Where is Mook?
Anonymous
Damon Hill
@www.ecn.org:
> Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
>
>
He may have another committment, of an institutional nature...
--Damon
Bob Eld
"Anonymous" <cri...@ecn.org> wrote in message
news:2009070614540...@www.ecn.org...
> Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
What do you think? Have you EVER seen anything about any of his projects or
ideas in any publication or the press? I haven't.
Wild ass ideas and concepts scribbled out on the backs of envelopes and
napkins does not constitute projects.
Mook had a lot of ideas but his mouth got way ahead of his brain and legs.
Poof!
Eric Gisin
Here is a SciAm article on the topic. I'm surprised it currently costs more than PV!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hybrid-solar-cells-photovoltaic-utilities&print=true
"Anonymous" <cri...@ecn.org> wrote in message news:2009070614540...@www.ecn.org...
bw
>
He has sold so much PV hydrogen that he is now a billionaire, so he should
have time to make usenet posts.
Eeyore
Anonymous wrote:
> Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
Yup, up a gum tree.
Graham
--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address
Eeyore
Bob Eld wrote:
> "Anonymous" <cri...@ecn.org> wrote
>
> > Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
>
> What do you think? Have you EVER seen anything about any of his projects or
> ideas in any publication or the press? I haven't.
>
> Wild ass ideas and concepts scribbled out on the backs of envelopes and
> napkins does not constitute projects.
You'd be AMAZED how many people think they do !
George Cornelius
> "Anonymous" <cri...@ecn.org> wrote in message
> news:2009070614540...@www.ecn.org...
>
>>Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
>
>
> What do you think? Have you EVER seen anything about any of his projects or
> ideas in any publication or the press? I haven't.
Well, there's this (click on photovoltaic):
Save the planet a microJoule at a time.
George Cornelius
Bob Eld
"George Cornelius" <STXgcorn...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:4A97B...@charter.net...
Thanks for that. It sure looks all the world like another one of Mook's
"back of envelope" sketches. Like with all other Mook concepts, it is
apparently not in production and likely never will be. Also notice that this
scheme is different that the hydrogen generating schemes he promoted on this
group in the past. Mook is an idea man with grandiose plans but little do.
There's nothing wrong with that but our problems with him were his claims
that such things were sold, installed and producing Mega-Watts or thousand
CFM of hydrogen when, in fact, none of it was any further developed than the
sketch in the above reference. Mook always claimed he had multi-million
dollar contracts to install this stuff yet there was never any evidence of
that. The whole thing was nothing but vapor ware.
Rob Dekker
"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h78q3k$ep5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thanks Bob. Good summary.
I once dug a bit deeper with him into the technology and the business side
and got the same impression of him as you describe.
He had this idea of making hydrogen from his solar panels' electricity,
then selling the hydrogen to buy coal, and then generating electricity from
the coal and sell the electricity. I pointed out that due to the efficiency
losses in that process, directly selling the electricity from his solar
panels directly would tripple his 'profits', but for some reason he throught
that his 3-step process was still better.
On the technical side, he has this patent, which claims '2000x' solar
concentration onto special solar cells.
When I questioned the heat problem of 2000 sol onto a solar cell, he
mentioned that they use water cooling.
I calculated for him that the water would vaporize under 2000 sol, and thus
would create water vapor bubbles, which would surely destroy the optics (and
thus destroy the 2000x solar input). When he then mentioned that he used
intelligent "bubble engineering" I gave up.
After all was done, I feel that Mook indeed has grandiose ideas, but can't
get anything done. Reason being that the details simply do not work out
right, and his cost calculations are way, way too low.
But I still miss him though. It was refreshing to have such a character here
on the news group.
What I liked about him was that he does not hide behind cursing and insults
and was not stone-walling either. In general he is defensive in a positive
and constructive way. Only every now and then a remark of 'greatness' (like
you are not worth my time because I have big stuff to do). But other than
that he was fun to talk to.
Rob
George Cornelius
> "George Cornelius" <STXgcorn...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Bob Eld wrote:
>>>What do you think? Have you EVER seen anything about any of his projects
>>>or ideas in any publication or the press? I haven't.
>>
>>Save the planet a microJoule at a time.
> Thanks for that. It sure looks all the world like another one of Mook's
> "back of envelope" sketches. Like with all other Mook concepts, it is
> apparently not in production and likely never will be. Also notice that this
> scheme is different that the hydrogen generating schemes he promoted on this
> group in the past. Mook is an idea man with grandiose plans but little do.
> There's nothing wrong with that but our problems with him were his claims
> that such things were sold, installed and producing Mega-Watts or thousand
> CFM of hydrogen when, in fact, none of it was any further developed than the
> sketch in the above reference. Mook always claimed he had multi-million
> dollar contracts to install this stuff yet there was never any evidence of
> that. The whole thing was nothing but vapor ware.
I don't want to claim that the Raven Rocks project is nonfunctional. It
may all work - and Mook's contributions are relatively minor, if they
have been implemented at all - but if you factor in all of the costs
I'm sure you would find it quite expensive to live that way.
I would have liked to have seen his large-scale scheme go into some kind
of production just to see whether it could come anywhere near doing what
he claimed it could. It all seemed to make sense except that there was
a lot of handwaving about what that array of tiny holographic mirrors
actually did to assure that the beam remained focussed throughout the
solar day with no moving parts.
The hydrolysis portion I believe to be wasted effort, however. PV
produced electrical energy is enough of a challenge. Using it to
produce, in a somewhat lossy way, a fuel that no one yet has a use
for, and for which there may never be a significant market, would
seem to be motivated by desire to be green regardless of cost and
not by the economics of the matter.
George Cornelius
daestrom
> Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
>
Well I remember he was working on some project in a valley in Mexico and
going to run transmission north into the states.
Then there was using solar to make H2, which he would then combine with
coal for a synthetic petroleum product.
And there was the water-cooled, concentrated solar cell project where he
would install the unit at your site (would *not* sell the collector) and
just sell you the output.
And there was also.....
daestrom
DanB
> Anonymous wrote:
>> Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
>>
>
One of my favorites was his mass accelerator ring!
Best, Dan.
