Jump to content

Oil and its future implications

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Not that they were entirely wrong. While Nikola's wireless transfer does work, it's incredibly inefficient, and doesn't have much range either. Your basic copper cord can carry that current a lot farther with less loss, which is why we still use them. Other things Nikola invented that actually did have practical benefits have been adopted. Alternating Current power, for instance.

 

Of course, it's silly to think that scientists cover up things for silly reasons. Showing even the slightest viability in a concept in a hot field like world energy is the easy path to lots of grant money. And they do love grant money.

 

As for nuclear, the opposition is pretty silly. Modern reactors are incredibly safe. Spent fuel is of some concern, but we have more than enough nowheres on Earth to store all the spent uranium that could ever exist on Earth. And at the rate of tech growth we have, we'll surely be able to safely launch that fuel into the sun or otherwise obliterate it far before it reaches a naturally non-radiated state.

They're not panties, so it's not embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Of course, it's silly to think that scientists cover up things for silly reasons.

IAU changing the definition of 'planet' behind the backs of most of the IAU members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet#Criticism

 

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/supressed_inventions/suppressed_inventions.htm (I don't ascribe to all of these, but it's still there)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/050759_EPA_pollution_toxic_heavy_metals_Health_Ranger_science_lab.html

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=VCBjUhs2pMYC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=scientists+covering+up&source=bl&ots=jKhwINRIn4&sig=yJXSZtBllbJdUux1XKC87R8JFGc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwjG8sC1pOzIAhWEPiYKHVO-BUU#v=onepage&q=scientists%20covering%20up&f=false

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/fda_inspections_fraud_fabrication_and_scientific_misconduct_are_hidden_from.html

 

http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20150609-103058064 (requires payment unfortunately to access the article)

 

A conspiracy theory is an attempt to explain a perceived real-world occurrence through the actions of a secretive, usually evil and very selfish group. Not all conspiracy theories are wrong, but if the theory requires greater suspension of disbelief than random chance would to explain the occurrence, it should be examined skeptically. Conspiracies manifest themselves across the political spectrum. Most of the theories in the list below are crackpot, but a few, sadly, are reasonable and a couple are almost certainly true.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

 

Showing even the slightest viability in a concept in a hot field like world energy is the easy path to lots of grant money. And they do love grant money.

On the contrary, I have submitted several basic designs for vacuum energy generation, (one of which I actually had a small functional prototype of) but have literally been laughed off because of being "a crackpot uneducated moron who thinks fringe science can ever be real science". (not joking, those are the exact words) They will never consider a grant for someone who doesn't have a PHD in whatever field they are applying for a grant in, no matter what. (and those type of people are usually indoctrinated by the school system to believe that fringe science is at least 300 years away from being real, if it's even possible at all)

 

I could go very in-depth about this, but this really isn't the place to do so. (it's more of a social and philosophical indoctrination issue than it is an issue concerning oil and its future implications.

 

As for nuclear, the opposition is pretty silly. Modern reactors are incredibly safe.

The modern designs can't even be sent critical if you tried. Add in Thorium reactors, and you have an even safer and cheaper energy generation system.

 

Spent fuel is of some concern,

The major modern designs use up all the long-term radioactive material, and have essentially no waste. They produce slightly less energy, but I feel it would be worth it.

 

but we have more than enough nowheres on Earth to store all the spent uranium that could ever exist on Earth. And at the rate of tech growth we have, we'll surely be able to safely launch that fuel into the sun or otherwise obliterate it far before it reaches a naturally non-radiated state.

There is really no reason to worry about disposal or storage at this point in time, as there is more storage/disposal space already available than there is fissile material on the planet.

Edited by Guest (see edit history)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

Well of course they're not going to give grant money to some not even educated in the subject.

They're not panties, so it's not embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post

Except I am educated on the subject, and had A WORKING MODEL... I would think someone far enough along to have a functioning prototype should get the grants before someone who doesn't even think it's possible to do.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

Not educated enough to have a doctoral degree in it, apparently. And thus have no formal research training either.

 

And you know, the perpetual energy generator theorists have 'working models' as well...

They're not panties, so it's not embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course I'm not going to spend $120k minimum for at least 8 years of college, just to learn something I already know from people who don't know as much about it as I do. (or flat out think it's impossible to do what I've already done) Formal research training was never something Tesla had... Didn't stop him from making large-scale functional wireless energy almost a reality nearly a century before we started using it on a small scale for battery charging.

 

And you know that those "perpetual energy" systems are all just modified clones of existing systems proven to not work... Not anything even close to practical zero-point/vacuum energy generation that almost nobody is working on. (for one thing, nobody in their right mind would ever claim vacuum energy to be an unlimited source, but it would appear that way to the uneducated)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

If you commute the cost is more like 40K from a normal public university. And not only is your tuition waved at the vast majority of STEM graduate schools, they pay you in the form of a stipend, on top of the fact that STEM graduate school only has a year of courses. The remaining years would be spent during research under grant, which you claim to have already done. So it should be a breeze, no? You could cut years off your doctorate if you've already done the work.

