and vice president told Daschle they were worried a wide-reaching inquiry could distract from the government's war on terrorism, privately Democrats questioned why the White House feared a broader investigation to determine possible culpability.
"We will take a look at the allocation of resources. Ten thousand federal agents -- where were they? How many assets were used, and what signals were missed?" a Democratic senator told CNN.

-- CNN Capitol Hill Producer Dana Bash and CNN Correspondents Jon Karl and John King contributed to this report.

The Enron Web - Arthur Andersen Consultant Shot Dead In December
By Kieran Nicholson
Denver Post Staff Writer
1-26-2

Tuesday, December 04, 2001 - A body discovered in a van in Pike National Forest was identified Monday as a missing 59-year-old Jefferson County man.

James Watkins, missing since Nov. 13, apparently committed suicide, said Jacki Tallman, a spokeswoman for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office.

"It appears he died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound," Tallman said.

Watkins' wife of 33 years, Pat, could not be reached for comment Monday.

Watkins' van was spotted about 6 p.m. Saturday by a snowmobile rider who recognized it from media reports about the missing engineering consultant.

The Douglas County coroner's office on Monday had not completed autopsy, toxicology and forensic work, but "no foul play is suspected at this time," said Wes Riber, deputy coroner.

A weapon and a note were found at the scene, Tallman said. Contents of the note were not disclosed.

Watkins, employed at Arthur Andersen consultants, was last seen by co-workers at his downtown Denver office. At the time of his disappearance, he was preparing for a business trip to China.
[url]http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%7E252491,00.html?search=filter[/url]

As to whether he was murdered.
Many people are buried under the Bushes:
Inslaw reporter murdered:
>One journalist, Danny Casolaro, died as he attempted to tell the story <
>a painfully clear snapshot of how the Justice Department operated during the Reagan-Bush years. This is the case that won't go away, the case that shows how justice and public service gave way to profit and political expediency, how those within the administration's circle of privilege were allowed to violate private property and civil rights for their own profit. Sound like a conspiracy theorist's dream? Absolutely. But the fact is, it's true.<
[The above would well describe ENRON.]
[url]http://www.geocities.com/Area51/9357/inslaw.html[/url]
The reporter was onto the biggest story of his lifetime and scheduled to meet with an informant within the Reagan/Bush administration when he checked into his hotel. Next morning he was found dead. "Suicide" was the official finding.

Remember the S&L failures and bail outs that transferred billions of tax money to conservative businessmen's private accounts?
>There has been one known murder in Northern California that has strong possible links to the bankruptcy system. There have been several more in Texas. This series will focus on different incidents from various parts of the country.<
[url]http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon7.html[/url]
And does anyone remember vince Foster's supposed suicide?:
>But the reports contained broad admissions that the CIA knew about the contra-cocaine smuggling, obstructed criminal investigations and systematically covered up evidence that might have been politically harmful to President Reagan's pro-contra policies.
The major media's handling of last year's disclosures, however, so readily accepted the superficial spin of the press releases that the historically devastating admissions were largely missed.
On Oct. 8, 1998, when the CIA released Volume Two of the internal contra-cocaine investigation -- with detailed admissions of wrongdoing -- most big newspapers downplayed the disclosures or wrote nothing at all.
[paragraps not quoted. follow link for full text]
As the government investigations unfolded, however, it became clear that nearly every major cocaine smuggling network used the contra operation in some way and that the contras were connected -- directly or indirectly -- with possibly the bulk of cocaine that flooded the United States in the 1980s.<
comment within page cited:
>Goes to show that the media is in collusion with an entity greater than the democratic party. The secret hearings are to protect that gentle, (god)fatherly type, George Bush -- America's first Drug Czar. Obviously a title that processed literally in his oblong head, considering that cocaine usage in America tripled during the Reagan/Bush years. And of course, Bill Clinton carries on the corrupt dynasty.<
How many have died from cocaine and crack abuse over the last 20 years?
The guy who published an expose of Bush's drug history:
[url]http://www.softskull.com/jimhatfield.html[/url]
Jim Hatfield suffered a recall and book burning in 2000, yet his book got published and his publisher was funding a sequel. He was on top of the world when he was unexpectedly found dead. "Suicide" was the official finding.
Odd how anyone who threatens the Bushes commits "suicide"
Many americans have gone to jail on much less evidence than there is against the most likely murderers.
It must be nice to be so rich and powerful than you can order killing with impunity.

Why The Lies About Ron Brown?

Kathleen Janoski, the Navy chief petty officer who photographed Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown's body at Dover Air Force Base after he died in a mysterious plane crash in Croatia in April, 1996, told the AIM conference the shocking story of how she was relieved of her duties because photographs she had taken had revealed evidence that Brown may have been shot. Kathleen Janoski said she hadn't come to any conclusions about whether Brown was murdered or not, but she was certain that senior officers at the base didn't want the questions answered.
In photographing Brown's body, Janoski noticed and photographed a perfectly round hole in the top of his head. She called it to the attention of some of the officers. They thought it could have been made by a .45-caliber bullet. A head x-ray showed what appeared to be small metallic fragments inside the skull. The lieutenant colonels recommended that an autopsy be performed, but they were overruled by the colonel in charge. No autopsy was ever performed, and Janoski was informed by a civilian investigator that the head x-ray had been destroyed. But Janoski had photographed both the hole in Brown's head and the x-rays when they were up on a light box.
Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, one of three pathologists who had recommended an autopsy, used this case as an example of a botched death investigation in lectures that he gave. The case came to the attention of investigative reporter Chris Ruddy, who obtained copies of Janoski's photos of Brown, and the story was out. Ruddy's paper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, gave it a front-page banner headline. The Christian Broadcasting Net-work, CBN, aired a story about it. The big media ignored it, but the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, AFIP, was very unhappy. Lt. Col. Cogswell's military career was ruined and he was told to seek counseling. Janoski, once the head of photography at the institute, was given 32 hours to clear out of her office and her staff was taken away. She feared she would be put on trial, but the Navy allowed her to retire.
CBN's Dale Hurd asked, "Is Cogswell's and Janoski's punishment by the AFIP simply because they shined the light on shoddy work and embarrassed the Pentagon? Or is there something more?" Hurd found that the AFIP was continuing to lie. In a statement, it claimed that extensive forensic tests were conducted on the body. Janoski said that was completely false. She said her faith in the Navy was badly shaken, not only by her treatment, but by the refusal to do an autopsy and lying about it, and by the destruction of the head x-ray. But she has no regrets and is proud of having helped Chris Ruddy to bring the facts about this bungled death investigation to the public's attention.
Janoski said that she saw no wounds on Ron Brown's body except the hole in his head that appeared to be fatal. The AWACS radar showed that his plane was on course for a landing at Dubrovnik when it suddenly veered to the left and crashed into St. John's Peak. The pilot apparently made a quick correction when the signal from the beacon indicated he was off course. The Croatian responsible for the beacon died of a gunshot wound before he was questioned. It is clear that the government lied, destroyed evidence that proved it, and punished those who disclosed it.

More Corruption From Reno

Praising Accuracy in Media for its concern for whistleblowers' rights, Martin E. Andersen told the AIM conference how he was persecuted by Janet Reno's Justice Department for telling the truth about violations of the law, leaks of national security information, dubious contracts, and waste, fraud and mismanagement. Andersen, who worked as a senior adviser for policy and planning in the Criminal Division's international law enforcement training programs, forced a three-year criminal investigation of the Criminal Division. He said that the Justice Department's inspector general found management to be guilty of "serious, substantial and egregious misconduct."
One target of the probe was a Justice Department official close to Janet Reno who committed visa fraud on behalf of his girlfriend in Moscow. Ironically, this aide was chosen by Reno to clean up problems in the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Andersen said there are other whistleblowers who, before 9/11, had been warning about problems that made us vulnerable to terrorist attack. He said these included U.S. Customs Service employees who warned of uninspected containers that may have included terrorist devices or weapons; warnings of unsecured uranium and plutonium storage facilities; Defense Department official Peter Leitner's warnings about the sale of sophisticated equipment to China and rogue states; concerns about the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to attack; and suggestions that Justice Department officials may be open to blackmail because of their personal behavior or handling of classified information.
Andersen said an investigation of his allegations led to the discovery that one Justice Department official had left 156 classified documents unsecured in his office. He had an open safe that included nothing but a videotape and instructions for setting the combination. Some of the chief culprits named by Andersen were Mark Richard and Lee Radek. Radek was the head of the public integrity section. He said they collaborated with Reno in covering up Clinton administration wrongdoing.
For speaking out, Andersen had his security clearance yanked, and he was assigned to a room where classified documents were being stored for burning. He called it a farce meant to humiliate him. He fought for justice for four years, teetering on the brink of bankruptcy several times. But he had carefully documented his case, and those documents proved useful as the process went forward. He got some press support, especially from the Washington Times and Insight magazine. The Office of Special Counsel, which investigates whistleblower complaints, vindicated him. Andersen won the OSC's Public Servant Award.
He warned, however, that most whistleblowers are not so lucky. That is why it is important that new legislation be passed by Congress to protect them. He said the 9/11 attacks make it even more imperative to make sure whistleblowers have the right to come forward without fear of retaliation to tell the truth. He urged President Bush to issue an executive order requiring the managers of federal agencies to protect them.[/quote]

Need I go on?

The Valerie Plame affair?

Bob Woodward - didn't have a deep throat - bob Woodward did / does and always has - worked at the NYP for the See Eye Ehh!.

From getting rid of Kennedy in dealey plaza Texas, to Nixons downfall and the 2000 Stolen election - all orchestrated by the world oil oligarchy...

You only have to know where to look and how to read between the lines.

Anyone thinks Di Hydrogen Monoxide is the fuel of the future is deluding themselves.

I already know what the answer is.

M = Delta T is the answer you seek.

Time will be the energy source of the future.

First you have to ask the right questions to get the right answers.

If you do, the world oil oligarchy will ensure you end up like all those microbiologists the world over (who were recruited by V Plame) who are now pushin up daisys, since she was outted...by Woodward!

If you can't ask the right questions - you can never get the right answers.

Sadly - all this was foreseen - by your own "seeress" Jean Dixon, (Prophets are never believed within their own country)...who back in the 60's said something along the lines of:-

" see the formation of a Governement within the Government, who will bring this country to it's knees. They will control who sits in the Whitehouse and he will be "there man" regardless of which party he comes from - or what idea's / policys he may have - no one but their man will occupy the oval office".

I could dig out the original qulte I guess - sadly spome 40 years later, it has sadly proven true. Just like her predictions of JFK's and subsequently the other brothers, assassinations.

There are non so blind as those who don't want to see.

I fully expect the US willl sink into another civil war, over the situation it now finds itself in.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the USA represented in the future by 5 presidents each representing 10 states - in order to avoid a repeat of the hopeless situation it now finds itself in.

Then again - some think I'm certifiable!:D

Crazy I may be! - but stooopid - i ain't!;)

Cheers!

brian eiland
11-21-2005, 08:23 AM
.... I guess the point I am trying to make is that STORAGE is the difficult part......
I remember seeing quite a bit of promotion about Hydrogen-on Demand at one time in the recent past:

"In contrast, reacting chemical hydrides with water is a great way to generate hydrogen. Millennium Cell has developed and publicly demonstrated systems (known as Hydrogen on Demand® or HOD™ systems) utilizing sodium borohydride (NaBH4) as a hydrogen storage medium at power levels ranging from as low as 2 W up to 65 kW."

It looked real interesting, but I don't see the same emphasis on this technology that there once was??

trouty
11-21-2005, 08:55 AM
I don't see the same emphasis on this technology that there once was??

Answer?

The world Oil Oligarchy!

When will you guys wake up?