Sam West
Those posting here may want to check out the following:
SOLAR ENERGY
http://www.ravenrocks.org/Subterrraneans/Energy_PV/index.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbWNnVsBhOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkX_nvrPt1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtimceXOGzw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDYAiFSUkuo
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20076466/Carbon-Free-Hydrogen-from-Sunlight-and-Water
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20047598/Mook-Patent-Application
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024194/Pages-142-From-Mok-Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024088/White-Paper-Wafer-Fab
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/Testimony
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20019383/mokenergy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuzFqFK9gW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77ZjkqlBU0s
ECONOMICS AND POLITICS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYuK0iJqpNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1MCq8bekRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YON9n0pHNws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCJl-ZbHOYc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOpCMnLoM1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istE1bpoDPg
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY & AEROSPACE PROJECTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWuL4sZ3ppY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXwctPXT4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NlZmUUWvJw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhZb7XDaYts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I81ogcX3ONY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvE-bkc0Uxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWiXDu64c0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMefZhA7ifI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP5DX2NSl7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxV2FCUESh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzG4PEureFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcbXSONtBdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E2586kx_Uc
Your friend,
Sam
Sam West
Those posting here may want to check out the following:
Bill Ward
> On Sep 2, 2:41 am, DanB <a...@some.net> wrote:
>> daestrom wrote:
>> > Anonymous wrote:
>> >> Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
>>
>> > And there was also.....
>>
>> One of my favorites was his mass accelerator ring!
>>
>> Best, Dan.
Here's a link he emailed me a couple weeks ago:
<http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0A08353D9590971D>
At least he's apparently not in jail.
Sam West
> "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h78q3k$ep5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George Cornelius" <STXgcornelius...@charter.net> wrote in message
> >news:4A97B...@charter.net...
> >> Bob Eld wrote:
> >> > "Anonymous" <cri...@ecn.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:2009070614540...@www.ecn.org...
>
> >> >>Is he still on track with his Indonesia development?
>
> >> > What do you think? Have you EVER seen anything about any of his
> >> > projects
> > or
> >> > ideas in any publication or the press? I haven't.
>
> >> Well, there's this (click on photovoltaic):
>
> >> http://ravenrocks.org/
>
> >> Save the planet a microJoule at a time.
>
> >> George Cornelius
>
> >> > Wild ass ideas and concepts scribbled out on the backs of envelopes and
> >> > napkins does not constitute projects.
>
> > legs.
> >> > Poof!
>
> > Thanks for that. It sure looks all the world like another one ofMook's
> > "back of envelope" sketches. Like with all otherMookconcepts, it is
> > apparently not in production and likely never will be. Also notice that
> > this
> > scheme is different that the hydrogen generating schemes he promoted on
> > this
> > There's nothing wrong with that but our problems with him were his claims
> > that such things were sold, installed and producing Mega-Watts or thousand
> > CFM of hydrogen when, in fact, none of it was any further developed than
> > the
> > dollar contracts to install this stuff yet there was never any evidence of
> > that. The whole thing was nothing but vapor ware.
>
> Thanks Bob. Good summary.
> I once dug a bit deeper with him into the technology and the business side
> and got the same impression of him as you describe.
>
> He had this idea of making hydrogen from his solar panels' electricity,
> then selling the hydrogen to buy coal, and then generating electricity from
> the coal and sell the electricity. I pointed out that due to the efficiency
> losses in that process, directly selling the electricity from his solar
> panels directly would tripple his 'profits', but for some reason he throught
> that his 3-step process was still better.
>
> On the technical side, he has this patent, which claims '2000x' solar
> concentration onto special solar cells.
> When I questioned the heat problem of 2000 sol onto a solar cell, he
> mentioned that they use water cooling.
> I calculated for him that the water would vaporize under 2000 sol, and thus
> would create water vapor bubbles, which would surely destroy the optics (and
> thus destroy the 2000x solar input). When he then mentioned that he used
> intelligent "bubble engineering" I gave up.
>
> get anything done. Reason being that the details simply do not work out
> right, and his cost calculations are way, way too low.
>
> But I still miss him though. It was refreshing to have such a character here
> on the news group.
> What I liked about him was that he does not hide behind cursing and insults
> and was not stone-walling either. In general he is defensive in a positive
> and constructive way. Only every now and then a remark of 'greatness' (like
> you are not worth my time because I have big stuff to do). But other than
> that he was fun to talk to.
>
> Rob
Mr. Mook's idea iirc is to;
a) use ultra-low-cost solar panels to produce DC electricity when
the sun shines
b) make hydrogen & oxygen from water at a rate proportional to
lighting conditions
c) trade hydrogen for coal, residual fuel oil and natural gas in
stationary power plants
i) burning hydrogen instead of these fuels to make AC
electricity on demand
ii) eliminating all carbon emissions from stationary power
plants
iii) stabilizing costs long-term for electricity generation
iv) without major changes of infrastructure
d) take the coal and residual oil and natural gas and;
i) convert coal to gasoline diesel fuel and jet fuel with
add'l hydrogen
ii) convert residual oil to gasoline diesel fuel and jet fuel
with add'l hydrogen
iii) convert natural gas to methanol with oxygen dehydrate to
make gasoline
This process eliminates half USA carbon emissions without major change
to our infrastructure, and generates more liquid transportation fuels
than we use so when combined with conventional domestic production
makes the USA the world's largest exporter of liquid fuels putting us
in firm control of the world's energy markets according to Mook. Mook
claims this will earn enough money to balance US trade and end our
economic downturn. He claims he can make hydrogen for $7 boe and
synfuel at $9 boe. (barrel of oil equivalent) Mook also says that
this reduces total carbon emissions by humanity since it keeps the
price of oil below $30 per barrel, and the price of other fuels low,
which means high priced reserves don't get produced. There are 900
billion barrels of recoverable oil at $70 per barrel according to
Mook. There are only 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil at $30
per barrel. Recoverable meaning economically recoverable.
These are all rational arguments and make sense to me. Where your
statements make Mook look irrational you have made factual errors.
DanB
>
> He is working on an adaptable holographic antenna system for flight
> platforms at present - along with doing his energy schtick and space
> schtick. My company is rather modest by comparison to his plans.
> Mook worked closely with Dr. Kraus who's a legend in antennae work
> here in Ohio and I'm glad he's available to solve some difficult
> problems for us here as SM Antenna.
