Dear Mr. Pickens,
In this message I conclude my series of messages and introduce a plan superior to the Pickens Plan which I call The Heaviside Plan ™.
This is the twelfth in a series of a dozen messages about the Pickens Plan. Let me briefly review. The first three are about new technology that describe inventions that actually work, but most believe are impossible--Fuel-less, Battery-less Electric Car, WaterGas, Increasing Power Plant COP. Next, messages on Nuclear Power and Ethanol--Renaissance for an Old Technology and It's no longer funny. The next six discuss each of the six energy sources discussed in the video on the Pickens Plan.
The Pickens Plan is designed to reduce the amount of natural gas used to generate electricity by up to 25% over the next 10 years by substituting Wind Power for natural gas. The natural gas would then be used for transportation replacing about 25% of the gasoline/diesel fuel used. The Pickens Plan requires a $150 Billion subsidy (BAILOUT) from the Federal Government.
The Heaviside Plan ™ is designed to replace ALL the coal, petroleum, and natural gas used in combustion to produce heat with infrared electromagnetic energy (heat) extracted from the active vacuum over the next 40 years. The science for doing this is solidly established in peer reviewed physics journals but is unknown in electrical engineering. The Heaviside Plan ™ requires payment of development costs of about $58 Million, but no subsidy from the Federal Government.
Small (5,000 BTU/Hour) Free Heat ™ units would heat the individual rooms of the house or larger (up to 120,000 BTU/Hour) Free Heat ™ unit for a central heating system. Larger units for larger buildings. These small Free Heat ™ units would be a Godsend to third-world people who live in thatched roofed mud-walled huts and currently heat by burning dried cow dung.
Individual Free Heat ™ units to heat water at the Point Of Use (POU). Individual POU units at each hot/warm water outlet will eliminate the need for a hot water tank and a hot water pipe to each water fixture. The POU's would be thermostatically controlled so the water would always be at the desired temperature after the first pint of water drawn.
Five or six Free Heat ™ units would provide heat for 4 surface "burners" and one or two ovens. Also, a Free Heat ™ unit could provide heat for a forced convection oven (fast like a microwave oven).
Here we have choices all supplied with heat with one or more Free Heat ™ units three of the choices are: Multi-cylinder Sterling Cycle engine, Steam Engine (either reciprocating or turbine), Gas Turbine (Free Heat ™ units would supply heat instead of burning jet engine fuel). One significant advantage of using Free Heat ™ units as the energy source is that no fuel is carried in the vehicle; this allows for larger payloads in a given size vehicle (especially in aircraft).
More choices and one size doesn't fit all; 1 GW central steam electric power generating plants, gas turbine powered electric power generators, thermoelectric generators. Each generator would be "fuelled" by one or more Free Heat ™ unit(s) of appropriate size. Here I prefer the POU approach which would distribute the electric power generation to the individual building level. In 40 years we could eliminate the huge (1 GW) central (coal, petroleum, natural gas or nuclear fueled) electric power generating plants and the unsightly, terrorist target, weather impacted distribution lines.
Before we can get seriously started on The Heaviside Plan ™ it is necessary to the correct the electrical engineering mathematical model that does not consider energy extracted from the active vacuum. This can best be done by providing research grants to a number of universities carrying the proviso that the grant be used to update the electrical engineering mathematical model to include the advances in physics during the last 144 years; 5 million dollars would go a long way here.
Larry Brown
Your Eyes and Ears in SW Oregon
Now using a Mac Mini (Apple)
P.S. I saw your plan in two different You Tube videos. As a Caltech grad (BS, 1954; MS in EE, 1954), I was impressed. IMHO, we, as a nation, should consider all of the energy sources that you enumerated along with any new, "out of the box" technologies, but the "playing field" should be leveled. All government interference in the energy markets should be stopped. This will allow all technologies to compete--the market will select those technologies that are most cost-effective. It was government regulations, subsidies, and taxes that brought us the "energy crisis."
P.P.S. This message is an extended version of the message I sent to
http://www.PickensPlan.com