[quote]"What is often called the German or Italian form of Fascism had its roots in America. Both Hitler and Mussolini were funded and brought into power in the 1920's and '30s by international bankers, including the 12 banks which now make up the American Federal Reserve System. But I get ahead of myself.
Beginning in the late 1800's, John D. Rockefeller, by means of a deception, using a ploy with his Union Tanker Car Company was able to control or "corner" the oil market. In this scheme, he owned the company which had the design patent for the all-metal sealed oil tanker railroad car. The same type of tanker cars are still in use today. Rockefeller, through Union Tanker Car, leased tanker cars by the hundreds to the owners of newly discovered oil fields so they could ship the crude to the refiners. This often included kickbacks from the railroad for increasing the profitable traffic on their rails.
In the late 1800's, prior to the design of the tanker railroad car, petroleum was shipped to the refiner in open wooden barrels on flatbed cars. Some of the oil was lost as it sloshed out whenever the train stopped or started or went around corners. Much of the valuable part of the crude oil simply evaporated from the open barrels before it got to the refiner, often leaving only a heavy black tar. The wooden barrels were difficult and time consuming to fill and drain.
The closed metal tanker car was a boon to the new petroleum business. After several months of oil field development and shipments from the numerous wells being sunk in the ground, and after the refiner had built new facilities to handle the increased flow of crude, Union Tanker broke the lease and took back all of its tanker cars.
Since there was no other source for the tanker cars, both the oil field developer and the refiner began to lose money caused by the instantaneous stoppage of the oil flow from field to refinery. Within months the oil producer and the refiner, after making large investments, were now on the verge of bankruptcy. Then John Rockefeller, through his holding company, Standard Oil, simply walked in and purchased both the oil fields and the refinery at pennies on the dollar. He usually also ended up with the railroad in between.
Despite his reputation as an oil magnate, John D himself was not really an oilman. He had little experience as either an oil driller or refiner. He simply leased oil tanker cars and made money buying oil fields and refineries at "distressed" prices. To run his oil fields and refineries, Rockefeller often hired the very same entrepreneurs whom he had just defrauded. They now worked for him. Only many decades later was it discovered who caused the "distress." And any Rockefeller today will point out, "...but it was not illegal."
In the period of 1900 to 1910 this conspiracy was repeated numerous times and Standard Oil then owned almost all the oil fields in California, Texas, Arkansas, New Jersey and Ohio, and several other states. Thus John D. Rockefeller either owned or controlled about 90% of what we now call the energy business. At that time, research shows, not many people knew that Rockefeller owned the Union Tanker Car Company. Otherwise, very few oilmen would have signed bogus leases for the cars if they had known that John D. and Standard Oil owned all the tanker cars.
Many "muckraker" authors of the early 1900's, such as Ida Tarbell, exposed the predatory monopolist marketing practice of Standard Oil. But the Rockefeller connection with Union Tanker, and how Standard came into being, was not discovered until many decades later. And it still is not in the history books. And most of those few books which did show the connection between John Rockefeller and the Union Tanker Car Company have somehow mysteriously disappeared, but not all.
In 1911, the US government brought charges of monopoly against John D. and Standard Oil, and the company was broken apart. The many new companies all had names which were variations of the initials S.O., such as SOHIO in Ohio, SOCONY in New York, ESSO ("S.O.") which later became EXXON, etc. The splitting of the company was a mere inconvenience for Rockefeller. In retaliation, John D. made a vow. He vowed he would put his company back together. He also vowed in turn he would "break apart" the United States. He and his sons and grandsons and their companies have accomplished both. It was completed about 8 years ago. Again, I get ahead of myself.
In the period of 1910 to 1914 there were only three major oil companies in the world, (1) Standard Oil in America and its many "mini-S.O.-standards" after the 1911 breakup, (2) the British-Persian Petroleum Company, which controlled the large oilfields in Persia (now Iran), roughly extending up into southern Russia, and (3) Royal Dutch Shell which controlled the vast oil fields in the old Dutch East Indies Colonies in Indonesia and southeast Asia. John D. resolved to take over control of both the British-Persian Petroleum company and Royal Dutch Shell.
Rockefeller believed the world would be better served if all nasty corporate competition were eliminated. Then he could make the decisions to market petroleum like an efficient, smooth running, well oiled machine. It was simply a continuation of his business practice in the US for the previous 10 years. In several inter-corporate meetings around 1910 this was almost accomplished. He was distracted when the US government broke apart his oil holdings, but he was not deterred.
The big three oil companies agreed, instead, to act jointly as if they were one company, the first oil cartel. They settled on one world price for oil, which from 1910 to about 1975 was the world pegged price of "West Texas Sweet Crude." The law of "supply-and-demand" had been subverted. It was as if everyone bought their oil in Texas from Standard Oil regardless of from where in the world the oil came. They also agreed to divide up the world into three oil zones to match their local oil supplies and markets. To accomplish this they would need to eliminate or take over control of all other smaller local national ownerships of crude oil, or even the colonial ownership of any oil fields, such as in the old colonies of France, Germany, Spain and Portugal.
This was the purpose of World War I from 1914 to 1918, though few people realized it. The elimination of most of the colonialism of the 1800's and the carving up of the world was completed with the Treaty of Versailles. The arbitrary carving of the world into three primary areas is well documented in history books. Until recently, whose hands were behind the carving had not been disclosed.
For Standard Oil to participate in the drawing up of the Treaty of Versailles, the United States would need to participate in WWI. Although the US entered the conflict belatedly and actually had a minimal affect on the outcome of the European war, the US was in on the negotiations and a signatory to the treaty. All went well, but, there was a fly in the ointment. In 1917, Russia did not go along with the plan to steal their huge oilfields. Russia had pulled out of WWI and did not participate in the Treaty of Versailles. The Bolsheviks, after several years of revolution, now had the world's largest supply of oil in southern Russia. Those vast oil fields were not under the control of either Standard, British Petroleum or Royal Dutch.
Prior to World War I, the most common use for petroleum was to make kerosene, a cheap replacement for the smelly whale oil or smoky coal oil in lamps for homes or businesses. Before the general use of electric light bulbs, kerosene was a product which was highly desirable, with a world-wide market. During WWI, it was discovered that petroleum could also be easily refined to make gasoline or diesel fuel for the internal combustion engines that were in the new airplanes, trucks, ships, submarines and tanks developed during the war.
Thus it became clear after 1918, ownership of oil was not only highly profitable but could now determine who won or lost a war. No longer would empires be built on, nor wars fought in the search for and conquest of gold. Gold had been superseded as the means to obtain political power. The internal combustion engine had replaced the war horse. In a period of only several years, a sudden shift in the geopolitics of the world had just occurred. And most people never noticed. He who has the most oil rules. Oil, black gold, became the fuel for the engines of war. A new world empire was about to be created. A new empire, not based on countries or nations, but of private corporations.
The arbitrary carving of the world into three pieces by the Big 3 oil companies in 1918, as determined by the Treaty of Versailles, was one of the reasons why Adolf Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews. John D. Rockefeller, whose family name had originally been something like the Germanic Rogenfelder, was considered Jewish by most Europeans. Since Germany had just lost all its colonies with their oil fields under the arbitrary carving of national boundaries along oil market lines by the Versailles Treaty, Hitler blamed the "Jews" for all of Germany's problems. Hitler believed those whose hands had done the carving were all Jewish. That's right out of Hitler's book.
For John Rockefeller to overcome the problem of his oil holdings being broken apart by the US government in 1911, he created another stratagem even larger than the Union Tanker Car Company. He took his vast wealth and created 12 large holding banks we now know as the private Federal Reserve. The plot was to somehow sell his banks to the US Congress. He succeeded two years later in 1913.
All federal taxes collected since 1913 go through the private Federal Reserve System banks, whether they are gas taxes, import excise taxes or income taxes. You file your tax return with the Internal Revenue Service, but all the tax money withheld by your employer is sent to a Federal Reserve Bank. At the end of the fiscal year, the government IRS reports to the private Federal Reserve Banks how much income tax is reported on tax returns and then that amount should be transferred to the Federal government. The private Federal Reserve then pays that amount, but does not report or pay the interest earned on that money during the year. That is profit to the Federal Reserve Banks. This is now true of the so-called "central banks" of most nations, which were chartered along the same lines as the American Federal Reserve banks.
That is why they want you to "overpay" your taxes, and then at the end of the year, when you file your return with the IRS, you get back a refund, not from the Fed Banks, but with a check from the US Treasury. The private Fed earns interest on the amount you overpay, but the government Treasury loses the amount you get refunded. The private Federal Reserve pays no taxes and reports to no one. Thus, John Rockefeller and his heirs and assigns, have a cash flow each year equal to a good percentage of the American gross national product and that would be enough to buy out British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, even if Standard Oil was broken into smaller pieces.
Thus financially armed, the very next year, Standard Oil, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch set out to carve up the world into three markets in 1914, in what we call World War I. But ended up with the lion's share of the world's oil still in the hands of the Bolsheviks, later ignominiously called "communists." The Socialists wanted the Russian state to control the national resources such as oil, and not private profit making companies like Standard, British Petroleum or Royal Dutch.
It would be hard for the Big 3 to corner and control the world oil market if the Russians still had the lion's share. To counter the Russian socialists, the Big 3 created and supported numerous "anti-communist" movements, which we now call Fascist. In Fascism, private profit-making corporations work hand-in-hand with governments, as opposed to Socialism where private companies are eliminated, and the country's resources and means of production are controlled by the government, usually a dictator, and the people. The profit from the sale of resources or goods produced goes to the people of the country, not some private corporation.
It was John D. Rockefeller who called the shots at the early Big 3 oil company meetings, even though he could not yet buy out his competitors, the British and the Dutch companies. Thus, as I said previously, Fascism, as a counter to Russian "communism," came right from the US. The Bolsheviks, Marxists and Leninists had long called themselves "socialists." The USSR was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. They never called themselves "communists." It was John D. and the Big 3 who coined the word and branded them "communists." This was because the Russian Socialists held the oil fields as "community property" and did not allow private corporations like Standard to come in and privately own or steal the oil resources.
Fascism grew out of the attempt of the Big 3 oil companies to form a world cartel to control the world's supply of petroleum and eliminate any other competitors which they branded as "communists." Thus at the end of WWI, after the Treaty of Versailles, and the take over of the large oil fields in southern Russia by the socialists, came the creation of both "communism" and "fascism." Both were constructs, inventions and ploys of the Big 3: Standard Oil, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell. It was a deception which would lead to world empire.
In the 1920's and '30s the Big 3 decided on a plan to eliminate Russian control of oil by "hiring" the small "fascist" movements in Germany and Japan to attack and take over Russia and thus eliminate any state control of oil fields. Most historians would blame large international bankers for funding the rise of fascism. But the bankers had no motivation and fringe fascists parties in Germany, Italy and Japan did not look like good financial risks. But for the Big 3 Oil companies there was a strong motivation to use the "fascists" to defeat the "communists" in Russia and take over the world oil market. And the vast oil wealth which they stored in their international banks provided them with the means. In the 1920's the opportunity was ripe.
Thus the small fascist political parties in Germany, Japan and Italy were given massive Big 3 financial backing to help those minor political parties come to power and build up their military. But things did not go quite as they had planned. The aging John D. had died and his son and four grandsons had decided they would carve up the world along different lines, and at the same time eliminate their competitors, the British and Dutch oil companies.
In 1939 and '40, the Germans did not attack Russia as the Big 3 had expected. Instead German General Rommel went rushing across north Africa to grab the Suez Canal and control all oil shipping through the canal. He then planned to continue on to Persia and toss out the British from the British-Persian oil fields. Also in 1939 the Japanese, after a short abortive attack on Russia in which they were driven out, instead went through southeast Asia and grabbed up all the oil holdings of Royal Dutch Shell. Most of those Royal Dutch fields at the end of the WWII came under the control of Standard Oil.
The British and Dutch companies probably knew in 1939 that their "fascist oil" plan to grab the fields in southern "communist" Russia had gone astray when both the Germans and the Japanese signed non-aggression pacts with Russia, and instead went after the Persian and East Indies oil fields. The grandsons of John D. were as sneaky and devious as their grandfather, but that's the competitive nature of the oil business in the new empire of energy.
The new Standard Oil plan was to have Germany and Japan attack and control Russia and its oil, along with the fields in Persia and Indonesia, then the US would attack and defeat Germany and Japan, thus leaving all the Russian oil in the hands of Standard Oil. And at the same time the holdings of British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell would then be taken from the Germans and Japanese, which would then also be controlled by Standard. And no one would be the wiser, since the British and Dutch fields would then just be the spoils of war.
When it became clear that neither the Japanese nor Germans "fascists" could complete the jobs for which they were "hired," the American people were tricked into supplying the man-power by entering WWII after the Pearl Harbor incident. In 1941, while nobody seems to have been watching, the Japanese had become a very powerful militaristic nation, well endowed with foreign funding from the Big 3, but they had no energy or oil supply of their own. They relied on the supply of oil for their new planes, ships, tanks and trucks coming from the Royal Dutch fields in nearby Indonesia.
In July 1941, President Roosevelt signed an embargo to stop all shipping to Japan, presumably in retaliation for the recent Japanese invasion of French Indo-china. The Roosevelts and the Rockefellers had long had friendly family ties. Roosevelt's US embargo cut off the Japanese oil supply, which would have quickly shut down Japan, with the obvious result. In late November 1941 the Japanese sent a written "war warning" through diplomatic channels to Washington, declaring the embargo should be stopped, or else many American sites in the Pacific would be attacked in retaliation. That formal diplomatic warning was ignored and the US sent back no reply. Just two weeks later the Japanese broke the embargo, by bombing the American embargo ships parked in Pearl Harbor.
It was no surprise attack. The Japanese had formally announced it two weeks before. It was only the obvious result of the American strangulation of the oil flow to Japan, and a clearly stated Japanese warning which had been received and ignored. The American public had been fooled into thinking it was a sneak surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Since Franklin Roosevelt said so, it must be true. The Pacific war turned out to be a prolonged aircraft carrier war. Strangely, the US aircraft carriers in the Pacific Fleet had been sent on maneuvers just several days before the attack and none were in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. Coincidence?
And it must also be by some strange logic, if Japan attacks the US, then the US also declares war on Germany. Unless, of course, there is some other larger plan afoot. The historical record shows Germany had not attacked nor engaged the US in conflict, so why did Roosevelt declare war on Germany in December 1941?
Records now show, that Hitler's plan had been to first capture the oilfields in Romania by 1939 so Germany would have its own supply of oil. This was accomplished. Then Rommel would capture the oilfields in Persia by 1941, then capture the oilfields in Russia in 1942, and only then would Hitler have sufficient fuel for prosecuting a war with the United States. But the Japanese, on December 11, 1941, less than a week after the Pearl Harbor incident, convinced Hitler to also declare war on the United States. Hitler agreed only if the Japanese would attack Russia, since the fascists were now bogged down in Russia and Hitler would be helped if the Russians had to defend themselves from Japan. But the Japanese did not attack Russia. Hitler was driven out of Russia and now was without a fuel source. Was this the war plan of the new Empire of Energy?
The Romanian oilfields in Ploesti were insufficient for Germany to carry on a war on two fronts. With American assistance going to Stalin to protect his southern Russian oilfields and with Rommel stopped in Africa so he could not reach the Persian oilfields, it was only a matter of time until Germany's war engines would run out of fuel. By the time of the Allied invasion of Europe on June 6, 1944, Germany was running on fumes. The last major German attack against the Allied invasion force was the Battle of the Bulge. Hitler had intended for Rommel to attack the invading allies with his tanks, then capture the fuel dumps which the allies had amassed. This would stop the American and British forces, and obtain needed fuel.
But when German General Rommel got to the fuel dumps he found American General Eisenhower had ordered them burned. No, the Allies did not win the Battle of the Bulge. It was Rommel and Hitler who lost. Rommel's panzer tanks simply ran out of gas. The German army abandoned their tanks right where they had quit. After that it was a rather swift footrace with the Allies chasing the Germans in a fast retreat back to Berlin. Is there something wrong with this picture? Yes. Its not the one you were taught in school. You were taught the story about the horrors of "fascism" and "communism" but you weren't taught about how black gold had now become the motive and the means for war. He who owns the oil rules. World War II was a demonstration of both, and the new power of the Empire of Energy.
So the Japanese, the Germans and even the Americans were deceived into fighting the "enemy." But in fact, at the end of the war in 1945, it was Standard Oil who won the war in the Pacific and had taken control of most of the oil fields in the Pacific area from Royal Dutch Shell. All that was left was to acquire the oil fields in Persia and Russia. The new Empire of Energy was just scant years away from complete world domination.
Following World War II, the British-Persian Oil Company still controlled the vast oil fields in Iran. The Persians had already shown they were aligned with Adolf Hitler's fascist "Aryan Race" movement and were fully expecting German General Rommel to come rushing across Africa and "free" them from the British. They showed this by even changing the name of their country from Persia to "Aryan," or "Iran" in the Farsi language. But the Germans failed to arrive.
After the war, British control of the Persian oilfields was soon easily eliminated. In 1954 Kermit Roosevelt, nephew of Franklin, led an American CIA coup to wrest control of Iran and placed in power the American-backed Shah of Iran. The Shah drove out the British. Standard Oil now had control of the British-Persian petroleum fields.
But what of the still vaster oil fields in southern Russia? Also in 1954, with negotiations made through Occidental Petroleum's Armand Hammer, a deal was made with Russian dictator Joseph Stalin. The arrangement was to buy his oil, actually steal it from the Russian people, and sell it on the world market at a much higher price than Stalin could get by selling it himself. Stalin was no oil marketer. Few countries would be willing to deal with or buy oil from Stalin, thus there was almost no market for the Russian oil.
The simple but devious method was to build two large pipelines, which still exist today, going from the Russian oil fields down along both sides of the Caspian Sea and then terminate in the old British-Persian oil fields in Iran, which by then were controlled by Standard Oil. Was Russia selling oil to oil-rich Iran? Or Iran selling to oil-rich Russia? There would seem no logical reason for building those two huge pipe lines simply going from one oil field to another.
For over 45 years, Russia has been sneaking its oil out through those pipe lines and selling its oil on the world market at the "West Texas Crude" price by calling it Iranian oil. Its what most Americans have been putting in their cars for almost 50 years. This is made evident by the fact that most large American oil refineries which produce gasoline from crude oil are located at large sea ports like San Francisco, Houston or Los Angeles, and not near any of the large American oil fields. Oil is mostly shipped in oil tankers, not explosive flammable gasoline, so those large American refinery-ports are only for the import of crude oil, not for the export of refined gasoline. Thus there is a simple one-way massive flow of oil from Russian fields, through Iran to large super oil tanker ships, to American refineries, and then into American cars.
Many times, since 1973, whenever the price of gasoline skyrockets, American's are told its their own fault, since they are relying on using too much expensive foreign oil. When was the last time you went to the gas station to fill your tank and were given a choice of pumping either the American gas or the expensive foreign gas, and you decided, "Hmm, I think I'll buy the foreign gas." It turns out somebody else has already chosen for you. Guess who?
Standard now had almost complete control of the world market for energy. To make this scheme work, both Stalin in Russia and the Shah in Iran had to be paid handsomely. But buying off the leaders of dictatorships is easy when money is no object. The problem is maintaining the dictators in power, especially when the local populace learns their natural resources are being stolen.
In 1979, when the Standard Oil-backed Shah of Iran was thrown out by his own people as a harsh iron-fisted "profiteering" dictator and the nationalist Ayatollah took over, the flow of Russian oil through Iran suddenly stopped. Other pipelines were constructed through Iraq and Turkey. The Russian oil was now called OPEC Arabian-Middle Eastern oil and marketed at the even higher "spot market" price. This accounts for the gas shortages and the rise of the price of gasoline in 1979.
On November 4, 1979 the Iranian “revolutionaries” captured and held hostage 65 Americans. The very next day Iran canceled all treaties with the US and USSR, which meant the oil flow had been stopped. In response, President Carter froze the Iranian “assets” in the US. Why would the US have nearly $8 billion in Iranian assets? Were those the regular payments which were to be made to the Shah for covering up the Russian oil transfer? Did the new Iranian government want the money which was due and payable or else they would expose the oil scheme? The lengthy Iran-Iraq war had just started and Iran needed the money.
Most Americans and historians believe somehow the election of President Reagan was the reason for holding the remaining 52 American hostages until the very day when Reagan was inaugurated. Most people are not aware the hostages were actually released only moments after the year-long negotiations and the complex electronic transfer was completed of 7.9 billion dollars from US accounts to the Iranian accounts on January 20, 1981. Carter had announced the day before on January 19th that the arrangements had been made, but the news media paid little attention. It was Standard Oil, not the United States, which was being “blackmailed” by the Iranians. President Carter had “frozen” the Iranian accounts, but that was not US money. It was oil money, and Ronald Reagan was not a player in that game.
Also in 1979 an attempt to secure an alternate short safe oil pipeline route from Russia through neighboring Afghanistan only resulted in a prolonged war and that project was dropped. Sometimes you can fool some of the people, but not always.
Another, safer and more profitable oil route was desperately needed which would not be open to revolution and warfare. Both of which could affect the flow of oil. For over 25 years, it appears the new method has been to transfer oil through the long Trans-Siberian pipeline stretching from the southern Russian oilfields to the Arctic Sea in eastern Siberia. Then the Russian oil is brought down through the Alaska Pipe line and marketed as North Slope American oil. All during this time something called the “anti-communist” Cold War was occurring, but in the larger Empire of Energy, such things do not exist.
In early 1990, the USSR announced through the TASS news service that the Trans-Siberian Pipeline would need extended maintenance and for about a year would be reducing their oil output by 25%. Four days later the Alaska Pipeline company, announced they would be doing extended maintenance and for about a year would be reducing their oil output by 25%. Coincidence? Those two stories were both reported by the Associated Press several days apart in 1990, but nobody seems to have put them together. The Arctic Sea is a navigational "no-mans" land and only "military" ships are allowed there, so any transfer is easily hidden.
OPEC itself is another Standard Oil scheme which, by arbitrarily withholding supplies of oil, can drive up the price. This is reminiscent of the old Union Tanker Car Company method of getting the customer to start the oil flow going, then arbitrarily cutting off the supply in order to "corner" the market, drive out competitors, and raise the prices. OPEC should not really have any affect on the world price of oil since it controls only about 10 percent of the total world supply, unless one wants to believe all American oil comes from Arabia. Which it doesn't, since most world oil comes from the vastly larger oil fields in Russia. And it is Standard and its spin-offs which control most of the Russian and Arabian oil.
You probably think most of what I said here doesn't make sense. How could Rockefeller's Standard Oil be doing all that? You probably think, wait a minute, where is Standard Oil? I never even hear about them anymore. Does it still exist? Yes. In the Wednesday January 27, 1988, Wall Street Journal, in a full two-page double-truck ad, it was announced that little Standard Oil was merging with big brother British Petroleum. Could this be true? British Petroleum then had very few productive holdings compared to Standard Oil which controlled much of the world market.
The scheme was, when they announced the merger, actually finally a Standard Oil buyout of British Petroleum, the name of the new merged company was BP-America. In other words, BP is Standard Oil. Standard Oil simply took over the assets and the name of British Petroleum. The name was chosen to hide that fact. Seemingly, all fears and worries about the world-wide predatory marketing practices of Standard Oil have now been allayed and put to rest -- since the name Standard Oil is never mentioned again.
In the last 12 years, during a period of many large companies merging, such as AOL-Time-Warner, etc., BP-America has also merged again and again and changed its name. It is now known as BP-AMOCO but it has in fact bought up, merged with, or controls all of the old Standard Oil "mini-companies" which came from the original breakup by the US government way back in 1911.
Thus, John D. Rockefeller's vow of recombining his original Standard Oil Company has been accomplished, even though it was done by his grandsons and their progeny. BP-AMOCO recently took over control of the Alaska Pipeline. There may appear to be several companies like Texaco or Mobil all drilling on the north slope of Alaska, but it's John D's offspring who now control the price at the spigot in Valdez Harbor. And of course, it's that spigot which is at the end of a very long pipeline stretching all the way to the world's largest oil source in southern Russia. The Empire of Energy now seemed to only have one obstacle left in its way.
In 1945, at the end of WWII, when the Japanese surrendered, General Douglas MacArthur became the military Governor of Japan. MacArthur's assistant was Laurence Rockefeller, one of John D's four grandsons. Just before the Japanese surrendered, the US had been preparing for a massive invasion of the Japanese home islands and had stockpiled vast supplies of weapons and munitions on the island of Okinawa. Enough weaponry to invade Japan. What ever happened to all those military supplies?
With Vice-governor Laurence Rockefeller's assistance most of them were sold to the leader of Viet Nam, Ho Chi Minh, for something like one US dollar and Ho’s "goodwill." Why would Laurence do that? That was US taxpayer property. Ho Chi Minh had been an ally to help fight the Japanese during the war. But the Chinese had been an even greater ally, so why didn’t the weapons go to China? Those weapons might have prevented Mao Tse Tung from taking over China just four years later if they had been given to China. But that wasn’t the plan. From where did Mao get his weapons?
In the 1920's an insider secret became known to a few people. It was published in an exhaustive world resources survey book written by a renowned world-traveling geologist named Hoover, who later became a US President. Not many copies were printed and few people read the book. The secret was that one of the world's largest potential oil fields ran along the coast of the South China Sea right off French Indo-China, now known as Viet Nam. But in the 1920's the method of deep sea oil drilling had not yet been developed. In 1945, the French still held small oil-poor Viet Nam as a colony. Laurence knew about Hoover’s book and the off shore oilfields. The French could be driven out if the Vietnamese nationals, lead by Ho Chi Minh, could be supplied with weapons. Did the French know about this?
Laurence Rockefeller thought he could trick Ho Chi Minh by offering him the weapons to drive out the French and then in return Standard would take over the as yet undeveloped offshore fields. But in 1954 when Vietnamese General Giap finally defeated and drove out the French at Dien Bien Phu, Ho reneged on the deal. Since by then, everybody including the French, the Vietnamese, the Japanese and the Chinese had all read the same Hoover resource book and knew there was a vast supply of oil off the Vietnamese coast. Many people have wondered why the French have been so recalcitrant toward the US ever since French President Charles DeGaul wanted to pull out of NATO in the mid-1950's.
Ho Chi Minh would not let Standard Oil simply walk in and walk off with all the Vietnamese oil. So as before, any country which owns the oil is branded as "communist" since they hold the oil as "community property" and won't allow private corporations, like Standard, to develop the fields and steal the oil. In this case, young American's themselves where "hired" directly to be the "fascists" to go fight the Vietnamese "communists."
The whole 20 year Viet Nam “war” from 1955 to 1975 was an oil scam. And all during the "war," Vietnamese General Giap fought the Americans with weapons he got from Laurence for a dollar. Did you ever wonder why the US, despite, greatly superior weapons, and the loss of 57,000 Americans and half a million Vietnamese, never won the "war?" Ever wonder why the US President issued such strange “rules of engagement” for the American troops that made sure they didn’t win? Ever wonder why Henry Kissinger, a personal assistant to Nelson Rockefeller spent so much time in the Viet Nam/Paris Peace talks which never went anywhere but simply dragged on for years. Maybe winning the “war” wasn’t part of the plan of the Empire of Energy. Maybe the timing of the “war” was more important.
In the 1950's a method of undersea oil exploration was perfected which used small explosions deep in the water and then recorded the sound echos bouncing off the various layers of rock below. The surveyor could then determine the exact location of the arched salt domes which hold the accumulated oil beneath them. But if this method were used off the Viet Nam coast on property Standard didn't own or have the rights to, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Japanese and probably even the French would quickly run to the United Nations and complain that America was stealing the oil, and that would shut down the operation.
In 1964, after Viet Nam was divided into North and South, and the contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident, several US aircraft carriers were stationed offshore of Viet Nam and the "war" was started. Every day jet planes would take off from the carriers, bomb locations in North and South Vietnam, and then using normal military procedure when returning would dump their unsafe or unused bombs in the ocean before landing back on the carriers. Safe ordnance drop zones were designated for this purpose away from the carriers.
Even close-up observers would only notice many small explosions occurring daily in the waters of the South China Sea and thought it was only part of the "war." The US Navy carriers had begun Operation Linebacker One, and Standard Oil had begun its ten year oil survey of the seabed off of Viet Nam. And the Vietnamese, Chinese and everybody else around, including the Americans, were none the wiser. The oil survey hardly cost Standard Oil a nickel, the US taxpayers paid for it.
In 1995, in a multi-hour BBC TV documentary broadcast about the oil industry, the president of one of the oil companies, a spin-off of Standard, stated, ".. It was quite a coincidence, that we finished our offshore oil survey on the very last day of the war, just as the last helicopter was leaving the roof of the embassy in Saigon." A coincidence?
Fifteen years later, after North and South Viet Nam were unified and all the dust settled and most people had forgotten about the "war," the Vietnamese decided they needed some cash and would allow offshore oil exploration. They divided up their coastal area into many oil lots and let foreign companies bid on the lots, with the proviso that Viet Nam got a cut of the action.
Oil companies from 12 countries put in bids. Norway's Statoil, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, even Russia, Germany and Australia all put in bids. But when those countries drilled in their oil lots they all came up with dry holes. Only the "American" company had gushers and since 1990 has pulled billions of dollars out of their Golden Dragon, Blue Lotus, and White Tiger oil fields in the South China Sea off Viet Nam. Coincidence? Were they just lucky? Or did they know something those other oil companies didn’t?
In order to cover for the fact that the Viet Nam “war” was a "phoney" war with the Vietnamese branded as "communists," and the US as a country having no intention of winning, the US would need to withdraw as soon as the oil survey was done. A reason would be needed to explain the withdrawal. In the late 1960's Standard recruited large numbers of idealistic youth who were against the war and the military draft. The oil companies supplied them with monetary assistance and organization.
Those oil-backed and organized youth became the large anti-war demonstrations of the 60's and 70's. Almost none of the demonstrators knew they were being used. Most people still believe the “war” ended because of the strong US sentiment against the “war,” and President Nixon's withdrawal plan was a reaction to the demonstrators. There is too much information which explains the strange relationship between Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller, the Nixon withdrawal plan and the resulting Watergate incident and Nelson's rise to power to become Vice President after Nixon resigned, so I will explain that later.
So it appears there are many oil companies but they are, in fact, all under one controlling marketeer, BP also known as Standard Oil, which sets the world price of energy. Ever wonder why President G.W. Bush wanted to open up new drilling in Alaska? There is a vast new undeveloped oil field discovered in 1989 around and under the Caspian Sea in central southern Russia. This one oil field is larger than any other field ever discovered. This oil could be sent out through the Siberian Pipeline to the Arctic Sea, then down the Alaska Pipeline, as is the Black Sea oil. Something would need to account for the greatly increased and continuous flow of oil in the Alaska pipeline.
New drilling in Alaska, whether oil is found or not, could be used to explain why so much oil is still coming from the Alaska pipeline. Nobody ever mentioned that the North Slope Alaska oil fields, around the Duck Island Western Facility, operated by BP, were running dry and that was the reason why new drilling was needed. Maybe because its not true. Nobody ever mentioned that the Prudhoe Bay Eastern Facility, just a mile or so east of Duck Island, also operated by BP, at the very top of the Alaska Pipeline is a harbor. Maybe nobody wanted you to know.
And exactly where is this new freshly discovered mother of all oil fields in southern Russia? In a province called Chechnya. Is it any wonder the Chechens wanted to become an independent state? Is it any wonder there had been an ongoing ten year war between the Russian and Chechen troops. Did the Russians “brand” the Chechen rebels as “communists” because they want to keep their own oil? Most Russian mothers have no clue why their sons were sent to die in Chechnya. The same was true of the many Russian mothers whose sons died in Afghanistan. And also the very same is true of many American mothers whose sons died in Viet Nam.
The vast new oilfield under Chechnya, by itself, could meet the world’s needs for energy for several hundred years. This new oil supply was far more than could be handled by the aging Trans-Siberia and Alaska pipelines. With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the Russian oil could then be marketed directly. A new overland transport method needed to be built. An obvious and short method would be to build a pipeline westward from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea and then existing oil tanker ships could take the oil across the Black Sea, through the narrow Bosporus channel at Istanbul, Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea and then on to the rest of the world.
There was only one problem with that route. The older Russian oil fields around the Black Sea still produced enough oil to create a daily traffic jam of tanker ships through the narrow Bosporus channel. That long channel is barely wide enough in some places for two ships to pass each other. The Turks live in constant fear of an ecological disaster caused by an oil tanker accident on the very doorstep of Istanbul, which surrounds the channel.
The Bosporus Channel was already beyond the safe limit for tanker traffic so the massive supply of new Chechen oil could not be shipped that way. Seven other long pipeline routes had been proposed in the 1990's. All of them required reaching the Mediterranean Sea by going through politically unstable regions such as eastern Turkey, Syria or Lebanon, all of which are areas of unrest and open to terrorist attack. None of those routes were viable.
In 1995 a seemingly safe and short alternative route was discovered to get around the unsafe overloaded Bosporus Channel in Turkey. The oil tankers on the Black Sea, instead of going south through the narrow Bosporus, would turn northward up the wide Danube River toward Europe. But then at Belgrade, in Serbian Yugoslavia the tankers would make a quick left turn up a tributary river, unload the oil, and with only a short 50 mile pipeline could reach the large Mediterranean seaport of Tirana, Albania and then on to the world. It looked cheap and easy. And where would that short pipeline be built? Across a small province called Kosovo. If only Kosovo could be placed under some international control to eliminate terrorist attacks and ensure a safe pipeline.
The US Air Force tried to put Serbia and Kosovo under NATO control in 1999. It almost worked. But, Albania was unlike all the other old Yugoslavian ethnic states which had been client states of the USSR under the dictator Tito. Albania, alone in that region, had been a client state of China since 1949. The Chinese had long used Tirana, Albania as a European opium and heroin shipping point, in an operation far larger than the “French Connection” in Marseilles. The Albanians still maintain ties with China.
The Chinese, did not want to see large amounts of new energy supplies flowing to the west under BP-Standard control. The Chinese supported and used the “ethnic-Albanian rebels," since the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990's, to ensure continuous unrest in the whole region around Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia, and thus no pipeline. Ever wonder why the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was "accidently" bombed and obliterated in 1999? The US Air Force claimed the old street maps their pilots were reading didn't show the Chinese Embassy. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not always. Within a year the Empire of Energy would find an alternative. To most Americans and to the rest of the world that alternative would look like a very strange Presidential election.
About the same time as the beginning of the Viet Nam war there arose another large threat to Standard Oil control of the world's energy supply. And that was the development of nuclear energy. The ability and knowledge to extract uranium ore from the ground and turn it into a cheap, clean non-polluting energy source had been developed during WWII. Unlike all carbon- based petroleum products, which when burned or oxidized emit carbon dioxide, along with other contaminates into the atmosphere, nuclear fuel in a properly sealed reactor has no emissions.
For reasons of national security, all supplies of uranium ore were placed under strict national control of primarily the governments of the US and the USSR. Private ownership or control of uranium and plutonium as an energy source was not allowed. The new concept of taking another natural resource and turning it into energy with enough supply already currently mined and available to supply the world's energy needs for the next 500 years, would have put all oil companies, including Standard, quickly out of business. Something needed to be done to counter that and fast.
Using the same technique as setting up and organizing the anti- war demonstrators to cover for the Vietnamese offshore oil surveys and blaming the "war" on the "military-industrial- complex" -- Standard organized the "environmentalist" movements to shut down the development of nuclear power plants. But there was a slight difference. In the case where countries owned the oil fields, the countries could be branded as "communists" since they held the oil as community property and then "fascists" could be "hired" to go fight the "communists" to allow the private companies to come in and take over the fields.
In many countries of the world, this process of allowing private corporations to take over the natural resources in a country is often called capitalism, free-enterprise, or even just democracy, though none of those has anything to do with the outright theft of natural resources. It is more properly defined as fascism.
Ever since, Rachael Carson's book "Silent Spring," written in the mid-1960's, people have become aware of how we can unintentionally pollute large areas. A new word was coined in the 60's called "ecology." Everybody is against pollution and everybody wants a clean environment. In that sense, we are all "environmentalists." But the words have become twisted and morphed into grotesque new meanings.
The purpose of the organized environmentalist movements was to be a cover for the oil company stoppage of the building of nuclear power plants. Thus, instead of branding the country which owned the nuclear fuel as "communist," since it was the US which owned most of the fuel, the uranium and plutonium fuel itself needed to be "branded" as the worst mass killer since Stalin, Hitler and Foo Manchu.
The new "phoney" environmentalists would point out Hiroshima, Nagasaki and even Chernobyl as proof of the dangers of nuclear energy. But if you explain that Chernobyl was never built to be a safe nuclear power plant, but was an old Soviet bomb factory for quickly converting raw uranium into plutonium for making nuclear bombs. And, if you further explain that it did produce electricity as a byproduct but it was not designed to be a safe power plant, the average environmentalist only stares blankly. And no nuclear reactors like Chernobyl, without any safety-sealed containment vessel, have been built for over 50 years. But that wasn't in any "environmentalist movement" handout literature they read.
Are nuclear reactors safe, clean and reliable? Go ask the US Navy. They have been running hundreds of nuclear reactors for over 40 years in their ships, submarines and aircraft carriers. Not one accident or radiation leak. When it comes time to change the used nuclear fuel, after the old fuel is removed and they wait two days for the short-term radiation components in the core container to fade away, the nuclear swabbies actually enter the reactor core, and do their regular maintenance work.
Often the Navy nuclear technicians sit for several days right on the reactor core with their tools and instruments during the maintenance procedure. The dosimeters they wear measure the amount of radiation they are getting. The dosimeters always show the total radiation they get while sitting in the reactor core during maintenance is much less radiation than the average web- surfer gets from sitting in front of a color VGA computer monitor while surfing the web for an hour. What? That wasn't in the "phoney environmentalist" handouts?
The US Navy runs more nuclear reactors than anybody else in the world. The radiation output from a fully operating sealed and shielded Navy nuclear reactor is zero. If you want proof of that, go ask the Navy, especially the thousands of Navy-trained nuclear technicians and engineers who work on those reactors. And go ask the Navy submariners who may spend up to six months of sea duty within feet of an operating nuclear reactor. They should know. And they will all tell you the same thing.
And if you point out that hundreds of times more people have been killed and maimed with Napalm, a simple half-and-half jelly mixture of gasoline and coconut palm oil, than were ever killed in both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions. Specifically, the massive firestorm bombing of most of Tokyo and several other large Japanese cities, and even German cities, near the end of WWII were all the result of Napalm. Again a blank stare. All petroleum products can be turned into Napalm, or even now the very large gas-air explosive devices, almost rivaling nuclear weapons in destructive power. Why don't we also outlaw and prevent the production of energy using dangerous petroleum?
Then it becomes obvious. Most of the "environmentalist" movements are really being directed by the petroleum industry to shut down nuclear energy in order to keep the huge profits flowing into the oil companies, until the time comes when the energy companies can also take control of nuclear fuel.
The purpose of the Kyoto Treaty was to sharply limit the emissions of carbon dioxide, branded as a dangerous greenhouse gas. The only way the US could comply with the treaty was either (1) sharply limit the generation of electrical energy from carbon-based petroleum and thus shut down the US, or (2) switch over to nuclear-based electrical generation by allowing the energy companies to own and use nuclear fuel. This switchover has been done in France, Germany and Japan and other countries that don't have their own supply of oil and find nuclear fuel is much cheaper and cleaner than oil. Of course, they all agree with the Kyoto accords.
Thus the "phoney environmentalists," who are still clamoring for the US to enact the Kyoto accords, are both in favor of the switchover to nuclear generated energy, and at the same time are opposed to building new nuclear plants in the US. I will leave it to the "environmentalists" to figure out the illogic of that position.
This is sad, since most of the people in the environmental groups are truly concerned about pollution and are simply unaware they are being misdirected and misused by the oil companies, specifically BP-Standard Oil. If you visit the national headquarters of the environmental groups, like Earth First, Natural Resources Defense Council or the Sierra Club, you won't find a grass roots people operation. Instead you will see vast, palatial, well-appointed suites of offices only rivaled by the corporate headquarters of the oil companies for which they front.
This will soon become obvious when the environmental groups, to help solve the impending energy shortages, as in California and soon to be coming to a neighborhood near you, actually make recommendations to build more power plants using natural gas or clean oil, but never recommend nuclear energy plants. The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council will probably be the first, and then all the other groups will follow.
Within several years, when the US laws prohibiting nuclear waste recycling are dropped, the "environmentalists" will become the strongest advocates of clean nuclear energy. They will point out that nuclear fuel is recyclable with no emissions, while that nasty petroleum fuel is not recyclable and has terrible emissions dangerous to health and the planet. But before that happens the "environmentalists" must complete their current project of changing the US laws prohibiting recycling and private ownership of nuclear fuels.
Thus fascism in America is not only alive and well, but is a thriving mainstream growth industry. It has been entrenched in the center of the US Federal government since the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 and controls the US economy. With the creation of the US Department of Education in the 1970's, instruction in the "fascist oil company plan" has taken over all state and local education systems and reached its goal about 15 years ago with the introduction of what is called the "Goals 2000" program. Ever wonder why it was called "Goals 2000"?
That program was produced and pushed through congress by something called the General Education Board. The plan of the Goals 2000 program is to divide children from parents, prevent any reasonable education that would produce children who might ask who really runs the world, and foment division among racial groups through diversity training, along with a healthy dose of oil company environmentalism. This almost exact same education plan was used by Adolf Hitler in the 1930's and 40's in his Hitler Youth movement. It later was adopted by Stalin in the 1950's and Fidel Castro in the ‘60s. It can now be found in many countries.
The Diversity training in the new curriculum is similar to the German "racial hygiene," or awareness of racial differences, which was based on the earlier "eugenics" movement that started in the US and was made into law in most of the states starting with South Dakota in the 1920's.
And from where did Adolph Hitler get his education plan? And where did Stalin and Castro get their education plans? And now even the education plans being sent worldwide by the United Nations through UNICEF and UNESCO? They all got them from the working papers written by the General Education Board, founded in 1905 by John D. Rockefeller. Almost all textbooks in American schools now say at the bottom of the inside cover, "Approved by the General Education Board." Now you know who they are and what has happened to the American education system.
The federal government through the Department of Education, which provides no education nor instruction, has done nothing in the last 30 years to improve education in the US. Multiple billions of US dollars have been spent, not to improve academic achievement, which has seriously declined, but to ensure the complete and proper implementation of the fascist oil General Education Plan in every state and local school district throughout the nation. Most of the money is spent on overcoming the great resistance of both teachers and parents who don't like what they see in the Goals 2000 plan. John D. Rockefeller would be proud of his achievement, and it didn't cost him a nickel. He got the taxpayers to pay for it.
There are numerous other examples in American life and culture where the clear hand of Oil Company Fascism has taken complete control in the last 20 to 25 years. So it would not be correct to say there is a growing movement of fascism in the world. It has been here for over 80 years and anything which does not fit into the framework of Oil Company Fascism is branded as polluting, dangerous to health, or communist. And soon even the need for that will be superfluous and then you are only left with the worldwide Hi-test ethyl-supreme Fascism of the Empire of Energy. Can you say "New World Order?"
In the early days of the discovery of large oil fields, the first being in Arkansas, followed quickly by discoveries in Texas and California, all three of those states were swiftly made "safe" for the oil business. All of the candidates for legislators and governors were bribed with handsome political campaign war chests filled brimming with oil profits. In those three states the only way to get into state office was to buddy up with the oil companies and then make sure all the laws you passed were kindly to your benefactors.
Thus Arkansas, Texas and California have been "Oil Company States" since about 1920. Did you notice in the last 21 years, all the Presidents of the US were governors or senators from Arkansas, Texas or California? And before that, "Viet Nam War" Johnson was a Texas oilman, and "Viet Nam War" Nixon was a California oil senator. Just a coincidence? The oil business is non-partisan. It makes no difference whether a Republican or Democrat wins an election. Just as when you go to fill up your tank at the gas station, somebody else has already chosen for you whether you buy foreign or American gas. Likewise, who you select on the voting ballot doesn't matter. Somebody else has already chosen for you. The Fascist Oil Party always wins either way.
Thus for the last 38 years, all the presidents have been Standard Oil men from Oil Company states, except for Georgia's Jimmy Carter. And in 1977, it was ex-Navy nuclear engineer, President Carter, who signed a law which forbade the recycling of used nuclear material through reprocessed fuel as is done throughout the rest of the world as in Japan, France and Germany. This produced, only in America, a vast nuclear waste dump problem which effectively shut down any new nuclear plants in the US. There is no waste problem in other countries, where the waste is all continuously recycled as enriched uranium fuel. There is virtually no waste. But, of course, that is not in the "phoney environmentalist" handouts.
The Big Four Rockefeller Brothers, the grandsons of John D, each took a different slice of the world pie. Laurence Rockefeller took the Asian region as assistant regent of Japan under General MacArthur after WWII, which lead to the Vietnam "war" and the vast oil profits there.
Nelson Rockefeller became governor of New York, based on his childhood home on the vast Rockefeller estate in Terrytown on the Hudson, just north or Rye. Nelson had his eyes on stealing his way into the presidency, not by election, but by simple appointment using something he created, and slammed through Congress in 1967 in a matter of weeks. It was called the "Rockefeller Amendment," also known as the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. It happened so fast, most people never even noticed. And the source of that amendment is not taught in schools.
The 25th Amendment allows any person, qualified or not, to become president of the US, by simple appointment, not by election. And which Nelson Rockefeller used to become vice president only 7 years later. But he had hoped to be appointed 4 years earlier by an agreement with Richard Nixon. But Nixon reneged, which lead to Nelson getting rid of Richard through the Watergate scandal set up by Nelson. Ever wonder who the deep-throated gravely voice belonged to, who spoon fed the Watergate information against Nixon to Woodward and Bernstein in the darkly lit underground garages? Go ask Woodward, he knows. But he's not telling. Ever wonder what happened to the American press?
The baby brother of the Big Four, David Rockefeller, set himself up as the monetary head of the world, using his control of the monetary system in the US through the Federal Reserve System, and then later expanded around the world by using the newly created World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to control the central banks and economies of most, and now all, nations. And what of the fourth grandson, Winthrop? Winthrop and his vast inherited wealth and power only took over a state. The state of Arkansas. Winthrop owned Arkansas and everything in it. But it was such a minor state, with many uneducated people and who would want such a puny job? Winthrop did. Winthrop owned Arkansas.
In 1973 during the Watergate Scandal hearings, Nixon was being maneuvered out of the Oval Office and a Rockefeller friend, Jerry Ford who had been "appointed" by Nixon, was being maneuvered into office as interim president. Then using the Rockefeller 25th Amendment, Jerry in turn "appointed" Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. This would seem a rather strange game of Rockefeller musical chairs, and even more strangely the American press and the public never even noticed.
The press was too busy with the "leaked" Nixon Watergate scandals to notice what was happening just behind the scenery. The fascist energy empire was learning how to use outrageous scandal as a cover for the next phase of political activity. Even though the political activity is in plain sight for all to see, it simply is not reported by the press, therefore it disappears.
It was a young Hillary Rodham Clinton, as one of the lead congressional law counsels during the Watergate hearings, who helped put Nelson Rockefeller in position. As payback, Hillary's husband would be made Governor of Arkansas, with the assistance of Winthrop Rockefeller, who owned Arkansas.
That deal was a slam dunk and William Clinton became Arkansas governor. But Bill Clinton was such a scandalous ruffian, even the simple folk of Arkansas wanted to quickly impeach him and toss him out of office. So Winthrop had to save the day and step in for a while as interim Governor of Arkansas until the scandals quieted down. Then Clinton returned for a second term as governor. And why would Winthrop do all that? Because Rockefeller-BP-Standard was grooming "scandalous" Bill Clinton to take over as their man in the Presidency. Bill Clinton had been a Rockefeller oil man ever since his college days as a Rhodes scholar, and his trip to visit the oil men in the USSR back in the 1960's.
With eight years of Bill Clinton in office as President of the US, his many wild and continuous scandals would cover up the workings behind the scene as the oil company fascists took over control of the federal government and the press. That process was completed and proven when even a scandalized publicly self-admitted perjurer like Bill Clinton, could not be impeached and convicted by the US congressmen -- because BP-Standard now owned them all. In accord with John D. Rockefeller's vow 90 years before, the takeover of the American government by the fascist oil empire was now complete, thanks to Winthrop Rockefeller, who owned Arkansas. The next and final scene of world domination by the New Empire of Energy was now only one short step away. Enter George W. Bush stage right.
October 9, 2001 – Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the “put options” on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard had been Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown. A.B. Brown was acquired by Banker’s Trust in 1997. Krongard then became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard’s last position at Banker’s Trust (BT) was to oversee “private client relations.” In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11 attacks.
THE SCOPE OF KNOWN INSIDER TRADING
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades – in real time – as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades, “selling short” and “put options”.
“Selling Short” is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a window of as long as four months.
“Put Options,” are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell stocks at a later date. Purchased at nominal prices of, for example, $1.00 per share, they are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 – regardless of where the market then stands. A call option is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled “Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?” documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.
- On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;… Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
- [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
- No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday.
- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
- Merrill Lynch & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by “insiders,” their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
- European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. [FTW Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock making the attacks a “double whammy” for them.]
On September 29, 2001 – in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media – the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
“The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors – whose identities and nationalities have not been made public – had advance knowledge of the strikes.” They don’t dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”
“…The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options…” This was the operation managed by Krongard until as recently as 1998.
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re. just before the attacks.
CIA, THE BANKS AND THE BROKERS
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already frightening implications of the above revelations. Let’s look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at some of the key players in CIA’s history.
Clark Clifford – The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles – These two brothers “designed” the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most powerful - to this day - Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey – Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was, under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer and stockbroker.
David Doherty - The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush – President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-7. He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, which also shares joint investments with the bin Laden family.
A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard – The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the investment bank A.B. Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker’s Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation’s second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering of drug money. This includes Citigroup’s 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin – This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank’s board.
Maurice “Hank” Greenburg – The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world, was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg’s and AIG’s long connection to CIA drug trafficking and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG’s stock has bounced back remarkably well since the attacks.
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the attacks and did not stop them. Whatever the US government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests of the American people, especially those who died on September 11".
This also makes an interesting read!
THE GREAT ANTHRAX STOCK SWINDLE!
Where oh where to begin!
Well, let's begin with Adm. William J. Crowe Jr. It seems that back when Goerge H. W. Bush was setting up Osama Bin Laden as a Freedom fighter (A "freedom fighter" is the same thing as a terrorist, only aimed at someone you don't like) , the good Admiral and his buddies on the Joint Chiefs were selling American made weapons-grade Anthrax to Saddam Hussein in the hopes that he would use it on Iran (and then we wonder why the Iranian people don't much like Americans). Who knows who else got these American-made weapons of mass destruction either from Admiral Crowe or Saddam.
But that was then and this is now. Admiral Crowe is retired. Admiral Crowe is quite wealthy, far beyond what one might expect on even an Admiral's salary. In fact, Admiral Crowe sits on the Board of Directors and owns 13% of BioPort Corporation.
What is the BioPort Corporation, I hear you ask? Well, it's the only corporation in the United States with a license to make Anthrax Vaccine. Except that BioPOrt doesn't actually make the vaccine, BioPOrt simply bought the lab that does make the vaccine, Michigan Biologic Products Institute, from the State of Michigan in 1998, oddly enough at the same time John J. Maresca, Vice President of International Relations, UNOCAL Corporation, was telling congress that access to the oil reserves under the Caspian Sea required a new government in Afghanistan.
Along with the actual Anthrax Vaccine, BioPort acquired Michigan Biologic Products Institute's sole and exclusive customer for the vaccine, the U.S. Department of defense. And here is the kicker. Since acquiring Michigan Biologic Products Institute, BioPort has not delivered a drop of the stuff! Only 4% of the vaccine contracted for has been delivered. FDA audits have uncovered suspicious record keeping and contamination problems, causing the FDA to ban delivery of the product. Despite this ban, the U.S. Government has continued to front BioPort millions of dollars to kep the operation going. And, given the "State of Emergancy", it is likely that FDA concerns for the product will soon be set aside and the vaccine delivered, not to the citizens whose taxes paid for it all, but to the military and to the government.
So, good old Admiral Crowe and his fellow investors in BioPort are set to make a bundle off of the Anthrax scare. Especially when market demand pushes the price of the product high up above the contracted for $3.50 an ounce. And who are those fellow investors? Well, another part of BioPort is owned by the Carlyse Group. That's George H. W. Bush's current occupation. Yet another portion is owned by (you had better sit down), the Bin Laden family!
That's right. Just as the Bin Laden family made a fortune with the contract to rebuild the Khobar Towers supposedly blown up by Osama, the Bin Ladens will again make a fortune from their part ownership of the only company able to make an Anthrax Vaccine in the United States, because Osama might have some of that Anthrax that the United States sold to Saddam. In fact, the shortage created by the FDA bans will make all the players instant billionaires as market forces drive the price of the vaccine up to thousands of dollars per ounce. (The same amount of Anthrax treatment Cipro that sells for $20 in India now costs $690 in the US).
A very cozy arrangement. The Bushes and Bin Ladens (and the occasional complicit Admiral) are all making money off of the fear and death of Americans and Afghanis.
It's called "profiteering".
It's called conspiracy with a foreign power against the interests of the people of the nation.
This sort of thing is what got Charles the First into trouble!
Well, one really does have to wonder a little doesn't one?...Texas Oil Men, still ruling the world...one wonders for how much longer?
Now if I threw in the CIA and drug funds details that used to flow out of Afghanistan, and into the US Centre of world trade New York, before the Taliban had all the popy fields destroyed last planting season ...well - that'd really cap it all off - wouldn't it?
Recently I attended one of those legendary Washington dinner parties, attended by British cosmopolites and Americans in the know. A few courses in, people were gossiping about the Bush family's close and enduring friendship with the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar, dean of the diplomatic corps in Washington. By the end of the evening, everyone was talking about how the unfolding events were going to affect the flow of oil out of Central Asia.
I left wondering whether 6,000 Americans might prove to have died in New York for the royal family of Saud, or oil, or both. But I didn't have much more than insider dinner gossip to go on. I get my analysis from the standard all-American news outlets. And they've been too focused on a) anthrax and smallpox, or b) the intricacies of Muslim fanaticism, to throw any reporters at the murky ways in which international oil politics and its big players have a stake in what's unfolding.
A quick Nexis search brought up a raft of interesting leads that would keep me busy for 10 years if the economics of this war was my beat. But only two articles in the American media since September 11 have tried to describe how Big Oil might benefit from a cleanup of terrorists and other anti-American elements in the Central Asia region. One was by James Ridgeway of the Village Voice. The other was by a Hearst writer based in Paris and it was picked up only in the San Francisco Chronicle.
In other words, only the Left is connecting the dots of what the Russians have called "The Great Game" -- how oil underneath the 'stans' fits into the new world order. Here's just a small slice of what ought to provoke deeper research by American reporters with resources and talent.
Start with father Bush. The former president and ex-CIA director is not unemployed these days. He's been globetrotting as a member of Washington's Carlyle Group, a $12 billion private equity firm which employs a motorcade of former ranking Republicans, including Frank Carlucci, Jim Baker and Richard Darman. George Bush senior and colleagues open doors overseas for The Carlyle Group's "access capitalists."
Bush specializes in Asia and has been in and out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (countries that revere him thanks to the Gulf War) often on business since his presidency. Baker, the pin-striped midwife of 'Election 2000' was working his network in the 'stans' before the ink was dry on Clinton's first inaugural address. The Bin Laden family (presumably the friendly wing) is also invested in Carlyle. Carlyle's portfolio is heavy in defense and telecommunications firms, although it has other holdings including food and bottling companies.
The Carlyle connection means that George Bush Senior is on the payroll from private interests that have defense business before the government, while his son is president. Hmmm. As Charles Lewis of the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity has put it, "in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. And that to me is a jaw-dropper."
Why can we assume that global businessmen like Bush Senior and Jim Baker care about who runs Afghanistan and NOT just because it's home base for lethal anti-Americans? Because it also happens to be situated in the middle of that perennial vital national interest -- a region with abundant oil. By 2050, Central Asia will account for more than 80 percent of our oil. On September 10, an industry publication, Oil and Gas Journal, reported that Central Asia represents one of the world's last great frontiers for geological survey and analysis, "offering opportunities for investment in the discovery, production, transportation, and refining of enormous quantities of oil and gas resources."
It's assumed we need unimpeded access in the 'stans' for our geologists, construction workers and pipelines if we are going to realize the conservation-free, fossil-fueled future outlined recently by Vice President Cheney. A number of pipeline projects to carry Central Asia's resources west are already under way or have been proposed. They would go through Russia, through the Caucasus or via Turkey and Iran. Each route will be within easy reach of the Taliban's thugs and could be made much safer by an American vanquishment of Muslim terrorism.
There's also lots of oil beneath the turf of our politically precarious newest best friend, Pakistan. "Massive untapped gas reserves are believed to be lying beneath Pakistan's remotest deserts, but they are being held hostage by armed tribal groups demanding a better deal from the central government," reported Agence France Presse just days before September 11.
So many business deals, so much oil, all those big players with powerful connections to the Bush administration. It doesn't add up to a conspiracy theory. But it does mean there is a significant MONEY subtext that the American public ought to know about as "Operation Enduring Freedom" blasts new holes where pipelines might someday be buried.

