I mean that we should not expect firms to act _as if_ there is a tax on net emissions of CO2 unless there _is_ a tax on emissions of CO2. And affecting offense that they do not do so is pretty silly in my view.
"Over-unity" - in this case -- it's an electric power circuit, that; as the "resonating tuning circuit found in every AM and FM radio when tuned to a specific radio station / manufactured since Tesla invented the radio in 1900:
--- has always "electrically reduced" the input power level connected to the tank circuit:
--- to a power level below that power level being developed inside the tuning circuit.
There are pages of college level text / spread-sheets / and visual grafts available in the textbook "Electricity One - Seven" / edited by Mr. Harry Mileaf .
I've got my 1984 professional laboratory tests verifying the 293% "over-unity power production while my system was continuously producing pure /(no harmonics) / perfect sinusoidal AC waveform / 120 VAC / 60 Hz / power driving a 120 VAC / 60 Hz / AC motor;
My got my 1992 US Patent, US 5,146,395 / fully explaining the above.
If you carefully read the Patent ABSTRACT - it explains how a small part of the maximum output power:
--- is routed "back to the source", shutting off the on-board "start-up" power source:
--- and then continues to power the system while it "electronically develops" the "over-unity" electric output power to it's dedicated load.
It's a resonant radio tuning circuit - "on steroids" - so that it can "electronically develop commercial quantities of clean electricity.
My present unit is designed to continuously / selectively / develop up to and including:
--- 480 VDC or VAC / 480 Amps -which is:
--- 230,400 Watts; 230.4 Watts; or .2304 MW per unit:
--- from it's maximum on-board input power level of 15 Watts @ 12 VDC.
The unit is:
--- small - 2.5 cu. ft. / lightweight - 30 lb. / inexpensive - less than $2000 / modular / "stand-alone /
--- eliminates "recharging" or any external power source connection;
--- can have multiples of units connected together to produce a higher output power level - just like batteries.
It is designed to be installed either:
a.) "at" any existing or new "stationary" location, i.e., any "hut" / camp / home / commercial / or industrial site, or
b.) "in" any existing or new "movable" vehicle, of any size, shape, or weight - be it battery or internal combustion engine powered - be it on land / sea / or in the air - including hi-bypass jet powered private or commercial aircraft -- making available:
b1.) unlimited range of travel and or movement, and
b2.) unlimited time of travel and / or movement.
What happened - is that long before Tesla invented the radio - the Science of Classic Physics stated it's position that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power... inferring that 'over-unity power production' was impossible.
You have to consider how far back that position goes - and they were working with what was "on-hand" at the time.
The got the "substance" of the position correct -- but the chosen "verbiage" was totally incorrect - as Tesla's resonant tuning circuitry demonstrated - for 124+ years.
Had they stated:
--- "...no power supply can develop more power than it is physically and electrically capable of developing..." -- both the statement and the position would have been correct.
The problem is that "we, the World, didn't look for any alternative power source" - because we took the first statement "...as the Gospel..." - according to "Saint Classic Physics -- and:
--- Classic Physics - has yet to acknowledge either resonance - of the radio as operating "over-unity" -- with the result being -- Global Warming / Climate Change - because we kept on (with a huge commercial push from the Oil and Gas Industry - to keep on burning that fossil-based fuel - to produce electricity and power vehicles -- and we did.
Simply stated -- my power supply makes everything we presently use to produce electricity and power vehicles -- redundant.
This is because it eliminates the need for remotely located / existing or new / power sources and power grids - and eliminates the "need" - and thus the market - for burning fossil-fuels for both.
IF you send me an email address at -- scotsman7@comcast.net --- I will sent you all of the documentation.
just think about the possibility of dropping your "get out of being right all of the time" schtick at the end of each piece -- because that's just bogus.
Frankly -- although I disagree with you on some of your positions - and wish that you would engage about the possibility of entering into a discussion concerning what you see the fallout would be from added "over-unity" to the electric power mix -- you ae much better than that.
Good perspective. Revealing once again that climate reporters/activists are simply de-growthers at heart. AI demand will not continue to spike unless it delivers cost (and energy) reducing benefits elsewhere. Ironic as well that the reporter/activist finds that the activists’ push to “electrify everything” is adding to electricity demand.
I read the article more as a description of what is happening now than as a prescription of what should happen; and right now the power use for AI is no less CO2 intensive than any other.
PS I think you meant nuclear *fission* as a possible alternative power source. The prospects for fusion are no less remote than those for AI actually telling us something non-obvious about how to reduce our current emissions.
Brett -- I agree with you -- but must add - those that can't adapt to change i.e., the idea that the days of constant profits at any cost are over -- start a sub-stact.
In this one Thomas - your excuse / caveat at the end - just doesn't fly.
Minor correction: nuclear "fission" not "fusion". Unless Amazon and Google are touching off hydrogen bombs to power their data centers.
But remember, with recent advances, fusion power is just 10 years away! (And it always will be.)
Thanks dumb mistake!!!
"That is, Gellis is implicitly expecting private business executives to do the politicians’ job for them."
Are you naive enough to think that private businesses do not attempt to influence the actions of politicians?
