On Jun 16, 12:08 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 15, 5:10 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 15, 3:26 pm, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 8:53 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 6:51 pm, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:31 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 8:59 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 9:55 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 12:02 am, "Spaceman" <space... at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:

"Williamknowsbest" <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ebe75388-e9d6-466f-a157-e0c8a403b07e at (no spam) x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Anyone who visits my web site and fills out the contact information
may request information including such photos.
http://www.usoal.com

Nice business.
Must be raking in money.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Its highly leveraged at present - so, like Churchill I find I must
rely on allies I don't particularly trust or like!  lol.  But we will
prevail, that's for sure.

Hey William, have you seen this paper?

http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm

Please check out a more reliable source

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Schultz.pdf

Thanks.  Thats a very interesting link.

And accurate.

They describe a direct-thermal solar to hydrogen process where they
achieved 1 to 2% efficiency.  

Interesting.  Thermal cycles using nuclear or solar sources have
demonstrated over 60% efficiency.  I have a hybrid cycle using sulfide/
sulfate - that is 55% efficient.

The interesting part was the section
near the end talking about efficiencies of various methods.

The Stanford paper is a more reliable source of information.

Probably more up to date.  I don't remember seeing a date on the one I
posted a link to, but apparently the state of the art has progressed
since.

Obviously.

Apparently, the solar-to-hydrogen efficiency obtained using silicon
photovoltaic cells and an alkaline electrolyzer is about 6%.  

That efficiency has been achieved certainly.   Is it the highest
efficiency possible?  No.   As I said, I have a hybrid system that is
55% efficient, which is less than the peak of 60% - however, my system
is the lowest cost per watt.

The
conversion efficiency for a solar dish Stirling generator combined
with an alkaline electrolyzer is 19%.  

Stanford and General Atomics report 60% efficiency - my system is only
55% efficient, but has the lowest cost per watt of any other system.

The long term solar-to-hydrogen
efficiency goal established by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory is 25%.

This was true 20 years ago.  That value has been exceeded recently by
more than double.

Now you come along and say you can achieve 55% thermodynamic
efficiency

Yes.  Its a hybrid cycle - involving BOTH eletrolytic process and heat
with a sulfide/sulfate process.

with a device that is relatively inexpensive to boot.  

Yes.  The MEMs PV/Electrolysis 'dot' unit is 0.775 cents  per square
millimeter ($547 per 300 mm wafer) and operates at 2500x solar
intensity -which means a square meter of collector contains 400 sq mm
and  adds $3.10 per square meter to panel system cost.

How much precision do you need to get the 2500X light beam to hit
right on the little dot?  

I'm at about 16% of the limit for this material.

How much precision is possible with a PET
hot press molded shape?  

Well, one can go through the relevant optical calculations, but since
we can't even get heat engines right, around here, lets take another
route.

This isn't an optics issue its a manufacturing issue.

When you manufacture an optical device, its an optics issue.  You
don't know what you're talking about here.   Think clearly about your
objection.

 What kind of
tolerances do you need and what kind of tolerances can the process
provide with mass production.

Optical tolerances - surfaces accurate to a quarter wavelength of
light - these are routinely mass produced with PET - lens covers, for
automobiles, reflectors for flashlights, packaging that looks shiny
and bright.

I suggest reading Optical Manufacturing by R. M. Scott  specifically
Applied Optics and Optical Engineering, Volume III. of that set,
edited by Rudolf Kingslake. Published by Academic Press, Inc., a
subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1965

Please understand, we are use about 1/6th of the tolerances we are
capable of to matain a 2400x increase in solar intensity from the
solar disk.

Consider a hot press molded package, or a blow molded water bottle..
They're both very shiny, and smooth and attractive as packaging
material because of that.  PET is a preferred packaging material
because of its optical qualities.   This derives from their optically
smooth surface.  Plain polyethelyne is dull by comparison - that's
because the surface is not optically smooth.   Obviously, they're
precise enough.

I don't know the answer but that sounds like
a potential design challenge.

Because you don't know, you can't really say - you are merely looking
for roadblocks in an effort to sound smart - as a consequence you
reveal your ignorance.  On the positive side, you openly admit your
ignorance which makes you easier to take than others who don't admit
such, or worse yet, aren't even aware of what they do not know.

The lenses consist of 2 sheets of 100 micron thick PET hot press
molded into lens shapes - and bonded together in a water bath to
encase water - which is the lens medium.   The focal point is inside
the lens medium.   The water also reacts at the dot when illuminated.

A square meter of two PET films each 100 microns thick  contains 200
cc of PET massing 350 grams costing 0.15 cents per gram totalling
$0.53 per square meter.   Water cost is nil.   Total cost is $3.63 per
square meter.   At 1,000 watts per square meter solar influx, and 55%
efficiency, this generates 550 watts for $3.63 - which 0.726 cents per
peak watt.

