the Real Cost of Energy for Japan

[DATsunONE]

When people are ‘stung’ in false investment schemes there are three causes; greed of something for nothing; sheer inability to know their mind; or infantile trustfulness. - Henry Ford, 4/1/1922

Neither Nissan nor, Carlos Ghosn, suffer from any of these faults!

Dan

 

[mbender]

The only thing missing from this PMM scheme is the request to send money to Nigeria... :lol:

It's made up for, with, excessive and misplaced, commas; and semicolons. ;-)

 

[DATsunONE]

Aww shucks! There; I’ve gone n dun it, again. It ain’t; and, I aren’t, y’all.

Dan

PS:

“Harvard students have completed more English courses and less forward passes than any school in this generation.” - Will Rogers, 11/21/26

“Just returning from very successful educational tour of the entire Northwest. No English lecturers had been in there and spoiled the field. They can’t make the railroad fare to get that far away.” - Will Rogers, 4/3/27

“He may not speak the best English, but he speaks the plainest English in American politics today.” - Will Rogers, 8/8/27

“Any time an American speaks perfect English he is under suspicion. We know he is covering up something.” Will Rogers, 9/12/27

“Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; those who can't teach, police grammar on the Internet.” - Ruadhán J. McElroy

 

[DATsunONE]

Seriously? The forum just ain’t the place for dry dribble (technical writing).

My favorite law professor said, in critique of my perfect use of the King’s written English, whilst adorned with his broad Micky Mouse tie, which he often proudly wore, at trial; “Dan; are you really trying to bore the court?

My favorite attorney said, in critique of my perfect use of the King’s written English; “People don’t talk like that. Write like people talk if you want the judges to read your briefs.”

I realize that there isn’t much wiggle room (poetic license allowed) in writing a technical paper. But, the forum. Yee-hah! Yippee ki yay! Well; that’s a whole different story, altogether; don’t ya think?

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Now; let me get this straight.

On January 21, 2015, the United States Democratic Party tried to get the United States Republican Party to admit to intentionally conspiring and intentionally attempting to commit mass crimes against humanity, (intending to cause global warming); via an amendment to the Senate’s Keystone XL pipeline bill that stated climate change “is real and not a hoax.”

Isn’t it enough that they (the Republican Party) admitted, that day, and for the very first time (a truly historic moment in history) that the problem (global warming) does, in fact, exist?

Where is throwing mud going to get you (Democrats)? As usual, in most mud slinging contests; nowhere!

Better you (Democrats) focus your attention on realistic solutions to the problem (global warming), rather than on who caused that problem.

When it comes to choosing between available alternative solutions, were I you (both Parties), I’d select a cost competitive (benefit bestowing) solution, as opposed to a burdensome one, to get behind. It’s easier to garner votes when providing benefits to the tax payers, as opposed to imposing additional austerities and yet higher taxes, upon them.

Burning up all the reserves of fossil fuels is not a viable solution to the problem (global warming). There are no votes to be garnered from professing that it is; especially, when a far better solution is available! In comparison to solutions that call for additional austerities and yet higher taxes, burning up fossil fuel reserves looks better. However, when compared to a cost competitive (benefit bestowing) solution, it pales in comparison.

Dan

PS:

“I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.” - Abraham Lincoln

“Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face.” - Hillary Clinton

Yes; Hillary Clinton; an extinction threatening event is a far greater threat than a terrorist’ attack.

You are not, however, going to get elected as President of the United States if you tell (or even insinuate) to the tax payers that they have to pay for the solution to that problem, though. You might have a chance of getting elected as President of the United States if you propose an economically viable (cost competitive) solution to that problem that would greatly benefit the public, instead. That is, of course, unless the Republicans catch on; which, it is highly unlikely that they will, in time. You never know, though. They (the Republican Party) might, actually, wake up from the drunken stupor that they put themselves in from inhaling their own oil (fossil fuels) for too long.

You (Hillary Clinton) are definitely not going to get elected as President of the United States if you keep on promoting natural gas, as a solution. You might as well endorse the Republican candidate, if that’s all you can come up with. The EPA said that, “The emissions from natural gas-fired boilers and furnaces include nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), trace amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM).”

 

[DATsunONE]

We can’t drill our way out of the problem.

- Barack Obama: 2008 third presidential debate against John McCain Oct 15, 2008

For our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

- Barack Obama: Speech at 2008 Democratic National Convention Aug 27, 2008

Let’s be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil. . . We can turn this crisis of global warming into a moment of opportunity for innovation, and job creation, and an incentive for businesses that will serve as a model for the world. Lets be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here.

- Barack Obama: Speech in Springfield, in Change We Can Believe In, p.198-9 Feb 10, 2007

It is hard to overstate the degree to which our addiction to oil undermines our future.

- Barack Obama: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.167-169 Oct 1, 2006


Clearly, the Democrats understand the issues regarding America’s dependence on oil. With the advent of permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motors (PMMs), we shall soon (for this 2016 Presidential Election) see, however, if they are willing to walk the talk.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Republicans have but one chance only to avoid the proverbial hammer that is going to come down on their heads as global warming really begins to heat up (becomes readily apparent). They have to be the one’s that totally finance a viable solution [permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motors (PMMs)] to that problem.

We (our PMM research and development team) actually asked (informally) for their (the Republican’s) permission, first, to pursue development of our PMM in the United States or, elsewhere. Only a fool would think that their permission wasn’t absolutely necessary to entertain such an endeavor.

They (the Republicans), informally, granted their permission but, with reservation. Due to innovators like Kohei Minato, and his PMMs, they know that permanent magnet powered motors are possible but, they are not quite convinced that PMM technology has advanced (or could advance) to the degree required to replace (become cost competitive with) fossil fuels and nuclear (fusion or fission) means of energy production, within the foreseeable near future.

Like many others, they are also anxious to review our team’s white paper and our team’s technical paper, to support our PMM concept, as soon as those papers become available.

Dan

PS:

Climate change is real, man is contributing to it, and it’s time to do something about it.

- Mitt Romney: January 22, 2015


At least Mitt Romney has been keeping up with recent PMM development events. Bravo!

 

[DATsunONE]

Many people have asked (and continue to ask) me why the powers that be (the Oil Companies and their associates) would not welcome permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motor (PMM) technology with open arms.

I thought their (the powers that be) reasoning for objecting to PMM technological development, plain and obvious. Apparently, their reasons are not so plain and obvious.

They (the Oil Companies) cannot sell oil if (most everything) cars, trucks, ships, airplanes (jets included), and homes, are all powered by permanent magnets. If they cannot sell oil then, their oil reserves, of which are still considerable, would be, practically, worthless. They would not want any DISRUPTIVE technology, such as PMM technology, to disrupt them and their continued use, combustion, of fossil fuels, until after all their fossil fuel oil reserves have been totally (completely) exhausted.

They cannot even sell natural gas, gasoline derived from natural gas, bio fuels, coal, solar, wind, wave, tidal, nuclear fission, or nuclear fusion, if (most everything) cars, trucks, ships, airplanes (jets included), and homes, are all powered by permanent magnets; which, the powers that be are also heavily invested in. Their (the powers that be) investments in these and all the other emerging technologies that they have heavily invested in, would also be rendered worthless.

You (the readers of this thread) might say; well then, Dan, if that’s true, why don’t you just wait to bring out your research teams’ PMM until the powers that be are ready for it?

Great question!

To some, the answer to that question is plain and obvious. However, to most, the answer to that question is not so plain and obvious.

I will provide the answer to that question in my next post.

Dan

PS:

“The most important and urgent problems of the technology of today are no longer the satisfactions of primary needs or of archetypal wishes, but the reparation of the evils and damages by technology of yesterday” – Dennis Gabor (5 June 1900 – 8 February 1979)

 

[DATsunONE]

Of course, the primary reason for bringing our research team’s permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motor (PMM), now, (instead of after this world’s oil reserves are exhausted), is to avert global warming, in time to save the planet. But, no one in power cares about that. They (those in power) are too materialistic (too greedy for even more power and even more wealth than they already possess) to care, or even consider, the extinction level event (global warming) before them; which, they caused.

I do not tarry casting pearls before swine. Nor, do I naively expect, in this materialistic world, anything but materialistic (selfish and self centered) endeavor from the vast majority. The only way to appeal to the materialistic is to appeal to their greed. Hence, I begin with explaining the exigent need for the development of PMM technology, in terms any materialistic person might comprehend.

Before I begin there, let me illustrate the difference between environmentalism and materialism with a current example. I would never think about opposing US Congressional approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. What for? In light of current developments in PMM technology, it’s a total waste of money, and an ill fated investment. Worse, is it’s a marketing fiasco. The Koch brothers, and their associates, will never see a return on that investment, if built. If they had their wits about them, the Koch brothers would reap a windfall if they simply entered (heavily invested) in PMM technology at it’s ground level; where it stands today. That’s where the money is to be made; and, not in continuing to pander crude. PMM technology will, soon, become far more competitive (economically speaking) than oil ever was. It’s far cleaner, far safer, far more powerful, and far less costly, than combusting crude. I would, however, demand prosecution of anyone who even attempts to, unlawfully, interfere with the development of PMM technology; not by throwing them in prison but, by removing them of their assets.

Now, as for the economic reason for bringing our PMM, today. It is only now, whilst on the brink of economic defeat by China, that Japan is willing to listen to (business) reason. As my business strategy professor told me, in 1985; “Japan won’t listen to you, Dan, until they are brought to their knees by China.” Only now (30 years later) is Japan ready to strategically analyze their true economic situation.

The only way that Japan can avoid imminent economic ruin and seizure (in foreclosure) by China is to, actually (in reality; not in hype or propaganda), compete with China, economically. The only way to do that is to produce energy at equal to or less cost than China does. And; the only way to do that is to employ advanced PMM technology (far above Kohei Minato’s), in every aspect of Japanese life, relatively soon (immediately).

Japan may be loath to swallow that pill but, they (the Japanese elite) will come to their senses, in time. The only problem is with the United States, for Japan (as a consequence of losing WWII) still must kowtow to them (the U.S. elites).

The United States knows, however, that they cannot bolster (artificially buttress) Japan’s economy. Even if the United States did not charge Japan anything for it’s oil, which the U.S. cannot do, it would still be more costly to ship it to Japan than China would pay for that same amount of oil. The same holds true for all other, current and proposed, means of energy production; other than for PMM technological development, that is.

Japan is the United States’ vanguard in the Asia-Pacific Region, and has been ever since the end of WWII. If Japan goes (is defeated economically) so will all the other Asia-Pacific countries. If the United States does not allow Japan to develop PMM technology, and soon, Japan will soon be defeated economically by China. And; if Japan is so defeated, all of the other Asia-Pacific countries will soon fall to China, too.

That is an explanation even the greediest of elites can understand!

Now, as to the real reason; the most important reason for bringing our PMM, today. The powers that be (the Oil Companies and their associates) have contaminated the UN Climate Change Reports with their typical propaganda barrage. Consequently, the actual truth about the severity (and timing) of global warming affects, not only go unreported but, are not well known. Regardless; who would be so foolish as to take the risk? Truly competitive global warming aversion technologies (such as PMM technological development) must be promoted and implemented, as soon as discovered. The risk of extinction is not worth the wait. We simply cannot take the chance that the time it would take, (what to speak of the additional green house gas emissions that would be spewed), to exhaust oil reserves will not take us past the point of no return.

Dan

PS:

As many know, the Chinese expression for “crisis” consists of two characters side by side. The first is the symbol for “danger,” the second the symbol for “opportunity.”

– Al Gore

 

[mbender]

Al Gore said:

• As many know, the Chinese expression for “crisis” consists of two characters side by side.
  The first is the symbol for “danger,” the second the symbol for “opportunity”.

Poor crisis, poor opportunity, LOL:

... I would argue that the flexibility of this figure of speech also blanches it of any substantive meaning.
It's the type of rhetorical flourish that seems to lend instant profundity via an exotic linguistic observation, and yet
it contributes very little beyond a generic call to action to take advantage of the "opportunity" inherent in a crisis.
After nearly seven decades of increasingly hackneyed use, isn't it time to retire poor overworked weiji?

 

[DATsunONE]

You are correct. All Gore's misinterpretation of the Chinese word for "crisis", (weiji), is a linguistic blunder; a linguistic faux pas.

The ji of weiji, in fact, means something like "incipient moment; crucial point (when something begins or changes)." Thus, a weis indeed a genuine crisis, a dangerous moment, a time when things start to go awry. A wei indicates a perilous situation when one should be especially wary.

-- Victor Mair

Al Gore is correct, however in the meaning which he meant to portray, via his linguistic faux pas; that, the crisis of global warming does, in fact, afford many profitable business opportunities, as well as being an extinction level event.

The definitions of "opportunity" are:
1. an appropriate or favorable time or occasion.
2. a situation or condition favorable for attainment of a goal.
3. a good chance or prospect, as for success.

There is no opportunity to avert global warming (extinction), absent elimination of all unnatural emissions of green house gases.

There is no opportunity for Japan to compete (economically) against China, absent truthful cost comparative analyses of it's current and proposed means of producing energy.

And; there is no opportunity for Japan to compete (economically) against China, absent full implementation of a truly competitive means of producing energy (assuming Japan procures one), relatively quickly. To be clear, Japan does not currently employ any cost competitive means of producing energy; nor, has plans to do so.

Dan

PS:

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

-- Winston Churchill

Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.

-- Henry Ford

 

[mbender]

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.

-- Winston Churchill

Churchill may like proclaiming with antimetabole, but proclamations using antimetabole are not exclusive to Churchill!

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Or should I say chiasmus? LOL

 

[DATsunONE]

I actually listened to JFK's inaugural address over the radio on January 20, 1961 when he said (but Ted Sorenson wrote): "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Like many other Americans, I contemplated that phrase over the next day in school. First Ted said he didn't write it; then, Ted said he did write it; then, Ted said he couldn't remember if he wrote it or not.

Dan

PS:

I'm always trolling for trivia.

-- Lynn Abbey

 

[DATsunONE]

Kohei Minato touts, but does not prove (derive mathematically), that his permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motors (PMMs), typically, achieve a 330 percent electrical efficiency ratio.

Naturally, (to some), the fact of Minato’s PMMs raises a question as to whether it is possible to achieve more than a 100 percent electrical efficiency ratio, in a system. On it’s face, (to some), Minato’s PMMs would appear to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy); that is, that energy was created when, by that Law, it cannot be either created or destroyed.

First of all, Minato didn’t say that his PMMs are 330 percent energy efficient. All he said was that, his PMMs, typically, produce 2.3 times more electricity than the amount of electricity it takes to actuate them. Then, don’t forget the other half of the First Law of Thermodynamics; that, for energy to be conserved, energy must transform from one form to another.

I can answer that question in two ways: (1) mathematically; and, (2) legally.

As I explained before, because the brunt of the academic community does not believe that such a thing is possible, the mathematical proof, for our research teams’ concept PMM, is strictly proprietary.

That isn’t to say that I won’t provide mathematical proof that a more than 100 percent electrical efficiency ratio is possible, in a PMM system. I will; and, because there are several accepted mathematical proofs out there, which have been publicized.

I will lead, however, with the legal proof. Legal briefs are not copyright able; except the portions that are declared proprietary and sealed by the court. Nothing in my “legal proof” is proprietary.

Initially, you (the reader) may react to the idea of a “legal proof” of an engineering concept with revulsion. You may challenge that idea by saying; you can’t derive an engineering concept with the law; or (stated differently), a legal proof has no application to engineering.

As we say in law; that is stating a conclusion and, conclusionary statements, in law, are to be ignored, until proven.

Of course, that is where I will start with my “legal proof”; proving that I can derive an engineering concept with the law and that the law does, in fact, apply to engineering.

You may also react with revulsion to the idea of a “legal proof” because, it might imply the threat of a law suit, and nobody likes being sued.

Like Elon explained; court is a waste of time, for a major motor company. Relying too heavily on patent protection, only subjects a major motor company to time and money consuming law suits. Innovate faster, instead.

My reasons for providing a “legal proof” have nothing to do with threatening legal action. I don’t waste my time or money in court, either. I will explain my reasons for submitting a “legal proof” further, when I provide it.

Dan

PS:

Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.

– Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (March 8, 1841 - March 6, 1935)

 

[DATsunONE]

Before I render the “legal proof” of the reality of a permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motor (PMM), as promised, let me reiterate; my “legal proof” is not a legal threat. I am too busy inventing to waste my time or money going to court. Defamation, perpetrated against me, has no meaning to me because, unlike Kohei Minato, our research team can fully support (mathematically prove, with the widely accepted precepts of mathematics, engineering, and physics, the validity of) our PMMs. That isn’t to say that, I will tolerate any, unlawful, effective interference with the development and commercial proliferation (commercialization) of our research’s team’s PMM. I won’t.

Just, so that you (the reader of this thread) doesn’t come away with the wrong impression, (that, my “legal proof” is a legal threat, or any kind of threat; and, that, I plan to take legal action, or any unlawful action), I will tell you what I do plan on doing (legally), instead.

Again, we agree with Elon; just innovate faster. However, in this case, where there appears to be a lot of hank panky going on, behind the scenes, open sourcing our research team’s would be patents of our PMMs wouldn’t be right (just). That would be like letting a bank robber spend the booty stolen from the bank, after conviction and incarceration. That would be like allowing unlawfully obtained evidence (the fruit of the poisonous tree) to be entered into evidence.

The better course would be to open the bidding for an exclusive patent license of our provisional patent, of our first PMM, (with a non-compete clause for 20 years), at a dollar ($1.00). You heard me, right; $1 - U.S. Of course, we would insist on full commercialization (the ability to do and the doing of), throughout the world. Failure to thoroughly commercialize our first PMM would automatically trigger a forfeiture of that license. That’s the; “use it, or lose it” clause. Effectively, that strategy would insure competitive bidding for our first PMM; and, full commercialization of it, as well.

We already have one (qualified and legal) bidder for our first PMM, who also (voluntarily) guaranteed a hefty forfeiture fee in the event that they fail to fully commercialize our PMM. They offered that $1 bid, and that hefty forfeiture fee, sight unseen. That hefty forfeiture fee is enough money for us to fully commercialize our second PMM, on our own, if need be. So; you (the reader of this thread) are totally dreaming if you think that our first PMM isn’t going to get fully commercialized, throughout the world; and, relatively soon.

Now, I know that some of you (the readers of this thread) actually believe that the military will subsume our provisional patent of our first PMM, on grounds that it is a military secret. You can get that illusion out of your heads, too. If the military did that, not only would they, in the doing, validate our PMM, it would completely finance us. Contrary to public opinion, the military does compensate for such takings; usually in the form of a respectable research grant. It would only be a few years, thereafter, (as the onset of global warming becomes readily apparent), that they would release our first provisional patent of our first PMM, back to us. Then, the bidding would start (for our second PMM) in the billions of dollars.

I also know that some of you (the readers of this thread) actually believe that no one would be interested in even paying a dollar for our first PMM because it’s just a novelty; a toy. Think again! Even our first PMM is so much better (far superior in every aspect; especially, cost comparative and power to weight ratio wise) to any other means of producing energy (existing or proposed), that we all (our research team) have a good chuckle on that notion, every time we hear it.

Now, that I’ve gotten that [the paranoia of being sued by me (because that’s all it is; just paranoia)] out of the way; onto that “legal proof”.

Dan

PS:

With renunciation life begins.

- Natalie Clifford Barney (October 31, 1876 - February 2, 1972)

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it.

- Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955)

 

[DATsunONE]

Mathematics is the supreme judge; from it’s decision there is no appeal.

- Tobias Dantzig (February 19, 1884 - August 9, 1956)


Kohei Minato has been showing (demonstrating) his permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motors (PMMs) around since 1996. He showed them off, throughout the United States, Mexico, Korea, Singapore, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and in many other countries. He patented two of his PMMs in 47 countries; (US Patents #5,594,289 & #4,751,486). He sold 40,000 cooling PMM powered fans to a major convenience store chain in Japan; who, in turn, distributed and resold those fans to the public. This constitutes an enormous body of witnesses from whom to take testimony. Then, of course, there is Charles Flynn’s PMM, (US Patent #6,246,561, June 12, 2001), and all the many witnesses thereof; and, Calvin Hoogerhyde’s PMM, (US Patents #20,100,156,202, June 24, 2010 & 20,120,007,450, January 12, 2012), and all the many witnesses thereof. There is just too much evidence, of working PMMs, out there to ignore or destroy.

Even some of the top Japanese companies are coming out, publically, validating the reality of PMMs. In April 2011, Hitachi Magnetics Corporation of California stated that a motor-generator, run solely by permanent magnets, is feasible and logical but that the politics of the matter make it impossible for them to pursue developing one. In other words, they were not only muzzled, they were prevented (forcibly) from developing PMM technology.

Engineering, often, does not operate in a vacuum. When politics (the powers that be) enter the picture, as is apparent that it has, here (for PMMs); so does the law. Because the powers that be have (apparently) selected to quash (stagnate) the development of PMM technology, and the immediate commercial proliferation thereof, for ill gotten gain (selfish reasons), a “legal proof” is not only called for; it is paramount.

It is apparent, from the above facts, that all of the major motor manufacturers, throughout the world, are not only well aware of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs but, they either bench tested them, themselves, or reviewed credible bench tests of them.

In law; “The thing speaks for itself.” Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs tell us that it is possible for a PMM to generate 2.3+ times more electricity than the amount of electricity required to continually actuate it. This is not to say that Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, or Flynn’s, PMMs are more than 100 percent efficient; energy wise. They aren’t! The conservation of energy law (the First Law of Thermodynamics) is maintained, for Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs. The only thing that is missing (in Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs) is a plausible (mathematical) explanation as to why they work; but, work they do!

These facts raise several questions for those major motor companies, throughout the world, that would, still, claim that such a thing is not possible: (1) are they merely being grossly negligent in deriving the mathematical proof to support the reality of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs, before speaking out against the reality of such a thing (system); or, (2) are they intentionally defaming anyone who would claim that such a thing is possible, saying that it isn’t possible; knowing full well that it is?

In either case, if they continue to proclaim (publically) that such a thing (a permanent magnet powered PMM) is not possible, when the fact of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs, clearly, prove that such a thing is possible; not only can they be SUCCESSFULLY sued for damages but, damages are presumed. Worse, punitive damages are not out of the question.

High punitive damages, (at least 2% of total net worth), as well as prison time, are available sanctions because, by either defaming or grossly neglecting, to recognize the reality of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs, a major motor company would (effectively) be heavily contributing to humanity’s extinction from global warming. These offenses are also actionable, in a citizen suit, under the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the U.S. Clean Water Act, as well as other U.S. laws.

The most profound aspect of the U.S. Clean Water Act is that, in light of Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs and the U.N.’s recent Climate Change Report, any U.S. citizen can SUCCESSFULLY sue to have all U.S. States’ emission control plans revised to require that all motor companies cease and desist from manufacturing or selling any more combustion motors, of any type, immediately.

Defamation is a double edge sword. A company that has to rely upon defamation, achieves little to nothing from the effort. It does, however, expose that company, (and it’s owners and managers), to legal action from within (it’s own employees, partners, and stockholders) and from so many others, who are not a direct target of that defamation. Worse, defamation severs that company’s own legs (figuratively speaking) in the doing. Not only does it alienate prospective innovators, who know better, it prevents that company from coming out with a similar product. A company can’t say, on one side of it’s mouth, that such a PMM is not possible; and, then, on the other side of it’s mouth, later, say that it was working on such a PMM, all along. Doing so would expose that company to a SUCCESSFUL law suit for stealing, or extorting, proprietary technology.

Those who would, still, claim that Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, and Flynn’s, PMMs are not possible are either affiliated with a major motor company (or a major research lab); or, are independent. Affiliates, by so defaming (or so grossly neglecting to support that claim), subject (expose) themselves, the companies they are affiliated with, and the owners and managers of those companies, to the liabilities I outlined above.

An independent might perpetrate such defamation, or gross negligence, in hopes of securing a position with one of the major motor companies or one of the major research labs. They think it might impress. It won’t. The problem with that is that, those entities cannot hire that person, if that person committed or continues to commit such defamation or gross negligence. If they do hire that person, by so doing, they subsume the liability for that person’s defamation or gross negligence.

No one (in affirmative defense) can claim ignorance because they didn’t or couldn’t bench test Minato’s, Hoogerhyde’s, or Flynn’s, PMMs; or, because they didn’t or couldn’t read their company’s bench tests of those PMMs. A person can say that they’re not sure (under those circumstances) but, they cannot say that such a thing is not possible, in light of the available proliferation of empirical evidence to the contrary, unless they (personally) have properly examined that evidence. To put it a different way; a company (or an individual acting alone) can’t claim that they didn’t know any better, if they participated, (directly or indirectly), in the concealment, fabrication, or destruction, of the relevant evidence. Hiding from the evidence also nullifies any claim of ignorance. A person cannot say that a thing is not possible if it is relatively easy (which it is, here) to discovery that it is possible.

When a person comes out and claims to be knowledgeable in the art (claims to be an engineer or a physicist), a higher duty of care attaches to that person’s statements to others, in questions of the art they are versed in. Once a person claims to be knowledgeable and an authority (an expert), in a particular art, their speech, as it pertains to that art, is circumscribed by a finite set of very specific laws, meant to curtail that speech; or, rather, meant to prevent that speech from harming others. In other words, experts are not free to say whatever they please, when it comes to their area of expertise. If a person does not want to be presumed an expert, and treated as such, that person must qualify their statements by coming out an saying so.

For a real life example; I am not an expert on the law because I am not an attorney. I am not a licensed engineer or an accomplished physicist, either.

The first three questions that the court will ask of such a person, in such a defamation action against that person, is; (1) How did you know (for an absolute certainty) that such a thing was not possible, before you claimed to be an expert in the area and said (publically or to other employees) that such a thing was not possible; (2) Why didn’t you bother (take the time) to examine the evidence (especially the U.S. Patents) to the contrary, before you claimed to be an expert in the area and said (publically or to other employees) that such a thing was not possible; and, (3) If you didn’t want to, or couldn’t, take the time to examine the evidence to the contrary, why didn’t you just say (after claiming to be an expert in the area) that you weren’t sure if it was possible (because you didn’t examine the evidence) but, that you think (suspect) that such a thing might not be possible, instead?

No private entity or person (claiming to be an expert in the area, in affirmative defense to such a defamation action) can claim public necessity, either. A private entity, or person, can’t make such a claim. Regardless, even if they (PMMs) are deemed a military secret, which they are not, public takings are still compensable, in the U.S. Additionally, the military is subject to the same liabilities I outlined above, under the U.S. Sikes Act.

There is (practically) no statute of limitation on such defamation or gross negligence. In light of the nature (severity) of these offenses; the more time that goes by, the harsher the punishment will be when the offenders are brought to justice. As global warming becomes more readily apparent, the clamor for justice (in this regard) will become that much louder.

In light of the nature (severity) of these offenses; Congress isn’t going to bail anybody out from being prosecuted for these offenses; no President is going to pardon anybody from a conviction for these offenses; and, no judge is going to accept any amount of a bribe to render a different decision, other than guilty (liable) as charged, on all counts.

Dan

PS:

Well done is better than well said.

– Benjamin Franklin (January 6, 1705 - April 17, 1790)

Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.

- Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955)

The essence of mathematics is not to make simple things complicated, but to make complicated things simple.

- S. Gudder

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

- Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955)

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.

- Betrand Russell (May 18, 1872 - February 2, 1970)

 

[DATsunONE]

Crude no longer enjoys the momentum it once did during your daddy’s, Fred Koch’s (September 23, 1900 - November 17, 1967), day; Charles Koch. Now, it only takes one Democrat to trump all your best laid plans. What a waste of money ($billions)! Can’t you (the Koch brothers) find something better to spend your money on?

In a short statement to the U.S. Senate, President Barrack Obama, succinctly, gave his reasons for vetoing the end run (acquiring government approval for the development of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project by circumventing lawfully established procedures for advancing such projects)
the Koch brothers [Charles Koch (79) and David Koch (74)] tried to pull off.

And, because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest – including our security, safety, and environment – it has earned my veto.

– President of the United States, Barack Obama (stated on February 24, 2015)

Really, Charles; your not too old to learn. Just try to recall what your daddy taught you and take some of your own advice.

It prompted my father to advise me to ‘never sue; the lawyers get a third, the government gets a third and you get your business destroyed.’ I’ve tried to follow his advice and have filed very few lawsuits. Unfortunately, he forgot to tell me how to keep from being sued.

– Charles Koch

Businesses’ visions must – and do – change.

– Charles Koch

In light of global warming, Charles, which both Political Parties agree is real, now; you can’t keep from being sued for attempting to quash (silence) any viable alternative means of energy production! If you keep pushing crude, your business will get destroyed! It’s simple, Charles. Move on. Change your vision!

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Now for the fun part; the mathematical proof that a motor, or generator of electricity, can be powered, purely, from the magnetic energy stored in a permanent magnet.

I know that math is not fun for you (most of the readers of this thread); and, that you don’t read, or write math, either. Don’t worry. I will utilize Richard Feynman’s (pictorial) and Albert Einstein’s (pretty experiment), techniques to relate this proof, instead.

In the matter of physics, the first lessons should contain nothing but what is experimental and interesting to see. A pretty experiment is in itself often more valuable than twenty formulae extracted from our minds.

Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955)

The reason Dick’s [Richard Feynman] physics was so hard for ordinary people to grasp was that he did not use equations. The usual theoretical physics was done since the time of Newton was to begin by writing down some equations and then to work hard calculating solutions of the equations. This was the way Hans [Bethe] and Oppy [Oppenhiemer] and Julian Schwinger did physics. Dick just wrote down the solutions out of his head without ever writing down the equations. He had a physical picture of the way things happen, and the picture gave him the solutions directly with a minimum of calculation. It was no wonder that people who had spent their lives solving equations were baffled by him. Their minds were analytical; his was pictorial.

Freeman Dyson (born December 15, 1923)

To make discourse of this proof even more difficult, I am still not at liberty to reveal our research team’s proprietary knowledge of exactly how our permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motor (PMM) works. Never-the-less, I will portray enough information to convince even the most mathematically illiterate, amongst you, of the validity of our PMM; and, without divulging any of our secrets.

I will relate the proof in pieces but, they will not be in any particular order.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

In our research team’s permanent magnet powered permanent magnet motor (PMM), we utilize every one of the principles, and some that I cannot divulge, that I am going to relate here in my following posts on this thread.

It is true; mainstream academic opinion is that, it is not possible to continuously operate a motor or generator, purely, upon the magnetic energy stored from a permanent magnet.

Impossible is a strong word; one, that is fairly easy to show has no veracity, here. I have, still, not run across anyone that truly believes (is absolutely convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt) that it (a PMM) is, in fact, not possible. Sure; many scientists say that it is not possible but, when put to the test, they immediately recant. The test is simple. Put your money where your mouth is. I’ll bet you a billion dollars that it is possible! To date, no one has taken me up on that bet. In other words, no one, not one person, really believes that such a thing is not possible. If they did, they’d have no qualms (any reservation) about taking that bet.

One of the reasons that it is deemed (said to be) not possible to make a PMM is the (prior) scientific stricture that, there has to be movement (either of the permanent magnet or of it’s magnetic field) to generate (induce or transduce) electricity from a permanent magnet. The nay sayers profess that, it cost more (in energy) to move a permanent magnet, or it’s magnetic field, than can be produced (generated) from that movement. Both premises are wrong!

Let’s start with that first premise; movement of a permanent magnet or it’s magnetic field is required. This (prior) stricture is based upon Michael Faraday’s (September 22, 1791 - August 25, 1867) Law of Induction; that is, a modulating magnetic field will produce an electromotive force, (EMF), (generate electricity) in an electric circuit that it is exposed to. Needless to say, Faraday was not aware of nanostructures.

A Faraday flashlight is an example. Shake the permanent cylinder magnet back and forth so that it slides in and out of the coil of insulated wire around it, and the flashlight will light up, if turned on.

Masaaki Tanaka said, in presenting “a carefully designed magnetic tunneling junction” for the research team he worked with to build it; “These results show that, in magnetic nanostructures, Faraday’s law of induction must be extended to account for forces of purely spin origin.” He and his colleagues had just published their findings (complete with device) proving that; “The current-voltage characteristics of the device unambiguously showed that the application of the static magnetic field produced an EMF that persisted for several minutes.” (“Electromotive Force and huge magnetoresisitance in magnetic tunnel junctions”; Nature 458, 489-492 (26 March 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature07879; Received 5 August 2008; Accepted 12 February 2009; Published online 8 March 2009).

That’s right. In 2008, Japanese researchers proved Faraday’s Law of Induction wrong; or, as they prefer to put it, incomplete.

I’d love to explain to you how it works but, I’d have to give you a short (lay) course on quantum mechanics before you’d understand it but, then I’d be off on a tangent that would not help explain the proof that I am relating, here.

They (Tanaka’s research team) gave the short explanation: “In this structure, electrons flow between ferromagnetic electrodes through an insulating barrier, and the resistance is affected by an external magnetic field.”; and, “The team attribute this effect to energy conservation related to reversal of the magnetic moments of the nanoparticles, which transfers the magnetic Zeeman energy of the nanoparticles to the electronic sector, resulting in a spin-driven EMF.” See; I told you that you wouldn’t get it.

The point is that, it has been proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt), scientifically, that, it is possible to produce (generate) electricity from a permanent magnet, without moving that magnet or it’s magnetic field.

So; if you were naive enough to take that bet, you owe me a billion dollars. Keep your money. Eat crow, instead. No; not willing to apologize. That’s your second big mistake. Your (the perpetrators of that falsity) first big mistake was in professing to be certain that which you had no way of proving, and failed to prove, was an absolute certainty. Real scientists don’t do that. Nor, do they continue to profess, as fact, something that has clearly been proven (directly to them) wrong.

Having proven the nay sayers wrong, right out of the gate, I need say no more. However, I’m not going to leave you hanging with just that little tid bit. Where would the entertainment be (the joy) in doing that?

Dan

PS:

It always seems impossible until its done.

Nelson Madela (July 18, 1918 - December 5, 2013)

 

[mbender]

You lost me at 'In'.

• and before that at 'Japan',
  • and before that, at 'the';
  
  and somewhere in the middle, at 'PMM'! ;-)