# Free energy etheric energy



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

What is not known generally about the energy field is that free energy machines have been developed by many researchers. They pull the energy straight from the background etheric energy.

In every case apparently where the machinery has operated successfully, a branch of the US government has suppressed it by impounding lab equipment, all working models & threatening the discoverers with jail or bodily harm.

Can you imagine what would happen with our economy if all suppliers of energy were thrown out of business by free energy.

You can see a movie online that is actually free with this information & much more on many other subjects of great interest here www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There is a concept called *dark energy* which was only discovered 20 years ago. Dark energy is intrinsic to space -- even totally empty space -- and is a significant amount of energy that is just sitting out there. It's not well understood yet.

Here's a video with a good introduction to dark energy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAa2O_8wBUQ

A related concept is *zero-point energy*, which is the energy that exists in nothingness (a quantum mechanical effect). People have been looking into whether it might be possible to harness this energy. Unfortunately, because so many quacks cite "zero-point energy", it's tough to find reliable sources if you google around.

But zero point energy is real, and I've found a few sources for those who are interested. Here's a talk about potentially harnessing zero point energy as a power source:
http://www.engineering.com/Videos/V...Id/1118/The-Dark-EnergyCan-We-Harness-It.aspx

There's a real world experiment, easily reproducible, that shows something known as the Casimir Effect. Even in a vacuum, the intrinsic energy of space causes a force on two plates. It's believed that this _may_ be an illustration of zero point energy. This video explains the Casimir Effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRcmqZkGOK4

DARPA (the US military funding arm) has thrown millions of dollars at zero point energy research, to see if the effect can be harnessed for useful purposes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darpa-casimir-effect-research/

However, the world is very far away from being able to harness such energies (whether dark energy or zero point energy) in any significant way. Neither is fully understood. If they can be harnessed, it's likely for more subtle microscopic purposes -- as DARPA has been trying to accomplish -- rather than any kind of significant "power generation" that could possibly compete with conventional energy production.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

What is the difference between dark matter, dark energy and ether? When I first read about dark matter and energy I thought, this sounds a lot like ether theory which was the prevailing theory of physics before Einstein.

Nicola Tesla had the best scientific education available in the 1870s and that meant ether theory.He built on what he had learned, and what he discovered plus the discoveries of other physicists of his time. When Einstein's theories came along he read them, understood them, and rejected them. Among other reasons, he got better results using ether theory than with relativity.

Maybe the reason scientists today dismiss Tesla's work is that they don't understand it, and they don't understand it because they don't know ether theory and the other standard knowledge of the late 19th century.

But if they ever figure out dark matter and dark energy maybe they will come to the same conclusions Tesla did in the 1890s, that the universe contains an unlimited supply free energy if we can only figure out how to harness it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I updated my earlier post with some factual corrections.



Rusty O'Toole said:


> What is the difference between dark matter, dark energy and ether? When I first read about dark matter and energy I thought, this sounds a lot like ether theory which was the prevailing theory of physics before Einstein.


"Ether" is a loaded term because there are several meanings of the word, one being a general notion, the other(s) being more specific classical theories. The specific old ether theories were disproven due to real world evidence.

However the general term "ether" persisted. In fact Einstein theorized about something he called a "cosmological constant", something of the ether variety. It's thought that dark energy may be the same thing Einstein thought of.

So if we're using ether or aether in the general meaning, yes, theories of the ether-variety have been around over time and continue to this day. It's not literally the same concept that existed in the 1800'whatevers.

But overall, there's still a lot of unanswered questions. I think dark energy is speculative, a theory just 20 years old, which is very young. Physics takes 50 to 100's of years to start proving/disproving theories and refining the models.

These concepts of dark energy and zero point energy have inconsistencies today... the predictions don't quite match reality. That's usually a big problem in physics and tips you off that more has yet to be discovered. The phenomena are not fully understood or explained by today's theories.

I think it's pretty damn exciting, so much to still be discovered. An 18 year old today could be the person who comes up with a new theory that suddenly makes sense of quantum mechanics + gravitation + dark matter + dark energy, with theories that match real observations.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's an article on zero point energy (ZPE) from 1997. This author says that ZPE cannot be used for 'free energy'.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/follow-up-what-is-the-zer/



> The infinity in this equation is what excites the free lunch crowd (the modern descendants of the perpetual motion crowd), who envision an endless ZPE for humanity to tap into. Not quite, unfortunately..
> . . .
> Even if the cosmological constant is not zero it is certainly small on a particle-physics scale, small on a human-engineering scale, and too tiny to be any plausible source of energy for human needs--not that we have any good ideas on how to accomplish large-scale manipulations of the cosmological constant anyway.
> . . .
> ...


