Remember me
▼ Content

Must read letter



Page 2 of 4<1234>
06-05-2019 00:10
James___
★★★★☆
(1717)
dehammer wrote:
No, the theory is that these wars are difference because of the pattern of the generations.



World War II was the result of World War I. Kind of like the Invasion of Iraq was a conclusion to Iraq invading Kuwait. This is where you Americans tend to be ignorant of the politics outside of the US.
What Americans don't understand is that the Korean War and the Vietnam police action were to halt the spread of communism. Yet Americans love China. Cheap goods.
Yet Americans are divided over Hispanic immigration from Central and South America. They make Democrats look good while giving Republicans cheap labour.
I think it's the Treaty of Versaille in 1919 that returned Transylvania to Romania.
That's an interesting bit of history but not in the West. America is an isolated country that can easily dominate either of it's neighbours. That could be their problem.
06-05-2019 00:23
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Trump might be a little abrasive, but most of the people who hate him, also understand that he's usually right. It's mostly his methods and style, that people hate. The democrats hate him, because he's a threat to everything they've been building (socialism), for a long time. They really should back away from the witch hunting, it's going to bite some of them pretty hard. I think pretty much all of them have things to hide. They've been digging for Trump dirt, since he start campaigning, and found little of any significance. They can pick at the Mueller documents, even every scrap, underacted, and still not get anything damning. They are hoping to find some small technicality, or some leverage. Whatever they find, they would still need to prove criminal intent, not just poor judgement and bad manners.

I tend to question the loyalty of the democrats in office. What they have been doing, isn't in the best interest of the country, the government, the president, or the people. Globally, it's an embarrassment, and doesn't strengthen confidence, or show strength. Other countries are likely a little (more) skeptical about buying or investing in America, least until the BS settles out. The democrats keep preaching oversight, over-reach, and abuse of power, but aren't they doing most of it? Guess they have a different code of ethics and loyalty, The need stronger grounds to continue investigating, probable cause to believe the president knowingly, and willing committed crimes.
06-05-2019 08:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
No, the theory is that these wars are difference because of the pattern of the generations.

I have read of this theory, but your are also failing to understand there are other wars.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 09:34
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
No, the other wars are for other reasons. This is a different thing and its more predictable, and more likely to be more harmful to humanity.
06-05-2019 10:55
Eric4898
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
You guys don't half jump from one subjet to another in the same thread!! but returning to my original message.
Although I was not concerned about the money I could make from my design, any amount forthcoming would not be sniffed at as I do have grandchildren. Let me start by saying that 5 years ago I attended Southampton Univercity Oceanographic Centre for a semina on renewable energy, this mainly involved water. There were people from all over the world who contributed designes and facts which I found very interesting. I took my model along with me and set it up in the main hall, during the day I was bombarded with questions and interests even by professors who knew a thing or two but all said that they had never considered my design and were amazed at how well it operated. That said, I took maybe three dozen cards from people and over the following months chased them up. Those that replied were all interested in making money for themselves even one guy from the Royal Institute in London where I sent my complete design and portfolio.
Forget your ideas of a gravity fed system as you are on a completely different path, my system is actually called "Tidal Padel Generator" as it implies it is a large padle wheel by not on a horizontal axis but a vertical axis with 8 curved blades each haveing a surface area of 144 square feet (12'x12') for the basic system. (Blade sizes can be increased for larger generators) the wheel drives a shaft to the surface, through a gear box to the actual generator. ""Simple"". Idea has been around for a thousand year by today all we want to do is OVER ENGINEER things when the simplest thing actually work. They don't have to be located in rough seas as one guy pointed out, there are over 1000 locations around the UK within sheltered areas where the tides can run up to six knots, (info from the Oceanographice survey) What's more, once set in location they work on both the ebb and flood tide without any resetting unlike wind farms. The big secret is just the fact that there also deflection plates which increase the flow of water towards the drive while at the same time causing a reversed vortex behind the plate which reduces the resistance of the trailing edge of the wheel, in fact, from my observation during my model test actually enhanced the rotaton. So there you have it guys. not rocket science. just thinking out of the box. Trust me, it works....
06-05-2019 16:37
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
It still goes back to me first reply to this thread... It's still just your word, we've never met, and I've seen no pictures, video, drawings. The concept seems solid though, but not so sure about anything sitting in saltwater for long, and not needing maintenance regularly. I live in Florida, so you meet quite a few people with boats. Expensive hobby, lot of work.

Forums are generally for discussions, which is what usual happens here, although there are a few exceptions, but the forum is called Climate Debate, so the arguing and silly hair-splitting fighting that goes on is probably normal for some.

I'd don't personally try to help things I've never seen, or believe in. That's just the way I am. What would be more effective for you, would be a video on YouTube, or any of the social media sites. You don't have to give out the technical details, just an overview, like you've given here, show why your design is different/better than anything currently being done. Give contact information, for those interested in knowing more. Website are pretty easy to set up these days, about the same as using a word processor. Not sure about servers hosting free sites anymore, I lost interest, when they wanted to load you up with advertisements. Lot of business use FaceBook, they put in advertisements as well, probably not as bad. YouTube gives you a home page, I never messed with setting up mine, but think you could likely use that.

I don't believe there is an actual climate crisis, but there are plenty of others who support taking action. Not sure how much action will be taken, but there is movement. Should have gotten your presentation package and video online during the Obama administration. They were very generous with the grant and subsidy money. Probably still a lot of those programs running, since congress seems bent on stopping anything Trump attempts to change. With government money available, there are likely plenty of coastal locations looking for an idea. If it works out for them, that's great, but it's also guarantied to create jobs, improve the local economy, and attract attention and visitors. They'll benefit in multiple ways, regardless of how much power they can generate.

