Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Zero Point Energy (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Zero Point Energy

Unread postby oiless » Sun 18 Sep 2005, 23:54:24

Well, why don't you guys put any questions/comments you have to Mr. Goldes?
He has a blog here:
http://www.postcarbon.org/node/737

I believe he can be reached here: (username overtone)
overtone

Also, I believe he is looking for investors, you could get in on the ground floor.
User avatar
oiless
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 11 Nov 2005, 08:26:33

</q>
pilferage wrote:Don't worry about large scale energy production. There's no need to reinvent fission (energy positive fusion would be nice though). However, unlike some posters in this thread, I believe ZPE could have a huge impact if we were able to create suitable variable geometry nanocomponents.
http://www.hep.caltech.edu/~phys199/lec ... _6_cas.pdf
But even if possible, this is decades away...


P.s. No really, don't worry about energy, as prices go up we'll start to see electric/gas hybrids, having longer and longer electric range as battery tech progresses until the Hydrogen economy infrastructure is in place.
Check out the difference in energy between a pound of Uranium and a pound of oil...
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ ... ables.html
no biggie, just a factor of five. With nuclear power being the more energetic (and more efficient I believe) application, we should've switched to a fission based energy system years ago. The auto and oil industries had a lot to lose... So, nuclear was put on the back burner, and they made money hand over fist.

P.p.s I wonder if there are any socio-economic theories regarding changing resources bases... it would put this whole situation in a different light.


According to the cited energy values page I could get as much energy from a candy bar as I do a therm of natural gas. Considering the new price diferential all I need to do is figure out how to efficiently burn candy bars and My home energy problems are solved!

Of course that is the problem with straight comparisons, without a method of extracting the availible energy it doesn't matter how much is there. Solar, hydro, wind, fission, fusion.....most don't care where the power comes from so long as it comes when they want it and as much as they want of it. I wonder how much electricity I could get by hiring someone to ride a stationary chain drive generator for an hour while feeding them a candy bar every 20 minutes?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Zero point energy and the disclosure project

Unread postby lakeweb » Fri 11 Nov 2005, 12:04:25

Rickenbacker wrote:For a bit of a laugh, I thought I'd give the UFO stuff another chance, see if it held any similar credibility or was the product of a bunch of inbred hicks. I came across 'the disclosure project' (http://www.disclosureproject.com/) which has testimonies from numerous (over 400) government, corporate, intelligence service and military staff with some extraordinary claims. It reaches a point where you can either dismiss the whole thing as an incredibly elaborate (and risky) hoax for seemingly little benefit to the participants beyond a few book sales, or you have to accept that there may well be somthing to it.


In another forum I wrote:

1.) free energy.

Years ago I heard the stories about 'suppressed technologies' so I set out to learn what I could. Right away I realized I would need a firm grounding in physics. So I read and studied. I found out how science works. First, science doesn't have any laws. It is purposefully designed so that nothing is set in stone. An excellent example of how this works is in the way Einstein revolutionized science. He developed new theories concerning space and time. Testable theories. His theory of gravity replaced Newton's because it more accurately predicated observations. Something important to note is that his ontology of gravity remains just that. Nothing is 'explained' in science. We haven't got a clue about the 'why' of nature. What we do know is that it can be observed and mathematically modeled.

So, there hasn't been a revolution in science in going on one hundred years now. It is not for lack of trying. Millions of undergrads work every year pounding on the observable. If there were some 'new physics' there would be no hiding it. It is just not possible. Every undergrad, grad, and university professor in the whole world would have to be in on this conspiracy to hide a new physics.

ZPE, or the casimir effect, are well understood. The force is conservative, just as is gravity and the electrostatic force. No observation has ever been made to contradict this.
http://itamp.harvard.edu/casimir.html

2.) UFOs

I've seen them, my son has seen more, so has my wife. I know many that have seen them. They are very well documented. But as far as I can tell, we have no more idea what they are then C.G.Jung did. He could not come to a conclusion. 'They are' therefor they are extraterrestrials is a leap. Considering how bizarre and diverse the phenomena, they could as easily be part of human nature. Every time I've tried to run down the testimony of cover-up I've come up with a dead end. No, that doesn't prove anything. On the other hand there seems to be an endless supply of 'Bob Lazar's.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/upd ... -012.shtml

Disinformation is a powerful tool Why should the military admit they have no clue as to the nature of UFOs?

