why are the news agencies-- tv and magazines suppressing coverage of Geothermal? And is geothermal 5,000 times superior to solar?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:12:57 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Miles O'Brien, David Shukman, DW, science magazines, Stefan
Boltzmann law: Geothermal, is it 4 to 1 superior to Solar or 5000 to 1
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 02:12:58 +0000


Why is the world suppressing the data, knowledge and information on Geothermal. Why has no science magazine covered geothermal in years? Why has NOVA never given a hour long program on Geothermal.

Why does every coverage of Global Warming and Renewable Energy mention only Solar and Wind and never mention Geothermal?

Is the world being suppressed of Geothermal news reporting? Apparently so.

AP

[Sergio]

Good question, I have not seen any through indepth reporting.

California has a spot, there is a new band along texas coastline,
Iceland, Japan,

typically geothermal is not clean, lots of impurities, desolved minerals
that foul things up.

there should be a GeoThermal Magazine

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Most of the places that are suitable for a geothermal plant already
have one and there are issues about the lack of transmission lines
to areas that might be usefull for a new plant.

All the geothermal plants in the US together produce less than 1% of
US energy requirements.

California has the most and they produce less than 5% of the state needs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy_in_the_United_States



--
Jim Pennino

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:55:18 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/20/2016 4:49 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)

> >
>
> Good question, I have not seen any through indepth reporting.
>
> California has a spot, there is a new band along texas coastline,
> Iceland, Japan,
>
> typically geothermal is not clean, lots of impurities, desolved minerals
> that foul things up.
>
> there should be a GeoThermal Magazine

Excellent, that is an excellent idea. There should be a science magazine devoted mostly to geothermal and the development of this renewable, virtually inexhaustible energy.

AP

[Odd Bodkin]

You mean, like these?
http://geothermal-energy-journal.springeropen.com/
http://www.geothermal-energy-science.net/
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/magazine/renewable-energy-world.html
http://www.geothermal-energy.org/publications_and_services/links/journals_of_geothermal.html

How is it that you're unable to find stuff like this in the modern days
of the internet?





--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Because as Uncle Al observed long ago, Archipoo is blazingly, astoundingly
stupid.


--
Jim Pennino

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:31:07 PM UTC-5, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
(snipped)

>
> Most of the places that are suitable for a geothermal plant already
> have one and there are issues about the lack of transmission lines
> to areas that might be usefull for a new plant.
>
> All the geothermal plants in the US together produce less than 1% of
> US energy requirements.
>
> California has the most and they produce less than 5% of the state needs.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy_in_the_United_States
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Yellowstone, fully developed would supply all the electrical needs of the 48 lower states.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now I do not want Environment Groups and Green Groups down on my throat for exploiting Yellowstone. But I do believe the best way forward is to tap into Yellowstone with many large geothermal power stations, and have them fenced off. Keeping Yellowstone as a national park and with the massive amounts of money made from Yellowstone is to buy out the surrounding land and increasing the total size of Yellowstone that allows all the wild animals to live in this Greater Yellowstone. Allow only tourists with a special permit to visit Yellowstone, but allow the daily work force of these electric stations.

A whole new concept of the National Park with Yellowstone leading the way. We preserve it and increase it, but we also gain benefit of its electricity.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

The trouble with Yellowstone at the moment, is that we cannot use it as a treasure trove of energy, where we no longer need coal, oil, or gas but have clean renewable geothermal electricity.

And we preserve and ENLARGE Yellowstone Park by using some of the money of the electricity to keep buying surrounding land, enlarging and fencing in Yellowstone. We no longer allow free access as tourists but as authorized guests into the park. This is better for the wild animals their.// Of course, there will be many electric generating stations manned by employees.

I would rather have cleaner air and a Yellowstone with power stations than dirty air, gasoline run society and a Yellowstone of bumper to bumper tourists.

And the same model at the Hawaii volcanic national park.

