Hello all,

I wanted to take this opportunity to notify everyone in the group about an exciting new fuel additive that I discovered from a podcast by Sterling Allan.  DISCLAIMER, I am set up as a distributor for the product described, and may ultimately have a financial interest in it.  At this point, I have not personally tested the product in my car, although I intend to.  I am getting involved now because I believe it could be a great opportunity, and at this point, it’s free to get involved.

The product is supposed to save 10% or more on fuel mileage for about 60% of the people who use it.  Some few people get very little improvement and some get quite a bit.  The reason for the variance is that engines and cars vary widely, and driver habits vary widely.  I thought you might want to consider signing up for free as a distributor.  However, I think, after they have their grand opening around June 20, it may not be free any more.  I signed up just to make sure I didn’t miss it.  There is no obligation to participate and you don’t have to reveal any financial data at first.  They do ask for your SSN but you can sign up without it.  Just enter the data requested and indicated by the asterisks.  If you become active as a distributor, I’m sure more data would be required, since they have to be able to pay you, and they have to be able to report to the IRS.

In terms of the additive itself, it uses nanometer scale water droplets in an emulsion in the additive.  According to the audio I heard, the water droplets explode in the combustion chamber and enhance the combustion process.  There’s not so much as to reduce the flame.  Also, the hydrogen may disassociate from the oxygen and help the combustion.  They say it also reduces emissions.  They say they’ve been selling in other countries for many years, and have a billion miles of testing logged (for customers, etc.).  If you decide to sign up, please use the link below with my name in it:

http://www.fuellegacy.com/rfrazier

I don’t know yet how fully I’ll be participating in this.  However, I’ll almost certainly be using the product myself, after further confirmation of it’s validity.  I should be clear that I have only heard an audio program on the topic at this point.  The interview was conducted by someone I trust, and the interviewees from the company were impressive.  I’ve included some more links below, including the audio file.  However, again, if you sign up, please do so from the rfrazier link above.  Let me know what you think.

Sincerely,

Ron Frazier
Moderator - futureenergynow, futureenergyproducts

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:H2Oil%27s_Nanotech_Fuel_–_eeFuel_and_eeLube_%284ourfuture - Pure Energy Systems page about this product.
http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/recordings/2008/080602_RichardHicks_and_DanAtkinson_H2Oil_eeFuel.mp3 - Audio interview.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/futureenergynow/ — http://groups.yahoo.com/group/futureenergyproducts/

Well, I’ve been away from the blog for quite a while, and I appologize for that.  I’ve had about a million things keeping me busy.  And, I’ve also had some technical problems with the WordPress software.  I hope to be publishing more regularly.

I thought you might find this of interest. It comes from the US Govt
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Division.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11500

You can get their RSS news feed at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/rss/enn.xml

Here’s a 2002 article about lighting I found after a Google search:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf

Here’s a quote from the 1st article:

“The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed into law on
December 19th, phases out the use of inefficient incandescent lights and
imposes improved energy efficiency standards on a wide variety of products.
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),
the new standards for light bulbs require them to use about 20%-30% less
energy by 2014, while requiring DOE to set standards for light bulbs to cut
their energy use at least 35% by 2020. The ACEEE notes that the initial
targets could be met with compact fluorescent lamps and advanced
incandescent lamps that combine halogen capsules with infrared-reflective
coatings, while the 2020 standards will encourage the use of LEDs
(light-emitting diodes) and other advanced lighting technologies.”

Now, I don’t have a problem with this concept, I think it’s a great
idea. However, I do have a problem with the implications based on the
current state of technology. Based on the 2nd article I quoted above,
lighting accounts for about 8% of our total electricity usage. Now, my
house is a late 80’s vintage, inexpensive, all electric, and very
inefficient model. Now, that’s not the way I want it, but it’s what I’ve
got. I spend about $240 / month on electricity, which is $2880 / year. If
my lighting is 8% of that, then it costs me $230 / year to light the
home. Now, if I were to save 60% of that, I would save $138 / year.

So, let’s see if it’s worth it to do the retrofits. The most viable option
is compact fluorescent. Now, I’ll admit that I got all excited about 2
years ago about these things, and have even considered selling them. I’m
not so excited any more, for reasons I’ll discuss. They cost about $1.65 /
bulb (compared to Edison bulbs at $0.40 / bulb.) Now, the lighting report
says the average home has about 39 bulbs. I think mine has about 25
bulbs. I’ve already replaced some of my fixtures with circular fluorescent
ones. So, it will cost me about $44 (including tax) to replace all the
Edison bulbs which are left. This is much better than the $5-6 / bulb
these were only recently. So, from a simple economics point of view, I
could save about $94 / year by replacing the bulbs. That doesn’t get me
too excited, but it’s still a reasonable deal. Now, for the problems.

A) First, I simply don’t believe the lifetime claims they put on these
bulbs. They say 10 times a standard bulb. Based on my experience with a
number of these bulbs, I say rubbish. I figure they may last 2-3 times
what an incandescent bulb does (for 4 times the cost), but not 10
times. So, I would anticipate replacing these CFL’s every year. Not only
that, they may all start failing at once, requiring a lump sum investment.

B) They don’t like control circuits, like photocells and motion activated
fixtures. This type of use burns these bulbs out rapidly.

C) They don’t like dimmers. There have been some “dimmable” fluorescent
bulbs on the market. They were much more expensive and much less
reliable. Also, their dimming range usually cuts off at 20-30% of maximum
brightness. Most manufacturers are no longer making them due to
problems. So, in my living room, my dining room, and my bathroom, I cannot
use CFL’s or I have to give up the ability to dim the lights.

D) Finally, what may be the biggest problem of all. That is
disposal. CFL bulbs are a complex combination of plastic, glass, metals,
chemicals, and electronic components. None of these things are
biodegradable (neither are Edison bulbs), and some are hazardous. The most
problematic is mercury. As far as I know, all fluorescent bulbs have
mercury, and CFL’s are no exception. Did you know that there are about 14
steps to clean up the mess of a CFL if you break one? Do you know what the
steps are? Me neither. Not only that, if we have 100 million homes
replacing 30 light bulbs per year, then we’ll have 3 BILLION light bulbs,
containing mercury, going into the waste stream every year. Do you REALLY
think those are going to be recycled? I don’t think that converting the
country to CFL’s is a good idea.

There you have it. The lowdown on the not quite so attractive compact
fluorescent light bulb. Now, what about the other alternatives? Well,
there are enhanced halogen bulbs, which I haven’t studied to any great
degree. However, when was the last time you replaced the “bulb module” in
your car’s headlights? They usually run $10 - $20 / bulb. In most
applications I’ve dealt with, halogen bulbs seem to last for LESS time than
Edison bulbs. Doesn’t sound like a great alternative.

Finally, there are LED’s. These hold great promise, and I’m quite
fascinated by them. But, I’m not buying them just yet. I think CCrane
company sells a 60 W equivalent bulb for $100. Ouch! Of course, the
prices will come down.

For the moment, I may just continue buying Edison bulbs. Does anybody know
of a solution that actually works and is practical?

Sincerely,

Ron Frazier

The permalink for this article is: http://www.c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2008/05/01/say-good-bye-to-your-edison-incandescent-bulbs/

You can follow comments for this article with the RSS feed.

Sincerely,

Ron

The permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/10/22/im-still-here-getting-some-frustration-off-my-chest-linux/

You can follow comments to this article through the RSS feed.

Ron

Hello all.  I’ve been working to enhance the RSS Feeds of the blog.  I have now added a link to the end of each post that is accepting comments so you can follow comments to that post by RSS feed.  I plan to be doing this as a regular occurance.  If I forget, you can take the permalink for any article and add “feed/” to the end (without the quotes) and you can get the feed for comments for that article.  I’ve also added a feed icon on the left sidebar which will retrieve only items with the Podcast category marked.  Normally, this will only contain entries with an audio file attached.  I do have a couple of test entries without audio files.  I’m working on adding a page with RSS feeds for all categories.  I had to check every category for this post in order to force those to appear in the sidebar so I can get the permalinks for them.  I hope that doesn’t cause too much confusion.

Sincerely,

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/10/03/new-enhancements-to-the-blogs-rss-feeds/

Track comments for this article through the RSS Feed.

 (image credit)
(Biofuel)

 (image credit)
(Fossil Fuel)

Podcast Download: C3AEU001-2007-10-01.mp3

Hello all.  As the headline says, Podcast #1 is in the can (as they say)!  I have worked long and hard to get this, my first, podcast recorded, edited, encoded, published, and an RSS feed established.  It’s been quite an experience, and a good bit of work, but I’m proud of the final product.  Hopefully, the future ones will go smoother.  This is a short introductory episode which describes the purpose of the podcast and of C3 Energy.

I also tackle a real issue in this podcast.  I am in communication with an associate who has a factory that uses a huge amount of natural gas at an outrageous cost.  I am seeking your help and knowledge in finding a cheaper alternative fuel for him, if one exists.  The details are in the podcast.  Please let me know if you have any ideas as to how to solve this problem.

Here are the links discussed in the podcast:

• Biodiesel performance, costs, and use
  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/index.html
• Floriculture Fact Sheet: Greenhouse … Alternate Heat Sources
  http://www.umass.edu/umext/floriculture/fact_sheets/greenhouse_management/jb_fuels.htm
• Natural Gas article in Wikipedia
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-gas

Although not specifically mentioned in the podcast, I also found these resources in my research:

•  Biodiesel - Is it worth considering?
  http://www.agmanager.info/agribus/energy/Risk%20&%20Profit%208-02.pdf
• Podcasting Underground Podcast - Excellent resources for creating podcasts
  http://www.podcastingunderground.com/
• The Levelator - Automatically sets volume levels in an audio file
  http://www.conversationsnetwork.org/levelator

I hope you enjoy the podcast and find the information interesting and helpful.  If you would like to comment or have any ideas for my associate, please leave a comment on my blog.

Sincerely,

Ron

If you wish to subscribe for free to the blog or podcast, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.  You may also register for free to leave comments.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/10/01/c3aeu001-2007-10-01-podcast-1-is-in-the-can-need-help-with-natural-gas-costs/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Hello all.  I have been working hard to get my first podcast done.  I’m looking for a server for it to live on now.  I’m not sure I want it on the web server in case of bandwidth issues as the podcast becomes more popular.  I expect to be releasing it shortly.  This is just a test entry so I can test the new podcast category and the news feed.  Real content coming soon.

By the way, my glasses are now fixed.  LensCrafters did it for free, which was nice.  I’ve had good experiences with them before.  For those of you who don’t wear glasses, you have no idea how disorienting it is to have one eye with clear vision and one with extremely fuzzy vision.  It’s essentially impossible to use the computer and very difficult to even walk without a patch on one eye.  I’m very thankful to have two functional eyes again!

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/10/01/i-can-see-podcast-episode-coming-shortly/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

I was going to write a blog post … BUT … then it happened.  I tried to clean some dust off my glasses as I have hundreds of times before.  Then, BOOM, one of the lenses popped out.  Now, looking at the computer screen with one clear eye is making me dizzy.  I’m not making this up.  I wish I were.  So, my writing will be on hold for a few days until I get this fixed.  I apologize, but that’s the way it is.  I hope to be back in action next week.  As far as the previous part of this week, I’ve just been really busy.  More later.

Sincerely,

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/28/i-was-going-to-write-a-blog-post-but/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Here is an item I got off the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website.  I thought I’d pass it along.

September 19, 2007

Report Documents Massive Flaring of Natural Gas Worldwide
A quantity of natural gas greater than one-quarter of the natural gas consumed in the United States is being sent up in flames each year, according to a recent report. The World Bank announced in late August that it had commissioned the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to perform a global survey of natural gas flaring using satellite observations. The survey spanned a 12-year period, from 1995 through 2006, and found that natural gas flaring ranged from 150 to 170 billion cubic meters each year. In 2006, roughly 170 billion cubic meters, or nearly 5 trillion cubic feet, was flared, an amount equal to 5.5% of global production or 27% of the annual U.S. consumption of natural gas.

Natural gas is often released during oil production and processing, and it is flared to dispose of it. Oil producers flare the gas rather than sell it because of the lack of natural gas infrastructure or markets in the areas where oil is produced. The gas is flared for safety reasons, plus the greenhouse gas impact of the natural gas is lowered by burning it. The World Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) partnership aims to encourage a reduction in flaring by means such as re-injecting the natural gas into the oil reservoir, using it onsite for power generation, piping it to nearby markets, or liquefying it for shipment to distant markets. According to the World Bank, the natural gas flared each year generates roughly 400 million tons of carbon dioxide and would be worth about $40 billion in the United States. See the World Bank press release, the GGFR Web page, and the full NOAA report (PDF 9 MB). Download Adobe Reader.

Sincerely,

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/24/wasted-5-trillion-cubic-feet-of-natural-gas-each-year/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Sincerely,

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/20/wind-power-video-from-farmers-almanac-tv/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Hello all.  Today, I want to share some information with you about Geothermal Energy.  This won’t be very long, because I’m still working on learning how to use the blog features, formatting, and studying how to control the layout for advertising, etc.  Those of you reading on RSS might want to visit me on the blog page to see what it looks like.  I’ve installed a new theme with a clean 3 column format.  I’m looking into allocating blocks of space for advertising and special offers.  Anyone familiar with Wordpress who knows how to do that, feel free to contact me at c3blogfeedback -AT- c3energy -DOT- com.

One place to get information about Alternate Energy topics is the U.S. Government EREN or Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office.  They have a page for Geothermal Energy.  This site has a large number of links to other pages and sites.  Here is some of the information from their Geothermal Basics page.  There is much more than this.  Geothermal energy refers to the heat energy inside of the Earth.  There are several ways we can tap this energy for our use.  The first is to use power plants to produce power from the heat.  The types of plants include: dry steam, flash steam, and binary-cycle.  The second common way to make use of geothermal resources is called direct use.  This simply means that the hot water from the Earth is piped directly into facilities to use for heating.  While the article doesn’t say this, I would think that the hot water might be usable for cooling, through absorption chillers, if the working temperatures are adequate.  The third main method of taking advantage of geothermal resources is the Geothermal Heat Pump, or GHP.  This takes advantage of the fact that the ground temperature in most places stays between 50 deg F and 60 deg F.  Bodies of water usually stay even cooler.  A GHP extracts heat from a building in the summer and sends it into the ground or into water rather than into the air.  In the winter, the process is reversed.  This creates efficiencies much greater than normal air source heat pumps.  Geothermal Energy represents a clean, reliable, renewable, and local resource in many parts of the U.S. and the world.

Obviously, this is just the briefest introduction to this topic.  Whole collections of books have been written on this topic.  Here are a few additional resources for further research:

• Google Search for “geothermal energy” - returns 1.3 million results
• Pure Energy Systems Geothermal Energy page
• PESWiki Geothermal page
• WikiPedia Geothermal page

I find the concept very interesting.  This is another example of how nature is just waiting to give us free or cheap energy.  We just have to take it.  For those who have an interest or knowledge of this topic, I encourage you to send me a comment via the blog site.

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/19/the-heat-under-your-feet-geothermal-energy/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

I’ve been working most of the day to update the features, options, and formatting of the blog, so I’m not going to be posting a technical energy article today.  I will be experimenting with some other themes to make the blog more usable.  I’m also eventually going to be adding some advertising, so I can cover my costs and help fund my energy research and experiments.  I, as a user, have mixed feelings about the ads.  I know they can be frustrating and annoying.  As a publisher, they are one of the few ways to generate revenue.  I will try to make sure they’re not intrusive, and are relevent to the content of the blog.  That way, they provide a service to the readers.

Sterling Allen, an associate of mine who publishes an immense amount of energy information, reminded me of a feature in blogging systems which I wanted to bring to your attention.  That is a thing called a Permalink.  When I produce these articles, they are entered into a database.  When the blog is displayed, the server generates the pages dynamically.  However, each page is assigned it’s own permanent URL link.  In this way, this URL can be used to access the article later.  My copyright notice allows citing and quoting me.  The way you would do that is to reference the Permalink for the article in question, or you could reference the main blog address.

There are a couple of ways to find out the Permalink for an article.  First, you can click on one of the links under the RSS widget on the sidebar of the blog home page.  After the new page appears, the Permalink for that article will be in the address bar of your browser.  Note that the links shown on the home page cannot be directly copied, as they forward through FeedBurner.  The address you see after you have clicked one of those will be correct.

The next way to find out the Permalink, is to click on the title of the article.  A page with only that article will appear.  The Permalink will be in the address bar.

Finally, I generally try to cite the Permalink at the end of the article, if I think someone is likely to want it.  I don’t do that for very short administrative or status information posts.

So, there you have it.  I hope you have fun stepping on, but not stomping on my Permalinks.

Sincerely,

 Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/18/please-step-on-the-permalinks/

 (image credit)
(Scientific Philosophy)

Hello all.  I’ve had this topic on my mind for a while and I’d like to discuss it with you.  Some of this may be controversial, as it deals with our most powerful emotions.  But, nothing here is meant to be offensive, but to get us to think.  Let us think about: What is the difference between science and scientific philosophy?  Now, don’t think I’m abandoning my own rules, but science and philosophy do occasionally (perhaps frequently) mix and affect each other.  When we discuss science, we must be aware of the impact of philosophy.  What are the two most powerful philosophies for most people?  I would say they are politics and religion.  Now, I’m not afraid to admit that my political point of view is conservative (in U.S. terms), which usually, but not always, means Republican.  My religious point of view is Christian.  Now, I’m perfectly willing to accommodate people of different ideologies.  So, why do I mention it?  Well, I’m honest enough to admit that my philosophies affect my view of science and scientific issues.  I’m not ashamed of that.  In fact, our core philosophies are essential to our interpretation of all of our experience.  I merely wish to point out that we need to be aware of what is influencing our judgement.  I am not inclined to publish information which is derogatory toward God or excessively derogatory toward the President.  Does that mean I give the politicians a pass and don’t hold them accountable?  No, they do plenty of things I don’t like.  But I believe we should base our decisions on facts, while respecting our philosophy.

What I want us to consider is what is science, and what is scientific philosophy.  Here is my selected definition for science from an online dictionary : systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.  We observe and experiment to determine what the facts are, and in fact, observation and experimentation are ESSENTIAL to true science. 

Here’s a quote from Nikola Tesla in the early 1900’s:       “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

So, I want to propose that we consider science as that which is confirmed by observation and experiment, and I propose that we consider scientific philosophy as that which looks like science but which has not been confirmed by observation and experiment.  Now, there’s one more wrinkle.  If your assumptions are not based on true science, then the conclusions you reach may end up being scientific philosophy and not science.  To give us something to think about, I’m going to discuss a few controversial items of “science” that we’ve all been taught.  My objective is not to prove the issues one way or another, it is to point out how to think about them.  I’m not trying to aggravate the scientists and engineers in these fields.  Nor do I claim to be an expert, merely an interested observer.

 Remember those annoying exams you used to take in school.  Let’s determine whether these statements are science, or scientific philosophy.  I’m going to make some statements about things I’ve read in various literature.  Since I’m doing this from memory, I’m not going to attempt to provide references, but you can look them up. 

1. The speed of light is 3×10⁸ m/s.  This is scientific philosophy.  The assumptions are not stated.  Even if we do say speed of light in a vacuum, we are assuming that all vacuums are the same as the ones where we’ve measured the speed of light, on a test bench, or from here to low earth orbit or to the moon.  The premise, that all vacuums that light may travel through have the same characteristics and that they affect light the same way, cannot be experimentally proven, as we don’t have access to all possible vacuums.  Stating the speed of light this way is another way of saying the speed of light cannot exceed this limit.  It is fundamentally impossible to prove that any scientific premise is impossible, because we cannot test all possible permutations of circumstances.  By the way, experiments have proven the speed of light can be slower than standard, or faster.  There is strong evidence that longitudinal scalar waves have almost infinite velocity.
2. The age of the earth is X.  It’s a classic debate.  Again we won’t solve it here.  It’s scientific philosophy.  We cannot prove anything by experimentation.  For those of you who are interested in the scientific basis for the young earth theory, see the book Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris, ISBN 0-89051-003-2.  I’m not trying to change your mind.  But, know this.  It is scientifically impossible to accurately and reliably date a rock (unless you saw it form).  Rocks are NOT dated by appearance,  mineralogic contents, total fossil contents, or any physical characteristic which you might think of.  Rocks are generally dated by the use of index fossils which relate the rock to a layer of strata which is ASSUMED to be a certain age based on evolutionary theory which is ASSUMED to be true.  What about radiometric dating (Uranium decays to lead, etc.) you say.  Rocks are usually not dated this way because it is known to be unreliable.  They didn’t teach you that in school, did they?  I won’t replicate a chapter from this book, but, to be reliable, radiometric dating must make three critical assumptions: a) the system must have been a closed system, b) the initial system must not have contained any of the daughter components in the radioactive decay chain, and c) the process rate must have been always the same.  These are a big problem because a) there is no such thing as a closed system.  As two of many examples, uranium is leachable in groundwater and free neutron capture can convert Lead 206 to Lead 207, etc.  b) It is impossible to tell the original constituents of a rock.  Daughter products were likely there at formation.  Modern volcanic rocks are known to commonly have Uranium AND Lead in them at the KNOWN time of formation in the recent past.  Yet radiometric dating says they’re billions of years old.  c) Uranium decay rates may be variable, influenced by things such as cosmic rays, etc.
3. 1 HP (mechanical) = 746 W (electrical).  This equates an amount of mechanical power to an amount of electrical power.  This is what I was taught as science fact in Electronics school.  In fact, it is scientific philosophy.  When applied to a motor, they are saying that you can never get more than 1 HP out of a motor into which you put 746 W.  What did I say about proving an impossibility?  Let’s switch gears for a moment.  I looked in my closet at a box of light bulbs.  They are standard incandescent bulbs.  The box said 75W, 845 lumens.  So, what if I turn that into an equality and say 75W = 845 lumens?  I’ve equated a quantity of electrical energy to an amount of light energy.  Would you accept that statement as a fact?  If you are smart, you will say NO.  It is a fact for THAT particular light bulb and that particular technology.  What about a fluorescent light?  It’s up to about 4 times more efficient.  It’s box might say 75W, 3380 lumens.  Do we brand it as impossible and forbid anyone to work on fluorescent light bulbs?  NO!  We put them in our facilities and spend much less on power.  Some regions are actually banning incandescent bulbs.  So WHY then, do we say this about mechanical power?  It makes no sense at all.  Furthermore, it is a total fallacy.  There are many proven motor designs that produce more than 1 HP for 746 W of input power.  It depends entirely on how you convert electricity to mechanical power, just as the light bulb depends on how you convert electricity to light.  By the way, design the motor wrong, and you can get much less mechanical power out too.
4. I have many more, but I’ll have to continue later.  Here’s the last one for now.  Ready?  Overunity is impossible.  This is scientific philosophy.  There’s that impossible thing again.  What does it even mean?  Overunity, as a word, has a bad connotation, because so many people have perpetrated fraud.  However, all it means is that a machine produces more energy than you, the operator, have to provide or pay for.  There’s nothing mysterious about that.  No one is claiming that the energy comes from nowhere, or that energy is not conserved.  They’re just claiming that the excess comes freely or cheaply from nature and we didn’t have to provide it.  Now, I’m going to share a huge secret, I know about a bona fide proven overunity technology that exists right now.  Are you ready for this?  It’s a wind turbine.  Wow, did I just blow your socks off or what?  A wind turbine is overunity.  It takes a small amount of energy to control its operation, govern its actions, and operate its systems.  It produces far more than that when the wind is blowing.  That’s overunity.  I am totally convinced that many machines have been built which are also overunity, but where the natural energy source is both non-obvious, and non-measurable by standard techniques.  But they are no more impossible than the wind turbine is.

Well, that will do for now.  I have lots more, and perhaps we’ll get to them later.  Any time you read or hear something presented as science, every time you discover something you think is science, every time someone tells you anything is impossible, ask yourself, are you dealing with science or scientific philosophy?  Ask yourself what the assumptions are and whether they are science.  Only in this manner, can true science advance.  As Joseph Newman likes to say, “Let the facts prove or disprove the theory.”

Sincerely,

Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/17/of-science-and-scientific-philosophy/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

 For those of you who would like to register to be able to comment on the blog.  Here’s how:

1. Go to the Blog website.
2. Scroll down and look on the right side.
3. Click the Register link.
4. Enter your user name.
5. Enter your valid email address.
6. Click the Register Button.  The screen changes to a login screen.
7. A random password will be emailed to you.
8. Once you have the password, go back to the Blog if necessary.
9. Scroll down and look on the right side.
10. Click the login link.
11. Enter your user name and password.
12. Click the login button.
13. Your user profile will appear.
14. You may change any data on the screen, including how your name is displayed publicly, and your password.
15. Click Update Profile.
16. Click the View Site link at the top of the page.  This will take you back to the blog, but you are still logged in.
17. You can now enter comments.  Comments require approval by the moderator.
18. You can click the top banner on any page to get back to the home page.
19. While you are logged in, you can click Site Admin from the home page to get back to your profile.
20. When you’re done, return to the home page and click the Logout link on the right side.

Sincerely,

Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/14/about-me-and-links-posts-and-registration/

Since the static web pages on the blog are not sent through RSS, I’m replicating the blog rules page below.  After I get some of these administrative details out of the way, I’ll be returning to the technical article posts.

 Sincerely,

Ron

———————————————————————————–

The Rules

Please keep the following rules in mind when posting:

In general, avoid politics and philosophy (except energy). Stay positive. This is about how to ACCOMPLISH future energy. NO FLAMING, PERSONAL ATTACKS, PROFANITY, DISCOURTEOUS OR GROSS OR DISGUSTING MESSAGES, NAME CALLING, ADULT ORIENTED MATERIAL, OR SPAM. Persons violating the rules will be warned or banned immediately at the moderator’s discretion. Breaking the ‘laws’ of physics IS allowed, IF you can prove your case. Messages and links must be readable in English.

—————————————————————————————————–

Here are some other things to keep in mind.

I would like to address the topic of disruptive conduct in general.  I have devised some suggestions to facilitate constructive usage of the board.  If everyone will try to follow these guidelines, everything will go smoother. Those people being disruptive will generally be warned once or twice then booted off the board.  For severe violations, they may be booted immediately at the moderator’s discretion.  I realize controversies arise, but we should strive to remain civil.  These are in no particular order.

01) If possible, run your message through a spell checker. Now, I’ll admit that I’m not a great speller. The computer usually flags me on several items. And, the English language is totally insane. Teaching my kid phonics was a nightmare. There are about 34 basic rules and about 29 basic exceptions. And there are usually at least 4 different ways to make any given sound, etc. etc. And, a spell checker is not always available. So I understand when there are misspelled words and try not to pay too much credence to it. However, for better or worse, people tend to look negatively on such things. Why look bad if you can avoid it? Important note: I have found that my Toshiba laptop computer will occasionally omit characters that I know I typed. I don’t believe the computer is faulty, but am highly suspicious that the virus scanner is occasionally taking bursts of processor usage and making the keyboard buffer skip keystrokes. On an older Pentium 1 machine, I have documented that the virus scanner uses so much processor time, that you can hardly move the mouse around. I have noticed a similar occurrence (missing keystrokes) on a friend’s computer which was (I believe) a Gateway. So, you may have typed something correctly and still misspelled it. (I would not boot someone from the board for spelling.)

02) Try not to shout, LIKE THIS, unless you want to put emphasis on a short item. Shouting all the time makes messages harder to read. (I would not boot someone for shouting.)

03) Be constructive. Try to add to the discussion at hand. Try to elaborate or enlighten someone in some way. Educate someone else about something you know and they don’t, if feasible.

04) Be friendly, even if you disagree. (I know, this is sometimes hard to do.) Do NOT act hateful, spiteful, excessively derogatory, libelous, slanderous, abrasive, abusive, demeaning, disruptive, etc. You get the idea. Note also that there can be legal implications for expressing libelous or slanderous statements in public.

05) Be positive. We’re trying to determine how we CAN implement new energy ideas, not how we cannot. (I would not boot someone for being negative, as long as it’s not abusive or disruptive. Continual negativity and badgering people can become disruptive.)

06) Do NOT use profanity, vulgarity, foul language, or sexually oriented language.

07) State the truth, to the best of your ability, based on your best knowledge. Now, anybody’s opinion, including mine, can be wrong. However, you should make every effort to be factual and accurate based on the knowledge you have at the time. If you goof up and make an erroneous statement in public, issue a retraction and explain the error. Do not lie or misrepresent any data, experiment, or person.

08) Don’t overload the blog with non-constructive messages.

09) Be aware that your message may look different to different people. If you get messages on email with HTML capability, they can have most of the attributes of web pages, including pictures and links. For those people without HTML email or which have HTML turned off , all “non text” items will be stripped off. You apparently lose pictures which were embedded into the message as well as all special formatting like bold, italics, underline, centering, etc. as well as any hyperlinks.

It’s all about being constructive, rather than destructive. I would appreciate it if the users of the C3 Energy Blog will keep these things in mind.

Sincerely,

Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/13/open-blog-registration-feedburner-format-archives-the-blog-rules/

I am now channeling the RSS feeds through Feedburner.  This allows me to enhance the presentation and make the feeds available to more people.

I am eventually planning to start podcasts related to the blog.  I’m not quite ready to do that.  It involves learning, and sometimes buying, a lot of new technology.  It’s on my list though.  I am also considering starting a blogcast, which would be an audio version of the blog, for those who would rather listen to the posts than read.  I should be getting back to the energy related posts shortly.

Sincerely,

Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/12/feedburner-rssowl-podcasts-blogcasts/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Here is some additional information that is in the static pages of the blog but which I am replicating for the benefit of the RSS readers.

First, here are some links to other resources that C3 Energy provides, including a couple of Yahoo discussion groups.

• C3 Energy Alternate Energy Page
• C3 Energy Blog Page
• C3 Energy Home Page
• FutureEnergyNow Discussion Group
• FutureEnergyProducts Discussion Group

Here are some links to Wind Turbine companies that were in the article I reviewed for my Wind Turbine article.

• Abundant Renewable Energy
  Manufacturer - 503-538-8298
  www.abundantre.com
  
• Bergey Wind Power
  Manufacturer - 405-364-4212
  www.bergey.com
  
• Eoltec Wind Turbines
  Importer - Pine Ridge Products LLC - 406-738-4283
  www.pineridgeproducts.com
  Importer - Solacity - 613-686-4618
  www.solacity.com
  
• Kestrel Wind Turbines
  Importer - DC Power Systems - 800-967-6917
  www.dcpower-systems.com
  
• Proven Energy
  Importer - Lake Michigan Wind & Sun - 920-743-0456
  www.windandsun.com
  Importer - Solar Wind Works - 877-682-4503
  www.solarwindworks.com
  
• Southwest Windpower
  Manufacturer - 928-779-9463
  www.windenergy.com
  
• Vestas
  Rebuilder - Energy Maintenance Service LLC - 605-272-5398
  www.energyms.com
  Rebuilder - Halus Power Systems - 510-780-0591
  www.halus.com
  
• Wind Turbine Industries
  Manufacturer - 952-447-6064
  www.windturbine.net

Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/07/links-links-and-more-links/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

About Me

My name is Ron Frazier and I’m your host for the C3 Energy Blog.   C3 stands for Conserve, Control, and Convert Energy.  My purpose in writing this blog is to help the world do just that.  The car in the picture is my old diesel Mercedes.  Many people have converted this type of car to run on vegetable oil.

I have been interested in Alternate Energy for over 20 years.  Ever since I saw a newspaper article about Joe Newman’s energy machine, I have been fascinated with the concept of getting free or cheap energy from nature.  Now, it is more critical than ever that we develop these new sources of energy, due to the escalating price of conventional sources of energy as well as political turmoil in the world and also pollution.  I intend to do whatever I can to bring these energy sources out to the market.

I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Electronics Engineering Technology from DeVry Institute of Technology (now DeVry University).  I have studied Alternate Energy technology off and on for the past 20+ years and have studied electrical power systems in conjunction with my C3 Energy Business.  I do research on various energy topics and where possible, do my own experiments.

I hope you enjoy the blog and find it a valuable source of information. 

You may send feedback about this blog to:

c3blogfeedback -AT- c3energy -DOT- com

If you’re interested in participating in the blog, see the page: The First Entry.

Sincerely,

Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/06/a-bit-about-me/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

 Ron

   ( image credit )
(Cosmic Energy)

It might not be obvious, but the first picture above is a fuel cell.  I had a hard time thinking of a picture to represent hydrogen power.  I didn’t like the idea of a hydrogen bomb, nor did I like the idea of a big letter “H”.  Other suggestions are welcome.  This is going to be short.  As most people know, water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen.  If you can separate the Hydrogen from the Oxygen, you can then use these gasses in various ways to liberate energy.  The most obvious way is to burn the Hydrogen, which just recombines it with Oxygen.  The net result is heat and water.  It makes a great fuel.  Also, as depicted in the picture above, you can combine the Hydrogen and Oxygen with each other in a fuel cell, which releases heat and electricity.  The problem has been that, traditionally, it has been very hard to separate the gasses from the water.  There have been great advances recently in terms of separating water.

Before I go on, I want to give kudos to Sterling Allen who operates Pure Energy Systems ( http://pureenergysystems.com/).  Sterling produces and publishes a phenomenal amount of information about alternate energy, and is certainly a driving force in the industry.  I have his permission to report on content from his sites, and many of the things discussed here will be coming from that source.

Recently, a number of researchers have been reporting good success separating Hydrogen and Oxygen from water using pulsed electrolysis systems as well as cell plates of various configurations, particularly with plates very close together.  There is now evidence to support the idea that you can liberate more energy in the Hydrogen and Oxygen gas than it takes to split them.  This represents a phenomenal potential as an alternate energy source.  Water is one of the most abundant compounds on the planet, so water as fuel is very appealing.  Also, these experiments have the potential to be done by amateur researchers without huge funding.  I plan to be studying this much more as time goes by.  For now, I’m providing a few references for you to look at.  Obviously, there are many more references which could be listed.

• Sterling Allen’s Free Energy Now podcast, August 13, 2007
  Water Disassociation Using Zero Point Energy
  http://www.podshow.com/shows/?mode=current&show_id=1049&set=1&page=1
• Sterling’s PESWIKI page on this topic
  http://tinyurl.com/2k2kax
  ( The blog system didn’t like the long address for some reason.  The tinyurl points to
  http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_
  Disassociation_Using_Zero_Point_Energy .)
• Water Fuel Website
  (I haven’t had time to look at this in depth, but it looks interesting.)
  http://waterfuel.100free.com/

Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/05/hydrogen-power-fuel-from-water/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Well, I’ve been meaning to write a blog post all day and have been continually tied up with other things.  While doing research, I was totally blown away by an article on the Infinite-Energy ( http://www.infinite-energy.com/ ) website.  It’s not about Bio-Fuels.  It’s about atmospheric energy.  The article is entitled The Pyramidal Electric Transducer: A DC to RF Converter for the Capture of Atmospheric Electrostatic Energy.  I’ve categoriezed this under Cosmic Energy because that’s where Atmospheric Energy comes from anyway.  I won’t have time to go into great depth, but the implications of this are staggering.  Here are some quotes from the article.  ” … pyramidal antenna, modeled on the GPG [Great Pyramid of Giza], can couple into the atmosphere and transfer the power of ESD [electrostatic discharge] …”  “This system could become a source of renewable electrical power by utilizing the electrical activity of the atmosphere.”  The implications of this are astounding.  There is some evidence that the Great Pyramid was a power station.  I know that sounds far out, but check out the links below.  I’m sure we’ll be revisiting this later.

• Article in IE
  http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/grandics.pdf
• Google Search for the Article’s Author and the Word Pyramid
  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Peter+Grandics+Pyramid
• One of the Google Matches
  http://www.rexresearch.com/grandics/grandics.htm
• The Pyramid Power Directory on PESWiki
  http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Pyramid_Power
• Barnes & Noble Listing for The Giza Power Plant
  http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781879181502&itm=1

Ron

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/04/pyramid-power-from-the-atmosphere/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Ron

I am pleased today to be able to bring you a summary of an article from Home Power magazine.  I received permission from Ian Woofenden to not only summarize the article, but to also post a PDF copy of the article.  So, right off the bat, I want to say thanks to Ian Woofenden - Senior Editor at Home Power for allowing me to use their content.  Since most of this content comes from this article, I’ll put my own comments in parentheses.

The article is in the Home Power Magazine Issue #119, June / July 2007, Page 34.  The title is Wind Turbine Buyer’s Guide.  It is written by Ian Woofenden and Mick Sagrillo.  You can subscribe to a digital edition of the magazine for $14.95 / year.  You can subscribe to the paper magazine for $24.95 / year.  I consider it an excellent resource.

The article starts out describing what small wind power is.  According to their definition, this includes wind turbines from about 8 ft in diameter, which can generate about 75 KWH / month with an average wind speed of 10 MPH.  At the upper end of this category are wind turbines up to about 56 ft in diameter, which can generate about 3000+ KWH / month with an average wind speed of 10 MPH.

It is important to document your energy usage and wind resources before looking for a turbine.  Most people only purchase 1 turbine, since it is more difficult to add machines than it is to add solar panels, for example.  Therefore, people tend to purchase bigger turbines up front to meet more of their energy needs.  (Moderator’s note: I live in Georgia in the USA.  We have lots of gusty wind, but the average wind speed is low.  Therefore, I probably cannot viably use a wind turbine.  It’s essential to find out if you have adequate wind resources to justify the project.)

The wind turbine is a small part of the system cost.  You must also consider the: tower, wiring, controller, batteries, inverter(s), and metering equipment.  (Moderator’s note: Be sure to check rules for any homeowner’s association you’re in, covenants and restrictions for your property, and local ordinances.  If you have a tower over 200 feet, air traffic rules and lighting and tower painting requirements may kick in.  More stringent requirements apply if you’re within 5 miles of an airport.  Check with local authorities.  Most people don’t have towers that tall.  Also think about your neighbors.  Many people have a very unbecoming and nasty “not in my back yard” phobia.)  Also consider installation costs, which can be substantial, particularly erecting a large tower and paying someone to do the wiring according to code.  (The higher you go, the better the wind.)

Most small wind turbines directly drive an alternator, which produces “wild AC” power.  This is power which varies in frequency and voltage depending on wind speed.  This power is rectified into DC and then used to charge batteries or inverted to standard AC house power with a constant frequency and voltage.

The wind turbines in this article are all horizontal axis.  This means that the axel of the rotor points into or away from the wind.  The plane of rotation of the rotor is perpendicular to the ground.  This type of wind turbines requires being turned into or (in some cases) away from the wind.  They rotate about their yaw axis, and are usually moved by a tail attached to the turbine.  (Moderator’s note: There are also vertical axis wind turbines.  In this case, the plane of rotation is parallel with the ground.  I plan to address this topic more later.  Vertical axis wind turbines have not achieved much success in the market.)

The energy in the wind increases greatly with increasing speed.  At first, it might sound like a great idea to have your wind turbine spinning furiously in a 70 mph wind during a storm.  Most units cannot take this kind of stress.  Therefore, they will have some governing system to limit the maximum speed of the turbine.  Some units provide a shutdown system to stop the turbine from rotating.  This can be useful if you don’t need all the energy, during a storm, or are doing maintenance, etc.

In many cases, different manufacturers rate their wind turbines at different wind speeds.  This makes it hard to compare.  Look for ratings which show the energy generated over a month or a year.  The article also mentions some formulas to calculate energy from wind speed and diameter of the turbine.

Consider the rotational speed (RPM) that the turbine is designed for.  Generally, the faster it’s moving, the more likely it is to wear out, and the louder the sound is.  Go for a quality product, which is going to cost m