Peak oil and the end of modern industrial society.

[Lev Muishkin]

What about cold fusion, and solar energy, wind turbines, power derived from river dams ? Technological leaps may increasingly utilize these with lessening loss of energy.

Well what about them??

1) Cold Fusion: does not work.
2) Solar energy: okay on a sunny day, but what about the rest of the world?
3) Wind Turbines: the most expensive form of energy. So calculations have them never replacing the energy devoted to their manufacture and maintenance. What happens when the oli runs out, and the plastics, resins and carbon fibres from OIL are no longer available?
4) River damns work really well. They also flood millions of acres of land, and tend to desiccate the lowlands.

[Moreno]

What about cold fusion?

The Cold fusion story is an interesting one. At first it was derided as ridiculous and generally not simply dismissed but ridiculed by the scientific Community. But the Navy, who had worked with Fleishman (I Think that's his name), one of the two original scientists, continued the research because they knew the guy was not a flake. It turns out that positive results have been found using processes like or similar to the original ones. Nothing dramatic and it is not clear even if heat Changes took Place, though some did get excess temperatures. But it is now utterly clear that nuclear processes were being created at room temperature. They know this because they put plastic slices in with the deuterium loaded palladium and they found that they were getting particle scattering just like in other kinds of nuclear reactions. This is astounding, new and of unclear potential as an energy source. Still people are researching it as an energy source, and are absolutely trying to understand and then Control how nuclear type reactions are being created through chemical means at low termperatures. Reading about the history of this I noted several things: scientists who did find they got excess heat had their careers destroyed - iow if some of their results confirmed the original experiments they were considered quacks along withe the original researchers, two MIT actually removed from their results the fact that they found surplus heat production because it was not sudden enough, according to them. But still it supported the original research and MIT was one of Three orgs that basically nailed the coffin shut on Cold fusion. They also do not call it Cold fusion these Days, being much more cautious, but it should be stressed something remarkable was found.

[James S Saint]

Free energy is not allowed, else golden hand-cuffs won't bind.

[Lev Muishkin]

What about cold fusion?

The Cold fusion story is an interesting one. At first it was derided as ridiculous and generally not simply dismissed but ridiculed by the scientific Community. But the Navy, who had worked with Fleishman (I Think that's his name), one of the two original scientists, continued the research because they knew the guy was not a flake. It turns out that positive results have been found using processes like or similar to the original ones. Nothing dramatic and it is not clear even if heat Changes took Place, though some did get excess temperatures. But it is now utterly clear that nuclear processes were being created at room temperature. They know this because they put plastic slices in with the deuterium loaded palladium and they found that they were getting particle scattering just like in other kinds of nuclear reactions. This is astounding, new and of unclear potential as an energy source. Still people are researching it as an energy source, and are absolutely trying to understand and then Control how nuclear type reactions are being created through chemical means at low termperatures. Reading about the history of this I noted several things: scientists who did find they got excess heat had their careers destroyed - iow if some of their results confirmed the original experiments they were considered quacks along withe the original researchers, two MIT actually removed from their results the fact that they found surplus heat production because it was not sudden enough, according to them. But still it supported the original research and MIT was one of Three orgs that basically nailed the coffin shut on Cold fusion. They also do not call it Cold fusion these Days, being much more cautious, but it should be stressed something remarkable was found.

Have you any reference to support this - there is so much rubbish in the Internet.

[Moreno]

No one is claiming this involves free energy. Poor read, James, best keep you on ignore. Ironically here James you are running along with the mainstream - which has not reported accurately at all on the original research and has not mentioned at all the continuation of the research by the navy and others. A number of the people doing this research had their careers destroyed, one guy, with hundreds of peer reviewed publications to his credit, simply for finding, in his repetition of the original research some excess heat. MIT even lied about their results and this was used to disprove the phenomenon. None of the current people - or really even the original researchers - were claiming it was free energy. Just as using oil as a source of energy is not free energy, though it can function like cheap energy - locally, and locally in time - as long as it lasts. The energy being locked in there, so to speak, and not put there by humans, who can, on the other hand, release it somewhat easily. Here however we seem to be dealing with chemical reactions leading to nuclear events, though very, very modest ones.

I got the information here..............

13 Things that Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time by Michael Brooks

he gives references to specific researchers/research in the book.

[Eric_The_Pipe]

Free energy is not allowed, else golden hand-cuffs won't bind.

There could be other possible reasons to not allow free energy. I've heard multiple people present the argument that the moment it is found is the moment we blow our selves up. Many Scientists worry about being the next creators of a nuclear bomb like device. One with unlimited energy instead of just a lot...

13 Things that Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time by Michael Brooks

I enjoyed that book.

[James S Saint]

Free energy is not allowed, else golden hand-cuffs won't bind.

There could be other possible reasons to not allow free energy. I've heard multiple people present the argument that the moment it is found is the moment we blow our selves up. Many Scientists worry about being the next creators of a nuclear bomb like device. One with unlimited energy instead of just a lot...

Free energy devices have been around for decades. The device that "blows everyone up" is the black-hole devices created for power, not energy (power being the concentration of the energy).

[LaughingMan]

Free energy is not allowed, else golden hand-cuffs won't bind.

There could be other possible reasons to not allow free energy. I've heard multiple people present the argument that the moment it is found is the moment we blow our selves up. Many Scientists worry about being the next creators of a nuclear bomb like device. One with unlimited energy instead of just a lot...

Free energy devices have been around for decades. The device that "blows everyone up" is the black-hole devices created for power, not energy (power being the concentration of the energy).

