eer

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message > >Only in your own mind.

Have you EVER found ANYONE
else - just ONE person - who judged your ideas to be
"brilliant"?

Yea - you KNOW who.

(Not MY idea, but THE idea)

No, I'm afraid I don't know who, and I don't
think anyone else here does, either. Please point
to just one person who thinks that EER is
"brilliant" - and keep in mind that this doesn't
cover some idea that you have mistakenly
confused with "EER", but rather just one other
person who actually backs the specific concepts
you've mentioned over and over here.

Yes - collection of diffuse energy is a problem.

But - not impossible, it is just not efficient.

Not being efficient implies not being worthwhile.

Eer would make it worthwhile.

Gee, it doesn't have a thing to do with making
the collection or conversion processes more
efficient, and yet it is somehow uniquely suited to
making these "more worthwhile"? Right....

My understanding of existing capacitave storage is ZILCH.

Which is precisely your problem. After admitting
this, why on Earth would you continue to promote this
absurd idea? You have already said that you simply
do not know what you're talking about.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040204205424.12966.00001319@mb-m02.news.cs.com...

It would store it in a nondiffuse manner.

Exactly like a battery,

Well, smaller, lighter, and more green.

Nope. Since you have yet to describe just
how an "EER" device is made, you have
absolutely no reason to believe that it is ANY
of these.

The FIRST thing is what I DO know.....it is the second and third things
where I
fail.

But there's not even a "first thing" that you know.
You've already admitted you "know nothing about
capacitive storage" - your very own words - and yet
this proposal of your IS nothing more than a capacitive
storage device. An unworkable one.

Bob M.

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message > >Only in your own mind.
Have you EVER found ANYONE
else - just ONE person - who judged your ideas to be
"brilliant"?

Yea - you KNOW who.

(Not MY idea, but THE idea)

No, I'm afraid I don't know who, and I don't
think anyone else here does, either. Please point
to just one person who thinks that EER is
"brilliant" - and keep in mind that this doesn't
cover some idea that you have mistakenly
confused with "EER", but rather just one other
person who actually backs the specific concepts
you've mentioned over and over here.

My cat thinks it is the cat's PJ's!

Yes - collection of diffuse energy is a problem.

But - not impossible, it is just not efficient.

Not being efficient implies not being worthwhile.

Eer would make it worthwhile.

Gee, it doesn't have a thing to do with making the collection or conversion
processes more efficient, and yet it is somehow uniquely suited to making these

"more worthwhile"? Right....

Exactly.

The devices a person has already invested in now (with eer) will power his
vehicle, instead of heating his water. Quite a difference!

Again, the efficiency of the device matters little, when it is able to collect
energy from near-infinite sources.

My understanding of existing capacitave storage is ZILCH.


Which is precisely your problem. After admitting this, why on Earth would you
continue to promote this absurd idea? You have already said that you simply
do not know what you're talking about.

I'll tell you why.........

I do not have a detailed understanding of existing caps, but so what? THOSE
are the caps that I have ALWAYS considered insufficient.

It goes way back to the math for energy density.

That math held that the energy density of coal and oil were very high.

But,, the conclusions drawn from the same math said that caps could not come
close to this energy.

THAT conclusion is wrong!

NOT the math - just the conclusion drawn from it.

THAT was the basis for eer.

I challenge some of you EE's to look at this objectively. PLEASE!

There is no MATHEMATICAL constraint on caps....we could put the same energy
level we have in coal or oil.

THEN we could drive EV's, powered soley by renewable energy.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040204205424.12966.00001319@mb-m02.news.cs.com...
It would store it in a nondiffuse manner.

Exactly like a battery,

Well, smaller, lighter, and more green.

Nope. Since you have yet to describe just how an "EER" device is made, you
have absolutely no reason to believe that it is ANY of these.

Badly described, but clear in my mind.

The FIRST thing is what I DO know.....it is the second and third things
where I
fail.

But there's not even a "first thing" that you know.

The first thing to me is this - we have near-infinate energy all around us.
Yet we continue to dig for coal and oil.

WHY?

THAT is the FIRST thing.

You've already admitted you "know nothing about capacitive storage" - your
very own words -

Okay.

and yet this proposal of your IS nothing more than a capacitive storage
device.

Using the caps that are POSSIBLE!

I call them eer-caps.

An unworkable one.

Collecting our energy with oil ain't working so good, either!

Many men are in their graves.


Frank

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040206054705.19027.00001573@mb-m28.news.cs.com...

It goes way back to the math for energy density.

That math held that the energy density of coal and oil were very high.

But,, the conclusions drawn from the same math said that caps could not
come
close to this energy.

THAT conclusion is wrong!

NOT the math - just the conclusion drawn from it.

And this, more than anything else, sums up exactly why it is
objectively obvious that you are a crackpot with an unworkable
pet theory.

To summarize the above, along with statements you have
repeatedly made at other times in this group.

1. You don't understand math.

2. You don't understand capacitors, either present-day
practical examples or the fundamental theory behind them.

3. The "math for energy density" is correct (exactly how you
judge this while knowing nothing about math is an interesting
question).

4. While the "math is correct," the conclusion that math provides
is not - apparently this judgement is made solely because you
don't LIKE that conclusion.

5. You can't show how or why it is wrong, other than to
repeatedly state that the conclusion goes against YOUR personal
wishes and what YOU think is "common sense."

6. You can't provide the name of just ONE single person who
has reviewed your work and agreed with your conclusions.

7. Everyone here who HAS reviewed your work, including a
number of people known to be well-respected engineers or
scientists with excellent understandings of the relevant theory,
have without exception judged it to be without value and
unworkable.

Inescapable, objective, logical conclusion: you're a crackpot.


Bob M.

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040206054705.19027.00001573@mb-m28.news.cs.com...


It goes way back to the math for energy density.

That math held that the energy density of coal and oil were very high.

But,, the conclusions drawn from the same math said that caps could not
come
close to this energy.

THAT conclusion is wrong!

NOT the math - just the conclusion drawn from it.

And this, more than anything else, sums up exactly why it is objectively
obvious that you are a crackpot with an unworkable pet theory.

The limits of energy density are different for coal and capacitors.

Why is that?

Should that be TRUE?

To summarize the above, along with statements you have repeatedly made at
other times in this group.

1. You don't understand math.

Not exactly. I once did. All the way up to Differential Equations. But, all
that has slipped by me now.

2. You don't understand capacitors, either present-day
practical examples or the fundamental theory behind them.

Correct. I just sorta understand the old plate capacitors.

3. The "math for energy density" is correct (exactly how you judge this while
knowing nothing about math is an interesting question).

I only remember the important things.

4. While the "math is correct," the conclusion that math provides
is not - apparently this judgement is made solely because you
don't LIKE that conclusion.

No.

The math indicated that energy density for caps was very high.

The conclusion drawn from that math was that the energy density for caps was
low - about where it slumbers today.

5. You can't show how or why it is wrong, other than to repeatedly state that
the conclusion goes against YOUR personal wishes and what YOU think is "common

sense."

No. Nothing at ALL to do with my wishes.

I just remembered that, when we were faced with another war for oil, during the
Carter Administration.

6. You can't provide the name of just ONE single person who
has reviewed your work and agreed with your conclusions.

My wife and son.

7. Everyone here who HAS reviewed your work, including a
number of people known to be well-respected engineers or
scientists with excellent understandings of the relevant theory,
have without exception judged it to be without value and
unworkable.

They need to reread energy density.

Inescapable, objective, logical conclusion: you're a crackpot.

Hell - *I* coulda told you THAT.


Frank

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040211032515.17312.00000041@mb-m13.news.cs.com...

The limits of energy density are different for coal and capacitors.

Why is that?

Because one is an example of the chemical storage of energy,
while the other is an example of electrostatic storage. Two
very different mechanisms, with very different limits.

Should that be TRUE?

Truth, or rather reality, is remarkably indifferent to what any of
of think it "should" be. It simply IS.

To summarize the above, along with statements you have repeatedly made at
other times in this group.

1. You don't understand math.

Not exactly. I once did. All the way up to Differential Equations. But,
all
that has slipped by me now.

Apparently so.

2. You don't understand capacitors, either present-day
practical examples or the fundamental theory behind them.

Correct. I just sorta understand the old plate capacitors.

Sorry, you don't even understand that, and you certainly
don't have the barest grasp on the theory that describe how
they work. If you did, you wouldn't have opened this response
with a silly question regarding two totally different forms of
energy "storage".

3. The "math for energy density" is correct (exactly how you judge this
while
knowing nothing about math is an interesting question).

I only remember the important things.

Unfortunately, they are only what YOU judge to be important,
based on your own flawed understanding. You do not
"remember" anything truly relevant to the question at hand.

4. While the "math is correct," the conclusion that math provides
is not - apparently this judgement is made solely because you
don't LIKE that conclusion.

No.

Of course. Were this not so, you could objectively and even
mathematically show exactly where the "conclusion" went
wrong, and how your conclusion is correct. You can't do this,
so the only remaining conclusion WE can draw is that this is
the worst sort of wishful thinking on your part.

The math indicated that energy density for caps was very high.

The conclusion drawn from that math was that the energy density for caps
was
low - about where it slumbers today.

So show it to be wrong. Otherwise, you're just whining that
"gee, it would be really nice if this WERE true!"

6. You can't provide the name of just ONE single person who
has reviewed your work and agreed with your conclusions.

My wife and son.

And their qualifications to review work in this field ARE....?

7. Everyone here who HAS reviewed your work, including a
number of people known to be well-respected engineers or
scientists with excellent understandings of the relevant theory,
have without exception judged it to be without value and
unworkable.

They need to reread energy density.

And again we come to your quaint notion that those who actually
understand this and yet still somehow disagree with you, despite
the fact that you produce absolutely no evidence or reasoning in
support of your position, simply MUST be mistaken. Which
can only lead us to repeat:

Inescapable, objective, logical conclusion: you're a crackpot.

Hell - *I* coulda told you THAT.

Glad you agree. In that case, please shut up.

Bob M.