AP

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/22/2016 4:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Yellowstone, fully developed would supply all the electrical needs of the 48 lower states.
>> >
>> >AP
> Now I do not want Environment Groups and Green Groups down on my throat for exploiting Yellowstone.
> But I do believe the best way forward is to tap into Yellowstone with many large geothermal power
> stations, and have them fenced off. Keeping Yellowstone as a national park and with the massive
> amounts of money made from Yellowstone is to buy out the surrounding land and increasing the total
> size of Yellowstone that allows all the wild animals to live in this Greater Yellowstone. Allow
> only tourists with a special permit to visit Yellowstone, but allow the daily work force of these
> electric stations.
>
> A whole new concept of the National Park with Yellowstone leading the way. We preserve it and increase
> it, but we also gain benefit of its electricity.
>
> AP

While your idea is interesting, I would point out several things:
- There is a difference between a National Park and a National Wildlife
Refuge. A National Park is not for the animals. It is for the American
people to visit, usually because of some *unspoiled* natural terrain. To
exploit a National Park for commercial use on a large scale means
decommissioning it as a National Park, period.
- Expanding Yellowstone means that the government comes and takes
existing private lands, which in turn means compensating everyone whose
land is taken. I think you'd need to evaluate how much money you expect
to get from geothermal compared to the value of the land you'd have to
pay for. This would all come from taxes, by the way.
- Geothermal is known to pose some substantial risk of aggravating
volcanic or seismic activity by virtue of pumping water down into
delicate strata. It's one of the downside of the technology. It's like
sticking a hot needle into a boil. Now, if this were being done in a
failsafe way, then this wouldn't be so much of a problem. But if it's
the sole source of energy in the country and a volcanic eruption takes
out half your physical plant, then you have a serious problem. On top of
that, Yellowstone is known to be the epicenter of a "supervolcano"
which, if it were to cataclysmically erupt due to poking it, could wipe
out the entire human race as well as all life in North America. Just saying.

[HVAC]

Odd Bodkin said

While your idea is interesting, I would point out several things:
- There is a difference between a National Park and a National Wildlife
Refuge. A National Park is not for the animals. It is for the American
people to visit, usually because of some *unspoiled* natural terrain. To
exploit a National Park for commercial use on a large scale means
decommissioning it as a National Park, period.
- Expanding Yellowstone means that the government comes and takes
existing private lands, which in turn means compensating everyone whose
land is taken. I think you'd need to evaluate how much money you expect
to get from geothermal compared to the value of the land you'd have to
pay for. This would all come from taxes, by the way.
- Geothermal is known to pose some substantial risk of aggravating
volcanic or seismic activity by virtue of pumping water down into
delicate strata. It's one of the downside of the technology. It's like
sticking a hot needle into a boil. Now, if this were being done in a
failsafe way, then this wouldn't be so much of a problem. But if it's
the sole source of energy in the country and a volcanic eruption takes
out half your physical plant, then you have a serious problem. On top of
that, Yellowstone is known to be the epicenter of a "supervolcano"
which, if it were to cataclysmically erupt due to poking it, could wipe
out the entire human race as well as all life in North America. Just saying.

------------------

And I hate to be the naysayer here, but since we don't have superconducting power transmission lines, the efficiency of transferring this generated electricity over distance is a problem. Not to mention the destruction of the scenic beauty of the area which is priceless

[john]

No
Wouldn't want to be pumping no
water down nowhere.
Or disturbing underlying rock
formations.

[Mike Duffy]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 06:52:37 -0700 (PDT), HVAC wrote:

> - There is a difference between a National Park and a National Wildlife
> Refuge. A National Park is not for the animals. It is for the American
> people to visit, usually because of some *unspoiled* natural terrain. To
> exploit a National Park for commercial use on a large scale means
> decommissioning it as a National Park, period.

No problem. Just re-open it as a the "Museum of Renewable Energy".

> - Expanding Yellowstone means that the government comes and takes
> existing private lands, which in turn means compensating everyone whose
> land is taken. I think you'd need to evaluate how much money you expect
> to get from geothermal compared to the value of the land you'd have to
> pay for. This would all come from taxes, by the way.

Eminent domain ....


> [...] Yellowstone is known to be the epicenter of a "supervolcano"

> which, if it were to cataclysmically erupt due to poking it, could wipe
> out the entire human race as well as all life in North America. Just saying.

The feds would get blamed whether or not the supervolcano explosion was
actually caused by the geothermal energy extraction, or if the explosion
was something that would have happened anyways. (As they do regularly on a
'geologic' timescale.)

> but since we don't have superconducting power transmission lines,

Battery tech is constantly getting better. Also, one might use electrolysis
and just ship out methane or hydrogen via pipelines.

A lot of NYC is heated by steam pipes. Maybe with one big enough we could
go all the way from Yellowstone to Manhatten without the intermediary
losses from coverting the energy to different forms. Although this may be a
pipe dream, we should never count out any possibilities.

--
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

[reber g=emc^2]

Why don't the news mentioned the twenty 2 billion Bush personally stole.How about the 13.5 trillion he gave bankers.How about the 1.7 billion Rick Scott stole from medicare. How about the 200,000,000 Scott spent to be Florida governor. GOPers steal big time and never get bad news coverage.I wonder,wonder why. O ya TreBert

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:33:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/22/2016 4:08 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> Yellowstone, fully developed would supply all the electrical needs of the 48 lower states.
> >> >
> >> >AP
> > Now I do not want Environment Groups and Green Groups down on my throat for exploiting Yellowstone.
> > But I do believe the best way forward is to tap into Yellowstone with many large geothermal power
> > stations, and have them fenced off. Keeping Yellowstone as a national park and with the massive
> > amounts of money made from Yellowstone is to buy out the surrounding land and increasing the total
> > size of Yellowstone that allows all the wild animals to live in this Greater Yellowstone. Allow
> > only tourists with a special permit to visit Yellowstone, but allow the daily work force of these
> > electric stations.
> >
> > A whole new concept of the National Park with Yellowstone leading the way. We preserve it and increase
> > it, but we also gain benefit of its electricity.
> >
> > AP
>
> While your idea is interesting, I would point out several things:
> - There is a difference between a National Park and a National Wildlife
> Refuge. A National Park is not for the animals. It is for the American
> people to visit, usually because of some *unspoiled* natural terrain. To
> exploit a National Park for commercial use on a large scale means
> decommissioning it as a National Park, period.

Try reading my writings without assuming "I do not know". Your replies are far far in the category of believing I know almost nothing, and so your reply is going to fill in some blanks. Try reading my posts to improve your own mind, not reading my posts to "look for alleged gaps or holes in thought". You are a young and dumb person to continue on your present course of replies to me.

To make you a better conversant, read what the person offers, what I offer, and if you disagree, just say-- disagree. Stop making replies that show your disdain and low opinion of me. Of course, you hide behind a fake name, so probably you will not heed any of my advice, since, if you cannot even post with your real name shows a lack of ability to be in science.

The National Park system is in the Executive branch of government and can easily be changed as to the purpose and use of the parks. In fact, the purpose and use of our parks is changing all the time even if no president is changing the purpose.

What I was conveying was the idea that we can have both a beautiful pristine Yellowstone and have electric geothermal power stations there. That we can increase the size of Yellowstone and make it a better place.

What you are conveying in most of your posts, is a disdain and low opinion of me. Yet, you are too young and dumb to realize it.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Yellowstone can accommodate both power plants and the scenic wonders of geysers.

Reminds me of Pragmatic Philosophy, the only good philosophy I ever found in life, pragmatism. The basic tenets are, knowledge is in the "doing", and truth is "what works", so that truth is not an absolute. However, the atomic theory is an absolute.

And in Pragmatism, beauty is in what is the most use. Sleep is beautiful because we use it everyday, and more beautiful than a scene of the Teton Mountains which we see a few times in our life.

If someone were to draw up plans, they could easily accommodate Yellowstone as a National Park with all its present beauty and along with having electric geothermal power stations there.

AP

[gaby de wilde]

http://billionsinchange.com/solutions/limitless-energy

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/24/2016 12:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Try reading my writings without assuming "I do not know". Your replies are far far in the category
> of believing I know almost nothing, and so your reply is going to fill in some blanks. Try reading
> my posts to improve your own mind, not reading my posts to "look for alleged gaps or holes in thought".
> You are a young and dumb person to continue on your present course of replies to me.
>
> To make you a better conversant, read what the person offers, what I offer, and if you disagree, just
> say-- disagree. Stop making replies that show your disdain and low opinion of me. Of course, you hide
> behind a fake name, so probably you will not heed any of my advice, since, if you cannot even post
> with your real name shows a lack of ability to be in science.