>
> http://www.bigear.org/JDKpassage-articles.htm#Dispatch20040723
>
> Mook was one of the first to use FFT processes to analyze complex
> signals. He is also well-respected in the field of complex spatial
> and time filtering going way beyond Kalman and adaptive filters. His
> ideas for using pilot beams and conjugate beams, using advanced
> metamaterial surfaces in the micro-wave region is cutting edge and
> makes it possible for stealthy aircraft to communicate with large
> numbers of users via line of sight and other advances that give
> tremendous edge electronically while maintaining stealthiness. Mook
> helped create that, and is implementing it for us now.
I would swear I am hearing from a sock puppet...
PV
>He is working on an adaptable holographic antenna system for flight
>platforms at present - along with doing his energy schtick and space
>schtick.
Riight.
>My company is rather modest by comparison to his plans.
He's been posting the same stuff on this newsgroup for years, if not much
recently. I don't know if "plans" is the right word.
>http://www.bigear.org/JDKpassage-articles.htm#Dispatch20040723
>
>Mook was one of the first to use FFT processes to analyze complex
>signals.
Oh really? I think the inventors of the FFT algorithms would be surprised
by that statement, since it's what they're freaking for in the first
place. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.
Sam West
> Sam West <smante...@gmail.com> writes:
> >He is working on an adaptable holographic antenna system for flight
> >platforms at present - along with doing his energy schtick and space
> >schtick.
>
> Riight.
>
> >My company is rather modest by comparison to his plans.
>
> He's been posting the same stuff on this newsgroup for years, if not much
> recently. I don't know if "plans" is the right word.
>
> >http://www.bigear.org/JDKpassage-articles.htm#Dispatch20040723
>
> >signals.
>
> Oh really? I think the inventors of the FFT algorithms would be surprised
> by that statement, since it's what they're freaking for in the first
> place. *
> --
> * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
> like corkscrews.
Sam here, answering what I thought was an honest question about Mr.
Mook. Now, falsehoods are being bandied about someone who is very
important to our efforts and has a prickly personality at times. So,
I'm about to cut my losses but not before putting out a few kind words
toward Mr. Mook.
You are asserting something was said that was in fact not said.
Mr. Mook made significant contributions in his own fields. This does
not invalidate the contributions of others, nor does it take away from
the pioneers.
I have refreshed my memory of the Cooley Tukey theorem so that I get
it right.
Wiki relates that Jim Cooley from IBM and John Tukey from Princeton
published a paper in 1965 detailing a recursive approach computing the
Fourier Transform. FFT was first used in signal processing to detect
and measure nuclear explosions from earthquake data a process which
was classified at the time. FFT was used less secretly to extract
atomic spacing from crystallographic data.
Despite Cooley-Tukey's assertion in their 1965 paper to the contrary
recursive methods go all the way back to 1805 with Gauss, though
Cooley-Tukey developed it independently of Gauss' work.
The digital method they used, and which is still widely used today,
involves two interleaved discrete digital processes. In their 1965
paper they used the process to solve a 2k point Fourier Transform on a
IBM 7094 in 0.02 minutes. FFT has a wide range of scientific
applications and its use has grown significantly since 1965.
http://www.dilloneng.com/fft_ip
Mr. Mook's resume says he worked with Dr. Walter Mitchell in 1973
doing FFT analysis on an IBM 7094 transforming doppler corrections
taken from solar spectral data at Kitt Peak and producing maps of how
the sun's surface vibrates and twists as it rotates. I don't have the
paper in front of me, but this is correlated with short range solar
cycles including sunspot data.
As processor speeds and capabilities improved since 1965, a natural
progression in FFT capabilities. Several ASICs are in common use for
a wide range of signal processing functions, as well as more
specialized customized circuitry.
Each improvement has its own genius behind it and its own unique
application area. Work in one area does not take away from work in
any of the other areas.
Mr. Mook developed customized FFT processors to solve specific
problems in SETI, in sonar imaging and communications using ambient
sounds, in dynamically reconfigurable antenna arrays. Mr. Mook's work
doesn't take anything away from the early pioneers or others who all
did significant.
This clears this up for me as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what
you fellow's purpose is with this thread. Its not something I want to
participate any further in.
Your friend
Sam
Sam West
You may contact Mr. Mook directly at;
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/william-mook/11/304/267
to carry on this apparent abuse!
I understand he wants nothing to do with any of you fellows at this
point.
Don Lancaster
> Rob
>
> Mr. Mook's idea iirc is to;
>
> a) use ultra-low-cost solar panels to produce DC electricity when
> the sun shines
> b) make hydrogen & oxygen from water at a rate proportional to
> lighting conditions
>
Clearly the fatal flaw.
Because of the staggering loss of exergy, there ALWAYS will be more
intelligent uses for the electricity than immediately and irrevocably
destroying most of its value.
As ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED by thermodynamic fundamentals.
A kilowatt hour of hydrogen stored energy is ridiculously less valuable
than a kilowatt hour of electricity. The process is exactly the same as
1:1 exchanging US dollars for Mexican Pesos.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf
No net energy pv panel exists.
They ALL are gasoline destroying energy sinks.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
Now, it may well be that some process of solar energy in to hydrogen may
evolve and be useful. But if at any intermediate point there is
recoverable electricity involved, hydrogen conversion becomes both
pointless and exergy destructive.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Sam West
wrote:
> Bob Eld wrote:
> > "George Cornelius" <STXgcornelius...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>Bob Eld wrote:
> >>>What do you think? Have you EVER seen anything about any of his projects
> >>>or ideas in any publication or the press? I haven't.
> >> http://ravenrocks.org/
>
> >>Save the planet a microJoule at a time.
> > "back of envelope" sketches. Like with all otherMookconcepts, it is
> > apparently not in production and likely never will be. Also notice that this
> > scheme is different that the hydrogen generating schemes he promoted on this
> > There's nothing wrong with that but our problems with him were his claims
> > that such things were sold, installed and producing Mega-Watts or thousand
> > CFM of hydrogen when, in fact, none of it was any further developed than the
> > dollar contracts to install this stuff yet there was never any evidence of
> > that. The whole thing was nothing but vapor ware.
>
> I don't want to claim that the Raven Rocks project is nonfunctional. It
> have been implemented at all - but if you factor in all of the costs
> I'm sure you would find it quite expensive to live that way.
>
> I would have liked to have seen his large-scale scheme go into some kind
> of production just to see whether it could come anywhere near doing what
> he claimed it could. It all seemed to make sense except that there was
> a lot of handwaving about what that array of tiny holographic mirrors
> actually did to assure that the beam remained focussed throughout the
> solar day with no moving parts.
>
> The hydrolysis portion I believe to be wasted effort, however. PV
> produced electrical energy is enough of a challenge. Using it to
> produce, in a somewhat lossy way, a fuel that no one yet has a use
> for, and for which there may never be a significant market, would
> seem to be motivated by desire to be green regardless of cost and
> not by the economics of the matter.
>
> George Cornelius
As I understand it, the reason making hydrogen from sunlight is not
wasted effort is the very low cost Mook claims for his panels.
Mr. Mook relates in his videos and papers cost of $50 to $70 per
kilowatt. This is the big issue for Mook. He makes panels at that
price, then everything works. By my reckoning, you get 23 pounds of
hydrogen from sunlight and water for $1.
At that price hydrogen beats out all other fuels. Burning hydrogen at
this price instead of oil costs only $4 a barrel saved. Burning
hydrogen instead of natural gas costs only $0.70 per mcf saved.
Burning hydrogen instead of coal only costs $16 per ton saved.
Mook nearly doubles these numbers in the papers he has written. He
says this is because there are loss factors that must be taken into
account which he has worked out in detail. This is being prudent in
his view.
Even at double the figures, $8 per barrel, $1.40 per mcf, and $32 per
ton, he sets a price for conventional fuels that is far lower than the
market supports today.
Mook says this reduces carbon emissions because higher prices reserves
are no longer economically recoverable at these prices. Mook claims
that any growth in demand will happen by expanding the direct sale of
hydrogen not synfuels. Synfuels peg the market at low prices.
Synfuels take money out of oil company pockets and put it into
hydrogen production, according to Mook.
Whether he achieves these prices or not is a big question. If he
does, the rest follows logically, and it makes sense to me.
Your friend,
Sam
Sam West
> Sam West wrote:
> > Rob
>
> > Mr.Mook'sidea iirc is to;
Don,
I'm not saying anything. I'm merely reporting what I've heard Mook
say.
According to him the cost of exergy is a factor.
Mook talks specifically about the cost of exergy in his process. He
says that since we are throwing away sunlight when we have exergy loss
and sunlight is free that's cheaper than making more efficient use of
sunlight to a point. Expensive capital equipment is not free.
Sunlight is.
So, that makes sense to me and makes your other points moot.
Mook addresses the subject here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDYAiFSUkuo
Starting at 0:41 and going through 2:41 he explains this.
According to Mook its $840 per kilowatt to have very little loss of
exergy.
Its $70 per kilowatt to live with a system that has 33% loss of
exergy.
As Mook says, protons at $100 per ton are worth more than DC
electricity when the sun shines at $100 per MWh since protons burned
in a thermal generator make 15 MWh of AC electricity when needed.
Bill Ward
> He is working on an adaptable holographic antenna system for flight
> platforms at present - along with doing his energy schtick and space
> schtick. My company is rather modest by comparison to his plans. Mook
> worked closely with Dr. Kraus who's a legend in antennae work here in
> Ohio and I'm glad he's available to solve some difficult problems for us
> here as SM Antenna.
>
> http://www.bigear.org/JDKpassage-articles.htm#Dispatch20040723
>
> Mook was one of the first to use FFT processes to analyze complex
> signals.
That's odd, he doesn't seem old enough. Was he ahead of Cooley-Tukey or
Gauss?
> He is also well-respected in the field of complex spatial and
> time filtering going way beyond Kalman and adaptive filters. His ideas
> for using pilot beams and conjugate beams, using advanced metamaterial
> surfaces in the micro-wave region is cutting edge and makes it possible
> for stealthy aircraft to communicate with large numbers of users via
> line of sight and other advances that give tremendous edge
> electronically while maintaining stealthiness. Mook helped create that,
> and is implementing it for us now.
Good luck with that.
Sam West
> > signals.
>
> That's odd, he doesn't seem old enough. Was he ahead of Cooley-Tukey or
> Gauss?
>
> > He is also well-respected in the field of complex spatial and
> > time filtering going way beyond Kalman and adaptive filters. His ideas
> > for using pilot beams and conjugate beams, using advanced metamaterial
> > surfaces in the micro-wave region is cutting edge and makes it possible
> > for stealthy aircraft to communicate with large numbers of users via
> > line of sight and other advances that give tremendous edge
> > and is implementing it for us now.
>
> Good luck with that.
Mr. Mook's resume says he worked with Dr. Walter Mitchell in 1973
DanB
>
> Mook talks specifically about the cost of exergy in his process. He
> says that since we are throwing away sunlight when we have exergy loss
> and sunlight is free that's cheaper than making more efficient use of
> sunlight to a point. Expensive capital equipment is not free.
> Sunlight is.
>
> So, that makes sense to me and makes your other points moot.
>
> Mook addresses the subject here;
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDYAiFSUkuo
BAWHAWHAW! The audience track was just so out of sync and phony. Thanks
for the laugh.
>
> Starting at 0:41 and going through 2:41 he explains this.
>
> According to Mook its $840 per kilowatt to have very little loss of
> exergy.
> Its $70 per kilowatt to live with a system that has 33% loss of
> exergy.
>
> As Mook says, protons at $100 per ton are worth more than DC
> electricity when the sun shines at $100 per MWh since protons burned
> in a thermal generator make 15 MWh of AC electricity when needed.
>
Yea, you are a sock puppet.
Sam West
> Sam West wrote:
>
> >Mooktalks specifically about the cost of exergy in his process. He
> > says that since we are throwing away sunlight when we have exergy loss
> > and sunlight is free that's cheaper than making more efficient use of
> > sunlight to a point. Expensive capital equipment is not free.
> > Sunlight is.
>
> > So, that makes sense to me and makes your other points moot.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDYAiFSUkuo
>
> BAWHAWHAW! The audience track was just so out of sync and phony. Thanks
> for the laugh.
>
>
>
> > Starting at 0:41 and going through 2:41 he explains this.
>
> > exergy.
> > Its $70 per kilowatt to live with a system that has 33% loss of
> > exergy.
>
> > electricity when the sun shines at $100 per MWh since protons burned
> > in a thermal generator make 15 MWh of AC electricity when needed.
>
> Yea, you are a sock puppet.
Someone's opinion of an audio track invalidates numbers produced
through independent testing? Interesting.
DanB
'Independent'?? Just what are you talking about? All you have done in
that audio is spew your own made up numbers.
Why the phony audience? You can call it opinion, but even the brain dead
can hear that it is phony.