This is just the cost of the solar panel.  The entire system - runs on
average $0.07 per peak watt - which is expected to drop to $0.02 per
peak watt as volume increases.

Your
efficiency is more than double the long term goal.  

Long term goal 20 years ago has been doubled recently - you are
absolutely right.   I would suggest you read a more current, and more
reliable source of information - such as Stanford and General Atomics
and current DOE literature.

This seems like a
huge breakthrough.  

It builds on a number of improvements.

As long as you have your designs protected by
patents, why don't you publish some results in a peer-reviewed
journal?  

They already have been published as you can see in my reference.

You say you don't like the allies you have to rely on.  

They're the best ones I have - hell, sometimes, I don't even like my
kids - that doesn't mean I don't love them and cherish them.

If
this breakthrough is real

Fuck you.

Easy killer.

No, fuck you for gratuitously calling me a liar.  

Bill what crawled up your ass?  

You gratuitously stating I was a liar.

When did that happen?

When you implied for absolutely no valid reason that I didn't do the
work I said I did.

Qualifying my statement with an "if"
is not calling you a liar.  

In the context of your discussion, yes it is.   Its like calling a
black man by the n-word and preceding it with the statement 'with all
due respect sir, you are a' - qualifying the statement doesn't make it
any more palatable.  

Now you're just being silly.  

No I'm not.   Obviously you know what a syllogism is - you constructed
one that concluded I was lying based on faulty and incomplete analysis
of what I said here.

"If" is hardly insulting in this or any
other context.  

Not true.   Consider the following syllogism;

   1) If [X] then [something highly insulting]
   2) [X]

Implies

    3)  Therefore [something highly insulting]

Replace [X] with 'skin color less than 0.5 albedo'
Replace [something highly insulting]  with 'then you are a dirty n-
word'

So me carefully constructing a syllogism like this, and then saying
your skin albedo is falls below 0.5 - is highly insulting - because
this use of the n-word is perforce highly insulting in ANY context -
even one using 'if'

This demonstrates logically that your assertion that any use of the
word 'if' cannot be highly insulting.

If this really bothers you (which I doubt) grow some
thicker skin.

I'm not saying the things I'm saying because it bothers me, I am
saying the things I'm saying to point out that you are going out of
your way, against the facts, against logic, and against common sense
to say highly charged uncharitable, and insulting things about me for
no damned good reason.  You claim to be the soul of reason and
fairness - when you say these things - obviously, this is not true -
and needs to be pointed out.

Fact is you don't know one way or the other, so
to say any more than that is an error for you.

Right, and normal sane people use the word "if" to qualify such
statements.

Abnormal insane people like you use 'if' to create highly charged
unfair, and abusive syllogisms to make it seem their flawed logic
seems to have a logical form.  I mean

   If X then Y
   X
   therefore Y

follows the form of logic - but if X is flies in the face of reality
and Y is a highly charged abusive conclusion - you are being abusive
and illogical regardless of your adherence to form.

Consider

    If you float on water then you are a witch
    you float on water

there fore

    you are a witch

follows the form of logic to conclude that you are a witch - even
though floating on water is a natural outcome for most people, and
even though witches don't exist outside the fantasies of enthusiasts.

Obviously erring in a
way that impunes my honesty is gratuitously calling me a liar.

"erring in a way that impunes my honesty"? What the fuck are talking
about?

I'm talking about you calling into question the veracity of my
statements without one tangible reason for doing so.

 If I was calling you a liar I would tell you your claims are
impossible.  

This is logically inconsistent and is not what you in fact did.   One
can be a liar even when claims are possible.   Which is what you did -
you questioned the veracity of my direct statements that I have built
units and that they function as I have indicated.  

At first you cited
the fact that 55% was impossibly high efficiencies.   After I quoted a
United Atomics and Stanford study that achieved 60% routinely - you
then continued your argument saying there was no proof I did what I
said I did - not even acknowledging your error.   Obviously you wish
to deprecate my efforts no matter what evidence is presented.  Clearly
you are continuing this argument for no other purpose than to cover
with a flurry of angry words the clear accomplishments I have made.

It seems many in this group have staked out that
position, but I am not one of them.

That's because such a position is indefensible, in light of not only
my work, but the work of others in the field.

It is just reflecting the fact that you
have *not* provided proof

Bullshit.   Patents, prototypes,

where?

http://www.freshpatents.com/Solar-panels-with-liquid-superconcentrato...

photos by filling out a contact card,
and test results by filling out a contact card, is far from providing
zero proof.

Whether you have proof or not, it has not been provided to me at this
time,

It has been offered to you, yet you have gone out of your way to say
damning things despite the easy availability of the very things you
ask for.  Obviously, you are not the fair honest and balanced observer
you pretend to be.

therefore I qualify my statements with an "if".  Deal with it.

No, you created the syllogism

    If Mook doesn't have third party confirmation or photos on his
website then he must be lying given the tremendous advances he has
made (I'm paraphrasing)

then after establishing this to your satisfaction you continue by
saying

   Mook doesn't have third party confirmation or photos on his
website,

then you conclude

therefore, one must conclude Mook is a lair

Its the second and third steps I am objecting to.   Its also your
pattern of ignoring reality merely to denigrate my efforts that I wish
to point out.

Remember, you started out saying that 55% was outrageously efficient
and could NEVER be achieved by any sort of system...    remember that?

Then, I gave you unimpeachable evidence that 60% has been in the
literature for 5 years or more

what did you do?

You changed your syllogism from

  If mook's system violates thermodynamic laws it must be a lie
  Mook violated thermodynamic laws

  Therefore mook is a liar

to

   If mook doesn't have third party confirmation and photos given the
breakthroughs he claims then he's a liar
   Mook doesn't have third party confirmation or photos

   therefore mook is a liar

while deleting all references to your earlier syllogism and my
response.

when I said you can have photos and mpegs by filling out a contact
screen at my website, and you can look at my patents to find test
results and third party confirmation - do you apologize and announce
that Mook isn't a liar?

No.

Now you prefer to call me thin skinned, imply I'm crazy, rather than
deal with the reality of your behavior - so, even if I do have photos,
even if I do have third party test results that confirm my
achievements,

you conclude based on my deconstruction of what you said
- that I'm insane

- so, like I said before - fuck you sweetheart - you
are worthless to me at this point.

that what you invented is real.  

Screw you.

Now you're just being a dick.

No, you're the dick sweetheart, I'm only giving you what you
deserve.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5200862

make vehicles even simpler and more powerful. With an adequately
designed roadway system we wouldn't need fuels batteries or flywheels
at all! Which is why the oil companies worked with the automobile
companies to buy up and put out of business the the street car
companies in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines

Carnot is not a problem to itself - its merely a description of how
things are. If you are counting on violating Carnot efficiency, then
you are counting on things operating for your engine differently than
the real world operates. This is tantamount to saying your engine
doesn't work. When one learns that you haven't built the engine,
they don't need to look at drawings.

When I carefully explain to you how heat engines work, and you reply
that your engine is not a heat engine - when in fact it is - I really
don't have to look at your drawings to know you are clueless about
heat engines. When you say a stream turns a fan multiple times per
stroke and that's why its more efficient I know you are clueless about
efficiencies and transmissions. I really don't have to look at your
drawings. When you say Carnot is a problem for itself, not your
engine - I really don't have to look at your drawings - to know you
are clueless about efficiency and all your claims about efficiency are
wrong.

A free piston engine is an efficient gas generator that is capable of
driving a fan. The fact that you cannot see that Carnot efficiency
applies to this engine as any other - says more about your ignorance
than anything else.

On Jun 15, 3:05 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
The point is, ANYONE no matter where they start, what problems they
face, if they're healthy, can make it in America - haha

MORON


So, why is it you NEED to believe that its not possible for a healthy
person to make it in America? You need to blame others for your
unhappy condition?

Really he says he read Taylor - but obviously doesn't understand it
based on what he says immediately after. An explosion turning a
crank a quarter turn has NOTHING to do with efficiecy. Put a gear
train on that crankshaft and you can turn a wheel as many times as you
like. That Driscoll cannot see that gear ratios have nothing at all
to do with thermal efficiency is obvious. Not so obvious is how to
teach him the realities of engines.

Even a crap school would impart some information. A free piston
engine is so simple to build, I gotta believe that if he's done all he
claims, he could build one from an old lanwmower or chain saw or
something - and hook up a junk turbo charger modified in a machine
shop in his spare time.

Lets say he's a good mechanic, but lacks the theory and math skills.
He should still be able to build a freaking free piston engine and
hook a fan up to it using junk parts - and play around with it until
he sees all the fan is doing is acting like a gear train - he hasn't
done even that. He hasn't done it because he's not even a mechanic -
that's the simplest answer.

Interesting that he says he's read Taylor - well lets go over it then
Driscoll. Set out the equations that compute the efficiency of your
engine - based on the worked examples in Taylor. Lets see it - then
compute the efficiency for me. HINT - it has nothing to do with how
many times the fan turns per free piston cycle.

No I only said you haven't shown *me* proof that you did the work you
said you did.  That is a very different thing.

Since you love syllogisms,

let give you one that is actually relevant
to this discussion

and not some delusional fabricated paranoia.

1)   I can not be certain of something if I have not seen solid and
verifiable proof that it is real.

2)  William Mook has described his invention here and in patents but I
have yet to see to solid and verifiable proof that the invention is
real and works as he claims.

3)   I can not be certain that William Mook's invention is real and
works as claimed.

That is the relevant syllogism.  

At no time have I claimed you are a
liar.

You just can't resist the strawman can you?

 When did I claim to be
the "soul of reason and fairness."  

What a load of nonsense.

Wow.  You're really wound up about this.  

You keep repeating this
nonsense about syllogisms.  

Take a pill, bud.

I gave you the reason.  

I haven't seen verifiable proof that any of it
is true.

 That doesn't mean it isn't true, its just that I haven't yet
seen the proof.

When a bank asks to see proof of income or assets before they loan you
money are they calling you a liar?  

By your absurd logic they are.

They are not simply taking your word on the matter that you have the
assets you claim.  

No they want to see documents, pay stubs, account
statements.  

Its called verifying, dipshit,

and its how the world
works.  

Its not about calling someone a liar.

You know, I don't even know what your device looks like.  

You don't
post any photos or even sketches of it.  

Yet you expect everyone to
have complete faith in its capabilities.  

You take offense that
someone might want to see verification.  

That's amazingly arrogant.

That's because such a position is indefensible, in light of not only
my work, but the work of others in the field.

Well I not the one you need to discuss that with.

It has been offered to you, yet you have gone out of your way to say
damning things despite the easy availability of the very things you
ask for.  Obviously, you are not the fair honest and balanced observer
you pretend to be.

Listen, there is nothing preventing you from putting this stuff (test
reports, photos) on your site for all to see.  

You choose not too.

Therefore, a casual observer such as myself does not have easy access
to verifiable proof.  

That's your fault, not mine

therefore I qualify my statements with an "if".  Deal with it.

No, you created the syllogism

I created this syllogism:
1)   I can not be certain of something if I have not seen solid and
verifiable proof that it is real.
2)  William Mook has described his invention but I have yet to see to
solid and verifiable proof that the invention is real and works as he
claims.
3)   I can not be certain that William Mook's invention is real and
works as claimed.

The rest of that crap about lying and whatnot is just some paranoid BS
made up by you.  It has nothing to do with me.

    If Mook doesn't have third party confirmation or photos on his
website then he must be lying given the tremendous advances he has
made (I'm paraphrasing)

No you are making shit up as you go.  I never said anything about
lying.

Its the second and third steps I am objecting to.   Its also your
pattern of ignoring reality merely to denigrate my efforts that I wish
to point out.

Remember, you started out saying that 55% was outrageously efficient
and could NEVER be achieved by any sort of system...    remember that?

No.  I commented that 55% seemed extremely high but I never used the
words impossible.

No I only said you haven't shown *me* proof that you did the work you
said you did. That is a very different thing.

How is publishing something in a patent - that is available to the
public generally - not showing you something? You are the public and
have access to it, therefore I have shown it to you. Furthermore, I
have asked you to complete a contact screen on my website to receive
additional information. Obviously you are the one choosing not to
gather relevant information before making conclusions about it.
Clearly you do this because you have your own agenda independent of
the relevant data.

You suck at math - therefore, you really didn't understand Taylor and
find what we say confusing.

Williamknowsbest wrote:
You suck at math - therefore, you really didn't understand Taylor and
find what we say confusing.

LOL

Spaceman wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
You suck at math - therefore, you really didn't understand Taylor
and find what we say confusing.

LOL

Hay spacebrains,

What is (-1) * (-1) ?

Lets make

a = 1
b = -1
c = 1

a* a = b* b = c
therefore a = b = c

Spaceman wrote:

Lets make

Let...

a = 1
b = -1
c = 1

a* a = b* b = c
therefore a = b = c

See what I mean. The guy is incredibly stupid or trolling. You pick.

DB wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

Lets make

Let...

a = 1
b = -1
c = 1

a* a = b* b = c
therefore a = b = c

See what I mean. The guy is incredibly stupid or trolling. You pick.

Stupid?
What is stupid about math that is silly and "correct" according to the
math itself.
What is wrong in the math above?
Please point the incorrectness out to all, to show how smart you are, and
prove you are not the troll.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:49:42 -0400, Spaceman wrote:

DB wrote:
Spaceman wrote:

Lets make

Let...

a = 1
b = -1
c = 1

a* a = b* b = c
therefore a = b = c

See what I mean. The guy is incredibly stupid or trolling. You pick.

Stupid?
What is stupid about math that is silly and "correct" according to
the math itself.
What is wrong in the math above?
Please point the incorrectness out to all, to show how smart you
are, and prove you are not the troll.
:)

The square root of 1 is plus or minus 1.

Now climb back under the rock to your troll hole.