1995.03.07 / Tim Mirabile /  Re: Closed loop Griggs
     
Originally-From: Tim Mirabile <tim@mail.htp.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Closed loop Griggs
Date: 7 Mar 1995 09:21:21 GMT
Organization: HTP Services 516-757-0210

little@eden.com (Scott Little) wrote:

 
> >Connect a steam turbine to the output of
> >the GG and use it to turn the GG itself.

> Very good suggestion but they have a long way to go to get close to this.
> The problem lies in the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine, which a steam
> turbine is.  To get even 50% overall efficiency, you have to operate
> near 1000 degrees F steam temperature.  This is where typical power plant
> turbines operate.  AND you need a COP of 2.0 so the 50% efficiency will
> yield 1.0 to put back in to the generator again.
 
> Yes, it may be possible but, from what I've heard, Griggs hasn't ever run
> his temperatures up that high AND he doesn't get anywhere near 2.0 gain.

Couldn't some of the wasted heat be recovered by 
recirculating the waste water/steam coming out of the
turbine back into the GG's water supply tank so that 
the GG doesn't have to supply much heat to boil it again.
Then there is a question of the pressures of the water and 
steam: 

     Does the GG operate as a pump, forcing steam out at
pressure and drawing water into itself? 

     If that is the case, what I was thinking was using the
_pressure_, not the heat, of the output steam to turn the GG.
Ordinarily it should not work, but if the GG is producing 
excess heat relative to its input power, it should also 
produce steam at higher pressure than is needed to turn its
own shaft.  This way, even a small amount of excess power 
would be useful.  Intuitively, it seems hard to believe, 
because we're not used to thinking about devices that 
produce excess power. 

  
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentim cudfnTim cudlnMirabile cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar -VS- Fusion
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 09:19:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:
 
     "I just received private e-mail berating me for suggesting that biomass
     could serve as an alternative for power production -- since plants have
     "incredible inefficiency" (he said) for capturing solar energy. . . .
     This objection is ill-founded.  In fact, "some algae can convert nearly
     10% of available light energy to biomass.  Sugar cane is about 2%
     efficient, and corn about 1% efficient." Source:  Gordon J. Aubrecht II,
     _Energy_, NJ:  Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 487."
 
I believe Aubrecht is wrong by a couple of orders of magnitude. The sources I
have all show much lower numbers. For example, NREL's "Hydrogen Program Plan"
shows the efficiency of photosynthesis at 0.015%. If you are talking about
generating electricity you have to subtract another two-thirds for the 36%
efficient "Thermal Process" (burning the fuel to generate electricity). NREL
does not show the cost of harvesting the fuel, which would be considerable.
Overall it works out to be 0.005%, which is *much* less efficient than
technologies like photovoltaics or direct steam from sunlight. This is
important because land area is limited. NREL's numbers originate in
"International Journal of Hydrogen Energy," Vol 15, No. 11, 1989.
 
The cost of harvesting and transporting and processing the fuel was estimated
at about 8% by F. Ledig of the U.S. Forest Service, and between 6 and 10% in a
study at Oak Ridge. This information comes from Hall et al. "Biomass for
Energy: Supply Prospects" Renewable Energy (Island Press), p. 624. I am sure
the numbers would be worse for spread-out desert areas.
 
Your anonymous correspondent appears to know more about the subject than
Aubrecht.
 
Overall, I think that a return to the biomass energy economy (essentially a
pre-modern energy source) would be an ecological and economic disaster of the
first magnitude. But I would have to see a detailed economic analysis to be
sure. I have found that many academic books and proposals relating to energy
are long on impractical ideas and short on economic analysis, which makes it
impossible to judge whether they are worth looking at. In the case of things
like hot fusion and breeder reactor fission, this is deliberate. The numbers
show that wide scale use of these energy sources would be economic suicide. A
Japanese government planner quoted in the New York Times ("Japan's Nuclear
Fiasco," 12/20/92) estimated that the cost of electricity from a breeder
reactor would be 5 to 15 times more expensive then conventional fission. An
official from Tokyo Electric Power commented off the record, "what everyone
knows, but won't say in public, is that this will cost consumers a fortune."
As for hot fusion, nobody has the guts to even estimate how much it would
cost, because the numbers are so ridiculous. We might as well talk about
getting energy by burning furniture. I have a hunch the same is true of these
biomass schemes, but I don't know, and I doubt that the academic planners
behind the schemes are capable of finding out.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.08 / Robin Spaandonk /        Re: Griggs disclosure agreement
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Griggs disclosure agreement
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 11:15:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Marshall,

To me, the Griggs disclosure agreement reads as though it pertains to 
information supplied to you by Griggs or his company.
This would not appear to pertain to information gathered by you or 
those who accompany you, in the form of measurements etc.
This because this information (i.e. your measurements) is not 
actually supplied by Griggs. All he does is make his equipment 
available to you for testing.
It would prevent you from passing on  any improvements to the GG in 
the public domain however, that Griggs may inform you of. But once 
again, it may not prevent you from passing on a description of 
anything you yourself see that is not explicitly covered by material 
given to you by Griggs. It would however obviously not be "the done 
thing" to reveal any of Griggs' secrets that you might happen to 
come across. Nevertheless it would appear to leave you plenty of room 
to determine whether or not the device is over-unity, and to report 
on same, based on your own measurements.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 /  Chic /  Re: Plasma Physics Summer School
     
Originally-From: s.pattni@ic.ac.uk (Chic)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasma Physics Summer School
Date: 7 Mar 1995 15:58:32 GMT
Organization: siegmund in Plasma Theory, Imperial College, London

At Fri, 24 Feb 1995 16:34:12 GMT, Geoff Maddison (geoff.maddison@aea.org
.uk) wrote article <9502241544.AA16512@fusrsha.culham.aea.orgn.uk>:
:       T H E   3 2 n d   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
:       ###########################################################
:                        S U M M E R   S C H O O L
:                        #########################
:                    1 0   -   2 1   J U L Y   1 9 9 5
:   C u l h a m   S c i e n c e   &   T e c h n o l o g y   C e n t r e,
:              A b i n g d o n,   O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K

I went to this thing last year. I can thoroughly recommend it.


Sanjay.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpattni cudlnChic cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 / Dieter Britz /  Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: And finally... ball lightning and weirdness.
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 16:51:02 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Mon, 6 Mar 1995, Lance Purple wrote:

> >Savage Henry (daryl@weaver.dungeon.com) wrote:
> > [ descriptions of spontaneous human combustion, "poltergeist" fires, etc ]
> 
> Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:
> >Alas, you are a victim of the media babble!  Consider spending more time
> >absorbing the basics of man's scientific knowledge, and less on populous pulp!
> 
> Savage Henry had posted an article in alt.forteana.whatever, asking for
> SCIENTIFIC studies of ball lightning, to explore as a possible explanation of
> "populous pulp" phenomenon like spontaneous human combustion, pyrokinesis, etc.
> I recommended he search this newsgroup, since Paul Koloc frequently posts here
> about his PLASMAK(tm) theory of ball lightning.
> 
> Besides, what about the "media babble" over cold fusion, fracto-fusion,
> aluminum-rotors-and-steam fusion, etc. Almost all of the media coverage
> I have seen to date (and even a few articles from this newsgroup) have
> been COMPLETE pulp. Aren't you used to it by now... :)
> 
> L. Purple (lpurple@netcom.com)

just what this group needed. Thanks, mate.
This only adds fuel to the fire of a new moderated group. I hope we make it
with that. So far, the response has been a deafening silence; i.e. precisely
one, who wrote that he wants lots of stuff about perpetual motion. Fine, I
say, THIS group will not go away, let there be perpetual motion right here,
while we withdraw to the moderated new group. All you PM TB's should actually
vote for the new group, because then you won't have us nasty Unbelievers here,
complaining about PM, Plutonium, and all that stuff. 

-- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.03.07 / Paul McCombes /  Re: Griggs literature and Confidentiality Agreement
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs literature and Confidentiality Agreement
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 22:16:58 +0000
Organization: None

In article <WAF2PCB926354954@brbbs.brbbs.com>
           mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com "MARSHALL DUDLEY" writes:

> Under special provisions, I would add that any and all information already in
> the public domain would not be restrained by this agreement.

Also add 1) a time limit that the information should remain confidential.

         2) that you will not be bound by the confidentiality agreement if, 
         through not fault of yours, the information is placed in the public 
         domain with respect to that information only.

         3) Under which state's laws should this agreement be interpreted.

It does seem to be a remarkable restrictive agreement. I also would not be 
happy with a clause entitling him to some of my property. He can request you 
keep it secret, and sue if you don't.  
--
Paul McCombes
  "Where there is the will to convict, the evidence shall be found."
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar  9 04:37:06 EST 1995
------------------------------
