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, 70 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

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

  • (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: Still mixing means and extremes (Score: 1)
    by mlmitton on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 11:10:57 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Lets assume that the 1.9 cent per kWh figure is the basis for the $15 per month. In that case, multiplying a cost (1.9 cents per kWh) by maximum (26.6 kWh/day * 30 days) would yield a maximum monthly cost of $15/month. Not a cost, a maximum cost. But they don't call the $15 a max. So that doesn't work.

    OK, assume that the $15 per month is the basis, and divide by the max usage and you get a minimum cost of 1.9 cents per kWh. But they don't call the 1.9 cents a min. That doesn't work either.

    This is an appropriate criticism to make of the GWE page. And it's a far more appropriate criticism to make than the whole 10 month year thing you're slinging around.

    I happen to think it's a small criticism, though--there's no problem if the device is always running at full capacity, or is off.

    The only way you can get the 1.9 cents to agree with the $15 is if it's a capacity cost, not a materials cost.

    No. All you have to do is assume that the device operates only at full capacity. But moreover, you have to do a whole lot more than assume the $15 is a capacity cost. Besides, what sense does it make to talk about a monthly "capacity cost"? You buy the device, and the the capacity doesn't change. Why would it even be interesting to express this in a monthly fashion? (It would only be interesting if there were operational costs that depended on the capacity. Filters, for example.)

    So there's two issues: the issue of what's the proper way to interpret the GWE page, and what the problems are with the best interpretation. So far, you've said *nothing* that suggests your interpretation is better than my interpretation. That is, you can't point to some text from that page, and use that text to explain why your interpretation is better.

    As for your interpretation, it clashes with both common sense and the actual text of the GWE page. You assume (GWE assumed) there are ten months in the year, that operational costs don't mean "operational costs", that the "operational cost" section is mathematically derived from the "retail price" section (and is therefore completely redundant for anyone who can do basic math) despite the fact that there are statements clearly indicating differences between retail price and operational cost, that the other sentences don't mean what they say (that I've detailed above, and other people have detailed above), and so on.

    Based on the text, which interpretation seems more reasonable?

    | 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.