An interesting philosophical argument.

I'm all for thinking outside the box when it comes to energy solutions, but
I also believe in an objective reality that exists outside my own beliefs.
Why?  Because its by believing it that you can make things that WORK.

While I'll be the first to admit that it may NOT be the case that the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics applies in ALL situations, I'll also not say that my
own desire for them can make those conditions exist in that objective
reality.

Believe me, there's ALREADY plenty of people who think they can create those
conditions with their own belief -- a quick Google of "Perpetual Motion
Machine" and / or "Free Energy" (those terms are actually synonyms) will
turn them up -- with more arriving to that party every day, given the
current world energy supply situation.

Unfortunately for our current crisis, you won't find many energy /
transportation systems built by philosophers ... its us boring engineers
and our insipid insistence on following laws who end up building systems
that actually work.





JOE


On 12 Sep 2007 15:31:52 -0000, jared@hatwhite.com <jared@hatwhite.com>
wrote:
>
>
> >Its called EROEI -- Energy Returned On Energy Invested .... Invested, not
> >Input -- if it were INPUT, all fuels would have EROEI's of less than
> 1.  As
> >it turns out, using current techniques and technologies, EROEI for
> hydrogen
> >is FAR LESS than 1, while oil is probably more like in the range of 30 to
> >100 (depending mainly on the grade of oil, depth, and extraction method).
>
> >Now, in terms of EROEI, there are several things that have
> greater-than-one
> >values that are NOT fuels, such as windmills and solar panels and wave
> >generators -- we can make these on a relatively "cheap" energy budget,
> then
> >use them to HARVEST energy that WE (humans) don't have to invest ...
> >because it comes from the sun, or from gravitational forces, in the case
> of
> >wave energy.
>
> This is an important statement because you are showing how, by shifting
> to another domain, energy becomes "free" (EROEI > 1). It's not actually
> free, but it appears so because we're utilizing a resource which
> replenishes
> without any significant material effort of our own. Now take this same
> principle, and shift the domain to THE ONE IMMEDIATELY GREATER THAN
> THIS ONE. It has no name, because we just created it, and it is
> theoretical
> at this point.
>
> That means that all basic assumptions can be refactored, because the
> thought experiment is entirely theoretical, and anything can happen. Just
> as changing a single axiom of Euclidean geometry changes EVERYTHING,
> we can do the same for this mess of assumptions we have inherited. And
> we can do so "six times before breakfast," as the saying goes. For
> example, the assumption that there is no such thing as overunity is really
> just an extremely well established assumption, so well established that
> it is assumed a "law" but in fact, it is nothing more than a very well
> accepted assumption.
>
> Go:del proved in mathematics that _any_ well-developed system cannot
> prove some of its own assumptions, and therefore they must be accepted
> without proof, meaning that we accept them on a basis which is really
> quite similar to "faith." Once this enters the thought experiment anything
> is possible. And yet all of this is entirely logical so far.
>
> Once anything is possible, then it is easy to shift into the domain
> immediately
> greater than the present one (which everyone 'assumes' is the one and
> only true one, until someone like Copernicus comes along and says "well
> actually we're all entirely wrong...").
>
> Thus by using plain and simple logic and the ability to apply principles
> in
> different domains, we can create the appearance of a system where
> E > mc2. Within our current set of assumptions, it will appear that we
> can acquire greater energy than mass times the speed of light squared.
> But within the greater set of assumptions, E is still operating as we
> currently understand it. Remember this is all theoretical so far.
>
> I hope at least one person is following the logic, because by using
> this line of thinking, we can:
>
> 1. Realize that our current concept of light is flawed, and it is actually
> a gas in a larger system.
> 2. See that whatever is a gas can become a liquid, and whatever is
> a liquid can become a solid.
> 3. Wonder what happens when light becomes a solid (instead of gaseous
> "particles" which behave in a wave pattern by some measurements) --
> a completely solid block of light. Like a quark star? Maybe. Who knows.
> 4. Begin experimenting with ways to achieve a solid light state, and
> thus create (or find) a resource which has so vastly much more energy
> than we can comprehend now, that it might as well be considered
> "infinite" for all our ability to measure it.
> 5. Convert a tiny amount of this "infinite" supply of energy into
> supplying
> the entire grid capacity of the planet earth, and do away with those
> pesky oil zealots using entirely peaceful means. Kind of like
> refrigerators
> did away with the ice zealots...
>
> or, manufacture a "suitcase" variety, selling it cheaply to the masses,
> and become richer than Bill Gates squared. Hmmm. Cubed.
>
> The basic idea is that, instead of working within the limitations of our
> current system, which we can call "linear and categorical" for its obvious
> inability to go beyond its own crude limitations -- break out of the box,
> and look at things holographically, that is, from all directions at once.
>
> Then we don't have to put up with one Einstein per century, we can
> handle fifty or sixty of them per decade.
>
> Or of course, you can stay within your inherited assumptions, never
> questioning them, and forcing everyone who questions them into
> belief by cursing, insulting, and pounding on the table.
>
> -Jared
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug@kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>