Come on Bill Mook, aka Sam West, this stuff is so your style.
Show me just one viable independent link that speaks about what Mok
Industries is 'doing', not what Mok Industries is talking about.
BTW, why run every 'Mook' above with other words? Does this have
anything to do with search proofing?
interesting......
Sam West
How 'bout 2?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL1
Here Boeing's team says Mook's panels cost $0.05 per peak watt in
quantity.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024194/Pages-142-From-Mok-Report
CH2MHill says here Mook's panels including hydrogen production cost
$0.07 per peak watt in quantity.
Internal documents are out right? Why is that? There is a
difference between a made up number and numbers based on a
thoroughgoing engineering and scientific analysis.
So, these are no good according to you...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20019383/mokenergy
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024088/White-Paper-Wafer-Fab
Even if they're vetted by the House of Representatives?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/Testimony
DanB
> Just one?
Snip the original question? You are still looking as dumb as a nail to me...
>
> How 'bout 2?
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL1
>
> Here Boeing's team says Mook's panels cost $0.05 per peak watt in
> quantity.
No Bill,
Not what you are 'doing', (as snipped), just a continuation of your
'press releases' and claims. If they 'said' that, 'they' would have been
all over it. Do you have a clue how real business works?
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024194/Pages-142-From-Mok-Report
>
> CH2MHill says here Mook's panels including hydrogen production cost
> $0.07 per peak watt in quantity.
They do not say, you 'do'. Are you really that retarded?
> Internal documents are out right? Why is that? There is a
> difference between a made up number and numbers based on a
> thoroughgoing engineering and scientific analysis.
gobble gook, you have said nothing.
>
> So, these are no good according to you...
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/20019383/mokenergy
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024088/White-Paper-Wafer-Fab
You got that right.
> Even if they're vetted by the House of Representatives?
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/20023580/Testimony
Vetted? You are delusional? Do you know what the word means?
Same old Bill, er, Sam West now?
I think you should test your market elsewhere. Madoff didn't fly his
kite on usenet!
I have a feeling you will be so bold as to actually rip some one off
that will look to bit you back. Then you will likely claim the same kind
of fame as that Meyer guy. Good luck!
BTW, if you are fishing for a lawsuit, check with your attorney. You
have nothing from what I post...
(Not that I have anything to fish for...)
Sam West
> SamWestwrote:
Dan,
Sam here, just got up and checking e-mails before leaving for work.
Dan, if that's your name, your e-mail cannot be traced back to a real
person, so, its funny you accuse me of what you are doing, calm down
and quit being delusional.
Maybe you've been drinking? I seriously wonder about that and what
hell are you doing at 2AM talking bullshit about the work companies
like Boeing and CH2MHill who did the work for Mr. Mook I cited.
It seems to me you just get off your barstool to spew nonsense before
passing out for the evening. I can't know that. I only judge by what
you attempted to say in your rant.
That's maybe why what you say makes no sense.
So, let me inject a little sense in the proceedings.
Boeing and IDC division of CH2MHill quoted $0.05 and $0.07 per peak
watt for installed systems in their reports.
The plant size needed to get that price is $1.2 billion.
The production rate 90 billion watts per year of panels. That's
enough panels to cover 57.8 square miles a year. A little over a
square mile a week.
To absorb 90 billion watts per year of panel production and get $50
per kilowatt panel pricing requires that hydrogen be produced. And
that 10 GW of coal fired plants be converted to hydrogen each year.
And that the coal burned in those plants be converted to 200,000 b/d
of gasoline.
Each year, 57.8 square miles of panels get churned out, another 10 GW
of coal fired plants get converted to hydrogen, and another 200,000 b/
d of synfuel get made.
That's what one plant does.
That requires about $8 billion to build the supply chain and get it
going.
This is where you are delusional Danny boy. Do you really think that
I or anyone is trolling usenet for $8 billion? hahahahahaha...
The numbers Mr. Mook worked out are compelling to me however.
At $50 per MWh electricity and $70 per barrel of oil, Mook's solar
hydrogen process generates revenues that start at $26 million per day
after the first unit is built, and grow by $71,868 per day as it
expands. So, year 1, $26 MM per day, year 2 $52 MM per day, year 3
$78 MM per day and so forth as more panels get churned out. As more
coal fired plants get converted to refineries and clean hydrogen
burning generators.
Since the USA has 150 GW of idled coal fired capacity right now, there
is clearly a huge opportunity that in the end produces $400 million
per day, generates 15% of the nation's electricity, and generates 3.0
million barrels per day.
Like I said Danny, your comments about trolling on usenet make
absolutely no sense. Mr. Mook seeks billions of dollars through
sources that fund large energy deals. Do you honestly believe that
anyone scanning usenet will read what I have to say in response to a
question someone asked in a thread entitled 'Where is Mook' and invest
$8 billion in an energy deal? hahaha..
Do you really think prosecutors have nothing better to do than
infringe my speech? I'm not collecting money or making any
recommendations to anyone. I'm answering the question, "Where is
Mook?"
Your friend
Sam
Don Lancaster
Not one net watt of pv electricity has EVER been produced.
The panels remain a gasoline destroying net energy sink.
And will get a lot WORSE before they improve.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.asp
DanB
> Dan,
>
>
> Sam here, just got up and checking e-mails before leaving for work.
Hi Bill,
> Dan, if that's your name, your e-mail cannot be traced back to a real
> person, so, its funny you accuse me of what you are doing, calm down
> and quit being delusional.
a...@some.net, well duh!
On the other hand, if you are using a real address on usenet you are
either stupid or plan to ditch it before long.
My guess Bill is you created it for this little romp you are on.
Pot, Kettle...
You are not clever.
> Maybe you've been drinking? I seriously wonder about that and what
> hell are you doing at 2AM talking bullshit about the work companies
> like Boeing and CH2MHill who did the work for Mr. Mook I cited.
Again, and I'm sure you will ignore it, the operative of my question is,
'what are you "doing"'? For all the time you have spent posting here why
not spend just a little time and show your stuff? (Not the made up stuff...)
> It seems to me you just get off your barstool to spew nonsense before
> passing out for the evening. I can't know that. I only judge by what
> you attempted to say in your rant.
Sure Bill....
> That's maybe why what you say makes no sense.
Claiming ignorance does not make you look authentic.
> So, let me inject a little sense in the proceedings.