 

As for less educated than you...you have nothing to back that claim up, so I see no reason to do much other than dismiss it. The same as everyone else already has.

 

As for Tesla, he took 3 years of engineering school before being kicked out and spent a fourth year taking lectures for no grades. He already has more education than you do. And of course we're talking about someone who did their major works in the 1890s. There's much more prerequisite knowledge you need, especially in physics, before you can claim to be an authority on anything in 2015.

They're not panties, so it's not embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post

How do you know he had more education than me? Education isn't something that you have to go to a school to get. You don't even have to read, watch, or listen to anything to gain an education. Education isn't time-bound either.

 

As for STEM schools, they still cater to those that have a standard learning style... (and lots of money, or a willingness to go into debt for years) I don't. I don't learn very much by reading an expensive textbook and sitting through boring hours-long lectures covering knowledge that is easily found in a, totally free, 5 second Google search.

 

I am one of those people that can go through and learn 4 years worth of math and science in a few months, but can't seem to successfully complete an essay for English Comp 101 in under a millennium. (this effectively makes it impossible to get a degree in virtually anything with the modern school system)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

You're surpised that people who've spent years publishing their own work on top of many years of schooling laugh you off when you tell them "I've learned as much as you did in 20 years in a few months of Googling!"?

They're not panties, so it's not embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post

You're twisting my words... You lose credibility when you do that.

 

There are a lot of people out there that have the ability I described above... They are typically people who have the savant syndrome, but some (including me) have no developmental disabilities. Their genius, for the most part, is completely ignored by people who believe (apparently as you do) that you must go to school to learn, and if you can't learn in that environment, then you're not smart enough to ever produce anything of worth to science. (I have heard many an idiot using this exact wording, usually right before I prove them wrong)

 

All of that being said, this is not the thread for this. I will not respond any further on this subject in this thread.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post
Except I am educated on the subject, and had A WORKING MODEL... I would think someone far enough along to have a functioning prototype should get the grants before someone who doesn't even think it's possible to do.

You could always try to sell it to the military. They tend to be less skeptical about speculative technology. I mean, from what I've seen, they'll buy just about anything demonstrable, and they have the money to burn.

I HAVE to blow everything up! It's the only way to prove I'm not CRAZY!

Share this post


Link to post
Except I am educated on the subject, and had A WORKING MODEL... I would think someone far enough along to have a functioning prototype should get the grants before someone who doesn't even think it's possible to do.

You could always try to sell it to the military. They tend to be less skeptical about speculative technology. I mean, from what I've seen, they'll buy just about anything demonstrable, and they have the money to burn.

Actually, they were the first ones I approached, but was denied... Turns out they had a contract for research into something similar already, and weren't willing to put money into another contract for what the budget committee would see as the same thing. (despite having a working model) The next month the other guy said that my working model was impossible, (after the budget was cut yet again) and moved on to another project, and my prototype wasn't enough to get anyone anywhere to seriously consider me. (no one has ever even looked at my device) The guy had a PHD in chemistry, (not quantum physics, which was what I was dealing with) and that made everyone think he was smarter than me. He convinced everyone that I was just another 'perpetual motion' crackpot.

 

In short, if some idiot with a PHD in any field says it's impossible and had government funding to 'research' it, you're SOL for any funding anywhere to develop any functioning version of the same technology. (unless you're at the very top of your scientific field, and have more PHDs than the other guy)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post
Just get it patented, so when some other guy actually is able to convince them you can laugh and sue for millions

Patent was rejected... Said it was too similar to other patents. (then they cited some 'theoretical' patent that couldn't produce any form of usable energy)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

Well, how much would it cost to make this thing, millions? If you can make it cheap (relatively) it might be a good idea to just make it, though i doubt it is if the first place you go to is the military.

Share this post


Link to post

I had about $5000 worth of materials invested in the prototype, but lost the device almost a decade ago when I moved... I have yet to come across the materials needed, or enough money to buy the materials, in order to duplicate the experimentation that led to the design. (I also don't have any of my original design documents, which were on heavily encrypted CD, and buried in my private geocache in Arizona)

 

The reason I went to the military first was because I had a friend that got me in touch with the people that could get me in the running, (the multi-million dollar running, and a very lucrative military R&D contract) and it was their superiors that nixed my designs without any consideration.

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

Did you put it in the geocache yourself? If you can get it anytime it should'nt be a problem, but I'm sensing that you did not put it there if it is. Also, did the prototype work, or was it just a model?

Share this post


Link to post

My own homemade geocache, but after this long the disc is destroyed. (a decade of heating and cooling easily destroys CDs)

 

As previously mentioned, it was a working model, it actually produced about half as much energy as an BR2032 battery. (but never dropped in output or ran out)

bi ti ʤi ˈbulzaɪ

Share this post


Link to post

Well then, let's wait a couple hundred years for vacuum energy design after a probable design was dismissed and the only instructions where on a CD in the ground that is now unreadable. Hey, it's not my problem that it may be to late, I will be dead by then.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.