TurboGenPower   TurboGenPower   TurboGenPower  TurboGenPower

Pollution, Solutions & The Voodoo Science of Cap and Trade

The Voodoo Science of Cap and Trade

The Solution to Pollution

Who Funds Our Universities and Acedemia?

As you read this article PLEASE remember that WE the public fund our Universities and Academia. So the question arises as to what WE the public are getting for our Billions of TAXPAYERS dollars? And How do WE the public oversee the institutions and reign in there misdirections and exorbitant spending?

In our Modern World we the people and governments turn to the Academic community, Universities and Scientists to study, investigate, analyze and propose reasonable solution to many of the problems our overpopulated planet is dealing with. We the people put our trust in these Scientists. Sooner than later we the people have to look at their record and determine if our trust has or has not been misplaced and in which areas? And how we should modify this system of whom we should be listening to or seeking guidance from. So let us begin with the most glaring failures and how these scientists and universities refuse to recognize their GROSS errors and omissions. These scientist and universities seem to be stuck in believing in their own propaganda, arrogance and stupidity. One would hope that these arrogant scientists and universities are only a few. Unfortunately they are every university and the vast majority of seemly reputable scientists. So where should I begin? Let us begin with the Major Issue facing the World tody. The Environmental Science, Radioactive forcing, the rising of the Oceans, CO2 production, Carbon Trading and the Heating of the Environment by Mankind.

Science Experiment One

The first quality of a Scientist is the power of observation and the ability to measure accurately. So let you and I be a scientists and check out the conclusions of every environmental scientist in the world. How high are the oceans going to rise when the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans melt? The Experts vary but they all agree the number is between 18 feet and 30 feet.

Let you and I put this to the test of a simple experiment. Take a glass of water and a glass of ice and three empty glasses. Fill one of the empty glasses 1/3 full of ice add 1/3 cup of water and mark the water level with a felt pen. Now ask yourself the question again . How high do you expect the water to rise when the ice melts? Record your answer. ALL the Environmentalists say it will rise. Do you agree? Wait and record what happens. While waiting conduct this version of the same experiment.

We will repeat the experiment but in the reverse order. Fill an empty glass 1/3 full with water, then add 1/3 cup of ice. Record what you observed. Now how high do you expect the water to rise when the ice melts this time? Obviously the answer is ZERO. Add another ice cube and observe what happens. Voila you have discovered Archimedes principle. So why have the environmental scientists NOT been taught this principle?

Answer To Experiment One.

How high are the oceans going to rise when the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans melt? Answer. The oceans will not rise the ice is already floating in the ocean.

Science Test Two

Modern Science considers itself rational and employs deductive and inductive reasoning. But Environmental Science is based on beliefs, stastics, and opinion polls, more akin to a Religion and Politics then a Science. Environmental Science has created a NEW force called Radioactive Forcing in order to explain their incompetence and inability to identify heat source and sinks for the Earth. The rational for radioactive forcing reads as follows; Most Scientist believe in radioactive forcing. This definition or rational is employed to create a NEW universal force in Physics called radioactive forcing.

Now, we the public, or we the Scientists can simply eliminate gravity and the problems that arise from stepping off a cliff by simply voting Gravity out of existence. Voila what a wonderful World? We can vote on a scientific law and eliminate it whenever we want. Isn't that what a pole is, a vote? How else do you define MOST.

The second problem with the Brilliancy of the Academic community and the radioactive forcing scientist is that Science is no longer rational. It is a matter of Belief. Suddenly Scientists are a Religious cult or at least the Environmentalists, believing in thing which are not real or rational or deductive or inductive.

Who Funds Our Universities and Acedemia?

As you read this article PLEASE remember that WE the public fund our Universities and Academia. So the question arises as to what WE the public are getting for our Billions of TAXPAYERS dollars? And How do WE the people oversee the institutions and reign in there misdirections , incompetent conclusions, and exorbitant spending?

If the Environmentalists are wrong in identifying the cause relating to the heating of the earths climate then ALL the proposed solutions are WRONG. Our vaulted Environmental Scientist have built their house upon a sandy beach and are stupid enough to expect that house to withstand the waves of criticism whivh breack upon it. Their house has already fallon from valid criticism.

There is a justifiable NEED to lower CO2 emissions but the analysis of the problem is totally incompetent, and the European Bank's suggested solution of Carbon Trading is a bogus grab for money in the form of broakage fees. Carbon trading is nothing more then taxing Peter to pay Paul WITH the broaker geting a fee (from every transaction) is a con job that will never lower emmissions.

The Consensus Approach to Pollution

In 2007 I began investigating the environmental sciences and cap and trade. What I found truly disturbed me. The environmental scientists are not employing thermodynamic principles, Instead they are applying social scientific tools like statistical analysis. Social science tools do not even analyze the problem, let alone resolve it.

The implications and consequences of the consensus approach to pollution problems must be clearly understood. In my opinion the consensus approach is totally flawed. There is no sense for politicians to take a boat ride down a river only to find a waterfall around the bend when they should have chosen a different river to ride.

Issues which Must be Resolved

There are certain issues which must be resolved.

Axioms of the Heat Engine

Then certain axioms of Our Current World must be acknowledged.

From these four Axioms we can derive three ADDITIONAL corollary Axioms.

Consider a paradigm shift where we move from Heat Engines to Cold Engines.

Axioms of the Cold Engine

Then certain axioms of the Cold Engine must be acknowledged before a debate can begin.

Which Way Do You Think is the Best Way to GO!

Back to top.

The Fundamentals of Pollution

After reading the article in the Edmonton Journal Sept 21 2008 by David Staples on Carbon Made Easy, i.e. Pollution, I became disturbed at the total ignorance of environmentalists, scientists and politicians on the very fundamental nature of the pollution issues the world faces. Unfortunately, all the hype over the raising of the average atmospheric temperature has caused fear of an imminent global catastrophe.

Fear is an interesting emotion. In metaphysics it is said that a fear-based decision is always wrong. This is a principle one can treat as an absolute. Out of fear, the public, environmentalists, scientists and politicians have decreed that the main culprit is man's production of CO2 rather than the natural cycles of the Earth or waste heat from industry. Since then, billions of dollars have been spent on documenting mankind's impact on in the environment. This is all well and good but historical reviews of the plentiful animal life and it's depletion over the last 500 years would have identified man's detrimental impact on the environment much more quickly, Unfortunately scientists and historians were not astute enough to gather that data.

No where has a definitive study been done that links heating of the environment with CO2. All the ignorant scientist could do was show that both CO2 and the average temperature have a regression trend line that is somewhat similiar, i.e. upward. From this they inferr or conclude that the one causes the other. FALSE. There are over 1000 things in the last 150 years that have an upward trend line. This is not science it is voodoo science. Statistics never was and never will be a scientific tool.

Today we trying to reduce the production of CO2 rather than planting more trees and other foliage which take CO2 and produce the C and O2, which we require. As a matter of fact, environmentalists alone complain about the destruction of the tropical rain forest and the lower ability of the earth to produce O2. Yet the public, scientists, and politicians as usual, are not listening.

Maybe the Earth knows what it is doing and is attempting to produce more CO2 to encourage the growth of trees and foliage which will in turn produce more O2. The Earth is quite capable of healing itself by growing more plants that consume CO2. If man does not learn to live in harmony with Mother Nature, the Earth may obliterate Man from the face of the earth. Man in his knee jerk reaction to the problem will in the end only make the problem worse.

I understand how certain chemicals deplete the ozone layer. I understand that the ozone layer is the glass canopy over our Earth's greenhouse . But I have never seen the chemical equation that lays the blame for the rising temperature on CO2. Is it because CO2 exhausts from heat engines and carries large amounts of heat with it? Or is it because CO2 as a gas is inherently detrimental to the environment? If it is the latter, please show me the chemical equation. If it is the heat, then you have misdiagnosed the problem and all of your solutions are off the mark.

CO2 only carries part (10%) of the waste heat from heat engines into the environment from the exhaust or stack. The cooling tower or water carries much more waste heat than the stack. If the problem is waste heat then, in Canada, nuclear power produces much more waste heat then coal. Trees and foliage convert CO2 into oxygen. Then what is the problem with CO2? Is the problem a lack of trees to convert CO2 into O2?

Back to top.

Voodoo Science

So where did the environmentalists move from science into voodoo science? Let me show you. Should you go to a web site were scientists try to explain their ignorance of the green house effect there you will find they invented a new nonexistent force called "Radiative Forcing" Then they come up with the following half cocked explanation of the green house effect.

"The Earth's temperature and climate system can be thought of as a heat engine driven by energy from the sun. There is an energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiative energy that is partially regulated by the concentrations of GHG gases in the atmosphere, referred to as "Radiative Forcing". Climate change occurs when the total amount of the sun's energy absorbed, does not equal the amount of energy released, causing an imbalance in the radiative exchange." From**** "http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/understanding/greenhouse_gases/index_e.html" year 2007.

As far as I know the glass canopy to Earth's greenhouse is the ozone layer. One can test this new weird theory of "Radiative Forcing" by building three identical large green houses with trees and foliage in each. Then set and controls the level of CO2 in each green house at a different level and monitor the relative temperatures in each house. In my opinion this voodoo science called "Radiative Forcing" was developed out of ignorance and a lack of BASIC problem solving ability which is becoming all too common among our vaulted scientist.

So where did our vaulted scientist go wrong? In their ignorance of thermodynamics they were unable to analyze the heat source and sinks which are the Earth. Let us do a quick analysis and let the thermodynamics engineers fill in the numbers.

Back to top.

Heat sources and sinks on Mother Earth.

Sources

Sinks

Back to top.

The Big Unknown

The biggest source of heat for the Earth is not the Sun. I choose not to mention it up to now to get you thinking. For those of you who need a hint try comparing the Earth to Mars. In my list I have ten sources, and six sinks. Which do you think is the biggest source of heat? Answer the molten core of the Earth. Nor do I claim this list to be complete.

There is a significant source of energy that is creating the ever increasing frequency and size of storm assaulting man. At this time I will call this the unknown pollution more accurately I should call it the unrecognized pollution, although I do list it in the above list in a general category. I doubt that you can spot it. Do try my ignorant friend.

There is a huge source of energy that has and will keep the Earth alive for well over a billion years not mentioned in the above list. An energy that Science has no understandings of but the astrophysicists are beginning to wonder about.

So here is my question to you dear reader. How come the collective and combined world class Ph. D.'s in Environmental Science could only come up with ONE source and ONE sink? The Sun.

What can I say? "HOW PATHETIC!"

Of the sources and sinks, the most interesting one is the electromagnetic radiation from the sun and close stars. The Earth currently is experiencing massive amounts of radiation in this form. What is not generally understood is that electricity is electromagnetic energy and once we use it, it is converted upon use into heat. The Earth itself is a dynamo, rotating, with north and south poles and as a dynamo converts electromagnetic radiation from the sun into heat and weather patterns. This is currently the main source of power for the excessive and very strong storm we have been experiencing from 2004 to the present.

Unfortunately no satellite or earth stations that I have heard of, measure the electromagnetic energy being radiated from the sun, near stars, and its fluctuations. Little historical data is available. This is one area that would be very productive for scientific research. A missing element in our study of GHG.

I am of the opinion that major increases in electromagnetic energy being received by the Earth is the cause of severe weather patterns and even the historic polar reversals and shift. These events have to be powered from some source and since the Earth is a dynamo massive influx of electromagnetic energy could easily have created these historic and future events.

Now the point of this discussion is to point out that we do not need a new voodoo force called "Radiative Forcing" to explain the raising of the Earths temperature. Our current science of heat engines and thermodynamics will identify clearly where the increase in heat came from. Provided that we get scientist working under thermodynamics engineers, (who actually know their stuff), and properly trained in thermodynamics and engineering analysis to properly undertake this analysis. Unfortunately environmental scientists current training appears to be in the realm of propaganda and religious cults, i.e. true believes.

Back to top.

The Problem with CO2

CO2 is not necessarily the problem. It is simply an indicator that tells us that the earth is producing more CO2 then the foliage can convert, particularly the forests. In fact there are two issues that need proper analysis. Heat sources and sinks which determine the average air temperature and the conversion processes that convert C and O2 into CO2 and vice versa.

When CO2 remains constant, neither decreasing nor increasing, indicates that the forest and flora which convert CO2 into C and O2 are in balance with all the processes that convert C and O2 into CO2. This is a healthy state for planet Earth.

When CO2 in the atmosphere increases, over a period of time, the percentage of O2 may or may not begin to decrease. This is as an indicator of two very different events. One where the O2 is dropping possibly leading to a catastrophic event. And the second where the O2 remains constant. The two problems must be analyzed separately. To study the rise in temperature you analyze heat sources and sinks, not just CO2 production. To analyze a minute drop in the percentage in O2 in the air you must also analyze the balance in O2 production versus CO2 production. Using the rise or fall of CO2 in the air to analyze the drop of O2 in the air and Heat is just plain stupid. But even this is problematic because a goodly part of CO2 production comes from man made heat engines. Since CO2 is an indicator of two completely different problems, other measurements must be employed to identify which problem needs to be addressed. The scientists have really missed the boat on this one.

For this reason I have taken the GHG data for power plants in Canada (2005) and calculated the heat released into the environment by the working fluid in each fuel source. This should cover approximately 60% to 70% of the wasted heat from the power plants. The heat released into the environment in the following analysis is only the wasted heat from the working fluid, and does not consider the mammoth amount of wasted heat sent up the stack. That will take a totally different kind of analysis to calculate.

Back to top.

Carbon Based Fuels

The only fuels that do not produce CO2 are hydro, wind, solar and possibly nuclear if we can find a way to dispose of the radioactive waste. Unfortunately wind and solar will never produce sufficient power to run a nation or even produce power consistently. These technologies are only for small scale erratic power. Hydrogen is often toted, but in fact it takes large amounts of electricity to create hydrogen to begin with. That leaves nuclear and hydro as currently the only means of generating large amounts of power without producing CO2. Yet Nuclear is not very efficient, thermal efficiency is 32% in Canada 1* and 30% in USA,1* for every kilowatt of power generated the nuclear plant exhaust's 3.3 kilo-joules per second of heat into the atmosphere via the cooling water. Coal is actually more thermal efficient about 40% to 42%.* Gas turbines are less efficient about 15%.* Unfortunately hydro electric is dependant on water falls, which are scarce and more and more distant from the market. So what does that leave?

For some reason the waste heat from heat engines has totally escaped the attention of the alarmists. For some unknown reason they think that only CO2 creates heat in the environment. In all heat engines eight times as much heat comes out with HOT N2 and steam vapor then HOT CO2 gas. In fact the waste heat from heat engines, heats the atmosphere many time more than the CO2 produced.

The most dangerous pollutant are the following. These are, nitrogen oxide gasses (NOx), sulphur dioxide gas (SO2) and carbon monoxide gas (CO). Carbon monoxides use to be a major problem because CO will pull an oxygen atom from so many compounds. CO is produced from incomplete combustion. With electronic controlled combustion this problem has pretty much been minimized.

Consider the following table.

Electricity Generation - Heating the Atmosphere - Canada 2005

<
Canada 2005 Generating Capacity 1000Gega watt hours 2** CO2 in Mega tonnes ** Waste Heat 1000 Gega joules per second (calculated)*** Thermal Efficiency page Use Thermal Efficiency 1*
Coal 97 96 243 page 203* 40%
Oil 12 10 34 ?? 35%
Gas 28 14 187 page 426* 15%
Nuclear 87 none 290 page 226* 30%
Hydro 327 none 436 ?? 75%
Other 6 324 ?? 25%
Total 557 123 1,322

1* heat efficiencies Applied Thermodynamics text book try Applied Thermodynamics by Eastop & McConkey 4 th Ed

2 ** Data is from Environment Canada Green House Gases Sources and Sinks.

*** Waste Heat = generating capacity divided by thermal efficiency

From this table it is apparent that nuclear exhausts more waste heat into the environment than coal does, although coal produces more CO2 and more usable power. Even nuclear heats the environment and is by far the biggest polluter of heat. This table indicates that hydro and nuclear are the biggest and the worst polluter of heat into the environment. So why does everyone say nuclear is so pollution free!!!

So who is the worst polluter of heat into the environment?

Comparison Table - Fuel vs Pollution Electricity Generation Canada 2005

Fuel Generating Capacity CO2 NOx, CO, SO2 & Radioactive Waste Heat
megawatts tonne per hour megajoules per second
Heat Engine's Coal 1 1 some 2.5
Oil 1 0.8 some 2.9
Gas 1 0.5 some 6.7
Nuclear 1 none radioactive 3.3
Cold Engine's Hydro 1 none none 1.3 ??
the Cold Engine 1 none none 0

So which method of power generation heats the atmosphere the worst? The gas turbine produces more heat per kilowatt. Nuclear power is the second worst polluter of heat per kilowatt. Nuclear is the largest creator of waste heat. Of the heat engines coal is the best per kilowatt. Isn't it funny how a proper analysis of the problem turns the culprit and solution upside down

Unfortunately a coal fired power plant is the most deadly fuel causing more cancers and deaths than all other type of power plants, combined. Canadian Physicians for the Environment CAPE has this to say about coal. "Coal when burned produces arsrenic ( a carcinogin), mercury and lead (brain poisons)".

Let us leave mankind in his blissful ignorance of combustion and the environment and dissect the problem of lowering the production of CO2. The production of CO2 is an integral part of every combustion process. As long as we run heat engines to propel vehicles and generate power we will produce CO2. Yes we can make engines more efficient and use some of the waste heat, but this is about all. We can choose to restructure our society and move people in trains and buses rather than cars. But there is a limit. In the end it boils down to a choice between more people, more growth, more GNP and more CO2 versus unemployment with economic stagnation. Once this happens, our vaulted politicians who today tout their knee jerk green plans all of which are based on false chemistry and economics and taxing Peter to pay Paul will be tarred and feathered and ran out of the country.

Back to top.

The Voodoo Science of Cap and Trade

The Idiots who made up the Cap and Trade concepts are playing with voodoo chemistry and economics. Industry and households run on heat engines. For society to flourish and grow more industry and heat engines are required. Heat engines burn fuel. In today's world it is voodoo chemistry to have industry without heat engines. Burn any carbon fuel and you produce CO2. ALL fuels consume O2 and produce CO2. The only way in today's technology to cap CO2 is to regress back into the Stone Age. That means we have to reduce the world's population down to a few hundred million and we have to do away with heat engines. So who get to die and who gets to live? The surviving nation will be the one's who produces the greatest CO2 with the most tanks, ships and guns. It is voodoo science and economics to think that any nation can balance industrial growths and increased employment while capping or lowering the production of CO2.

Why are our scientists, economists and engineers not pointing out the stupidity of Cape and Trade? Tt is voodoo economics and chemistry. It will never work! If we cap CO2 we cap our population, GNP and standard of living.

In Today's industrial paradigm there are three axioms.

In today's industrial paradigm these axioms are absolute, they are based on chemistry, physics, economics and mathematics. The axioms cannot be bypassed by some politician passing a piece of legislation that defies natural laws of chemistry and physics. No politician can defy the laws of nature. Try stepping off a hundred-foot cliff and defy the laws of gravity. Maybe this is what we should do with our politicians.

A neutral Tax? How stupid! A neutral tax is where you steal from Peter (Alberta & Saskatchewan) to pay Paul (Ontario and Quebec). If this will not break up our Nation, I do not know what will. The question that arises is who will get the money and who will lose and pay. Who decides industry or government? Either way it is theft and corruption on a grand scale.

Revenue neutral means that the federal government will administer the system? Another bureaucracy that will cost one hundred times the cost of the gun registry. How Brilliant!

By controlling CO2 the government then controls what industries get to grow and what industries must shrink. This is not a free market, this is a bureaucratic centralized CONTROL system. Isn't this what the good old USSR tried to do for 60 years and failed, miserly. Again we never learn from history.

The basic concept is flawed. Cap Canadian producers of coal fired power plants. Simply move the power plant across the border and import the power. Voila No pollution in Canada and no carbon tax. This will force ALL our industry to move abroad, and create a Canadian economic crisis. This is the standard bureaucratic solution of sweeping the dirt under the rug. It is still there somewhere.

But the pollution will still flow across the border into Canada from the USA with the prevailing winds. Currently US pollution from California to Washington state moves East on the prevailing winds until they hit the gulf of Mexico winds blowing North up the Mississippi river into Ontario and then bends north east into Quebec. Ontario currently gets all the bad air pollution from the western half of the US. How do you stop this? The USA has no intention of cleaning up its air pollution problem. Maybe a multi trillion dollar class action suite against US polluters, individual state, and US federal government. Nothing less will suffice.

The Canadian government is so stupid, that currently American big oil, subverting Canadian law, is sending Alberta oil and gas to the US and then redirecting it back to Ontario at a much higher price, insuring very large windfall profits. Rules and regulations are so easy to get around if you are a big international company.

How do we tax the CO2 produced abroad in our imports? What credits do we give to our exports? Who should pay, the producer or the consumer? Without the consumer there would be no production. What about imports? A much fairer tax would be a goods and service tax because then even the imports would be taxed. In the final analysis, the Consumer always pays.

So where did Mankind with all his brilliant and taunted scientific knowledge so miss-identify the actual problem and send us on this misguides voodoo quest? Lets skip this idioteaucracy and address the real problem The Earth does not need to produce less CO2, it needs to convert more CO2 into O2. This is usually done by forest, which we, mankind, dearly love to consume faster than the Earth can regrow them. This is the real problem, that mankind should address, BALANCE. Our effort should be directed at conserving and enlarging forest and planting more trees in cities to convert more CO2 into O2.