I still have many reservations about tidal/wave generators, not sure if they are going to produce a consistent amount of power 24/7, or intermittent, like solar and wind. Pretty sure Florida is less than ideal for such a plan, even tropical storms can bring on heavy surf, hurricanes don't have to make landfall, to do considerable damage. Saltwater is rough on everything, and doesn't play well with electricity, a very good conductor. I'm sure those things can be dealt with, but see a lot of maintenance, regularly, or major, and expensive failures. The fuel might be free, but the cost of harnessing it might be too high to make it worthwhile. I don't think maintenance costs of solar and wind are talked about much, they sort of like giving the impression that you just install them, and forget about them. I've got a few panels, charge 12v batteries, mostly use that to charge other batteries of gadgets, but will have a few hours available if power goes out. Not enough to run a coffee maker, but some lights, small TV. I've got to clean those panels several times each year, or my batteries don't get charged fully in a day.
06-05-2019 17:23
James___
★★★★☆
(1717)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Trump might be a little abrasive, but most of the people who hate him, also understand that he's usually right. It's mostly his methods and style, that people hate. The democrats hate him, because he's a threat to everything they've been building (socialism), for a long time. They really should back away from the witch hunting, it's going to bite some of them pretty hard. I think pretty much all of them have things to hide. They've been digging for Trump dirt, since he start campaigning, and found little of any significance. They can pick at the Mueller documents, even every scrap, underacted, and still not get anything damning. They are hoping to find some small technicality, or some leverage. Whatever they find, they would still need to prove criminal intent, not just poor judgement and bad manners.

I tend to question the loyalty of the democrats in office. What they have been doing, isn't in the best interest of the country, the government, the president, or the people. Globally, it's an embarrassment, and doesn't strengthen confidence, or show strength. Other countries are likely a little (more) skeptical about buying or investing in America, least until the BS settles out. The democrats keep preaching oversight, over-reach, and abuse of power, but aren't they doing most of it? Guess they have a different code of ethics and loyalty, The need stronger grounds to continue investigating, probable cause to believe the president knowingly, and willing committed crimes.



Trump is the best president the US has ever had. He's never married an American woman. The guy knows what it takes to be successful. Ask his wife. That's why I like him.
06-05-2019 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
Eric4898 wrote:
You guys don't half jump from one subjet to another in the same thread!! but returning to my original message.
Although I was not concerned about the money I could make from my design, any amount forthcoming would not be sniffed at as I do have grandchildren. Let me start by saying that 5 years ago I attended Southampton Univercity Oceanographic Centre for a semina on renewable energy, this mainly involved water. There were people from all over the world who contributed designes and facts which I found very interesting. I took my model along with me and set it up in the main hall, during the day I was bombarded with questions and interests even by professors who knew a thing or two but all said that they had never considered my design and were amazed at how well it operated. That said, I took maybe three dozen cards from people and over the following months chased them up. Those that replied were all interested in making money for themselves even one guy from the Royal Institute in London where I sent my complete design and portfolio.
Forget your ideas of a gravity fed system as you are on a completely different path, my system is actually called "Tidal Padel Generator" as it implies it is a large padle wheel by not on a horizontal axis but a vertical axis with 8 curved blades each haveing a surface area of 144 square feet (12'x12') for the basic system. (Blade sizes can be increased for larger generators) the wheel drives a shaft to the surface, through a gear box to the actual generator. ""Simple"". Idea has been around for a thousand year by today all we want to do is OVER ENGINEER things when the simplest thing actually work. They don't have to be located in rough seas as one guy pointed out, there are over 1000 locations around the UK within sheltered areas where the tides can run up to six knots, (info from the Oceanographice survey) What's more, once set in location they work on both the ebb and flood tide without any resetting unlike wind farms. The big secret is just the fact that there also deflection plates which increase the flow of water towards the drive while at the same time causing a reversed vortex behind the plate which reduces the resistance of the trailing edge of the wheel, in fact, from my observation during my model test actually enhanced the rotaton. So there you have it guys. not rocket science. just thinking out of the box. Trust me, it works....


Sort of. It produces very little power, and none on the peak of the tides.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 19:17
James___
★★★★☆
(1717)
Eric4898 wrote:
I sent my following letter to the press and government. tell me what you think?;-
Renewable Energy
Dear Editor,
In my seventy forth year, I have become increasingly frustrated and annoyed at the Government and Media attitudes towards Renewable Energy thinking that the way forward is Wind and Solar energy. The absolute truth of the fact is that they are both VERY unreliable, unpredictable and completely over engineered.
There is, however, one form of energy which is 700/800 times more powerful than wind and 2500 times greater than solar, it's an energy that is totally predictable for 20 hours per day, 365 days per year and is guaranteed never to let you down, providing the Moon stays in the sky. You may have guessed already that I am referring to Tidal Stream Energy but I should point out, at this stage, that I am not referring to Tidal barrages or tidal turbines as each destroy fish stocks or have huge impact on the environment.
I spent 15 years developing a system, addressing both the environmental impact on sea creatures and the acceptance of a construction at sea by the shore observer. A system that is simple to use and maintain. Is not over engineered as like many existing projects and would generate up to 30 Mega Watts of power per hour, unlike a wind turbine that produces 2 MW when the wind is blowing.
So far, all my correspondences to Government, Universities and local authorities have either fallen on deaf ears or they choose to ignore, for what reason I do not know. However, I do know that my system works as I have already tested a model I built which exceeded my expectations.
We are killing our world, destroying the very foundation of our existence all for a few quid today for the privileged few. I fear for my grandchildren as they deserve our generation to embrace any form of technology that will help to save our planet.
Please forward this letter to anyone you feel who has the investment capability to take my invention further. Thank you for reading..
Eric Hoare
10, PO32 6JH
East Cowes. IOW
01983 280271 or 07901604481
Email; erichoare6@talktalk.net



You know there's a simple way that might work. But ask people to consider basic math and they won't. Basically if someone thinks they have a good idea then they need to do it on their own.
07-05-2019 00:36
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Trump might be a little abrasive, but most of the people who hate him, also understand that he's usually right. It's mostly his methods and style, that people hate. The democrats hate him, because he's a threat to everything they've been building (socialism), for a long time. They really should back away from the witch hunting, it's going to bite some of them pretty hard. I think pretty much all of them have things to hide. They've been digging for Trump dirt, since he start campaigning, and found little of any significance. They can pick at the Mueller documents, even every scrap, underacted, and still not get anything damning. They are hoping to find some small technicality, or some leverage. Whatever they find, they would still need to prove criminal intent, not just poor judgement and bad manners.

I tend to question the loyalty of the democrats in office. What they have been doing, isn't in the best interest of the country, the government, the president, or the people. Globally, it's an embarrassment, and doesn't strengthen confidence, or show strength. Other countries are likely a little (more) skeptical about buying or investing in America, least until the BS settles out. The democrats keep preaching oversight, over-reach, and abuse of power, but aren't they doing most of it? Guess they have a different code of ethics and loyalty, The need stronger grounds to continue investigating, probable cause to believe the president knowingly, and willing committed crimes.



Trump is the best president the US has ever had. He's never married an American woman. The guy knows what it takes to be successful. Ask his wife. That's why I like him.


Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic, considering Trumps last visit over there. Trump is an okay president, but don't think he's the best we ever had. Could have been, but he lacks aggression. After the investigation was over, he should have been jumping all over the democrats who pushed in the first place, and continue to push. There wasn't sufficient evidence to even start, and should have ended in a few weeks, when they found that out. They pushed the investigation to keep digging. Trump knew there was nothing to find, and wanted to get it over with, and get to work on real issues, which was called obstruction, and used to keep the investigation going, hoping to dig up some paydirt.

Trump's wives... Most people who live in America, don't exclusively buy Made in America. We buy what we like, and cheapest, if possible. Doesn't matter who made what.
07-05-2019 01:51
James___
★★★★☆
(1717)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Trump might be a little abrasive, but most of the people who hate him, also understand that he's usually right. It's mostly his methods and style, that people hate. The democrats hate him, because he's a threat to everything they've been building (socialism), for a long time. They really should back away from the witch hunting, it's going to bite some of them pretty hard. I think pretty much all of them have things to hide. They've been digging for Trump dirt, since he start campaigning, and found little of any significance. They can pick at the Mueller documents, even every scrap, underacted, and still not get anything damning. They are hoping to find some small technicality, or some leverage. Whatever they find, they would still need to prove criminal intent, not just poor judgement and bad manners.

I tend to question the loyalty of the democrats in office. What they have been doing, isn't in the best interest of the country, the government, the president, or the people. Globally, it's an embarrassment, and doesn't strengthen confidence, or show strength. Other countries are likely a little (more) skeptical about buying or investing in America, least until the BS settles out. The democrats keep preaching oversight, over-reach, and abuse of power, but aren't they doing most of it? Guess they have a different code of ethics and loyalty, The need stronger grounds to continue investigating, probable cause to believe the president knowingly, and willing committed crimes.



Trump is the best president the US has ever had. He's never married an American woman. The guy knows what it takes to be successful. Ask his wife. That's why I like him.


Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic, considering Trumps last visit over there. Trump is an okay president, but don't think he's the best we ever had. Could have been, but he lacks aggression. After the investigation was over, he should have been jumping all over the democrats who pushed in the first place, and continue to push. There wasn't sufficient evidence to even start, and should have ended in a few weeks, when they found that out. They pushed the investigation to keep digging. Trump knew there was nothing to find, and wanted to get it over with, and get to work on real issues, which was called obstruction, and used to keep the investigation going, hoping to dig up some paydirt.

Trump's wives... Most people who live in America, don't exclusively buy Made in America. We buy what we like, and cheapest, if possible. Doesn't matter who made what.



At least we know why there's a $500 Billion trade deficit with China and a $1 Trillion budget deficit.
Thought Americans didn't like communism? Or is it as you said, and cheapest if possible. That didn't used to be an American value but supporting Democracy was. That's what's changed with the US
07-05-2019 01:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Eric4898 wrote:
I sent my following letter to the press and government. tell me what you think?;-
Renewable Energy
Dear Editor,
In my seventy forth year, I have become increasingly frustrated and annoyed at the Government and Media attitudes towards Renewable Energy thinking that the way forward is Wind and Solar energy. The absolute truth of the fact is that they are both VERY unreliable, unpredictable and completely over engineered.
There is, however, one form of energy which is 700/800 times more powerful than wind and 2500 times greater than solar, it's an energy that is totally predictable for 20 hours per day, 365 days per year and is guaranteed never to let you down, providing the Moon stays in the sky. You may have guessed already that I am referring to Tidal Stream Energy but I should point out, at this stage, that I am not referring to Tidal barrages or tidal turbines as each destroy fish stocks or have huge impact on the environment.
I spent 15 years developing a system, addressing both the environmental impact on sea creatures and the acceptance of a construction at sea by the shore observer. A system that is simple to use and maintain. Is not over engineered as like many existing projects and would generate up to 30 Mega Watts of power per hour, unlike a wind turbine that produces 2 MW when the wind is blowing.
So far, all my correspondences to Government, Universities and local authorities have either fallen on deaf ears or they choose to ignore, for what reason I do not know. However, I do know that my system works as I have already tested a model I built which exceeded my expectations.
We are killing our world, destroying the very foundation of our existence all for a few quid today for the privileged few. I fear for my grandchildren as they deserve our generation to embrace any form of technology that will help to save our planet.
Please forward this letter to anyone you feel who has the investment capability to take my invention further. Thank you for reading..
Eric Hoare
10, PO32 6JH
East Cowes. IOW
01983 280271 or 07901604481
Email; erichoare6@talktalk.net


In the 1950's I helped my Uncle Harry design and build a functional test model of a tidal generator. When he died he left the patent to me. It is still laying around here someplace. Since it has long since lapsed it is only a memento.

