Monday, July 25, 2011

13 tips to go green

13 tips to go green

Today, we are helping our customers reduce their carbon-footprint and utility costs at the same time. Our slogan “Go Green & Save Money” says it all.

Our goal is to provide cost-effective energy solutions that make as much sense financially as they do environmentally. Energy Savers is proud to be at the forefront of America’s movement towards sustainability.

1) Turn down the thermostat. Lowering it by just one degree can reduce heating energy costs by about four percent.
2) Use ceiling fans in the summer AND winter. By reversing the direction of the blades, warm air is pushed down, helping to keep rooms warm in winter.
3) Conserve energy by purchasing major appliances with an Energy Star rating. Compared to a 1990 model, an Energy Star-qualified refrigerator would save enough electricity to light a home for more than four and a half months.
4) Repair leaky fixtures: one drop per second from a leaky faucet can waste as mush as 10 gallons of water each week.
5) Install low-flow showerheads, faucets, and toilets. Low-flow faucets reduce water consumption and the cost of heating water by as much as 50 percent; using a low-flow toilet can save Americans 2.1 trillion gallons of water and $11.3 million nationwide every day.
6) Choose carpeting, rugs, window treatments and other textiles made from natural fibers, such as cotton or wool, which are untreated and free of toxins, such as pesticides or chemical cleaners.
7) Ask for flooring products made from rapidly renewable resources, such as bamboo. Bamboo is one of the fasted growing plants in the world, requiring no replanting and little fertilization or pesticides.
8) Select solid woods harvested from sustainably-managed forests, when possible, for furniture or cabinetry, rather than pressed woods or composites that may contain formaldehyde or other chemicals that may be toxic and hazardous to your health.
9) Eliminate waste by choosing products that are biodegradable or recyclable. Consider the “lifecycle” of furnishings and accessories before purchasing: Are they made of materials that can be reused or recycled when the item eventually wears out or is no longer needed?
10) Recycle packing and shipping materials from any newly purchased items, and safely dispose of paint cans and other containers with contents that could potentially contaminate the ground or water supply.
11) Install exterior window shades on Southern and Western exposure windows.
12. Install insulation in attic and crawl space and install attic fans.

13) Speak with a friendly Energy Consultant from Energy Savers and start going green today!

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Benefits of Green Roofs


Benefits of Green Roofs

Green roofs are booming in popularity because they bring multiple benefits to buildings and to communities.
These benefits include:
Reducing roof replacement costs. In Minnesota, a typical gravel-ballasted flat roof is expected to perform for 15-20 years before replacement is necessary. Roof membranes deteriorate when exposed to the hot and cold temperature extremes we experience in Minnesota, and also when exposed to UV radiation from sunlight. The components of a green rooftop protect a roof membrane from these aging factors. The membrane under a green rooftop can be expected to perform for 35 – 50 years before replacement is necessary. This means that a building can avoid 1 – 2 roof replacements over a 50-year lifespan. This reduces life cycle costs as well as significantly reducing the volume of roofing materials deposited in our landfills.
Reducing energy costs. Green roofs can reduce heating and cooling demands. During a Minnesota winter, the insulation layer and growing medium of a green roof can add r-value to a building’s roof. In the summer, the impact is more significant. Living plant material evaporating moisture from leaf surfaces will cool the rooftop surface, reducing cooling demand up to 25 percent.
Reducing stormwater management costs. An extensive green roof with four inches of growing medium can be expected to hold a one-inch rainfall event before any water runs off the roof surface. Nearly all the rainfall events we receive in Minnesota are less than one inch. This four-inch green roof can be expected to capture two-thirds of the rain that falls on its surface. With a deeper layer of growing medium or with rainwater or greywater harvesting systems, a green roof can be used to manage a significantly larger volume of water. As a part of a building’s stormwater management infrastructure, a green roof can reduce the cost of other stormwater management systems, and in some cities can reduce monthly stormwater management fees. The City of Minneapolis uses a stormwater utility fee structure that provides incentives for using green roofs to manage stormwater on-site.
Improving urban air quality.. Green space is good for air quality. Green rooftops provide opportunities to increase the amount of green space in densely developed urban areas where green space can be hard to find. A 1998 study by Green Roofs for Healthy Cities developed a model showing that, if six percent of the rooftop surfaces in the City of Toronto were replaced with green rooftops, the additional green space would remove 30 tons of airborne particulate pollution each year.
Mitigating Climate Change and the Urban Heat Island Effect. Urban areas like Minneapolis-Saint Paul are generally 2 – 5 degrees (f) warmer than surrounding rural areas. This is known as the Urban Heat Island effect. On top of that, the USEPA projects a 2 – 7 degree (f) increase in aggregate temperature for our region over the course of the 21st Century. It is projected that a three-degree aggregate temperature increase in Minneapolis would triple annual heat-related deaths from 60 to nearly 200.  By cooling rooftop surfaces and improving air quality, a critical mass of green rooftops can mitigate all of these impacts.
Providing urban green space. Green roofs can provide opportunities for significant green space amenities in urban areas. East Village Apartments in the Elliot Park neighborhood of Minnepaolis features an at-grade green rooftop installed over underground parking. The green space includes picnic tables and provides an amenity to this affordable housing development. The green rooftop at Brit’s Pub on Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis can be used for lawn bowling and private parties. And pedestrians using the Loring Greenway in Minneapolis may not even realize that they are walking on green roof surfaces above occupied spaces. Hospital administrators know that patients who can see green space outside their windows can recover more quickly. Nursing home and elder care facilities can use green roofs as part of horticultural therapy programs.

Energy conservation plan


Energy conservation plan
Within the “Business As Usual” scenario, YJay has listed seven substantive challenges:

1. Electricity supply is not keeping up with demand.
2. Energy prices have risen substantially in recent years and this trend is expected to continue.
3. Global Warming and the emission of greenhouse gases are expected to increase.
4. Today, government has much less authority over the supply and price of electricity than it did before the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act (EDECA) of 1999.
5. Renewable energy development and implementation progress is slow.
6. Electric grid upgrading is imperative
7. Energy storage development must advance and utilized

States will have to be overcome the challenges identified above between 2008 and the year 2021. The “Business As Usual” scenario includes no State action in those intervening years.

The consequence of inaction is an estimated 61% increase in the total cost of energy consumed in 2021, as compared to 2004, totaling in excess of $26 billion. Greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 are predicted to be 14.6% higher than they were in 2006, thus negating many of the benchmarks established by the recently enacted “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Act”.

The “Alternative Scenario” however, outlines goals to change the way the States conducts its energy affairs. The “Alternative Scenario” lists six objectives, all involving States action:

1. Maximize energy conservation and efficiency.
2. Reduce State’s overall peak electricity demand.
3. Stimulate growth in renewable and alternative energy technologies.
4. Develop low-carbon emitting and more efficient power plants in order to close the gap between electricity supply and demand.
5. Invest in clean energy technologies and businesses to stimulate the industry’s growth within the State.
6. Develop and institute tax breaks for efficiency upgrade.

Develop alternative energy is imperative

Develop alternative energy is imperative
Fearing that today's high oil and gas prices will turn into tomorrow's severe shortages, some people are taking to the hills where they are growing their own food and learning to live without the modern conveniences that resulted from the age of relatively cheap energy. Some are also stocking up on guns and ammo, concerned that anarchy will result when the oil begins to run out. How often have we heard this kind of scenario in modern history?
In the 1950s and early 1960s well-stocked bomb shelters were a popular addition to suburban homes. When the Soviet Union, the bitter ideological enemy of the United States, obtained the atomic bomb, many became convinced that a nuclear exchange would follow.
This hysteria was repeated when the Cold War heated up in the 1980s. Both superpowers had their massive nuclear arsenals on hair-trigger response, prepared to launch within minutes at the first sign the enemy had begun an attack. Accidental nuclear annihilation became a distinct possibility. So some folks took to the hills in remote areas of the country that were least likely to see the fallout from a nuclear war.
As the year 2000 approached, Y2K fear gripped the country. This time the fear centered on concerns that our computer-dependent society would crumble when computers were unable to handle a year date that did not begin with 19. Again some stocked up on supplies and ammunition.
After the spectacularly violent terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001, some survivalists became convinced that Armageddon was around the corner. Fears of more attacks, of plagues being unleashed and water supplies poisoned, gripped the country. And again, some headed for higher ground.
The common theme of all these episodes is that the impulse to flee for survival, though over-reactive, was based in some reality. Fortunately the United States, as a society and a nation, reacted more rationally to the threats.
Successive disarmament treaties were approved to try and reduce the chance of nuclear war. And ultimately, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two nations moved away from their hair-trigger policies.
In the wake of 2001, security was stepped up across the nation and efforts made to repair the holes in the intelligence net that made the 9/11 attacks possible. While certainly the threat remains, the rash of attacks that some feared has not materialized.
Fear that an energy crisis looms are not irrational. It does appear that oil production has reached a plateau, even as worldwide demand continues to increase. If the current situation goes unaddressed, it is possible, even likely, that shortages will result.
But rather than flee for safety, society must again deal with a problem. Every effort must be made to promote and develop alternative forms of energy. Lifestyles need to change to significantly reduce energy use - including development of mass transit, encouraging housing development that allows people to live near their places of work and the use of energy-efficient products and vehicles.
This is not a problem that the world can drill its way out of. Putting new oil fields on line will take years and at most will simply offset fields that are in depletion. As a society we need to agree on changing how we live.
Stocking up on supplies and guns does not solve problems, and could potentially exacerbate them by causing panic. But ignoring the threat we face is also not the answer. It is time to come to grips with the energy problem, not flee from it.

Runaway Energy Costs – causing inflation and panic

Runaway Energy Costs – causing inflation and panic

Spurred by soaring energy costs, food prices and other goods and services have risen nearly 20 percent or more in the past 20 months — more than double the usual increase.
Commodity prices for corn, wheat, soybeans and other staples have been skyrocketing over the past year to more than double their prices from 2006.
Economists have also pointed toward the growing demand for grains for ethanol and other biofuels, tying the price of corn to the price of oil and increasing the pressure and demand for land use.
“It is important to note the contribution of runaway energy prices to the retail cost of food goods and services. “Transportation, processing and packaging all cost significantly more now than in prior years.”
The snowball effect of soaring energy prices is causing increased prices for all goods and services, from food, medical, construction and other material.
Speculation is often criticized as the cause of surging grain prices. But the current abnormal price increases could not have occurred without firm demand. Indeed, farmers are cultivating cash plants while buyers are seeking cheaper alternatives, forming a chain of price surges.
World food production must rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet increasing demand.
Biofuels to blame?
The increasing diversion of food and animal feed to produce biofuel, and sharply higher fuel costs have also helped to shoot prices upward, experts say.
The senate and the House should call for expanded funding for weatherization and tax credits for other energy-saving programs, $100 billion for expansion of mass transit systems, $100 billion for renewable energy development and renewable energy projects and $50 billion in bonds for roads, bridges and other transportation projects.
Traders are also at fault
A boom in speculation and trading by investment banks and hedge funds has put our energy markets on steroids. Contract volume in the futures markets has risen by a third in just the last year. Oil closed at a record high of $125.96 a barrel (USO: , , ) on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Friday. That's double the price two years ago, a difference clearly caused by market manipulation.
This isn't complicated finance. The way traders push up prices is surprisingly simple. They buy in European futures markets, which don't have the limits that U.S. markets do. That drives up U.S. prices where they may already have positions. It's a move to think about next time one of these exchange chiefs talks about all of the benefits of "market globalization."
None of it would matter except that these markets are supposed to be driven by supply and demand. China and other rapidly growing countries may be using more, or will use more resources, but the reality is that demand and supply haven't changed enough to warrant the price of oil doubling in less than three years.

Hedge Funds and Banks driving oil prices
In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes. The CFTC defines a speculator as a person who “does not produce or use the commodity, but risks his or her own capital trading futures in that commodity in hopes of making a profit on price changes.”

The large purchases of crude oil futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil for future delivery in the same manner that additional demand for contracts for the delivery of a physical barrel today drives up the price for oil on the spot market. As far as the market is concerned, the demand for a barrel of oil that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a speculator is just as real as the demand for a barrel that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a refiner or other user of petroleum.

Perhaps 60% of oil prices today pure speculation

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate.

In June 2006, oil traded in futures markets at some $60 a barrel and the Senate investigation estimated that some $25 of that was due to pure financial speculation. One analyst estimated in August 2005 that US oil inventory levels suggested WTI crude prices should be around $25 a barrel, and not $60.

That would mean today that at least $50 to $60 or more of today’s $115 a barrel price is due to pure hedge fund and financial institution speculation. However, given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices traded on Nymex and ICE exchanges in New York and London it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation. No one knows officially except the tiny handful of energy trading banks in New York and London and they certainly aren’t talking.

By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures prices to even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for oil companies to buy even more oil and place it in storage. A refiner will purchase extra oil today, even if it costs $135 per barrel, if the futures price is even higher.

As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing,

resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.

Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand. Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies.

Over the past couple of years global crude oil production has increased along with the increases in demand; in fact, during this period global supplies have exceeded demand, according to the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently forecast that in the next few years global surplus production capacity will continue to grow to between 3 and 5 million barrels per day by 2010, thereby “substantially thickening the surplus capacity cushion.”
Compiled by:  YJay Draiman

The Energy Crisis


The Energy Crisis

A bank is a legally instituted body for money transactions and savings and loans, or at least that is one way to interpret what a bank does. The fudging of the lines began when building societies and cooperatives began their acts. Then just a few years ago the cash back on cards started in supermarkets and then the lines got even more hazy when insurances, loans and other types of financial services started to be offered at the shopping point, where transactions are processed.

Not to be outdone the power companies that used to favour pre payment cards, have in their words ‘in trying to crack down on fraud we are now introducing a key card system’, that old scapegoat, heard a lot about it but seen little evidence to back up the claims, do we really believe the trumped up charges in the falling crime rate in Britain. The evidence shows us that banks have been using unscrupulous methods against their own customers. Three days to commit instant electronic transfers where the credit is able to cover the transactions immediately. High risk investors loosing billions, and being allowed to chase bad debts, using clients money to earn interest on unsecured loans and high risk mortgages, selling them off to unsuspecting brokers after they have been re packaged. Throwing good money after bad and still making sure that their shareholders get their profits first and foremost and then robbing the public kitty, in a time when local authorities cannot afford to meat their commitments to public services and are cutting back because they cant afford them. The government in its wisdom will sacrifice refuse collection in favour of lending to the private sector mismanagers that couldn’t handle the money properly when they had it and before they threw it away in speculation, that’s gambling to anyone that need it explained. 

Now into the market in a sneaky bid to directly bill us as they like when they like. The power companies are changing the meters to make remote readings a possibility, even with their previous bad record at guess readings and bad billing practices they think there is nothing wrong with that. With the new key card they can take our money at the source and completely clear any outstanding bill before your payment swill allow you to put credit into the meter. In real terms the defaulter at the moment can arrange to pay five pounds a week to any outstanding bill and still put ten pounds worth in to get power to live off. When the new arrangement is in place that will not be possible.

