dagblog - Comments for "Electricity - nuclear and otherwise"

Sorry, redacted. I didn't

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:30:27 +0000

In reply to No names!You will note I did

Sorry, redacted. I didn't catch that there was a personal connection. Thanks for the patent explanation. Clever idea. I wish the inventor much luck in putting it to good use.

Tesla's biggest problem is

Beetlejuice — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:57:20 +0000

In reply to This is not new or even

Tesla's biggest problem is acceptance...no one gives his work the serious attention it deserves simply because the output of his theories and inventions come at a cost to the business community...free. Little hard for a business to make handsome profits to placate Wall Street if the cost to generate electricity is nothing more than a few pennies at max and anyone can replicate the process on their own. He deserves another look because he was definitely a man way ahead of his time.

BTW, it's cheap electricity

jollyroger — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:45:06 +0000

In reply to If this device can in fact

BTW, it's cheap electricity because it's designed to harvest the excess pressure in existing water delivery systems. The idea is to drop in sections of pipe as repairs are needed,

No names!You will note I did

jollyroger — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:34:53 +0000

In reply to If this device can in fact

No names!

You will note I did not include "unlimited" in my quote.

he will soon become the richest person in the world

Like George C.Scott said to Paul Newman "It's not enough to have talent, fast Eddie, you gotta have character...".

If this device can in fact

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 04:55:00 +0000

In reply to cheap electricity Like

If this device can in fact generate unlimited cheap electricity, then yes, he will soon become the richest person in the world. My reading of his patent, however, is that it describes a more efficient hydroelectric generator, which would not be unlimited. If it works, he could still make a lot of money, but I am not in a position to ascertain the effectiveness of his design.

I am open to most any way of

EmmaZahn — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 04:37:22 +0000

In reply to Electricity - nuclear and otherwise

I am open to most any way of generating electricity as long as it isn't Matrix-like.

And make an excellent case

EmmaZahn — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 04:34:56 +0000

In reply to If you owned a patent for a

And make an excellent case for restoring original intent of patent and copyright laws.

cheap electricity Like

jollyroger — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 04:26:06 +0000

In reply to If you owned a patent for a

cheap electricity

Like this?

If you owned a patent for a

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 03:15:29 +0000

In reply to Electricity - nuclear and otherwise

If you owned a patent for a technique or device that could produce unlimited cheap electricity, you would quickly become the richest person in the world.

One can generate electricity

Verified Atheist — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:09:30 +0000

In reply to Electricity - nuclear and otherwise

One can generate electricity from nuclear radiation directly (the technique would be similar to that of the photoelectric effect, except that it would be a neutron, electron, or helium nucleus knocking the electron out of the substrate), although presumably the electricity generated from such means is less than is achieved through the mechanical/magnetic technique you described earlier (due to most of the radiation probably not being captured). Still, if one were successful, it'd be easy to make money off of it, in the same way one makes money off nuclear power today—controlled access to radioactive materials.