This special interest group is for professionals to connect and discuss all types of carbon-free power alternatives, including nuclear, renewable, tidal and more.

Post

The Better Idea

image credit: Robert Bauer, Pristine Air LLC
Robert Bauer's picture
Owner Pristine Air LLC

I am a career mechanic with some oil field experience. Most recently I worked as a Coal Fired Power Plant Journeyman Mechanic. The facility I worked at is scheduled to be retired. I formed my own...

  • Member since 2022
  • 2 items added with 387 views
  • Jan 10, 2022
  • 387 views

THE BETTER IDEA

 

Thank You Matthew Chester for the invite to share my thoughts here. My original “Happy New Year” trilogy post and video clip are on my LinkedIn profile.

For those who have not met me yet, I am Robert Bauer, Founder and Organizer of Pristine Air LLC. I formed this company on the premise of, “What is the better idea?”

I am talking about how to generate abundant electrical power without combustion.

My slogan for Pristine Air is “Better than green, Pristine!”

I am a career mechanic, started as a Diesel Mechanic, obtained my Federal Aviation Administration, Air Frame and Power Plant License, and an Industrial Maintenance degree along the way. I have worked in some form of maintenance since the 1980’s. Been a hand, crew lead, shift supervisor, inspector and special project handler. I have always looked for ways to do things smarter.

Since 2010 I have participated in a few public comments about the particulate matter and greenhouse gases that combustion technology produces. I understand the risks of these things and the need for reliable power. My ideas were appreciated but didn’t fit the agenda that was already in progress.

I took a good hard look at newer technologies aimed at replacing the tried and true. I found their many limitations. Instead of beating them up for their shortcomings, I want to publish a new idea. Not just a gadget or gizmo, but a way of thinking. I call it the next paradigm of thinking.

Instead of focusing our concerns on how to monetize each innovation and maximize profits and grow levels of control, the next paradigm of thought is centered on a new way to generate power that does not rely on combustion.

What do we need to do that? A prime mover that uses other than combustion to accomplish work. Back to my question, “What is the better idea?”

I think there are a couple of good prospects. One being electromagnetic and the other pneumatic.

I often hear the rebuttal, “It costs too much to do what you are asking.”

To which I reply, “What is the cost of doing nothing and how does that compare?”

Then I hear about issues with investors and return on investment. I think every breath taken around the globe is a good return.

Then it is the technical stuff, law of entropy and conservation of energy. Check out the law of substitution while you are at it. Think mechanical advantage, leverage what is there, no matter how small it seems.

Some gurus rely on the law of large numbers contending that the bigger a system is, the less problematic those “little losses” are. They say the losses can be overcome through other parts of the process.

That works only until the whole system goes down, then you have a multitude of little problems and only a small percentage of them are evident from the failure. Restarting such a large system may be negatively impacted by transient problems not evident in the cause of the failure.

In the face of all these kinds of excuses through the years, I have maintained a hope that there is a better idea. I have produced numerous models trying to prove my concept. At times it was disheartening to come close but miss the mark. Going back to the drawing board with a fresh perspective is difficult with the bitter taste of failure still gritty in your mouth.

Going back to basics, rereading the technical information that first illuminated the light bulb seemed like doing engineering penance. I explored the evolution of our technology. Fell into urban legends, which lead to conspiracy theories and finally the source of those urban legends and conspiracy theories made its appearance.

“The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951.” Under this Act, when an inventor submits a Patent application, the Patent Office reviews it and forwards it to any number of three letter government agencies for their additional review.

What are they looking for? Not how to market it effectively I can tell you that.

What these three letter government agencies are looking for is a reason to deny the patent. Any possible way the invention or its technology can be used, even if not the intended purpose, that may, if it finds its way into the wrong hands, pose a “potential” risk to national security. Any such finding by any of the said agencies is good enough to kill the Patent.

One more criterion that is used under this Act is, “Any device 90% efficient or greater,” will trigger the Act’s suppressive power.