Archeologists are discovering that the destruction of forest has caused the destruction of many a past civilization. It would seem that History will repeat itself again, only this time on a world wide scale!

Back to top.

The Cold Engine

As long as any country wishes to grow industrially it will produce more heat engines and more CO2. Is there a solution to this problem? Yes there is! The solution is very simple, instead of using heat engines to power a nation, use a cold engine instead. A cold engine does not produce CO2 and does not exhaust pollution and waste heat into the atmosphere. A cold engine takes heat out of the air and converts it into power and then exhaust's cold air back into the atmosphere. This is a new pyridine, in fact a pyridine shift, a new industrial revolution. A revolution never imagined by scientists and politicians.

Having an engine or power plant which does not consume fuel provides that business, industry or Country with a tremendous economic edge in cost savings for its industries and households. It is likely that this engine will create a new industrial revolution. If the U S and Canada lacks vision, these country will be on the outside looking in at this new industrial revolution.

Let us analyze the benefits of a cold engine as compared to a heat engine (coal).

Cold Engine Versus Heat Engine

Generating CO2 NOx Waste Heat
Capacity per hour per hour per hour
Heat Engine coal 1 megawatt 1 M Tonnesome +9,000 megajoules
the Cold Engine 1 megawatt none none 0 megajoules
Savings none+1 M Tonne some +9,000 megajoules

Cold Engine Savings = Heat Engine - the Cold Engine

In fact the cold engine solves all the pollution problems associated with the heat engine. That leaves only one question. Is there sufficient renewable heat in the air to run a nation on cold engines? The answer is yes. The sun heats the ocean, earth and air, generating enormous amounts of heat. The jet streams distribute this heat around the world. That only leaves one question. How cold does it have to get before a cold engine cannot extrapolate heat from the air? That question has not yet been fully resolved. First the refrigerant solidifies at -78 C so it will not work as temperatures approach -78 C. But you can be assured that where-ever you can operate an indoor ice rink that you can run a cold engine.

Back to top.

The Story Of the Cold Engine

The cold engine was invented by David Graham.

About ten years ago (2003) I awoke with a dream in which I had married two well established, technologies and produced an engine that did not consume a fuel. In fact it recycled the fuel. I saw the engine vividly in my dream and knew that it extracted heat from the air and produced power, useful power. Being a Power Engineer, I reviewed and pursued a study of turbines and compressors and other technologies. I built, tinkered and designed. Then I wrote a paper on the theoretical basis of the cold engine which I put on this web site. I made no attempt to publish it, because in today's world peer review would discredit it, unlike Eienstein's paper's in 1905, in which there was no peer review. An interesting historical observation.

The design of the engine went through a number of evolutions based upon many different applications until I settled on a business model. The model led to a marketing strategy and a viable business plan. Then an engine designed to fit the business plan. This is where I currently am. In this process of getting to this point, I refinanced my condo and at this stage need financial help urgently to continue. Currently I do have a business plan and a private offering memorandum and can accept investors.

So where does the cold engine stand now? I need investors small and large investors. My phone number is 780 450 2574 and my email address is graham777@shaw.ca

I truly need help. This cold engine will solve the problem of capping CO2 without capping the economy. Most of all I need investors. See my Web site www.turbogenpower.com

Having an engine which does not consume fuel provides that business, industry or Country with a tremendous economic edge in cost savings for its industries and households. It is likely that this engine will create a new industrial revolution. If Canada lacks vision, this country will be on the outside looking in at this new industrial revolution. Please help!

David Graham : ; B. Sc. Eng; P. E. T. Back to top.

What if Einstein's papers were never published!

If in 1905 there was peer review none of Einstein's papers would have been published. No one understood his papers. Einstein's papers would have fallen into the dust bin of history. Peer review has truly caused modern science to fall into the depths of depravity and cease to serve Mankind. Publication of ideas in scientific journals today has degenerated into a popularity contest among an elitist few.

Scientist say there is NO Perpetual Motion.

Consider the Wind, although intermittent, it will return. This is motion and perprtual.

Man has used perpetual motion for thousands of years. Consider the Sailing ships that built the British Empire and propelled mankind across great distances. As long as the wind blows man can sail the seas!