Solar Energy vs the Quantum Foam

William Tucker has written an excellent article about biofuels and solar energy versus nuclear energy (using thorium reactors, which promise no more Three Mile Islands or Fukushimas) at http://tinyurl.com/6nzpbt Everyone should read that article who has the slightest interest in energy or its production.

I wrote a reply, which turns out to be undeliverable, making the case for abandoning solar as too dilute to be really useful and suggesting an alternative:

Great stuff!

The Universe is indeed awash in energy, but the energy from radiation would seem to be only a small bit of it — We’ve observed that most of the energy out there is “dark energy.” Researchers have put dark energy in a fifth dimension because they don’t know where else to put it, but a more intriguing theory is that dark energy is a manifestation of the zero point flux, in which, per quantum theory, the matter present in an object at absolute zero is constantly converting to energy, then back again to mass. What we’re seeing as dark matter could theoretically be the energy and mass (dark matter likewise makes up most of the material in the Universe) resulting from this process.

Of course a theory is only an explanation of something observed; it’s neither true nor false. But there have been some practical results of efforts to extract this energy from the zero point flux: see http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/ for a “best” explanation of this process, and for a great number of devices that purport to tap it.

I have a business plan at http://wwww.chollybygolly.com for identifying such a device (the “industry” is rife with fraud and outright insanity, which I take to be the mother of invention these days) and actually selling it. It’s like pulling teeth, but I persist.

Take a look at Kelly’s book. This is good stuff!

Charlie Coombs
Irving, Texas

One More Reason to Structure the Business This Way

I don’t know why people are still arguing about Obama’s birth certificate.

Here are some of the articles relating to this phony document:

http://tinyurl.com/6z3rxe6 Info wars
http://tinyurl.com/3h4ql2y Advises one to learn how clipping masks work.
http://tinyurl.com/3ppzt9h Fakery unrelated to computer manipulation
http://tinyurl.com/68htqk A more comprehensive approach
http://tinyurl.com/3dysqpa Some convincing expert testimony on YouTube

I’d give you more, but there are about 3,930,000 results for “Obama birth certificate fake.”

Here’s an article that asserts that the certificate is genuine: http://tinyurl.com/3ezzs6j. Another one, on YouTube, asserts the same thing: http://tinyurl.com/3f6o9u7. This appears to be the world’s lamest attempt at getting the video removed because some liberal can manipulate the data in a different way. I could be wrong, I guess. I was once in 1964 when I thought I’d made a mistake.

Naturally, Google places the first one claiming legitimacy as #1 among the three-million odd entries, few others of which seem to claim legitimacy for this taurine poo. Note, though, that whereas what this expert says is technically correct, it doesn’t answer the real questions plaguing this phony document. It tells us only that the document was scanned using some Adobe product. It doesn’t tell us anything about why typewritten information, for example, shows up as if the document were prepared on at least two different typewriters. It doesn’t tell us why the certificate number contains a character that could only have come from a computer. It doesn’t tell us why the pattern at the fold where the page was ostensibly copied from a book of bound birth certificates is undistorted, as it would be if this were really such a copy. Beyond the typography, it doesn’t explain why anyone would copy a document into an easily-alterable computer format unless one sought to alter it. It doesn’t remark on the Registrar’s name, which appears to be a childish rendering of “U. Kelele” (yes, dear friends, liberals think we’re that stupid). It doesn’t explain why a birth certificate issued a day after Obama’s should have a lower number than the one that purports to be his. Forgive me if I’ve left out your favorite discrepancy, but my fingers are getting tired.

Liberals long ago mastered this technique of telling you something true as if it had anything to do with some egregious lie. This forged document is pure flim-flam, and so are they, down to and including their fraudulent “President.”

Now, shall we discuss why Obama’s Connecticut (he has several) social security number once belonged to a 120-year-old dead guy?

Ethanol? Ethanol? Hahahahahahaha!

There’s nothing wrong with burning our food for fuel. Everything is wrong with trying to make gas less polluting by adding ethanol to it.

It takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than you get from the ethanol you make. Ethanol can’t be stored in tanks designed for petroleum products, and must be shipped by rail in special ethanol tank cars (they’re blue). Your local station needs special tanks and pumps to get the stuff into your car at any concentration in gasoline greater than 10 or 15%. It sucks up water like sunshine on a sand dune, and often releases that water in parts of your fuel system other than the exhaust, especially in humid regions like Houston.

Withal, burning ethanol has only about 70% of the energy of gasoline. E85 only looks cheaper than gasoline for the same reason that gasoline only looks cheaper than diesel fuel. It costs way more, and the subsidies only appear to get the costs down a bit: When they come off, the cost of ethanol will soar as on wings of eagles.

If we took our entire corn crop to make ethanol — didn’t feed a single pig or cow; didn’t assuage the hunger pangs of a single starving kid — it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by less than six percent.

Truly, this substance redefines the entire concept of “crap.” It has one use and one only: to make White Lightning for our nation’s distilleries.