>
> Boeing and IDC division of CH2MHill quoted $0.05 and $0.07 per peak
> watt for installed systems in their reports.
Yet all these years later and there is no system, nada. $.05/watt would
be really big news, but there isn't any.
> The plant size needed to get that price is $1.2 billion.
And the 'same' technology can't be applied for say $100 million to get
$.10/watt? You are so full of it. $.10/watt would be really big news,
but there isn't any.
<snip the same crap you have posted for years>
> This is where you are delusional Danny boy. Do you really think that
> I or anyone is trolling usenet for $8 billion? hahahahahaha...
hahaha? So Bill. Of course I never said that so this makes you a liar.
> The numbers Mr. Mook worked out are compelling to me however.
Sure Bill.
<snip the same crap you have posted for years>
> Like I said Danny, your comments about trolling on usenet make
> absolutely no sense. Mr. Mook seeks billions of dollars through
> sources that fund large energy deals. Do you honestly believe that
> anyone scanning usenet will read what I have to say in response to a
> question someone asked in a thread entitled 'Where is Mook' and invest
> $8 billion in an energy deal? hahaha..
hahaha! You don't have the pipe dream you keep talking about. All I have
ever seen are the what you can conjure up for free, like press releases.
Show me the company Bill. A multi billion dollar company would not be
invisible.
> Do you really think prosecutors have nothing better to do than
> infringe my speech?
Never gave it a thought so I don't know why you wrote it.
> I'm not collecting money or making any
> recommendations to anyone. I'm answering the question, "Where is
> Mook?"
It has been answered Bill, you are posting here.
Eric Gisin
Typical Bipolar and delusions of grandeur, Mookie.
"Mr Mookie" <sman...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e4342dd-e094-4969...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisin
the UFO that crashed near Roswell NM. Several of his friends are Zeta Reticulians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar
Where is the Great Mook's glowing press coverage and Nobel prize?
"Sam West" <sman...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ca53d18-e825-4410...@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Sam West
> Bob Lazar's resume says he worked at Sector 4 near Groom Lake on reverse engineering
>
> Where is the Great Mook's glowing press coverage and Nobel prize?
>
I've confirmed the accuracy of this resume Eric. Are you comparing
being a Research Associate in OSU's Astronomy Department on par with
working in Area 51?
For heaven's sake why?
Sam West
> This is exactly how Mook responded to criticism.
> Typical Bipolar and delusions of grandeur, Mookie.
>
Mr. Mook created the underlying plan and core technology outlined in
the two papers prepared by respected leaders in the field. Boeing
along with CH2MHill and others, confirmed that it would work to
reshape our relationship to energy.
If you'd actually read them, you'd see that they are not written by
Mr. Mook at all!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024194/Pages-142-From-Mok-Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/White-Paper-to-Mok-FINAL1
The authors are listed on the covers. They projected costs of $0.05
per peak watt using the approach outlined and developed by Mr. Mook.
This confirms Mr. Mook's initial analysis.
The question anyone has to answer is why you and your buddies cannot
deal with someone other than Mr. Mook supporting Mook's ideas? Its
really sad to see you not addressing anything of substance. Merely
attempting to impune Mr. Mook personally even though he's not
participating in these exchanges at all! haha
Sam West
Don,
If I take $8 billion and build one of Mook's solar powered systems and
generate $150 billion worth of electricity along with $150 billion
worth gasoline using only $10 billion worth of coal, half a billion
dollars worth of water, and free sunlight it makes sense to do it
since I'm getting way more out of it than I'm putting in. This proves
your statement wrong doesn't it?
With conventional solar panels costing 100x more than Mook's panels,
the price rises to $400 billion for panels. Then the $300 billion
earned over the life of the equipment doesn't cover the costs and it
doesn't make any sense as you say.
Mook's panels work the way he says they do. Other panels cannot work
that way because they cost too much.
Don Lancaster
Please show me ONE net watthour from ANY pv panel to date.
Has not happened.
And will not happen till eight years after the average panel price drops
below a quarter per peak watt.
http://wwww.tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf
PV
>Mr. Mook's resume says he worked with Dr. Walter Mitchell in 1973
>doing FFT analysis on an IBM 7094 transforming doppler corrections
>taken from solar spectral data at Kitt Peak
He can say whatever he likes, that doesn't make it documentable. Given the
pictures I've seen of him online, I find this claim something I won't
believe without documentation. He sure doesn't look old enough. *
Sam West
Glad to hear you say that Don. That's why I'm so excited about what
Boeing and CH2MHill sai about Mook's approach to solar panels. $50 to
$70 per peak kilo-watt is 1/4 to 1/3 the $250 per peak kilo-watt you
say is needed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbWNnVsBhOg
So, dramatic returns are possible.
Accenture suggested that the only way for Mook to proceed was to
partner with the major energy companies or establish himself to
weather the 'negative attention' of the majors quickly. Since it was
impossible for Mook to escape negative attention, meetings were
arranged with Exxon Mobil down in Texas, with Lord Brown in London,
and others. Mook met with board members at each corporation, with
Accenture's help.
In the end, the oil companies felt that such a development as Mook
offered was 'premature'. The calculation is easy. $70 per peak watt
kilo-watt trending to $30 per peak kilo-watt with learning curve
effects over a short time period, reduced the value of $90 trillion of
reserves to about $30 trillion while adding $30 trillion today from
solar sources. Over the next 30 years depletion of supply in the face
of rising demand will recover $65 trillion from the reserves and add
$55 trillion from solar sources at these higher prices when introduced
at an 'appropriate' rate.
Mook was told this was why DOE proposed introducing their Generation
IV, high-temperature reactors until after 2040, and why reductions in
solar panel prices from innovations like CPV with Mook's approach to
very low cost optics, won't be successful either.
President Obama's efforts to bring about a sea change will be as
unsuccessful as Jimmy Carter's efforts were in the 1970s, and as
unsuccessful as JFK's efforts were in the 1960s an as unsuccessful as
Lewis 'too cheap to meter' Strauss in the 1950s. Carter's screw ups
were pointed to by oil companies to keep politicians away from energy
for generations. Obama is surrounding himself with former Carter
'experts' who are guaranteed to repeat the failings of that time, and
will no doubt result in the same political poisons that will keep the
new technologies firmly in the hands of the major energy companies.
They're expert at playing this game, and the result was never really
in doubt.
This day and age they'll likely add 'fraud' to the lexicon of
alternative energy. Before the end of the Obama Presidency no
business person, or politician will touch alternative energy it will
be so firmly tainted with the stink of fraud. This is helped along by
a media that has absolutely no appreciation or understanding of
science. This makes things especially easy for people who drive the
economics of the media to control and shape the message to their
liking by controling the flow of significant advertising dollars.
Like I said, the result, for a betting man, was never in doubt.
Still, Mook is a significant dark horse. By all rights, if America
was the place it claimed to be in the 80s and 90s, Mr. Mook should be
the world's first tirllionaire, and America would be on top
economically and geopolitically by managing and shaping policies
around his new energy source. But America is a fraud and bankrupt.
That's too damn bad for all Americans.
What I find hopeful, the dark horse is still running. Mook has put as
much out there as he can in the hopes that others will copy him and
take up the challenge. I for one am hoping he succeeds. We're
running really big risks just so major energy managers don't have to
take risks they should on our behalf - in a fairer world they would.
Of course, who said life was fair? haha.
You're friend,
Sam
Sam West
I work with Mook and respect him immensely. This is what I know to be
true about him;
He was born in 1955 graduated high school in '72, undergrad '78,
BSAAE,
http://trashotron.com/agony/columns/05-24-02.htm
Mook worked as a graduate level research associate in the Astronomy
department and while an undergrad, he was a teaching associate in the
math department teaching introductory calculus. Mook took graduate
level courses in math both while an undergrad and got graduate school
credit while there. He worked for the EPA right out of school using
his knowledge of fluid flow to develop advection formulae for
pollution transport. He started a company in 78 to build interfaces
for scientific and medical equipment. Mook made a lot of money there
and used that to diversify his business into industrial and retail
automation. He literally invented retail automation.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4903200.html
He wrote a paper, an internal document, which I had the opportunity to
read once. The paper analyzed Moore's curve and the impact it had on
costs of non-computer computing methods.
I never really thought of it before, but its obvious after Mook
spelled it out. A general purpose computer uses a particular way to
calculate. Specialized methods do not use that method. Pencil paper,
adding machines, abacus,
Mook saw they were different, and saw Moore's curve acted differently
on each. Since a general purpose computer - Mook called it
programmable processor - uses a lot more circuits than an electronic
calculator - Moore's curve has a greater effect on it than the less
complex methods.
What he saw, and others couldn't, was that the general purpose
processor will beat out the specialized processors at some point due
to their higher 'balance of system components'
So, he had it all spelled out. That's why he was the first in retail
automation back in the day.
He looked at our energy situation the same way back in the 1970s when
he first heard about peak oil from an article Hubbert wrote in
Scientific American at that time. By the late 80s he had worked out
an approach to solar energy that when implemented would determine
whether or not solar would ever compete. By 2003 he had completed
enough research to begin investing major money to build up a system.
The first thing he did was to hire Accenture to put together a game
plan of how to compete against well-entrenched competitors.
But we were talking his resume.
Back in the 1980s Mook built the first credit card scanning
equipment. The first computer based cash register. The first credit
card scanner in the gas pump. The first ATM. Pushing the technology
forward with profits from his laboratory automation work.
He made a boat load of money. He also irritated major players in
retail point of sale. Lots of dirty tricks were played. That's par
for the course according to Mook. Do something significant in an
established market like cash registers, gets a different response than
creating a whole new virgin market. The free market is different than
when a whole new market is created from scratch. That's why Mook and
Gates diverged in their result. Gates developed a whole new class of
machine. McCaw, Andreeson ditto.
Mook improved an existing class of machine. It makes sense to me.
As a result, NCR, Diebold, IBM were major beneficiaries of his
innovations. As were retailers like the Limited and Walmart that
adopted some of his insights on the operational side.
Don't get me wrong, Mook made money. He just had to fight harder for
it, and share it with better established players who could see the
benefit of what he did almost immediately and were content to pilfer
from his stream of innovations.
Low cost wasn't the only reason everyone in retailing adopted
computers, according to Mook. It was also the benefit of improved
information processing. Which made lots of money for store owners.
Mook explained it to me like this. There are three dress shops in a
chain of dress shops. This is when Mook first met Wexner, when he had
three shops. One shop sells a red dress and a blue dress. Another
sells a red dress and a green dress. Another sells a red dress and a
yellow dress. None of them know the black dresses are dogs. None of
them know at this point the red dresses are hot. Combine the data in
a network and bam! The store owner knows today to raise the prices on
the red dresses and reorder them while putting them on display.
The store owner knows today to put the black dresses on the discount
rack and cancel orders for them.
Do this consistently Mook says, and a store owner triples their
profits by increasing the chain's turn rate.
Makes sense to me, and its why people bought so much of Mook's
products when they were available according to him.
Mook caved and sold out, making a few dollars by the late 80s. He
agreed not to work for a few years in retail automation as part of the
buy out. So, Mook went back to graduate school and worked on SETI,
which allowed him to take some of his early love and affection toward
FFT work done with a deck of computer cards on an old IBM machine in
the 70s, and apply it in the 80s to custom built circuits. Through
his mentor John Kraus, he worked with Horowitz at Harvard on Suitcase
SETI and META. He worked at OSU's radio observatory with Dr. Kraus.
He also adopted Big Ear and worked as a volunteer to save the radio
telescope which found SETI an embarassment.
http://www.naapo.org/NAAPO-News/Vol02/v02n04.htm
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:GaQLJ5XkDYIJ:www.naapo.org/NAAPO-News/Vol04/v04n01.pdf+mook+rapi-serv&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNFu6eqLTvJSHubsTS-HIWha3jpDxQ
He became good friends with Dr. John Kraus, who is legendary here in
Ohio. Kraus literally wrote the book on antenna design theory.
http://www.amazon.com/John-Daniel-Kraus/e/B000AQ0158/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1
http://www.bigear.org/JDKpassage-articles.htm
Along the way Mook developed a few notable products that made money.
A golf ball that changes color
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/22/sports/on-your-own-color-analysis.html
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5067719/description.html
An ice-carving robot
http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/1999/05/17/focus3.html
and through Dr. Kraus, who worked at Lincoln Lab during World War Two,
was a member of the National Academy, and advisor to Congress and the
White House, Mr. Mook began working in Washington solving interesting
problems in unusual ways.
In March 2003 Mook was ready to roll out his ideas in alternative
energy in a meaningful way. By December 2004 he had secured a meeting
with OSTP at the White House. He was told by officials there that if
he arranged financing he would get an order from SPR to make the deal
work. By March 2005 he had secured a commitment from a major New York
fund to build a 200,000 barrel per day solar-assisted Bergius plant in
Wyoming with carbon-free hydrogen coming from 100+ square miles of
solar panels installed on minelands in Nevada desalted from water
drawn from Utah's Great Salt Lake.
The plan was a good one.
The risk taking fund manager who was willing to invest the billions
that made this all work, was ruined by charges of child molestation.
The people at Goldman Sachs and AIG who said they would back expansion
of the program if Jeffrey were on board, are no longer working in the
business.
Lucky for the major energy companies. Not so lucky for the rest of
us.
In December 2004 Mr. Mook's request to give a talk at the White House
about energy was approved by members of OSTP because something
horrific had happened to our energy supplies. The Saudi's went off
the $22 per barrel price cap that month. Conservative talk show hosts
were fond of spouting off about the poor job Clinton did developing
energy sources pointing out that oil was $10 per barrel during
Reagan's tenure in office and it was $16 per barrel during his
tenure. One of the things Bush promised during his election bid was
to restore sanity to energy prices and gas would be below $1 per
gallon during his presidency. This didn't happen. Depletion of oil
made it impossible. This didn't stop politicians from saying it, and
pundits from repeating it.
Mook had a solution. He claimed he could make synfuel - gasoline from
coal and carbon-free hyrogen - for $8 a barrel. All he needed was an
order. Placing an order for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve large
enough to interest Wall Street in the deal would achieve immediate
benefit for the President. It would tell the Saudi's America won't
pay more than $25 per barrel for oil. It would get Wall Street
excited about speculating in real alternatives to oil and break the
speculative fever that would later grip the oil markets and drive
prices over $100 per barrel. In fact speculative fever on real
alternatives to oil would drive oil prices DOWN. This has the unusual
effect of reducing carbon emissions because it takes high cost oil
fields out of production. The difference eventually being made up by
hydrogen. This according to Mook is what Accenture found in some of
the studies they did for him, which we won't publish publicly yet.
In addition to major backers, Mook's smaller backers have faced tough
times;
http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2006/11/27/story13.html
All of Mook's angel investors have come up butkas of late, and Mook is
now going back to what he knows best. Designing antennae for me, and
designing medical equipment for another company in the mid-West, while
trying to stay afloat with his energy business.
http://www.mokenergy.com/index.php?cID=50
I wish him luck and believe this answers your questions.
Sam West
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997BAAS...29.1480H
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n773875131j3255q/
This is a bio of Walt Mitchell and some of his professional work.
Mitchell whom Mr. Mook worked for as a research associate while at
Ohio State University used FFT in the early 70s when Mook worked at
OSU with Mitchell. Walt analyzed the colors of the sun precisely
with a spectrophotometer. Digitizing the data onto punched cards read
by an IBM 7094 using Cooley and Tukey's original Radix algorithm (also
on punched cards) to extract doppler data. Mook modified the
algorithm to separate out the various factors, and easily detect
turbulence.
Sam West
would have been like had Mr. Mook been successful in 2004 and 2005
with his approach. Had he gotten President Bush to buy 250 million
barrels of solar-syncrude on forward contracts for $6 billion due on
delivery. Had Epstein and Company taken a wildcat position in the
deal. Had Goldman Sachs and AIG backed the deal. Had they been
listed on NYMEX Spring of 2005.
What would have happened?
In the grand scheme of things 250 million barrels delivered starting
in 2010 over the following 1,250 days (200,000 b/d) doesn't amount to
very much. After all, the world consumes 84 million barrels per day.
So what would it hae done?
The project called for 6,000 tons per day of hydrogen made from lots
of water broken down with DC electricity. The DC electricity was to
be made from hundreds of square miles of solar panels collecting
sunlight on reclaimed surface mines in Northern Nevada. The water was
to come from the Great Salt Lake. Coal was to come from one of the
mines Peabody shut down in Wyoming. 30,000 tons per day something
like that.
It wouldn't have stopped there.
How large would it have grown?
Mook optioned 10,000s square miles from the Nevada mine owners.
Mook optioned nearly 1 million tons per day from Peabody
Mook optioned nearly all of Union Pacific's rights of way for
pipelines and power lines.
With one order, and one fund along with a few investment houses
backing him, he would have;
a) built one solar-assisted Bergius CTL plant capable of making a
modest amount of solar-syncrude (200,000 b/d)
b) organize enough land, water and coal to make America an oil
exporter when developed
c) acquire significant retail operations along the way and become
a major integrated energy company
d) sell hydrogen directly at his retail stores as hydrogen cars
developed
Okay, that's what Mook would have done. But how would our life be
different?
I seriously doubt that the Saudi's would have gone off their $22 per
barrel price cap.
The speculative fever that gripped the world and drove oil prices
above $100 a barrel would likely have been focused on expanding Mr.
Mook's system to achieve his plans very quickly. A significant group
of speculators would be betting on Mook's solar-assisted Bergius
process. They would be betting the prices down. Balancing out
speculators who bid prices up. Prices would be around $25 per barrel
the contracted price.
Saudi's stick with their $22 a barrel cap over all that period. The
world would have paid $22 instead of an average $72 per barrel.
That's savings of $50 a barrel. Times 84 million barrels per day.
That's $4.2 billion a day!! Its been about 2,000 days since then.
We're talking about $8.4 trillion over this period. This is the cost
of the deal to the oil companies. Its also the savings of the deal to
America.
Some might say that this is the savings to the world not America. But
hold on there! Who pays for everything? We do! If China pays more
for oil who do you think pays for it? If Europe pays more for oil who
do you think foots the bill? America does! We pay for it in higher
costs for food, products, services from anywhere we buy them. Because
we're so tied up economically with our allies and friends, higher fuel
prices put pressure on our banking system too.
$8.4 trillion over the past five+ years is enough to sink any
economy. Even America, and if the Mook deal were done in 2004, enough
money would be saved in the world's fuel bill to save America.
Where did all the money go? It went overseas. How did get there?
Through high oil prices. Had Mr. Mook's deal gone through America
would be trillions of dollars richer and we wouldn't be in economic
turmoil. We may even have had a different president. But that one's
iffy.
Sam West
DanB
> How the hell did this get cross-posted here?
Because it fits Bill?