patrick.net

There's a great graphic in today's Idaho Statesman, but sadly they didn't post it on their website.

It plots "average new home size" in three local cities (Boise, Meridian, Kuna) versus time. There was a sharp peak in square footage around 2006. For example, in Boise it went from 2,105 sq. ft. in 2002 to 3,401 sq. ft. in 2006 and now back down to 2,945 sq. ft. in late 2007. I guess as the RE bubble swelled up the builders kept adding square footage in order to increase their profits.

EBG, I'm not sure what's up with that house. Perhaps several "guys" from Texas bought it when moving to their new jobs here, expecting to "flip" it for a profit a year later. What a surprise for them!

I want the house from the old CDROM adventure game Phantasmagoria. I'd have to move to New England, but that won't be a problem after I'm discovered for the genius I am and put in charge of a little $200mm macro fund.

This house looks pretty good:

http://www.sothebysrealty.com/PropertyDetails.aspx?R=4100006145&in_merch=Showcase%20Property

My next house will hopefully be in South La Jolla, or Mission Beach. I want to be on the coast or maybe one or two blocks away at the most. I'd like to get something in a modern style. A big yard is not necessary if the beach is right there. Something nice was about 1 million but now costs 800K. I'll buy a dream house for about 500K. I don't really need much, location is most important to me. I was in Julian today and you can get 5 acres in the country for mid 300s. I say that only because it is noteworthy how drastically the prices in rural areas of San Diego County have fallen.

Hi, nothing relate to this topic, but relate to housing. One guy I know, he just did a scam with a bank, he and his appraisal pump up the price of his house 200k from the current market price (his house worth 800K, the appraisal 1milion), then he did home equity loan (heloc) 150K. After he got the loan, he foreclose his house. The question I have is how stupid is the bank? How could they not verify such thing? And one thing, they guy I know says that the reason for the bubble was part of the bank's fault. They never check any documents, any loan broker can fake a document and work with the approval, even janitors can have 600K of loan to buy the house.

As bank's stock holders, I really want report those scams to those stupid CEOs, make sure they do internal investigation and tighten up their internal process.

I did not comment on the previous thread - but my sincere condolences Patrick on the passing of your father.

oh yes a water powered car is complete nonsense

Agreed, since water is hydrogen ash. Burning hydrogen releases energy and makes water. It takes energy to extract hydrogen back from water be it electrolysis or fuel cell.

But if some new physics was discovered, you now have a cheap way to power your dream home.

TOB,

HeadSet is right. Extracting hydrogen from water requires more energy than you can get by using hydrogen in non-fusion reaction. Physics 101.

"The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car"

So, there is "something" (A) that extracts hydrogen from the water. And then, instead of using the extracted hydrogen, they go after (sic) "electrons that produce electric power"?

And where is the power source for (A)? Does it consume less power to break the H2O bond, than the output of the generator?

Quantum-mechanically speaking, the location of a macroscopic object is merely statical. If we can manipulate probability perhaps we can change location with very little energy.

Does God play dice?

In point of fact, Reuter's is a bunch of idiots.

Likening the water engine to cirumnavigating the glove is silly.

We know, as a fact, that the universe heads to its lowest stable energy state. Hydrogen, as the most reactive element in existance will bond with Oxygen to form water. You lose energy both in seperating the hydrogen as well as losses when allowing it to recombine. I think Hydrogen fuel cell has a max efficiency of somethig like 50% but you have to use a ton of cells and limit the draw.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency

For the record, cold fusion is a myth.

I hardly mean to trash creative thought but every fool out there claims to figure out the cheap energy trick and if someone had, the idea would be worth trillions. It would solve hunger, poverty, social injustice. Cheap energy is truly the Holy Grail of ideas.

It would solve hunger, poverty, social injustice.

It has already been invented. It is called Free Market.

I also have the concept of a new energy source, it is completely powered by hot air.

What about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motionless_Electrical_Generator

Anyway, realistically, I think solar energy is the future.

Currently, any source of energy, with the possible exception of atomic power, directly or indirectly, efficiently or inefficiently, comes from the sun (or the moon).

sun - plants - dinosaurs - oil
moon - tides
sun - climate - wind

A small house is ideal.
1. It forces you to think twice before accumulating stuff which will clutter your life.
2. Property taxes are less on a small house.
3. Smaller house = lower ulities bills.