Evidence? That's right, you have none other than unverifiable websites and YouTube videos.

[Lev Muishkin]

I once knew a guy that believed that you could add a device to a car engine, which made it possible to run the car on tap water rather than petroleum.
Those 'evil' oil companies has suppressed the development of such devices, and so everyone was forced to pay the exorbitant prices for petrol at the pumps!

These and all such "free energy" devices presumably have all been suppressed to further the vested interests of the multinational protectors of the status quo.


What a wicked world we live in.

[James S Saint]

That's right, you have none other than unverifiable websites and YouTube videos.

And "unverifiable" means "anything I don't believe" which is determined by normalcy bias and mainstream media.

In my particular case (which I don't even discuss), in 1972 during the "we need energy" false flag, I personally designed what I thought was the first truly perpetual energy source, only to discover that a few others had come even before me in other ways but buried under a hell of a lot of obfuscation and demonizing (largely by displaying silly efforts of morons in order to promote disrespect for all efforts - a common method for hiding a truth). I suspect that I still hold the most ecological design.

[Arminius]

The "first truly perpetual energy source"?

[Lev Muishkin]

I wonder if JS Saint is going to let us all know about his perpetual energy machine so we can all invest in it?

[Arminius]

Peak oil is not based on scientific knowledge, but primarily on speculation, and when it comes to speculation, lies are immediately at work, whereby the wealth and therefore the power of the ruler of the world is increased.

Incidentally, it is possible that oil is an inorganic product. If this is true, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie.

Most "scientists" are no more scientists because of their involvement in corruption and their opportunistic behavior due to the censorship of the rulers. Who is brave and wants to remain scientists, is soon released and exposed to impoverishment.

If it is true that oil and natural gasoline are more inorganic than organic products, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie and the energy source will as long exist as the planet Earth.

In that case we merely would have to eliminate the lie. The lie is a problem humans can't resolve.

[phyllo]

If it is true that oil and natural gasoline are more inorganic than organic products, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie and the energy source will as long exist as the planet Earth.

organic = matter that contains carbon atoms, matter that comes from the remains of plants and animals.

So where does oil come from, if not from plants and animals?

[Arminius]

If it is true that oil and natural gasoline are more inorganic than organic products, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie and the energy source will as long exist as the planet Earth.

organic = matter that contains carbon atoms, matter that comes from the remains of plants and animals.

So where does oil come from, if not from plants and animals?

Can't you guess it? My last post contains already the answer. Haven't you read it, although you have quoted it?

According to some scientists chemical, but not fossilised, thus inorganic processes lead to oil, so oil is an inorganic product.

[phyllo]

Can't you guess it? My last post contains already the answer. Haven't you read it, although you have quoted it?

If I had not read it, then I would not have responded to it.

Strange that you are unable to answer a direct question.

According to some scientists merely chemical processes lead to oil, so oil is an inorganic product.

I assume that you think oil contains carbon atoms so it is not inorganic in that sense. So you must mean that oil does not come from dead plants and animals. Therefore you are talking about abiogenic oil.

Abiogenic petroleum origin is a hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative mechanism of petroleum origin. According to the abiogenic hypothesis, petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle.

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1] Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material.[1] However, some argue that the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

[Arminius]

Strange that you are unable to answer a direct question.

I did answer your question, but you are unable to read ( ). That's strange. In addition: English is your mother tongue, isn't it?

The abiogenic hypothesis "fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because" the Soviet Union was defeated, the "Cold War" ended, and the western age of total globalism started. You know what I mean?

Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material.

Therefore I wrote:

Peak oil is not based on scientific knowledge, but primarily on speculation, and when it comes to speculation, lies are immediately at work, whereby the wealth and therefore the power of the ruler of the world is increased.

Incidentally, it is possible that oil is an inorganic product. If this is true, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie.

Most »scientists« are no more scientists because of their involvement in corruption and their opportunistic behavior due to the censorship of the rulers. Who is brave and wants to remain scientists, is soon released and exposed to impoverishment. => #

Wikipedia (although also mainstream):

However, some argue that the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed yet because the mainstream theory still has to be established conclusively.

Do you agree with the mainstream theory?

[Arminius]

Inorganic chemistry is the study of the synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. This field covers all chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds (carbon based compounds, usually containing C-H bonds), which are the subjects of organic chemistry.

Abiogenesis is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

[Arminius]

@ Moreno

Martin Fleischmann (not: "Fleishman") was his name. => #

[Lev Muishkin]

If it is true that oil and natural gasoline are more inorganic than organic products, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie and the energy source will as long exist as the planet Earth.

In that case we merely would have to eliminate the lie. The lie is a problem humans can't resolve.

It is not true that oil is inorganic.
Whether or not it is organic does not relate to it scarcity.

ALL resources are ultimately finite and can be used up.

[Lev Muishkin]

Inorganic chemistry is the study of the synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. This field covers all chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds (carbon based compounds, usually containing C-H bonds), which are the subjects of organic chemistry..

By this definition "organic" oil is unavoidably organic in origin.

[Arminius]

 
True is that we don't know wether oil comes exclusively from plants and animals or not.

[James S Saint]

The "first truly perpetual energy source"?

[LaughingMan]

Fracking is gonna save us all.

Until that runs out and we are left drinking poisonous water.

I believe the proper terminology for that is poisoning the well.

[LaughingMan]

Now if you want to talk about carbon emissions and rising global temperatures as a consequence in part of using oil, that is another issue, and that issue actually matters.

No argument from me on that. I concur.