After I got out of my stint in the Air Force and was looking at it I calculated the power of tidal currents and they are insignificant to the power being necessary to power a modern society.

The ideas that are being forwarded for "modern tidal power" units are so impractical that it is easy to see that they actually have no knowledge of anything that is put into water at the few places in the world where you could extract a reasonable amount of power from tidal motions.
07-05-2019 03:17
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Wake wrote:
Eric4898 wrote:
I sent my following letter to the press and government. tell me what you think?;-
Renewable Energy
Dear Editor,
In my seventy forth year, I have become increasingly frustrated and annoyed at the Government and Media attitudes towards Renewable Energy thinking that the way forward is Wind and Solar energy. The absolute truth of the fact is that they are both VERY unreliable, unpredictable and completely over engineered.
There is, however, one form of energy which is 700/800 times more powerful than wind and 2500 times greater than solar, it's an energy that is totally predictable for 20 hours per day, 365 days per year and is guaranteed never to let you down, providing the Moon stays in the sky. You may have guessed already that I am referring to Tidal Stream Energy but I should point out, at this stage, that I am not referring to Tidal barrages or tidal turbines as each destroy fish stocks or have huge impact on the environment.
I spent 15 years developing a system, addressing both the environmental impact on sea creatures and the acceptance of a construction at sea by the shore observer. A system that is simple to use and maintain. Is not over engineered as like many existing projects and would generate up to 30 Mega Watts of power per hour, unlike a wind turbine that produces 2 MW when the wind is blowing.
So far, all my correspondences to Government, Universities and local authorities have either fallen on deaf ears or they choose to ignore, for what reason I do not know. However, I do know that my system works as I have already tested a model I built which exceeded my expectations.
We are killing our world, destroying the very foundation of our existence all for a few quid today for the privileged few. I fear for my grandchildren as they deserve our generation to embrace any form of technology that will help to save our planet.
Please forward this letter to anyone you feel who has the investment capability to take my invention further. Thank you for reading..
Eric Hoare
10, PO32 6JH
East Cowes. IOW
01983 280271 or 07901604481
Email; erichoare6@talktalk.net


In the 1950's I helped my Uncle Harry design and build a functional test model of a tidal generator. When he died he left the patent to me. It is still laying around here someplace. Since it has long since lapsed it is only a memento.

After I got out of my stint in the Air Force and was looking at it I calculated the power of tidal currents and they are insignificant to the power being necessary to power a modern society.

The ideas that are being forwarded for "modern tidal power" units are so impractical that it is easy to see that they actually have no knowledge of anything that is put into water at the few places in the world where you could extract a reasonable amount of power from tidal motions.


Solar power and Wind power aren't much different, they all provide power, and useful in some applications, but aren't up to the task of taking over the needs of a power grid. The 'reasonable' part is usually ignored, because the fuel is free, and 'clean' of that evil CO2... For some, it's a good deal, at any price. Least, until they start having to pay the bill, and find the service lacking.
07-05-2019 21:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Eric4898 wrote:
I sent my following letter to the press and government. tell me what you think?;-
Renewable Energy
Dear Editor,
In my seventy forth year, I have become increasingly frustrated and annoyed at the Government and Media attitudes towards Renewable Energy thinking that the way forward is Wind and Solar energy. The absolute truth of the fact is that they are both VERY unreliable, unpredictable and completely over engineered.
There is, however, one form of energy which is 700/800 times more powerful than wind and 2500 times greater than solar, it's an energy that is totally predictable for 20 hours per day, 365 days per year and is guaranteed never to let you down, providing the Moon stays in the sky. You may have guessed already that I am referring to Tidal Stream Energy but I should point out, at this stage, that I am not referring to Tidal barrages or tidal turbines as each destroy fish stocks or have huge impact on the environment.
I spent 15 years developing a system, addressing both the environmental impact on sea creatures and the acceptance of a construction at sea by the shore observer. A system that is simple to use and maintain. Is not over engineered as like many existing projects and would generate up to 30 Mega Watts of power per hour, unlike a wind turbine that produces 2 MW when the wind is blowing.
So far, all my correspondences to Government, Universities and local authorities have either fallen on deaf ears or they choose to ignore, for what reason I do not know. However, I do know that my system works as I have already tested a model I built which exceeded my expectations.
We are killing our world, destroying the very foundation of our existence all for a few quid today for the privileged few. I fear for my grandchildren as they deserve our generation to embrace any form of technology that will help to save our planet.
Please forward this letter to anyone you feel who has the investment capability to take my invention further. Thank you for reading..
Eric Hoare
10, PO32 6JH
East Cowes. IOW
01983 280271 or 07901604481
Email; erichoare6@talktalk.net


In the 1950's I helped my Uncle Harry design and build a functional test model of a tidal generator. When he died he left the patent to me. It is still laying around here someplace. Since it has long since lapsed it is only a memento.

After I got out of my stint in the Air Force and was looking at it I calculated the power of tidal currents and they are insignificant to the power being necessary to power a modern society.

The ideas that are being forwarded for "modern tidal power" units are so impractical that it is easy to see that they actually have no knowledge of anything that is put into water at the few places in the world where you could extract a reasonable amount of power from tidal motions.


Solar power and Wind power aren't much different, they all provide power, and useful in some applications, but aren't up to the task of taking over the needs of a power grid. The 'reasonable' part is usually ignored, because the fuel is free, and 'clean' of that evil CO2... For some, it's a good deal, at any price. Least, until they start having to pay the bill, and find the service lacking.


The one advantage of wind or solar is that you are not limited to the very few places in the world where the tides are compressed to the point where there is sufficient current to be usable. The depth of the water under the deepest part of the Golden Gate is only 750 feet and if you put any impediment to the current flow it would begin eroding the shorelines and dumping sediment into the deep hole. There are the same problems around the Bay of Fundy, the entrance to the Black Sea or the North Sea.

And in almost every one of these areas it would interfere with shipping.

The Gulf Stream has a tremendous amount of power in it but the area of the current is so wide that the actual speed is quite slow. Again, you cannot drain any power from it without making something so incredibly large that it is either impossible to make or it interferes with other things. Furthermore, if you take much power out of the Gulf Stream, you cause dramatic environmental damage to Iceland.
07-05-2019 23:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
Eric4898 wrote:
I sent my following letter to the press and government. tell me what you think?;-
Renewable Energy
Dear Editor,
In my seventy forth year, I have become increasingly frustrated and annoyed at the Government and Media attitudes towards Renewable Energy thinking that the way forward is Wind and Solar energy. The absolute truth of the fact is that they are both VERY unreliable, unpredictable and completely over engineered.
There is, however, one form of energy which is 700/800 times more powerful than wind and 2500 times greater than solar, it's an energy that is totally predictable for 20 hours per day, 365 days per year and is guaranteed never to let you down, providing the Moon stays in the sky. You may have guessed already that I am referring to Tidal Stream Energy but I should point out, at this stage, that I am not referring to Tidal barrages or tidal turbines as each destroy fish stocks or have huge impact on the environment.
I spent 15 years developing a system, addressing both the environmental impact on sea creatures and the acceptance of a construction at sea by the shore observer. A system that is simple to use and maintain. Is not over engineered as like many existing projects and would generate up to 30 Mega Watts of power per hour, unlike a wind turbine that produces 2 MW when the wind is blowing.
So far, all my correspondences to Government, Universities and local authorities have either fallen on deaf ears or they choose to ignore, for what reason I do not know. However, I do know that my system works as I have already tested a model I built which exceeded my expectations.
We are killing our world, destroying the very foundation of our existence all for a few quid today for the privileged few. I fear for my grandchildren as they deserve our generation to embrace any form of technology that will help to save our planet.
Please forward this letter to anyone you feel who has the investment capability to take my invention further. Thank you for reading..
Eric Hoare
10, PO32 6JH
East Cowes. IOW
01983 280271 or 07901604481
Email; erichoare6@talktalk.net


In the 1950's I helped my Uncle Harry design and build a functional test model of a tidal generator. When he died he left the patent to me. It is still laying around here someplace. Since it has long since lapsed it is only a memento.

After I got out of my stint in the Air Force and was looking at it I calculated the power of tidal currents and they are insignificant to the power being necessary to power a modern society.

The ideas that are being forwarded for "modern tidal power" units are so impractical that it is easy to see that they actually have no knowledge of anything that is put into water at the few places in the world where you could extract a reasonable amount of power from tidal motions.


Solar power and Wind power aren't much different, they all provide power, and useful in some applications, but aren't up to the task of taking over the needs of a power grid. The 'reasonable' part is usually ignored, because the fuel is free, and 'clean' of that evil CO2... For some, it's a good deal, at any price. Least, until they start having to pay the bill, and find the service lacking.


The one advantage of wind or solar is that you are not limited to the very few places in the world where the tides are compressed to the point where there is sufficient current to be usable. The depth of the water under the deepest part of the Golden Gate is only 750 feet and if you put any impediment to the current flow it would begin eroding the shorelines and dumping sediment into the deep hole. There are the same problems around the Bay of Fundy, the entrance to the Black Sea or the North Sea.

And in almost every one of these areas it would interfere with shipping.

The Gulf Stream has a tremendous amount of power in it but the area of the current is so wide that the actual speed is quite slow. Again, you cannot drain any power from it without making something so incredibly large that it is either impossible to make or it interferes with other things. Furthermore, if you take much power out of the Gulf Stream, you cause dramatic environmental damage to Iceland.


Nah. Two big problems with such a device insert into the Gulf Stream.

1) No usable anchor. You have to anchor a huge device to gain power from the Gulf Stream at all.
2) Most of the Gulf Stream will simply go around the obstacle.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 01:14
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
IF they were to put something like a windmill in the ocean, it would be the same as putting one in the air, but the water would be more powerful and it would not detract from the view people want.
08-05-2019 02:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
IF they were to put something like a windmill in the ocean, it would be the same as putting one in the air, but the water would be more powerful and it would not detract from the view people want.


Only if you could anchor it sufficiently well.

You have to use smaller propellers or the machine will collapse from the load. Cavitation is a real problem to deal with too. All current driven propellers cavitate. This can actually destroy the propeller if allowed to go unchecked.

Maintenance tends to be real fun too. Seawater is very corrosive. Fish, barnacles, seaweed, and algae all grow on or get caught in the machine.

They will produce about the same power as wind power covering the same area. Essentially, not a lot of usable power for an expensive and high maintenance machine.

Burning coal, oil, or natural gas is the preferred method for a reason. Remember, YOU don't get to dictate energy markets.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 02:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
dehammer wrote:
IF they were to put something like a windmill in the ocean, it would be the same as putting one in the air, but the water would be more powerful and it would not detract from the view people want.


That's not the way it works. The density of air is about 500 times less than water. This means that you can generate a lifting force without the air itself becoming a drag on the lift. The tip speed in the modern windmill is over 200 mph a 30 knot wind.

Water is so dense that you are severely limited in the speed it can move these windmills.

Anyway I did calculate it out one time and real windmills generated power far more cheaply. Plus you can't put anything in salt water that doesn't rapidly degrade. While the blades of the windmills are carbon fiber, the rest of the structure is steel.

My brother used to be an electrician for Windpower USA. He will argue with me for hours about how great windmills are and doesn't believe that PG&E has never generated more than 3% of their power from IMMENSE solar and wind farms. They have never returned their own costs but the company made it's money off of government subsidies.
08-05-2019 02:44
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
That's why it would need to be something like a vertical axis watermill. As such it doesn't need to have the huge tip speed.

The design that I remember looking like it would be most successful was one that had 3 cables set up much like the tower tri-poles set up. Periodically it had an area that would widen out to give it more stability. These areas had vans to keep them faced into the current. The bottom of the cables were anchored just a oil rigs anchor themselves. Every so often, you would have a pump that pushed water up a pipe to the surface. The pipes were powered by vertical axis watermills. Basically, these were just large buckets arranged around a ring that ran the pumps.

At the top of the "rig" was a turbine that ran a generator. Since the electronics and such were never in the water, they were not at risk.

They do have things that can keep the corrosive effects of salt water away for quite some time and each individual pump could be shut down without affecting the whole. This would allow robotic subs to take them apart and put new parts ever few years, allowing the old parts to be repaired or replace.

Even if it was only a few hundred feet, the amount of water being pushed up the pipe would power a large turbine.

I don't remember where I saw this, since it was decades go, but it might have been in popular science or some mag like that.
08-05-2019 07:30
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
dehammer wrote:
That's why it would need to be something like a vertical axis watermill. As such it doesn't need to have the huge tip speed.

The design that I remember looking like it would be most successful was one that had 3 cables set up much like the tower tri-poles set up. Periodically it had an area that would widen out to give it more stability. These areas had vans to keep them faced into the current. The bottom of the cables were anchored just a oil rigs anchor themselves. Every so often, you would have a pump that pushed water up a pipe to the surface. The pipes were powered by vertical axis watermills. Basically, these were just large buckets arranged around a ring that ran the pumps.

At the top of the "rig" was a turbine that ran a generator. Since the electronics and such were never in the water, they were not at risk.

They do have things that can keep the corrosive effects of salt water away for quite some time and each individual pump could be shut down without affecting the whole. This would allow robotic subs to take them apart and put new parts ever few years, allowing the old parts to be repaired or replace.

Even if it was only a few hundred feet, the amount of water being pushed up the pipe would power a large turbine.

I don't remember where I saw this, since it was decades go, but it might have been in popular science or some mag like that.


You don't need to be in the ocean, to get the destructive effects of saltwater... Ask anybody that lives near the beach. Robot subs to do the maintenance? Technology has gotten that far yet. Wouldn't this sort of get in the way of boat traffic? True, they can almost always steer around such things, but then again you'd figure a cruise ship, with nearly 3,000 passengers and crew, wouldn't ram into a pier either... What about marine life? Doubt the local fishermen want pre-sliced fish.
08-05-2019 11:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
That's why it would need to be something like a vertical axis watermill. As such it doesn't need to have the huge tip speed.

The design that I remember looking like it would be most successful was one that had 3 cables set up much like the tower tri-poles set up. Periodically it had an area that would widen out to give it more stability. These areas had vans to keep them faced into the current. The bottom of the cables were anchored just a oil rigs anchor themselves. Every so often, you would have a pump that pushed water up a pipe to the surface. The pipes were powered by vertical axis watermills. Basically, these were just large buckets arranged around a ring that ran the pumps.

At the top of the "rig" was a turbine that ran a generator. Since the electronics and such were never in the water, they were not at risk.

They do have things that can keep the corrosive effects of salt water away for quite some time and each individual pump could be shut down without affecting the whole. This would allow robotic subs to take them apart and put new parts ever few years, allowing the old parts to be repaired or replace.

Even if it was only a few hundred feet, the amount of water being pushed up the pipe would power a large turbine.

What's pushing the water up the pipe? Do you realize how much power that will consume?
dehammer wrote:
I don't remember where I saw this, since it was decades go, but it might have been in popular science or some mag like that.

Oh THERE's a reference for science and engineering!



The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 16:50
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
HarveyH55 wrote:

You don't need to be in the ocean, to get the destructive effects of saltwater...
Yet there are structures that have been in the ocean for decades.

Technology has gotten that far yet.
Totally autonomous robots, no, but we do use them with people controlling them to do things at great depths.

Wouldn't this sort of get in the way of boat traffic?
About the same as an oil rig. Likely a lost smaller though.

What about marine life? Doubt the local fishermen want pre-sliced fish.
It would be possible to have things at a distance that would prevent fish of a certain size away without disrupting the flow.
08-05-2019 18:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:

You don't need to be in the ocean, to get the destructive effects of saltwater...
Yet there are structures that have been in the ocean for decades.
They require continuous maintenance too. Remember, that costs money.
dehammer wrote:
Technology has gotten that far yet.
Totally autonomous robots, no, but we do use them with people controlling them to do things at great depths.

That we do. One rather famous use is to dismantle the Fukushima reactor debris which is underwater. These sorts of machines are limited in what they can do, though. They are also very slow. It is simply easier to maintain the equipment with men.
dehammer wrote:
Wouldn't this sort of get in the way of boat traffic?
About the same as an oil rig. Likely a lost smaller though.
No, it wouldn't be in the way of any ship traffic except submarines.
dehammer wrote:

What about marine life? Doubt the local fishermen want pre-sliced fish.
It would be possible to have things at a distance that would prevent fish of a certain size away without disrupting the flow.

Fish are not the problem. Barnacles, seaweed, coral, algae, and other stuff that grows on the equipment itself is the problem.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 18:53
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
They require continuous maintenance too. Remember, that costs money.
Already planned for.

It is simply easier to maintain the equipment with men.
Simpler, but much more dangerous. Some people put the lives of people over profit.

No, it wouldn't be in the way of any ship traffic except submarines.
To keep maintenance cost down, all the electronics and electrical equipment would be above ground. This keeps them out of the water and puts them in positions that men in short sleeve shirt could work on them in safety. THAT means they would be in position ships would have to go around. Most likely they would not be put in shipping lanes.

Fish are not the problem. Barnacles, seaweed, coral, algae, and other stuff that grows on the equipment itself is the problem.
Those are a problem that can be dealt with, using normal maintenance. If you read his line, it WAS about fish.
08-05-2019 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
They require continuous maintenance too. Remember, that costs money.
Already planned for.

Frankly, I doubt that.
dehammer wrote:
It is simply easier to maintain the equipment with men.
Simpler, but much more dangerous. Some people put the lives of people over profit.

Did you know that people work underwater as a matter of routine?
dehammer wrote:
No, it wouldn't be in the way of any ship traffic except submarines.
To keep maintenance cost down, all the electronics and electrical equipment would be above ground. This keeps them out of the water and puts them in positions that men in short sleeve shirt could work on them in safety. THAT means they would be in position ships would have to go around. Most likely they would not be put in shipping lanes.

Robots are slow and clumsy.
dehammer wrote:
Fish are not the problem. Barnacles, seaweed, coral, algae, and other stuff that grows on the equipment itself is the problem.
Those are a problem that can be dealt with, using normal maintenance. If you read his line, it WAS about fish.

Barnacles, seaweed, coral, algae, and other stuff that grows on the equipment itself is the problem. I am not talking about fish. I don't think you are considering the maintenance involved at all. You are just hand waving. These machines don't produce much power (although they at least produce it, unlike your machine), but they don't produce much.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 22:24
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Did you know that people work underwater as a matter of routine?
At 1000 feet?
Robots are slow and clumsy.
But they would be good for swapping items to bring the old item up for maintenance.
I am not talking about fish.
The discussion you interrupted was about fish.
but they don't produce much.
depends on their size.
08-05-2019 22:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
Did you know that people work underwater as a matter of routine?
At 1000 feet?

Who says the machine is 1000 ft down?
dehammer wrote:
Robots are slow and clumsy.
But they would be good for swapping items to bring the old item up for maintenance.

Not really. They are slow and clumsy.
dehammer wrote:
I am not talking about fish.
The discussion you interrupted was about fish.

WRONG. The discussion was about sea life affecting the machine. You are losing context again.
dehammer wrote:
but they don't produce much.
depends on their size.

Irrelevant.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 23:08
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Irrelevant.
Good description of everyone of your post.
09-05-2019 02:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
Irrelevant.
Good description of everyone of your post.


Non-sequitur fallacy. You have lost context. Trolling.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 02:39
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Itn
09-05-2019 02:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
Itn

Trolling.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 03:05
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I know you are, and I just showed your picture.
09-05-2019 03:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
dehammer wrote:
I know you are, and I just showed your picture.

Try English. It works better.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 03:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I think the pictures says it all.
26-07-2019 06:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
dehammer wrote: try EVERYTHING possible, no matter how unlikely, to find a solution?


What about nuclear power?

Power from the earth's gravity was the first and greatest with hydro electric. Combine that with nuclear and we're golden.


26-07-2019 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
dehammer wrote: try EVERYTHING possible, no matter how unlikely, to find a solution?


What about nuclear power?

Nuclear power has a lot of political problems, mostly. Earlier plant designs could fail in such a way as to present a hazard to the surrounding communities. Today's designs are much safer, and even if a tidal wave destroys a reactor it still won't put widespread areas in danger. A case demonstrating exactly that is the Daii-ichi reactor at the Fukushima plant in Tokyo. No one was killed by radiation. The reactor was destroyed. The fuel it contained has melted into a gloriously ugly wreck now underwater and is currently being disassembled (very slowly) by robots.
tmiddles wrote:
Power from the earth's gravity was the first and greatest with hydro electric

Gravity isn't power. It's a force. The power you are referring to is called kinetic energy over time and distance. Hydroelectric power is the ultimate form of solar power, but it's not possible to build such a facility just anywhere. The geology has to be right to do it. You need a river, an altitude drop over a short space, and solid anchoring points for the dam you need.
tmiddles wrote:
Combine that with nuclear and we're golden.

Not quite. Both of these forms of power are fixed. They are not mobile. A lot of our energy requirements require mobile power, such as cars, railroads, ships, and aircraft. Further, not everyone is comfortable with nuclear power. That leaves hydroelectric power, but it too has its detractors.

The popular forms of 'green' power are wind and direct solar. Unfortunately, neither of these forms of power provide sufficient power without consuming vast tracts of real estate, and even then have their risks of use. Also, they too are fixed power supplies, not mobile ones.

Carbon fueled power plants are small, efficient, and actually pretty clean. The fire in them is hot enough to burn away any particulates, and burning a hydrocarbon produces only water and CO2 as a product if it's burned efficiently. The biggest problem with them is impurities in the fuel, such as sulfur, calcium, mercury, etc. Not every fuel contains these impurities.

Side effects of any fire is ozone. In fact it is one way to make ozone. This ozone will clean the air around the plant as well. In cars, it can combine with an inefficient burn that contains unburned fuel in the exhaust to produce smog. This is easily minimized by a simple bit of plumbing called the EGR system. Now that all cars have EGR, smog is not nearly the problem it used to be. The use of FADEC engines makes the burn much more efficient too, reducing the release of unburned fuel and particulates dramatically.

In summary, there is no perfect power plant. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. What you are looking for is a good trade off for the application the power is being applied to.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-07-2019 18:44
26-07-2019 19:05
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
There are alternatives for generating electricity, but gasoline, or liquid fuels, will always be superior in mobile applications. An electric vehicle needs to be charge, and takes hours. Only takes a few minutes to fill a gas tank, and you can drive all week. Electric car needs charging almost daily. There is a fast charge option, which is that bad option, since it usually shortens the lifespan of your expensive to replace battery. There are a few newer chemistry batteries, that claim to tolerate fast charging, but suspect it's mostly marketing, and more expensive. Haven't look into them much, but didn't see a huge jump in service life. Basically, they want that $3,500 battery to be replaced in 3-5 years, so you'll likely just buy a whole new car.
26-07-2019 23:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
HarveyH55 wrote:
liquid fuels, will always be superior .


Battery tech is evolving though. I'd expect more breakthroughs.


27-07-2019 01:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
liquid fuels, will always be superior .


Battery tech is evolving though.

This is simply ridiculous. It stems from not understanding how a battery works or what it really is.

Batteries are based on electrochemistry and the galvanic series of metals.

Any two dissimilar metals, when brought in contact with each other, will produce a voltage, and you get a brief current that allows the metals retain their voltage even after contact is broken.

By itself this isn't useful. This is known as the galvanic potential between the metals, a term named after Galvani, who discovered the phenomenon while dissecting frogs.

What is also needed is an electrolyte. This is a material containing ions. You immerse the different metals into the electrolyte leaving part of them sticking out.

Connecting the metals again produces the galvanic voltage between them, but this time, the ions in the electrolyte replace the lost electrons in one metal, and fill in positive 'holes' in the other.

This neutralizes the electrolyte by converting it into a salt. When all the ions are used up, the battery is dead.

Some batteries are rechargeable. You can put ions back into the electrolyte by forcing current backwards through the battery. One of the best examples of these is the lead-acid battery commonly found in cars.

In this battery, one metal is lead, the other a lead oxide (which has a different word function, and therefore a different position on the galvanic series). The electrolyte is sulfuric acid in water. This produces a lot of H+ ions and OH- ions, plenty for either side of the battery.

The salt that is formed when a lead-acid cell discharges is lead sulfate. This is a solid that can precipitate out of solution an rest on the bottom of the battery box. As the battery is recharged, it does not necessarily come back into solution. The water still has plenty of sulfuric acid though, and H+ and OH- ions again are available.

Eventually, lead sulfate builds up in the bottom of the box and begins to touch the plates of the battery, shorting them out. When this becomes a bit enough problem (typically it takes about 5 years), the battery will no longer charge to a useful level. The battery is dead and must be replaced. You can extend the life somewhat by dumping out the acid, rinsing out the battery to get as much lead sulfate out as you can, then putting in fresh acid. This will let it last another 1 to 2 years.

Lead is heavy. Nickle and cadmium is lighter, so we began building rechargeable batteries with these materials. The charge/discharge cycle produces oxygen gas, however, and this can overpressure the battery, opening a safety vent in the casing somewhere. If that happens, the battery is dead.

With the ability to cheaply smelt lithium, we can now make lithium based batteries. Lithium is the lightest of the metals, making the battery exceptionally light. Perfect for cell phones, flying toys or professional remote quadcopters, wearable electronics, small computers and electronic gadgetry of every kind, lithium batteries can really fill this role nicely.

Unfortunately, lithium batteries are NOT rechargeable. Worse, they can catch fire if you draw too much current through them. The fire is class D. It's a metal fire. It burns hot and the only way to put it out is to cover it with sand, breaking the fire triangle by removing the heat.

Fortunately, lithium oxide batteries ARE rechargeable, nearly as light as the lithium metal ones, and are a LOT safer if they burn (a simple class A fire. You can put it out with water.). It is these batteries in common use in portable electronics today.

All batteries have a value associated with them called the internal resistance. This is simply the resistance the ions present to 'reload' the metals so to speak, and is measured in ohms. It acts exactly like a resistor was put in series with the battery.

Lead acid cells use a liquid electrolyte, giving a very low internal resistance. This makes them very suitable for high current requirements, such as starting a car. Weight is a factor, but no so much in a car.

Lithium cells also have a low internal resistance, but it is not zero. You can only charge or recharge a battery so fast. In the case of lithium oxide batteries, exceeding this rate can cause a battery fire.

A battery isn't magick. It is essentially a bucket for electrons. It must be filled from somewhere, either by putting in a charged electrolyte to begin with, or by putting a current backwards through the battery to make your own electrolyte. Like any bucket, you can only fill 'em so fast and empty 'em so fast.

Now you can say are you building a better bucket, but it's still a bucket.

tmiddles wrote:
I'd expect more breakthroughs.


Sure, I do to. But it's still a bucket.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 05:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
liquid fuels, will always be superior .


Battery tech is evolving though. I'd expect more breakthroughs.


doc worth watching


Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Must read letter:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Our leaders should read this204-12-2018 23:19
An open letter to the Prime Minister on the climate crisis, from 154 scientists - August 24, 20161216-12-2017 01:03
Letter to NASA From Skeptical NASA Employees426-07-2017 02:13
Read this and think4924-09-2016 06:26
An open letter to all members of Climate-debate.com7202-11-2015 22:55
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact