Re: Here it comes

On Nov 17, 1:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:18:44 -0800, Willie.Mookie wrote:
On Nov 17, 2:46 am, Bill Ward <bw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:00:53 -0800, Willie.Mookie wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:24 am, Bill Ward <bw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:54:27 -0600, jgraber wrote:

Jim Black <fmla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Would the light on the solar panel still
be 1,200x as concentrated as the light striking the ground?

Across 1/1,200th the area - which is the point. Think of
light on the ocean floor at the beach. There are spots of
light and spots of darkness. The total amount of light
doesn't change, merely its distribution.

Which doesn't violate Liouville's theorem because, unlike the
scenario I'm asking you about, the ocean is not illuminated
uniformly from all directions.

But the ocean or a pool focusing light into spots of light and
dark on the bottom of the water describe precisely what's going
on here.

Not at all. I asked you what would happen if your device (or a
modified version with a higher melting point) was illuminated with
uniform and isotropic 6000K blackbody radiation. If you did this
in the case of the water waves, you would not get bright and dark
spots.

Is the Sun a source of non-uniform isotropic radiation at the
collector? How can isotropic radiation be uniform?
For example, you mean for the collector to be surrounded by a
sphere
that was heated to 6000K? As the size of the surrounding sphere
becomes larger, the uniformity of the radiation as seen by the
collector becomes more uniform.

But you seem to be saying that under those conditions, your
concentrator would still work, and would focus all or most of the
energy that hits the fish-eye lens onto a much smaller region
(casting a shadow on the surrounding area, of course). This claim
of yours is what I am objecting to; it violates the second law of
thermodynamics because the increased power per unit area would
enable you to heat something to a temperature above 6000K. No
calculation needs to be done to see that.

For a different concentrator:
Suppose a standard satellite dish parabolic reflector concentrates
sunlight from a 3m diameter to a 1cm diameter, and a synthetic ruby
downward reflector (some other name for it) concentrates the 1cm
diameter to a 1mm diameter; the 1mm focus is reported to be hotter
than the sun. Is this believable? (reported in Pop Science or some
such)
If so, then it could theoretically use the sun as the cool end
of a Stirling engine. Does this violate the 2nd law? If not,
why?

If you've transferred heat from a cool body (the sun) to a hot body
(the receiver), you've violated the second law. We're still here, so
I kind of doubt that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're getting lost in the translation.

Solar pumped lasers have been built.

Take a large parabolic concentrator and focus the light onto a fabrey-
perot cell to produce a solar pumped laser.

Take the laser output and focus it to a very tiny spot not possible to
achieve with the solar image - greater than 40,000x - which is the
limit for the solar image, but not for a nicely built laser..

The laser spot can be hotter than the surface of the sun. No problem.

Does this mean that the 2nd law is violated?

NO!

Why?

Because the total power of the laser is not increased even while the
power per unit surface area increases without bound.

Let's say the laser is 50% efficient. That means for each 4 watts of
power entering the system from the sun, a 2 watts of laser energy
emerges.

Now, Bill Ward and Jim Black would have us believe such was impossible
because we can run a heat engine on the temperature difference between
the laser target and the solar image - wrongly arguing it would
violate the 2nd law.

Clearly one can see why when you actually run a heat engine in this
way that recovers 50% of the energy difference between the hot side,
and the cold side - and find that for every 4 watts of power entering
the system from the sun, 1 watt shows up in the heat engine.

I don't want to go too deeply into this sort of analysis for my
system, at the level it makes sense, but at this level its easy to see
that making hot spots out of cold spots does not violate the 2nd law
if the total power of the hotspot is less than or equal to the total
power in the cool spot. Substitute bright spots and not so bright
spots and plainly you can see they're off track in their analysis. I
can't say too much about where they jumped track however without
giving up more than i'd like at this time.

Of course you can make a heat engine pump heat uphill.

thank you.

You're moving the
goalposts when you introduce active devices such as a laser (or a spark
gap for that matter).

or luminescent dye or any number of things....

Your descriptions have included only lenses, mirrors, and filters,

hmm..

which IIRC, will not concentrate the sun's energy to a temperature
hotter than the sun.

I've never claimed to do this. You wrongly concluded my system must be
capable of doing this. You also wrongly claimed that ANY system that did
this would violate thermodynamic law. Clearly you are now backing down
from that statement.