So yeah, ZPE is real, and potentially even useful as DARPA has been trying out, but perhaps not useful enough to be a source of "unlimited free power".


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> they will come to the same conclusions Tesla did in the 1890s, that the universe contains an unlimited supply free energy if we can only figure out how to harness it.


There is a virtually unlimited supply of free energy right here on earth. We have only made miniscule strides in harnessing it. Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal are examples. In time we will laugh at how we currently generate wind power. No reason every home in those areas requiring heating should not have a geothermal heat pump (but how many do?). Solar is advancing quite fast, but why doesn't Musk have solar chargers built into his cars? Could go on, but....

If there are other sources out in the "ether", maybe they will be needed later for space travel? But not now and here where we have more immediate needs.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Maybe the reason scientists today dismiss Tesla's work is that they don't understand it, and they don't understand it because they don't know ether theory and the other standard knowledge of the late 19th century.
> .


 Years ago was listening to the late great PQ wall he wanted to get info on quantum physics in regards to his cycles work on markets. He said something like, there was only one man that he could talk to that understood quantum physics for him to get the info he needed for his work


Think about it if the above is true why are they teaching it in universities if the professors dont even know what they are talking about?


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

lonewolf :) said:


> In every case apparently where the machinery has operated successfully, a branch of the US government has suppressed it by impounding lab equipment, all working models & threatening the discoverers with jail or bodily harm.


_Citation needed_


Speaking as an arm-chair enthusiast for science, here are simplified definitions:

*Dark matter:* gravity alone can't explain all the mysteries we observe in the universe, one of which is galaxy formations. 
There must be some other type of 'matter' out there that isn't directly observable with our current technology and limitations, though we can see its effects. 
As we don't know much about it, we call it 'dark' as a placeholder name, and have calculated it composes 27% of the universe's total matter and energy.

*Dark energy:* the universe is expanding too fast, relative to how much matter exists and its gravitational pull, and we don't understand why. 
There must be some 'energy' counteracting gravity. 
As we don't know much about it, we call it 'dark' as a placeholder name, and have calculated it composes 69% of the universe's total matter and energy.


The remaining 4% of the universe is everything we have a pretty good understanding of, interact with, or can measure, in our daily lives.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

agent99 said:


> There is a virtually unlimited supply of free energy right here on earth. We have only made miniscule strides in harnessing it. Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal are examples. In time we will laugh at how we currently generate wind power. No reason every home in those areas requiring heating should not have a geothermal heat pump (but how many do?). Solar is advancing quite fast, but why doesn't Musk have solar chargers built into his cars? Could go on, but....
> 
> If there are other sources out in the "ether", maybe they will be needed later for space travel? But not now and here where we have more immediate needs.


I understand California is already getting 10% of their power from geothermal. They could build unlimited powerplants around the Yellowstone area and tap into the heat source that powers Old Faithful. Scientists have already suggested that cooling down the subsurface magma could prevent a volcanic eruption.

There is a geothermal power plant in Italy that has been running for more than 100 years.

Volcanic areas like the Pacific rim, western US, Greece and Italy may have the easiest geothermal potential but it could be applied anywhere on earth.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

agent99 said:


> There is a virtually unlimited supply of free energy right here on earth. We have only made miniscule strides in harnessing it. Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Tidal are examples. In time we will laugh at how we currently generate wind power. No reason every home in those areas requiring heating should not have a geothermal heat pump (but how many do?). Solar is advancing quite fast, but why doesn't Musk have solar chargers built into his cars? Could go on, but....
> 
> If there are other sources out in the "ether", maybe they will be needed later for space travel? But not now and here where we have more immediate needs.


Gonna' have to look into the solar chargers for our vehicles. Maybe I'll start with trying to get our Yamaha 150 outboard to run on solar. 

As for ether. All I know about that is that on a not-too-scientific approach, a chloroformed rabbit could loosely be described as the "Ether Bunny". I have some learning to do.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Personally I plan to invest in phlogiston futures -- either that or cold fusion. :rolleyes-new:


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Volcanic areas like the Pacific rim, western US, Greece and Italy may have the easiest geothermal potential but it could be applied anywhere on earth.


Geothermal heat occurs everywhere under the surface of the earth, but the conditions that make water circulate to the surface are found in less than 10 percent of Earth's land area.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I understand California is already getting 10% of their power from geothermal. They could build unlimited powerplants around the Yellowstone area and tap into the heat source that powers Old Faithful. Scientists have already suggested that cooling down the subsurface magma could prevent a volcanic eruption.
> 
> There is a geothermal power plant in Italy that has been running for more than 100 years.
> 
> Volcanic areas like the Pacific rim, western US, Greece and Italy may have the easiest geothermal potential but it could be applied anywhere on earth.


I would say Iceland would be the poster child for geothermal energy, but even then, only 26% of electricity is derived from this source. However, it also provides heat and hot water for 87% of the buildings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> I have some learning to do.


Seems like it!


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Eder said:


> Geothermal heat occurs everywhere under the surface of the earth


Exactly! There is no need to be in locations with "potential". Where such potential exists, it may be possible to heat directly from hot springs, but that is not what I at least was talking about.

Regardless of where we are, all we need to heat our homes in Canada is to have a heat pump and a large enough lot for horizontal pipes or have vertical holes drilled deep enough into the ground. In Europe, I believe some jurisdictions already require this for all new dwellings. In fact, in Canada proposed changes to the building codes will eventually have similar requirements. We need to get on with it. 

Rebates to home owners for geothermal seems like a better place to spend our tax money that wind and solar "farms" where the power must be transported and partly wasted on a grid. Same is true for electric cars. Why give someone buying an electric car a $14,000 rebate when an efficient home heating system gets a pittance, if anything. 

Our own home is 100% heated by a heat pump system. But it is air based so only reduces energy usage by about 50%. A ground based (geothermal) system would be twice as good as our air based system (would on average reduce heating energy usage to about 25%)

Geothermal Heat pumps do still consume electricity. Eventually, I suppose we also need to decentralize power production. For example, solar roofs on or homes. Or at least district systems. Why build a windfarm on, say Wolfe or Amherst Island, then feed the power produced into a grid, instead of using that power locally and avoiding transmission losses?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Heat pumps are lol when its cold out...best if its 40 Fahrenheit or above.If your home has natural gas, your supplemental heat probably comes from a gas furnace that jumps in to help out when your heat pump is struggling.
In Canada you can shell out for a furnace & a heat pump, or just a high efficiency nat gas furnace which really is the nuts..(unless you are eastern creeps & bums...then just freeze in the dark please! haha)


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Eder said:


> Heat pumps are lol when its cold out...best if its 40 Fahrenheit or above.If your home has natural gas, your supplemental heat probably comes from a gas furnace that jumps in to help out when your heat pump is struggling.
> In Canada you can shell out for a furnace & a heat pump, or just a high efficiency nat gas furnace which really is the nuts..(unless you are eatern creeps & bums...then just freeze in the dark please! haha)


Not all heat pumps are created equally. Your information is not current. There are several new high efficiency system on market.

We have NO supplemental heat. Our heat pump provides 100% of our home heating at -23C. This was design figure and proven in practice. At this point COP is down to about 1.3 but averages 2.0 during the heating season. Read up on Mitsubishi Zuba as well as some of their wall hung units.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*geothermal - varies with location*

I gave up the geothermal idea years ago, when I was told it wouldn't be efficient in my area. No doubt, there have been improvements over the years. Still, it seems that due diligence as to geographic suitability is required.

1. – 10–40 °C: low enthalpy-marginal economics heating potential with use of heat pumps mainly, 
2. – 40–60 °C: low enthalpy geothermal heating with marginal economics, 
3. – 60–80 °C: economical geothermal heating potential, 
4. – 80–100 °C: economical geothermal heating and marginal EGS electrical, 
5 – 100–140 °C: highly economical geothermal heating and economical EGS electrical, 
6. – >140 °C: highly economical EHS electrical and geothermal heating.



Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148114000159


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*VCMD - variable centrifugal mass drive*

https://youtu.be/3g54YJ7sevo?t=33m19s

Mark McCandlish and Shane Seymore


conversation starts at 33:20
they get into the nitty gritty of VCMD at 55 minutes
4-minute break from 58 minutes, then continue for a couple hours
air date: October 9, 2017
see description below the video


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

zylon said:


> I gave up the geothermal idea years ago, when I was told it wouldn't be efficient in my area. No doubt, there have been improvements over the years. Still, it seems that due diligence as to geographic suitability is required.
> 
> 1. – 10–40 °C: low enthalpy-marginal economics heating potential with use of heat pumps mainly,
> 2. – 40–60 °C: low enthalpy geothermal heating with marginal economics,
> ...


There seems to be a misunderstanding or perhaps double meaning for geothermal. For geothermal power generation, they want high temperatures for direct use and this requires very deep wells. That is what your survey was addressing. 

For home heating, with the use of a heat pump, we can heat our homes even with outside air so long as it is above about -25C. Ground water systems are much more efficient (but also more expensive). A horizontal ground loop below the frost level is often used. Let's say 4deg C at that level? Vertical systems even higher temperatures. Anything ground based is better than using air. But even an air source heat pump reduces energy for heating by 50% (that is what we have). We would have gone to a ground based system, but we are on rock so drilling is more difficult & expensive.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I know geothermal power is available everywhere. Drill down 5000 feet and you get enough heat to drive a steam engine. But, there are places where the hot magma is much closer to the surface, easier and cheaper to get at. Why not put those to use first especially if they are near population centers that need cheap power? Los Angeles could use a source of cheap, pollution free electricity more than most.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Interesting discussion guys. My understanding is that we are not quite there in terms of technology to generate geothermal electricity on a widescale basis. 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...al-energy-is-the-solution-for-the-future.html

Agent99’s home heating is fascinating. I’d be interested to learn how much the system cost to construct. Is it viable for residential sized lots or just acreages?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

olivaw said:


> I’d be interested to learn how much the system cost to construct. Is it viable for residential sized lots or just acreages?


There's an annual tour of eco-type houses her in town. One year had a regular looking new house that was heated by deep loop geothermal (GSHP). It would have been a smaller city lot, probably 33x120'. The owner liked the constant and cooling available, but complained that his electricity bill was way higher than expected due to the pump and heat pumps. Install cost was 50K, but I believe that price has come down considerably in the past 5 years and is now under 20K in these parts.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

olivaw said:


> Interesting discussion guys. My understanding is that we are not quite there in terms of technology to generate geothermal electricity on a widescale basis.
> 
> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...al-energy-is-the-solution-for-the-future.html
> 
> Agent99’s home heating is fascinating. I’d be interested to learn how much the system cost to construct. Is it viable for residential sized lots or just acreages?


Technology for use of deep geothermal energy where temperatures are 90C or higher may not be there yet. But there are already power stations using shallower wells with higher temperatures in conjunction with heat pumps. The article confirms that:


> Geothermal energy that comes from 150-200 metres below the surface is called low temperature geothermal energy. At these depths, temperatures hover between 6 and 8°C and can be extracted with heat pumps, combined with an energy well. This type of geothermal energy is exploited at a fairly large scale.


This is a summary of geothermal power generation plants world wide. Noticed that Canada is conspicuous by its absence.

Regarding our heat pump system. It is really no different than the systems commonly in use in slightly warmer climes by our neighbors to the South. Only difference, is the unique high efficiency Mitsubishi heat pump. We originally had just electric baseboard heaters for heating and a ducted central air conditioner. We replaced the central a/c unit with a heat pump while re-using the duct system. Total cost was about $20k but this included about $4k of insulation and sealing upgrades. Most of time, the system heats our whole house, but is rated to just heat the main part which is about 1650 sq.ft. when outside temperatures are at -23C. 
Alternative, was a gas furnace. Cost estimate was almost same. This because we had to bring gas in from nearest street and provide a fire rated enclosure for the furnace in our attic (no basement). Plus purchase a separate new a/c system. The heat pump does both heating and cooling. We did also price out a groundwater based heat pump, but cost for our location made the air/air heat pump more cost effective.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> I would say Iceland would be the poster child for geothermal energy, but even then, only 26% of electricity is derived from this source. However, it also provides heat and hot water for 87% of the buildings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland


Iceland has the good fortune to be is sitting on the Mid-Atlantic Rift. In fact the whole island is just an above-sea-level part of the rift.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

Agent99 made a case why geothermal makes sense for him.

Makes no sense for me.

I don't need or have AC. There are only 5 or 10 days a year where I live that get uncomfortably warm so just can't justify a cooling system for so little utility. Even on those days, the basement or workshop will be 7 or 10 degrees cooler than house living space.

The alternative I had installed was a propane furnace for ~$4000. Propane is about half the cost of electricity where live, so with a seasoal COP of geothermal of say 3, geothermal would have a lower fuel cost, but not overall cost given the delta capital of $16,000.

I mostly heat with wood which I harvest on my property, so net zero carbon other than 10 or 20 litres of gas and oil for the chainsaw. The capital here invested about 12 years ago is about $6000 for two wood stoves and two stainless steel chimneys. The 2 chimneys and one stove are pristine, but primary stove is soon due for replacement, about $2200 installed.

Then there are the intangibles. All the exercise wood provides, plus I can survive electricity being out forever.

So, no geothermal does not make universal sense.

Hboy54


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

hboy54 said:


> I mostly heat with wood which I harvest on my property, so net zero carbon other than 10 or 20 litres of gas and oil for the chainsaw.


Doesn't wood contain carbon?

We used to have a high efficiency Jotul wood stove and it did provide quite a bit of our heating needs. We were able to obtain free or very low cost wood. However, from an environmental point of view, burning wood is very poor. Very inefficient so lots of CO2 produced plus CO, and other nasties like VOCs, soot and other particulates. In some jurisdictions wood stoves regulations have been severely tightened or have been banned. We were lucky to find a buyer for the Jotul!

BTW, my neighbour still burns wood, so we get the 'benefit' of that


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

agent99 said:


> Doesn't wood contain carbon?
> 
> We used to have a high efficiency Jotul wood stove and it did provide quite a bit of our heating needs. We were able to obtain free or very low cost wood. However, from an environmental point of view, burning wood is very poor. Very inefficient so lots of CO2 produced plus CO, and other nasties like VOCs, soot and other particulates. In some jurisdictions wood stoves regulations have been severely tightened or have been banned. We were lucky to find a buyer for the Jotul!
> 
> BTW, my neighbour still burns wood, so we get the 'benefit' of that


I hope that some jurisdictions, such as British Columbia with its forest fires this summer, and now southern California, will pass regulations banning forest fires. 

Our central heat here comes from a gasifying wood-fired boiler. The combustion temperatures are in the range of 2000 degrees F. It produces virtually no pollutants. No smoke comes out the chimney. Everything gets burned, including the carbon monoxide, which burns at about 1150 degrees. I clean ash out of the combustion chamber once a year - one large bucketful that goes into the garden.

As for the "benefit" from your neighbour, I suspect you have a neighbour using one of those low-efficiency outdoor boilers. Yes, there are plenty of wood-burning appliances around, particularly older ones, that give using wood as a heat source a bad name. 

For a different perspective on the evils of wood heat, see:

http://www.woodheat.org/carbon-cycle.html


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

Sigh. It is so annoying to be told by people who have no qualms about flying out for vacations twice a year that how I live my life is so environmentally bad. Attack the rural way of life, and ignore your own environmental sins. Trudeau is so convinced that carbon is a problem that he takes 3 or 4 round trip flights a year for personal vacations. All I see here is people that are rich enough to pay a bit of carbon tax, and not change how they live one iota, but rural people, generally poor, are demonized because they heat with wood.

How much particulate material is equivalent in environmental damage to how much carbon? How much particulate matter is generated by wood burning vs that generated by vehicle tires? There are all sorts of interesting questions that should be asked before we all pass judgement.

Every year, part of a forest dies and decays. All my heating with wood does from a carbon perspective is substitute combustion carbon for decay carbon. Thus my net zero other than chain saw fluids. Another happy side effect is that the stand is improved for saw logs instead of garbage trees.

Hboy54


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

hboy54 said:


> Sigh. It is so annoying to be told by people who have no qualms about flying out for vacations twice a year that how I live my life is so environmentally bad.
> Hboy54


 to whom was that gibe aimed?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Or this discussion (as it relates to lower efficiency wood stoves I presume):
https://www.wired.com/2016/04/senate-says-burning-trees-carbon-neutral-oh-really-now/


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Mukhang pera said:


> As for the "benefit" from your neighbour, I suspect you have a neighbour using one of those low-efficiency outdoor boilers.


No, just a wood stove. Never seen an outdoor boiler around here. They may exist. Is that a BC kind of thing? 

By the way, I once did a study on use of hybrid poplars as a biomass fuel for power generation. In that study, the farmed wood would have been pyrolyzed to produce liquid & gaseous fuels that could be used in existing boilers designed for oil. Turned out not to be economical largely due to cost of transporting the wood to the pyrolysis plant. 

When we had our wood stove, the wood was "free", but only because we did not account for our truck and saw costs. It was fun though to do a bit of lumberjacking  Makes you feel like a Canadian eh?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Or this discussion (as it relates to lower efficiency wood stoves I presume):
> https://www.wired.com/2016/04/senate-says-burning-trees-carbon-neutral-oh-really-now/


Article rambles a bit! What I take from it is:
- burning wood may be sort of carbon neutral, but only if you harvest the tree near the end of it's useful life as a carbon sequesterer  
- don't disturb the soil and undergrowth while doing the harvesting. 
- not everyone buys the carbon neutral claims.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

agent99 said:


> No, just a wood stove. Never seen an outdoor boiler around here. They may exist. Is that a BC kind of thing?
> 
> By the way, I once did a study on use of hybrid poplars as a biomass fuel for power generation. In that study, the farmed wood would have been pyrolyzed to produce liquid & gaseous fuels that could be used in existing boilers designed for oil. Turned out not to be economical largely due to cost of transporting the wood to the pyrolysis plant.
> 
> When we had our wood stove, the wood was "free", but only because we did not account for our truck and saw costs. It was fun though to do a bit of lumberjacking  Makes you feel like a Canadian eh?


Not a B.C. thing in particular. As near as I can tell, there are a fair number of outdoor boilers in use across Canada and the U.S. Some stats are in the third link, below. The first shows a photo of one.

I am well aware that these boilers have a reputation as smoke belchers and have fuelled a lot of neighbour v. neighbour disputes. One only has to google search terms such as: "outdoor boiler neighbours" to get an idea. The only one I have ever seen in operation was in Haliburton, Ontario. It was being used on a residential property in town and it did appear to be producing a lot of smoke. I suspect part of the problem is people burning wood that has not been properly seasoned. A gasifying furnace is a bit more forgiving that way. It will still reach high combustion temperatures if there is at least some dry wood in the mix. Then, instead of smoke coming from the chimney, one will see a plume of water vapour. But that means that some of the energy in the wood is being used to dry the wood and not to heat the house. It pays (and is more environmentally friendly) to forbear from burning green wood. The wood I am burning now was cut 2 years ago and, after being allowed some time to dry in the wind and sun, was packed into open-sided woodsheds, with lots of space for air to circulate.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I recognize that there will never be complete agreement as to the soundness of wood heat. OMO cited one article contra, and I am sure many more can be found. But I suspect that the natural cycle of forest fires produces as much of a negative impact as a small percentage of the population heating with wood. And, of course, Canada's politicians have long favoured more and more population, meaning more and more people to pollute and consume resources. So, for example, even if we reduce the number of wood burners from, say, 10% of the population to 5%, will still have as many heating that way by the time we double our population again. I am probably alone in wishing for a Canada with a population closer to when I was a kid - about half of what it is now. That should apply to the rest of the world, as well. I am sure that will make me seen as some kind of misanthropist. But I see nothing wrong with preserving a few spots on the planet that are not completely covered with people and all that goes with that. 

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/two-neighbours-are-warring-over-an-outdoor-furnace

http://cohenhighley.com/articles/en...nace-smoke-what-is-unreasonable-interference/

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...le669550/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

agent99 said:


> Article rambles a bit! What I take from it is:
> - burning wood may be sort of carbon neutral, but only if you harvest the tree near the end of it's useful life as a carbon sequesterer
> - don't disturb the soil and undergrowth while doing the harvesting.
> - not everyone buys the carbon neutral claims.


Trees take a long time to grow. But how about other woods that can grow faster, like switchgrass? Whatever happened to those efforts?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Trees take a long time to grow. But how about other woods that can grow faster, like switchgrass? Whatever happened to those efforts?


The hybrid poplar in the study I referred to earlier can be harvested in 5-7 years. It can and is used for biomass based energy.

https://www.treeplantation.com/hybrid-poplar.html


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Scotland has first floating windfarm


----------

