As always, clever and original. Thankfully, harder and harder to be original on the theme that you have for so long and so well advocated for. :). It is a shame that the narrative of blame for the energy crisis is on Putin, who only accelerated the walking the plank, rather than the unrealistic [and poor] decisions by politicians and policymakers.
"... a badly managed energy transition..." I'd question whether any transition needs to be managed at all. Hands off people in government who think they know everything and what's good for everyone. Let the invisible hand of the market decide. Let the billions of people on earth with their own interests at stake, both individually and in businesses or other organisations, decide what's best for them. If there's a transition as a result, it will happen as slow or as fast as people drive it. It wasn't that long ago there were no smartphones. Now there are billions of them everywhere. No managing required! Right now the energy "transition" isn't happening despite trillions in subsidies and top-down strong-arm tactics.
Hello -- I'm a new subscriber -- and as you asked - after reading "your truth" - and understanding it from an investors point of view - I offering mine truth for discussion.
But first a little background - and then the reason behind "my truth".
I'm not an investor, but am now an 80 year old person that, while gaining an Electronics and Radar education via the US Navy's Class "A" ET School and the Class "A" Radar School in the early 1960s - was introduced to the works of Nikola Tesla, and especially "resonance" as everything "electronics" back then was 'powered by vacuum power tubes.
Vacuum power tube technology is no longer "taught" (along with "resonance") - but if one was not electrically controlled by "negative feedback" circuitry - it could go into "resonance 'over-drive' "(my term) and self-destruct - rather spectacularly sometimes -- which is what we were taught in school as the Navy had some really powerful power tubes.
What we weren't "taught" - but which I discovered "in-lab" - was that a particular Tesla circuit, invented and patented (US 511,916 / Jan. 2nd. 1894 - "Electric Generator"), and then used in another circuit and patented (US 645,576 / MAr. 20th.1900 - "System for Transmission For Electric Energy"), contained the "radio receiver" found in every AM or FM radio manufactured since 1900:
--- which is a lot of radios.
What was not taught - and which I got in trouble for "messing with it" - was that the "resonating tank circuit", when tuned to a specific frequency - would develop and control two opposing output power levels -- simultaneously.
1.) It would internally develop it's:
--- "...absolute maximum power level..." - while also:
2.) "electrically decreasing" the input power level connected to it - to it's:
--- "absolute minimum power level...".
The "developed maximum power level" to "connected minimum power level" ratio -- always is "more than '1' " - with "1" signifying "unity".
This -- without breaking any Laws of Physics - because the "absolute maximum developed power level" is never exceeded.
Those operating conditions have existed for over 124+ years.
In 1982 - my first Tesla based solid-state power supply design continuously produced 103% output to input power.
In 1984 - my second Teasl based mechanical-electrical design continuously produced 293% output to input - with the output being perfect sinusoidal AC / 120 VAC / 60 Hz / while powering a 120 VAC / 60 Hz AC motor as the load:
--- with the wallplug input power being "electrically reduced" to 75 VAC / 60 Hz.
"Less input amperage" being what we are all billed for (not voltage) -- than was what was being developed "in" the resonating tank circuit itself - a net plus for any electric bill payer.
In 1992 - I was granted US Patent 5,146,395 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS / with regenerative feedback:
--- the first "over-unity"(unclaimed as it was well known that either the US/DOE or US/DOD would have the application rejected) US Patent granted by the US Patent Office.
The finalized system can now continuously / "selectively" / "electronically" (no AC generator required) develop up to and including:
--- 480 VDC or VAC / 480 Amps - which equals
--- 230,400 Watts; 230.4 kW; or .2304 Mw per
--- 2.5 cu. ft. / 30 lb. / less than $2000 // modular;
--- "stand-alone" - it has it's own onboard "start-up" power source - eliminating any "recharging" or external power source connection - and can have
--- multiples of units connected together to develop a higher output power level - just like batteries --power unit.
It makes available:
--- unlimited range of travel and / or movement, and
--- unlimited time of travel and / or movement.
The power supply is named the POD MOD, short for "...'P'ower 'O'n 'D'emand 'MOD"'ule...".
It makes everything presently in use, including all renewables - or being contemplated (like mini Fusion) - used to produce electricity or power vehicles
--- redundant and unnecessary.
This is because it can be installed:
--- "where needed"- either "stationary" or "movable" - i.e., vehicles - including hi-bypass jet powered private and commercial aircraft:
--- "as much as is needed per site";
--- "for as long as is needed per site".
My point is this.
All of the statements made here - both pro and con - I believe - are based on the "status-quo condition of having to use remotely located / polluting / electric power sources / that all require a power grid to get either the "generated" or "solar" electricity from point "A to point "B" - with the corresponding losses along the way - thus always having "less power available" than "what was originally produced".
And because of the 1850s dated statement by Academia in Classic Physics - that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power ...":
--- that is still the "der rigor" position as far as the Academics are concerned -- and who is going to argue with a Physicist -- good luck with that.
And so -- up until recently: neither Governments nor Private Investors have been interested: -- because both politically and financially:
--- the POD MOD technology represents a totally change in the way "status quo" Electric Power Industries of the World is produced -- and represents "their sacred cows being gored".
So my question to you is this:
Do you think that any private investor would consider forming a "not-for-profit" company - to own / manufacture / install and maintain all units: -- making them available via
--- long-term leasing; at a very low set-amount billing rate (with no increases) - at say:
--- $0.10 "...per hour..." - $72 per 30 day month - or adjusted down where needed;
--- using a set number of units to be manufactured and installed per day (with a 30 day "burn-in period between):
--- thus creating a maximum - set overhead cost per month for the company;
--- while being the recipient of two monthly revenue return streams:
1.) the monthly, exponentially increasing lease billing return, and:
2.) the monthly, negotiated long term set billing for the 69.12 MW of "free electricity" each 20,000 - 30,000 sq. ft. assembly plant would be constantly developing from it's "burn-in" area.
That "free electricity" can be sold to any connected power utility in the area / any commercial or industrial-site requiring constant / very low cost / clean electricity - including the "new power hungry kids on the block":
--- AI Development and Computer Data Centers:
--- because the assembly plant(s) can be positioned right next to each one of them:
--- with more assembly plants brought in as their electricity demand increases.
No other power supply system in existance can do that.
Considering that there already exists a world-wide demand for clean / very cheap / electricity -- it will take a very short time for the company to predictably reach it's "self-funded status" - presenting the following alternatives:
a.) more assembly plants can be positioned and started, or
b.) more assembly plants can be positioned and started -- along with:
--- starting to pay back the investment made to allow the company to reach self-funded status:
--- and considering the huge demand - because of price point alone -- filling the world-wide demand -- "will take some time".
The POD MOD technology is the only power supply that can fill the world-wide market as described -- which then begs the question:
--- is your "position" that the market place should do this rather than Governmental control (which I agree with), and
--- what to you think would be the situation concerning your stated position on "conceit", i.e., is the private sector willing and able "to do this" - or just "talk about it"?
I ask - because this last March, I received and accepted an official request to apply for funding - from EC President Ursula von der Leyen; through the EC Horizon Europe funding program:
--- for the program spelled out above - including "manufacturing for export".
Also, my long time European Project partner is in negotiations with major Middle East funding sources - for the POD MOD project as described above -starting with the Middle East and African markets - again, "with exports".
As far as the "present" Canadian Government / the US Government / and the new UK Labour Government:
--- they have all stated "not interested" - because "we know better".
It is going to be "really interesting", especially with the Trump Clown Car coming onto power in the US -- because I think it will really "hit the fan" -- b oth politically and financially:
--- when the US / Canadian / and UK electric bill payer and fossil-fuel purchaser finds out that their respective Governments have denied them
--- clean / abundant per site / very inexpensive / electricity:
--- while also starting to really turnaround the Global Warming / Climate Change disaster that has been caused by burning fossil-based fuels -- to produce electricity and power vehicles.
Yours, and anyone else's thoughts would be appreciated.
As always, clever and original. Thankfully, harder and harder to be original on the theme that you have for so long and so well advocated for. :). It is a shame that the narrative of blame for the energy crisis is on Putin, who only accelerated the walking the plank, rather than the unrealistic [and poor] decisions by politicians and policymakers.
Thank you Fabiano. Have a great Christmas and hope to see you in 2023!
"... a badly managed energy transition..." I'd question whether any transition needs to be managed at all. Hands off people in government who think they know everything and what's good for everyone. Let the invisible hand of the market decide. Let the billions of people on earth with their own interests at stake, both individually and in businesses or other organisations, decide what's best for them. If there's a transition as a result, it will happen as slow or as fast as people drive it. It wasn't that long ago there were no smartphones. Now there are billions of them everywhere. No managing required! Right now the energy "transition" isn't happening despite trillions in subsidies and top-down strong-arm tactics.
Always enjoy your writing. Merry Xmas.
Hello -- I'm a new subscriber -- and as you asked - after reading "your truth" - and understanding it from an investors point of view - I offering mine truth for discussion.
But first a little background - and then the reason behind "my truth".
I'm not an investor, but am now an 80 year old person that, while gaining an Electronics and Radar education via the US Navy's Class "A" ET School and the Class "A" Radar School in the early 1960s - was introduced to the works of Nikola Tesla, and especially "resonance" as everything "electronics" back then was 'powered by vacuum power tubes.
Vacuum power tube technology is no longer "taught" (along with "resonance") - but if one was not electrically controlled by "negative feedback" circuitry - it could go into "resonance 'over-drive' "(my term) and self-destruct - rather spectacularly sometimes -- which is what we were taught in school as the Navy had some really powerful power tubes.
What we weren't "taught" - but which I discovered "in-lab" - was that a particular Tesla circuit, invented and patented (US 511,916 / Jan. 2nd. 1894 - "Electric Generator"), and then used in another circuit and patented (US 645,576 / MAr. 20th.1900 - "System for Transmission For Electric Energy"), contained the "radio receiver" found in every AM or FM radio manufactured since 1900:
--- which is a lot of radios.
What was not taught - and which I got in trouble for "messing with it" - was that the "resonating tank circuit", when tuned to a specific frequency - would develop and control two opposing output power levels -- simultaneously.
1.) It would internally develop it's:
--- "...absolute maximum power level..." - while also:
2.) "electrically decreasing" the input power level connected to it - to it's:
--- "absolute minimum power level...".
The "developed maximum power level" to "connected minimum power level" ratio -- always is "more than '1' " - with "1" signifying "unity".
This -- without breaking any Laws of Physics - because the "absolute maximum developed power level" is never exceeded.
Those operating conditions have existed for over 124+ years.
In 1982 - my first Tesla based solid-state power supply design continuously produced 103% output to input power.
In 1984 - my second Teasl based mechanical-electrical design continuously produced 293% output to input - with the output being perfect sinusoidal AC / 120 VAC / 60 Hz / while powering a 120 VAC / 60 Hz AC motor as the load:
--- with the wallplug input power being "electrically reduced" to 75 VAC / 60 Hz.
"Less input amperage" being what we are all billed for (not voltage) -- than was what was being developed "in" the resonating tank circuit itself - a net plus for any electric bill payer.
In 1992 - I was granted US Patent 5,146,395 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS / with regenerative feedback:
--- the first "over-unity"(unclaimed as it was well known that either the US/DOE or US/DOD would have the application rejected) US Patent granted by the US Patent Office.
The finalized system can now continuously / "selectively" / "electronically" (no AC generator required) develop up to and including:
--- 480 VDC or VAC / 480 Amps - which equals
--- 230,400 Watts; 230.4 kW; or .2304 Mw per
--- 2.5 cu. ft. / 30 lb. / less than $2000 // modular;
--- "stand-alone" - it has it's own onboard "start-up" power source - eliminating any "recharging" or external power source connection - and can have
--- multiples of units connected together to develop a higher output power level - just like batteries --power unit.
It makes available:
--- unlimited range of travel and / or movement, and
--- unlimited time of travel and / or movement.
The power supply is named the POD MOD, short for "...'P'ower 'O'n 'D'emand 'MOD"'ule...".
It makes everything presently in use, including all renewables - or being contemplated (like mini Fusion) - used to produce electricity or power vehicles
--- redundant and unnecessary.