Who in their right mind could seriously think the "good guys" will ever have a win - with the odds so heavily stacked against them from within the ranks of our own "righteous" Western Capitalist society's? [/quote]

Surely it MUST be starting to dawn on you bye now?:confused:

Ohh well - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!

Cheers!

brian eiland
11-21-2005, 09:07 AM
Dear Trouty,
I am going to read your postings and probable agree with a lot of it, but it doesn't belong here. PLEASE find another place on the forum to post them....maybe Open Discussions. You can always insert a link in this subject thread to that other posting, PLEASE

D'ARTOIS
11-21-2005, 09:18 AM
Tom Clancy wrote a book where he describes the richesses in Siberia and the Central Asian basin. He creates a Japan that wants the oil and the minerals and puting the US in an economical stress by ruining their dollar-economy.

He describes precisely the status of the US poliicians and their connections with the oil industry.

Halliburton among others US and UK companies are still working in Iran. Bush is not only supported by the Oil co's but also the Arms Industry is in peak business, thanks to the present Government.

Governments kill, if there is no way out.

JonathanCole
11-21-2005, 11:36 AM
The more probable reason for Millenium Cell's hydrogen on demand system not taking off is that it is difficult to economically recycle the residual chemicals back into sodium borohydride. So what would you do with them? Second, it takes 4 times more of the solution in your tank than a gasoline equivalent. So your tank would have to be 4 times bigger than a gasoline tank and more than 4 times heavier.

D'ARTOIS
11-21-2005, 12:00 PM
In any case, and that is the point, there is no substititute to fossile energy that is totally in hands of the oilmaffia - also all the coalmines except for the ones in China and Poland, are in the hands of Dallas.

Even the solarcell companies are in their posession and my question is why?
Very simple: law no 1: energy shall not come free!
The works of Tesla could have never been tested, the man took his secrets with him to the other world.

It is a well known fact that Universities world wide sell the research of their students - professors to interested parties.

Solar energy is no solution - at this moment.

Hydrogen - it costs more on electric energy than it supplies.

The only cheap source is vegetable oil: there the oilmaffia can nothing do about- only with the help of politicians they can keep the use of it in the illegal context; in France however, the politics are contra US and they are afraid for the farmers who may protest if you take away their little advantage.

In fact there are only a little few that have access to vegetable oil in sufficient quantities to make it worthwile. The general people rely on the toerhigh taxed gasoil or other fossil fuels, high test, unleaded etc.

Unfortunately the general people is not interested to pursue this issue; the only question is why?

So let's find alternative ways for other types of engines and other fuels, whatever is of interest to the general public, the man in the street, and defend such new invention so that it remains out of the hands of the mob,
oil and politics.

My Irish rebellous blood is speaking. And my Scots ancestors are fuelling it.
Culloden!!!!

caribmon
11-21-2005, 03:13 PM
I think that change is on the way. As much as you see the glass half empty I see it half full - then again I spend half my year in Brazil and half in Holland... and depending on where I am - my outlook changes too.

In terms of the solar being dead and hydrogen being financially testicular twisting - how about if I throw the idea of a fusion of sol and hydrogen?

What if the solar cells produces the hydrogen and it is collected - then the fuel cell uses the hydrogen to produce electricity? In other words - why not use solar electricity to produce hydrogen from sea water and "burn" the hydrogen as needed to run the electric motor?

Brazil is also on the cutting edge of biodiesel and the manufacturing of cars that run on it. See below.

The only cheap source is vegetable oil: there the oilmaffia can nothing do about- only with the help of politicians they can keep the use of it in the illegal context; in France however, the politics are contra US and they are afraid for the farmers who may protest if you take away their little advantage.

In fact there are only a little few that have access to vegetable oil in sufficient quantities to make it worthwile. The general people rely on the toerhigh taxed gasoil or other fossil fuels, high test, unleaded etc.

Unfortunately the general people is not interested to pursue this issue; the only question is why?


Brazil sets pace on alternate fuels

More than 30 years after the Arab oil embargo struck fear through much of the industrialized world and U.S. leaders vowed “never again,” here’s how things stand:

Brazil, the largest country in South America, has almost unshackled itself from foreign oil. It once imported 80 percent of its crude oil; now, it expects to be self-sufficient in a few years. Today, 40 percent of all the fuel Brazilians pump into their vehicles is ethanol, derived primarily from sugarcane bagasse. The government requires that all fuel sold within the country contain at least 25 percent ethanol.

Selling like hotcakes are new Brazilian-made automobiles with “flex” engine systems that allow them to run on gasoline, gasoline-ethanol mix, or straight ethanol. Unlike “hybrid” engine cars in the United States, they cost no more than with a conventional engine. Brazil’s commercial aircraft manufacturer, Embraer, can’t meet the demand for its ethanol-powered planes.

Billions of investor dollars are flowing into Brazil’s ethanol sector, and the country’s rural economies have received significant benefits.

Further, with more than 300 ethanol plants now online and another 50-plus in the works, Brazil is exporting ethanol like crazy to willing buyers around the world (including the United States), and it has potential for enormous production increases.

Germany, whose Rudolph Diesel invented the engine that immortalized his name, is now the world’s largest producer of biodiesel, and plans to increase production a whopping 50 percent each year. The high octane, high performance fuel is made from rapeseed oil.

In dozens of other countries around the globe, serious programs are under way to loosen petroleum’s stranglehold, with fuels that include ethanol and oils derived from everything from soybeans to coconuts.

The world’s largest ethanol plant is up and running in China, with more like it being planned, and the country’s auto plants also plan to churn out millions of flex fuel vehicles.

Click for Full article here (http://deltafarmpress.com/news/051026-brandon-column/) or a slew of articles on the topic here (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=brazil%20biodiesel&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn)

D'ARTOIS
11-21-2005, 03:47 PM
Great - really. Of course I know about the present policy of the Brasil Government to get independent from the oilmob - with the huge agricultural arels of Brasil what can those cowmongers of Texas do except for playing Dallas?

In the end, Biodiesel might be a good sulution: starving farmers can now use there unemployed areales and unoccupied lands to produce biodiesel which in return will put oxygene into the atmosphere instead of pure co2 emissions.

It is the aim of the governments wherever to take away money from the citizen.
The signs are there, here in Holland it is unbelievable how Government and local communities are taxing their inhabitants. Following the American path to unsocialize the community and deliver all social security that has been left to the insurance companies: i.e. banks et al.

In any case fuel is politics and as long as there are no alternatives available, like in Brasil, we still will suffer. We pay about 2 USD for 1 litre of fuel, unleaded cheapest quality.

Well, the oilcompanies won't gain a penny from me. I have my own resources and I can lay hands on vegetable oil that costs me 10 USD cent per liter;
Unfortunately only a few others can do as I do.

Let's go onward looking for alternative powersystems don't get discouraged!!

sorry for this rambling

JonathanCole
11-21-2005, 10:38 PM
In any case, and that is the point, there is no substititute to fossile energy that is totally in hands of the oilmaffia - also all the coalmines except for the ones in China and Poland, are in the hands of Dallas.

Even the solarcell companies are in their posession and my question is why?
Very simple: law no 1: energy shall not come free!

My Irish rebellous blood is speaking. And my Scots ancestors are fuelling it.
Culloden!!!!

Of course energy shall not come free!! If it comes free how do the people who provide the work to make available make a living. The only thing that's free is your mother's milk. After that it's pay as you go.

There are many substitutes for oil and most of them are cheaper than buying fuel in the medium to long term. It just that everybody is used to financiers putting out huge amounts to make it possible for the everyday people to buy a little at a time. To make all that possible, they want to earn moiney for their effort and why not.

People do not make any investment in energy, they just consume it in the smallest possible increments at the lowest price they can find. Petroleum energy is a cheap trick and the masses are addicted to it and too lazy and ignorant to do anything about it.

If a person invested as much in renewable energy every ten years as they do in their cars and barbeques and motorcycles and boat motors and electricity to power their TVs and stereos and computers, ad nauseum, there would be no energy crisis. Because there would be energy competition.

So if you want a different world, change yourself and before too long things might get better. But if all you do is complain and pontificate about the secret conspiracy that everybody already knows about, then you are just a part of the problem and not part of the solution. Buy renewable energy equipment!! Use it!! Support the revolution and get clean energy as a by-product.:)

rxcomposite
11-22-2005, 12:33 AM
Electric motors has been with us for quite sometime but it was the marriage of digital electronics and the brushless DC motor that pave the way for using electrics as a viable means of energy transformer. Electrics shows promise against Internal Combustion Engine, it is making waves, and here to stay.

The motor is very similar to the electric motor that makes your floppy drive spin. It has a permanent magnet so half of the energy is already stored within, the other half to be produced by a rotating field of electrically generated magnet.

This where electronics comes into play. The speed is governed by varying the DC pulse width. The more pulse width, the higher the RPM. The longer the pulse width (less RPM), the more torque produced. Solid state devices handles switching more efficiently. It’s an on/off thing. In the old days of AC transformation, iron core are bulky and solid state devices gives off a lot of heat in shaping and controlling the sunosoidal wave. Modern Pulse Width Modulators (speed controllers) are very light and efficient.

Electric motors, like rubber bands and steam engine, has more torque at zero rpm than internal combustion engine (assume that the ICE has initiated its first firing sequence). The torque is rather constant thus giving it more acceleration when starting from rest.

Electric motors are also capable of short term overload before heat (inefficiency) becomes deleterious to its performance.

This probably explains why there are claims that electrics can do more at less Hp and less weight.

The claim though that reduction gears can be eliminated is debatable. Advances in electric motor design tends to be in higher RPM range with gear reduction. It outperforms direct drive motors. This is the trend in aircraft and model airplane electric power design.

I think this is more related to propeller optimization than increased efficiency. There is a need for more torque to swing a larger propeller with more pitch before cavitation or supersonic tip speed comes into play.

Electrical storage is still a problem as batteries are bulky and heavy. Shore power refueling is not a viable alternative as we are merely transferring pollution to another location (most electric generators are still petrol based fired). It won’t be long however that new generation of batteries that packs more power per pound is available. Just look at the new breed of batteries in your cellphone.

cyclops
11-22-2005, 10:27 AM
A chevy 560 cubic inch engine can and does put out 3,000 to 4,000 hp for brief periods. What are we trying to state about overloaded motors?

Sander Rave
11-22-2005, 11:06 AM
<<Shore power refueling is not a viable alternative as we are merely transferring pollution to another location (most electric generators are still petrol based fired).>>

Evectifness of central energy plants is much higher (>96%) than any electric generator or direct combustion engine (25-40%)
Energy plants use all kinds of pollution filters, I don't know how a local generator without sufficient servicing does on a pollution scale?

transferred pollution is a common used argument, but it only holds on a very, very limmited scale.

Deering
11-22-2005, 11:36 AM
96%? I don't think so. A large hydroelectric plant may reach into the low 90's at the plant, but any plant burning fossil fuels is much, much less than that - more like 60%. And then power transmission losses can use up another 50% of the energy before it gets to you.

Regarding pollution - most coal burning power plants here in the US are profligate polluters, despite stack scrubbing technologies - it's just that they aren't right next door that makes them tolerable.

Distributed power generation is the way to go.

Sander Rave
11-22-2005, 02:00 PM
Well, it will be my small country, small thinking thing. I appologize for that. From my window I can see the powerplant I was talking about. After some study, I learned it sticks in the 50's in output.

Makes me realize you have to make miles, not meters to your front door. I guess that's a difference to start with. Distibuted power generation at this point of technology won't solve the problemfor us, I guess it does for you.

cyclops
11-22-2005, 06:45 PM
Did we ever solve the original Question?

Deering
11-22-2005, 08:48 PM
Agreed - distributed power isn't the whole solution either.

What WAS the original problem anyway?

Sander Rave
11-23-2005, 06:30 AM
If anybody has experience with the magic wheel.

I think the hardwear isn't so much different from other sollutions, one thing I am interrested in is the controller. I have little time lately, hope to investigate all points made in this thread in the weekend...

One E drive I was impressed by at the Mets was Bellman. The guy had a pretty well worked out system. It is plain old simple engineering on the hardwear, and a thought through controller. which also points out your powerconsumption, battery load and estemated sailing time left by given speed.

Diferent power combinations could be made, and different configurations, including a diesel/electric hybrid.

rxcomposite
11-23-2005, 08:10 AM
A chevy 560 cubic inch engine can and does put out 3,000 to 4,000 hp for brief periods. What are we trying to state about overloaded motors?
Cyclops,

You maybe referring to a souped up engine or referring to the peak horsepower developed after ignition stroke. Any good mechanic whether ICE or Electric/Electronic can coax more power out of a motor. However, it voids the warranty or shorten the life of the motor.

I am speaking in general terms. I am not speaking for a specific engine manufacturer or engine tuner.

Electric Motors are guided by a National Standard, probably NEMA in the U.S. One of the specifications that relates to our topic to quote,

“SF (Service Factor) a measure of the reserve margin built into the motor. Motors rated over 1.0 SF have more than normal margin, and are used where unusual conditions such as occasional high or low voltage, momentary overload, ect., are likely to occur.”

Electrical windings do create heat but soon reaches its stable operating temperature. Adding more “juice” or loadings will take some time before “thermal runaway” takes place. Electrics are mostly thermally protected, either by impedance winding, manual reset, or T-stat. The lifespan of the motor is limited by the field winding temperature. These are “engineered in” by the manufacturer depending on the type of duty/application.

Marine propulsion engines are rated in a top down manner. The Hp is fixed at a given rated RPM. It is fixed by a mechanical governor or ECU. That means, without alteration to the engine (which will void the warranty), it is the maximum Hp. that can be extracted, no more, no less. That maximum Hp. is still further governed by the ratings such as high performance, intermittent, or continuous duty. Other engine manufactures stretch it up to more. Very roughly, they say, “you can extract the maximum Hp. only 8% of the time (high performance duty) or shorten mean time between overhaul”. Expect the diesel engine to be bulky and very heavy if it is for continuous duty with high loading factor.

The only time the two types of motor/ engine comes close to comparison is when the IC engine is rated as MC (Maximum Continuous). This in effect is like saying, this is a 450Hp. engine but you can use only 414 Hp. The 36 Hp. power reserve is for unusual operating condition you can use 8% of the time.