I also wrote concerning Bearden and the discloser project:

Listen. I'm not at you on this. I've done my homework, I've known about Bearden for years. I'm not saying that there is truth to be had, no one can do that. It is just the way it works. The process of finding 'truth' has been beat to death from Hume to Popper. Human observations remain the root of 'our' truth.

Now let's look at what you wrote below. Dr. Bearden has been publishing openly for years. Websites and books. No one has suppressed his publications yet he publishes about the same stuff you later claim has been squashed by the likes of Bell Labs. This doesn't make sense.

You say there are many ways to make the observation of free energy. I've seen Bearden's claims, the observations are trivial. He says he wants this technology to be acknowledged and used. All he would have to do is walk onto any university campus with his Meg underarm and demonstrate the phenomena. If he had something all hell would break loose. There would be no suppression of this new physics.

Electrodynamics has been scrutinized in every lab at every university in the world for 100 years. If there were something new to observe it would have happened.

BTW, I'm going through the press conference. Up until Carl the testimony has been purely on sightings. Without more information we can't say what is being sighted.
But here are four anomalous testimonies:

Carl saw photos and was told they were a base on the far side of the moon thirty years ago. Is what Carl was told the 'truth'?
The alien shooting was a second hand story. What really happened?
Sgt. Clifford Stone, Says he did recoveries of crashed UFOs.
Notice that Sgt. Clifford Stone is the only person that testifies to first hand knowlage of aliens. The only one. Mark McCandish testimony of seeing blueprints and things that look like UFOs in a hanger does not mean he has witnessed real evidence.
It seems there should be physical evidence that would put this thing to bed.
Also:
http://www.disclosureproject.org/access.htm
The list:
· Tesla's Self-Powered Automobile
· The Moray Radian Energy Device
· Gabriel Kron and the Negative Resistor
· Cold Fusion
· Dr. Randell Mills and Blacklight Power

I've been down all these roads. They don't add up, not one of them.

Best, Dan.
User avatar
lakeweb
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Arizona

Re: Zero point energy and the disclosure project

Unread postby threadbear » Fri 11 Nov 2005, 14:58:30

GG3, I understand Bernard Haisch doesn't share your dismissive views about ufos. As a matter of fact I looked up his site and found my husband's book on his list of reading material required to understand how a political cover up could and would work.

"Over the course of time I have learned how it would indeed be possible to maintain decades-long secrecy on this topic and why this might be justified, concepts I myself once dismissed. (See Black Special Access Programs, also Some Thoughts on Keeping It Secret. And for some insight on the origin of this situation see the book UFOs and the National Security State: An Unclassified History. Vol. 1: 1947-1973 by Richard Dolan; also The Missing Times by Terry Hansen which documents the history of ties between the national media and the intelligence community. I am aware that these two books have been criticised for over-reliance on secondary sources. More scholarly work is available, such as that of Jan Aldrich, but I think that Dolan and Hansen present a useful and eye-opening introduction to the situation in general, especially for someone first approaching this topic.)"

http://www.ufoskeptic.org/

If there is some kind of exotic form of energy already available to humanity, we won't be seeing it, as the weapons potential would be a real issue.

The patent process itself, would insure that any kind of zero-point or exotic energy producing technology would automatically qualify as a potential threat to national security, and would be handled as such. This would require inventor to have a security clearance and a likely gag imposed on his discussing his/her invention.

Does this mean that zero-point is real? No. It just illustrates that if there is a very efficient form of cheap energy out there, we're not going to know about it, for a variety of reasons. Oil economics would also play an essential resistant role.

Rickenbacker, Welcome to the wall of laughter. Are you going to try to scale it, or go back to consensus reality with your tail between your legs? :shock:
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Zero point energy and the disclosure project

Unread postby lakeweb » Fri 11 Nov 2005, 15:35:22

threadbear wrote:GG3, I understand Bernard Haisch doesn't share your dismissive views about ufos...


You should reread my post. I, in no way, dismissed it. You seem to be hearing what you want.

threadbear wrote:As a matter of fact I looked up his site and found my husband's book on his list of reading material required to understand how a political cover up could and would work.


http://www.ufoskeptic.org/

And I'll quote.
Bernard Haisch wrote:The above is, of course, short of any kind of proof, but all in all I have now gotten to the point in my exposure to the subject at which I think it somewhat more likely than not that something not merely delusional, but real and important may be going on with regard to the UFO phenomenon. If so, I would like to discover what it is, or what the ensemble of phenomena are if it is a multiplicity of things...


He is in the same boat as Jung was.

Just because the Government can keep secrets doesn’t mean they have secrets about UFOs.

threadbear wrote:If there is some kind of exotic form of energy already available to humanity, we won't be seeing it, as the weapons potential would be a real issue.


Address my post as far as keeping 'new' physics secret. Don't just claim it can be done.

threadbear wrote:The patent process itself, would insure that any kind of zero-point or exotic energy producing technology would automatically qualify as a potential threat to national security, and would be handled as such. This would require inventor to have a security clearance and a likely gag imposed on his discussing his/her invention.


Again with the assumption that new physics could be kept secret.

threadbear wrote:Does this mean that zero-point is real? No. It just illustrates that if there is a very efficient form of cheap energy out there, we're not going to know about it, for a variety of reasons. Oil economics would also play an essential resistant role.


Then we have to assume there is new physics and all the professors at all the universities in the world are complete dunces. Now that is a reach.

threadbear wrote: Rickenbacker, Welcome to the wall of laughter. Are you going to try to scale it, or go back to consensus reality with your tail between your legs? :shock:


Does claiming what I wrote is 'consensus reality' make it so? How about some critical thinking on your part?

Best, Dan.
User avatar
lakeweb
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Arizona

Re: Zero point energy and the disclosure project

Unread postby bobcousins » Fri 11 Nov 2005, 15:36:15

UFOs were just a convenient cover story propagated by the CIA to add a smokescreen for spy planes like the U2, and later, stealth aircraft.

Surely everyone knows that by now.
It's all downhill from here
User avatar
bobcousins
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Left the cult

Re: Zero point energy and the disclosure project

Unread postby threadbear » Fri 11 Nov 2005, 15:43:13

Lakeweb, My post was addressed to GG3, not to you. I read your post and was very interested in it. I'm having some troubles responding directly to posts using the quote feature. So though my post followed your's, I wasn't responding. PM me and tell me more about your experiences, I'd love to hear about them.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Zero point energy and the disclosure project

Unread postby lakeweb » Fri 11 Nov 2005, 16:41:02

threadbear wrote:Lakeweb, My post was addressed to GG3, not to you. I read your post and was very interested in it. I'm having some troubles responding directly to posts using the quote feature. So though my post followed your's, I wasn't responding...


Nope, my bad. I'm sorry. I should have seen 'GG3' and responded accordingly. I'll also go to my settings and see if I can read the threads differently.

But the thing is, there will be believers on both sides of an issue. As long as an issue is stripped to the observables, you have a chance at objectivity. For instance, bobcousins post. It is a blanket declaration of reality based on belief rather than the observables. So far no one has taken the UFO phenomena to the next step and come up with a testable theory for 'what'. So science is left in the lurch on this. All that can be said is that they are observed and they don't fit into known physics.

threadbear wrote: PM me and tell me more about your experiences, I'd love to hear about them.


Well, for one, when my son was young we were leaving a friend's house and saw a large ball of fire lumbering through the sky. An impossible sight.

Best, Dan.
User avatar
lakeweb
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Arizona

Re: Zero point energy and the disclosure project

Unread postby threadbear » Fri 11 Nov 2005, 17:00:54

Lakeweb, I know people from strict "don't believe" and "do believe" camps and find them both amusing. The truth about ufos is wrapped in a shroud of madness located behind the wall of laughter. If the shroud can be carefully removed, it will only reveal multiple layers of mystery and more confusion. Whether the intelligence behind the craft are predominately spiritual, products of a collective unconscious that can act autonomously and that we barely understand , or nuts and bolts 3D, like you and I, may never be known. And that may be the intent, on their part. Like a zen koan, it makes us think, and that could be the purpose--to make us think. An evolutionary carrot.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Zero Point energy

Unread postby Matrim » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 02:29:18

Just wondering what everyone thinks would happen if we actually achieved a limitless supply of energy? I know what I think would happen but I'd like to know what you think would happen. I'll post what I think the consequences of such a thing would be if anyone actually replies to this, but first, your thoughts.
smoke 2 joints in the mornin'/smoke 2 joints at night
smoke 2 joints in the afternoon it makes me feel alright
I smoke 2 joints in time of peace and 2 in time of war
I smoke 2 joints before I smoke 2 joints and then I smoke 2 more - sublime
User avatar
Matrim
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby americandream » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 03:02:23

Well...lets see.....if you could add compliant slave machines to that equation...we'ld all become Bill Gates/Hugh Hefners and well, have a great time induging your senses.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby _sluimers_ » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 07:57:48

we? who's we? you and me?

Well in that case, it's the same thing I do every night, Matrim...

TRY AND TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
User avatar
_sluimers_
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed 07 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby ClubOfRomeII » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 10:19:50

Matrim wrote:Just wondering what everyone thinks would happen if we actually achieved a limitless supply of energy?


Its already here. We just use it for creating melanoma in teenagers rather than for what its supposed to be doing.
User avatar
ClubOfRomeII
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby rwwff » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 12:13:14

Gideon wrote:In less than 200 years the planet becomes uninhabitable.


Not likely, but it will be much different, thats for sure. Even 22C does not make the world unihabitable; it does mean that a large number of current cities boundaries will be underwater; but 200 years is more than enough time for structures and businesses to move. The real question is whether or not there will be the available energy to move them; or whether companies will just disappear.

edit: spelling
Last edited by rwwff on Sun 24 Sep 2006, 13:08:44, edited 1 time in total.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby simontay78 » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 12:23:43

The technology of zero-point energy or over-unity energy devices is in constant RND but however because such devices are not easily patented and funded as it had almost eliminate the profiting part of the equation.

An investor can only earn ONCE per sale and thereafter collapse the oil cartel, government linked energy companies, and the other industries that depended heavily on energy that can be measured and charged accordingly.

Currently Solar is such renewable energy but it's relatively expensive compared to conventional energy (Priced on that value on purposed?)

The video clips on electromagnetic, electrostatic, zero-point, anti-gravity and many more free energy devices is already exist but most are under-funded and lack of mass support of the big companies.

It will take huge shortages of oil, gas and other energy before such devices are revealed to the world as the alternatives....but it might be too late.
simontay78
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon 01 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: SG

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby ClubOfRomeII » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 13:29:02

simontay78 wrote:
Currently Solar is such renewable energy but it's relatively expensive compared to conventional energy (Priced on that value on purposed?)



Solar is more expensive because humans are lazy and greedy and if there is more money to be made drilling for oil and digging for coal, then people will do that first and line their pockets.

In the end, I figure all energy available on this planet comes from two major sources, the sun and radioactive decay. While using stored solar in the form of fossil fuels is amusing and cheap and polluting, that doesn't mean that quads of energy is just raining down in the form of melanoma and us stupid humans ignore it because we are short sited and foolish. Peak oil or climate change will eventually change this of course.
User avatar
ClubOfRomeII
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 13:40:48

Matrim wrote:Just wondering what everyone thinks would happen if we actually achieved a limitless supply of energy? I know what I think would happen but I'd like to know what you think would happen. I'll post what I think the consequences of such a thing would be if anyone actually replies to this, but first, your thoughts.


Now, this should get a response: To me, given our current cultural mindset, the worse thing that could happen would be to find some inexhaustible new source of energy. We would doom the human race to extinction by making the planet uninhabitable through our wanton consumption. Now if we developed fusion and also reverted back to the population of the mid-1800's, did away with the "throw-away" society, recycled and downsized everything, instituted de-centralization, embraced environmental constraints, and generally practiced a conservation ethic, then that would be a good start--even in an entropy world where it all ends anyway.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Heineken » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 13:51:00

Such a discovery would greatly accelerate the rate of destruction of Earth's biosphere. Within 25 years it would be wall-to-wall Wal-Mart. Plus floating Wal-Marts covering the oceans.

However, Earth now moribund, with unlimited energy we'd have the means to launch interstellar motherships and thus spread the contagion spaceward.

Ultimately we'd destroy every planet in the unverse, habitable or not.

The universe would become a giant pulsing humanoid mass.

People would become God.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Matrim » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 18:17:34

Sluimers,

:lol: Thats freakin rad!

hehehehe I thought that was great........

Anyway,

I tend to agree with Monte, in that we'd destroy ourselves, and fast. But I also have the feeling that we'd at least make an attempt at Hienekens idea as well. God forbid that should happen.

I asked the question because most people I know, especially those who don't believe me about the oil, seem to think Zero Point would be the greatest thing we could have happen "Why then this would just keep going!"

