British fracking protestor Prajna has it all figured out. Tom Wilson interviewed this guy at the fracking protest in Balcombe England. A cartoon from Josh follows.
Prajna
Have you protested before on energy issues?
Prajna: “Well, no. But I’ve designed a few energy things. I’ve designed an internal combustion engine that only has two moving parts, which is far too efficient to produce, otherwise oil companies would kill me.
I’ve had some top engineers working on it. My great uncle designed a perpetual motion machine. But he was busy looking for something that would insulate between magnets in order to produce it. Well actually I’ve had a look at the design since. I looked into buoyancy. I did all the maths on buoyancy.
It never seems to quite work, does it?
Prajna: “Well, this is the thing. It does work. It balances perfectly.”
Are you against the extraction of all fossil fuels in the UK?
Prajna: “Do you know, it would be a wonderful start if they just stopped suppressing free energy and starting encouraging it. But they’re not about that.”
Read the rest of the brilliant set of interviews here: I met the fracking protesters
Josh also has an excellent cartoon on fracking here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Progressives like to introduce an anti-war ethic, as if human life was precious to them.
But the facts of the 20th century objectively analyzed show that the greatest killers during the 1900’s were governments killing their own citizens. Of the 65 million killed in WWII, 45 million were disarmed citizens killed within their own borders by their own governments. 15 million were battle dead.
Progressives leave many facts and incommensurate realities out of their anti-war paradigm. Above we see how playing an anti-war card is now being introduced as justification for the open economic warfare being waged against free, open societies in the West through the abuse of science, AGW, and sustainability programs – a form of warfare deliberately waged in order to destroy domestic production capacity and to destroy purchasing power by citizens.
Historically, the only countries who historically do not attack each other are democracies. Authoritarian, totalitarian, and communist countries have first killed their own citizens, then invaded and waged war on their neighbors.
They showed them packing up on the T.V. Nylon tents, sleeping bags etc. He wouldn’t be sitting on that chair if it weren’t for the petrochemical industry
Death by Government by RJ Rummel, pg 24
inre: the data shows the number of dead by democide far outstrips the battle dead – for example, WWII:
“Moreover, even the toll of war itself is not well understood. Many estimate that WWII, for example, killed 40-60 million people. But the problem with such figures is that they include tens of millions killed in democide [death by government]. Many wartime governments massacred civilians and foreigners, committed atrocities or genocide agaisnt them, executed them, and subjected them to reprisals. Aside from battle or military engagements, during the war the Nazis murdered around 20 million civilians and prisoners of war, the Japanese 5,890,000, the Chinese nationalists 5,907,000, the Chinese communists 250,000 [figure rose to millions after the war], the Nazi satellite Croatioans 655,000, the Tito Partisans 600,000, and Stalin 13,053,000 (above the 20 million war dead and Nazi democide of Soviet Jews and Slavs). I also should mention the indiscriminate bombing of civilians by the Allies that killed hundreds of thousands, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most of these dead are usually included among the war dead. But those killed in battle versus in democide form distinct conceptual and theoretical categories and should not be confused. That they have been consistently and sometimes intentionally confounded helps popularize the 60 million figure for the number fo war dead in WWII, a figure that is way above the calculated estimate of 15 million killed in battle and military action.”
… and this is why drugs should be illegal.
If it actually worked, he could use it to become a wealthy and powerful man. So wealthy in fact, he could buy every oil company and make the employees do the chicken dance all day.
Reminds me of psychics: if they could really see the future, they’d play the stock market instead of reading palms for 20 bucks.
================================================================
I’d forgotten all about those. I had one when I was a real little kid. It was tin with a thin copper tube that formed a coil in the bottom of the boat. Both ends of the tube stuck out the rear of the boat. It was only a couple of inches long. It used a cut down birthday candle. I remember I’d fill the bathtub with water and it would putt around the tub. (That is, it would putt around the tub when i didn’t sink the thing trying to light the candle.)
I don’t know why they stopped making them. Too many kids setting the bathtub on fire?
Freedom; so over-rated … and the costs to maintain it, not worth it either.
God save the Queen!
.
@ur momisugly Jimbo,
Don’t judge people who use drugs. A lot of interesting things have come out of drug use, like art.
“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” with Jack Nickleson comes to mind …
.
Wha!? Never happen. Those types are harmless, as harmless as the others in history who curiously studied socialism and read the works of Lenin (as Joseph Stalin did) or Zheng Guanying (as Mao Zedong did) …
.
.
/sarc (if needed)
The Wankel engine? (A single-rotor design)
2 moving parts, and it’s a 4-stroke.
http://www.fairpoint.net/~res12/html/one_rotor_wankel.html
.
