Re: eer
From: FEerguy9 (feerguy9_at_cs.com)
Date: 09/28/04
- Next message: Perion: "Re: magnetic field"
- Previous message: philo: "Re: Soldering unleaded components"
- In reply to: Bob Myers: "Re: eer"
- Next in thread: Bob Myers: "Re: eer"
- Reply: Bob Myers: "Re: eer"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Sep 2004 18:57:14 GMT
>
>Electronic electricity repository is an utterly unworkable, crackpot energy
>"concept" that apprently aims to entertain the readers of this group by
>being posted over and over and over again, despite it having been completely
>discredited ten ways to Christmas a long, long time ago. It has absolutely
>no validity at all, and is about as likely to be used for "storing
>electrical energy from any source" as, say, an elephant is of flying to the
>Moon
>on Cavorite wings. EER is supposedly intended to accommodate such
>things as electric vehicles, home heating, etc., but since it's being
>proposed
>by someone who already admits that he knows nothing at all about this
>field, we really, really do have to assume that it's being presented here
>mostly as a weak attempt at humor. The funniest example of where
>"EER" would utterly fail to work is the EV - Frank's crazy notion of an
>electric car that would run on an "ever-accumulating" power source. That
>is to say, this nutcase - but fortunately, no one else who possesses two
>brain
>cells to rub together, thinks that any and all sources of electrical
>energy --
>including "diffuse sources", whatever the hell THOSE are supposed to be
>-- could be collected, combined and stored in the form of capacitance.
>Never mind that Frank doesn't understand that energy isn't stored "in the
>form of capacitance" in the first place, or even the first thing
>about how capacitive storage actually works - this is HIS IDEA, by
>Gawd, and it just seems SO damned attractive (to him) that it simply
>MUST be right! But, wouldn't the capacitor plates be bigger than the
>vehicle? Well, yes they would, but that's just the first in a long, long
>line of both practical and theoretical objections
>to this absurd idea. Of course, Frank has some idea - how this
>idea was obtained is unclear, although we can't put recreational
>pharmaceuticals out of consideration at this point - that a way to increase
>the surface area of the plates *within a small perimeter* could be
>fashioned. Never mind that this wouldn't have the slightest
>impact on the energy density capabilities of the capacitor in question,
>something that can easily be demonstrated by anyone who even barely
>passed freshman geometry - again, this idea is one which Frank is
>clearly in love with, and therefore it MUST be right. And apparently,
>there simply isn't room within Frank's brain for troublesome trivia
>like basic algebra, geometry, or physics. Some might suggest that
>Scanning Tunneling Microscope Technology might be used to find
>those locations within Frank's cerebrum where such things might still
>reside, or we could possible even employ nanotechnology to accomplish
>this (although this seems like a very cruel thing to do to a nanobot) -- but
>clearly, to locate his understanding of these topics, we'll have to use SOME
>methods that could identify items roughly halfway to the molecular level.
>Doing this -- identifying such massive ignorance within a small perimeter
>-- is the heart of any attempt to understand the source of "eer". Such
>a project is undoubtedly needing a commitment of funds roughly equal
>to that of the Human Genome Project, which admittedly is taken on faith
>- and success could be many years away.
>
>I mean, just consider the level of absurdity we're up against here. Frank
>believes that "the object is to configure the plates and dielectric so they
>all fit like Jell-O in a mold, and to make these all small in perimeter --
>while yielding enormous surface area" - as if, again, that is somehow
>going to increase the amount of energy one could store in a given
>volume. We would also have to somehow understand how a statement
>like "it is expected that about 15 sources of renewable energy
>(solar, wind, wave, etc.) would be able to contribute to the 'eer pool'
>of stored electrical energy" has anything at all
>to do with the problems, no, the impossibilities, in what is being
>discussed here. In time, though, an examination of how stupidity
>and ignorance can be stored in this way could effectively replace
>Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central combined as a source
>of much of the nation's entertainment.
>
>NOTE: EER absolutely, in no way, breaks the Second Law! It doesn't
>have to, since there so many OTHER laws that it would have to break
>to get even halfway toward being a viable concept.
>
>If you're as tired of seeing this nonsense as some have claimed, you may
>want to take it up with:
>
>Frank Lincoln
>FEerguy9@cs.com
>eerguy9@aol.com
>eerguy2000@yahoo.com
>
>...but don't expect the rest of us to join you in this. We're having
>too much fun laughing at this stuff!
>
>By the way, In case you hadn't noticed, Frank is VERY weak
>with computers. And physics. And math. And just about any
>other subject you'd have to understand in order to actually make
>a contribution in the field of energy generation and storage.
>
>
>But, as he says, "this is no more than a guess from a novice"
>and "there are some mistakes in here", showing that, if nothing
>else, he is truly a master of extreme understatement.
>
>In one sentence, he is saying that, despite all evidence and
>arguments presented by those who actually DO understand
>these subjects, that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible,
>regardless of what those stupid ol' physics texts would have
>you believe.
>
>But it's by no means an energy concept.
>
> And no, there is no 21st Law of Thermodynamics. Once again,
>we already have more than sufficient laws to show what
>nonsense this whole EER thing is.
>
>But there IS a 21st Century Law of Crackpot Behavior.
>Simply stated, it is, "No energy concept involving capacitance
>shall ever be considered as unworthy of posting over and over
>and over again, no matter how silly it is or how many times it
>has been utterly discredited."
>
>Freud could not have seen this coming, but then in his day, there
>was not the multitude of diffuse (and obtuse) forms of crackpot
>thinking that we are forced to contend with today.
>
>There is NO way around this Law. By that, I mean that there is
>apparently nothing we can do but continue to be subjected to
>Frank's endless postings, and take whatever meager enjoyment
>we can from them. There is simply no way to begin solving the
>"diffuse" (at best!) nature of his understanding of the subjects
>at hand before we would be able to put the energy behind his
>constant posting to work in any effective way. Say, basket weaving
>or bowling-ball polishing.
>
>
>Just remeber that, in Frank's little world, and no matter what any
>of us say, this will remain "A goal......an idea......a prediction......."
>Crackpotism is easy, and there is no shortage of such here.
>
> After all, we ARE talking about someone who seriously believes
>that, thanks SOLELY to his Marvelous Invention,
>
>"We don't need oil.
>We don't need batteries.
>We don't need internal combustion engines.
>We don't need fusion.
>We don't need hybrids.
>We don't need hydrogen-powered cars.
>We don't need ethanol.
>We don't need natural gas.
>We don't need methane.
>We don't even need efficiency.
>We don't even need conservation."
>
>I ask you - could one even hope for better evidence of the
>absurdity of this whole idea than THAT?
The absurdity is in hanging on to an archiac form of energy.
Frank
- Next message: Perion: "Re: magnetic field"
- Previous message: philo: "Re: Soldering unleaded components"
- In reply to: Bob Myers: "Re: eer"
- Next in thread: Bob Myers: "Re: eer"
- Reply: Bob Myers: "Re: eer"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