Rx

rxcomposite
11-23-2005, 08:51 AM
What if the solar cells produces the hydrogen and it is collected - then the fuel cell uses the hydrogen to produce electricity? In other words - why not use solar electricity to produce hydrogen from sea water and "burn" the hydrogen as needed to run the electric motor?


If i rememeber my high school physics right, if two dissimilar metals are immersed in a brine solution, current flows. The whole sea is then one large electrolyte. Maybe we can extract current from it?

trouty
11-23-2005, 11:16 AM
:idea:
If i rememeber my high school physics right, if two dissimilar metals are immersed in a brine solution, current flows. The whole sea is then one large electrolyte. Maybe we can extract current from it?.

Theres no doubting your right.

However.

You've forgotten Lee and Yangs nobel prize.

You guys really need to study Beardens MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) explanations, at www.cheniere.org

Free energy from the Vacuum of space...really the energy comes from - the domain of time (which if you understood what 'time' really is:- ergo - A form of energy - you would quit looking at the 'obvious' and start to look at the not so obvious which Tesla did all that time ago.)

Tesla's ideas didn't go to the grave with him at all.

Many now work diligently away at this energy problem. There are many renewable sources of energy we know of already such as wind and solar, but there are others - we refuse to believe in - even tho Lee and Yangs nobel prize back in 1957? clearly showed the potential of these other forms of energy.

Why do we not believe until someone else does all the work for us?

We complain - when the world is run by an oil oligarchy - yet we are too scared to believe in anything other than oil - even when for example nuclear powers been around so long.

We will ignore these alternative energy sources, until someone else - does all the work for us, and by then they will own the technology (i.e energy source) and we will still be in just the same position.

Has anyone thought:-

What if our enemys do the hard yards while we wrack the world over the last few drops of oil?

DO you guys in the USA not want to STAY as the worlds numba 1 nation?

You look forward to the time when the Iranians or Ruskies or China - control the NEXT form of energy the world will rely on?

Could be an interesting future - if ya'll don't wake up soon!

Cheers!

trouty
11-23-2005, 11:26 AM
http://www.rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm

What about Hubbards coil generator for use in a boat?

Not like it hasn't already been done!

I wonder who buried THAT technology?

World oil Oilgrachy maybe?:?:

Cheers!;)

trouty
11-23-2005, 11:30 AM
http://www.altenergy-pro.com/device09-2.htm

You see theres LOTS of these ideas around...but for some weird reason they never get legs and run.

Who could possibly have a reason to thwart such inventions?

Who could benefit fiscally if they don't?

Can anyone say world oil oligarchy?

Now lemme see - theres a Jakel engine as well somewhere...

Cheers

trouty
11-23-2005, 11:40 AM
http://www.lutec.com.au/

We even have one down under, albeit an uppside down one!

Cheers!

yipster
11-23-2005, 12:04 PM
overunity eh?
offcourse there is or we would not be here

trouty
11-24-2005, 01:22 AM
As one of the more progressive thinkers on this site.:)

As you know - we've been down this road before.

M = &Delta; T and all that!

Maybe I'll expound upon my Time theory's a little more.

The darn puter crashes a bit - so gimme a little time (no deliberate pun intended), to get the info up - best if I do it in word - then cut n paste (theres that dirty word again...) once I have it how I want it.

OK - so how do I enable HTML code within my text so I can use the DELTA (Meaning - Change in) symbol? i.e - 'change' in Time, Mass = Change in Time (M = Delta T).?

Cheers!

RThompson
11-24-2005, 04:46 PM
:idea:
.


You guys really need to study Beardens MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) explanations, at www.cheniere.org




Yeah, thats a REALLY good idea.
I tried that a year or two ago. Ruined my life. Read through his site, that led to other sites. Then someone offered me some Noam Chomsky at a party - just casual like, "between friends" he said (an innoculous little book called Media Control). Well that led to harder stuff.
Now I struggle to hold down a decent conversation without turning to global doom and gloom about apathetic and ignorant populations, oil, the Great Terrorism Lie and its mate The Great Democracy Joke, Bush and his boss's, etc etc...

I'v been reduced to a cynic randomly twitching in a dark corner while I plot to overthrow the world.
Ignorance is (in fact) bliss.

ps the revolution will not be televised.

yipster
11-24-2005, 05:04 PM
♪ ♪ ♪♪♪♪ studying prisms arrow down = naval expression for displacement, ofcourse seeing it from that side.... ♪ ♪ ♪♪♪♪

Deering
11-24-2005, 05:25 PM
Oooowww... my head hurts!

Consider this - a standard car engine uses about 20% of the energy in gasoline to actually move the car. The rest is lost as heat and noise energy. A typical car and occupant weight about 4,000 lbs. A 200 lbs body represents 5% of that mass.

Let's do the math. 20% of 5% = 1%. We use 1% of the energy available in gasoline to actually move our body down the road. Pretty pathetic, eh? Now consider a 20,000 lbs boat - the numbers get 5X worse!

Whether it's Trouty's vacuum or solar cells... we can do better.

JonathanCole
11-24-2005, 09:33 PM
Let's do the math. 20% of 5% = 1%. We use 1% of the energy available in gasoline to actually move our body down the road. Pretty pathetic, eh? Now consider a 20,000 lbs boat - the numbers get 5X worse!

Whether it's Trouty's vacuum or solar cells... we can do better.

I'm workin on the belt pack antigravity device. Deering is right. If we just get rid of the vehicle we hardly need any energy at all!! Probably get by with a 9 volt battery. Although some of our Dutch compatriots have discovered enough energy in one burning spliff to astral travel!!:D

trouty
11-24-2005, 11:36 PM
I'v been reduced to a cynic randomly twitching in a dark corner while I plot to overthrow the world.
Ignorance is (in fact) bliss.

I know how you feel, trust me I do!

There are days I twitch so bad I feel like Quasimodo! (Usually after a lengthy read of Sherman Skolnicks website - Noam Chomsky's got nuttin on ol Sherman!)

Anyway - speakin of Quasimodo - reminds me of an ol Quasimodo joke.;)

Quasi is getting a long a little in years and his twitching's got worse 'n worse over the years, so much so - that the clergy are now worried about him flitting around the belfry, in case he twiches while he's leaping on or off - the bells to make em ring and loses his grip and falls to his death. The new occupational health and safety laws, 'duty of care' rules really have 'em worried, since they can all be held personally responsible for any injury Quasi suffers, if they haven't recognized the risks & taken steps to identify the dangers and eliminate them from his workplace.

So - they get this bright idea- that maybe they need to send ol' Quasimodo - on a holiday!

Well - that’s, all well 'n good - but who the heck's - going to ring the bells on Sunday?

So - they put an advert on the Church of Notredame notice board, saying "relief Bell ringer wanted!".

A few days later - they hear this deafening banging on the Church door, Bang, Bang - Bang bang, and so it goes, until the priest opens the door - only to find - the Thalidomide twins standing there, bangin' their foreheads in unison on the door, because - neither of em has any arms! (They are in fact - totally armless!)

What's up he says?

Well - we've come to apply for the relief bell ringer's job!

How the heck - ya gunna do that?" says the priest - "neither of you - has any arms (or hence hands) with which to pull on the bell ropes?"

"Well - ya can't discriminate against us because were handicapped", offered the pair, "coz its against the anti discrimination laws!" they quipped! 'What about give us a trial, and if you like the tunes we ring - then let us have the job - after all - it's only for a couple weeks!".

"Fair enough" says the priest! "Give it ya best shot!".

Well - off up to the belfry - goes the two thalidomide twins, and in unison - just like the Parish door, they take turns to head butt the various bells in the belfry - and ring out - the "Bells of St Clemens" in perfect timing and tune!.

Everyone in the town is amazed at the tune - and how nice it is - including the clergy - so what the heck - they give the two armless thalidomide twins - the relief bell ringers job, while Quasi's on holidays getting over his twitch!

(Not a very healthy bunch these French crew are they?):D

Anyway, to cut a long story short, (you reckon?):p , the next days a Sunday - and the two relief bell ringer thalidomide twins are up in the belfry making a racket with the bells and havin' a wow of a time. Just at that moment - Ol Quasi's walking down the foootpath past the church with his two suitcases, headed for the train station - to start his holiday.

Right at that very instant - one of the twins - miss times his head butt of a bell - and trips on a loose board in the belfry, loses his balance and runs full tilt at the railing around the belfry. With no arms to stop himself - the railing takes out his feet from under him, and he does the ol' one and a half pike with a one and a half twist - out into open air!

His brother can see this happening, as if in slow motion - he races across - to try and intercept his hapless brother, and prevent his tragic accident - but alas, he too - trips on the loose board - and like his brother before him - takes the swan dive, straight out into thin air over the railing, after arriving a split second too late to save his hapless armless thalidomide twin brother!

Well - the first brother, does a face plant - into the concrete footpath (Thud) - right in front of the local Gendarme (French Policeman), and a split second later - the second twin does the exact same thing (Another thud!).

Bemused and confused - the Gendarme looks across at Quasimodo, who by now is passing with his suitcases in tow, "Lifts" the first brothers head up to try and identify him and says " Hey Quasi?" - " You got any idea who this armless fella is?".

To which Quasi replys…

"Nahhh - no idea - never seen 'im before in my life - but Geez - his face sure rings a bell!" (Boom boom!)

The Gendarme - lifts the second twins head up in an effort to identify him, and again looks across at Quasi and asks 'Well - what about this armless fella then - any idea who he is?"

"Nahhh" says Quasi "But he sure is a dead ringer for his brother!" Boom Boom!

Jeeze I love Quasimodo Jokes!:rolleyes:

Cheers!

lockhughes
11-27-2005, 05:16 PM
Original URL here:
http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/engines/0105dieselelectric/

The Next Big Thing

Is diesel-electric power finally going to get its day in the sun?

January 2005

Diesel-electric power has been around for a while, and though it isn’t widely used in yachts and pleasureboats, it has proven itself as an efficient means of propulsion in military and research vessels. Advantages such as increased control, improved fuel efficiency, longer engine life, and lower maintenance costs have made this hybrid system the power of choice in these fields. The question facing yacht builders and owners is whether those benefits outweigh the system’s additional cost.

The idea of using an engine to power a genset that in turn creates propulsion was initially used in locomotives and ships by General Electric in the early 20th century, and in World War I diesel-electric power gained more momentum. U-boats were some of the first diesel-electric military vessels, but surface ships also had adopted it by the onset of World War II. Today the U.S. Navy employs an updated version of diesel-electric power to help fulfill the demanding electrical requirements of modern warships, as do most cruise ships and commercial and research vessels.

The concept is simple enough: engines powering gensets that both provide propulsion via electric motors and electrical power to a busbar. Thus two formerly independent functions, propulsion and onboard electrical power, can be controlled by a single system. In essence, the genset operates the entire boat, from moving her through the water to flushing the MSDs.

Removing the engines from the prop shafts has an additional benefit: They can run at optimum efficiency while shaft revolutions are regulated by variable-speed electric motors. This increases engine life, since they are never under- or overloaded. An additional bonus is that by removing the marine gears altogether and the prop shafts from the engines, you get much quieter propulsion.

Yachts can and do reap these benefits. Two that currently employ this system are the 414-foot Octopus and the 315-foot Limitless. Their large sizes are not coincidental. Ken Robbins, president of Marine Propulsion, says, “When the energy required to power a ship’s auxiliary systems is equal to or greater than what it takes to propel it, then diesel-electric is a logical choice.”

Because of their complexity, diesel-electric systems are heavy and take up a lot of space.

Engineers refer to the energy required by these auxiliary systems, ranging from air conditioning to high-tech cinema setups, as “hotel load.” On most yachts this figure is a fraction of what is required to actually propel the boat. On warships, cruise liners, and, in this case Octopus, hotel loads either approach or exceed what’s required to move the boat. In the case of Limitless, however, the reasons for using diesel-electric power go deeper.

Limitless doesn’t require nearly as much auxiliary power as she does propulsion power. Therefore she employs a hybrid system that utilizes both straight diesel inboard drives and diesel-electric drives to deliver a whopping 22,000 hp and a reported top speed of 27.5 knots. According to Capt. Craig Tafoya, Limitless’ project manager, “It is this top speed that mandated the use of diesel-electric. Conventional diesels [that could achieve this speed] were so high strung that, when [at] idle speed [they] would never let us go below 16 knots. The diesel-electric option allowed for precision control while maneuvering (once the primary diesels were disengaged) and provided us with redundancy—we had backup propulsion if the main engines were lost.” Such redundancy is a huge advantage for any yacht using diesel-electric. In an emergency the output from any number of gensets can be combined to supply propulsion to electric motors to get you home.

But all this comes at a price. Because of their complexity, diesel-electric systems are heavy and take up a lot of space. Vripak International, a Dutch naval architecture firm, estimates the average weight penalty at two to five percent more than a conventional system, due to the additional gensets, electric motors, and frequency converters. However, diesel-electric does provide flexibility in engine and genset placement. The engines no longer have to be inline with the shafts, and gensets, and converters can be placed virtually anywhere. This ability to position equipment at the designer’s (and owner’s) discretion has significant advantages when it comes to trim characteristics of the boat and the spaciousness of guest quarters. No longer does the engine room have to occupy that critical space amidships where the beam is widest, and heavy components can be positioned to achieve optimum running angle.

As to cost, Dick Boone of Vripak estimates materials alone add 15 percent to the total price of a diesel-electric boat, a figure somewhat offset by the greater fuel efficiency and longevity of a properly loaded diesel engine. Boone states, “On average a conventional engine running at 30 percent of rated power suffers a fuel penalty of 36 percent.” Diesel-electric allows engines to run at optimum efficiency continuously, thus negating that fuel penalty. The payback time for such savings is, of course, proportional to how much the yacht is used. Vripak compares a prototype 160-foot motoryacht with conventional diesels to one with diesel-electric. At 9 knots the conventional diesels actually had 12 percent better fuel efficiency. At 12 knots the two systems rated the same. At 15 knots the diesel-electric was an impressive 15 percent more efficient, plus the engines emitted less nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.

So which yachts could benefit from diesel-electric? Well, the larger the better. The more space a yacht has to accommodate the hardware and the closer its auxiliary power requirements are to its propulsion demands, the better the candidate. Lürssen, the German yard that built Octopus and Limitless, says a yacht should be at least 250 feet, while Vripak has found advantages in a 160-foot test vessel.

So why don’t more owners chose diesel-electric propulsion? Many do, but only a few owners can afford to build over 160 feet. Still, over the last two decades the use of diesel-electric has increased by 250 percent, according to Daniel Reinhardt, senior press manager at MTU, though he admits the number of yachts using diesel-electric 20 years ago was small. But builders and owners tend to stick with what they know. Working with an unfamiliar system like diesel-electric can be costly, and owners may not see or be attracted to the eventual savings. Owners won’t invest until the cost of diesel electric comes down, and until that happens, there may not be enough diesel-electric yachts to prove the system works in pleasureboats.

However, the 2004 Fort Lauderdale Boat Show revealed some interesting trends, among them that more builders are integrating all the systems on their boats. Diesel-electric power does that with propulsion and auxiliary systems and allows an owner to monitor and control everything from one automated program. Imagine powering up your entire vessel from a single touchscreen. Diesel-electric lets you do that, which is why it just may be the future of marine power.

The reasons to power smaller craft with diesel-electric may soon become more compelling. In 1999 FAST Electric Yacht Systems was founded in Houston, Texas, with the aim of adapting reliable diesel-electric power to any boat, regardless of size. Using technology developed by Siemens for German electric buses, FAST developed a diesel-electric system for boats with power requirements as small 50 hp.

One of the first boats to be fitted with the system is April K, a 1995 Ocean Alexander Classico 423, whose power went from twin Caterpillar 3208s to a single Cummins B220. According to her owner, Paul Smith, April K’s fuel economy increased by 22 percent, maintenance costs were halved, and he had 35 percent more engine space.

When I asked Smith why he would install an arguably more complicated system that flies in the face of conventional marine thinking, he said, “There is nothing in your face about this technology. It’s being proven all around us: New York City buses, South Florida water taxis, smart cars, and golf carts all use this technology.” Besides, the results speak for themselves. Who wouldn’t do this?” —C.C.
FAST Electric Yacht Systems((713) 952-9908. www.feys.org.

Hmmmmm.... I see I haven't been alongside here since April 2005...
Yikes - "20829 unread posts since your last visit"

You guys have been busy!

Fair winds and following seas
LoCk


In 2002, and 135 messages ago, I wrote:
I was stunned when I first read about what these guys are doing:
http://www.solomontechnologies.com/

It's pretty much an academic exercise now, but I was trying to sell my club membership on the merits of going with an electric pontoon boat rather than a displacement hull diesel-powered craft, as a replacement for our Club's tender, which operates as a 40-passenger private ferry on a 1 mile run between our Club and the city, across Toronto harbour.

I've put together the scraps of my investigations so far, as a Yahoo Group site, at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QCYCTender/

But about these Solomons? Anyone here with experience with these drives? Anyone think they're not bloody *amazing*???

Regards

Laughlin Hughes
Tornado Kc234 "High Heels"
QCYC
Wards Island, Toronto

lockhughes
11-27-2005, 05:16 PM
Original URL here:
http://www.powerandmotoryacht.com/engines/0105dieselelectric/

The Next Big Thing

Is diesel-electric power finally going to get its day in the sun?

January 2005

Diesel-electric power has been around for a while, and though it isn’t widely used in yachts and pleasureboats, it has proven itself as an efficient means of propulsion in military and research vessels. Advantages such as increased control, improved fuel efficiency, longer engine life, and lower maintenance costs have made this hybrid system the power of choice in these fields. The question facing yacht builders and owners is whether those benefits outweigh the system’s additional cost.

The idea of using an engine to power a genset that in turn creates propulsion was initially used in locomotives and ships by General Electric in the early 20th century, and in World War I diesel-electric power gained more momentum. U-boats were some of the first diesel-electric military vessels, but surface ships also had adopted it by the onset of World War II. Today the U.S. Navy employs an updated version of diesel-electric power to help fulfill the demanding electrical requirements of modern warships, as do most cruise ships and commercial and research vessels.

The concept is simple enough: engines powering gensets that both provide propulsion via electric motors and electrical power to a busbar. Thus two formerly independent functions, propulsion and onboard electrical power, can be controlled by a single system. In essence, the genset operates the entire boat, from moving her through the water to flushing the MSDs.

Removing the engines from the prop shafts has an additional benefit: They can run at optimum efficiency while shaft revolutions are regulated by variable-speed electric motors. This increases engine life, since they are never under- or overloaded. An additional bonus is that by removing the marine gears altogether and the prop shafts from the engines, you get much quieter propulsion.

Yachts can and do reap these benefits. Two that currently employ this system are the 414-foot Octopus and the 315-foot Limitless. Their large sizes are not coincidental. Ken Robbins, president of Marine Propulsion, says, “When the energy required to power a ship’s auxiliary systems is equal to or greater than what it takes to propel it, then diesel-electric is a logical choice.”

Because of their complexity, diesel-electric systems are heavy and take up a lot of space.

Engineers refer to the energy required by these auxiliary systems, ranging from air conditioning to high-tech cinema setups, as “hotel load.” On most yachts this figure is a fraction of what is required to actually propel the boat. On warships, cruise liners, and, in this case Octopus, hotel loads either approach or exceed what’s required to move the boat. In the case of Limitless, however, the reasons for using diesel-electric power go deeper.

Limitless doesn’t require nearly as much auxiliary power as she does propulsion power. Therefore she employs a hybrid system that utilizes both straight diesel inboard drives and diesel-electric drives to deliver a whopping 22,000 hp and a reported top speed of 27.5 knots. According to Capt. Craig Tafoya, Limitless’ project manager, “It is this top speed that mandated the use of diesel-electric. Conventional diesels [that could achieve this speed] were so high strung that, when [at] idle speed [they] would never let us go below 16 knots. The diesel-electric option allowed for precision control while maneuvering (once the primary diesels were disengaged) and provided us with redundancy—we had backup propulsion if the main engines were lost.” Such redundancy is a huge advantage for any yacht using diesel-electric. In an emergency the output from any number of gensets can be combined to supply propulsion to electric motors to get you home.

But all this comes at a price. Because of their complexity, diesel-electric systems are heavy and take up a lot of space. Vripak International, a Dutch naval architecture firm, estimates the average weight penalty at two to five percent more than a conventional system, due to the additional gensets, electric motors, and frequency converters. However, diesel-electric does provide flexibility in engine and genset placement. The engines no longer have to be inline with the shafts, and gensets, and converters can be placed virtually anywhere. This ability to position equipment at the designer’s (and owner’s) discretion has significant advantages when it comes to trim characteristics of the boat and the spaciousness of guest quarters. No longer does the engine room have to occupy that critical space amidships where the beam is widest, and heavy components can be positioned to achieve optimum running angle.

As to cost, Dick Boone of Vripak estimates materials alone add 15 percent to the total price of a diesel-electric boat, a figure somewhat offset by the greater fuel efficiency and longevity of a properly loaded diesel engine. Boone states, “On average a conventional engine running at 30 percent of rated power suffers a fuel penalty of 36 percent.” Diesel-electric allows engines to run at optimum efficiency continuously, thus negating that fuel penalty. The payback time for such savings is, of course, proportional to how much the yacht is used. Vripak compares a prototype 160-foot motoryacht with conventional diesels to one with diesel-electric. At 9 knots the conventional diesels actually had 12 percent better fuel efficiency. At 12 knots the two systems rated the same. At 15 knots the diesel-electric was an impressive 15 percent more efficient, plus the engines emitted less nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide.

So which yachts could benefit from diesel-electric? Well, the larger the better. The more space a yacht has to accommodate the hardware and the closer its auxiliary power requirements are to its propulsion demands, the better the candidate. Lürssen, the German yard that built Octopus and Limitless, says a yacht should be at least 250 feet, while Vripak has found advantages in a 160-foot test vessel.

So why don’t more owners chose diesel-electric propulsion? Many do, but only a few owners can afford to build over 160 feet. Still, over the last two decades the use of diesel-electric has increased by 250 percent, according to Daniel Reinhardt, senior press manager at MTU, though he admits the number of yachts using diesel-electric 20 years ago was small. But builders and owners tend to stick with what they know. Working with an unfamiliar system like diesel-electric can be costly, and owners may not see or be attracted to the eventual savings. Owners won’t invest until the cost of diesel electric comes down, and until that happens, there may not be enough diesel-electric yachts to prove the system works in pleasureboats.

However, the 2004 Fort Lauderdale Boat Show revealed some interesting trends, among them that more builders are integrating all the systems on their boats. Diesel-electric power does that with propulsion and auxiliary systems and allows an owner to monitor and control everything from one automated program. Imagine powering up your entire vessel from a single touchscreen. Diesel-electric lets you do that, which is why it just may be the future of marine power.

The reasons to power smaller craft with diesel-electric may soon become more compelling. In 1999 FAST Electric Yacht Systems was founded in Houston, Texas, with the aim of adapting reliable diesel-electric power to any boat, regardless of size. Using technology developed by Siemens for German electric buses, FAST developed a diesel-electric system for boats with power requirements as small 50 hp.

One of the first boats to be fitted with the system is April K, a 1995 Ocean Alexander Classico 423, whose power went from twin Caterpillar 3208s to a single Cummins B220. According to her owner, Paul Smith, April K’s fuel economy increased by 22 percent, maintenance costs were halved, and he had 35 percent more engine space.

When I asked Smith why he would install an arguably more complicated system that flies in the face of conventional marine thinking, he said, “There is nothing in your face about this technology. It’s being proven all around us: New York City buses, South Florida water taxis, smart cars, and golf carts all use this technology.” Besides, the results speak for themselves. Who wouldn’t do this?” —C.C.
FAST Electric Yacht Systems((713) 952-9908. www.feys.org.

Hmmmmm.... I see I haven't been alongside here since April 2005...
Yikes - "20829 unread posts since your last visit"

You guys have been busy!

Fair winds and following seas
LoCk


In 2002, and 135 messages ago, I wrote:
I was stunned when I first read about what these guys are doing:
http://www.solomontechnologies.com/

It's pretty much an academic exercise now, but I was trying to sell my club membership on the merits of going with an electric pontoon boat rather than a displacement hull diesel-powered craft, as a replacement for our Club's tender, which operates as a 40-passenger private ferry on a 1 mile run between our Club and the city, across Toronto harbour.

I've put together the scraps of my investigations so far, as a Yahoo Group site, at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QCYCTender/

But about these Solomons? Anyone here with experience with these drives? Anyone think they're not bloody *amazing*???

Regards

Laughlin Hughes
Tornado Kc234 "High Heels"
QCYC
Wards Island, Toronto

Guillermo
11-30-2005, 04:58 PM
We also should be thinking about fuell cells in a no so far away future: We'll even have "gas-stations" floating around!
Check this:
http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=be4bdf1f-041b-44f5-bc4f-aa653124a093

Sander Rave
11-30-2005, 05:59 PM
Guillermo, check this:
Government Study
"The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory did a feasibility study on these types of floating turbine farms and found that they could be built using existing technology and provide electricity at approximately $0.05/kWh. The turbines studied did not include the battery storage and hydrogen production described [here]." (Ref.)

in the article. I love the thought, but I am just as optimistic as Nick Cave
Storing energy from sea water in this particular case is only a waste of energy.

cyclops
11-30-2005, 10:35 PM
If the process can generate BTU's compareable to fossil fuels. I will invest money. Otherwise you are wasting the worlds time also.

Sander Rave
12-01-2005, 04:33 AM
I agree. I want to see the figures: Input and results, not only a pretty story on how things might be in the future.

Guillermo
12-01-2005, 05:43 AM
Storing energy from sea water in this particular case is only a waste of energy.

Thanks, Sanders Rave :)
Why do you think it's a waste of energy?
I know in Holland they are already adapting a big tanker with wind turbines and hydrogen tanks, so they can produce hydrogen and then sell it wherever necessary. I think it will be operative soon (I Don't remember the web pages now).

Check also this other interesting information:
http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2465

Sander Rave
12-01-2005, 10:08 AM
Because the energy needed to produce and store hydrogen is ineffective. That's dictated bij physic laws. Nothing of "When technology will safe us".

The possibility for building a big tanker is collecting money from EU allowance. Again, the general idea is good, but the means aren't. Does someone around here know a better way of storing energy? There should be some space on a tanker to store a lot of energy.

I'm doing just the thing I hate the most: telling stuff without the back-up of the figures. I'll have to find some time first to state my point with some facts. Sorry for this, but it won't be untill after the weekend.

JonathanCole
12-01-2005, 10:58 AM
Because the energy needed to produce and store hydrogen is ineffective. That's dictated bij physic laws.

That is a sweeping statement that does not hold up for all cases! Hydrogen is now being produced by bacteria, by direct solar photoelectrolysis and by solar thermal processes. The energy needed to produce and store fossil fuels is also increasingly uneconomical. As the resources are harder to find, extract, process and store they become economically ineffective. The problem with hydrogen is storage, but these problems are well on the way to being solved.
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=89029
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003473.html
http://83.219.63.174/Articles/292805/A+different+class.htm

The possibility for building a big tanker is collecting money from EU allowance. Again, the general idea is good, but the means aren't. Does someone around here know a better way of storing energy? There should be some space on a tanker to store a lot of energy.

One good way to store energy on a large marine platform is with compressed air. One way valves can capture wave energy which moves water under pressure into tanks that contain large neoprene air bladders. The water pressure (water is not compressible) compresses the air in the bladders. When the water is released it is under pressure and can drive turbines like hydropower does.


We are in times of great challenge relating to energy and population. But human beings are extremely resourceful and we will figure out a way to solve our problems. Despite what also seems to be the inevitable march of folly in human affairs.