You seem easily confused. The only consistent thing I note in your
conversation with me is your propensity to bring up arcane aspects of
optics and thermodynamics and wrongly proclaim your opinion that I'm a
fraud. This seems to be the focus of your effort here.

The only active devices you've
mentioned are the PV junctions themselves.

I am merely describing my new tracking system.

I'm becoming more convinced you're blowing smoke.

Really? When were you less convinced? As I said a few days ago, this
seems to be the focus of your efforts - to say that - regardless of what
happens in the interim. Fact is, you've already made up your mind. Why
is a matter for you and your therapist to discuss.

Have you even
constructed successful proof of concept models,

Yes.

or are you simply relying
on modeling programs?

hmm.. you're making a false choice. Really you are. Obviously I've done
both.

I've been working on this for 12 years sir. I'm not going to give it away
now. haha.

If you're actually signing contracts, you should have at least
production prototypes

Duh! Plainly you again, are making false choices and forcing conclusions
that are not necessary. Obviously you seek to engage me in a political
debate that has little to nothing to do with technology.

or a pilot run in accelerated
environmental test, or you're going to get burned big time.

See? Clearly you are merely constructing bogus arguments to find an
excuse to say things like you just said of me. Obviously I have given you
no real cause to make such dismissive statements. So, I'm plainly
justified in questioning your motives here.

You are overly defensive,

I am being attacked, obviously when one is attacked, it is reasonble
to defend oneself. But I agree with the unstated observation that
reality needs no defense. On that I agree.. .

and that is part of my concern.

As Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook!" Of course once he said
that, everyone thought that perhaps he might be.

When you first
posted several years ago, I took your posts at face value. I think I was
a bit gullible myself, as your progress now seems more imaginary than real.

My progress has been steady.

My motives are simple - I would like to see solar become a practical
source of energy. There are significant difficulties in getting costs
down because of the low power density and irregularity of sunlight.

Yes,.

You have shown some original, creative ideas, but no indication of any
ability to get them to a volume manufactured product.

Did I send you the factory specs my engineers and architects
developed?

The more you post,
the clearer it becomes.

Really? haha..

If my posts get you to face reality, even by
pissing you off, they will serve their purpose.

Reality is what reality is - even if its beyond your grasp.

I have no interest in
your ego, just the results.

Its the results I'm defending.

Remember, the more gullible customers are, the harder they sue.

Obviously you wanted to call my customers gullible and had no real basis
to do so. Plainly no one invests billions of dollars without
substantial and detailed support from independent research labs, and
qualified vendors.

When you get lost in a discussion, you use the words, "clearly",
"obviously", and "plainly", as though they somehow validate your logic.

Nonsense. You have no substantive objection based on logic so you
make statements like these that sound like they come from a Chinese
fortune cookie.

They don't, but they are a "tell" about your uncertainty.

Nonsense. Again, you have nothing of real substance to say that
supports any negative conclusion of me, so you pull this out of your
ass. haha..

Remember that
when you're negotiating.

hmm.. thanks for the tip.. lol.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who notices.

No, I'm sure you ARE the only one who gets wrapped up in this
contemplation of your navel because its YOUR ego that cannot bear to
grasp that I've got the solution and I'm implementing it in a way
that is competitive with mainstream energy.

But there's another point. You don't go to market half-assed. You
spend considerable time finding out who is an early adopter why, and
offer them real value from the moment they do business with you. Also
in your marketing efforts, you don't over sell or exaggerate or lie. You
tell them what the benefits and the risks and costs are and the
immediate benefits the potential range of benefits and the ultimate
benefit goals of the program they're signing up for.

You are suggesting in your statements that I have hoodwinked gullible
people into doing something stupid. That clearly is needlessly offensive
- given your total lack of knowledge of me - and even actionable in
certain light - given the public nature of this forum and the likely
cost to me if someone happened to take your bull*** seriously.

Your creative imagination sometimes works against you.

Obviously people are reponsible for the harm they do with their words
in a public place. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is a crime.
Clearly you are vainly attempting to ignore the reality that you are
responsible for the things you say of me.

for the record;

(1) I have built prototypes

(2) I have had these prototypes tested by independent and qualified
labs.

these steps involve everything you have asked about and assumed I have
not done.

(3) I have repeated steps 1 and 2 over a dozen times to arrive at my
current designs.

(4) I have used these research results to have qualified engineers
and architects do detailed engineering of large-scale fabrication
processes, estimate costs, plan contracts, plan execution on those
contracts

This goes far beyond what you have even concieved of in your simplistic
analysis. So, I have not only done all you suggest needed to be done,
but have gone far beyond it with this step.

You've gone through the motions, but do you have any actual production
hardware under test?

Yes

(5) I have used these results in conjunction with other qualified
analysts and consultants to develop market penetration strategies and
develop an order of battle along developing a business model.

I not only have working prototypes with proven results, I have
architectural and engineering drawings of large-scale production plants
and have figured out who my suppliers are going to be, and made make-buy
decisions along the supply chain and evolved a strategic plan for all of
this.

(6) I have used the business model to build a supply chain model and
create a detailed financial plan and optimized it.

(7) I have used that to build strategic relationships for specific
projects and special financing organizations to fund each of those
projects and deliver specific range of assets to those customers in a
specific time frame.

Without a tested, working, proven reliable, manufacturable product, so far
it's indistinguishable from an ambitious scam.

Bull*** You just love concluding that whatever I do is a scam. At
some point you will be called to task for such behavior. You DID get
the information I sent you didn't you? So, why are you being a ***
now?

Customers like these - dealt with honestly, fairly, and directly -
understand the risks and potential rewards, and in most instances have
realized huge benefits by their association with me from the outset
because I have troubled myself to look at things in the way I just
described.

A few tiny parts in a bigger picture;

Land acquisition - the owner of a large surface mine in Arizona
faces large reclamation costs. By law this owner must set aside a
certain percentage of his profits to reclaim the land. A large sinking
fund is created and administered by regulators. (1976 surface
reclamation act). By entering a properly structured solar lease with me
this surface mine operator returns the land to productive use at a
fraction of the cost he might otherwise pay. Demonstrating this lowered
cost (aided by brightfield legislation in 2003) allows release of a
large portion of the sinking fund, and a reduction in reclamation costs
associated with his mining operation. This benefit accrues the land
owner today. In fact, the lease is structured as a payment to me to
develop the infrastructure needed to make use of the land leased to me.
One mining operator paid 50% of their sales into the sinking fund. After
signing a solar lease with me, they reduced that cost to less than 30% -
and had 40% of all the funds accumulated since the mine started,
released to their bottom line. These customers could care less whether
or not I ever build any solar panels. They gladly paid a portion of
their windfall to me and continue to do so - even with no solar panels
on their land.

So you're basically taking environmental money now for benefits to be
delivered in the future. Nice. if you can get away with it.

You ignore the fact that the customer is still liable for clean up is
well aware of this, and is also aware of the execution risk - even so,
the customer has decided to take that risk to gain benefit today. So,
I'm delivering a benefit to a customer today. So, no one's going to
sue me over not getting what they were promised. Remember, you said
those who are the most gullible are the the most likely to sue. Well,
here i am demonstrating that I am dealing with very sophisticated
customers in a very sophisticated way to deliver real value to them
today. Obviously, rather than acknowledge you were wrong you clearly
seek only to spin whatever I say in the most negative way possible
plainly revealing your agenda.

Dual Fuel Facilities - 159 coal fired power plants are being stalled
by environmental concerns in the US. This totals over 78,000 MW of coal
fired capacity. One operator of a coal fired plant entered a contract
with me to supply solar hydrogen to them in exchange for coal and green
credits. They then got licensed as a dual fuel facility - using coal
until such time as I deliver hydrogen. And then, trading coal and green
credits for hydrogen when its available. They gladly paid for a
hydrogen fired burner - to gain quick approval of the plant. They also
gladly entered into a multi-billion dollar offtake contract. (we do not
do a physical trade, we exercise options on a monetary transaction).
This contract then has value today - even if there is a substantial risk
of execution, because people get paid TODAY by entering into the
contract - despite all the risks that are spelled out (3 pages of open
issues as detailed by our engineers and architects)

Again, payment now for future benefits, per governmental regulations

The customer gets benefit today, the customer is still liable for
cleaning up their exhaust and is well aware of the execution risk -
nothing was witheld from them. You speak as if I pulled the wool over
someone's eyes. Besides, this is a direct reply to your plainly
foolish assertion that I would be sued by my customers. Rather than
acknowledge your error and apologize for it, you only take whatever I
say and seek to spin it in the most negative terms possible.
..
Forward fuel sales - having a supply of hydrogen and a supply of
coal called for in multi-billion dollar quantities, and a proven means
to convert the same into jet fuel - allows me to sell forward contracts
of jet fuel to buyers of jet fuel. These forward contracts, discounted
for execution risk, help lower the cost of jet fuel for these buyers
TODAY.

And yet a third time.

A third time you ignore the clear fact that you were wrong in your
earlier assertion, behave as if you never made it, and run off in a
different direction designed merely to denigrate whatever I do.
haha..

Fact is, you say you want to see solar take over. How the hell is
solar going to take over a multi-trillion dollar energy market without
spending tens of billions of dollars every year in risky ways?

The answer is it won't - not without big bucks behind it.

Someone who wanted to see real change would applaud what I've done,
not stretch the limits of logic to find fault.

I've released big bucks into my program. The factory design I sent
you (somewhat out of date and so is not longer critical) shows a $1.6
billion facility - this facility - or its successor design actually -
is now under construction.

In response you say I'm prone to fantasy and imply I should be locked
up. Clearly with absolutely no reason or rationale - merely to further
denigrate the concepts I am spending my life developing that have a
shot at doing what you expect.

How do you think the factory I showed you and all the other elements
of the supply chain for that factory to build 66 GW of solar panels a
year are going to get built?????

I'll tell you how = by finding early adopters who have tens of
billions of dollars to earn by sharing a few billions with a solar
panel plant and supply chain. The funding of this plant along with
the availability of large well defined sites - is what made the large
project finance deals possible. Those projects once completed will
add substantial value and revenue to my core business which will allow
me to eventually acquire oil marketers and coal companies - and begin
selling hydrogen directly into the major energy markets and shut the
oil and coal production down.

Phillips Petroleum from the 1920s to the 1950s bought up and shuttered
street car companies to promote the expansion of the personal
automobile and the use of gasoline through its National City Lines.
Well, I'm going to do the same with the oil companies. I've retained
35% stake in all the projects I build. I will leverage that to buy an
oil remarketer. Consider Sunoco. It has 4300 stations in 28 states.
Its worth around $10 billion. If it were an integrated oil company it
would be worth something on the order of $200 billion. Now imagine
buying Sunoco (I like the stock symbol SUN) and Westmoreland Coal -
and announcing that you are going to create a domestic integrated oil
company that will use solar fuels - sun fuels made from sunlight and
US coal - where half the energy comes from the sun in every gallon.
The cost of production is less than $10 per barrel of petrol - less
than the cost to ship a barrel of crude oil across the ocean.
Westmorelands 1.6 billion tons of coal in the ground represents more
than 10 billion barrels of petrol in the ground - with this cost of
production and this amount of reserves - DOMESTIC reserves - the value
of Sunoco skyrockets to over $200 billion - with the increased
valuation large numbers of solar panels and coal hydrogenation units
are produced, along with a national hydrogen pipeline. The number of
Sunoco stations are doubled, and occur across North America- all
stations are upgraded, and include direct hydrogen filling stations -
and the CEO announces a goal to have 20% of all fuel energy sold as
hydrogen within 5 years. The value rises to nearly a trillion dollars
- and I spend less than $100 billion to buy up ALL the coal companies
in the world - and use their marketing arms to sell hydrogen in lieu
of coal, and pension off the older miners with sweetheart golden
parachutes while converting their large surface mines to solar
collector sites.and retaining the younger miners as solar panel
engineers.


There seems to be a pattern.

In your spin.

You are taking
payment for benefits you have yet to deliver.


Clearly, I am taking payments for delivering benefits today. The
customers know the risks they are taking and have accepted those risks
to attain the benefits. You speak as if I kept those customers in the
dark.

If the benefits don't
materialize, there might be significantly unfavorable consequences for you.

Again you speak as if they are unaware of the execution risk. They are
very well aware of what I have achieved and what open issues remain.
I stated clearly ALL the open issues during my negotiations. Its the
only right thing to do.

But I'm sure you're confident you can pull it off. Good luck.

Yeah, I can feel the love haha.. not.

There's always a band...

*** you.
.