The Difference Between Destruction and Creation
A simple graphical based explanation of something incredibly important, that conventional science seems to have missed.
In all the time I’ve been involved in energy considerations, all the maths and physics courses, all the Engineering courses, all the work I’ve done in the decades since working with energy in industry, I have yet to see any indication or acknowledgement of the need to mathematically sign energy in and out of the planet and the systems of humanity and nature, in order to audit the effects of using each polarity of energy, and most importantly, to not mix them up.
Because when we mix them up, the resulting confusion is existential.
I can’t say that strongly enough.
The missing sign is explained in this article:
This is something that if not understood, will end us, very soon, it could be this year or next, but not much more, because without this basic understanding it’s impossible to guage even roughly where we are at, in estimating how much there might be left in the “Battery of Earth”, and therefore at which point the flawed system running solely on the extracted energy might fail to keep operating.
The Battery of Earth concept is explained most simply, (Again graphically), in this article:
We obviously need to know that charge level, in order to try to make any kind of sensible estimation of the usable (Survivable) charge that might be remaining in the battery of Earth.
Isn’t it strange we obviously have spent much time and effort researching batteries, but the one in which we live, never gets a single dime of research time or effort?
Below is a typical investigation of how to most effectively guage the charge remaining in an EV type lithium battery:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X23004887
Why have we not seen this done for our planet?
To me it looks like no profit driven industry will pay anyone to do such research, because there appears no way to make profit from it.
Yet its only industry for profit that teaches us skills like my own bread and butter, more commonly known as “Model Based Systems Engineering”, or MBSE for short.
Hence why I’ve had to take it on myself to apply these to the problem of the global energy problem, unfunded, on the behalf of all of us including you, dear reader. Even if you don’t agree with the outcome, I do it for you.
Anyhow, personal whingeing done, here is how to analyse the two cases of positive and negative energy use illustrated:
Negative Energy Use (Destruction / Earth Battery Discharge / Temperature Increase):
Here we see at least 4 temperature increasing factors which heavily outweigh any negative temperature impulse we might see as creation; the creation of binary bits of information at a rate of -0.69 x Boltzman’s constant per bit, for example.
In fact, because we operate in this scenario as a closed system in terms of energy usage (Because we do not currently monetise positive energy usage), the net result has to be net increase of entropy and temperature. There is simply no way we can create enough from energy extraction, to undo the damage done by the energy extraction process. This goes for any form of energy extracted from the planet, it can be hydro, wind, nuclear, even fusion. It still cannot turn around physical destruction to anything creative, it just is not possible by use of extracted energy.
The net effect of our activity on the planet is destruction, and thus continued discharging of the battery, impacting the value of all issued money, and all profit margins, until this can be changed to a form where we are no longer interested in profit.
I explain the only way we can make the transition from destruction to creation, by issue of solar indexed stimulus.
Positive Energy Use (Creation / Earth Battery Charging / Temperature Decrease):
Here we see two temperature reducing impulses and one positive. Converting the energy from the sun in the first place to electricity results in all the energy in the electricity being removed from potentially heating the planet, at least until the electricity is consumed by a production or transportation process.
The maximum effect of increasing entropy can never be more than what can be done by the input energy , if the input energy was not used at all, so whatever is created, is subtracted from the entropy increase that would have happened if we didn’t use the energy.
This is creation.
The net result of our activity in this case is creation.
Conclusion
Use of solar, only solar, is the only survivable option, and this is only possible on a distributed and community basis, and this in turn has to be incentivised and empowered by issue of the solar indexed stimulus outstanding, honestly declared as such, otherwise it is not solar indexed stimulus. It has to be unconditional, delivered to all people, for nothting, the same way as the energy underlying it was delivered for nothing, by the sun.
Generation of hydrogen in all community installations as both a local energy backup, and a saleable commodity which will we will be heavily incentivised to over-produce, enough to fuel all aerospace / aviation, whilst also replacing the thermodynamic heatsink / temperature reducing energy store which was fossil fuels, is easily within our reach, as soon as the stimulus begins to be issued.
If you see this is inevitable, and actually a much better world, please think about donating to it. I am currently seeking funds to replenish those spent so far, that I put in myself from previous work, I now need to replenish in order to see the research through, to assisting to make the needed change, from negative to positive energy.
The fundraising campaign is here:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/global-energy-system---research-funding-refresh
And the E-book summarising all of the concepts of the Energy Polarity Multiplier Framework, the key to changing from mathematically negative to positive energy use is here:
I am not sure why medium does not seem to accept some of the links above but not others, I guess for profit driven reasons, apologies on behalf of the platform for that.
If you want the better world, the only survivable world, why not contribute to it. With a little of the money you have now, you could have a lot more, and actually feel like you helped.
And if you have enough money to put a lot more in, maybe on behalf of all the folk who already have nothing to spare from their every day needs, due to the cost of living crisis already biting due to this same problem, I promise you a star write-up in recognition, with your permission of course.