Guillermo
12-02-2005, 06:58 PM
Here you have the link to the Hydrogen Challenger's page. It is a German ship, not Ducth, and she already is in service, sorry:
http://www.hydrogen-challenger.de/ (In german)
Here an article in english:
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1238.html
I have been searching to find out if there is somekind of report about the economic results, but found nothing yet.

Sander Rave
12-06-2005, 06:46 PM
Dear Jonathan,

I'm not saying it's impossible to do, I only feel this is not the way to solve the global growing energy hunger. Since we are off topic for some time, I'd like to point out my scepsis. This stuff comes from a lecture of a collegue of mine, Theo Wolters. He is developing fuel cells from before I was even a proffesional. I couldn't in any way do it shorter than in his own words:

Since the oil crisis 30 years ago, all developed counties have been cutting in their energy consumption and set up programs for alternative energy sources. I think it's fair to presume all possible economical means have been used to reach this goal. From this point it will be harder and more expensive to generate more alternative energy sources.

Status quo after 30 years: trippled energy consuption, from which 3% sustainable energy. This is the same amount as the growth of the consumption in one of these years.

Coming years the consumption in the most optimistic prognosis wil tripple again, but a five- to ten fold assumption is more realistic. At the same time economical and ecological factors will frustrate mining of fossil fuels.

I think stating the above, alternative energy programs won't make up for the shortage, so doesn't energy saving. This is just plain and simple logics, not too hard untill now.

By pointing at a different energy carrier like hydrogen people don't understand the problem. It's nothing else as a carrier and it doesn't generate energy.

There are a lot of examples of sustainable energy sources, like on Iceland where effectiveness isn't all too important. Turning it into an hydrogen economy won't be a more than a gimmick The fishing fleet is the largest pollution scource, and negligible in the world.

Zero-emission is attractive for crowded regions and metropolitans (apart from well-to-wheel and well-to-home disadvantages as we earlier spoke of) So that could well be a good experiment, but won't help the environment a bit.

I think this example has brought some people to the idea to move this hydrogen wonderland from Iceland over the world, which is nonsense. The geografical circumstances there are unique for some places in the world.

Fuel cells are an important development in generating sustainable energy from remaining fossil fuels. Espessialy for de-centralised energy production.

Since fuel cells have their highest economical effectivity on hydrogen, a market for hydrogen will evolve. This will not be a large market though, and not of much use to protect the environment. Fuel cells on C-H2 (like methane) will be economically and ecologically more interresting.

that's the macro-scale. now for the do it yoursel kit:

C-H2's are easier to transport, have a higher energy volume as hydrogen and is more environmental friendly as to burn it.
H2 is a greenhouse gas. it oxidates steel an migrates through plastic and rubber. A blend of 4%H2 and air makes a highly explosive brew. Not something I like to have aboard.

As stated for the hydrogen challenger:
Hydrogen Challenger's emergence should be viewed against the backcloth of projections of growing demand for industrial hydrogen in Europe. Among the initial targets for the scheme's backers are customers in the food processing and chemical industries.

If you need electrical energy from this ship stored in hydrogen and converted to electrical energy again, you end up with some 32% of the initial electric energy generated.

I guess this is only oil on the fire of this discussion. Maybe a good startpoint for a new thread? Like to hear your opinion.

JonathanCole
12-06-2005, 07:49 PM
Sander Rave wrote: I'm not saying it's impossible to do, I only feel this is not the way to solve the global growing energy hunger.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. However your opinion is not entirely supported by the facts. In regards to your colleague Theo Walters,
while what he says about the advancement of renewable energy being a small fraction in the increase in demand is true, that is because fossil fuel energy has been very cheap for at least two decades.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a child, pollution was practically a non-issue. The first big oil tanker spill ocurred in the 60s. Now the entire world's ocean is coated with a thin film of oil. In many cities the streets are slippery when it rains. Global warming is changing weather and it will cause massive upheaval in the next 20-100 years. Many of the people now living and soon to be born will die in great suffering from the side effects of hydrocarbon chemistry. Cancer, heart disease, respiratory diseases are all directly linked to hydrocarbon pollution. And it is getting worse, rapidly.

By pointing at a different energy carrier like hydrogen people don't understand the problem. It's nothing else as a carrier and it doesn't generate energy.

It is you that does not understand the problem. Fossil fuels are also energy carriers or storage. The earth's geological processes have provided us with these hydrocarbons. We don't have to manufacture them, only extract them. As they become more scarce and expensive to extract and as the growing populations of the world's developing countries dramatically increase the demand for energy, the planet faces an extinction catastrophe which may well include the human race. So we are approaching a point where there is no choice but to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.

Nuclear and natural gas can be bridging energy technologies, but by 2025 I would guess, the human race will be choking in its own waste. We are starting on the hydrogen development path now and we can have the problem solved by then. One month of the cost of the war in Iraq and the whole of Europe could have Hydrogen infrastructure. http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_675.shtml
Same for the USA. There is enough wind power on the planet to take care of all of our energy needs, including generating hydrogen when we require transport fuels. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article331413.ece
Also, the atmosphere of the earth is surrounded by electrical energy storing layers, which hold immense energies. There are many possibilities for bleeding this energy off to create hydrogen as a carrier.

H2 is a greenhouse gas. it oxidates steel an migrates through plastic and rubber. A blend of 4%H2 and air makes a highly explosive brew. Not something I like to have aboard.

Hydrogen in the atmosphere rapidly combines with oxygen to create water. Only oxygen oxidizes. Hydrogen can make steel brittle but it is a much smaller effect than the effect of oxygen on the structure of steel (rust). Gasoline and diesel also migrates through plastics and rubber and even dissolves them.

A blend of 4%H2 and air makes a highly explosive brew. Not something I like to have aboard.

I have generated and tested hydrogen. It does not easily mix with air when released but tends to remain a rising bubble of hydrogen which mean that if it catches fire it generally rises too fast to transfer heat unless it is contained. It is much safer than gasoline. So while you are entitled to your opiniuon, I hope for your sake you are wrong. Because I'll be dead by the time the catastrophe hits, but most people under 45 will experience it, that is unless we get off of our butts and do what we have to do.

trouty
12-07-2005, 08:00 AM
What worries me most, is when I see otherwise intelligent rational minded people seriously debating issues such as the electric wheel and hydrogen power - in some kind of belief that the answer to our energy needs lurks within…when in fact it clearly doesn't - it lurks without!

I've posted it here before - and I guess I can post it again, it won't make any difference - coz no ones listening and if they are, they must have their brains tuned out, to not understand - that the solution to the worlds energy crisis, doesn't lie in energy sources we utilise and understand now.

Sure - wind wave and solar power, hydro power (gravity) will All figure in the future as PAART of the solution - but not the same ratio of part of the solution that OIL fills now.

Heck, I've even posted WHO are the people BEHIND the world Oil Oligarchy - who keep us all prisoners of dependence upon oil - and what do I get for my trouble?

Deleted usually, or "Mooderated" or derided - because - there ARE those with a vested interest - in making SURE the truth never gets to see the light of day!

Sooo - what energy source do I speak of?

Mass & Time.

Both forces of energy.

Do we utilise Mass for energy?

Sure we do - we split the atom (the building blocks of mass) and we get Nuclear energy - enough to blow up the whole darned world for goodness sakes!

Do we utilise Time for it's energy component?

No - and why not?

Coz no one can figure out - how to get free energy from their wristwatch or wall clock! :rollseyes:

How can anyone get energy from Time - that’s just plain stoopid talk - because if I don't understand it - then it cant be true….can it?

So - all of you here - typing away with energy (electricty_ generated by nuclear power stations fully understand the splitting of the atom???

Didn't think so - yet we all accept it and use it as if we did.

BUT at the same time - we Poo Poo - the notion - that their can be ANY useable energy compressed/trapped within the time domain!!!

Why - because we don't understand time!

If we did - we'd be time lords - like Dr Who!!!! If we did - we'd be Immortal! (Sheesh - isn't that the ONE thing God promises - if we will only believe - immortality?)

So - what is Time - and how much energy is there trapped or compressed within it? (I hear you asking!).

OK - here's the answer.

There are 9 x 10 ^16 kilojoules of available energy - within every second of what we perceive as Time!

How much is that I hear you asking?

Well - it's about the same amount as there is - within Mass - (ie nuclear energy ergo - enough to blow up the whole dammned world!).

So - whats time?

If it clearly ain't the wristwatch and wall clock tickin away on the wall - then what the heck is it?

I can tell you what it aint!

It ain't day length (Sunset to Sunup and the next sunset - or 24 hours…

That my friends, is Gravity.

Yes - our measurement of the earth's revolutions about it's own axis is a measurement of Gravity…because it's the earth's spin about it's own axis is clearly not time - it is a force of gravity. Your clocks and wrist watches measure gravity not TIME

People wonder why we haven't cracked time yet, and when we haven't even understood the difference between time and gravity is it any wonder we haven't cracked it yet? More rolling of eyes!

HOW FAST IS THE EARTH SPINNING AROUND ITS AXIS?

The Earth is spinning around its axis. At the equator, the Earth's surface moves 40,000 kilometers in 24 hours. That is a speed of about 1040 miles/hr (1670 km/hr or 0.5 km/sec). This is calculated by dividing the circumference of the Earth at the equator (about 24,900 miles or 40,070 km) by the number of hours in a day (24). As you move toward either pole, this speed decreases to almost zero (since the circumference of the spinning circle at the extreme latitudes approaches zero).

So - What IS Time?

Time people - is what your CALENDAR measures!

It measures Earth's passage through space, in an elliptical orbit about the sun over the course of 356 days (earth spins about it's own axis….or periods of what we call 24 hours!).

And Earth's passage through space…is a potential energy source!

Why - because the Earth has Mass!

How much mass?

How is the mass of the Earth determined? Newton, Galileo, Henry Cavendish, and Eratosthenes contributed to this amazing calculation.

 This calculation is done using Newton's Law of Gravity, which formulates the attractive force (gravitational force) that two masses exert on each other:

F=GmM/r2

In Newton's equation, F is the gravitational force, G is a constant of proportionality, M and m are the two masses exerting the forces, and r is the distance between the two objects.
 G was calculated by Henry Cavendish in 1798, and was determined to be 6.67 x 10-11 m3/(kg sec2).
 Also needed is Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, where F is the force applied to an object, m is the mass of the object, and a is its acceleration due to the force.
 Galileo determined that the acceleration due to the force of gravity of Earth was a constant equal to 9.8 m/sec2 near the surface of the Earth.
 Lastly, you need to know the radius of the Earth; this was first calculated by the Greek Eratosthenes thousands of years ago (by comparing shadows in wells during the summer solstice about 230 B.C.).
CALCULATING THE MASS OF THE EARTH

1. F = GmM/r2 = ma, where F is the gravitational force, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth, r is the radius of the Earth, and m is the mass of another object (near the surface of the Earth).

2. GM/r2= a (The m's canceled out.) Now solve for M, the mass of the Earth.

3. M = ar2/G, where a=9.8m/sec2, r=6.4 x 10 6m, and G=6.67 x 10-11m3/(kg sec2).

4. M = 9.8 x (6.7 x 106)2/6.7 x 10-11 = 6.0 x 1024 kg


Sooo how fast is this MASS (Earth) travelling?

HOW FAST IS THE EARTH MOVING?


You can't measure the speed of an object by itself, it has to be measured relative to something else (this was one of Einstein's realizations).

If we ask the question, "How fast the Earth is moving?" we have to specify that we want the speed with respect to another object. Motion cannot be measured without a reference point. We can ask how fast the earth is moving with respect to its own axis, the Sun, the Milky Way Galaxy, or our Local Group of galaxies.


The Earth spins around its axis as it orbits the Sun. Our entire Solar System slowly orbits around the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy belongs to the Local Group of galaxies, where it is also moving.



HOW FAST IS THE EARTH REVOLVING AROUND THE SUN?

The Earth orbits, on average, 93 million miles (149,600,000 km) from the Sun. This distance is defined as one Astronomical Unit (AU). The Earth revolves around the Sun at a speed of about 18.5 miles/sec (30 km/sec).

Sooooo

If I'm not mistaken…We have a Mass of 6 x 10^24 kg's Travelling at a speed of 18.5 Miles Per second!

Anyone care to calculate the potential kinetic energy of that Mutha?

Well here's something else to think about!

Albert Einstein gave us:-

E = MC^2

Where E = Energy
M = Mass
C^2 is a "constant" (I use the word loosely) Known as the speed of light, 9But the speed of light is demonstrably Anything but constant…more on that later!)

And a fella named Bearden (www.cheniere.org) gave us this gem:-

E = Delta T C^2

Where again
E = Energy
Delta T = Change in Time
And again C^2 is the Speed of light constant.

Now - for the Brilliant bit…this is the Bit I discovered!

It is possible to resolve Einsteins and Beardens above Two theorems to tell us something we previously didn't know about Mass and Time!

Ergo!

If E = MC^2

&

If also E = Delta T C^2

Then it necessarily follows that:-

MC^2 = Delta T C^2

If we divide both sides by the constant speed of light

MC^2/C^2 = Delta T C^2/C^2

Anyone knows that something divided by itself = 1

So in effect…

The speed of light constants are removed from the equation by being divided out and we are left with - a new theorem (That would be the 'trouty' Theorem) showing the actual relationship between the amount of energy within mass and the amount of energy within Time..

It would read:-

M = Delta T

Mass Equals Change in Time.

And - we know what Time really is - don't we?

Yes - Earth's passage thru space in an elliptical orbit about the sun!

And we Know what Mass is don't we? (Because we can split it's atoms and release the energy trapped within Mass).

Sooo

If we KNOW - that theres as MUCH free energy…Trapped within the Earths Mass times it's speed thru Space, as there is Trapped with each Atom which makes up the entire earth (ie.e nuclear energy - enough to blow up the entire darned earth)…

Can someone PLEASE tell me…

Why we are debating electric wheels and Hydrogen power?

I mean - hello people. I've just given you the solution to the worlds oil crisis, the solution to defeating the ruling world oil oligarchy who keep us enslaved to their energy source - OIL!

And guess what?

I didn't charge you 5 Bucks a Gallon for that free advice (energy) either!

And you know what?

I reckon most of you will all still be here in 12 months time debating the same issue, while ignoring totally the solution I've just given you!

Why?

Because your happy being the slaves of the world oil oligarchy!

Your happy to send your Kids off to foreign lands to kill innocent arab women & kids in an oil war for your ruling world oil oligarchy masters Gee Dubya and his ilk.

Frankly - I think you deserve the eventual fate that awaits you all.

There are non so blind as those who refuse to see.

Cheers!

Sander Rave
12-07-2005, 01:17 PM
Ok Trouty, sell me the stuff at 5 bucks. I'm your first customer if you can deliver.

Dear Jonathan,

India and China both ordered 300 nuclear facilities each. What do you think they are going to do with it, produce hydrogen? No. I tell you why: It's highly un economic to do so. You need 64% more energy well-to-wheel compared to gasoline. These are poor countries making a bypass.

80% of the energy consumption comes from us, the wealthy west.
we are some 850 mln. people, growing to 1 bln. China and India are counting 2 bln, growing to 3. Energy consumption whise they come from the stone ages and our wealth is their goal at least.

Let's start helping these people doing the things they do the best they can and not make the mistakes we made before. This is a project already started... So how can we start with common sense and common technology?

Wind energy is good, you can build parks for up to 10% of your needs. Right now they are 3 times more expensive as a conventional power plant, but that'll change. More than this will frustrate your economy, if you can't store it, ask Denmak.
Bio fuels can help: you both produce fuel and cattle-fodder from the left overs. Carbon dioxide is recycled, it's a start. Funds are raised to develop a hydrogen economy, and I ask myself why?

Hydrogen is not collectable and only a by-product in chemical industries
energy loses in production of hydrogen out of carbon-hydrogens are 20-30%
energy loses in production of hydrogen with electrolysis are 20-30%

The energy density of hydrogen compressed at 200bar is only 6% of petrol.
liquid hydrogen at -235 degrees celcius (that is rather cold) is 27%

Compared to Methane consists of 63%,
Methanol and ethanol respectively 50 and 67%

to make it a little exotic
bio(soj) oil methyl esthers rise above 100% of petrol
Again the question: Why hydrogen?

If you tell me to store energy of sustainable energy sources, I ask you why hydrogen again.

Hydrogen is worse than many different alternatives as I pointed out.

It's a headache to store
It's voluminous (so expensive) for transportation
It takes a lot of energy to produce it from different sources (hence: you loose energy)
I just don't see the gain for our environment. The sooner people start investing money in real sollutions and not in some sci-fi wet dream the better, in my opinion.

Sander

yipster
12-07-2005, 06:02 PM
H becouse its the first, simplest and biggest element and if we aint fooled ( witch i think we are ) its high time we get serious with mother nature :rolleyes:

JonathanCole
12-08-2005, 01:29 AM
I just don't see the gain for our environment. The sooner people start investing money in real sollutions and not in some sci-fi wet dream the better, in my opinion.

Sander

Hydrogen storage will not be done by the means you are discussing, but by storing it in nanoporous materials under low pressure and high volumes. I have already shown links to the scientific work now being done to accomplish these things. Hydrogen creating electricity via fuel cells is more efficient than any combustion process and that is why it is a good choice for mobile platforms.

In the end direct electrical generation systems and storage are likely to be very important. I have worked on super capacitor technology which can store energy at densities approaching lithium ion batteries, is made from cheap materials and lasts virtually forever. An electron tank may ultimately replace the gas tank. Another advantage of supercapacitors is that energy transfer through a tank circuit is virtually without loss. Also capacitors can deliver energy at a rate much higher than any other known electrical storage technology. All of these technologies including alternative biofuels, nuclear, solar, wind and combination of these will provide the solution in the near to mid term.

Trouty's solutions are a bit further out, no pun intended. I know many of the energy researchers that Trouty is always tallking about, and while I am confident that there is a lot to their efforts, I don't believe that a conspiracy is preventing them from pushing the world through a quantum technological leap. The devil is in the details and you have to understand every aspect of a technology to discover what makes it practical or impractical for embedding in human culture and systems.

Sander Rave
12-08-2005, 06:27 AM
I agree with you on most of your arguments, but this low preasure high volume is in my opinion the whole problem: Who wants a hydrogen tank 16 times as big as a gastank to do the same thing? Even biger if you don't compress hydrogen.

This while there are alternatives that take less effort to generate, and take less volume with the same energy density.

trouty
12-08-2005, 07:46 AM
Trouty's solutions are a bit further out, no pun intended. I know many of the energy researchers that Trouty is always tallking about, and while I am confident that there is a lot to their efforts, I don't believe that a conspiracy is preventing them from pushing the world through a quantum technological leap. The devil is in the details and you have to understand every aspect of a technology to discover what makes it practical or impractical for embedding in human culture and systems.

I can go along with that...my solutions do seem...a little further out - IF you are not aware that the technology / knowlege 0of which i speak has been around for almost 100 years.

Tesla is a good example....radiant genius.
Tesla was unquestionably a prolific genius in several aspects.
Born 9/10 July 1856, by 1884 he aquired a detailed knowlege of some 12 languages...while attending various European universities. His mental ability was also quite quite exceptional in another way, because his mind could conjure up visual images to represent words spoken to him. His photographic memory coupled with his menatl animation facility gave him incredible advantages in problem solving.

Between 1882 & 1888 he patented many devices which employed the use of rotating magnetic fields and which produced a method of transmitting electricity with alternating currents. To those who do not recognise what this means...All the wordls modern electrical generation and transmitting equipment is designed around the original ideas and patents of this man dr Nicola Tesla.

Tesla invented a unique process for generating extremely high voltages between 1889 and 1892 . The device still bears his name - Tesla coil.
During these same years he also patented several types of isochronous oscillators. Then between 1891 &1893 he patented the Tesla wireless (radio telegraph) system and developed cool process electron tubes. Between 1896 & 1898 he published a still valid theory of radioactivity and radiated energy. During those same years he developed high-potential vacuum tubes (the forerunner of all the flourescent tubes used in the world today!).

in 1899 he presented a radio controlled, electrically powered submarine to the US Navy!...(They failed to see any practical use for it and dismissed the idea!) :rolleyes:

However - one of his most incredible achievements was also accomplished in 1899; and it was not rejected by the Morgans, Rockerfellers & Westinghouses of the world.

In 1899 he published photographs & papers (to a limited audience) detailing his discovery of terrestrial resonance and the law of propagation of cinduction currents thru the globe. His paper also gave details of his high-potential, wireless electrical broadcasting station which broadcasted useable power - not radio communications - by transmitting energy in the form of 'standing waves' or stationery waves in the Earths crust and upper ionosphere!!

Sorry to say it Sander - you owe me 5 bucks - i sent the energy to your place Yesterday - I assume you were switched on enough to have got it OK? :)

Make the cheque payable to C - Ash will ya! ;) :p

There are non so blind as those who refuse to see!

You want me to detail - why the speed of light isn't constant?

Or what about a treatise on Time & Space.

You might be surprised - just what you learn....

Cheers!

yipster
12-08-2005, 07:49 AM
Sander, ok, your not a sci-fi fan but Jonathans virtual electron tank actually allready exist in the tokamak (http://ippex.pppl.gov/).
it heats and compres hydrogen ( and higher elements fused from it ) at the same time.
did cost more than a fiver, stands still now while we cant buy 5 bucks of the stuff.
its a shame.

trouty, you beat me in TIME replying. btw, Bohr had problems convinsing Albert his model looked very much like his

trouty
12-08-2005, 07:52 AM
Soak it up Ladies & Gentlemen...there will be a 10 question test at the end!:p

Time & Space!

One of the hottest debates in Physics is over the true nature of space.
Is it, a "luminiferous ether" or is it some abstract ten dimensional Reimannan construction like Dr Albert Einstein proposed in his Theory of General Relativity?
If it does, indeed, require a super dimensional construction to explain the physical laws of the universe, one must wonder why this construction could not be replaced by one using real and observable dimensions like width length and depth…
If, on the other hand, space is a 'luminiferous ether' or some tenuous fluid, then one wonders why the functions of the physical laws of the universe cannot be observed; and, hence, translated into a mathematical construct of reality…of three real dimensions with time expressed as a ratio of relative distances and vectors.

Strange as it may seem, space has already been properly described right here on Earth as far back as 1954! Space is a 'fine structure'…a 'tenuous medium, fluid or field'. All gravitational, electromagnetic, and electrostatic phenomena occur as results of various interactions of energy - 'waves' in this 'fluid space'. In pages 172 - 174, 176, 178 & 180 of Scientific American in 1954, a brilliant discussion giving 3 dimensional explanations of many nuclear phenomena (based largely on previous discussions written by Dennis Crockwell) was conducted by Albert G Ingalls. Crockwells explanations offer the only real solution to the apparent paradox which certain nuclear events present to the researcher: A particle sometimes behaves like a wave.

The discussion stated:
'It seems reasonable, as first thought to accept each particle - field relationship as an inseparable something, which is perceived sometimes in one fashion and sometimes in another. We might also think of the particle portion of the effect as that which is experienced radial to the course or potential course. We know that some relationship of this sort exists, whether or not it is exactly as stated. Variation of one effect is accompanied by a reciprocal variation of in the other effect. In other words, the more the particle-field manifests itself as a particle, the less it manifests itself as a field, and vice versa.

"…We also know that charged particles in motion exhibit a 'sense' or quality of right or left handedness which characterizes their charges…From this we can infer a kind of tangential motion in space around the course of a particle - a motion which differs between particles of unlike charge.


The discussion went on to say,

"It is important to remember that the field does not rotate as a unit. The areas of the field vary only in the diameter and the phase of translation. As the field is explored from the from the centre outward, the phase of rotation lags progressively. Hence it's structure can be considered as a series of concentric phase shells, each 360 degrees out of step with adjoining neighbours."

"The field and particle are one and at all points the action is similar. The diameter of translation is greatest when the particle is at relative rest. An increase of particle field velocity is accompanied by an increased rate of rotation but a smaller radius of rotation."


The summary statements of the discussion brought out a very interesting point about James Clerk Maxwell, - the Einstein of the 19th century:

"I submit a line from the great James Clerk Maxwell's preface to his theory of electromagnetic radiation:

"In several parts of this treatise, an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of a mechanical action…"


A very common phenomenon illustrates Crockwell's model "particle-field" concept.
If one blows a weak 'smoke ring', it moves slowly away in a rapidly widening ring. If, however, one blows a strong 'smoke ring' it moves away rapidly - maintaining a very small diameter. If a person nearby were struck by the latter smoke ring, the impulse or particle effect would be more obvious than the tangential expansion pressure on the ring. On the other hand, if that same person were struck by the first smoke ring of less translational energy, it would not be felt as a direct impact so much as an expanding 'crawl' over the individuals person. Although it would prove a bit difficult in practice, one could, theoretically, shoot two smoke rings at each other so that their encounter would produce either mutual annihilation or mutual enhancement dependant upon the rotation vector applied to each ring as it left the issuing orifice. The annihilation would produce a visual effect like a 'barred-spiral galaxy', while the enhancement would produce a visual effect like the 'sombrero galaxy'.
The reader who is keenly interested in the mechanics of gravity and electromagnetism must pursue the preceding lines of thought to properly understand the 'missing link' which unites the physical laws of the microcosm, with those of the macrocosm.

If one views space as an infinite existence - a continuum - comprised of endless levels of sub-nuclear particle-fields forming atoms, forming planetary systems which form galaxies that in turn form galactic cells and, etc, ad infinitum, then one can easily visualize that the 'ether' of mans particular level of existence is a 'fluid' comprised of ultra small 'particle-fields' which in turn are made up of relatively equally small 'particle fields'.

Time, as such, in a continuum of such magnitude is equally relative!

'Time' Is NOT an absolute dimension in reality. The ONLY absolute is energy.

The distribution of energy within the various levels of the hierarchy of existence creates the phenomena called "time". As the distribution of energy is not uniform, Time itself is not uniform in the universe. When a person says it took him 5 seconds to walk across a room, he is really saying a clock pendulum moved or changed it’s energy-distribution level 5 times as compared to his own single change of energy-distribution made by his walk across the room.

Time is a ratio of changes in energy density.

Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the earth level does.

If a persons body were to be 'pumped' with resonant energy, it would make him age several days in only a few relative minutes to someone watching him. If, however, the person were to be 'drained' of resonant energy it would lower his energy-density causing him to age only a few minutes in several relative days of the observers time. How incredible it would be…..

Suppose a group of scientists had to solve a very time dependant problem in a hurry. If they were to take their pencils and paper with them into a 'field' which harmonically 'pumped' their energy densities to a higher level, 'Time' would extend for them. They would have several relative days to solve their problem, while only a few relative minutes had passed to the world outside their 'field'….fascinating…isn't it?

If for example, the American base at Pine Gap, could be used to pump 'resonant' low frequency energy into certain circles of the country the effects could be mind-boggling. Why, in just a few days of time relative to the rest of the world certain parts of Australia could pass several years of time relevant to it’s occupants.

Has the reader ever had those days that seem to 'fly by'? On the other hand, if that same facility could be used to drain energy from those same circles of influence - the days would seem to 'drag by' to those so influenced…

If an electric 'air' or 'space' craft based on the same principle of resonance, were to be suddenly accelerated into a new vector at speeds which would normally break it's molecular lattice apart, a relative or apparent 35 G's acceleration could easily be amortized over a relative time-dilation of 1:35 inside the field of the craft…giving the craft and it's crew the relative acceleration of only 1 G.

If the reader has been able to grasp the preceding dissertation, on time and space, he now knows - why 'UFOs' have such incredible performance characteristics. They are only relatively incredible…

Relative Cheers!;)

JonathanCole
12-08-2005, 11:16 AM
I agree with you on most of your arguments, but this low preasure high volume is in my opinion the whole problem: Who wants a hydrogen tank 16 times as big as a gastank to do the same thing? Even biger if you don't compress hydrogen.

This while there are alternatives that take less effort to generate, and take less volume with the same energy density.

You are thinking in terms of what you already know, instead of in terms of what is already known. For example, you don't have to store hydrogen. There are various methods to create it on demand. You can use solar heliostats to vaporize zinc oxide (a cheap and plentiful material which is now used as a sunscreen) to yield zinc powder and oxygen. Zinc powder in water yields hydrogen and zinc oxide. So you store zinc powder instead of hydrogen. http://80.70.129.162/site/en/weizman.asp?pi=371&doc_id=4210

You can store hydrogen as ammonia adsorbed into salt. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.htm

There are also ways to create hydrogen on demand from water by using resonant cavities and and small amounts of electricity at the proper frequencies. Trouty will no doubt be familiar with the work of Stanley Myers and Dr Andre Puharich http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1191
http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm#4394230
Here's some of Stanley Meyers patents involving the hydrogen fuel technology
U.S. Patent 5,149,407 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=5,149,407): Process and apparatus for the production of fuel gas and the enhanced release of thermal energy from such gas
U.S. Patent 4,936,961 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,936,961): Method for the production of a fuel gas
U.S. Patent 4,826,581 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,826,581): Controlled process for the production of thermal energy from gases and apparatus useful therefore
U.S. Patent 4,798,661 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,798,661): Gas generator voltage control circuit
U.S. Patent 4,613,779 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,613,779): Electrical pulse generator
U.S. Patent 4,613,304 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,613,304): Gas electrical hydrogen generator
U.S. Patent 4,465,455 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,465,455): Start-up/shut-down for a hydrogen gas burner
U.S. Patent 4,421,474 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,421,474): Hydrogen gas burner
U.S. Patent 4,389,981 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,389,981): Hydrogen gas injector system for internal combustion engine
U.S. Patent 4,275,950 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,275,950): Light-guide lens
U.S. Patent 4,265,224 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=4,265,224): Multi-stage solar storage system
U.S. Patent 3,970,070 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=3,970,070): Solar heating system The point being, that there is more than one way to skin a cat. There is tremendous incentive to solve these problems. The creative people of the world are working on it as we speak. However, people who put doubt into the public consciousness are not helping their cause, especially when the doubts are from people who are sure that they know what they are talking about, but have not even studied all of the literature in the field.

Sander Rave
12-09-2005, 06:32 AM
I'm putting effort in this matter while it's not my core bussiness. That means I see the importance of it. I don't speak poeple to the mouth so I'm learning. I can take everything for granted but I don't. You don't speak to deafman's ears though.

It just seems to me we are limited in time, funds and public opinion. It's fair to confince people by your knowledge this is the right way to go. Do you agree with me it's not the only way to go? I'd say don't bet on one horse.

trouty
12-09-2005, 08:46 AM
Sander rave is of course correct..

The purpose of my posts are to prove just this...

No one technology will win out..it won't be tidal, wind, solar or hydrogen or even an electric wheel - it may WELL be a combination of all of the above.

I still contend...that the energy trapped / compressed within the time domain may be ONE of those forms of energy we end up utilising and that theres enough of it to definitely replace our dependence on oil.

Now a while back in this thread - I posted that Einstein was wrong about relativity....and no one picked me up on it.

I expected such 'educated professionals as we have participating here to swallow my bait hook line and sinker - and come to Alberts defence...

But - sadly no one has.

I suspect it's because no one wants to encourage me...

But you should know bye now - I need no such encouragement.:D

So - now I'll prove to you - that the speed of light is not a constant - and that Einstein was wrong about his special theory of relativity.

You can challenge it if you like, but in fairness to me - I think you owe it to us - (as I am about to do) to show your mathematical workings to back up any repudiation of what follows!!

Good luck! ;)

trouty
12-09-2005, 08:49 AM
Einstein's Relativity Error (No - not his infamous never loan munney to relatives theory!):rolleyes:

The physical sciences in 1873 seemed to once again take on an air of stability as James Clerk Maxwell published his, 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.'

In this paper, he discussed electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism as functions of waves in a fluid space (ether). His theory held popular support until the year 1887 when the two U.S. physicists AA Mitchelson and Edward W Morley performed their historic experiment with light. Their experiment (The Mitchelson-Morley experiment) was designed to use light as a means to determine if space were a 'fluid' as Maxwell's equations had assumed.

The M-M test results, however, appeared to deny the existence of fluid (or ether) space. To explain the 'apparent' failure of the M-M test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transforms - 1902) in which length contractions, mass increase and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz - Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid, one undetectable by known technology.

Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special theory of relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz -Fitzgerald transforms and the M-M test results as evidence of a universal axiom: The velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe, (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe however).

The discipline details

Einstein was faced with an apparent paradox, as to the nature of space. It behaved like a fluid in many ways - yet in others it behaved like an abstract, ten-component Ricci Tensor from the Reimannian model of the Universe. The failure of the M-M test to detect an ether was the final straw. Yet, hard as he tried, Einstein failed to remove the ether from E=MC^2.

The following discussion should illustrate this point.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/SpeedofLight1.jpg
Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.

It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.

This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)
And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):

Assuming:

c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer
S = distance GA = GB
T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)
T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)
T = .5 t T2
V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.

Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:

(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1

Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2

By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12

Hence:

(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5

Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:

(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5

rearranging:

(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5

Substituting: t = .5t2

Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5

Or:

(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5

by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:

(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s

which reduces to:

(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:

(Eq 6.) ve = 0

Hence:

(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1

Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each suvvessive try of the linear M - M taest has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….
Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:

Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…

Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer
Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider
Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it
Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it
Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:

(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2

So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension

(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1

or,…

(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
which reduces to:
(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:

(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a

Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:

(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc

where b2 is less than 1

So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2

One obtains:

(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):

(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2

so (Eq. 11) becomes:

(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c

developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2

(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2

remembering energy (E) is represented by:

(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…

(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:

(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2

Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):

(Eq. 21) E = m c2

(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)…( ve ) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity… This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for special relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether . The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit - if such exists.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energy-density Perhaps the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong!

When a fixed density fluid is set in harmonic motion about a point or centre, the number of masses passing a fixed reference point per unit time can be observed as increased mass (or concentrated energy). Although the density (mass per volume) is constant, the mass velocity product yeilds the illusion of more mass per volume per time. Space is an incompressible fluid of varying energy density…in this authors opinion!

The apparent absurdity of infinitely- increasing - mass and infinitely decreasing length as a mass approaches the light wave velocity is rationalized by realizing that space has inertia and as such offers inertial resistance to the moving mass. The energy of the moving mass is transmitted in front of it into the medium of space. The resulting curl of inertial resistance increases as negative momentum to the extent the mass is converted to radiant energy as it meets it’s own reflected mass in resistance. However - to the Star Trek fans, take heart… just as man broke the sound velocity limit (sound barrier) he can also break the light velocity limit (light barrier). By projecting a high-density polarized field of resonating electrons to spoil or warp the pressure wave of the inertial curl, the hyper-light craft can slip through the warp opening before it closes, - emitting the characteristics of a shock wave. Such a spoiler would be formed by using the electro-dynamic, high-energy-density electron waves which would normally proceed before the hyper-light craft, as a primary function of propulsion. When a similar function is executed by hypersonic aircraft, a sonic boom is formed as the as the inertial curl collapses on itself. In space, the light velocity equivalent to this sonic boom would be in the form of Cherenkov radiation which is emitted as a mass crosses the light-velocity threshold sending tangential light to the direction of travel.

trouty
12-09-2005, 08:52 AM
Ether Existence Verified. (Ether their is, or therir isn't! :p )

In 1913, the rotational version of the linear M - M experiment was successfully performed by G Sagnac (see p 65 - 67 of The PhysicalFoundations of General Relativity by D.W. Sciama, Heineman Educational Books Ltd., 48 Charles St., London WIX8AH) In 1925 Mitchellson and Gale used the spinning earth as their rotational analogue to the linear M - M experiment. It also showed successfully that the velocity of light sent in the direction of spin around the perimeter of a spinning disc (or of the surface of the earth) varied from the velocity of the light sent against the spin. (Refer diagram 3 Below).

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/Rotationalanalogue.jpg

Analogy Of Dilemma

The error of the M-M experiment is the test results are also valid for the case where there is an ether and it, too, is moving along with the same relative velocity and orbit as Earth maintains around the Sun.

The Tea Cup Analogy can be used to explain the error.

If one stirs a cup of tea which has some small tea leaves floating on it's surface, (obviously before the invention of the ubiquitous tea bag!) one notices some of these tea leaves orbiting the vortex in the centre of the cup. The leaves closer to the centre travel faster than those father from the centre (both in linear and angular velocity).

Now, one must imagine oneself greatly reduced in size and sitting upon one of these orbiting leaves. If one were to put his hands over the edge of his tea leaf on any side, would he feel any tea moving past?…No! The reason is that the motion of the tea is the force that has caused the velocity of the leaf. One could not detect any motion, if both himself and the tea were travelling in the same direction and the same velocity. However, If one had arms long enough to stick a hand in the tea closer to either the centre or the rim of the cup - where the velocities were different to his own then he would feel tea moving faster or slower than himself (respectively).

Also, if one were to spin his tea leaf at the same time as it orbits about the centre, placing his hands into the tea immediately surrounding his leaf would show inertial resistance against the spin moment of his leaf.

Solar Tea Cup

In the preceding analogy, the centre of the spinning tea (or vortex centre) represented the sun, the leaf: the earth; The tea: The ether; and the riders hands: the light beams of the M - M test. In essence, what Mitchellson, Morley, Einstein and many other scientists have said is that the M - M test showed the volocity of light was not affected by the earth's orbital motion.
"Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw";

1) The Earth is orbiting the sun and there is no ether, or,
2) The Earth is not orbiting the sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by the Earth's observed helio centric orbit.

However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a THIRD option.

3) The Earth is orbiting the sun…and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth.

In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether…only whether or not the earth is moving relative to the ether!


C Not Constant
Remember, in 1913, G Sagnac performed his version of the M-M experiment and corrected the inconclusive results which Mitchellson and Morley's test had obtained. In Sagnac's rotational analogue of the M-M test the velocity of light was shown to vary. Aalso in 1925, Mitchellson and Gale verified Sagnac's results with their own rotational analogue. Even more recently, similar verification has been made using a ring-laser system to detect the rotational velocity of the Earth, relative to the ether,


Relativists Discard Evidence

By the time the ether wind was proven to exist, Einstein's theories were already winning strong support on the merits of celestial observations which closely agreed with Einstein's predicted values. As a result the scientific community decided to explain the ether wind phenomenon as a result of Earth's spinning in it's own ether blanket which Earth was apparently dragging through space. No explanation was ever agreed upon as to the origin or extent of this ether blanket. It was simply a way to sweep a discrepancy under the carpet.

Einstein Admits Error.

In a biography written just before his death, Professor Einstein, is quoted as admitting he had a fundamental error in Relativity. It was he said, one which-when corrected-will explain how light - an obvious wave form - can be propagated across an apparently non-inertial space. Einstein also stated that the discovery of the solution to this error would probably be the result of some serendipitous discovery in the 1960's.

However, before he died, Einstein did manage to partially correct his error, With the help of the well known Dr Erwin Schrodinger, Dr Einstein, was able to construct a 'total theory' for existence. It was called the "Unified Field Theory". Although Dr Einstein was able to lay the basic framework before his death, it is reasonably certain that a more readily useable version of the "Unified Field Theory" was only completed by other physicists after Einstein had died.

One of the more promising contributions toward a useable unified field theory was offered by Dr Stanley Deser and Dr. Richard Arnowitt. They took the General Theory of Relativity which Einstein had devised and constructed a "bridge" or "creation tensor" to link the energy of nuclear fields with that of gravitational fields by co-variant matrices. The basic relationship of General Relativity which they used as a basis for their system is:

Ruv- .5guvR = 8(pi)kTuv

Ruv = Ricci's ten-component sub-Riemannian space, curvature tensor
guv = the metric tensor
R = the selected Ricci scalar components
K = a universal constant: proportional to Newton's gravitational constant
Pi = the usual constant 3.14etc
Tuv = the components (potentials) of the energy stress tensor

Although Deser and Arnowitt's proposed equations were quite difficult to work with, it is rumored that subsequent linear variations have been developed - allowing major leaps in science and technology to develop.
When the correctly formulated Unified Field Theory is finally released to the public it wil be recognised quite easily; for it will have explained why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron…why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,…why (h) is a constant…and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137).

The true "Unified Field Theory" - will no longer be called a "Theory" - it will become the Unified Field Law".

What I've been trying (very hard) to get you all to realize - of course - is that….

Just as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity E = Mc2
And T. Beardens Special Theory of Time E = Delta Tc2
are crucial to realizing a Unified Field Theory or (LAW), my own discovery, - troutys Special Theory of Time & Mass M = Delta T….
Is likewise - a part of the key of understanding our universe and the energy forms in it!

Meanwhile - back at the ranch…you all keep messing with electric wheels…

Really fella's….don't you think you might just be 'missing the boat' (deliberate pun intended) here just a tiny bit?

I've taken you through…Electrodynamic propulson, Relativity, Time, Space & Mass…

Still - not one of you - can acknowledge - that just maybe, that crazy trouty dude - might actually be onto something?

Course - It could just be the pills I take… he he he!

From one Time Lord…to the rest of you earthlings - it's frankly time to stop 'n smell the roses fella's before it's too late!

Cheers…you poor, sad, oil addicted, oligarchy slaves…

trouty
12-09-2005, 09:10 AM
Now I KNOW my Time / energy proposal scares the heck out of you...so - if your finding it all - just a wee too difficult to keep up with - feel free to play with the following much simpler concept! :) :cool:

Plasmoidal Induction Electro- Dynamic Propulsion (PIEDP)

The translation of an inertial mass from one position to another is a process usually accomplished by one of the following:-

1) Pulling the Mass from point A to point B

2) Pushing the Mass from point A to point B

3) A combination of Pushing and Pulling the mass from point A to point B

Rockets automobiles and other brute force motion devices employ process 2 above.

Ramjets Turbines Helicopters and other push pull motion devices utilise process 3 above.

As Yet, the pure attraction only motion systems (1) find very limited use. These usually employ magnetic, electrostatic or gravitational acceleration as a motion source.

Electro dynamic propulsion (EDP) falls into category 3. It can be accomplished by optimizing the ramjet process over the entire leading surface of the mass to be moved (boat hull in our case) if there is a medium through which to move (in our case saltwater…oh yeah - did I mention this thing will be a dead duck in a freshwater lake?)

In the traditional Ramjet, air is sucked into the front of the craft; and with added fuel is ignited inside the craft and expelled out the back of the craft.

The major problem in this system, is the same as with push only propulsion systems, namely that all the leading surfaces of the rest of the craft encounter direct inertial resistance from the water that is not passing thru the craft but around it!

The philosophical concept of making little ramjet breathing openings all over the leading surface of the vessel is approaching higher efficiencies to a point; however, as the ramjet needs a confining space to combust the fuel and air all those little breathing openings would require dead or closed space between them to for the confining chamber.

The optimum lead surface efficiency in a category (3) system is one where the entire leading surface is the ramjet opening! Such a shape is difficult to imagine; think about it a straight tube would almost give a frictionless move along the length axis; but where would the MEG and Crew be placed?

What about the guidance surfaces? If the front end of the tube is opened out enough, to shield the rest of the vessel from frictional exposure, then the inside of the tube itself will offer massive frictional resistance to the incoming water!

Inertial resistance cannot be removed when one mass passes through another; however, the distribution of the resistance can be so designed as to use the water itself as as a frictional dissipator. Thus the optimum may be approached and attained by incorporating the fluid medium into the defined field of the vessel.

The most obvious question now is how does one construct such a vessel? To answer that query, let us build just such a vessel one stage at a time!

1) The vessel will be designed to move in fluid mediums (i.e. it will be a hydrodynamic vessel)
2) The vessel and it's field definition will first be visualized as a regular sphere within a sphere. The main Vessel is A; the incorporated field is B and the ambient medium (ocean) is C
3) The vessel and it's field will now be visualized as ,moving from port to starboard on the page within the ambient medium (ocean) (c) If no compression of the incorporated field (b) is assumed, then the passage of the (a) + (b) field through (c) will produce frictional losses on the interface of (b) to (c) (i.e. heat will be generated as well as other bye product radiation's depending on relative velocity). Eventually the heat or radiated energy of such an exchange would be passed onto the vessel (a). To minimize such an exchange, a method of dissipating the unwanted heat must be added.

Even if (b) is assumed as being compressible, then at certain velocities the distance between (a) and (b) in the direction of motion would be would be so small as to negate the effect of the shielding that (b) was designed to give.

4) Therefore, let us assume that (b) is a sacrificial shield One that is being replaced as a function of motion. In this manner, the heat or radiated energy of the field (b)'s encounter with (c) is left behind the vessel (a)…and is dissipated into the old vector of (c).

5) From assumption (3) motion was assumed from Port to Starboard. From assumption 4 the field (b) was assumed to be sacrificial. Let us now probe the mechanisms to produce these two assumptions. The craft (a) is now fitted with a point (d) from which is emitted a dense, high voltage, direct electric current supplied indefinitely bye our over unity coupled MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) devices, which makes it's circuit through the field (b)…(actually forming the limits of (b). In conventional terms, the point (d) is negative with respect to the point (e). The hull of the vessel (a) is non conductive, so that the electric moment travels from (d) to (e) via the ambient medium (c) which the ocean being an electrolyte it can!), which bye virtue of the passing electric moment is captured as (b). Two factors will now produce motion to starboard. The first is that the thrust from the accelerated fluid particles from (d) to (e) will produce a resultant to starboard; and the second is that due to the Bernoulli Effect, the fluid pressure at right angles to the fluid flow from (d) to (e) is reduced; in other words a partial pressure reduction is formed to the starboard of ine x-y at right angles to the curved path of (de). Also, as a function of the fluid flow toward (e) from (d) , there is a partial pressure increase at (e). This is caused from collision of all fluid particles from vectors in (dxe) with all the particles from vectors in (dye).

In 5 above, - We can see another side effect of this method of acceleration, at time (t=n), the vessel and it's field have pulsed a vector. At time (t=n+1) the vessel has moved to starboard of it's position at time (t=n), and the region (f) is rapidly normalizing to a stagnant zone due to the vectors colliding to generate heat and a little turbulence. In essence the vessel has displaced an amount of fluid from in front of itself and has moved into the space left bye the displaced fluid and has then replaced the same fluid into it’s original after the craft itself, has pulsed into the next zone.

This phenomenon can be observed by watching a pneumatic tube in the older office buildings that used to use them for shooting inter - office correspondence back and forth. They are sucked and pushed at the same time. A vessel operating on such a principle would leave little if any turbulence; it would not be hampered by high temperatures due to friction (there would be none between it and (c) the ocean); and it would not produce high density shock waves as it passed through the wave velocity thresh hold of the medium (electrolyte) i.e. ocean….the latter effect is caused because there are no forward vector components in the motion transfer to the starboard of line x-y which eliminates the return inertial wave front that is normally encountered in the brute force "push only" methods of propulsion.

6. If the vessel is to travel in any other direction than to starboard then a method of navigational control has to be included in the mechanism.

I'm still working on the rest - is there anyone who doesn’t follow me at least this far? Plasmoidal Induction Electro- Dynamic Propulsion (PIEDP)

Cheers!

JonathanCole
12-09-2005, 10:43 AM
Sander and Trouty are both right. Many technologies will be part of the solution. The ones that work the best and that people continue to purchase will be the ultimate winners. As I have said before, I am waiting for the belt pack anti-gravity device. A small device with a 3 dimensional joy stick that will clip to the belt and allow movement in three dimensions by gravitic manipulation. Of course it would also enclose you in a small force field bubble to keep the rain off. Trouty, I'll give you $20k for one.

Sander Rave
12-09-2005, 10:57 AM
Trouty,

How many days does your week have?! Besides my full-time job, girlfriend, boats, cooking, friends, setting up a business and sports (there should be household somewhere inbetween too) I hardly have time to check my own and other's data to draw conclusions. You want me to set up a test caste to check up on good old Einstein?


Sorry, don't feel offended, just don't have the minutes left to do so ;-)

yipster
12-09-2005, 11:07 AM
ok to be back reading this later?
and lets not forget einstein had 7 therories...
i'd say we have to look at the mass-defect what explains all
later! :D

trouty
12-09-2005, 09:05 PM
And of course that will be my next treatise...but it will hafta wait I'm sorry.

Like the rest of you - I too have a life - which tomorrow includes shifting house to the new canal side abode!.

Once I crank ol bessy my ever faithfull computer who remembers all this stuff for me back up again - I'll get back to you on the anti gravitics..

Sander - you'll be pleased to know - that the belt operated anti gravitics device you seek - will soon be available...of course- like all good things - wait theres more (free steak knives with that!);) Yet it will have a temporal space / time continuum warping & cloaking device.

You will really go places - with this sucker, and no one will see you (if you ignore the ruddy great Cherenkov radiation wake you'll be carving thru the fluid space ether! :D

Cheers!

Sander Rave
12-10-2005, 05:03 AM
Hi Trouty

Good luck moving! Although I dreamd of the matter when I was a kid and almost forgot about it, Jonathan was first to apply. So I just have to wait my turn.

I heard delivery isn't on steady basis. Maybe it helps when you don't add the steak knive. Border control sometimes give you a difficult time importing weapons... I see the look in their eyes: what are you going to do? Hunting steaks with that?! Sorry guy, flying around in that device with a steak knive is asking for trouble.
So instead of calling you to explain they just stash it somewhere it can't be found anymore.

yipster
12-10-2005, 08:39 AM
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/relativity/graphics/Image14.gif
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/relativity/binener.html
without reading trouty's yesterday mail yet -will do now- i feel we are on to the same thing.
in 45 Dr Groot wrote -in dutch- that 1 gram of H tranferred to Helium releases 6,3.10^18 erg or 20 tons of coal.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/isotopes/binding_energy.html
http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/massdefect.html

yipster
12-10-2005, 09:27 AM
is there anyone who doesn’t follow me at least this far?
trying to keep up, watching zud deutche fernsehen (http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/26/0,1872,3022458,00.html) tv i see some good animatitions showing time slows near mass
so i learn my head ages a little faster than my feet, ah, einstein (http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/19/0,1872,3022419,00.html). gps satelites use slow running atomic clocks to make up for the gravitational time difference,
having those clocks run on time (a sec faster) up at 20.000 km would couse a 6 meter space difference here for our boats navigation!

trouty
12-16-2005, 07:59 AM
You do better than most at keeping up I would suggest!

I've been reading your links and indeed yes - it appears you are onto the right track.

Consider also tho:-

C.R.E.A.T.O.R.

Circumference Ratio Earth To Orbit Ratio

Says a lot - that might scare some I'd wager!

But - it also explains a lot...with regard to mass, size, speed & orbital distance from the Sun of the major planets in our solar system.

Many don't understand - that mathematically - the Earth IS the centre of the universe under the C.R.E.A.T.O.R. Formulae.

I'd wager thats no accident! (But by deliberate intelligent design).

As above - so Below and the same C.R.E.A.T.O.R. ratio - holds true for atomic and sub atomic particles...

Some still have such a long way to go Yipster - but don't give up...my enlightened friend...for as Mulder & Scully would say...

The truth is out there......somewhere!

Cheers!

trouty
12-27-2005, 06:59 AM
this threads certainly lost momentum hasn't it?

Might be about time for another of my dissertations I feel...

Mass

Time

Ether

Space

C.R.E.A.T.O.R. Formulae...

Plasmoidal induction

Einstein

Speed of light

Whats next?

Any requests?...

Free energy and we've lost interest?

What does that tell you about our slave-ish predilliction with oil?:rolleyes:

Like JC - it's hard to even give away the good oil...for freeeee

And why might that be?

Because yea of so little faith!

Faith as small as a mustard seed can move mountains - should have no trouble moving a vessel then...no?;)

I really do worry if this si the brightest intellect we have running our world these days!:rolleyes:

Don't worry tho - for when I'm benevolent dictater...things will be different ohh golly yes!

I'll bring back Jo n Flo and there will be free punkin scones for everyone!:D

You let me worry about that!:) :cool:

Cheers!

yipster
12-27-2005, 07:59 AM
must admit i'm guilty to some of the aquisations celebrating cristmas while knowing i wasnt saving the world.
was thinking of sheakesphere's "to be or not to be" since trying actually isnt good enouch, eighter it is or it is not.
did look into para and ortho waters but miss the angstrom meter but learned that each particle is represented in place and time by
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/seq3.gif
and that with non harmonic quantum oscillations it should be possible to find their eigenvalue energy levels in time
from planck to foto voltaics wave and particle differentation i've been but forgot what i gonna reply...
o yeah -as said before- isnt the energy crisis allready solved and are we waisting time couse its actually bout politics?

Nels Tomlinson
12-28-2005, 12:11 PM
Michael, those two images of the Cat propeller slide charts do have me drooling.

Would you do us all a favor and slide out the slides, and scan the front of the body and slides in one scan, then flip them all over and scan the backs of body and slides in a second scan?

I was going to show you an example of a Powley reloading computer which I've scanned that way on my website, at http://geocities.com/nelstomlinson/sliderules.html , but unfortunately things seem to be broken there. I suppose I should check my website more often.

Anyway, thanks!
Nels



These two images may make you salivate. They are scanned images of a pair of calculators made and given away(?) by Caterpillar. I inherited them from a colleague who retired years ago and he was given them by a Cat rep. who regularly visited the yard. I have no idea if they are still available but I doubt it.

Both scales show on an image, not back and front of one scale on an image. Other than the names only the Propeller Calculator has any identification. Look at the Analysis Chart and then across to the lower left and you see © 1961, Caterpillar Tractor Co.( which is on both slides) and Form No. 40-20428. I’ve lost track of the number of people who have asked me to help with their propellers and general things about speed and power. These slide rule calculators were a God-send

yipster
12-28-2005, 02:28 PM
sorry to say Michael is no longer with us and rests in peace.

i never came to stuck those printed halves together, must be printed in one of the drawers.
you got quit a few nice and handy sliderulers on your site Nels :cool:

Nels Tomlinson
12-29-2005, 05:56 PM
Yipster, that's sad news about Michael.

Thanks for the kind words about the slipsticks. I have a couple on my desk, and use them occasionally.

I haven't tried cutting out the pictures, but I'd worry that parts of the slides are hidden by the body, so that we wouldn't be getting the whole shooting match if we tried that. It looks as if that may be the case on at least one scale. I suppose that would be easier than making our own, if it worked, since it looks as if there would be about two dozen scales to lay out.

Nels

sorry to say Michael is no longer with us and rests in peace.

i never came to stuck those printed halves together, must be printed in one of the drawers.
you got quit a few nice and handy sliderulers on your site Nels :cool:

masrapido
12-30-2005, 08:23 AM
trouty, and all interested in "scalar" and alike technologies,

MEG is a scam. There's no way on earth you would get more power from a magnet than what you input into the system. No amount of "scalar" bs will make it happen. Because, even if "scalar" technology does exist, which it doesn't, magnet will only produce the energy equal to impulse one uses to block its magnetic field, once the pulse stops.

It's a basic physics axiom. In reality, it gives even less for losses in inducting coil.

trouty
12-30-2005, 11:18 AM
no way on earth it is in fact in the time domain that the energy is available for overunity (Scalar to the doubters) devices.

The amount?

9 x 10 ^16 joules per second (or thereabouts!).

People like Masrapido - also said splitting the atom, would never work...and there was no nergy to be gained either - yet now we have nuclear energy...and nuclear weapons...

Time is the next domain to conquer now that we have the energy within mass harnessed..

Time scares a lot of people. Movies like back to the future - probably havent helped a lot....

One thing thats assured - time is definitely - on my side Masrapido - that much is hard to deny!

Cheers n beers for a happy new years!:D

masrapido
12-31-2005, 01:02 AM
:)

oh, I don't think so amigo, that the time is on your side. I tested it myself. It's a waste of time. But glad you agree that on earth this is impossible. Which makes this "scalar" thing irrelevant 'coz I don't envisage travelling into the space any time soon.
Anyone curious, I can help with advice on making one, it's a simple exercise and requires little effort. But even basic calculations of input and output of energy will prove it a scam:

Say magnet has a certain power potential of 1VA per second, if used in real electricity generator. (magnets have their energy expressed in Joules, and kilos of them at that, but power from electrogenerators is electrical and is measured in Watts or VA)

Now, according to "scalar" theology, sorry theory...:D, to drain the magnet of his inexaustible power, you have one coil that you charge with electrical impulses, and another behind it that collects the energy bouncing back from the magnet after the pulses (that in itself is the evidence of ignorance of "inventors", but never mind for now). You drain the power by charging the first coil with DC that, together with the core, forms a magnetic field OPPOSITE to the magnetic field of adjacent magnet.

At a glance valid logic, no? Bulll, so why is it not warmer as we climb up the mountain? The higher we get the closer we get to the sun. The closer to the sun, the higher the temperature should be.

But it isn't.

What happens with MEG is that if you hit the magnetic field of the magnet with a field of opposite polarity, you reduce magnet's field. When the pulse stops, magnet's own field restores itself. If you have stronger magnet the field will bounce back with a bit of a spike, just like the water in a pool if you push it away with your hand. That may result with higher voltage in the coil, but the total amount of energy in the spike is always the same as the amperage will drop. And the amount of the power, by the elementary law of conservation of mass rules: you get out from the system what you put in minus losses.

So if the total power of your cutting impulse is 0.5 VA, that is the value you are taking away from the magnets filed with the impulse, and that is the difference in power you will detect in your second coil.

Now, do you remember that the collector coil is positioned AFTER (or BEHIND) the impuld coil?

What happens next is that what little power will bounce back, it has to go through the pulse inducing coil first...

Count your losses. Whatever power does come to the collector coil, is leftovers really since the bulk of the spike induced electricity in the first coil.

Another carpet bag salesma. And from where? The US, where else...Next you'll want me to believe that they went to the moon as well.

Yeah, whatever. The wind was quite strong so they managed somehow, brave defenders of democracy.

trouty
12-31-2005, 03:48 AM
your logic frankly scares me - and in this community - thats saying something!:D

The moon?...hmm...well there aren't any stars in the photo's if that tells you anything!:rolleyes:

Carpet baggers?...the Americans? Surely you jest?...After all - they have the shrub at the helm....what more international credibility could any nation wan't?:confused: ;) :D :D :D :D :D ..

Saddams weapons of mass dissapearance...now if ever there was proof of free energy...weapons of mass dissapearance has to be it!:p

Picking self up from rolling around the floor laughing for a moment...

Try to think of it this way....

Oh heck - lets face it - there is no other way to think anout it - the USA has become the butt joke of all nations - almost like an ongoing Irish joke - that just never stops!

Them Americans take emselves sooo seriously that a little humbling before the rest of the world, maybe isn't afterall a bad thing for their national psychy, in truth.

Theres really no way to put a good spin on it sadly...Osama, Saddam...and so it goes on whos this weeks bogeyman?....anyone so long as it stops em from takin a good long hard look at 'emselves apparently!:?:

Don't git me started again on the oil oligarchy running their nations since that 1962 fatefull day in Dealy plaza Texas...when the first and last 'peoples president 'paid the ultimate price, of opposing the oil oligarchy!

Cheers!

brian eiland
02-09-2006, 08:35 PM
This thread certainly started out with lots of good info diesel-electric technology, but seems to have deteriorated lately. So I posted this reference on another subject thread and repeated it here briefly.

For more information and a look at the new website on Glacier Bay’s OSSA Powerlite system see:

http://www.ossapowerlite.com/ (http://www.ossapowerlite.com/)

FAST FRED
02-10-2006, 06:49 AM
Saddams weapons of mass dissapearance...now if ever there was proof of free energy...weapons of mass dissapearance has to be it!

Less that 1/2 % of the found documents in Irac have been translated SO FAR ,

but there seems to be proof that almost 50 "assistance" flights went to Domascus which the documents say were gutted 747 and 727 and carring the long sought WMD.And hunderds of trucks.

The truith will come out , eventually .Feb 17 is a day to watch the news.

"Them Americans take emselves sooo seriously that a little humbling before the rest of the world, maybe isn't afterall a bad thing for their national psychy, in truth."

WE Americans take our FREEDOMS very seriously ,
that the world goes on a FREE RIDE behind our umbrella is simply the "Law of the Commons" at work.

No problem , with A BILLION folks now living in Freedom , complements of the US taxpayers in the 20th century , were still slogging along.

Perhaps you would like living under the Islamic Sharia Laws,EZ, move to IRAN!

FAST FRED

Sander Rave
02-10-2006, 07:09 AM
Wrong thread Fred.

trouty
02-10-2006, 12:36 PM
Fred,

We aren't sposed to talk bout politics here - well we aren't sposed to talk about politics in the open discussion forum thead on politics either, so basically theres to be no politics talk here....OK? :D

I hope it was politically correct to post that! :p

Oops - there I done gone went & did it again! :rolleyes:

As Gomer Pyle would say - well Gooohhhlllleeeyyy, shazzam!;)

Fred - for what it's worth I think Iraq wuill be the last thing on anyones mind after end March when your into Iran instead!

We are being softened up for it now...if you know how to read betwixt the lines in the press. Least Scott Ritter says so...

Scott Ritter for anyones forgotten - was the US CIA intel guy who was in Iraq with the Unscom Weapons inspectors under our Aussie Richard Butler chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM. He was the 2 i C to Butler and also the one who blew the whistle to Aussie 4 corners program about the CIA using Unscom to insert operatives into Iraq prior to the war to tap the Iraqi telephones system...from the weapons inspectors headquarters...

Anyway - he's now some kinda Military analyist or something...and says pretty unequivocally (as does Russian deputy PM Zhirinovski) that the decisions already been made and the USA will use limited yeild tactical battlefield nukes against Iran around 28th? March 2006..i.e about 6 weeks away! :rolleyes:

If you guys don't start it...then likely the Israelis will, apparently (again reportedly) Ariel Sharon gave the March 28 deadline for nuking Irans reactor before he was "taken ill"...

Course could all be ********** too - but I wouldn't bet on it...

I've a bad feeling Iran will make Iraq look like a turkey shoot.

Lets see what 6 weeks brings shall we?

I think the Iranian Presdent "Ahminadad" (or however you spell it) dude is pretty much certain to get hit by France anyway - even if you guys & the Israeli's don't get in first. I don't think Chirac will miss the chance..

Course I could post my 'sources' but where would be the fun in that! ;)

I'd sooner wait 6 weeks and say "told ya so".

Cheers!

yipster
02-10-2006, 02:46 PM
"Electric Wheel" electric motor propulsion systems deteriorated?
was it not george bush recently saying the us will soon be independed of oil ?
so what does he know we dont?

trouty
02-10-2006, 06:50 PM
M = Delta T

he he he! :D :D

Free energy from the vacuum of space...or

That theres about the be a gnu clea (new clear?) holocaust when he invades Iran and you won't be needing oil after Russia turns the USA into a glass bowl parking lot in retaliation (with their new topol 27 rocket mirved warheads)? :confused: :confused:

I think the Shrubs actually dumb enough to do it ya know!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think he should push the button first! :)

Yeah, but before ya give him the button - strap him to the front of the very first missile - so as he pushes da button, he zooms off into space FIRST!

Then - self detonnate / destroy the missile out in space.. :D

Or better yet just deactivate it mid flight so he lands in Iran, with the missile - thattaway- he can lead his troops BY EXAMPLE and be the first US boots on Iranian soil... Yeah - like - "follow me boys". Now THATS being a leader of the troops! :D :cool:

Problem solvered! ;)

International politics...my specialty! :p

I'm expecting a call from Kofi Annan anyday now! ;)

Cheers!

trouty
02-10-2006, 09:02 PM
Would you leave this man in charge to teach your children?

This man has a vision for your countrys future? - can see clearly where he is taking you?

Thats good, coz now I feel very reassured! :D ;)

Cheers!

P.s. I am just funnin with you guys!! - I KNOW Jeff's gonna b!tch slap me for this!

Lets just say - tis a wee bit quiet here today...OK?..:rolleyes:

I'll go back to takin my pills now and be a happy chappie...;)

100 times
I will NOT bite the porcupine!
I will NOT bite the porcupine!
I willl Not ............

he he he!

longliner45
02-10-2006, 09:19 PM
will you guys look at my thread and help me out ....remember Im not to smart

safewalrus
02-11-2006, 05:03 PM
Can't be Longliner you've mates like us and still live in the U.S.:p

"i don't suffer from insanity, I'm loving every minute of it!

trouty
02-18-2006, 01:17 PM
And yes Irans creating an oil 'Bourse' (exchange, where oil can be bought in $Euro's)!:confused:

Color me dumb, but wasn't Iraq's Saddam man selling oil in Euro's too when the whitehouse lied to everyone about weapons of mass dissapearance and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons etc etc, as a pretext to iinvade Iraq?

Heck - tis like de-ja-vu all over again! :rolleyes:

Collapse of the US economy...or war with Iran (and or Syria)... not much of a choice really is it?

And all these innocent women and kids in Iran don't matter - you know why?

Collateral damage!

Heck - isn't that what "Dead Eye Dick" just claimed about his latest quail kill victim? Collateral damage? :D

You know - Osama probably said the same about the 9/11 victims.. Collateral damage... :rolleyes:

(Theres no truth in the rumor when someone shouted quail - Dead Eye Dick misunderstood and thought they were talking bout Dan Quayle and just let rip instinctively is there? :D ;)

So - whats this Iran Oil Bourse thing got to do with war in Iran?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

You know - the sad thing is.....

If we'd a took up with M = delta T back before the Iraq war - BOTH these wars could have been avoided IMHO!

Maybe the electric wheel is the answer afterall!

6 weeks and counting down to Iran!:mad:

Cheers!

trouty
02-19-2006, 03:13 AM
Yes - tis time to get back on track with this electric wheel / solomons technology bidness - while we wait for the Iran war to eventuate in 6 weeks!!

So - to recap - I think i've covered a fair bit of territory..

One area I'd like to revisit, is ol Albert Einsteins special theory of relativity.

Now I know - the solar tea cup analogy I used to disppprove Albert was tough to follow..

But, I do believe - that I've found an even easier - dead simple way to disprove Albert E.

I have suggested to you- that the speed of light is not constant - but that it merely behaves as a 'near' constant in "near earth space".

Well, lets take an elementary math approach to Einsteins special theory, that any 14 year old kid from the "pre dumbed down american education system" could probably follow!

That would be old pharts like us that are intrested in boats! :P

Sooo,

Here we go!

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light,

Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment

In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature.

They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light. Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth.

No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed.

The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction.

For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong? In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution -- but he was wrong. Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathematician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations.

His equations have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes or doubt. While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C." Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire.

To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second.

Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light."

Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.

But not so!.

It was only an integration constant to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements!!.

What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have any experience with, was something which we now know as "time zones."

Time zones relate time to distance.

Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone.

None of the 19th century European scientist had ever experienced the need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country. Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel. This "virtual velocity" is not real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel.

This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones.

This "virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the same number.

What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon?

It's not the same as on earth.

A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are actually four possible explanations for the null or failed result.

Most scientists, including Einstein, who had no experience with time zones, only saw three possibilities. Many scientists in 1905 could not and some still do not fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities - since his theory clearly violates our sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics.

Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes.

In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic or theory produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise.

That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself.

That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's equations is 186,000 miles per second. This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per hour.

But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality when we arrive at the destination.

That's not hard or difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head. Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York.

This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment.

If the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same regardless of the motion of the light source.

Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the earth. Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity.

Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a failure.

It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong!!!!.

I confounded my professors by working out complex problems in relativistic mechanics in my head. They said I was mostly exactly correct but at extremely high velocities near 99.99999 percent of the velocity of light, my answers were just a tad bit too big, compared to Einstein's equations!!.

I said, that's because Einstein was wrong!!.

I should also add that recent experiments and measurements over long time periods or distances, such as the two Pioneer spacecraft which recently left beyond the edges of our solar system, seem to show that Einstein's equations give answers which are just a tad bit too small!!. ;)

Soo how do we explain how Einstein managed to get his theory published and accepted - i.e. how did it ever get past the peer review process?

See next post below to find out!

Cheers!

trouty
02-19-2006, 03:43 AM
Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?

One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.

It has become the basis for much of modern physics.

When I read his paper, I found that it contained a simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be false!.

Years later as a physics student I told my professors about my discovery of the math error. They didn't believe me, even when I showed them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems. My solution was so simple that I could solve most of the problems in my head.

Today, I ask, "Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"

The answer is simple.

It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published.

In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize.

To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.

But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error.

Why did no one catch the obvious error?

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review. Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien, later won Nobel Prizes themselves.

They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.

It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year.

Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers."?

For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.

It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists.

But not so.

Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts. Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics.

Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize.

In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them.

It would take the innocence of a child to state the obvious.

I was 14 at the time when I found the obvious math mistake in Einstein's paper.

I was then too young and naive to know that winning a Nobel Prize would automatically and magically correct math errors in physics papers.

So I told what I had discovered to my teachers and professors.

This had several unintended consequences. As a student at High School, I told my chemistry and physics teachers what I had found. Within days, I became widely known around school as "The kid who proved Einstein wrong."

I was unanimously elected president of the Special Science Group for advanced students.

I was the "wunderkind" at school and district board meetings, who made outrageous financial requests, backed by grants I had gotten from local Silicon Valley corporations, for advanced school science projects. Projects such as wiring up the school for TV, the year before cable TV was invented. I later met the man who invented cable TV, so I know.

I also clearly noticed that the usual number of requests from the really cute girls who had wanted to wear my athletic sweater had precipitously dropped to a nerdy zero. That athletic sweater, with the varsity block letters for track, cross-country, wrestling and football, with all the medals and ribbons cascading down the left arm. For an "active" teenager, this simply wouldn't do.
I began a curious double-life. I might whisper after school to my teachers about new science projects I was working on, but then not a word to my fellow students. "Sorry, Donna, what? Einstein? Never heard of him. Wanna see my first place gold medal for 400-yard relay?" What two-faced cads teenage boys can be!. The curious double-life continued for decades.

I found it difficult to find jobs in business and industry, with the appelation "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I never mentioned it during job interviews. Otherwise, I often did not get the job because I was "way too over-qualified." :rolleyes:

Jobs in academe were impossible.

In the university environment, not being a professed "believer" in Relativity Theory, was considered the near equivalent to being a heretic, blasphemer, or bomb-throwing anarchist.

By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that most professors simply could not see the obvious math error which I had found.

They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist.

Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were,
such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist.

For them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them.

And what was that Simple Math Error?

It's so simple even a child could figure it out.

It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed.

That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein.

He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.

I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform.
This is both mathematically and logically incorrect.

The Lorentz Transform

The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false.

The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.

Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root.

Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning!!. :eek:

But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect.

Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time.

That clearly is paradoxical.

This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two!.

For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct!. :rolleyes:

But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two!!. :idea:

And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory.

But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.

For example:

(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.

Therefore:

All dogs are cats,

AND/OR

All cats are dogs!

Which premise is false?

With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.

Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, even though it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise!!.

The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.

Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason!!.

It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz, :eek:

Dr. Hendrik Lorentz, who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory.:p

Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment.

He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer.

But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.

Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned.

He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity." :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

Dr. Lorentz never accepted nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."

For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox. :)

Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper. :mad: :o

That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.:eek:

There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure Constant. It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect.

If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature; the nuclear, electric, magnetic, and gravitational (Time) forces, were all simply variations of the same force!!!.

errr - what have i been trying to tell you all for so long now????

M = delta T!! Theres as much energy in Mass (Nuclear energy) as there is within TIME (Yes about 9 x 10 ^16 joules per second!) :rolleyes:

Why is it, that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light?

But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity!.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole.

This changes all observed measurements of time and distance.

The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, (meaning gravity), is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "Energy" to Time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumverate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space!!. :idea:

All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem are found in the definition of "alpha."

No paradoxical square root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed.:rolleyes:

But 100 years ago, before the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it!!. :confused:

All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be described with a single equation.

It was the "Unified Field Theory" which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but somehow had eluded them.

Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray!.

And - what they were searching for was M = Delta T

Mass equals Change in Time!

Pretty simple really - heck - even a 14 year old kid could figure it out! :D :p :P

So - just whats wrong with the rest of you?

Is there REALLY any excuse - given that this knowledge exists - to invade Iraq or next Iran - and kill all those innocent women and kids (called collateral damage):rolleyes: given that there is absolutely NO SHORTAGE OF ***FREE*** ENERGY in this darn old world of ours????

I would NOT want to be the one who had to face his God on the day of judgement and explain my reason for killing all the women and kids of Iraq and Iran, for oil energy - knowing full well in advance that we had more free energy at our disposal than you could poke the proverbial stick at!

I do not feel - we could give a very good account of our actions as an aggressor nation in terms of waging war against those who never threatened us!

Anyone besides me feel this way?:?:

Sure do wish someone would listen!:mad:

Cheers!

yipster
02-19-2006, 01:37 PM
that amazes me, earth anno 2006 still does not have head and tail lights ? :P

yipster
02-19-2006, 01:41 PM
did some homework and figered the seas averaging 3/4 of the earths surface some 4 km deep,
does anyone realises how much energy that represents :P :P :P
better shut up before we are reported as terrorists :(

trouty
02-19-2006, 09:01 PM
Imagine the potential for global warming with that much DiHydrogenMonoxide getting about - could end up like a giant jacuuzy! :cool: :D

Cheers!

DanishBagger
02-20-2006, 05:35 AM
Imagine the potential for global warming with that much DiHydrogenMonoxide getting about - could end up like a giant jacuuzy! :cool: :D

Cheers!

He he ;)

marshmat
02-21-2006, 01:09 PM
I gotta admit, Trouty, I'm somewhat amused. Not sure whether you believe you're right or you're just having fun....?
Relativity's perfectly good on the large scale- it's at the atomic level and smaller that it seems to break down. Reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity is the Holy Grail of modern theoretical physics- if you've got a breakthrough, give your local university a call!;)

trouty
02-23-2006, 09:02 AM
:D re Not sure whether you believe you're right or you're just having fun....?
The two are necessarily mutually excusive?
i.e All dogs are Cats?

That could be classed as paradoxical! ;) And we know from the above that therefore the original premise is fundamentally flawed!:D

Yeah - just funnin with you - but 'wondering out loud to myself and no one in particular at the same time, Marshmatt!

Before I go to the local Uni tho, I'm gonna let my young feller run his physics teacher around in circles first for a while! :D :D

Why not...they like to make students life a misery at times, so a little quid pro quo mightn't go astray.

What I'm hoping is, one of you intelligent folks will poke a hole in my theory about Mass and (change in) Time being just equal amounts of energy in a different form and that as a result we can "convert" time to a useable energy source just like we do now with Mass in the nuclear process.

I am trying to get this "fixed' clearly within my head, so that I understand it well enough to explain it to others and the "posting method" used at web forums suits the way I think / deal with, "chunks of information" or new ideas.

So it's a good chance for me to get other "intelligent folks" like yipster, yourself et al(Bergalia and safe walrus excluded!):D :P to double check me and perhaps even offer insights of their own.;)

For example..

Consider this..

I saw the thread hereabouts - regarding a 200/300mph rocket propelled torpedo..

Now imagine for just ONE second...how fast would a Nuclear powered torpedo travel if the nuclear energy were converting the water to steam and generating the air / oxygen for the bubble to encase it????

Would it go faster than the Russian one?

I'm thinking it might..

BUT - taking what I suspect to be true about TIME having an equal amount of potential energy, If such a weapon were propelled by Time energy (and we know as we approach lightspeed (infinity) Mass lengthens, Time shortens etc etc...

Well if it's near lightspeed (infinity) and time is shortening - this torpedo could actually GET there BEFORE it left the submarine!:idea: :idea:

Thats right - send a torpedo BACKWARDS in time....

So consider this..

A ship detects a 300mph torpedo approaching from 50 Nm away, or 10 mins to intercept...what to do?

Easey send a torpedo back in time to 5 mins BEFORE the 300 MPH one was launched and two things happen..

1. the sub gets destroyed

2. The midwater torpedo ceases to exist!

Problem solvered!

Just call me First mate gunner "time lord"!

I'll crack this nut or die trying Marshmatt!

Cheers!

safewalrus
02-23-2006, 04:25 PM
Which goes to prove you can use math to prove just about anything! or bu****it or is it the same thing? the main thing is getting anybody to listen! Jeess, we're only allocated a certain amount of time on earth, would you want to waste it listening to some crackbrained numpty explaining that something that makes virtually no diference is about as useful as a bucket with a hole in it!

yipster
02-23-2006, 05:25 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/11/strangelove.jpgtrouty your briliant and i get back to you in time

safewalrus
02-23-2006, 05:33 PM
Cause he's bloody brilliant but is he any use? (other than a large pee taker - he good at that!)

Ari
03-01-2006, 10:42 PM
Hallo Trouty, Your lenghty explanation on theory of relativity do make it clear to me of the theory " the more you learn..the more you forget" can't even remember now what's that. Anyway..I do really agree with you about the positive and negative reaction and pairing. Do agree with you about the abundant amount of energy waiting to be harness. Know something about the lost tressure of Tesla ?. Don't know if it is real or not..; America is a country that really in need of a war..if this world become too peacefull..who is going to buy all those super advance weapon produce by their firms..?Weapons are make to kill..they need enemy to utilise their weapon..to run their economy. They have to utilise it someway..somewhere..to justified those weapon construction..to make sales..so what if somebody else got wasted..collateral damage..so what if some Americans thats too young to drink in publics and yet old enough too be wasted in foreign soil bought it.."Ceasars" won't blink an eye on all those carnage..after all they are just collateral damage..:rolleyes:

Wellydeckhand
03-07-2006, 06:02 AM
Yeah, thats a REALLY good idea.
I tried that a year or two ago. Ruined my life. Read through his site, that led to other sites. Then someone offered me some Noam Chomsky at a party - just casual like, "between friends" he said (an innoculous little book called Media Control). Well that led to harder stuff.
Now I struggle to hold down a decent conversation without turning to global doom and gloom about apathetic and ignorant populations, oil, the Great Terrorism Lie and its mate The Great Democracy Joke, Bush and his boss's, etc etc...

I'v been reduced to a cynic randomly twitching in a dark corner while I plot to overthrow the world.
Ignorance is (in fact) bliss.

ps the revolution will not be televised.

so u knew Trouty....... personally:D :D :D

at least I get a laugh after reading papers on cock fighting and rubbish.....

EEW
04-30-2006, 09:38 PM
I was doing a search on Solomon Technologies, and came across this Blog starting in 2002... I haven't read all of the responses, but saw a few from Trout... and had heard about this "World Solution" from others.:confused:

"The picture" Trout has posted a couple of times is on the Internet in a few places, but I have yet to see something working. FYI- I am neither a math wiz or maritime or power engineer, just curious on power technologies and some continuously variable transmission (CVT) -like options. I personally like the Stirling engine concept, but there is very little that can transfer into power sufficient for most applications [an expensive fan to put on your wood stove is quite a nice application].

Everything on the internet is NOT fact, nor good for you :)
If you scroll about half-way down on http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm, you'll see
***SNIP*** The Motionless Electric Generator (MEG)
Post Mortem Analysis
The forum Bearden choose to disclose his device was JLN labs. A well known internet website, run by Jean Louis Naudin. As the most popular over-unity website, it was a logical choice. But Mr Bearden was not trying to be charitable by this act, in fact it was all part of a carefully calculated hype campaign, spanning multiple media outlets, designed to enable Mr Bearden to win massive venture capital backing for the ‘MEG,’ so that research could be taken up to the next level. In this respect at least, Mr Bearden appears to have been extremely successful, and did indeed win millions of dollars of funding, to launch a multinational research effort, that in time, truly spanned the globe. His every wish was granted, and the MEG team had at a their disposal, all the funds the could reasonably have wished for. In this respect, it is impossible to claim the device was ‘suppressed.’ ***END SNIP***

But the "Factoid" on http://www.cheniere.org/ Mr. Beardons Web Site still states as of today ***SNIP*** "Factoid: the MEG's development has been funded entirely by the inventors' savings and a few modest donations." ***END SNIP*** And -
***SNIP*** "Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 17:27:07 -0600


Tony,



We are just beginning again to rebuild another MEG demonstrator, for testing and then funding to complete the program.



We have a very hard year to a year and a half of work on the MEG, before it is out of engineering development and ready for production engineering. At that time, with successful conclusion of ED we will hopefully be in condition to place the system on the market.



Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

***END SNIP***
On his web site, you can see his latest on garnering energy from Vacuum, among other 'discussions' for your own informed decision.

I have heard Mr. Bearden and followers is/are still touting his magic power wand, to include trying to get people to buy into generators for their back-up home requirements... just give him money and be on the leading edge of what'll eventually roll in some day... how many years now?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/cstack/index.htm Here is the latest I could find on "Over-Unity" from the "Source", JNL Labs.

IMHO... I wouldn't be designing a boat, ship or anything beside some lab toys; floating aluminum foil in the air isn't going to get your hull far.:rolleyes:

For something a bit more promising, you may be interested in www.camfridge.com

FYI - Some folks were discussing the DD(X) http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21/ has a blurb - ***SNIP*** PROPULSION

It is envisaged that the DD(X) would have an all-electric drive with an integrated power system, (IPS) based on in-hull permanent magnet synchronous motors (PMMs) with Advanced Induction Motors (AIM) as a possible backup solution. The provision of electric drive eliminates the need for drive shaft and reduction gears and brings benefits in acoustic signature reduction, an increase in available power for weapon systems and improvements in the quality of life for crew.

The IPS would supply power to other ship systems such as the combat systems and allow the rapid reconfiguration of power requirements.

DRS Technologies Power Technology unit has received development contracts for the PMM motors, electric drive and control system for the IPS. The Rolls-Royce MT30 36MW gas turbine generator set has been selected to power the IPS EDM and Rolls-Royce delivered the first set in February 2005. The MT30 has 80% commonality with the Rolls-Royce Trent 800 aero engine and Rolls-Royce states that it is the most powerful marine gas turbine in the world. CAE will supply the integrated platform management system.
***END SNIP***

marshmat
05-01-2006, 02:21 PM
Re: Tom Bearden et al. Tip: Learn some science. Nutbars who don't know jack about physics but claim 'over-unity' inventions (devices that violate the first law of thermodynamics and as such cannot possibly work as claimed) are not going to solve the world's problems. And there's nothing at all new or innovative about coupled capacitors.
Re: The DD(X) and DRS, magnetic refrigeratioin, etc. Now THIS might go somewhere!

pci
05-28-2006, 11:21 AM
When you look at my plasmoidal induction scalar electromagnetic propulsion system (pat pend) you'll see that it's performance peramaters far exceed those of the electric wheel depicted above.

Of course the reduction in input energy costs also make plasmoidal induction propulsion the system of the 21st century!

The phase locked conjugate pair waveform scalar electrical energy of the plasmoidal induction engine is the secret to this system. That and the latent energy trapped within time are the keys... E= Delta TC squared, s what it's all about Tesla really is the one who discovered it.

This is basically what makes it tick!

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%209%20Feb%201993/fig2.jpg

Now - I'f I could just find a barge the size of the Queen Mary to carry the damn batterys! ;o)

Cheers!

I'd like to find out more about this - can you tell me a bit more how it works?

pci
05-28-2006, 11:53 AM
It'd be nice to think I was joking and all this scalar electromagnetics stuff would just dissapear, but the truth of the matter is, it actually works!:eek:

Thats why the US patents office granted a patent a few weeks ago.

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/patent_meg.htm

Yep - the electronic wheel is great - BUT imagine how good it will be when - you don't need to keep charging and discharging batterys to power it but you harness the free energy trapped within time, ony using the battery source once to initiate the system!

Free energy - are you with me here?...

No diesel fuel - no hydrogen cell no nuthin - just a MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator).

Course - you can couple MEGs inline for additional power, and if you want to you can run them thru the electrioc wheel to power a propellor - but how agricultural is that? :rolleyes:

Bout the only thing missing is the guy standing at the prow beating the drum! ;)

Noo - once people cotton onto scalar electromagnetics - the world as we know it today in terms of energy needs will be totally changed as if in the blink of an eye - forever more.

Think back to pre 1943, and Hiroshima/ Nagasaki...

Who'd a ever thought there was enough energy trapped within the atom to do that much damage to whole citys full of people?

Who'd have ever thought that we'd have whole US naval Carrier battle groups & submarines at sea, powered by - nuclear reactors - harvesting the energy trapped within the atom?

What "momentous discovery" led us to nuclear energy?...

Well - Albert Einstein had a bit to do with it...when he formulated his "general theory of relativity" (never loan munney to relatives) :D...er no - sorry, I mean E = MC2

Sooo....Now I come along telling you that Tesla's discovery of scalar electromagnetics, has given us E=TC2 where T is delta T or change in time, and suddenly - I'm telling a big joke???:confused: :confused:

Why is it so "unbelievable" that there could be as much energy trapped within time as there is withing the atom?:confused: :rolleyes:

You see, it's something like the atom before 1942....the energy was always there - we just werent smart enough until then to realise a way to harness that energy trapped within the atom.

In the same way - there is the same amount of energy trapped within time...IF we just understand the physics that allows us to harness that energy. The MEG or motionless Electromagnetic Generator as described in the patent and depicted here:-

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/megtitl.jpg

is REALITY people - it's real - it works - the energy is free!

Just think for a few seconds...what that means in terms of "boat design" never mind about the implications for our western oil based economies and all the wars we are about to fight in the middle east and caspian basin over oil.....just think what "unlimited free energy" means to the world!

Hows it work?...

Well, if you have the time - you could start reading here and sooner or later the penny will drop!

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Final%20Secret%209%20Feb%201993/index.html

Now - the guy who has compiled all this is a former US Colonel (RET) involved in computer nuclear holocaust war simulation modelling for the US military, so he's no dummie.

It's a big subject that will have (in due time) huge implications for vessel propulsion......among other things!

I'm personally of the opinion that MEGS coupled to plasmoidal induction hydrodynamic drive engines, will be the "future" for vessel propulsion...BUT I could be wrong!

I guess only "time" will tell...

In the mean "time" practice reciting what Tesla knew almost 100 years ago...

That E=TC2 where T is delta T or change in time.

If you care to really stretch the grey matter...resolve this.

E=MC2 (Einstein)
also
E=TC2 (Tesla)

Therefore,

If
E=MC2
&
also
E=TC2

Then it follows that

MC2 = TC2

Therefore it follows that

M=T (where T is delta T or change in time)

So, troutys theory of the space time continuum...

Mass = Change In Time

Ponder the implications of that for a wee while...I'll be asking 20 questions whenI get back!
:D

Cheers!


Would like to find out more about this - have you proceeded any further? Thanks.

yacht371
06-03-2006, 09:52 AM
Pure ********!

Robert Miller
06-03-2006, 12:55 PM
You assert that the statement M=T is true, (where you define T as "change in time").
Not so.
And certainly not consistent with understanding of the equation E=MC^2.
C is the constant in that equation.

Note that neither delta t, nor mass, are constants.

Invoking this equation shows the assertions that follow to be impossible, as opposed to "proving" them.

This stuff really is nonsense.

Robert

marshmat
06-03-2006, 02:41 PM
Trouty- I know these things are good for a laugh now and then, always fun to pull a leg or two, but this one's come up so many times now that I'm starting to wonder if you might actually believe it. And that has me worried. The theory (and math) behind relativity is a hell of a lot more complicated than these rants. Latent energy trapped within time? Sorry, but that's bull and has no place in a serious discussion like this one. Please leave this sort of fiction out of here.

docnmacy
07-09-2006, 09:21 PM
Look at Augustacanal.com
We build 2 65' boats powered by 2 2 1/2 hp motors and Volvo Saildrives. Speed is good and they are incredably quiet. USCG approved it.

Kay9
10-15-2006, 12:27 AM
I read every post in this and after all the BS math and such I have come to the conclusion that I know more about Relativity then Trouty, and that while electric looks promiseing it isnt about the way you convert energy into propulsion its about the way/medium you store the energy to create that propulsion.

Im not a NA nor am I a boat designer. I am however a 1600T master with Ocean endorsements, and 20+ years blue water sailing. I am presently restoring a 60' double ender and I have been considering electric as a form of aux prop. However after reading a great deal here about Batts and Generators, 2 things keep comming to the front.

1. The equivalent cost of Batt's, Gen, and Electric motor, are higher then Engine/Trans, smaller gen.

2. Lea shores scare the hell out of me, and I would sure hate to have dead batts, underpowered electric motor.

Im still intrested and I have even skippered some 120' Diesel electric ships in my past, but I just dont see this as an affordable alternative to a Diesel Aux.

Please correct me if I am worng as I am at the decision point right now, not 10 years from now.

caribmon
10-15-2006, 01:08 AM
2. Lea shores scare the hell out of me, and I would sure hate to have dead batts, underpowered electric motor.

1600T master with Ocean endorsements?

I have been known to use my sails to get off a lee shore... without an engine.

brian eiland
10-15-2006, 01:30 AM
... that while electric looks promising it isnt about the way you convert energy into propulsion its about the way/medium you store the energy to create that propulsion.
I tend to agree with you there, it's the stowage thing we really need to solve. Reference this discussion http://boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=85848&postcount=163 (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=85848&postcount=163) and some of the others in this sort of 'far out' subject thread http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9630 (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9630)[

I am presently restoring a 60' double ender and I have been considering electric as a form of aux prop. Lee shores scare the hell out of me, and I would sure hate to have dead batts, underpowered electric motor.
I would ask that you reread over this discussion by Glacier Bay http://www.ossapowerlite.com/tech_library/fuel_efficiency/fuel_efficiency.htm (http://www.ossapowerlite.com/tech_library/fuel_efficiency/fuel_efficiency.htm) One of the basics here is to match the generation of electrical power with the electric propulsion motor such that a large 'stowage medium' (batteries) isn't needed. And the permanent magnet DC units that allow for this to happen as opposed to AC systems.

but I just dont see this as an affordable alternative to a Diesel Aux. Granted, it's not exactly cheap is it.

Kay9
10-15-2006, 01:41 AM
Well I have a 25 Ton 60' schooner. the rig is Gaff and I cant get any closer the about 30 deg to windward. So if you have some magic trick other then an Aux engine to get me off the Lee of the Oregon coast when its blowing 20Knts from the NNW Im all ears.

Kay9
10-15-2006, 01:45 AM
Brian.
I did find the discussions about converting Metalhydrides into hydrogen very intresting. A bit new yet for me to consider risking my life on. Also Im a bit concerned about the thermic (sp?) reaction when adding water to the mixture. I would think, your tanks would get very hot during the conversion back into hydrogen. I wouldnt know though.

Kay9
10-15-2006, 02:00 AM
I read your links there Brian, you make a very compelling arguement, or rather the paper you linked dose, about the loading aspects of the Aux diesel engine and the resultant fuel savings.

In yours, or someone's opinion what size electric motor would be required to replace a diesel aux. in a 60' 23ton vessel? 6-8knts appearent would be acceptable in speed I think.

eveready
03-20-2007, 02:27 AM
Trouty - you made my night. I just stumbled onto this brainstorm and you solved a problem that has driven me nuts for years. Why do batteries run down faster than I can explain through load loss and the third law of thermodynamics. I knew deep inside that the loss should not manifest to the apparent degree, considering the ammount of electrons returned to the battery as the circuit was completed and there came the epiphany --- the returning electrons upset the polarity of the battery when they appear on the wrong side. DUHH! It's like washing my hands at work where we have only a five gallon water heater. By the time I use two gallons or so, the cold water running into the heater is already cooling the output noticeably. If I could shut off the intake to the heater I'd have access to five full gallons to degrease my hands not the two I presently have. Your MEG does just that but lets the heat out of the tank but not any appreciable flow of hot water. There is not even any need to reheat the water!!!!!!!! WATTA WIZARD or is it Water wizard? Anyway, I'll rehash your wordy digression and wait for more. EVEREADY

eveready
03-20-2007, 12:32 PM
Well folks, I wonder how many users run their 18HP Yanmar at 3,600 RPM's continuously(13.4KW). That's where it is rated at! Can you run it there continuously? Negative. What HP can you run it at continuously? (HINT...about about 15 for the first year or two) What is the hp load of a fully charged battery VS a partially charged battery that just started a diesel engine loaded with VHF, depth finder, radio and a couple lights turned on. Does Yanmar use those super efficient transmissions when selling product to Hunter, Catalina or J. ?
I too was amazed when I took a 22hp diesel out of my boat and put a 10HP electric motor in and had significantly more power and response. It sent me back to the white board to calculate why. I found out that there is the advertised perfect world...and then there is reality. Our HP and efficiencies are Pure,not over stated, at the prop and will be the same 10 years from now as they are today. They push the prop directly without transmissions (except the Electric Wheel that uses a transmission only for slow speeds and it is frictionally eliminated a cruise).
Battery Cycles...typically depleting the battery by 80% comprises one cycle....if you keep it above 50% you never cycle and that's what our diesel electric systems are designed to do. In an emergency you can go to 80% depletion by this is typically done. I have AGM's in my boat (the Casey on web site..1939 , 20,000 lb 28 footer) that have been there for 4 years with no degadation. We expect them to last for 6-8 years. What will you have done in maint on a diesel in 6-8 years....if you go to sea much you will have done 18-26 oil changes and filter changes, mabey a rebuild, mabey and new transmission, 6 transmission oil changes...and spent several hundred hours waiting for your diesel to warm up for 10 minutes so you can use it for 10 minutes...or even 5 minutes (10 minutes is Yanmar's suggested warm up time). I would much rather have a generator that always turns on runs at optimum efficiency...and oh by the way...where there was a 15-18HP yanmar , there can be a 4KW cacooned generator and 4Kw electric engine that you won't hear either running.
Continuous Running....We have a boat(CAL 34) that regenerated it's way from Los Angeles to Tahiti....we have a Cheribini 44 that came to Maryland from England on 300 gals of fuel with Ice Maker, AC, Electric stove and oven, freezer and microwave all the way. We have a Conser 47 CAt that motored for 96 hours continuously and motor sailed from Florida to Maryland using the motors to increase speed and generate while sliding down waves. We also have a boat that uses wheel chair batteries and a 4kw generator which altogether is lighter than the comparable diesel engine. Our motors are powerful enough to stop a 20,000 lb 47 ft cat from 7.5knots to 0 knots in 35 feet and to accelerate that same cat to 7.5 knots in two boat lengths...this boat would have had twin 30HP diesels...it has twin 12hp Solomon Motors. The proof is in the pudding.
P.S. I am not being petty...or arrogant....I am merely stating the facts as we have found them out. There is Ideal and Reality. I too was amazed at what our new inventions could do.I must go now but will return....you can always take a trip to Maryland and see for your self.

Wow I was thrilled to stumble onto this site and find your contributions. I am about to begin building boats commercially and have future plans to christen some motorsailers with your drive systems. Please don't be put off by the basement people, listen to the balcony people who know what passagemaking is really about. Just keep on sellin' your ideas! I'm buying!!!! Eveready

brian eiland
03-20-2007, 06:21 PM
I read your links there Brian, you make a very compelling arguement, or rather the paper you linked dose, about the loading aspects of the Aux diesel engine and the resultant fuel savings.

In yours, or someone's opinion what size electric motor would be required to replace a diesel aux. in a 60' 23ton vessel? 6-8knts appearent would be acceptable in speed I think.
I'm sorry Kay9 for not answering your questions. As I look at the dates of these postings I discover I was embarked on some other project and missed seeing them.
Regrettably I am not the expert to answer your question as I am just 'tracking' this relatively new technology for possible inclusion in a new design. I believe the gentleman who started 'Solomons Electric Wheel' sold the company to the Catamaran Company, and has since entered back into the business again under a newly formed company. He might be one of the best sources.

eveready
03-20-2007, 07:30 PM
Loch.... Sorry for the questions but I am hoping that some of the respondents will soon realize what we are talking about here and I won't have to spend to much time arguing with folks that don't get the point. The questions....here are the answers:
Torque is all important to pushing props...our motors are somewhere between a steam engine and a diesel...diesels develop more torque than gas engines and our motors develop more torque than diesels...this means you can have a bigger, more agressive prop....that means you will have more ballard pull/push which will give you better ability to punch through waves. Case in point: We did a Cheribini 44 that had a 50HP perkins and a 17"14pitch three blade....in heavy weather and waves it lost speed from 7 knots down to 4 1/2 knots. It now has a Solomon 74 and a 20"16pitch 3 blade and does the same 7 knots but in heavy weather only looses 1 knot down to 6. (This Cheribini left England in January gales and came accross the Atlantic to Tortolla....I think the English channel is probably as rough in January as your gonna see....)
Not to worry...Solomon does not do Fast at this point...we do slow and powerful(Fast will come later). Seems like the natural showcase for your system in the extream would be racing DRAG BOATS or even OFFSHORE RACERS!! EVEREADY. PS: Let's go!!!!!!

masrapido
03-22-2007, 02:43 AM
I read your links there Brian, you make a very compelling arguement, or rather the paper you linked dose, about the loading aspects of the Aux diesel engine and the resultant fuel savings.

In yours, or someone's opinion what size electric motor would be required to replace a diesel aux. in a 60' 23ton vessel? 6-8knts appearent would be acceptable in speed I think.

To determine the size of an electric motor to replace diesel, find out the efficiency of the diesel motor. Say, 40% is efficiency of the one you have. Max rated power for the plant is, say 200 kW. Because the plant is only 40% efficient, your actual max available power is 80 kW. Transmission and gear reduction play their part with another 10% (+/- 2%) reduction (from 200kW), so by the time the power hits the prop, you are looking at 60kW available at the highest rated speed for the diesel. Which is the power you need from an electric motor.

Electric motors are superior to diesel, and any other combustion powerplant, in that they have immediate and full power from 0 to max rated rpm. High torques are capable of fast reaction and movement. Diesels can have high torque, but combustion engines achieve their full torque in a very narrow range of high rpm. Hence, you can probably install even smaller EM, around 45-55kW. That depends on the efficiency of EM. Good ones should be at least 85% efficient. If less, stick to the above maths (in the above case that would result in a 60 kW EM).

SmartSource
08-13-2007, 11:51 AM
Trouty...

You are on to something... here is a video of a working prototype.

Perendev Magnetic Power Generator:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4217264878350110062
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6189540769300973039

300kwh MEG motor can power a few solomon motors and much more...

Lets see if this guy is for real or just a over-unity scam artist.

The specs from perendev.com:

The 100 Kw unit is the smaller brother of the 300kw unit and was designed to be used in light aircraft and automobiles. We have now due to demand produced this unit as a static power unit.

Power output : 100Kw 263.157 amps@ 380 volt 3 phase.
Continuous power output is 90KW
Synchronous generator.
4 or 8 pole
Temperature rating is 30-40c normal load
Weight 250kg
Dimensions: 1.2m Long
1.2m Wide
1.4m High

Fuel: None

SKU/Item Number: 0091098
100 Kw emm generator
To contact us:
Phone: +49 89 620 30060
Fax: +49 89 620 30061

marshmat
08-13-2007, 06:04 PM
The Perendev "motor" has been discussed on here before. I believe the conclusion was that, like all related magnetic-repulsion rotors bearing similar claims in the past, it would not in fact offer free energy and would degauss, or slowly destroy, its magnets over time - outputting considerably less net energy in its lifetime than was used to manufacture it. If you have genuine evidence to the contrary, please post a link to the peer-reviewed journal article; if you're just trying to sell it, perhaps this isn't the place to do so.

masrapido
08-15-2007, 05:29 AM
magnets in electromotors do not degauss. if that were the case, we would not have permanent magnet electromotors. degaussing requires thousands of amperes or hundreds of degrees Celsius to happen. A very slow degradation may occur if temperatures go above the working limits during the operation but that's in normal situations unlikely to happen.

this perendev motor has been debunked a few years ago. the "company" behind it is a one man con-band that has been making promises since before 2000, and still nothing.

brian eiland
08-15-2007, 07:16 PM
Dear Masrapido
Are you familar with the Profession BoatBuilder publication? The last two issues had interesting articles on the diesel/electric subject. You can now access these articles online:
http://www.proboat.com/digital_issues.html (http://www.proboat.com/digital_issues.html)

I'd be interested in your views on these articles.

I assume you are also aware of this other diesel/electric discussion on this forum? I tended to post to this other one as it was 'titled' more generally than the specific reference to the Solomon's technology of this one.

So I will cross reference that discussion here:
Diesel/Electric Propulsion for Sailboats (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9310)

masrapido
08-16-2007, 10:08 AM
Hi Brian,

No, I am not familiar with the USA magazine. I read by default only European publications as they have taken off quietly in the last 15 +/- years and are so much more advanced that the stuf people in bad old USA are talking now is all yesterday's stuff.

But the articles you mention were interesting, if only because they are quite educational, unlike most of the commercial nonsense one can read today in magazines. So what do I think about diesel-electric? Diesel-electric configuration, as you will know well, is an old stuff. As a nautical engineer myself, to me it is nothing neither new nor "spectacular". It appeared on commercial ships some 20-25 years ago, maybe even earlier, in a range of configurations and for various uses on deck. Various armies and navies have used it for decades. I would not be wrong if I said for over 50 years now.

Diesel engine is merely a substitute for batteries. It has advantage of being smaller and lighter than a bank of batteries (particularly lead ones), and it offers greater kW/kg densities. But I do not see an average Diego running to install it on a 12 metre boat. It is quite expensive and out of reach for many a sailor. It is easilly as expensive as a pure (lithium batteries powered) electric motor power system. A 60-70 kW diesel engine will set you back $17-20K, and then there's the electric motor and equipment.

For me the pure electric system is the way to go. But no viable system has been designed yet. Until someone does it, the diesel-electric is the best option given its power to weight ratio and the overall efficiency.

ChicagoDrifter
06-11-2008, 06:32 AM
As my broker told me when I asked about all this systems on my boat AC, Watermaker, electrical engine backup, etc. You want to sail or you need something to do.
Years later I want to remove perfectly working AC and watermaker plus a lot of other stuff just because I can't keep up with the work.
Fact 1: In a genset the electrical goes twice as fast as the diesel.
Fact 2: Among cruisers Fisher Panda is rated low compared to Yanmar. Northern Lights is rated high for generators.
Fact 3: If you think that a PM servo with controller is going to outlast a diesel engine you have to hear about my new religion.

Solomon Technologies is linked to Fisher Panda. Look at the market of Fisher Panda compared to Yanmar for marine products before you buy into that 20 years reliability story. I do work with industrial servos and motors all the time and don't remember one that lasted more than 5 years at 12 hours a day 5days a week (a lot less at continuous use).
If you like e-sailboats use a Warp Engine, a Curtis controller and a modified welder to charge batteries and run the motor. For regeneration use one PM alternator (200 AMPS) that is belted 10:1 to the propeller shaft. Yes you will need a neutral-engage gearbox. The cost is around $6K + batteries (4-5K) + work. About the same as an Yanmar. There is no easy way to conserve energy or replace fosil fuel hence the blood for oil situation. Use it or lose it baby! Buy the Yanmar stock they will be around longer than Fisher Panda.
I would like to say something good about Solomon Technologies. In theory they got it right. I would like to know how many servos that purist guy replaced in 10 years. My bet 2-3!

philv
07-10-2008, 07:23 PM
For the first application (ferry in toronto) a quiet and green alternative to the huge battery bank is maybee a mcro turbine :
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/prodsol/products/index.asp

Since you will have to heat the boat some part of the year, you could use that microturbine to do so and have it charge your battery bank.

The weigth of the smaler turbine (off grid) is more than 500 kg.
This limit the marine applications but the product is great :
Electricity generator oil free and almost maintenance free...:)

brian eiland
07-11-2008, 09:03 PM
For the first application (ferry in toronto) a quiet and green alternative to the huge battery bank is maybee a mcro turbine :
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/prodsol/products/index.asp

The weigth of the smaler turbine (off grid) is more than 500 kg.
This limit the marine applications but the product is great :
Electricity generator oil free and almost maintenance free...:)
This company is the same one that was employed to provide the small turbine/generator for the Super Flywheel Patriot LeMan's Race Car that Chrysler was working on:

The Patriot hybrid-electric racing car (http://www.allpar.com/model/patriot.html)
Chrysler designed and built a hybrid-electric, turbine-powered, liquid natural gas-fueled racing car for racing; the company said it could reach 200 mph for short durations, with competitive handling. The powertrain included a two-turbine alternator, an ultra-high-speed flywheel and an electric traction motor. All components were water-cooled.

The traction engine was a four-pole, three-phase, 525-volt AC induction motor, weighing 143 pounds, with a maximum speed of 24,000 rpm; it had an aluminum housing, was lubricated by oil, and had an 8:1 motor to final drive ratio.

The turbo-alternator was a compoounded twin-spool turbine with two alternators, fuled by natural gas, with a 100,000 rpm high speed and 50,000 rpm low speed; an intercooler was placed between the low and high speed compressors. A single point combuster was used; the alternators were three-phase AC induction. The whole thing weighed 186 pounds and was water-cooled; materials used included composites, ceramics, titanium, and stainless steel.

I brought up this 'flywheel energy storage' subject on several postings here (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=85848&postcount=163)

gregzw
07-19-2008, 01:00 PM
Do you know of anyone who has used your electric engines as an addition to an existing gas/diesel engine?

The purpose being to use the gas/diesel engine to get up to planing speed and use twin electric engines to maintain the plaining speed. My understanding is that it takes less than half the power to maintain planing speed than to get to planing speed.

You could also use the electric engines as "re-generators" when running on the gas/diesel engine. Hopefully doing away the the need for a diesel generator.

Perhaps this could work on a smaller catamaran like the 23' C-Dory.

Greg Zwick






Gentlemen...First...our motors are designed to be capable of 4KW (6HP) at 120VDC....that means you can actually get more power out of them at 144VDC (but we limit the control so you can't...sorry!...they last longer). Depth of discharge is really independent of voltage...but for one principle...in watts ...voltage and current are inversly proportional...and...the true measure of how much depth of discharge you can get on a battery without doing damage to it is current....lower current and you can discharge them lower. To blanket applications with generalized statements doesn't work with lead acid accept when you talk current. Batteries do not like high current draws....that's why we went to a higher voltage. 4KW...at 24VDC=166amps(bad do not discharge more that 40-50%).....at 120vdc=33amps(much better and you can take them down to 60%)....at 144vdc=27amps (even better still and we have taken them to 80% without any damage). It' all in the current...actually we recomend to our users that they only do this in emergency and when they do reduce the throtle control to 2KW(or about 13.5 amps) so damage is prevented. More volts actually yields larger depth of dischare because of reduced amperage to produce the same power.
Also....we are not trying to send every one out there with just batteries! 3/4 of the boats we have done todate are diesel electric hybrids...think about this.....a 4KW diesel generator weighs in at about 200 lbs. with fuel (or 3 group 31 batteries). This means you could go with less amp hours for normal operation but still have the ability to have unlimited motoring if necessary. The key is NORMAL, or cycle of use, or mission profile, or standard operational scinario. The size of the generator(or shore charging capability) and batteries are both on a sliding scale. You must first figure out what your cycle of use is. Also, there is no where in anything I have read or experienced that indicates if you use 30% of the batteries power that it comprises a whole cycle. We have AGM that have been routinely charge and discharged to 40% hundreds of times with no degradation in performance at all.
This is not how FF motors work and there is more to think about.....BUT....you can taylor a diesel electric hybrid/electric system to your specific needs and minimize energy usage or increase energy usage with more power and ammenities. I personally chose more power....Yes I have a 28 ft. sailboat with TV/VCR, Microwave, electric stove, refrigerator, stereo and electric back masager......for me more power.

<Admin Edit: Post moved into the main thread>

brian eiland
10-12-2011, 05:00 PM
I was going to just make an additional reply to this older subject thread, but it appears to have strayed off subject in several instances, so I thought a new begining was applicable considering the fellow who really brought this relatively new technology to the yachtng scene has also a new begining.

HI Folks....David Tether here. Have been forwarded a bunch of email stuff that suggested you all had questions....so I checked in and logged on! Having read the emails with interest I will submit one basic premise....We have studied this something fierce for 6 years. Several basic things about fossil fuel motors...they are here to stay for awhile because it is hard to achieve the power densities with any other medium(and the big three/Oil companies won't let you any way), Fossil fuel motors are over rated(motor torque rating at some RPM where you can't use it constantly, Parasitic losses are on brand new pumps, impellers, alternators (with charged batteries) and with new belts, they are oversized to be able to push a prop at start-up rpm's, and anyone that thinks the average boat transmissions are 98% efficient needs a new drug. Also...through there support systems have to be entirely variable and have Idle capability
Having said this....the average generator, because it is ballanced and blueprinted to make electricity with a ballanced load can convert fossil fuel into electricity at about 45 to 70% efficiency. Now the battery pack becomes your second fuel tank and allows the generator to only run at it's optimum efficiency. The battery pack is your source for quick, on demand high demand, current draws. What happens is that whenever you use fossil fuel it is always converted at the highest efficiency. This also allows one to adjust the batteries and generator to the mission profile....large batteries with small gen...small batteries with large gen...small batteries with small gen....large batteries with large gen.
Didn't want to ramble on just a beginning primer....

And then his new website:
E Motion Hybrids (http://www.electricmarinepropulsion.org/Index.html)

Been There, Done That

Although it’s taken a quantum leap forward in sophistication, Tether’s basic
system has been around for some time. Years ago he founded Solomon Technologies and helped pioneer hybrid-electric propulsion technology for sailboats working from a ramshackle collection of waterfront buildings on Maryland’s Patuxent River. There he developed a plug-in hybrid-electric system for boats more than 15 years before General Motors was able to do it for cars like its Chevy Volt.

Unfortunately, the revolution got sidetracked temporarily. In 2004, Tether received a welcomed injection of capital from a group of outside investors. But the new relationship went sour, a nasty breakup ensued and he found himself on the outside looking in – no longer a part of the company he had founded.

Nothing if not determined, he sat out his contractual non-compete period and started over in Fort Myers Beach, FL, with Electric Marine Propulsion.

New Subject Thread
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/hybrid-electric-propulsion-boats-diesel-electric-etc-40128.html#post493659

brian eiland
04-10-2013, 05:25 PM
I was going to just make an additional reply to this older subject thread, but it appears to have strayed off subject in several instances, so I thought a new beginning was applicable considering the fellow who really brought this relatively new technology to the yachtng scene has also a new beginning.

And then his new website:
E Motion Hybrids (http://www.electricmarinepropulsion.org/Index.html)

New Subject Thread
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/hybrid-electric-propulsion-boats-diesel-electric-etc-40128.html#post493659

Well forget that idea. That new subject thread I started got hi-jacked.


There is an interesting new article out in ProBoat magazine #142, Apr/May 2013. Eric Sponberg posted an interesting synopsis of that article over here.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/hybrid-engine-systems-sustainability-46678-2.html#post623499

View Full Version : Solomon Technologies - "Electric Wheel" electric motor propulsion systems