After learning these things and reevaluating the way things are a question formed in my mind.

“What is the government’s overriding interest in suppressing such greener inventions and technologies?” Especially considering the climate change crisis.

In other words, what will there be left to govern if our combustion technology byproducts poison the biosphere beyond its capacity to sustain our lives?

It seems to me that a healthier planet would better serve the national security interest than suppressing the technology that would make a healthier world possible.

I did some digging and found two separate sources that claim the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 has been used to suppress over 5,000 inventions and their technology.

I flipped the idea and looked at it from the opposite direction. Our government has written many regulations to protect the environment and enforces them to the financial burden of American businesses. That shows me the government understands the problem.

My next question then becomes are there any suppressed inventions and/ or technologies that could be developed to produce clean energy? I strongly suspect the answer is yes. Anti-gravity devices and ionic lifting devices are two that have great potential.

The question then becomes how do we balance the government’s national security concerns with the clean energy needs of our nation and the world?

I think these are fair questions and should be addressed. Especially when the air we breathe is hanging in the balance.

For an inventor like me, with a good idea, and a proof-of-concept model that works, should I be limited by the potential for other people to abuse my novel idea? I don’t believe it is right to punish me retroactively for what someone else may or may not do at some point in the future.

I have considered engineering my model with an Eighty-eight percent efficiency limiter on it. That way it would possibly avoid the suppressive power of the Act. The only other way I can see through this is to use Trade Secret protection. That means I cannot sell the mechanism, only the output it generates.

That is where my focus has been. When I talk to other people about it, mostly I get a lecture on what is not possible or will not be allowed.

Going forward, we must look at things through the next paradigm of thought. We do not want to look back and say, “We should have thought of that sooner.” We have the opportunity now. Missing an opportunity like this, in the moment it matters the most, is doing ourselves the greatest injury.

There are certainly more contentions lined up to resist the change I see as necessary, but the bottom line is still the air we breathe. I urge everyone to not simply make excuses, try instead to formulate a better idea if you can. That is what I have been asking for twelve years, what is the better idea? I know I am not alone when I ask this question, but I haven’t run into very many people with their own ideas.

Now I have my version of a better idea and I wonder who is on board with it?

Constructive criticisms, comments, questions, and concerns are all welcome. I really do want to hear what other industry professionals have to say about this scenario. What can we really do to make combustion free technology a reality in our world?

Robert Bauer's picture
Thank Robert for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Jim Stack's picture
Jim Stack on Jan 14, 2022

This has no merit

Robert Bauer's picture
Robert Bauer on Jan 19, 2022

Here is an excerpt of what I wrote to an Environmental group,
“Hypothetically, IF there was suppressed technology that countered the effects of gravity, here is what I would like to see.
Use a formally closed military base. Use existing Government contractors. Ensure the secret stuff is buried deep in layers of military grade defensive structures. Control access to secret areas.
Once all that is worked out, build a reservoir that drains toward the Anti gravity effect. Over the zero-gravity effect area, place a vertical tube. The water end slightly below the water table for the reservoir. At the designated elevation above a vacuum pressure is placed on the tube. This will draw the zero-gravity water to that elevation.
For our physics scholars, what is water at elevation? Potential energy.
From this elevated location, the water spills over to become regular weight water.
It can then be used to spin hydroelectric generators. The output side of the hydro goes back to the reservoir the water came from. The cycle can be maintained indefinitely.”
This is just one idea that I see possible.
I have my own thing going on in another technology, so I don’t really care who runs with it, or if it never happens. Knowing such things are possible should be grounds for conversation at the least.

Henry Craver's picture
Henry Craver on Jan 28, 2022

What is the cost of air pollution in dollars? I don't know, but it must be huge. Whenever I see the global health consequences of air pollution, I'm blown away. It's actually always seemed like such a missed messaging opportunity for the carbon cutting cause. Why do we spend so much time talking about the climate change consequences, many of them far off and theoretical, when we could just as easily talk about the millions killed every year by pollution?  

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »