Must read letter

dehammer wrote:
Its a gravity fed system not a gravity harvest system. You cant harvest gravity, but you can use it. That is the name they have been using to put down my invention.

dehammer wrote:
I don't know the number for his idea, but I have seen it around a lot. Its been decades since I first heard of it, and the problem they said then was that it didn't have enough power because the tides were too small.

dehammer wrote:
This was tested decades ago, and it was found to not produce enough energy to be worth it.

dehammer wrote:
Says the guy that thinks that the words "laws of thermodynamics" means what ever he wants it to mean.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't know, but tides and waves are two seperate things, might not always work out right for power generation. Sure, the tide is predictable, but not waves. Storms down here generate some impressive waves. Big storms generate a storm-surge, which is a lot of water rushing inland, quick. Sometimes strong enough bring an old shipwreck carcass on to the beach. Doubt a tide generator would be a good choice for florida. Water can be incredibly powerful stuff, depending on the force driving it. And Climatology keeps trying to sell CO2 as the most destructive molecule known to man...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Tide and Wave generators are going to be sort of another niche alternative, like wind and solar. Might be useful in some places, fairly useless in others, with some ecological impact. Fortunately the oceans are huge, and sea critters are plentiful. Anything impacted will either find a new place to live, or that local population will die out, but still plenty of places for the species to continue to thrive.

Doubtful, that ocean power plants will replace traditional carbon-based generators on a cost basis though. They will always be expensive to build, place, and frequently replace/maintain. Like most alternatives, ocean power is intermittent, there are short and long periods where little or no power is generated. The variable power supply, and only semi-predictable demand, is going to really complicate the power grid scheme we've been using. It's a little scary, since going 100% alternative would mean that on the consumer end, we could never really know when our power is going to get cut off, or for how long. Some people and locations, which require continuous power, will get priority services, while use poor taxpayers will be left in the dark, until the supply comes back up, to distribute to all customers. I think this failure is going to weigh heavy on the IPCC, as they attempt a total ban on carbon-based fuels.

Individuals, will need to go back to relying on burning wood, for their heating and cooking needs. Guess we might be globally warm enough by then, if the predictions come true, that heating won't be an issue for most people. I mostly run the heat here only as comfort, and occasionally, could get by just fine without it. Couple hundred miles north, it's not a choice, it's survival. Burning wood, releases CO2, and quite a few other things, not quite as clean.

The IPCC is also supporting the capture and storage of CO2, which is insane. Don't we need the O2 portion of those molecules to survive? Plants, specifically the wood, we are going to need to burn, to survive the frequent blackouts, needs the CO2 to grow, so we can chop it up and burn. We need the O2 to breath, plants breath CO2, and we need the plants for food, and to burn. Isn't messing with things vital to our survival insane? I really have trouble grasping how educated people of science, could so carelessly disregard the impact of their agenda, and so many could be blind to the facts. Sparing future generations a few comfort degrees, they our willing to kill us all...

dehammer wrote:
IPCC has not power period.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Here we go again... We just spent the past week or so working on a Gravity Harvesting fuel cell generator thing.

Do you have a patent number, so I can take a quick peek at what your selling? Video/pictures of the model, drawings or diagrams? I can't sell an idea I don't believe in, or on the say-so of a stranger online. Tide and wave generators have been around for a while, but don't often hear much about them, unless it's a 'revolutionary' new design, which turns out to be pretty much functionally the same, and not quite as productive as expected either. Saltwater and electricity aren't good friends, and metals that hold up well aren't cheap. This is probably one of those ideas that looks better on paper, promising as a demonstration, but not so good in a practical application.

dehammer wrote:
IPCC has not power period.

Eric4898 wrote:
""YE WHO HAVE LITTLE FAITH"" You have a lot to say about my invetion without knowing the first thing about it. The only tidal energy projects you will find on the internet are tidal turbines or propellers with the generator stuck on the back, (under water). Mine is nothing like that and the actual generator producing the 30MWPH is above the surface of the water and is produced by a 2 knot tide using 144 square food x 8 sections but that's not all as my rig has a further secret known only to me which increases the kinetic energy by 4 times.
My name is not Dyson and I don't have pots of money to pay for Patents, anyway who would, an oil rig doesn't have a Patent after all who whant's to copy it.
With modern materials things can last under the sea for years without any corrosion so stop coming up with pathetic statements. As I said, I am 74 and don't need negative things so if you want to know more. contact me. if not then keep sarcastic comments to yourself..

dehammer wrote:
So a 74 year old that is trying to push an invention without expecting to make money is different than a 60 year old showing that if people seriously believed in global warming, they have a way to do it?

Why is it better that a 74 year old talks about an invention he doesn't expect to make money than a 60 year old not expecting to ever get any money showing the hypocrisy of a group demanding we give up our money, rights and freedoms instead of using a proven design that could get rid of ALL carbon emission?

dehammer wrote:
I noticed you still can not answer the question.

Here is a more important question. IF you KNEW that the entire planet was going to become uninhabitable in 100 years, unless a solution to a problem was found would you not try EVERYTHING possible, no matter how unlikely, to find a solution?

Eric4898 wrote:
""YE WHO HAVE LITTLE FAITH"" You have a lot to say about my invetion without knowing the first thing about it. The only tidal energy projects you will find on the internet are tidal turbines or propellers with the generator stuck on the back, (under water). Mine is nothing like that and the actual generator producing the 30MWPH is above the surface of the water and is produced by a 2 knot tide using 144 square food x 8 sections but that's not all as my rig has a further secret known only to me which increases the kinetic energy by 4 times.
My name is not Dyson and I don't have pots of money to pay for Patents, anyway who would, an oil rig doesn't have a Patent after all who whant's to copy it.
With modern materials things can last under the sea for years without any corrosion so stop coming up with pathetic statements. As I said, I am 74 and don't need negative things so if you want to know more. contact me. if not then keep sarcastic comments to yourself..

HarveyH55 wrote:

dehammer wrote:
IPCC has not power period.

They have the power of propaganda. The the IPCC has no power or control, they do influence some people that do. There is a lot of money being shifted around, so it appeals to the greedy. Some government see new taxes, and new ways to limit freedom, more control over people's lives. Eco-terrorist see a new tool to protect the planet, though mostly, they just want your money, or to extort money from companies that wish to build something, or use a natural resource, in undeveloped areas. I don't believe most people are buying the CO2 crap, but they do see an opportunity to profit in some way from the propaganda.

dehammer wrote:
So a 74 year old that is trying to push an invention without expecting to make money is different than a 60 year old showing that if people seriously believed in global warming, they have a way to do it?

Why is it better that a 74 year old talks about an invention he doesn't expect to make money than a 60 year old not expecting to ever get any money showing the hypocrisy of a group demanding we give up our money, rights and freedoms instead of using a proven design that could get rid of ALL carbon emission?

dehammer wrote:
Answer this question. IF you have water above a 250 foot drop and you run it though a pipe to a turbine, attached to a generator, will it make electricity?

dehammer wrote:
Here is a more important question. IF you KNEW that the entire planet was going to become uninhabitable in 100 years, unless a solution to a problem was found would you not try EVERYTHING possible, no matter how unlikely, to find a solution?

dehammer wrote:
I noticed you still can not answer the question.

dehammer wrote:
The point is, the alarmist are demanding that we give up our right, privileges and freedoms to stop this.

But if there exist something already that can do it, don't you think its rather hypocritical for them to demand people that do not believe their religion give up everything rather than fix it themselves?

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no problem to fix, ...

dehammer wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no problem to fix, ...

There is a problem, but it isn't the climate. Just look at the people trying to get elected to president. They are trying to push us farther and farther towards socialism. THAT is the problem.

dehammer wrote:
There is evidence that there is a cycle of about 80 years (4 generation) that leads to a war ever 80 years or so. 1940's saw ww2 (1939-1945). 1860's saw the civil war (1861-1865). 1780's saw the revolutionary war (1775-1783). I half way expect that WHEN Trump is reelected, there will be an assassination attempt on him. Successful or not, it will have riots in the streets and very possibly a civil war.