House Bill 2235, Marcellus on State Forest Lands

Sorry, Sir, no more information other than that. I believe I've read just that bit of info twice now, once in the Game News put out by the PGC and once in Pa Outdoor news.

PGC or Bureau of Land Management, I'm guessing, should have the data.

Keep up the good fight, thanks for your vigilance. The white man has lost the instruction manual for how to live on the earth. I notice you are starting a lot of these very important threads. I don't want to post links here, out of respect for the traffic of this forum, but I would strongly urge you to start digging in Google for free energy documents and forums that are widely available.

From what I can tell, we absolutely have real alternative energy that would compete and crush big oil and gas. That is the only way out of this I feel. Someone has to be personally affected by this drilling before they care, and that is going to take too long to make a difference. We must compete with their model. Momentum is on our side with the Gulf Spill.
 
I know the 2 Marcellus wells drilled on game lands sites thus far haven't produced real well, and thus the land use was wasted for very little in return money. That might be what he meant by 0 for 2. There could have been environmental issues on top of that, I don't know, but I too would be interested in seeing any info.

From what I can tell, we absolutely have real alternative energy that would compete and crush big oil and gas.
Click to expand...

Nuclear?
 
Uh, well that could crush them too, considering the current tech that they keep under wraps in that area is probably far safer than they'd want us to know. But, what I am talking about is magnetics, zero-point, gravitics, pulsed systems. This is a very well known site that begins to go places that can clearly kill oil and gas:

"Free Energy Site"
 
Well, they don't keep anything in nuclear under wraps. You can clearly look up the designs and safety parameters of all reactors in existence as well as those which haven't been built yet. And as far as safety, even generation 1 reactors have a far better safety record than any other source of power.

We simply choose not to use nuclear on a greater scale for geopolitical reasons.

As far as magnetics, zero-point, etc., all of them are either B.S. or hide the fact that they are really using another source of power, like solar, wind, etc. Now, its possible some of the designs, with enough R&D, could become more efficient than traditional solar panels or wind turbines, electric motors, etc.

For instance, the magnetic motors shown in that site are how 99% of the power generation already occurs, and the reverse path is also commonly used (an electric motor). But it does not escape the fact that energy has to be added to the system somehow. We do that with various methods, like hydro, steam (from oil, coal, gas, or nuclear), wind, etc., in order to make the power, or electricity for electric motors.

The bottom line, perpetual motion is only possible with no resistance, like the planets orbiting the sun. As soon as you try to extract energy from the system, without an external source, the motion stops. If you have an external source, then that source is what is really supplying the energy.

You can trust me on this. My particular study at universities was not on power, but I have people close to me who do study power. If it were that easy, it'd have been done. Oil and gas do not actively police these people to make sure they don't come up with a competitor. Perhaps you could argue that due to oil and gas influence, not enough funding gets sent to these researchers, and in that way keeps it down. But a simple answer like that would have been found and used long ago.
 
Your comment about all systems nuc. in the open is not true. I am talking about the fear that is created with weaponized systems, and where they have gone since the first clouds they created.

The oil and gas companies do police universities and direct funding towards high start-up cost ideas. They take direct action when they deal with people who have no family and who are immune to threats besides the taking of their own life.

Trust you that all this is BS, and that you know some people who work in power, and they would probably know if it were that easy. That is a very bold statement.

Gravitics is one of the easiest to work on, and many people have made the discs spin and float, and some have even gone to the gov. and indicated the implications of what it could mean and do.
 
Well, the people I said I know are all at universities. I have yet to meet or even hear of an oil or gas exec come and tell them what not to work on, or pull money away from a project. It may be true that oil and gas don't fund the work for other types of energy, but they have no way of preventing private funds from going to renewable research, and in fact, quite a bit does. And in many situations, if you are funded by the university, the student can choose what to work on. I'm just sayin, that if it were easy, it would have been done.

Show me good evidence of one perpetual motion machine, please, with no external source of power whatsoever. No permanent magnets, no electromagnets, no batteries or other forms of chemical energy, no heat pumps, no solar, no wind, no externally applied fields. You can't. Conservation of energy. Game over.

That doesn't mean that these things aren't useful. There are many sources of energy that can be tapped. So long as you realize that it is not creating energy. We already do use almost every source of energy available, but not always in the most efficient manner, and thats where research needs to focus.

For instance, I will say that heat pumps are very, very interesting. A heat pump does not produce energy, it is essentially moving energy from place to place. But you can get a system where you harvest heat energy from the air! Think of a refrigerator. You add some electrical energy, we'll say 1 joule, but then the system uses that to take energy from the air you are cooling, we'll say 3 joules, and then dumps nearly 4 joules of heat outside. If the heat energy is what you're after, you ended up with nearly 4 joules of heat energy from using only 1 joule of electricity. Of course you also ended up with a cold spot, thats where the extra energy came from. As that cold spot gets colder, your heat pump loses efficiency, you are losing your energy source. But if that volume you are cooling were big enough, say, the entire atmosphere, you could harness an awful lot of heat energy from the air. And some of the excess energy could be diverted into making more energy, the machine would appear to power itself and actually produce energy.

Of course its not "producing" energy, merely moving it. In fact, it's energy source is nothing new at all. This would essentially be a form of solar energy. Is it currently more efficient than standard solar panels? I'm sure that depends how you measure efficiency. For instance, I highly doubt its more efficient than a solar panel in the sun. But, it would work in cloudy areas, it would work at night. It would certainly have its uses, perhaps with enough research, even large scale power generation. I won't deny that sometimes things that deserve more R&D don't get the funding. It's not a conspiracy or some company holding it down. It's lack of anyone who's willing to hold it up. If someone believes it'll work on a massive scale, they can get the money to do the R&D, and they'll profit handsomly when it comes to fruition. Thats how people get rich, they take risks on things like this. This could someday be one of those stories, maybe even sooner rather than later.

And yes, for nuclear, I'm not talking about how to make a bomb, I'm talking about the blueprints for next-generation power plants, and they are well known and available publicly.
 
I didn't claim anything about perpetual motion, you introduced that term. I also didn't talk about violating Conservation of Energy. Research the Searl Effect Generator. Really look at it and what it is doing.
 
I did.

I wasn't able to find any demonstrations that weren't hooked up to external power sources. If it actually works, it'd be real easy to prove. First you get a patent (may have already been done), which does not prove anything. Then, you make one and give it to each major physics department in the country. If there were any merit to the device harnessing "zero-point" energy, you'd immediately ignite a firestorm of scientific discussion, and very quickly have bigger and more efficient versions. Or you could just submit the blueprints to a peer-reviewed journal, and you'd have thousands of physicists trying to replicate your results.

The device claims to convert "zero-point" energy into usable energy. Zero-point energy does indeed exist. We have harnessed it, it's called nuclear power. In order to get that energy, you must destroy some of the mass. But a tiny amount of mass = an awful lot of energy. If you could make a safe, small scale device it'd truly be revolutionary.

That said, it doesn't have to work to make money, and I'm fairly confident thats what this is all about.
 
My district's representative sent me a letter saying he voted for a compromise bill with a 3-year moratorium that is now going to the senate. Got the letter today.
 
5 years did sound like an awfully long time for a moratorium, but everyone else seemed to know better. Deadlines, whenever they are set are productivity motivators, so I favor the shorter deadline which means things will get serious in 2 years instead of 4.
 
The bill has passed the House, with the time period being changed from 5 years to 3 years.

The bill will now go before the Senate. If you have considered weighing in on this issue, but haven't yet done so, now is the time to do it. The first threads I posted provide tools that make it easy to contact your state Senator.
 
3 years is reasonable. I've already weighed in to my senator...
 
Senator Opake's office responded within 12 hours. They are listening.
 
Assumed office
January 2, 1973

I was 8...he was a Rep. before that since '69.
 
Contacted my Senator a few moments ago. Thanks for the update Troutbert. I'm hopeful that many of you will do the same.

Here is a summary of how the House voted.

Please use this link and contact your Senator if you haven't already done so.
 
The house roll call vote is here:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/RC/Public/rc_view_action2.cfm?sess_yr=2009&sess_ind=0&rc_body=H&rc_nbr=1459

The Bill was amended to a three year moratorium, as previously mentioned before final passage.
 
I sent my opinion to the Senate. Hopefully the right thing is done. I am scared to think what the future might hold for us fisherman. Between posting of land and environmental concerns, the future is pretty depressing.

Troy
 
I disagree. The future is bright. The environment has been improving by leaps and bounds in the last few decades. It will continue to do so. Sure a few new threats will pop up, but it's not enough to undo all of the progress we've made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top