From Outrageous Ampersand on August 22, 2013 at 2:49 pm:
How much and which drugs does it take for you to think you’re pissing into a giant flower?
Although frankly, these colorful handmade porcelain giant flower urinals are quite striking. First saw them when mentioned on a local TV home and garden show. Also the snail and conch shells are great.
Now this is “modern art” I can support, explicitly made to pissed on. Rather than merely suitable and deserving.
Hey, here’s a question. Some upscale place puts these in their mens room. How long does it take a stoner to convince themselves they really are looking at a urinal?
Judged by this one thread or by the totality of the material and wealth of posts addressing the subject of ‘fracking’ on this website?
.
“_Jim says:
August 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm”
My post, I should have been clearer, was in response to RobL about 2 stroke (Suck and squeeze, bang and fart) engine (Piston/crank, ie, conventional) and large examples of which are used in ships. I don’t know of a rotary engine used in large ships. Mazda have exploited this very well with their 13B 4 stroke (Suck, squeeze, bang and fart) engine with no “top end” (Valve train) to worry about at 10,000rpm or more. That’s why the “hoons” love ’em here in Aus.
=======================================================================
OOPS! For this to be even theoretically possible the “piston” would need to be the magnet moving across a copper-wound iron. Of course it would have no real practical application. Maybe I can get a “Green Energy” grant?
… using the two-stroke ‘diesel’ cycle which still requires an exhaust valve (camshaft driven or a lobe on the crankshaft plus a ‘rocker’ arm and pushrod?) Plus usually a low-pressure good-volume (roots blower type) supply of air on the intake port (which the piston uncovers towards the bottom of the crank stroke). Still requires an injector pump too (not insignificant; there is a high-pressure injection requirement on this).
I took it that the ‘game’ afoot was finding the lowest-count on moving parts … no? Wankel still requires timing for a spark plug but this can be solid state and triggered via sensors monitoring crankshaft position.
Refs – https://www.google.com/search?q=two-stroke+diesel&oq=two-stroke+diesel&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.9414j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
.
“RobL says:
August 21, 2013 at 6:58 pm
IC engine with two moving parts = 2 stroke engine (piston+crankshaft). Huge ship powering variants (with addition of an exhaust valve, fuel, oil and water pumps and turbocharger are most efficient engines in existence at up to 53%.”
I say;
“Patrick says:
August 22, 2013 at 6:59 am
IMO, the minimum number of moving parts in a conventional 2 stroke IC engine (Excluding all others, fluids, pumps, switches, transmission etc) would be 3. The piston, the conrod (Ignoring the little end moves on the gudgeon pin, the big moves on the crankshaft) and the crankshaft. You could argue it is actually 5. If neither of these components moved an engine in that state would be considered “seized”.
You say;
“_Jim says:
August 23, 2013 at 7:28 am”
I said in reply “(Excluding all others…”. The content of you post falls in to the category of being excluded.
NO MOVING PARTS
In high school I qualified for the International Physics Olympiad by solving a problem on an engine with no moving parts.
You are in a submarine in seawater and have a battery and a permanent magnet, both fixed. Can you make the submarine move?
The answer was YES.
You put the magnet with poles up-down. You put the terminals of the battery right-left, outside the submarine, in seawater. You’ll have electrolysis (that’s why you had to have salty seawater.)
As, say, negative electrons move right-to-left, around the submarine, positive ions move left-to-right, both in the magnetic field of the magnet.
As they have opposite charges and opposite velocities, they will be pushed THE SAME WAY, say, backwards.
By action and reaction, the submarine moves forward.
Decades later, I read that the Navy had considered such an engine, completely silent. The problem was that electrolysis produced bubbles, easy to detect. So they were still working on ways to capture the bubbles…
“_Jim says:
August 23, 2013 at 7:28 am”
I am in no way disrespecting your posts, btw.
From Adrian O on August 23, 2013 at 9:27 am:
Dang, you’re ancient. First patent is from 1961. That was decades later for you?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2997013.html
In 1994 the US Navy patented a modernized version, now with superconducting supercooled electromagnets.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5333444.html
Now although your solution sounds ingenious, it also sounds like “bathtub nautical engineering”. Technically correct, the model would move nice in a still tank. But could you get enough thrust to move a real submarine anywhere but with the current? Note the “modern” version upgraded to seriously strong superconducting electromagnets to get more thrust.
Heh, found an “Electromagnetic Propulsion” page, some plans, diagrams, good descriptions. Note the copied magazine articles are possible auto-generated transcriptions, some obvious mistakes. But still very informative, worth reading.
http://www.rexresearch.com/emships/empship.htm
Tom Clancy novel material I believe …
.
“The Hunt for Green October”