I disagree with this statement, and I would suggest you take your own
advice about assuming anything about my scientific ability. In my
experience, people who post with their real names on a public internet
forum are playing with fire and are either foolhardy or naive. Secondly,
I think you should not confuse sci.physics with any forum where real
science is PERFORMED. That is not its purpose and scientists certainly
do not use sci.physics as a place to keep up with research.

>
> The National Park system is in the Executive branch of government and can easily be changed as to
> the purpose and use of the parks. In fact, the purpose and use of our parks is changing all the
> time even if no president is changing the purpose.

Nevertheless, the IUCN has as a firm requirement of National Parks the
following:
"Highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent
or eliminate exploitation or occupation as soon as possible in the whole
area and to effectively enforce the respect of ecological,
geomorphological, or aesthetic features which have led to its establishment"

>
> What I was conveying was the idea that we can have both a beautiful pristine Yellowstone and have
> electric geothermal power stations there. That we can increase the size of Yellowstone and make it
> a better place.

As I mentioned, conversion of private land to public land requires
compensation to the private land owner. There are provisions for private
landowners to sue if the government exerts eminent domain appropriation.

>
> What you are conveying in most of your posts, is a disdain and low opinion of me. Yet, you are too
> young and dumb to realize it.

And when you declare me "young and dumb", what kind of opinion are you
trying to convey to me?

All I'm asking for you is to be aware of some well-documented facts.

>
> AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 3:37:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/24/2016 12:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Try reading my writings without assuming "I do not know". Your replies are far far in the category
> > of believing I know almost nothing, and so your reply is going to fill in some blanks. Try reading
> > my posts to improve your own mind, not reading my posts to "look for alleged gaps or holes in thought".
> > You are a young and dumb person to continue on your present course of replies to me.
> >
> > To make you a better conversant, read what the person offers, what I offer, and if you disagree, just
> > say-- disagree. Stop making replies that show your disdain and low opinion of me. Of course, you hide
> > behind a fake name, so probably you will not heed any of my advice, since, if you cannot even post
> > with your real name shows a lack of ability to be in science.
>
> I disagree with this statement, and I would suggest you take your own
> advice about assuming anything about my scientific ability. In my
> experience, people who post with their real names on a public internet
> forum are playing with fire and are either foolhardy or naive. Secondly,
> I think you should not confuse sci.physics with any forum where real
> science is PERFORMED. That is not its purpose and scientists certainly
> do not use sci.physics as a place to keep up with research.
>

No, if you are in science, means you are in for the truth, and never scared of the "public", never scared of others. The truth wills and wins out. If you have to use a fake name, science is not primary for you, but other things are more important to the fakester-- like attacking people.

There are situations where a fake name is required, such as in a oppressive environment, a oppressive government. But Odd is not living in such a environment to be forced to use a fake name.

> >
> > The National Park system is in the Executive branch of government and can easily be changed as to
> > the purpose and use of the parks. In fact, the purpose and use of our parks is changing all the
> > time even if no president is changing the purpose.
>
> Nevertheless, the IUCN has as a firm requirement of National Parks the
> following:
> "Highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent
> or eliminate exploitation or occupation as soon as possible in the whole
> area and to effectively enforce the respect of ecological,
> geomorphological, or aesthetic features which have led to its establishment"
>

By building Geothermal stations in Yellowstone and with the money acquired for huge amounts of electricity, Yellowstone is able to buy up neighboring land for the park and to enclose the entire Park by fencing. All because of the money generated. Someday, Yellowstone could be the largest land bloc in the lower 48 and still have its scenery, its wild animals, and its wildnerness, save for electric plants and lines. It is better to have a few thousand workers at Yellowstone, than to have millions of tourists waddling through Yellowstone.

> >
> > What I was conveying was the idea that we can have both a beautiful pristine Yellowstone and have
> > electric geothermal power stations there. That we can increase the size of Yellowstone and make it
> > a better place.
>
> As I mentioned, conversion of private land to public land requires
> compensation to the private land owner. There are provisions for private
> landowners to sue if the government exerts eminent domain appropriation.
>

You are a depressant for new and better ideas. Why not be a "uplifting personality" rather than your depressant one.

> >
> > What you are conveying in most of your posts, is a disdain and low opinion of me. Yet, you are too
> > young and dumb to realize it.
>
> And when you declare me "young and dumb", what kind of opinion are you
> trying to convey to me?
>
> All I'm asking for you is to be aware of some well-documented facts.
>

No, all you are asking for is to "forever post replies to AP" saying what low opinion you have of him and how every idea of AP has to be wrong. That is what you are playing, and yet you are too dumb to realize what you are playing. Dumbness usually, not always equates to being young and learning through time a wiser way of living. Show me a post of yours, that respects me, rather than puts me down.

AP

[Anon E. Mouse]

On 4/24/2016 5:53 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 3:37:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/24/2016 12:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>> I disagree with this statement, and I would suggest you take your own
>> advice about assuming anything about my scientific ability. In my
>> experience, people who post with their real names on a public internet
>> forum are playing with fire and are either foolhardy or naive. Secondly,
>> I think you should not confuse sci.physics with any forum where real
>> science is PERFORMED. That is not its purpose and scientists certainly
>> do not use sci.physics as a place to keep up with research.
>
> No, if you are in science, means you are in for the truth, and never scared
> of the "public", never scared of others. The truth wills and wins out. If you
> have to use a fake name, science is not primary for you, but other things are
> more important to the fakester-- like attacking people.

> There are situations where a fake name is required, such as in a
> oppressive environment, a oppressive government. But Odd is not living
> in such a environment to be forced to use a fake name.

First, what kind of fake name is "Archimedes Plutonium"?

Second, this is an internet discussion group, not a science lab. There
are plenty of unstable people here. Look at "hanson" and his antisemitic
and coprophilic obsession with Herb Glazier for example. That kind of
people is a good reason not to use a real name here.

>> As I mentioned, conversion of private land to public land requires
>> compensation to the private land owner. There are provisions for private
>> landowners to sue if the government exerts eminent domain appropriation.
>>
>
> You are a depressant for new and better ideas. Why not be a "uplifting personality"
> rather than your depressant one.

Compensation for eminent domain is in the US Constitution. It is a
simple requirement. Odd Bodkin is simply stating a fact.

[Mike Duffy]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 19:07:17 -0400, Anon E. Mouse wrote:

> First, what kind of fake name is "Archimedes Plutonium"?

I'm not sure he's the 'real' one, but he has an entry here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_celebrity

As I recall from days gone by, he actually changed his legal name to
"Archimedes Plutonium". So, regardless if the other person is faking the
name, it is, in fact, not a fake name.

On the other hand, "Anon E. Mouse" seems a bit suspect.

--
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/24/2016 4:53 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 3:37:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 4/24/2016 12:35 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Try reading my writings without assuming "I do not know". Your replies are far far in the category
>>> of believing I know almost nothing, and so your reply is going to fill in some blanks. Try reading
>>> my posts to improve your own mind, not reading my posts to "look for alleged gaps or holes in thought".
>>> You are a young and dumb person to continue on your present course of replies to me.
>>>
>>> To make you a better conversant, read what the person offers, what I offer, and if you disagree, just
>>> say-- disagree. Stop making replies that show your disdain and low opinion of me. Of course, you hide
>>> behind a fake name, so probably you will not heed any of my advice, since, if you cannot even post
>>> with your real name shows a lack of ability to be in science.
>>
>> I disagree with this statement, and I would suggest you take your own
>> advice about assuming anything about my scientific ability. In my
>> experience, people who post with their real names on a public internet
>> forum are playing with fire and are either foolhardy or naive. Secondly,
>> I think you should not confuse sci.physics with any forum where real
>> science is PERFORMED. That is not its purpose and scientists certainly
>> do not use sci.physics as a place to keep up with research.
>>
>
> No, if you are in science, means you are in for the truth, and never scared of the "public",never
> scared of others.

Then you will post your home address and bank account details here. No
fear, right?

> The truth wills and wins out. If you have to use a fake name, science is not primary for you, but
> other things are more important to the fakester-- like attacking people.

No, not really. My motive for maintaining a nym are simple identity
protection from people on the internet who like to steal identities and
cause havoc in their lives. Perhaps you've had no experience with that.
I have.

>
> There are situations where a fake name is required, such as in a oppressive environment, a
> oppressive government. But Odd is not living in such a environment to be forced to use a fake name.

Oh, but I am.

Perhaps you can walk in the Bronx with $10 bills hanging out of our
pocket, feeling no fear of an "oppressive environment".

Be cautious about judging, Mr. Plutonium.

>
>
>>>
>>> The National Park system is in the Executive branch of government and can easily be changed as to
>>> the purpose and use of the parks. In fact, the purpose and use of our parks is changing all the
>>> time even if no president is changing the purpose.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the IUCN has as a firm requirement of National Parks the
>> following:
>> "Highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent
>> or eliminate exploitation or occupation as soon as possible in the whole
>> area and to effectively enforce the respect of ecological,
>> geomorphological, or aesthetic features which have led to its establishment"
>>
>
> By building Geothermal stations in Yellowstone and with the money acquired for huge amounts of
> electricity, Yellowstone is able to buy up neighboring land for the park and to enclose the entire
> Park by fencing. All because of the money generated. Someday, Yellowstone could be the largest
> land bloc in the lower 48 and still have its scenery, its wild animals, and its wildnerness,
> save for electric plants and lines. It is better to have a few thousand workers at Yellowstone,
> than to have millions of tourists waddling through Yellowstone.

Please note the charge of the IUCN to "eliminate exploitation ... and to
effectively enforce the respect of ... the aesthetic features". If you
look at IUCN rules, you'll note that National Parks must be kept open to
the public, not fenced off or restricted to workers. I just am floored
that you are proposing that Yellowstone have its status as a National
Park revoked. You know, surely, that Yellowstone is the oldest National
Park in the country, and was in fact the lampholder for the National
Park program in the first place?!

>
>
>>>
>>> What I was conveying was the idea that we can have both a beautiful pristine Yellowstone and have
>>> electric geothermal power stations there. That we can increase the size of Yellowstone and make it
>>> a better place.
>>
>> As I mentioned, conversion of private land to public land requires
>> compensation to the private land owner. There are provisions for private
>> landowners to sue if the government exerts eminent domain appropriation.
>>
>
> You are a depressant for new and better ideas. Why not be a "uplifting personality" rather than
> your depressant one.

Because, frankly, I disagree that it's a better idea. I think it's a
terrible idea to use Yellowstone for geothermal energy, for a number of
reasons.

>
>>>
>>> What you are conveying in most of your posts, is a disdain and low opinion of me. Yet, you are too
>>> young and dumb to realize it.
>>
>> And when you declare me "young and dumb", what kind of opinion are you
>> trying to convey to me?
>>
>> All I'm asking for you is to be aware of some well-documented facts.
>>
>
> No, all you are asking for is to "forever post replies to AP" saying what low opinion you have of
> him and how every idea of AP has to be wrong.

If you post something I disagree with, you are going to react bitterly
at my disagreement?

>That is what you are playing, and yet you are too dumb
> to realize what you are playing. Dumbness usually, not always equates to being young and learning
> through time a wiser way of living. Show me a post of yours, that respects me, rather than puts me down.
>
> AP
>

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:35:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/24/2016 4:53 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)

> >> All I'm asking for you is to be aware of some well-documented facts.
> >>

No, your presence in my threads is not to learn, not to do physics, but is to counter everything I say.
It is to suppress me. It is to eject your low opinion of me. It is to attack. You are too dumb to realize this. A smart person that hates another, avoids them. Dumb people keep sticking around people they hate.

> >
> > No, all you are asking for is to "forever post replies to AP" saying what low opinion you have of
> > him and how every idea of AP has to be wrong.
>
> If you post something I disagree with, you are going to react bitterly
> at my disagreement?
>

No, I do not. I react angrily at a poster that does ** nothing but disagree ** with everything I post. If we had this discussion face to face instead of Internet, about the 2nd or 3rd time you disagreed with me, I would not let you in my presence, or there would be a fight. But since the Internet is not face to face, the Internet is full of stalkers like you. Some stalkers are ugly with just one post. You are the soft stalker that takes many posts for the other person to realize your game of constant disagreement, constant negatives, constant depression of your attitude.

You never even gave a physics argument that Geothermal is superior to Solar by a factor of 5,000. You attacked that and left it blank empty to your belief that geothermal is not superior. So, how is Solar superior to geothermal, in pure physics. But you cannot answer that because, well, you are not a physicist, but just a dumb person that like physics.

So, I used the Stefan Boltzmann law for the 5,000 superiority.

Let me see your math for Solar being superior, since you said I was wrong on Geothermal superior.

You see, when in the hospital, I was focused on just posting, even though yours were attacks. But now out of the hospital and regaining my old self, I really cannot stomach a depressing person like you who is bent on trashing my every idea.

You complain about cranks and others in sci.physics, but have you ever considered, you are in their boat, not in the boat of those that love physics, know some physics and want to learn physics. You are in the boat with Hanson as to use Internet to constantly attack people, albeit the soft attack.

unsigned because it is not worth saving

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I would include the Hawaii lava National Park as a site to develop geothermals and supply the entire world with batteries since it is too far to string electric lines.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now can someone search through all the Science, New Scientist, Scientific American magazines for how many articles given to Geothermal Energy in the past starting with year 2000? Was it zip for all three magazines?

iPhone post

AP

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 2:49:58 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I don't think anybody is suppressing anything. Geothermal isn't practical except at small scale. And there are a lot of engineering costs and problems.

It is no panacea.

Yellowstone is too dangerous. If we were to inadvertently trigger a supervolcano eruption it could end civilization as we know it.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

How do I get a photo in my Google posts?

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 3:51:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> How do I get a photo in my Google posts?
>
> AP

Today I sent a check in the amount of $165 to the AAAS to join their organization. I did this because I want to try to get them to print more about Geothermal energy, for which they have been sorely lacking and derelict in doing so far.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 3:51:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> How do I get a photo in my Google posts?
>
> AP

testing to see if photo is shown

[gaby de wilde]

There are hundreds of claims of energy production in ways to exotic to imagine. You will find that mainstream media is carefully avoiding all of them with the rare exception of some unmotivated river of insults.

If you are interested in THE CONSPIRACY! geothermal is a great example.

I would rank the woah topics like this:

1 - Geothermal, as it is very simple and (depending on the location) quite wonderful. (think of Antarctica)
2 - LENR, there are tons and tons of ongoing CMNS (condensed matter nuclear science) research efforts going back several decades and serious attempts at making a stable product for consumers and industries. While not all that powerful compared to other claims the field involves hundreds of people and hundreds of millions in investments.
3 - The N-machine, aka tewari reaction-less generator.
4 - Stanley Meyer's formula for destroying a capacitor by rapidly charging and discharging it with high voltage - using water as its dielectric.
5 - The GEET engine modification for being mind blowing.
6 - The Gadgetman Groove for being hilarious
7 - The testatica
8 - Kanarev Electrolysis
9 - Browns gas implosion
10 - The Papp Engine

And many many more.

It is easy to spew some "at first glance it looks like" type of comment about each one of them. If one doesn't know anything about a topic that opinion cant be all that valuable.

We have many decorated scientists pointing and crying about these things entirely without being involved or informed. If we are at all interested in figuring out if something works or not we would at least have to talk about it openly.

Take the not listed above: Thrust Kinetic Generator by Rosch Innovations AG. They purchased the technology which is an incredibly weird thing to do if it doesn't work.

I had a fun chat with someone involved in designing space ships. He couldn't look at this stuff until I told him that it was understandable that he was so attached to the high school version of thermodynamics but if that should be the final word on energy technology we wont be traveling to the stars as it requires a kind of energy technology currently considered impossible.

Yes, there is a major CONSPIRACY of silence going on. Journals aren't publishing even if the inventor knows how to write a paper and scientists are generally not interested in unpublished research unless they are themselves working on something very closely related.

It isn't that we don't know how to design a test protocol for remote viewing or reincarnation. It is that the audience has been firmly brainwashed into ignoring data in favor of pet theories. How many hundreds of facts should a 4 year old provide about his previous life before questioning the phenomenon becomes a quest for religious idiots? Then we also have thousands of claimed cases!

For non of this to add up to a serious research topic we would need to be firmly brainwashed.

Enjoy!

P.S.

don't forget to read-up on the topics listed above, geothermal is a fascinating thing.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:01:37 PM UTC-5, gaby de wilde wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 10:56:37 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Now can someone search through all the Science, New Scientist, Scientific American magazines for how many articles given to Geothermal Energy in the past starting with year 2000? Was it zip for all three magazines?
> >
> > iPhone post
> >
> > AP
>
> There are hundreds of claims of energy production in ways to exotic to imagine. You will find that mainstream media is carefully avoiding all of them with the rare exception of some unmotivated river of insults.
>
> If you are interested in THE CONSPIRACY! geothermal is a great example.
>
> I would rank the woah topics like this:
>
> 1 - Geothermal, as it is very simple and (depending on the location) quite wonderful. (think of Antarctica)

I would suspect the geothermals of Antarctica would make Antarctica liveable although a engineering challenge.

> 2 - LENR, there are tons and tons of ongoing CMNS (condensed matter nuclear science) research efforts going back several decades and serious attempts at making a stable product for consumers and industries. While not all that powerful compared to other claims the field involves hundreds of people and hundreds of millions in investments.
> 3 - The N-machine, aka tewari reaction-less generator.
> 4 - Stanley Meyer's formula for destroying a capacitor by rapidly charging and discharging it with high voltage - using water as its dielectric.
> 5 - The GEET engine modification for being mind blowing.
> 6 - The Gadgetman Groove for being hilarious
> 7 - The testatica
> 8 - Kanarev Electrolysis
> 9 - Browns gas implosion
> 10 - The Papp Engine
>
> And many many more.
>
> It is easy to spew some "at first glance it looks like" type of comment about each one of them. If one doesn't know anything about a topic that opinion cant be all that valuable.
>
> We have many decorated scientists pointing and crying about these things entirely without being involved or informed. If we are at all interested in figuring out if something works or not we would at least have to talk about it openly.
>
> Take the not listed above: Thrust Kinetic Generator by Rosch Innovations AG. They purchased the technology which is an incredibly weird thing to do if it doesn't work.
>
> I had a fun chat with someone involved in designing space ships. He couldn't look at this stuff until I told him that it was understandable that he was so attached to the high school version of thermodynamics but if that should be the final word on energy technology we wont be traveling to the stars as it requires a kind of energy technology currently considered impossible.
>
> Yes, there is a major CONSPIRACY of silence going on. Journals aren't publishing even if the inventor knows how to write a paper and scientists are generally not interested in unpublished research unless they are themselves working on something very closely related.
>
> It isn't that we don't know how to design a test protocol for remote viewing or reincarnation. It is that the audience has been firmly brainwashed into ignoring data in favor of pet theories. How many hundreds of facts should a 4 year old provide about his previous life before questioning the phenomenon becomes a quest for religious idiots? Then we also have thousands of claimed cases!
>
> For non of this to add up to a serious research topic we would need to be firmly brainwashed.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> P.S.
>
> don't forget to read-up on the topics listed above, geothermal is a fascinating thing.

The PBS Newshour, public television in USA, did a report on energy with the recent Paris Global Warming Summit. They never once mentioned Geothermal, but always Solar and Wind. As if Geothermal is nonexistent and foreign to them.

And they, PBS, did what many do, talk about exotic nonsense-- algae, battery improvements, crackpot ideas.

Not one mention of the world's greatest second source of energy other than the Sun, being the interior of our planet-- geothermal.

So if there is a prize in newsreporting for largest failures of our time-- the failure of reporting geothermal takes the cake.

AP