Having watched my power consumption in the summer and the winter, the electric cost more in the summer when we use less power and after another reading in the autumn the electric last longer and costs less in the winter when we all use more. As far as we are led to believe the costs of generating electricity does not fluctuate so is it a cash flow problem and now it takes a meter reading to be done, but when the new key cards are introduced across the board under the guise of fraud prevention they really will be able to extract cash at source and penalise the unfortunate defaulters.

The new meters will be able to be remotely switched off without having to gain access to the premises. So the judge the jury and the executioner will have total autonomy and can do as they please without having to apply to the eroding legal base for the rights to take some ones life giving energy away from them. They no longer need to seek permission to enter properties, they no longer need to pay meter readers and they can extract the full bill before you are allowed to have any power to live off. They have all proved by their actions that they cannot be trusted with this sort of power and the worst offence is to make it an automatic process by a ‘provider’ now there is a contradiction in terms.

David Davis stood up as one man but I think he will find that fate and public opinion will make him the man of the moment the lynch pin that turned a tide from the impersonal erosion of the law as arbitrator between the corporate machine and the human suffering it will cause as it churns along and forces people to take out litigation to bring them into check. We live in the land of ‘Big Brother’ and that isn’t the TV program and this isn’t entertainment. The voiceless men and women of this society will find that they will only have one course of action left and that will be when the ballot box comes out to solicit our proxy from the potential representatives of our rights at court. The only option left will be a no vote a massive abstention from the poles a country wide vote of no confidence in a system that we fund and pay for that does not serve our needs but is just an enforcement arm for the corporate entity.

After all they have a voting system that incorporated the No vote and the Yes votes and even the abstainers are counted. Yet we have an inclusive only system that ignores the majority of non voters in a so called democratic society that is under the impression that it is electing the majority into power. The silent majority still have the biggest majority and yet they have been ignored for centuries in this one set of rules for the elite and a reduced set for the inferiors. A two tier society and yet they vetoed a two tier vote on the EU. Double those standards and place your bets.

The circumnavigation of civil rights and civil liberties is further compounded by the growing autonomy of the corporate entity and its direct imposition of rules over laws and rights.

Careful who you give your power away to it may just come back to haunt you.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Simple ways to save energy and utility costs


Simple ways to save energy and utility costs

1. Use power strips. With today’s technology we have got more than lights to worry about. At least when you turn a light off, it is off. Not so with your TV, your computer, you’re VCR, fax, copier, stereo and dozens of other appliances. (You can use a gadget called Kill-a-watt to check out you usage – it costs about $25)
Check it out. Wait until your laptop is shut down and check it out. Lights still on, right? And check out the power adapter. Maybe it's warm? That's because it's still using electricity. It's called phantom power, but on your electric bill, it's definitely real -- a few bucks a year per plug. If you have as many electronic gadgets as I do, that adds up fast. To save that money -- and the environment -- use power strips, and turn them off when you're not using what's plugged into them. Utilize energy saving power supplies. Fax/Copy machines, computer and monitors that power down automatically.
2. Buy fluorescent bulbs. (The incandescent is going to be outlawed in the near future) If you have tried fluorescent bulbs before and hated them, it's time to try again. They are also available for flood/spot lights. They are not the huge, clunky, and slow-to-turn-on, like they used to be. The newest ones -- twisted like a soft-serve ice cream cone -- turn on instantly and cast a warm light. Yes, they're more expensive (around $2-$5 each), but they use about a quarter of the electricity of a traditional incandescent bulb and last 10 times as long, so they end up saving you a ton of money.
Replacing just six incandescent bulbs will cut your annual carbon dioxide emissions by 600 pounds and trim your electric bill by as much as $35 each year. Install occupancy sensors indoor and or photocell for outside lighting; utilize solar/photovoltaic light fixtures and or LED for exterior lighting.
3. Buy 'green' energy. Almost every utility company now offers alternative sources of energy -- and some of it is green. (Your local utility will continue to bill you for the power. It will also charge you a per-kilowatt-hour fee for delivering the power. So be sure that when you compare prices, you are comparing the cost of the green power with what your utility is charging for supplying conventional power, not for delivering it.) Many power companies are mandated, to offer clean, emission-free electricity from several different providers. Signing up is a breeze. Our electricity now comes from wind and hydroelectric, and it costs us just a penny or two more per kilowatt hour than traditional power. (Check various economic tariffs available to you by the utility company).
4. Put plastic on your windows and caulk and putty. It can cost a fortune to replace old, leaky windows. But you can save significant amounts of heating oil much less expensively each winter with a simple clear-plastic-and-sticky-tape window insulation kit. If your windows, like mine, are too big for the standard sizes, get a patio door kit.
Once up, the insulation is almost invisible. For a small fraction of the cost of new windows, it will save you about half the energy that new windows would. For even greater savings, buy a programmable thermostat -- and program it. Surprisingly, about two thirds of the people who buy programmable thermostats never actually use the feature. Install ceiling fans. Outside the windows you can install awning or plant trees.
5. Buy polyester. Yes, really. A recent study by some Cambridge University scientists found that -- over their respective lives -- a polyester blouse uses about 45% of the energy of a cotton T-shirt.
True, the study makes some assumptions that may not apply to you: that you drip-dry the blouse and tumble-dry and iron the T-shirt, for instance. But the point is that the obvious environmental choice may not be the best one. Polyester takes a lot more energy than cotton to manufacture, but much less to maintain. When thinking about a product's environmental footprint, you need to look at its entire life cycle, from manufacture to disposal.
6. Put up a clothesline. To drip-dry all that polyester -- and your cotton, too -- try taking a page out of your grandmother's book and hang it on the line. Air-dried fabrics smell wonderful -- and those fresh breezes help to discourage wrinkles.
If you don't have a lot of outdoor space, get an umbrella dryer, which folds up when not in use. You'll save yourself about $85 a year -- and keep more than 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
7. Start a compost heap. Disposing of garbage -- whether by dumping it in landfills or by recycling it --
Takes energy. You can save that energy, and feed your garden, by using it for compost instead. No room in your garden? Or no garden at all? Get a worm composter; it will turn your kitchen scraps and shredded newspapers into rich, dark soil that your houseplants will love. (And no, they don't smell.)
8. Wrap your water heater. Americans spend $18 billion a year to heat water, and some simple measures could save about two-thirds of that cost.
You can cut the amount of fuel you use to heat the water (and save about $30 a year) by insulating your water heater with a simple jacket (available at most hardware stores for around $20). To save further, think about ways of using less hot water: fixing leaks, installing efficient showerheads, washing your clothes in cold water. When replacing water heater, use tankless system – you save energy and calcification of the pipes.
9. Dam your toilet. If you're concerned about the environment, you need to worry about cold water, too, since water itself is becoming an increasingly scarce resource.
Americans are water hogs; we use about 100 gallons a day each. And roughly one-third of that goes straight down the toilet. A toilet dam, which stops some of the water from leaving the tank when you flush, can cut that by as much as 20%, but it's a specialty product.
A more readily available product is called a "tank bank" -- a glorified plastic bottle with a valve that keeps some of the water in your tank from going out when you flush. The goal is to save water by preventing the tank from emptying completely each time you flush. You can even use an old plastic bottle from your recycling bin. Cost: $0. Utilize rainwater and shower waste water to water your lawn.
10. Buy antiques. Any time you buy a used product instead of a new one (especially from a local seller), you're making sure one less product has to be manufactured, packaged and shipped, with all the emissions those processes cause. In most cases, you'll save money as well.
Most manufacturers sell refurbished appliances that work as well as the new ones and cost a lot less. Some even come with the same warranty as a new one. For furniture, try Craigslist. For clothes, check out your local vintage shops. Chances are you'll not just save money, and the earth -- you'll get something with more style, too.
11. Insulate your attic and your HVAC ducts, Install attic fans, humidifiers, dehumidifiers and ERV – Energy Recovery Ventilation (it brings in fresh air and takes out stale polluted air from indoors)
12.  Many utilities and governmental agencies offer incentives, rebates, tax credits and financing for implementing energy efficiency and conservation (some offer free CFL light-bulbs and energy audits). Take advantage of those programs.

Energy Information is suppressed

Energy Information
The Washington Post, Washington Times, Richmond Times Dispatch, New York Times (1), (2), The Oregonian, Potomac News, Manassas Journal Messenger, Washington Examiner and other print/radio/TV media outlets will not inform you of this information. The post did respond to another letter. After you read the following information, do you wonder why they won't inform you? To further illustrate how information is suppressed, during September 2004, email was sent to 119 Talk show host. Neglecting automatic responses, one host responded. When I responded to that host, no response. During 2004-2005 I sent more than 600 email and letters concerning Energy Information. Most people did not respond including my Members of Congress.
These, WTOP, WMAL, WJLA (1) (2), WTTG (1) (2), WUSA, NBC and many other TV/Radio media present gloom and doom stories concerning energy. Yet, they will not inform you of devices that could, if implemented, greatly reduce our reliance on oil. Do you wonder why?
Do you wonder how long the media has manipulated you? Read the 2002 preface to a 1918 book "The Free Press" (ISBN 0-9714894-1-6).
Need further proof that information is suppressed? See this web site document. You might find the 1980 letter, near the bottom, to an inventor from the (U.S). Commissioner of Patents interesting. The letter prevents the inventor from proceeding with his invention on security grounds. Mr. Arthur Stopes, III, does not agree with the letter at the bottom of the page, his comments are here.
Some members of congress are attempting to obtain access to classified energy patents, the information is here.
In the late 50’s, I met a retired Florida college physics professor, he had a patent for a device to run an engine on water, The government had classified his patent and this prevented him from developing his device. For a suggested workaround for the patent issue see.
A researcher, Gary Vesperman, has a very informative paper concerning energy suppression. An expanded paper is here.
Patrick Kelly, http://www.web-space.tv/free-energy/, has a very informative website. Information on this site is updated frequently. A September 2006 view is here
A review of the book "The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity" by Dr. Patrick G. Bailey, President, Institute for New Energy is here. (Use the functions in Adobe Acrobat to navigate the review.)
If you can, please help to distribute this information.
Please send suggestions and comments to:byronwine@byronwine.com
(This article was on the Internet for several years until I changed Internet provider. The article was modified to link some documentation and add additional material.)
So you think we have an energy problem? No, we have a political problem.
I want to relate to you some facts concerning various suppressed energy devices and the difficulty in informing the public of these devices. I hope that you can add some additional information. Here are some additional web sites addressing these issues.
On October 1, 1990, I began to keep a list of people contacted concerning energy devices. The list is now 51 pages long (The list is no longer updated.). The list includes President Clinton and vice-president. 121 Members of Congress including (George Allen (1) (2), Feinstein , Warner, McCain , Coburn) and other politicians. 21 government and state agencies. 215 members of the print and electronic media. 62 environmental groups. The President of United Auto Workers and 14 other UAW officials. The President of the American Automobile Association. A recent correspondence exchange with AAA is here.). Many members of the clergy, including Mr. Pat Robertson and Christian Science Monitor. Numerous other "public interest" groups. Most of the people contacted do not respond to communications.
My then Congressman, Representative Frank Wolf, will not respond to a letter and 182 pages of documentation that I put in his hand on August 25, 1993. I wonder just who he does respond to? Could it be that money talks? My current congressman, Tom Davis, also will not respond to my last letter. Mr. Davis was evidently too busy chairing the congressional baseball investigation to be concerned with energy issues.
The Governor of Virginia critiqued the president's recent state of the union speech saying repeatedly "There's a better way." I commented on the critique, apparently, the governor's "There's a better way" is to ignore comments from Virginia citizens.
In April/06 Secretary Rise testified before congress, one of her comments concerned relying on technology to resolve energy issues. The Secretary did not respond to my letter. Secretary of Transportation Mineta was asked to explain the wide difference between achieved mpg and the CAFÉ standards. Secretary Mineta did not respond to my letter.
All House members of The Committee on Energy and Commerce were sent letters and a CD duplicating this web page (3/2706 version). No response to letters.
All members of Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee were sent letters and a CD duplicating this web page (3/27/06 version). Two Senators, Allen and Feinstein responded.
Do you wonder what our tax money is paying for in these committees?
Donna Wade has written a letter that should be sent to all "representatives".
This site, http://www.politics1.com/, list political candidates for office and major media for a particular state. So far, all candidates for federal office with email, except for sitting members of congress, and where possible, also media in all states were contacted. Approximately 40 federal candidates and only 2 media responded. Does this tell you anything?
If you want to know the affect oil has on the world, I suggest you read "The Prize" (ISBN 0-671-79932-0)
Note: In several of the following references information is followed by a (?) symbol, or a statement that the original material was stolen from me in 1986. This is because in those cases I am working from very poor copies of the original material. In 1986, I was visited by an intern reporter for the Washington Times who wanted to take my material back to the paper to make copies. What he did was steal my material and take it back to college with him. Had it not been for an Editor at the Washington Times and the Dean at this intern's school, I would have lost a lot of my collection of energy material.
Do I believe there is a conspiracy of silence concerning decades old and current energy technology? Yes, I have experienced this for more than 25-years.
Here is the information. Please verify for yourself.
NOTE: For those wanting to verify the patents. Go to http://www.uspto.gov, you will find information for viewing patents.
1. Some folks at Shell Oil Co. wrote "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977. On page 42 Shell Oil quotes the President of General Motors, he, in 1929, predicted 80 MPG by 1939. Between pages 221 and 223 Shell writes of their achievements: 49.73 MPG around 1939; 149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973. The Library of Congress (LOC), in September 1990, did not have a copy of this book. It was missing from the files. I bought my copy from Maryland Book Exchange around 1980 after a professor informed me that it was used as an engineering text at the University of West Virginia. VPI published a paper, March 1979, concerning maximum achievable fuel economy. This paper has several charts illustrating achievable and impossible fuel economy. About 1980 I contacted the author concerning conflicts between the paper and documented achieved "impossible" mpg. The author said, "I will get back to you.". I am still waiting for his response.
2. The book "Secrets of the 200 MPG Carburetor" is by Allan Wallace and was available, about 198(?), from Premier Distributing, 1775 Broadway, NY, NY, 10019. Page 18 has photocopies of three 1936 tests by the Ford Motor Co. (Canada) of the Pogue carburetor, U.S. Patent # 2,026,798). The worst case test achieved about 171 MP(US)G. In 1972, NASA was granted a patent for a similar functioning device. I can not provide any other publishing information from this book. It is among the material stolen from me in 1986. My copy of page 18 is very poor. (I am grateful to Lee Winslett for a copy of this book and the article from Colliers.) Collier’s magazine, in 1929, published an article "300 Miles to the gallon. The 300-MPG statement is attributed to the president of General Motors.
Thanks to Paul Andrew Mitchell, (http://www.supremelaw.org, for furnishing additional material from Pea Research concerning Pogue and other devices.
3. Argosy Magazine, August 1977, has a five-page article (Text copy here.) about Tom Ogle and the media witnessed test of the "Oglemobile". Tom Ogle, on that test run, achieved more than 100 MPG in a 4,600 pound 1970 Ford Galaxie. When I attempted to find a copy of that Argosy Magazine, it was missing from LOC files in 1980. Argosy ceased publication, I was informed, a short time after the Ogle article was published. I could not find a copy of that Argosy issue at any library within 200 miles of my home. An Editor at the company that purchased Argosy found and mailed a copy to me. While attempting to verify statements in the article, I spoke with Doug Lenzini (SP?) with the EL Paso Times. Mr. Lenzini informed me that he knew Tom Ogle, and the Oglemobile achieved more than 200 MPG. When I contacted the El Paso NBC affiliate that filmed the test run described in the Argosy article, I was informed that the person who had filmed the test had left the station and taken all the records with him.]
A. The Ogle U.S. Patent, #4,177,779, has this statement "I have been able to obtain extremely high gas mileages with the system of the present invention installed on a V-8 engine of a conventional 1971 American made automobile. In fact, mileage rates in excess of one hundred miles per gallon have been achieved with the present invention." According to the Argosy article, a Shell Oil Co. representative asked Ogle what he would do if someone offered him $25 Million for the system. Ogle responded "I would not be interested" He later said, "I've always wanted to be rich, and I suspect I will be when this system gets into distribution. But I'm not going to have my system bought up and put on the shelf. I'm going to see this thing through--that I promise." According to an article in The Washington Post Parade Magazine, March 4, 1984, Tom Ogle died of a drug and alcohol overdose in 1981. Other articles concerning Tom Ogle can be found in the El Paso Journal, January 16, 1980, and also, The Hamilton Spectator, June 24, 1978.
B. The Oglemobile, in simplification, ran on fumes extracted from a heated tank in the trunk (See the Ogle patent.) A very simple method of extracting gasoline fumes is described in a book, published in 1900, "Gas Engine Construction". This book was reprinted by Lindsay in 1986, ISBN 0-917914-46-5.
An article received from AAA has additional information.
4. There are many U.S. Patents granted for vaporizing gasoline. Some are: NASA Patent 3,640,256, General Electric Co. Patent 3,926,150, Robinson Patent 4,003,969, Harpman Patent 4,023,538, Butler Patent 4,068,638 and Totten Patent 4,106,457. Pete, "The Tree Man", was researching the Fish carburetor while staying in my home during the early 80's. He later sent me a 6 page list with more than 240 U.S. Patent numbers for vaporizing gasoline, other fuels and water. This article lists 500 patents for vaporizing gasoline. Here are photographs of a vaporizing carburetor. Another patent, 5,782,225 has a different approach. The patent owner was put in prison while trying to develop his device; he moved to China for manufacturing, the story is here. http://www.web-space.tv/free-energy/, also has information about this inventor. Another inventor, who has researched vaporizing carburetors for over 10 years, wrote this paper in 1992 (revised 2005). The author writes using noms de plume Bart Simpson and Frieda Mind. (The link will open an Acrobat .pdf file, you must use the functions in Acrobat to navigate the paper.)
5. During the mid 70's, physicist Don Novak traveled all over the U.S. lecturing and teaching in his seminars how to achieve 100 MPG. He also testified, October 15, 1979, before a Wichita, KS, Congressional Committee on "Reinventing the Automobile". I have known Don for many years. Once he brought to my home, in the late 70's, two carburetors; one got more than 200 MPG and the other more than 100 MPG. I contacted a local politician, who lives in my town, and was on the Virginia Energy Subcommittee. I tried to have this politician meet Don and see the carburetors. The politician was not interested. Chevron Oil, 1986, offers to purchase large quantities of carburetors from a manufacturer. A West Virginia man, in 1990, achieves 58 mpg with an 8 cylinder 1968 Chrysler that used to get 12 mpg.
6. In the London, England, Daily Telegraph, 10/20/83, on page 9, there is an advertisement for a production Peugeot Diesel that gets 52.3 MPG in urban driving. The model 205 Diesel gets 72 mpg at 56 mph. In the Washington Post, 9/19/83, page 37(?) is the 1983 U.S. EPA fuel economy list of various vehicles. The Peugeot USA models get between 21 and 27 MPG. The Washington Times, 8/9/91, published an article, "Gas saving engines hit streets in fall.". This article is about two engines, the Mitsubishi MVV engine, and the Honda VTEC-E. According to the company spokesmen, the Mitsubishi will get up to 50 MPG; the Honda, up to 88 MPG. I visited a local Honda dealer and got a brochure on the production automobile with the VTEC-E engine, the specified MPG, as I recall, was 53 MPG. I know of no produced Honda that gets 88 MPG. I have no information on the production Mitsubishi MVV engine. I wonder if there is something that happens to fuel economy when an automobile is transported to the USA. Is it possible that these engines "un-tweak" themselves during transit? In 2002 an English newspaper article reported a 104-mpg Toyota and 94-mpg VW/Audi vehicles. In 2003 another English newspaper tested a 75-mpg Toyota diesel. Do you wonder why these vehicles are not available in the USA? You might ask your Member of Congress for an explanation.
7. The U.S. Government supported (Grant No. DTNH22-91-Z-06014) a study of automobile fuel economy by the National Academy of Sciences. This study, "Automotive Fuel Economy--How Far Should We Go?" (ISBN 0-309-04530-4), was used by the staff of my then Congressman George Allen, to refute documentation proving that an automobile had exceeded 376 MPG. Nowhere in this "fuel economy study" is there any reference to the work of Shell Oil Co. or any other reference that could refute the conclusion of this report. The report concluded, Page 4, a subcompact car might achieve between 39 and 44 MPG by model year 2006. This is a difficult position to defend since Peugeot, in 1983, advertised a 72-mpg vehicle. Many committee meetings were held from May 15, 1991 to December 14, 1991, prior to the April 1992 publication of this report. Prior to publication of this report, I previously sent documentation to several participants of these meetings. The documentation proved that automobile fuel economies of between 49 and 376 MPG were achieved. None of the participants responded to my letters. Documentation was sent to: Jerry R. Curry, Administrator, National Highway Safety Administration, on 3/16/91; Senator Richard H. Bryan, on 3/7/91; Congressman Philip R. Sharp, on 2/18/91; Steve Plotkin, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, on 4/4/91; Charles Mendler, Energy Conservation Collation, on 11/2/90; Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute, on 4/16/91; Brian O'Neill, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, on 10/31/93; Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director, Center for Auto Safety, on 1/6/92. Previous documentation was also sent to members of organizations participating in these meetings, they are: John Koenig, Product planning Manager, Toyota Motor Co., on 3/18/91; Peter Clausen, Union of Concerned Scientist, on 10/28/90; John Morrill, American Council for Energy Efficiency, on 10/4/90. None of these people responded to my letters. I know that at least one of my letters was received. The Union of Concerned Scientist keeps asking me to financially support their organization.
8. An article "Automakers Move Toward New Generation Of Greener Vehicles" was published in "Chemical & Engineering News", August 1, 1994. This article is about "The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles", a partnership between the U.S. Government and the auto industry that has a goal of an 80 MPG automobile by 2002. In 1992 a government-funded study concluded that a subcompact car might get between 39 and 44 MPG by model year 2006 (See #7 above). In 1994 the goal is 80 MPG by 2002. ( Toyota and VW/Audi exceeded this goal in 2002.) Is it possible that someone read the Shell Oil book? Or could someone have actually read my February 13, 1992 letter, and 95 pages of documentation, sent to then Candidate Clinton. I wrote, September 8, 1994, to Deborah L. Illman, the author of the article, and to the editor, Michael Heylin of Chemical & Engineering News, on September 11, 1994 . No response was received from them. On September 11, 1994, I also wrote to Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology, (USA) Department of Commerce. I received a response from Ms. Good. It was an undated, un-addressed, form letter. I guess the fact that a vehicle could get 376 MPG or use the components of water for fuel would not be a politically correct finding. How could someone explain to the American people that it was necessary to send more than 600,000 of our citizens to the Mid-east to defend oil wells if this information was public knowledge?
9. Hybrid Diesel/Electric automobiles (A Diesel/Electric locomotive uses the same principle.) The Manassas Journal Messenger, April 4, 1981, has an article about a MG sports car converted by San Diego State University. The car gets 110 MPG. The Steven R. Reed Automobile Manufacturing Corp., Newport Beach, CA, issued a press release dated February 14, 1983. This release announces the February 23, 1983 showing of the 200-MPG, two-passenger, II Millennium Cruiser at the Ambassador Hotel. The press release also states that the company will file "...a major class-action lawsuit involving a considerable number of giant American corporations within the automotive and petroleum industries, plus numerous branches and agencies of the U.S. Government responsible for regulating these companies." Don Novak informed me that when none of the major news media attended the Millennium show, the company drove the car to CBS Television, Los Angeles, and parked it on the lawn. No one came out of the building to inspect the car. Don also stated that the president of the Steven R. Reed Corp. has been in hiding for some years.
10. Mother Earth News, November/December 1977, has an article "Can This Transmission Really Double Your Car's Mileage?". This article is about a Ford Granada modified by Vincent Carman of Portland, Oregon. In simplification, Mr. Carman removed the transmission and drive shaft from the car and bolted a hydraulic motor to the differential. He then bolted a hydraulic pump to the engine to pressurize a storage tank. The storage tank is also pressurized when the car brakes or slows down. The article states that the U.S. Post Office is interested in a whole fleet of vehicles using this principle. In 1990, after reading an article in "Federal Times", I contacted Mr. Robert St.Francis, U.S. Postal Service, who was searching for alternative fuels for use by the Post Office. Mr. St.Francis said that he had never heard of Mr. Carman. I wrote two letters, October 18 & 21, 1990, to Mr. St.Francis concerning Mr. Carman's vehicle. I received no response. Another article in Mother Earth News, March/April 1978, titled "This Car Travels 75 Miles on a Single Gallon Of Gas", is about a project by the Minneapolis Minnesota's Hennepin Vocational Technical Center that converted a Volkswagen to a system similar to that of Mr. Carman. The idea for the conversion came from a 1920 magazine article. The car, with a Bradley GT body and a 16 horsepower Tecumseh engine (The original VW engine was too powerful), achieved more than 75 MPG at 70 MPH. Could we combine the technology of Tom Ogle, 200 MPG, and the hydraulic drive cars and have a 400 MPG 4,600 pound car? (See on line Mother Earth News archives for Carman http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1977_November_December/Can_This_Transmission_Really_Double_Your_Car_s_Mileage and Hennepin http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1978_March_April/This_Car_Travels_75_Miles_on_a_Single_Gallon_of_Gasoline_. On a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) web site, they write of achievements and patents concerning a hydraulic drive truck. This site does not mention the more than 28-year old achievements of others.
11. The St. Paul Pioneer News, August 22, 1990, has an article about a group that 11 years previously modified a Dodge half-ton pickup furnished by a local dealer. This modified truck got more than 35 MPG. Test stopped on this modification when a member of the group was told that he would receive a pair of cement boots if testing continued.
12. Hydrogen fuel. There are many U.S. and foreign patents for extracting hydrogen and oxygen gasses from water for use as a fuel. Some Patents are: July 2, 1935, Garrett, # 2,006,676; April 3, 1945, Klein, # 2,373,032; February 25, 1975, Chambrin, French Patent Request # 75 06619; July 6, 1976, Papineau, # 3,967,589 (This is a patent for an electrical power generator that burns water); 1976, Horvath, # 3,980,053. This statement is on the Horvath patent, "This invention relates to internal combustion engines. More particularly it is concerned with a fuel supply apparatus by means of which an internal combustion engine can be run on a fuel comprised of hydrogen and oxygen gasses generated on demand by electrolysis of water".; June 28, 1983, Meyer, # 4,389,981. Mr. Meyer has at least eight other patents relating to hydrogen and oxygen gasses extracted from water for fuel. Awake magazine 4/6/1980 has two small articles concerning Hydrogen fuel for aircraft. According to one article an optimistic date for this use is 1985.
A. Popular Science, about 1978,9(?), published an article "Hydrogen bus- could also heat its own garage". This article is about the work of Dr. Helmut Buchner of Mercedes-Benz. He is quoted "We are ready now. We could save our city of Stuttgart over one million gallons of petroleum fuel a year by converting its fleet of 300 urban busses to run on hydrogen. Heating--and air conditioning--would be free spin-offs, consuming no extra energy."
B. Popular Science, March 1978(?), published an article "Hydrogen -demonstrates fuel of the future". This article is about the work of Dr. Billings, Billings Energy Corp., Provo, Utah. and others. The article states that a home, all the appliances, and vehicles, can be run on hydrogen. Dr. Billings converted a Cadillac Seville for duel fuel use. This Cadillac, burning hydrogen, was in President Carter's inaugural parade. I had a photograph of Dr. Billings drinking the exhaust, water, from one of his engines.
C. A Japanese inventor, with more than 2000 prior patents, plans to run automobile engine on water. A Gulf Oil advertisement in Discover magazine, Feb.19??, concerning Hydrogen fuel. Note the statements concerning Hydrogen energy content by Gulf oil in the advertisement and an article in the same magazine issue. Ballard Power Systems has demonstrated Hydrogen fuel cell technology for vehicles since 1997. Patents for decomposing water into hydrogen and oxygen for use as fuel are not new. See the Boisen Patent 1,380,183 granted in 1921 and a 106-year old patent for another process to extract fuel gas from water. A google search for Aquafuel will list many sites for processes to extract a fuel from water.
D. Do you remember the NASA 1998 Moon probe that was looking for water? The plan was to separate some water into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen would be used as fuel. Yet in 2004, the government is developing a fuel cell that will extract hydrogen from diesel fuel carried by navy ships. Does this make any sense when the ship is floating in a mixture of 66% hydrogen? Why not use the method that NASA was going to use to extract hydrogen from Moon water? You might ask your Member of Congress for an explanation. My members of Congress will not respond.
E. A company, AEC Technology, has developed a process to extract hydrogen from water that requires no input of power. This company has partnered with UTC Fuel Cell that will use this process to run devices. One device, per the web site, will have a reciprocating engine, similar to the one in your car, generating electricity for your home. UTC Fuel Cell has furnished fuel cells to NASA since the 60's.
F. Approximately ten years ago, I received a video tape from a company in Florida making Aquafuel. This tape, among other things, shows 3 people in a closed room breathing the exhaust from a generator burning Aquafuel. This site, www.gasgouging.com/video/aquafuel_0001.wmv, has a copy. A recent google search for Aquafuel returned 812 results.
G. The following is a link to a Quick Time movie about a Philippine inventor who has been running cars on the components of water since 1969 http://www.mysticfamilycircus.com/Pages/Community/Projects/xwatercar.html (A conversion to a Windows Media Player (45-Meg) file is here) . Listen carefully to the reason given by the Philippine President for not being interested. The reason is an agreement with the World Bank. This is another "water car " link:: http://waterpoweredcar.com/1978camero.html A search will find more links of this nature. "They" say we are running out of oil, will "they" also say we are also running out of water for fuel?
H. Thanks to Ken Rasmussen http://www.commutefaster.com/Energy.html for identifying my error in a previous version. This is a clip, received from Bruce McBurney (http://www.himacresearch.com), taken from a Fox News program about a Florida inventor using the components of water for various purposes. He has modified a car to run on these components mixed with gasoline. Test results are here and here. The government asks the inventor to modify a military vehicle to run on this mixture. See http://hytechapps.com/technology/index.html for additional information. Screen shots from the proceeding site are here and here. This is a 5/23/06 clip concerning this application from WTTG Washington, D.C.
I. Bruce McBurney (http://www.himacresearch.com) sent this link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800 to a 16-minute Google video file about the work of Stanley Meyer. (Conversion to a Windows Media file is here). Unfortunately, Stanley Meyer was murdered, 1998, before he could fully demonstrate another car running on the components of water. Meyer, in the video, states he was offered $1,000,000,000.00 in cash not to proceed with his inventions. Meyer also states our government has the right to use his patents in the interest of national security. In the Meyer video above, a former NASA scientist talks about the Meyer's technology. Is it possible the technology NASA planned to use on the Moon, see "D" above, was the Meyer technology? Additional Meyer information is here. Do you think the national debt could be reduced if our government used water in all the places gasoline and other fuels are used? Could your financial situation be improved if the Meyer technology was available to you?
J. This is a clip from news broadcast, Action 6 News, believed from WSYX-TV in Columbus, OH. In the clip, information is provided that Meyer can modify a car to burn the components of water for $1,500.00. A clip from http://www.web-space.tv/free-energy/ has additional information. Meyer did not live to offer this modification to the American people.
Special thanks to Gary Franchi and the Lone Lantern Society of America for posting the videos, in #12-I&J, on their homepage www.lonelantern.org.
K. The gloom and doom our government is feeding us about the state of hydrogen technology approaches lunacy. Do they think we can't read? There are many researchers demonstrating "Home Brew" hydrogen generators 1, 2, 3 and 4. This researcher used some very advanced material in construction, egg whisk, apple corer and cheese cutter. Seems that the White House would have these items in the kitchen if they cared to duplicate this device. Here are some links for further information.
L. This is a 2004 announcement for another car running on the components of water.
M. This month, 07/06, the NASA space shuttle delivered an oxygen generator to the space station. This generator will extract oxygen and hydrogen from water. Evidently this process won't work on earth because the navy, with a ship floating in a mixture of 66% hydrogen, only knows how to extract hydrogen from Diesel fuel.
N. This webpage http://www.keelynet.com/energy/waterfuel.htm has plans for building a device to run an engine using the components of water. Do you wonder why no automobile manufacturer or electricity generating plant is using this technology? Keelynet has lots of very interesting information.
O. In 1807 an engine was run using a hydrogen/oxygen mixture. See page 4 of this article. Do you think this process could have perfected within the last 199 years?
P. An English inventor is running a motorcycle on water and a chemical he invented. A clip from http://www.web-space.tv/free-energy/ is here.
Q. How many examples does our government need before realizing hydrogen technology for consumers is not 20-years away? You might ask your member of congress why this technology is not being implemented for the general public.
13. Joe Cell. An Australian experimenter discovered this phenomena. (For an approximately 2 hour video showing "Joe" experimenting visit http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5838886797220015378) The video has several clips of an automobile running on this device. These are from two of many websites with information about the "Joe Cell". The device does not conform to any known scientific "rules". Basically it is a set of concentric tubes in a container with water. The device does not require an opening into the engine. Here are videos 1, 2, and 3 showing the device in operation on additional vehicles. These videos are from this website: http://www.web-space.tv/free-energy/. Explanation of battery connection; water level effects; vapor generation; stages of a cell 1, 2, and 3. This 3/20/2006 video is believed related to #1 in this section. Another demonstration of an engine running on a Joe cell. Several researchers, and their families, have been threatened and made to stop experimenting. If this device is a sham, why are people being threatened? Here is a listing of some websites with information about the Joe Cell.
14. Completely sealed reciprocating engines. I visited the patent office years ago, when they still had the open stacks of "shoe boxes". While there, I read the application files for the Papp patent, #3,670,494. Papp applied for a patent on his engine, and the patent office, after consultation with the old Atomic Energy Commission, refused to give him a patent because his device could not possibly work. Papp responded with test results, photographs and depositions from, I think, 16 people. Papp said that maybe the patent office didn't know how his device worked, and that they also didn't know how the atomic bomb worked, but used it anyway. This statement is on his patent "...2. To provide a two-cycle reciprocating engine which does not use fuel intake valves or exhaust valves, does not require an air supply and does not emit gasses. 3. To provide a precharged engine of the character stated in item 2 capable of generating power for a period of from 2,000 to over 10,000 hours continuously or until mechanical breakdown without the addition of fuel injection of air or discharge of gasses..."
Papp has a similar Patent 4,428,193 granted in 1984.
Britt, August 31, 1976, has a patent, # 3,977,191, for a similar sealed engine. In the patent application file, Britt accuses the Patent Office of deliberately delaying his application to give a major manufacturer time to file on top of him.
15. Permanent Magnet Motor. Howard Johnson was granted U.S. Patent # 4,151,431, for a motor that is powered only by permanent magnets. An interesting thing about the first page of this patent is the chart of a magnetic field VS electromechanical coupling. The chart is from U.S. Patent # 4,151,432 which has nothing to do with the Johnson patent. Science and Mechanics, Spring 1980, published an article " Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor" about the Johnson patent. The article tells of his difficulties in having the device patented. The patent problem was solved when Johnson took working models of his device to the patent office. The magazine Science 83, May, published an article ridiculing perpetual motion machines, one of them was the Johnson motor. The Science article purports to quote from the prior Science and Mechanics article about Johnson. Because had both articles, I compared them, then called the author of the Science 83 article. When I stated that the information that he quoted was not in the prior article, he hung up saying "I will not be interrogated by you." The editor of Science 83 also declined to speak with me. Others have informed me that there is three other permanent magnet motor patents. Japanese electrical generator, driven by a magnet assisted motor, has an efficiency of more than 300%. An Australian company, Lutec, offers to build to your specifications, an electric generator also more than 300% efficient. Do you think the electric power companies would be happy if these devices were common knowledge?
16. The Moray device. Tom Moray, in the late 20s, had a device that could sit on a kitchen table and produce 50,000 Watts of power from a field that surrounds the earth. The operation of this device was endorsed by many people. Moray's son, John, after the only copy of his father's book was stolen, wrote a book "The Sea of Energy in which the Earth Floats". See the statement concerning a meeting between Moray and a Soviet Agent in General Electric office after closing hours.) The book is about his father's work. During the early 80s, I visited many congressional offices in an unsuccessful attempt to have any Member of Congress do something about the technology hidden from the American people. When I visited Congressman Ron Paul's office, a staffer said to me "I have something that you should read, come to my residence on Saturday." This staffer gave me a letter to Congressman Paul from Tom Bearden, and the 40-page document attached to the letter. The document is a book that Mr. Bearden has written. In this book, Mr. Bearden states that the Moray device could produce 1.5 megawatts of power. Also that the Russians had adapted the Moray device to power a weapon. The weapon statement is supported by a drawing from "Aviation Week and Space Technology", July 28, 1980. Do you think that the local Power Company could justify a price increase if the power came from a field around the earth? This book was also missing from the LOC in 1990.] Tom Bearden, with others, obtained U.S. Patent 6,362,718 for an Electric generator with no moving parts. Michael Faraday’s findings, in 1831, do not agree with current school teachings concerning generation of electricity. He found it is not necessary to rotate a magnet or wire against the other to generate electricity.
17. The Energy Machine of Joe Newman. I have spoken with Joe many times over several years. He has recently published the seventh edition of "The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman" (ISBN 0-9613855-7-7) The book is available from: Joseph Westly Newman, Route 1, Box 52, Lucedale, Mississippi, 39452, Phone # (601)-947-7174. I have no doubts that his machine works as he describes it. To learn of the problems that this man has had with "The Establishment" read his book. Joe filed suit against the U.S. Patent office because they would not grant him a patent. According to Joe's book, pages 274 to 279, the Court appointed a Special Master, Mr. William E. Schuyler, a former Commissioner of the U.S. Patent Office, to advise the Court. The findings of the Special Master were that Mr. Newman had invented a machine that had more output than input. The Court refused to accept the findings. I urge you to read this 471-page book. This machine is not "bogus" as stated by others. On February 5, 1996, I was one of several hundred people, in Mobile, AL, to see the Newman Energy Machine in operation. The machine was pumping water while running a power meter, similar to the one on your house, backwards.
18. Cold Fusion. Despite the rejection of some in the USA, cold fusion is a going operation in other places. The monthly magazine "New Energy News", P.O. Box 58639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158-8639, has information on many successful results in cold fusion. The magazine also has information on "free energy devices".
19. This month, 2/06, the Secretary of Energy testified before Congress. One of the things he said was that an oil company was developing a process to extract oil from coal. We have, according to a USGS report, enough coal to last "…another few hundred years." The Secretary of Energy did not inform Congress that a government employee developed a similar process in the 1920s or that prior to 1860 more than 50 plants were extracting oil and gasoline from coal. The secretary also did not inform Congress that Germany used coal for 75% of the oil needed during WW2.
20. "The Energy Non-Crisis" (ISBN 0-89051-068-7), published in 1980 by Worth Publishing Co., P.O. Box, 1243,Wheatridge, CO 80033, is written by Chaplain Lindsey Williams (This is only one of the books he has written). Chaplain Williams was on the Alaska Pipeline during the construction and got so fed-up with the deliberate lies of the media, he came back to tour the "lower 48", and tell the truth. According to Chaplain Williams, Gull Island has a pool of oil as big as, and maybe bigger, than Purdhoe Bay. Our Government ordered ARCO (Page 178) "...to seal the documents, withdraw the rig, cap the well, and not release the information about the Gull Island find." A video tape of a speech that Chaplain Williams gave to a group at Salt Lake City, about 1980, is possibly available from: The National Center For Constitutional Studies, 1-800-388-4512. Chaplain Williams stated, in a recent two-hour broadcast, there is enough oil in Alaska to last the U.S.A. 200-years. The broadcast is on the Republic Broadcasting Network site http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Rick/0508/20050824_Wed_Rick.m3u. Additional book information is here. You can read parts of his book on this site http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/environment/energy/.. His books and tapes may be ordered here: http://survivalcenter.com/lw.html One videotape "The Energy Non-Crisis" is worth the approximate $136.00 cost of the complete set. If you want documented proof that "our" government has lied to us about oil availability, see the Williams material.
A This is the audio , approximately 51-minutes, from the Williams Videotape "The Energy Non Crisis". I suggest you listen carefully to what Chaplain Williams says. This is a 1:08 minute audio clip from the videotape quoting the Governor of Alaska on a March 18, 2005 TV show: "There is potentially enough crude oil on the north slope of Alaska to last the United State of America for 200 years". You might ask your members of congress why the United States is importing oil.
B. Need more documentation that we have been scammed for decades concerning oil availability? See this recent 11-page email and this 1-page email.
C. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is teaching children that oil and natural gas are the result of decaying plants and animals. A recent NASA discovery is that natural gas was being created on Titian, one of Saturn's barren moons. Is it possible that we have been deceived concerning oil and natural gas formation?
D. On Washington post radio, 107.7, 4/30/06 there was a reporter for U.S. News and World Report talking (another viewpoint) about the 2-trillion barrel oil finding In the USA. I called and made a statement about the 200-year supply of oil announced by the governor of Alaska last year (See 19 above). The reporter tried to discredit the governor's statement by referring to oil consumption before the Alaska pipeline was built. When attempting to explain the governor's comment was made last year, I was cut-off. Is it possible this station is deliberately concealing information? The Department of Energy website states "…has been known for a century." (The 2-trillon barrel oil). If this is true, why during the first Gulf War, were all the lives and money wasted defending "our oil" in the Mid-East?
E. Thanks to Ron Durham for this information about "Peak Oil". This link, www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html is from www.rense.com. If you follow the links in the article, too large to reproduce here, you will learn oil is being produced continuously deep within the earth. A search for "Peak Oil", on www.rense.com, list 123 results. This link, http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm, from www.prisonplanet.com also has information. The above provides proof that we are not going to run out of oil and "Peak Oil" is just a scam. You might ask your member of congress for comments concerning the above.
21. I sent a previous,90s, Williams tape and a lot of other information to a former Secretary of Energy. The response received, after a second letter, was essentially, no response. I also wrote to Dr. Bodman, our current (2005) Secretary of Energy. A response was received, no response, except acknowledgement, was received for that email. If you wonder how your state legislators receive information see this document. I emailed the authors of the document, no response.
I hope that this information will raise questions as to why we are dependent on foreign oil. All our government has to do, to take more money from our pockets, is to have an energy crisis or raise the cost of energy. The only financial interest that I have in any of above information is that of a concerned consumer who is tired of the deliberate lies and cover-ups.
Please do not ask for building plans for any of the above devices, I do not have any plans. However, this site claims to have plans for over unity devices. Your research might locate the information you are seeking.
May 24, 1996. (Modified November 15, 2006)
The following is not related to energy. However, you might be interested in findings concerning the Federal Reserve System (FED). The FED is not a part of the U.S. government. Your telephone book, as does a prior C&P telephone book, will list the FED in the business section, not the government section. For a legal opinion see Lewis v. United States. For information concerning the operation of the FED see Congressman McFadden’s 1934 remarks. Articles by Skousen, 1980, and Larson, 1982, provide further information. http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/FEDERALRESERVE.HTML has additional information.
Do you wonder why the first President Bush said: "Yeah, Sarah, if people find out what we've done, they'll chase us down the street and lynch us" to reporter Sarah McLendon? See
I am grateful for an email bringing to my attention the "Act of 1871". This document requires very careful study.
An organization "Fund to Restore an Educated Electorate" (FREE) published a listing of congressional, military and corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission (TC). I wonder if it is possible that the people, and corporate members, listed might be responsible for our "energy problem".
Broadcaster Jack Lamb is circulating this information concerning the food additive MSG.
Comments:
You have seen some, an internet search will find a lot more, documentation for technology that could, if implemented, greatly reduce our dependence on oil and the domination it brings. Will you demand that your members of congress address these issues?
I want to thank the following broadcasters, in broadcast date sequence, for allowing time on their programs; Jack Lamb http://mp3.rbnlive.com/McLamb05.html, Rick Adams http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Rick05.html, with the Republic Broadcasting Network http://www.rbnlive.com/listen.html, Bill Boshears, WLW http://www.700wlw.com/main.html, and Mike Hagan, KPON http://www.kopn.org/mike-h.htm. Without their help information circulation as quickly would not have been possible.
There are several websites where my page is accessible, I don't have a list of them and apologize for not knowing them. Websites I know follow:
My first hosting ISP, http://www1host.com/hosting/accounts/index.cgi, this site is in New Zealand and allowed access that greatly exceeded the bandwidth allotment for the month. When I inquired of any additional cost they replied, "Don't worry about it, it's for a worthy cause".

www.gasgouging.com/byron is one of several sites that mirrors my website. There is also an online community at http://www.gasgouging.com/community where you can communicate with others concerning energy.
This community is for anyone who is tired of paying outrageous fuel prices and wants an alternative. If you are tired of the petroleum companies stealing from your wallet and you are tired of waiting for the government to do something about it, then this is the site for you. GasGouging.com is now looking for scientists, inventors, tinkerers, etc. to join this forum and put their skills and ideas to work. From adding acetone, to building/modifying carburetors to people who want to have change and have it now, we NEED you! Let us know your skills and what you can contribute. The only way things will change is if we do it ourselves. Join today, it is FREE.


Another local site, www.byronwine.com, is hosted by http://www.Godaddy.com. This host had the site up and running in about two-hours.