This is because it can be installed:
--- "where needed"- either "stationary" or "movable" - i.e., vehicles - including hi-bypass jet powered private and commercial aircraft:
--- "as much as is needed per site";
--- "for as long as is needed per site".
My point is this.
All of the statements made here - both pro and con - I believe - are based on the "status-quo condition of having to use remotely located / polluting / electric power sources / that all require a power grid to get either the "generated" or "solar" electricity from point "A to point "B" - with the corresponding losses along the way - thus always having "less power available" than "what was originally produced".
And because of the 1850s dated statement by Academia in Classic Physics - that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power ...":
--- that is still the "der rigor" position as far as the Academics are concerned -- and who is going to argue with a Physicist -- good luck with that.
And so -- up until recently: neither Governments nor Private Investors have been interested: -- because both politically and financially:
--- the POD MOD technology represents a totally change in the way "status quo" Electric Power Industries of the World is produced -- and represents "their sacred cows being gored".
So my question to you is this:
Do you think that any private investor would consider forming a "not-for-profit" company - to own / manufacture / install and maintain all units: -- making them available via
--- long-term leasing; at a very low set-amount billing rate (with no increases) - at say:
--- $0.10 "...per hour..." - $72 per 30 day month - or adjusted down where needed;
--- using a set number of units to be manufactured and installed per day (with a 30 day "burn-in period between):
--- thus creating a maximum - set overhead cost per month for the company;
--- while being the recipient of two monthly revenue return streams:
1.) the monthly, exponentially increasing lease billing return, and:
2.) the monthly, negotiated long term set billing for the 69.12 MW of "free electricity" each 20,000 - 30,000 sq. ft. assembly plant would be constantly developing from it's "burn-in" area.
That "free electricity" can be sold to any connected power utility in the area / any commercial or industrial-site requiring constant / very low cost / clean electricity - including the "new power hungry kids on the block":
--- AI Development and Computer Data Centers:
--- because the assembly plant(s) can be positioned right next to each one of them:
--- with more assembly plants brought in as their electricity demand increases.
No other power supply system in existance can do that.
Considering that there already exists a world-wide demand for clean / very cheap / electricity -- it will take a very short time for the company to predictably reach it's "self-funded status" - presenting the following alternatives:
a.) more assembly plants can be positioned and started, or
b.) more assembly plants can be positioned and started -- along with:
--- starting to pay back the investment made to allow the company to reach self-funded status:
--- and considering the huge demand - because of price point alone -- filling the world-wide demand -- "will take some time".
The POD MOD technology is the only power supply that can fill the world-wide market as described -- which then begs the question:
--- is your "position" that the market place should do this rather than Governmental control (which I agree with), and
--- what to you think would be the situation concerning your stated position on "conceit", i.e., is the private sector willing and able "to do this" - or just "talk about it"?
I ask - because this last March, I received and accepted an official request to apply for funding - from EC President Ursula von der Leyen; through the EC Horizon Europe funding program:
--- for the program spelled out above - including "manufacturing for export".
Also, my long time European Project partner is in negotiations with major Middle East funding sources - for the POD MOD project as described above -starting with the Middle East and African markets - again, "with exports".
As far as the "present" Canadian Government / the US Government / and the new UK Labour Government:
--- they have all stated "not interested" - because "we know better".
It is going to be "really interesting", especially with the Trump Clown Car coming onto power in the US -- because I think it will really "hit the fan" -- b oth politically and financially:
--- when the US / Canadian / and UK electric bill payer and fossil-fuel purchaser finds out that their respective Governments have denied them
--- clean / abundant per site / very inexpensive / electricity:
--- while also starting to really turnaround the Global Warming / Climate Change disaster that has been caused by burning fossil-based fuels -- to produce electricity and power vehicles.
Yours, and anyone else's thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Scott McKie / The POD MOD Project
scotsman7@comcast.net -- if you want to communicate directly.
Keep writing Richard. Hope you have a diesel generator just in case :) !Thanks
Glad to have found you.
Thank you.
Happy New Year.
I'll try to learn more about energy and apply that knowledge to the question of food systems & human flourishing.