Add in good neighbors, a short commute, and the right price, and you've got a dream house.

What is small?

If I cannot extend my arms and spin around in the bathroom, it is too small. I am not a fan of overly-large homes, but a bedroom should comfortably accommodate a king-sized bed, nightstands, a dresser, and a daybed.

I do not want more than 2 bedrooms. But I want an office AND a library.

TOB,

>Simply reciting junior high school physics doesn’t make the possibility of >water powered locomotion go away

Yes it does. Junior high school physics need to be completely rewritten in order to accomodate water powered locomotion. It is not a mere innovation we are talking about, it's a complete revision of human knowledge about the world around us. While I am all for that kind of breakthrough it has to be based on something solid (just like Einstein's theory of relativity was based on facts and observations that were not completely covered by classical physics).

As much as I share your desire for cheap and clean energy the second law of thermodynamics is stronger than both of us.

Let's settle on more realistic goals - like orbital power arrays or mega-kite windfarms.

Or Dyson Sphere.

Peter P,

Dyson shell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere) is our ultimate goal! In addition to full energy output of the Sun we'll have a nice bonus -real estate agents will be having hard time arguing that they don't make more land when you have 600 million Earth surfaces to build on :)

Bork,

Yes, energy is there. We just need to harness it.

Similarly, abundance is everywhere. We just need to attract it.

TOB,

Genepax "news" have been debunked several times since they were announced. The only difference between their announcement and thousands other nutcases is that they managed to dupe major news agancy into believing them (it happens sometimes). Either that or Reuters managed to omit the fact that the car has an additional power source (gasoline or electric engine).

Yes, I've posted here before, why?

Freeman Dyson was a bigwig in the Manhatten Project IIRC.

A small house is ideal.

It would be interesting to see what people here consider a "small house". My house in Cambrian Park SJ was only 1,040 square feet and was too small even for a single guy like me. My new home here in Boise is approx. 1,985 square feet which fits me just about right. The master bath has a separate large "Roman orgy" tub and walk-in shower which should satisfy the "Peter principle". :)

RE: Peter principle

Well, with a market like this the growth in home square footage will soon peter out...

TOB,

Google -> "Genepax hoax".

Detailed explanation of why it can't work :

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/06/perpetual_motion_via_fuel_cell.php

I can provide more links, the story is fresh but bloggers are faster nowadays then traditional news outlets.

Question:

What unusual features will your dream home have?

Here is my Zillow rant about the absolutely worst "best" house you've ever seen. And it's only $5.5mm. Click through, you won't believe it. Trust me. (The link is in my first comment on there).

And on topic ...

I like the speedingpullet's house, its "green" side anyway. Solar panels, windmill and my own well were always on top of my list. With enough money and a bit of imagination you can easily build your own "platinum LEED" house, especially in California, where sun energy is abundant.

What is that? LEGO blocks?

If you scroll down, someone later posted a NYT article about that house which gets even more bizarre. Be sure to scroll through all the pics. Unbelievable. Trust me, you've never seen anything like that. It makes the Winchester House look reasonable.

If I am allow to dream (and be bizarre), I want my own 6000x100 landing strip.

I have found a way to cope with high gas price:

Every night, before you sleep, force yourself into believing that gas is now at $10/gallon.

Next morning, when you drive by the station, you will be pleasantly surprised at the dirt cheap gas price: only $4.99/gallon!!

If I am allow to dream (and be bizarre), I want my own 6000×100 landing strip.

6,000 ft? Just what type of plane do you plan to get? 3000x50 is sufficient for a Cessna/Piper/Mooney/Beech, and you need at least 8,000 ft for any type of jet.

I remember from the old days when planes were cheap how some housing communities had a central airstrip, and the home owners had hanger/garages attached to the houses.

and you need at least 8,000 ft for any type of jet.

Not really.

Sedona has a 5129x100 runway. Jets go there all the time (including larger ones like GLF4's and Falcon 2000's). The airport has an elevation close to 5000 ft and the air temperature there is often way over ISA.

At sea level, ISA, even a 737 BBJ needs less than 6000 ft of runway at maximum weight.

