Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 46 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

  • (June 3, 2018 - June 8, 2018) ICCF-21
  • (August 8, 2018 - August 12, 2018) COFE10 + TeslaTech Conference

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Chava Energy

    Closeminded Science


    Energy Science



    Integrity Research Institute

    Interstellar Technologies

    JLN Labs


    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.




    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    Unlimited electric energy


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    Alternative Energy News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Magazine Sites
    Distributed Energy
    Electrifying Times
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Re: (Score: 1)
    by mlmitton on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 @ 13:11:39 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    John, I can't believe you haven't backed down on this yet. I'm not trying to be mean, but you are making yourself look silly.

    You are imagining that they use "operational cost" in the normal way, and then calling it a coincidence when that number turns out to be something else. They never say that there is a 1.9 cent per kWh materials or fuels cost. Remember this machine is not supposed to have any fuel. They say that it costs a little less than $3000 for a 24 kWh/day capability. Then they divide a little less than $3000 by 200 months to get a little less than $15 per month, or 50 cents per day. Then they divide 50 cents per day by 24 kWh / day to get a little less than 2 cents per kWh. Then they call that an operational cost.

    It's as plain as day that they do say there is a 1.9 cent per kwh materials cost. The fuel is water, and the cost of water is negligible, so the 1.9 cents is just the cost of replacing the filters.

    Now, I will grant you that the following sentence is not worded very well:
    Again, using the above example of an Edison System configuration (producing 23.3 kWh and 3.3 therms of gas per day) , the cost of operation based on the system purchase price, plus the periodic cost of replacement filters divided by the total amount of Kilowatt Hours and therms of gas produced during the system's 20 year projected life would be as follows:

    But your interpretation not only doesn't make any economic sense, but it requires a convoluted attempt to interpret the above sentence. Occam's Razor, and any charitable reading, would do the following:

    Replacing filters is a periodic cost, and how often you have to replace them is directly proportional to the capacity of the device. The example system produces 800 kwh per month, or 192,000 kwh over the 20 year life of the device. Remember, the denominator they describe is the total energy produced over the 20 year life of the device, 192,000.

    So what's the numerator? "the cost of operation based on the system purchase price, plus the periodic cost of replacement filters" Note that, according to GWE, the numerator has nothing to do with the purchase price of the device. It is *the cost of operation* (which will vary depending on the capacity of device, in other words, on the purchase price) plus *the cost of replacement filters*. They do not tell us what the value of the numerator is, but they do state clearly what does into the numerator, and the purchase price is clearly not included.

    Then they tell us that the result of the division, with the numerator X and the denominator 192,000, is 1.9 cents.

    Have they failed to account for discounting? Maybe, maybe not. As they state, the filter costs are periodic. In so far as the period of operational costs is not monthly, then yes, they should use discounting to estimate the monthly cost. But this would make virtually no difference. That is, if the filters need to be replaced once per year (or more precisely, once per 9600 kwh), and it costs $180 (15 * 12) to replace the filter, then that 180 would need to be converted to a monthly estimate using the discounting formula I gave in a previous post.

    Now let's turn to your description. First, their example device does not have a 24kwh/day capacity--they state quite clearly that it's 23.3 of electricity and 3.3 of gas, for a total of 26.6. The machine does have fuel, water. They do not divide $3000 by 200 months, nor do they make any such claim that they've done such a division. As I described above, they state clearly that the numerator is the cost of operation, not the cost of the device. And they state quite clearly that the denominator is the total energy produced by the device over it's 20 year lifespan. I have absolutlely no idea how you could confuse their wording to think they suggest the denominator is the number of months.

    John, for the love of God, just admit that you are neither an economist nor an accountant, apologize, and move back to the things you know. At least in my eyes (an economist), you're ruining your credibility.

    | Parent


    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.