I did not say that. :)
I mean that we should not expect firms to act _as if_ there is a tax on net emissions of CO2 unless there _is_ a tax on emissions of CO2. And affecting offense that they do not do so is pretty silly in my view.
"Over-unity" - in this case -- it's an electric power circuit, that; as the "resonating tuning circuit found in every AM and FM radio when tuned to a specific radio station / manufactured since Tesla invented the radio in 1900:
--- has always "electrically reduced" the input power level connected to the tank circuit:
--- to a power level below that power level being developed inside the tuning circuit.
There are pages of college level text / spread-sheets / and visual grafts available in the textbook "Electricity One - Seven" / edited by Mr. Harry Mileaf .
I've got my 1984 professional laboratory tests verifying the 293% "over-unity power production while my system was continuously producing pure /(no harmonics) / perfect sinusoidal AC waveform / 120 VAC / 60 Hz / power driving a 120 VAC / 60 Hz / AC motor;
My got my 1992 US Patent, US 5,146,395 / fully explaining the above.
If you carefully read the Patent ABSTRACT - it explains how a small part of the maximum output power:
--- is routed "back to the source", shutting off the on-board "start-up" power source:
--- and then continues to power the system while it "electronically develops" the "over-unity" electric output power to it's dedicated load.
It's a resonant radio tuning circuit - "on steroids" - so that it can "electronically develop commercial quantities of clean electricity.
My present unit is designed to continuously / selectively / develop up to and including:
--- 480 VDC or VAC / 480 Amps -which is:
--- 230,400 Watts; 230.4 Watts; or .2304 MW per unit:
--- from it's maximum on-board input power level of 15 Watts @ 12 VDC.
The unit is:
--- small - 2.5 cu. ft. / lightweight - 30 lb. / inexpensive - less than $2000 / modular / "stand-alone /
--- eliminates "recharging" or any external power source connection;
--- can have multiples of units connected together to produce a higher output power level - just like batteries.
It is designed to be installed either:
a.) "at" any existing or new "stationary" location, i.e., any "hut" / camp / home / commercial / or industrial site, or
b.) "in" any existing or new "movable" vehicle, of any size, shape, or weight - be it battery or internal combustion engine powered - be it on land / sea / or in the air - including hi-bypass jet powered private or commercial aircraft -- making available:
b1.) unlimited range of travel and or movement, and
b2.) unlimited time of travel and / or movement.
What happened - is that long before Tesla invented the radio - the Science of Classic Physics stated it's position that:
--- "...no power supply can produce more output power than input power... inferring that 'over-unity power production' was impossible.
You have to consider how far back that position goes - and they were working with what was "on-hand" at the time.
The got the "substance" of the position correct -- but the chosen "verbiage" was totally incorrect - as Tesla's resonant tuning circuitry demonstrated - for 124+ years.
Had they stated:
--- "...no power supply can develop more power than it is physically and electrically capable of developing..." -- both the statement and the position would have been correct.
The problem is that "we, the World, didn't look for any alternative power source" - because we took the first statement "...as the Gospel..." - according to "Saint Classic Physics -- and:
--- Classic Physics - has yet to acknowledge either resonance - of the radio as operating "over-unity" -- with the result being -- Global Warming / Climate Change - because we kept on (with a huge commercial push from the Oil and Gas Industry - to keep on burning that fossil-based fuel - to produce electricity and power vehicles -- and we did.
Simply stated -- my power supply makes everything we presently use to produce electricity and power vehicles -- redundant.
This is because it eliminates the need for remotely located / existing or new / power sources and power grids - and eliminates the "need" - and thus the market - for burning fossil-fuels for both.
IF you send me an email address at -- scotsman7@comcast.net --- I will sent you all of the documentation.
So that
just think about the possibility of dropping your "get out of being right all of the time" schtick at the end of each piece -- because that's just bogus.
Frankly -- although I disagree with you on some of your positions - and wish that you would engage about the possibility of entering into a discussion concerning what you see the fallout would be from added "over-unity" to the electric power mix -- you ae much better than that.
OK What would you like to discuss? What is "over utility?"
Good perspective. Revealing once again that climate reporters/activists are simply de-growthers at heart. AI demand will not continue to spike unless it delivers cost (and energy) reducing benefits elsewhere. Ironic as well that the reporter/activist finds that the activists’ push to “electrify everything” is adding to electricity demand.
"At heart" may be too strong. It could be low level anti-"business" sentiment, or something else. I try to stay away from ultimate motivations.
I read the article more as a description of what is happening now than as a prescription of what should happen; and right now the power use for AI is no less CO2 intensive than any other.
PS I think you meant nuclear *fission* as a possible alternative power source. The prospects for fusion are no less remote than those for AI actually telling us something non-obvious about how to reduce our current emissions.
Absolutely, ""Fission!"
Brett -- I agree with you -- but must add - those that can't adapt to change i.e., the idea that the days of constant profits at any cost are over -- start a sub-stact.
In this one Thomas - your excuse / caveat at the end - just doesn't fly.
Think about it.
I'd like to. What do you want me to think about?
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, report.