Technology really has come a long way.

Gnoss Field in Marin has a tiny 3300x75 runway, and 11 jets are based there.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDVO

Hopefully, the GA industry will have a meaningful comeback.

At the high-end, I heard jets are sold out for the next several years. Micro jets are hot-selling too.

The real interesting question is, how can we profit from excess wealth?

FWIW here is the link to the Genepax site showing their novel fuel cell. If it does indeed work, some folks think a high energy catalyst (which degrades) is necessary.

I'm actually quite bullish on hydrogen injection in conventional ICEs. This can be anything from hydrogen produced from gasoline using a high energy plasma (R&D) to metallic hydroxide(?) fuels that use waste heat from the engine to release hydrogen. Hydrogen injected into a combustion chamber produces a more efficient fuel burn. Currently on the market today, there are retrofit electolysis units which can increase fuel efficiency (~10%) in long haul trucks or older less efficient diesel vehicles (like a late model Mercedes).

TOB
After a few threads of thoughtful and (to my mind) accurate posts, why marginalize yourself with such insanity?
It is okay to dare to dream. All of us want a breakthru. But, umm, this isn't it.

Look, beyond my 'quoting junior high pysics' lies even more physics.

There are a ton of interesting candidates out there for cheap clean energy - my favorite of which would be fusion. If we give up torroidal magnetic containment for super-heated plasmas, and try something more original like inertial pellet feeds that are lazed for a sorta-pulse-fusihion we may get our breakthru in my lifetime.

CERN is likely to prove parts of string theory as we are devising experiments that will prove particles jumping to higher dimmensional spaces - and heck that 'may' be useful in energyproduction.

We are creating better and better thin film coatings as well as doping compunds to get higher and higer Solar Array effecienecies.

And yes, there are gas saving improvements. As there are in other technologies. The real problem with all of these ideas s that they are not cost effective. And thus they are not pursued. As gas raised the bar of what is economical we will dust off old ideas and retest the market with them.

But please, lose the conspiracy thought that the oil sheiks or the secret societies are killing great energy ideas. The only thing killing good ideas is economics. Any maybe bad policy about research in the US.

TOB,

Sorry, but energy does not just "happen". It really is THE most fundamental law of nature (physics) that the energy content of a closed system is constant, and that the energy of a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed, only be transformed into other forms of energy,

This seemingly very simple law has all kinds of consequences, some very obvious and some more deep. One of the obvious ones is that converting 2*H2O into 2*H2 + 1*O2 cannot be accomplished without reducing the energy content of some other part of your system, for example the content of the fuel tank or the fuel of a nuclear reactor.

You could say that the most basic law of physcis is that "you cannot get something for nothing, energy-wise".

The general public is unfortunately woefully unaware of this basic law of nature.

Not to TOB in particular: In the grand scheme of things, all we can do on earth is the following:

1. exploit the internal energy inherent in the mass of the earth (nuclear energy)
2. exploit the internal energy stored/collected from solar energy (fossile fuels)
3. collect solar energy (directly or indirectly, as mentioned earlier, rainfall and wind is indirect solar energy, so is plants, trees, biofuels, what have you.).

That's it. There are no other sources. The sun is a gigantic nuclear reactor itself, and all the energy it expels into space comes from reducing the internal energy of its elements through nuclear reactions. On our side, we view the sun as "renewable energy source" because the sunshine keeps coming and we may as well collect it and use it. Sunshine
is a use-it-or-loose-it energy source. Oil is a use-it-or-preserve-it-for-future-generations energy source.

What we humans need to concentrate on is

1. efficient ways of collecting/transforming existing energy sources
2. reducing the usage of non-renewable energy sources

Energy cannot be invented, Methods of collecting and transforming energy can be invented, but only within the laws of physics.

Duke,

Short term, I think the best solution is

1. no more big cars
2. clean diesel engines
3. diesel-electric hybrids
4. please, no hydrogen cars
5. ease up on the plug-in hybrids, they really are only marginally better

Just get everyone to 50MPG, and we can then contemplate the next step.

By the way, I just saw that Volkswagen has headed down the diesel-electric-hybrid path. Have a look at

http://www.greencar.com/features/vw-tdi-hybrid/