Yeah that'd be great!! :evil:

I find the idea horrifying, we'd just keep going on conquering and ruling the earth like it was what we were actually meant for, only nothing would be able to stop us. We'd destroy EVERYTHING and we'd all get to go on living meaningless overly decadent (or impoverished) lives. There'd be no plants no animals no nothing once we were done, and the assylums would be at max capacity. And with limitless energy we'd probably spread it out into the rest of the universe. A few billion years later (knowing us) we'd bring down the whole damn thing. And all the while we'd just keep telling ourselves "it's ok that we destroy everything because it's the way people were meant to live, God made it for us and he doesn't mind if we wreck up the place".

Yeesh, I shudder at the thought.

Peace
smoke 2 joints in the mornin'/smoke 2 joints at night
smoke 2 joints in the afternoon it makes me feel alright
I smoke 2 joints in time of peace and 2 in time of war
I smoke 2 joints before I smoke 2 joints and then I smoke 2 more - sublime
User avatar
Matrim
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu 26 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Zero Point energy

Unread postby Omnitir » Sun 24 Sep 2006, 21:38:12

You should rename this thread something like “Result of unlimited free energy?” – so that people bother to read it instead of dismiss it as most likely would. :)

Heineken wrote:Ultimately we'd destroy every planet in the universe, habitable or not.

The universe would become a giant pulsing humanoid mass.

People would become God.

This is an interesting perspective. Do you think that using our superpowers given to us by unlimited and free energy to transform barren and lifeless planets into thriving Earth-like biospheres is destroying that planet? And do you think an empty lifeless universe is better then one filled with life and intelligence? Why?

MonteQuest wrote:To me, given our current cultural mindset, the worse thing that could happen would be to find some inexhaustible new source of energy.

This does seem to be the logical conclusion to come to regarding the implication of true free energy. However I disagree. This perspective assumes an important point which is false: that our current cultural mindset is unchanging.

Sure, if people were permanently stuck in the 1980’s mindset of ‘greed is good’, then I have no doubt that we would eventually destroy the world given free energy. But how realistic is it that we stay this way forever?

Firstly is the standard of living issue. As we should all know, some of the worst environmental destruction in the world occurs in underdeveloped nations. With unlimited free energy for the entire world, we raise the standard of living for all and with that, we greatly reduce the burden that underdeveloped nations put on the environment. Studies suggest that in this scenario, world populations would begin to level out as they approach equitable standards of living. The notion that we would simply keep on growing and multiplying indefinably is not supported by the studies of such scenarios.

Next to consider is the progress factor. Sure, if we maintain ICE’s and current industrial practices and oil powered aviation etc., then environmental damage will continue. But it’s ridiculous to think that technology will stagnate, especially in an unlimited free energy world. For one thing, all transport would inevitably become electric, which will have massive environmental benefits (especially given that the power for that EV transport is derived from clean sources). But this is the small picture, the big picture is twenty years or so from now, with all that time of technological progress powered by unlimited free energy.

The big picture is that with unlimited free energy, the nature of consumption will radically change. Eventually we reach the level where through technologies such as ‘nano-factories’ or ‘molecular manufacturing’, we can create our material needs and desires locally, and for FREE. How can anyone think that this scenario is even remotely compatible with current cultural mindsets? Economies will radically change as outdated consumption modes disappear. The nature of our lives that we currently presume to be our purpose will be gone: no need or want to purchase anything physical ever again (because you can make it for free with your desktop manufacturing technology), and no need to work (because nothing needs to be produced anymore, and automation takes over any trivial tasks remaining).

No, with unlimited free energy, we will not destroy ourselves, but we will destroy our current mindset, our current way of life. The environment will be saved, but our current way of life will be gone forever, to be replaced by something that most people today can not fathom. We would replace a physical consumption paradigm with an information consumption paradigm (because every single physical object we need is manufactured for free, the only economic aspect of consumption will be purchasing the information to allow us to manufacture items).

And the scary thing is this scenario does not even require unlimited free energy. All it requires is continued progress for another 20 or 30 years. Very few people will be prepared for such a world. But above all else, this scenario benefits the natural environment more then any other.
"Mother Nature is a psychopathic bitch, and she is out to get you. You have to adapt, change or die." - Tihamer Toth-Fejel, nanotech researcher/engineer.
User avatar
Omnitir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Sat 02 Apr 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Down Under

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests