Why The US Will Never Be 'Energy Independent'

reply to post by nikkibee


I know to you it sounds evil, it sounds evil to me, but I know history, and wars arent going to disappear because you want them to. Imagine what it will be like when the Iranians and their allies invade the U.S. someday, after people like you have sat back and said just let them build what they want, even though they make no secret of their desire to wipe us all out - just let them have a nuclear weapon. Who cares? lol. This is even more evil then the idea of going to war with them.

reply to post by theBigToe


you know i don't live in Iran right? i live in Canada i can criticize my government till im blue in the face and they wont/cant do anything about it. actually except for guns (unfortunately) we have about the same rights and i think a few more.

The US and no other nation will verer really be self sufficient ... there is no profit in it ... Think about it ... the US will never see energy independence because that would mean the end of the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and their control .....

reply to post by nikkibee


I love Canada. I love every country whose government protects its peoples right to say whatever they want, however offensive it might be. Thats the good stuff in life. People have forgotten that in the past decade. I can understand where their contempt of America and its allies comes from. Im just as outraged at how they spent our money. People dont really remember the second World War though, the wars that were raging on before that and long after. What it took to get the kind of control our free and secular governments have today. I dont want to go backwards. I dont want my family raped by a mob of Iranians like the Japanese did to the Koreans. I dont want medical experiments performed on me because im considered an inferior race. I mean, waterboarding, everything we did in Iraq thats considered a "war crime". Just google UNIT 731 - those are real war crimes. Just reading about those crimes makes you nauseous and thats where were headed if we just let our enemies build what they want in preparation for a war with us. We have a lot to answer for, but I will be damned when I ever say that our way of life should be stamped out of the world. Our way of life is the only world that I want to live in.

I didnt figure you to live in Iran or ATS would be censored lol. I have a few friends in Iran that I play Counter-Strike with every day (dont really know why the Iranians let them play CS over there but they do). They are afraid to even talk about their country because of the fear theyll be executed. Its really sad to see how they have to live. One of them is gay. I am scared for his life every single day. Hes a great person and he doesnt deserve to live in that country. He deserves Canada, America, Britain, France, Australia, he deserves a real life. But because I care about him it doesnt blind me to the monumental problems poised at us by Iran. I dont like war anymore then you do. Im terrified of it. What im more terrified of is being dragged into that war because our enemies have capabilities that are on par with our own. Thats why I stand with the U.S., regardless of what incentives it has to be the aggressor and invade foreign nations that are ruled by fascist theocratics.

Its just come to that point. It has to be this simple of a decision to make - the USA or Iran. I choose the U.S.

Originally posted by theBigToe
reply to post by mileslong54

 

and its time to just put the truth out there. The U.S. and its allies might be criminals, but their way of life is still far superior to anything else the worlds governments have to offer us. Heres another newsflash for you - Irans oil, it belongs to us. The worlds oil belongs to us. We are still, whether you punks want to believe it or not, the strongest nation on the Earth and nobody, not big bad China and its ally to the north, have any capability to successfully defeat the U.S. and its NATO allies. Now you combine our economic crisis with Irans decades old atrocious violation of Human rights and you have yourself every reason to steal their oil. Go ahead and rule your country with fascism, well topple it when we need to.

The U.S. is the only country in the world with an adequate NAVY capable of launching massive insurgency wars far from its homeland and then sustaining that war. China has a big infantry, very cool stuff, they can disable our satellites (maybe) with some lasers, and they have nuclear weapons. Very cool stuff. Im not scared. We have aircraft carriers and things that we can actually use in an offensive war. Now that this is settled and we all know the truth, society can continue and I can tivo the next episode of the Kardashians. Peace to all of you. Moi!

Not all Americans think this way, including me. This poster's words, while his to share, are representative of a very minority number of Americans.

BigToe -- no disrespect, but man, you are standing out like a Big Toe. Yes, we are the greatest country on the face of the planet, but we do not have to flaunt it. It is what it is...and we are great, yes. But we never took a drop of oil from Iraq, so why would we start now?

Chill man.

reply to post by phantomjack


Well, you dont know that we arent in control of Iraqs oil. There is every incentive to be in control of it. The anti-American nutters do have several valid points, but regardless I dont care. Ive already made my case for why I think the way I do, and it is perfectly rational that I think the way I do. And with all due respect, you also dont have any statistics to back up that that my freight of thought on the matter is only shared by a minority.

And also - just because the majority shares an opinion, it doesnt make that opinion the best and most rational opinion. The majority of the world still believes that a god is watching over them 24/7. Do you get where im going with this? "A lie is a lie even if everybody believes it, but the truth is the truth even if nobody believes it" - David Stevens.

Originally posted by nikkibee
reply to post by theBigToe

 

and all the people who die when you invade their countries, i suppose they're all terrorists and Muslim extremists? i suppose they're lives are worth so little, you can kill them by the thousands just to support your unsustainable way of life. your right who needs a bunch of useless Arabs when there's thousands of hungry Americans who need a pizza delivered!

No, I think that history will dictate that any time the USA has been involved in war, we have LIBERATED and SAVED more lives that have been lost.

MILLIONS have died at the hands of their dictators. The US Military has prevented countless millions from dying. Yes, there is collateral damage...but that is part of War. War is hell.

But, someone has to do the dirty work. And our military is the strongest in the world (that is, until Obama is through tearing it apart...)

reply to post by phantomjack


I like your point in the post above this one too. Agreed.

Originally posted by theBigToe
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Well, you dont know that we arent in control of Iraqs oil. There is every incentive to be in control of it. The anti-American nutters do have several valid points, but regardless I dont care. Ive already made my case for why I think the way I do, and it is perfectly rational that I think the way I do. And with all due respect, you also dont have any statistics to back up that that my freight of thought on the matter is only shared by a minority.

And also - just because the majority shares an opinion, it doesnt make that opinion the best and most rational opinion. The majority of the world still believes that a god is watching over them 24/7. Do you get where im going with this? "A lie is a lie even if everybody believes it, but the truth is the truth even if nobody believes it" - David Stevens.

edit on 26-1-2012 by theBigToe because: (no reason given)

Well, you are accurate on your last statement, and it wasn't meant as an insult to your patriotism or your beliefs.

How do I know we don't control Iraqi oil? Because the main stream media would be ALL OVER IT if we did.

I am the last person to argue your patriotism. I too am a Patriot. But I also don't walk into a bar to pick a fight when it is equally powerful to keep what I know to myself, and use THAT as power to advance my cause.

Want to fight the nay sayers? I will stand behind you and cover your back.

I could only WISH that we covered our costs of the Iraq war by using their oil. I am amazed that we didnt. Foolish if you ask me. But we saw nothing -- we being "typical Americans" -- so SOMEBODY profited from this war, and it sure as hell wasnt you or me.

reply to post by phantomjack


Point well taken. Im not trying to make the case that we did steal anybodys oil. Im just making the case that if we did, regardless of us having committed "theft", there is plenty of justification to claim the oil for ourselves and that the growing anti-American rhetoric is based on hypocritical opinions and uneducated assumptions.

reply to post by theBigToe


I think we are on the same page. But, we have to be careful when we say that their Oil is ours.

I think what needs to happen is that we use the resources that are under our feet -- several hundred years of resources in gas and oil, and get rid of the Saudis noose around our necks.

But I think part of the US Government's rational is lets use theirs first, then use ours later, and by doing so, we have complete control over them 100 years ago.

Frankly, I just want to get through the Obama Dictatorship first, and cant even think that far ahead.

I whole heartedly believe though, that we should take $1 Trillion worth of oil out of Iraq for our hard work and lives lost.

reply to post by phantomjack


Agreed.

Except the part on Obama! I mean, hes not the best, but I look at the candidates from the republican party and I say to myself, "oh boy".

Originally posted by theBigToe
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Point well taken. Im not trying to make the case that we did steal anybodys oil. Im just making the case that if we did, regardless of us having committed "theft", there is plenty of justification to claim the oil for ourselves and that the growing anti-American rhetoric is based on hypocritical opinions and uneducated assumptions.

Oh, and the best part about the anti-american haters...If they would stop and think about everything they have around them and where it came from, they need to just shut up or we take our marbles and go home.

For example, the computer they are using to read this thread and its OS. The cars they drive. Coke and Pepsi they are sucking down. And countless HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of other products and technology that came from the USA. They also need to be thankful that we stopped people like Hitler. We saved Europe. We saved most of the world, most of the time.

Their governments use our Jets and tanks.


Hell, if I were Bill Gates, I would tell the world to go *uck themselves and shut down the Windows Operating System.

But, then again, Bill Gates turned out to be a greenie weenie anyway.

But the worse ones are the American Citizens who bash their own country. How loathsome.

Originally posted by theBigToe
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Agreed.

Except the part on Obama!

I mean, hes not the best, but I look at the candidates from the republican party and I say to myself, "oh boy".

Come on man...the word "best" should not even be used in the same sentence as Obama!

And yes, the republican selection is a disgrace right now.

Democrat or Replublican, we need a leader.

Sorry for the off topic post!

reply to post by phantomjack


Well, what I meant is that hes the best candidate right now. Hes the most center-left. Ron Paul is just too far left to take him seriously and the rest of them have turned me off so many times when they say things like its wrong to tax the rich and when they essentially say they want to eliminate the rights of minorities here at home because it offends their religious beliefs.

reply to post by mileslong54


You're right about going green being all about money and power. All green technologies are actually either ineffective or a total scam. Ethanol uses more energy per gallon than you get out of it. It has an input output ratio something like 1.4:1. Its only supporters were corn farmers in Iowa and politicians who wanted to get more votes in Iowa.
Electric cars ignore reality because it still uses oil (shipping, production of plastic, etc.) to make the car and then what produces almost all of our power? Coal, Oil, Natural gas. Clean coal is just not going to happen. Solar might work eventually with a continued increase in efficiency and power storage ability but right now solar and wind only account for about 1% of power in the U.S. If anything in the future it will just supplement existing power when everyone's roof is covered with solar panels.

Even if we come up with a miracle breakthrough, if its more expensive than coal it won't matter. Because our pollution is nothing compared to the pace China is about to be setting. They build a new coal power plant weekly and have no intention of stopping.
Our best option would probably be to cut government down so we are running a surplus and then put everything into converting our country to natural gas powered machines, because we have enough here to never need to import it for a hundred years.
Not to mention that there are huge untapped oil reserves in the U.S. that could get us off of foreign oil now, but I think we want others to run out before us, and any supply of oil remaining here wouldn't be indefinite, but it might buy us 20-30 years.


reply to post by theBigToe

Ron Paul is too far left

And then you proceed to say that you don't understand why Americans are against taxing the rich? You know that a progressive tax (what we already have) is a socialist idea, right? The word progressive should of gave it away.

Here's how this machine I wrote up the plans for works: Two inner moving bar magnets (glued to and mounted in wheeled metal frames) repel each other along a pair of rails. Next, two outer stationary bar magnets repel the two inner moving bar magnets back to each other. This process works infinitely. While the inner moving bar magnets are moving they each move a long gear through a long hole in the pair of rails. Each of those long gears turns a gear axle and each of those gears turns an axle to turn a horseshoe magnet inside of a coil of wire generating electricity. Thus electricity can be produced forever using this machine. It would require diodes to convert the alternating currents into direct currents, and you might want to have several of these machines in sequence so there can be a continuous supply of energy. With power amplifiers this machine might possibly electrically power a house (each house might have one of these generators and modified if desired) and a vehicle (a person might have his/her car powered by one of these generators).


NS--------------SN
___long gear long gear_____

____gear____gear

____axle_____axle
____NS______SN
____coil______coil

----coil-----coil

Underscores are used to make diagram appear correctly. Although this perpetual motion machine generator technically violates the laws of thermodynamics, those laws don't account for the features of permanent magnets which all of the magnets in the machine are. What's interesting about such a power plant is that only a small number of people (10 maybe less) would be necessary in making sure it works and guarding it from sabotage. You might find the following link useful for determining how much electrical power you could get from this machine and you might want to research power amplifiers. You might find the following link helpful:
www.stardrivedevice.com...
In this section, we'll concentrate on deriving some essential formulas which properly govern and define the basic operating characteristics of both the Faraday disk dynamo and its unipolar generator variant (i.e., voltage, power, input torque, etc.). From these simple equations, we will be able to develop some further sound engineering guidelines and appropriate design first-principles.

Voltage: While many texts will show calculus used to determine the accepted generalized formula for induced voltage in the disk machines, this relation is much easier to derive by simple algebraic means from Faraday's own general rule of induction. top of page

[a] To wit, the magnitude of the terminal voltage induced in a conductor depends on three factors: (i) the flux density of the applied field; (ii) the length of the conductor immersed in the field; and (iii) the velocity at which the conductor moves through the field. Taking the simple product of all three factors yields the equation E = B l v , where E is in volts, B is the flux density in tesla (or webers/m2 ), length l is in meters, and v is the velocity in m/sec.
In a general sense, we may let length l = r , where r is simply the full annular width of the rotor (in meters). Then, we can let the average angular speed of rotation v = (2ð r f) / 2 , or v = ð r f , where f is the rotor's frequency of rotation in revolutions per second.
[c] Therefore, E = output voltage Vo = B r (ð r f) . And thus, nonrigorously, Vo = ð r2 f B .
[d] In reality, we must let the length l = Ra , where Ra is the radial width of the rotor's net working flux gap area (in meters). Also, we'll let the average angular speed of rotation v = 2ð r f , where r now specifies the mean radius of the flux gap area as measured from the rotor's axis, and f is the rotor's frequency of rotation (in rps).
[e] Then, Vo = B Ra (2ð r f ) ; and, merely rearranging terms, Vo = 2ðr Ra f B . This formula will now yield the necessary accuracy of voltage calculation, since that portion of the rotor disk which is actually immersed in the field is properly indexed to as-specified dimensions for the field pieces.

It is important to point out that Vo as figured by the formula just derived can actually be treated as both an open-terminal and full-load value. It can be shown theoretically, and has been experimentally verified, that a disk dynamo or generator's rotor charge will be distributed in such a way that its output voltage is quite constant regardless of the load current drawn, and these machines therefore behave as if they were a regulated voltage source! top of page

Resistance: Having developed the relative radial planar-dimensional relationships for the disk devices, so that we can properly project operating voltage, it then becomes necessary to address the issues of volume resistivity and internal rotor circuit resistance if we wish to correctly figure the output current I (according to V = I R ) and power P (according to P = V I ) for any given size machine. No other aspect of system design is more crucial to optimizing output or more responsible for unrealistic projections of system performance.
It's easy to see that open-terminal resistance of a disk dynamo or generator has only one seemingly major component: the resistance of at least one pair of brushes. In virtually all cases, the resistance of the rotor disk itself is and should be entirely negligible, generally being measured in only the single-digit micro-ohms. And, it's true, proper brush design and material selection will probably "make or break" the system's COP in most cases. However, in addition to brush-and-rotor resistance there's another type of resistive loss that is sometimes not accounted for in design reckoning: that of the microscopically-thin field discharge contact zone between each brush and the rotor! This is actually the primary resistance in all Faraday disk machines; it's largely responsible for brush heating, and can be as much as 3 orders of magnitude larger than the actual brush resistance.
It is essential in this technology to use the highest quality brushes, having very high conductivity and a low coefficient of friction (k). For silver-graphite brushes running on silver slip rings or plated surfaces, static k is ~0.3 and dynamic k is ~ 0.2. Each brush's contact interface resistance in such case should not exceed 0.005 ohm initially and should decrease to an average of Rz = ~ 0.003 ohm after extended open-terminal run-in.

[a] The most convenient formula for volumetric resistance is: R = ñ L / A , where R is resistance in ohms; ñ is the volume resistivity in ohm-cm; L is the length in the current direction, in cm; and A is the current's cross-sectional area in cm2. Appropriate use of this formula to figure brush and rotor resistances will be illustrated in the Analysis sections below. preceding subsection top of page

Output Power: In most cases, voltage can be thought of as the primary component of electrical power, as seen in the relation given earlier above. Thus, to maximize the output power Po of a disk dynamo or generator, we absolutely must maximize the unavoidably tiny voltage it produces. Not considering the required input power (and torque) for the moment, it can easily be seen in the formula derived for output voltage (Vo) that the most effective way to do this is simply to increase the rotor radius – since a major measure of its radial width is factored in twice.
At some point, however, the product of increasing rotor size and speed will result in an unacceptably high value for brush speed, and so the maximum OEM ft./min. rating of the brush material selected will define an upper limit for the device's output voltage and its rotating inertia. Of course, the flux density B (as the final determining factor) can be maximized to the extent permitted by the cost and availability of specialized magnetic materials which have their own concrete natural field-strength limits.

[a] From the two formulas for power P given earlier above, it follows that P = V (V / R) = V2/ R . Therefore, by substitution, the full-load output power Po = (2ðr Ra f B)2/ R . Of course, if output current Io has previously been calculated (since I = V / R), Po is also conveniently equal to Io2R . In principle, however, output power should only be based on the calculated or measured value for Vo using P = VI , due to the device's constant voltage characteristic (as discussed above).

It should be noted that metallic neodymium iron boron magnets are now available with flux densities approaching 1.42 tesla (or 14,200 gauss) This is the world's most powerful permanent magnet material. On the other hand, the strongest nonconductive magnets generally available in large sizes are made of sintered Ferrite 5 (BaO-6Fe2O3), a ceramic material with flux density of 0.38 tesla (3,800 gauss).
preceding subsection top of page

Input Torque & Power: Before we derive a generic formula for no-load mechanical input power (in watts) that is strictly a function of a device's rotating inertia and variable starting time, it is important to realize that power P more fundamentally must reflect the brush and load input torque T required, according to Pi = 2ð f Ti , and that torque is rotational force applied at a given distance from a central axis of rotation. Torque may be expressed in newton-meters (N-m) when the power is in watts. In the Analysis sections below, a handy formula is provided for figuring applied induction motor torque in foot-pounds (ft.-lb.) and rpm, in which case input power will be in units of horsepower (Hp) [where 1 Hp = 746 watts].
In the induction dynamo, the primary load is the 'normal' generator back-torque Ta, whose magnitude can be simply computed (by virtue of Lenz's law) from the traditional equation for the "force on a current element in a magnetic field": F = B I L , where for present purposes I is equal to Io (or the load current) and as before L = Ra , where Ra is the radial width of the flux gap area. The full-load back-torque due to induction may then be found by using r once again to specify the mean radius of the flux gap area in the standard relation for torque: Ta = F r , where F will be a negative (retarding) value in N-m. [It is important to note that: 1 N-m = 0.7376 ft.-lb. = 8.851 in.-lb.]
In an ideal disk generator, the primary load is just the dynamic friction of the brushes, although an OEM-provided value for static ('starting') coefficient of friction must be considered. Of course, this will be a substantial source of retarding torque and secondary load in any practical disk induction machine. Recommended values for spring pressure vs. material will allow the total brush 'drag' to be accurately computed. The negative brush(es) will contact the rotor disk's outer edge in the design analyses we'll study below, so the full 'nominal' rotor radius Ro will be used to figure outer brush speed and resultant counter-torque. For simplicity, we'll consider the positive brush(es) as running directly on a conductive rotor shaft (as shown in the drawings above). The net forward force required to keep the brushes from decelerating the rotor is: F = p k A , where F is in pounds, p is spring pressure in psi, k = coeffic. of friction, and A = total contact area in square inches. [OEM-suggested minimum spring pressure for silver-graphite brushes is 4 psi.]

[a] No-load mechanical power to the rotor assembly is equal to the kinetic energy stored therein at a given constant operating speed divided by the elapsed time needed to achieve that speed: So, Pr = Ek / t . Ek is in turn equal to half the product of the rotor's moment of inertia (I) and the square of its final "run" angular velocity (ù, in radians/sec), where ù = 2ðf : Pr = [(½mRo2)(4ð2f 2/ 2)] / t . And thus, Pr = mð2R2f 2 / ts , where Pr is in watts, m is mass in kg, R in this case is the 'equivalent annular inertial radius' [(A/ð)1/2] of the disk* (as figured below), and ts is "start" time in seconds.
* [It is acceptable in this case to ignore the trivial inertial moments of the shaft and two disk mounting flanges.]

Finally, once we have verified a prospective drive motor's full-load torque capability, we will use the simple power formula ts = ùI / T to see if start time ts is acceptable for the type of motor selected. It may be of interest and value for students to know the provenance of this formula, which is derived as follows: ù = a t , where ù = 2ðf (with f in rps), a = avg. angular acceleration, and t is the elapsed (or starting) time in seconds; and

Also, does anyone think that it's possible to have a perpetual motion machine electricity generation of a combo of a light bulb shining light on photovoltaic cells that are connected to power increase transformer coils to power that light bulb? I suppose there would have to be some kind of way to start it like a battery, power supply, capacitor, etc.; and there would have to be a way to make sure it doesn't cause too much electricity that would overload said light bulb.

edit on 24-3-2012 by VoteJillSteinKatSwift2012 because: I wanted to add more text.

edit on 24-3-2012 by VoteJillSteinKatSwift2012 because: I wanted to add more text.

Yup it's all about greed. Greed and Evil are on the same side of the coin in my book. If you developed a free energy machine and you made public you were about to give away the machine to the public at material cost you would be having a "heartattack" shortly after annoucement and all of your work would disappear under the veil of "national security".