Water Powered Car inventor murdered
War Office
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
Utopia.
george
> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> Utopia.
an illiterate nazi post..
Vandar
> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDERED
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> did it?
People with integrity? Stan Meyer's claims were found in court to be
fraudulent... in 1996.
He died of an aneurysm in 1998.
Clint Hunter
> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> Utopia.
A water-powered car was never invented. You are confused about the
hydrogen in water H20 as a
potential fuel are you not. Problem is it takes more energy (through
electricity) two separate the hydrogen
atoms than the hydrogen produces as fuel. So the whole idea of water
as fuel for motor vehicles is a non-starter.
Same as biofuels like ethanol. It takes more fuel to grow, harvest and
transport the ethanol (or methanol)
than it produces as fuel. So ethanol as a substitute for petroleum is
pie in the sky,
Windmill power is also out of the question. A windmill farm takes up a
huge amount of acreage. So
they cannot be built feasibly in or near populated areas. They are
also very expensive to build and maintain,
they kill birds and they can only produce electricity when the wind is
blowing which limits them to only a
small portion of the planet where they would be practical.
So there is really only one substitute for fossil fuels, and that is
nuclear energy. But nuclear energy will
only be practical if man can harness nuclear fusion.
chatwarrior
"Clint Hunter" <cice...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1185918458....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 4:32 pm, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR
>> MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>
>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>
>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>> Utopia.
>
> A water-powered car was never invented. You are confused about the
> hydrogen in water H20 as a
> potential fuel are you not. Problem is it takes more energy (through
> electricity) two separate the hydrogen
> atoms than the hydrogen produces as fuel. So the whole idea of water
> as fuel for motor vehicles is a non-starter.
>
wrong, over the years there have been nurmerous "working" designs here,
america and a few other countries. Google is your friend.
> Same as biofuels like ethanol. It takes more fuel to grow, harvest and
> transport the ethanol (or methanol)
> than it produces as fuel. So ethanol as a substitute for petroleum is
> pie in the sky,
>
> Windmill power is also out of the question. A windmill farm takes up a
> huge amount of acreage. So
> they cannot be built feasibly in or near populated areas. They are
> also very expensive to build and maintain,
> they kill birds and they can only produce electricity when the wind is
> blowing which limits them to only a
> small portion of the planet where they would be practical.
>
> So there is really only one substitute for fossil fuels, and that is
> nuclear energy. But nuclear energy will
> only be practical if man can harness nuclear fusion.
>
>
chat
Chom Noamsky
news:1185918458....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
From an economic standpoint, your grasp of physics and chemistry seems to be
much better than your grasp of politics.
Michael James
"Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote in message
news:UdPri.56197$Io4.16240@edtnps89...
Windmill power is perfect for producing hydrogen fuel since you are not
trying to transmit
electricity over a long distance with a high woltage AC current. It can
create hydrogen at any voltage
needing no transformation from DC since the electrodes and the collector
tanks are adjacent to the windwmill.
So the hydrogen is produced when and whatever speed the wind blows.
And a field of hydrogen producing windmills is no worse than a filed of oil
derricks.
and when used in cars - hydrogen cells there is NO pollution.
Peter Webb
"chatwarrior" <chatw...@chat.com> wrote in message
news:CEOri.14484$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Clint Hunter" <cice...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:1185918458....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 31, 4:32 pm, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR
>>> MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>>
>>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>>
>>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>>> Utopia.
>>
>> A water-powered car was never invented. You are confused about the
>> hydrogen in water H20 as a
>> potential fuel are you not. Problem is it takes more energy (through
>> electricity) two separate the hydrogen
>> atoms than the hydrogen produces as fuel. So the whole idea of water
>> as fuel for motor vehicles is a non-starter.
>>
>
> wrong, over the years there have been nurmerous "working" designs here,
> america and a few other countries. Google is your friend.
>
Wrong. The first law of thermodynamics is your friend.
trop...@gmail.com
> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> Utopia.
LOL. Sure Jake, we're writing it all down.
Say, how is your chemical weapons research going? What happened to
your private army? How are you going to combat "Jewism" with your SAS
"hand-to-hand sniper" training?
jg
> On Jul 31, 4:32 pm, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>
>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>
>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>> Utopia.
>
> A water-powered car was never invented. You are confused about the
> hydrogen in water H20 as a
> potential fuel are you not. Problem is it takes more energy (through
> electricity) two separate the hydrogen
> atoms than the hydrogen produces as fuel. So the whole idea of water
> as fuel for motor vehicles is a non-starter.
>
Yes it does take more energy... but hydrogen technology is being
developed just the same isn't it?
> Same as biofuels like ethanol. It takes more fuel to grow, harvest and
> transport the ethanol (or methanol)
> than it produces as fuel. So ethanol as a substitute for petroleum is
> pie in the sky,
>
Nevertheless it's being used now and is expanding.
> Windmill power is also out of the question. A windmill farm takes up a
> huge amount of acreage. So
> they cannot be built feasibly in or near populated areas. They are
> also very expensive to build and maintain,
> they kill birds and they can only produce electricity when the wind is
> blowing which limits them to only a
> small portion of the planet where they would be practical.
>
Yeah, that's why there is a world shortage of carbon fibre - it's being
used for windmill blades.
> So there is really only one substitute for fossil fuels, and that is
> nuclear energy. But nuclear energy will
> only be practical if man can harness nuclear fusion.
>
>
Of all the items you reckon can't be done but are being done, you choose
one which really is little more than a pipedream.
Sylvia Else
> Clint Hunter wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 4:32 pm, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR
>>> MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>>
>>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>>
>>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>>> Utopia.
>>
>> A water-powered car was never invented. You are confused about the
>> hydrogen in water H20 as a
>> potential fuel are you not. Problem is it takes more energy (through
>> electricity) two separate the hydrogen
>> atoms than the hydrogen produces as fuel. So the whole idea of water
>> as fuel for motor vehicles is a non-starter.
>>
>
> Yes it does take more energy... but hydrogen technology is being
> developed just the same isn't it?
It's a reasonably convenient way of storing energy, but you have to have
the energy in the first place. In the 'water powered car' that energy
would have to be stored in the car by some other means before being used
to split the water. Hardly a sensible proposition, since the energy
could be used to run the car directly instead.
>
>> Same as biofuels like ethanol. It takes more fuel to grow, harvest and
>> transport the ethanol (or methanol)
>> than it produces as fuel. So ethanol as a substitute for petroleum is
>> pie in the sky,
>>
>
> Nevertheless it's being used now and is expanding.
Ditto.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> Utopia.
Them pesky Yids are just about everywhere that matters, just like in
their grand old collaborations with them Romans, then with Hitler and
now they're sleeping butt-naked right along with our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush). Life for a Yid doesn't hardly get much better, does
it.
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
What a born-again liar...
Are all folks downunder as easily snookered and subsequently as
dumbfounded past the point of no return, as yourself?
- Brad Guth
BradGuth
> "Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote in message
>
> news:UdPri.56197$Io4.16240@edtnps89...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I totally agree with the making of LH2 and just plain old H2.
I've got 40 kw/m2 worth of a clean energy footprint at your disposal,
and it's off-the-shelf wind plus solar combined on one tower. In the
near future, an energy tower footprint of 50 kw/m2 seems entirely
doable.
How about sharing some of that spare/surplus clean energy for making
h2o2
- Brad Guth
trop...@gmail.com
Are the "yids" secretly controlling things in your beloved
civilisation on Venus as well?
Sylvia Else
You can run a car on a mixture of water and sodium or calcium.
There's sodium in salt, so I recommend that people try filling their
tank with a mixture of water and salt. Let me know how you go.
Sylvia.
jg
> jg wrote:
>> Clint Hunter wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 4:32 pm, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR
>>>> MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>>>
>>>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>>>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>>>
>>>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>>>> Utopia.
>>>
>>> A water-powered car was never invented. You are confused about the
>>> hydrogen in water H20 as a
>>> potential fuel are you not. Problem is it takes more energy (through
>>> electricity) two separate the hydrogen
>>> atoms than the hydrogen produces as fuel. So the whole idea of water
>>> as fuel for motor vehicles is a non-starter.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it does take more energy... but hydrogen technology is being
>> developed just the same isn't it?
>
> It's a reasonably convenient way of storing energy, but you have to have
> the energy in the first place. In the 'water powered car' that energy
> would have to be stored in the car by some other means before being used
> to split the water. Hardly a sensible proposition, since the energy
> could be used to run the car directly instead.
>
The hydrogen is electrolytically split using wind, wave, solar or
geothermal power, then used either in a gas tank or hydrogen cell in the
vehicle. Do people think there are buses driving around on hydrogen, but
the problem of obtaining the fuel has not been thought of?
>>
>>> Same as biofuels like ethanol. It takes more fuel to grow, harvest and
>>> transport the ethanol (or methanol)
>>> than it produces as fuel. So ethanol as a substitute for petroleum is
>>> pie in the sky,
>>>
>>
>> Nevertheless it's being used now and is expanding.
>
> Ditto.
>
That doesn't address the statement, nor are the problems the same. There
are vehicles running now on left over cooking oil, there are crops and
land not so suitable for other farming. Hey the price of cooking oil is
not much different from the price of petrol. Again there are people
doing it now, why if it's not practical?
Sylvia Else
I don't know what point you think you're making.
>
>>>
>>>> Same as biofuels like ethanol. It takes more fuel to grow, harvest and
>>>> transport the ethanol (or methanol)
>>>> than it produces as fuel. So ethanol as a substitute for petroleum is
>>>> pie in the sky,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nevertheless it's being used now and is expanding.
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
> That doesn't address the statement, nor are the problems the same. There
> are vehicles running now on left over cooking oil, there are crops and
> land not so suitable for other farming. Hey the price of cooking oil is
> not much different from the price of petrol. Again there are people
> doing it now, why if it's not practical?
Again, I don't know what point you think you're making.
Sylvia.
War Office
> "Clint Hunter" <cicer...@rogers.com> wrote in message
Its actaully alot simpler than that description. You draw an energy
boundry line around the proposed system. What does he claim is the
input? H2O(25C). What does he claim is the output? H2O(100C). Forget
about the energy he claims drives the engine. You can see already that
its impossible. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The claim is
a breach of the laws of thermodynamics. They didn't have to go to
court to prove his claims fraudulent.
War Office
> On Aug 1, 6:32 am, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> > Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> > did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> > Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> > Utopia.
>
> LOL. Sure Jake, we're writing it all down.
>
Actually Tropi just pointing out to you that mainstream press is full
of shit. They overlook the basic laws of thermodynamics. On 9/11 they
overlooked several basic laws of physics.
War Office
Thats your beloved mainstream press overlooking basic laws of
thermodynamics and reporting a hoax as fact just like they did on 9/11
when they overlooked the basic laws of physics.
mimus
Why can't you put egg-beater windmills atop skyscrapers?
ISTR several decades ago that being tried in some places and some of those
places actually generated more electricity than they used, leading to the
'lectric company having to either put them ahead on accounts or even pay
rebates.
--
Hoc est ratio?
< Lucilius
trop...@gmail.com
What the hell would you know about the "laws of physics" Jakey.
Probably less than you know about launching a revolution
Fran
<snip>
> Same as biofuels like ethanol. It takes more fuel to grow, harvest and
> transport the ethanol (or methanol)
> than it produces as fuel.
Urban mythology. The least favourable study -- undertaken by David
Pimental -- showed an EROEI of 1:1.3. Of course, not all of the energy
was fossil energy, which is an important question, and indeed, if you
favour nuclear, much of the electrical energy used for the fertiliser
could be from this source. Equally, it could be derived from any
number of other non-fossil fuel sources.
Pimental's study was however, radically flawed, because:
1. it read back from the fuel yield of ethanol compared with petrol
(roughly 115,000 BTU per US gallon v 85,000 BTU per gallon of ethanol)
to impute the need for 50% more ethanol to cover the gasoline.
Properly configured, an engine operating on ethanol can be far more
thermally efficient than a petrol engine. One can have far higher
compression, and have a more powerful stroke without rsiking engine
knock. Because petrol is a blend, and its octane number varies, the
ignition point must be set far further back than is efficient to
foreclose pre-ignition and serious engine damage. This is compensated
for by using a fuel with a much higher heating value, but which,
inevitably, leaves a lot of unburned carbon monoxide about.
Using a higher octane fuel makes good sense, but of course, higher
octane fuels tend to be much more expensive, but this is not the case
with ethanol. Potentially, one could have a higher compression lower
displacement engine do the same or a better job than its heavier lower
compression higher capacity petrol equivalent. Moroever, ethanol
causes engines to run a little cooler which extends effective engine
life (as does the more efficient stroke).
2. The study assumed monoculture crops raised with conventional
intensive fertilisation. This again was contrived to make for poor
results. If ethanol was derived from mixed planting agriculture (i.e.
combinations of c4 and c3 pathway plants), the need for significant
soil nutrient addition is greatly reduced, especially in the most
energy intensive of the nutrients -- nitrogen. And of course, if waste
biomass is used the demands are even smaller.
3. The study suffered from the coffee cup flaw. It ignored the food or
heating value of the by-products -- the 'distillers grains' which can
either be fed profitably to animals for food or burned in a biomass
plant. This energy output should have been accounted for in the study,
but wasn't. Likewise, the acetone can also be burned, but this too was
treated as discard.
> Windmill power is also out of the question. A windmill farm takes up a
> huge amount of acreage.
Under which one can grow food or graze cattle, or use for passive
recreation.
> So
> they cannot be built feasibly in or near populated areas.
Of course they can. The real question is the quality and the
consistency of the wind resources at the site. Offshore or shoreline
wind is very high quality as the air is denser than at altitude and
the wind patterns fairly predictable. Such locations are often very
close to populated areas.
> They are
> also very expensive to build and maintain,
Not if amortised over 40 years. Decommissioning costs are also small,
and of course, if one wants to upgrade a turbine, the marginal cost is
much smaller than an increase in the capacity of some other facility.
> they kill birds
In very much smaller numbers than are killed by most other energy
sources. Windfarms don't do anything like the kind of damage to
habitats as coal plants. Birds are far more likely to become part of
roadkill than windfarm kill. The largest turbines turn too slowly to
be a serious threat.
> and they can only produce electricity when the wind is
> blowing which limits them to only a
> small portion of the planet where they would be practical.
>
That small portion is nevertheless very considerable. Moreover, given
the cost of introducing transmission systems to remote areas separated
from the major urban centres, and the short lead times, wind can be an
excellent local source. It's far more scaleable than most other
solutions.
> So there is really only one substitute for fossil fuels, and that is
> nuclear energy.
Ah, the silver bullet. How will motor vehicles operate on nuclear
energy? How will petroleum products and polymers be made with nuclear
energy? How much petroleum will be required to dig uranium oxide out
of the ground?
> But nuclear energy will
> only be practical if man can harness nuclear fusion.
So what you're really saying is that there is no substitute for fossil
fuels in the foreseeable future. That's unfortunate because it's very
likely that the output of crude oil will drift down steadily over the
next 20 years or so, and that the cost will increase. During the so
called "oil-shock" in the early-mid 70s, crude oil output fell by a
mere 5%, yet prices tripled. I believe much the same happened in the
US during the 1980s when natural gas output fell by 5% and NG prices
went up by a factor of four.
Really, to oppose measures that reduce the call on fossil fuels,
especially crude oil, is utterly reckless, even putting the
environmental questions entirely to one side.
Fran
BDK
911fal...@gmail.com says...
> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDERED
>
> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> Utopia.
>
>
It's also totally a fraud, Jake, but of course, you buy it like the
moron you are.
Only in the kook "mind" would that car run on water.
BDK
BDK
noe...@scam.com says...
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:32:11 -0700, War Office
> <911fal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDERED
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
> >
> >Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> >did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
> >
> >Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> >Utopia.
>
>
>
>
You forgot gullible scum.
BDK
BDK
webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au says...
Ahh, they don't let details get in the way..
BDK
jg
bio-diesel vehicles would be impractical and silly, they are in use and
being refined now.
Sylvia Else
I am not saying that, and have not said that. I'm saying it would not be
sensible to try to produce the hydrogen *on* the vehicle. Nor would it
make sense to try to produce the bio-diesel *on* the vehicle.
Sylvia.
Tankfixer
j...@nospam.com mumbled
Very very few hydrogen powered vehicles are in the hands of users.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
jg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Automobile_and_bus_makers
* BMW — The BMW Hydrogen 7 is powered by a dual-fuel Internal
Combustion Engine and with an Auxiliary power based on UTC Power fuel
cell technology. The BMW H2R speed record car is also powered by an ICE.
Both models use Liquid Hydrogen as fuel.
* DaimlerChrysler — F-Cell, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle based on
the Mercedes-Benz A-Class.
* Ford Motor – Focus FCV, a hydrogen fuel cell modification of the
Ford Focus, and E-350 buses, which began being leased in late 2006.
* General Motors — multiple models of fuel cell vehicles[26]
including the Hy-wire and the HydroGen3
* Honda – currently experimenting with a variety of alternative
fuels and fuel cells with experimental vehicles based on the Honda EV
Plus, most notable the Honda FCX, powered by a front-mounted 80 kW AC
electric motor, with 20 kW pancake motors providing supplemental power
to the rear wheels. Electrical energy is provided by a 100 kW hydrogen
fuel cell, with regenerative braking energy stored in ultracapacitors.
Production versions of the FCX are expected to arrive in 2009.
* Hyundai — Tucson FCEV, based on UTC Power fuel cell technology
* Mazda - RX-8, with a dual-fuel (hydrogen or gasoline)
rotary-engine [27]
* Nissan — X-TRAIL FCV, based on UTC Power fuel cell technology.
* Morgan Motor Company – LIFEcar, a performance-oriented hydrogen
fuel cell vehicle with the aid of several other British companies
* Toyota – The Toyota Highlander FCHV and FCHV-BUS[28] are
currently under development and in active testing.
* Volkswagen also has hydrogen fuel cell cars in development.
A few bus companies are also conducting hydrogen fuel cell research.
These include:
Mercedes-Benz (DaimlerChrysler) Citaro fuel-cell bus in Aldwych, London,
on 19 October 2005
Mercedes-Benz (DaimlerChrysler) Citaro fuel-cell bus in Aldwych, London,
on 19 October 2005
* DaimlerChrysler, with thirty-six experimental units powered by
Ballard Power Systems fuel cells completing a successful three-year
trial, in eleven cities, in January 2007.[29][30]
* Thor Industries (the largest maker of buses in the U.S.), based
on UTC Power fuel cell technology
* Irisbus, based on UTC Power fuel cell technology
* Fuel Cell Bus Club
Supporting these automobile and bus manufacturers are fuel cell and
hydrogen engine research and manufacturing companies. The largest of
these is UTC Power, a division of United Technologies Corporation,
currently in joint development with Hyundai, Nissan, and BMW, among
other auto companies. Another major supplier is Ballard Power Systems.
The Hydrogen Engine Center is a supplier of hydrogen-fueled engines.
Most, but not all, of these vehicles are currently only available in
demonstration models and cost a large amount of money to make and run.
They are not yet ready for general public use and are unlikely to be as
feasible as plug in biodiesel hybrids.
There are, however, fuel cell powered buses currently active or in
production, such as a fleet of Thor buses with UTC Power fuel cells in
California, operated by SunLine Transit Agency.[31] Perth, Australia is
also participating in the trial with three fuel cell powered buses now
operating between Perth and the port city of Fremantle. The trial is to
be extended to other Australian cities over the next three years.
Mazda leased two dual-fuel RX-8s to commercial customers in Japan in
early 2006, becoming the first manufacturer to put a hydrogen vehicle in
customer hands. Ford began leasing E-350 shuttle buses in late 2006. BMW
also plans to release its first publicly available hydrogen vehicle in
2008, as does Honda.
Fran
I beleive you're wrong to conflate biodiesel and hydrogen vehicles.
Biodiesel doesn't have the infrastructure problems associated with
hydrogen in motor vehicles. It can be used right now in unmodified
diesel vehicles. No new provision needs to be made in order to supply
it to reatil outlets and no modification would be needed to retail
outlets to sell it. It can be blended in any proportion with
petrodiesel without any risk to vehicle operations
Hydrogen fuel cells or direct hydrogen combustion would require
significant vehicle modification. Not only that, the space needed to
store a practicable amount of hydrogen in a vehicle would be much more
significant than that needed for LPG. If you're using fuel cells, the
underlying technology is quite expensive -- requiring, inter alia,
platinum, one of the rarer metals. Even putting aside the cost, there
are questions about supply. Platinum can be recycled of course, but
even so, putting any significant part of the fleet on this would be a
huge materials challenge. Then there's the business of building
dedicated facilities to supply hydrogen to vehicles when relatively
few vehicles will be buying it.
Using windmills to electrolyse water to hydrogen and oxygen might be
viable if the aim was to produce back up output to cover intermittent
output from windfarms, i.e. as a storage medium, using non-platinum
based MCFCs. That would deal (at some cost in efficiency) with the
principal objection to windfarm technology -- its inability to produce
predictable output. If you could get enough steady energy out you
could then recharge hybrid and purely electric vehicles from
renewables.
But putting it directly into cars? Not really anytime soon, which is a
pity.
Fran
jg
I must have missed that subtle point. In fact methods of generating
hydrogen in the vehicle are being researched and developed:
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/sodium_boro_hydride.htm
...which I didn't know about... and obviously you don't.
Perhaps you were talking about the particular car referred to in the
heading, but then bio fuel was not mentioned originally.
I saw original film of the demonstration referred to - he poured water
into a box like a suitcase, said there was an "additive" you could buy
from the hardware which was in the box, and the car ran. Of course there
was some trick which has never become public knowledge - we have all
seen "magic" tricks we can't explain, but it would be wrong to dismiss
the basic concept when something similar might actually be feasible by
other means, if not as cheaply or simply as burning oil.
jg
I was answering the proposition by someone else, that neither was
practical. In fact they are both practical, bio as you say (and it's not
prohibitively expensive). Hydrogen power is in minor use now - Perth has
been trialling a few hydrogen buses which I believe operate much like
other gas combustion vehicles - and there is a huge amount of R&D into
various hydrogen vehicle systems (other post here). You don't do that if
it's not practical.
Sylvia Else
The subtle point being missed is that in that link, the hydrogen is
being produced using a reaction that requires energy to drive it the
other way. Once all the sodium borohydride has been converted to sodium
metaborate, you have to get a refill. The sodium metaborate can then be
converted back into sodium borohydride, but energy is required to do it.
So the sodium borohydride is an energy storage medium, and the hydrogen
is liberated as a way of extracting that energy.
A useful technology, possibly, but nothing special as far as this thread
is concerned.
Sylvia.
jg
So Chrysler have developed and built a vehicle you reckon is "not sensible".
Sylvia Else
And which vehicle would that be?
Sylvia.
Fran
That may well be so. Given that the number of buses is far smaller
than the number of cars, and the business of refuelling buses can take
place at a small number of location and the capital costs of buses can
be spread across a user community many orders of magnitude larger than
is the case with a private motor vehicle, it's not surprising that
hydrogen is a viable option for this.
That's greatly different from suggesting that H will be viable as an
energy carrier anytime soon for private motor vehicle transport on a
world scale.
That people are doing R & D is also not surprising given the fairly
favourable tax treatment of it and the potential gains. Personally, I
have no problem with this, and would be thrilled if a practicable
means to make this work in most cars could be devised. Wishful
thinking isn't a policy though.
Fran
jg
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/sodium_boro_hydride.htm
"...at the EVAA (Electric Vehicle Association of America) Conference in
Sacramento, Chrysler Corporation unveiled the Town & Country Natrium
minivan which was fueled with sodium boro-hydride. The vehicle itself is
appropriately named since Natrium is the Latin word for sodium. (See
cover photo courtesty of DaimlerChrysler.)
In the Chrysler Town & Country Natrium’s fuel cell system, sodium
boro-hydride is processed to extract hydrogen,
which is combined with oxygen in the fuel cell stacksAdobe Photoshop
Image to produce electricity that drives the vehicle’s electric motor..."
jg
> jg wrote:
>>
>> In the Chrysler Town & Country Natrium’s fuel cell system, sodium
>> boro-hydride is processed to extract hydrogen,
>> which is combined with oxygen in the fuel cell stacksAdobe Photoshop
>> Image to produce electricity that drives the vehicle’s electric motor..."
>
>
> The central issue is where do you get the energy required to drive the
> car? The water powered car inventor was claiming that the energy was
> obtained from hydrogen, which was in turn obtained from water. It is
> possible to get hydrogen from water, but as far as we know, the only way
> to do it is to put energy in, so the problem remains - where do you get
> the energy from? The water powered car inventor appears to be claiming
> that the energy is somehow obtained from the water itself. Well, short
> of a breakthrough in fusion physics, we have no way of doing that.
>
> The sodium boro-hydride car is also driven from the energy of hydrogen,
> and the energy is obtained from the sodium boro-hydride, converting it
> in the process into sodium metaborate. No energy input is required to do
> that. However, there's no free lunch, because unlike water, sodium
> hydride is not found just lying around. It has to be made from borax, or
> from sodium metaborate (the waste product from the car). In both cases,
> this involves putting energy in.
>
> So in neither case do we have a car that functions independently of an
> energy source. In the first case, because the car doesn't work as
> claimed (it's certainly a fraud), and in the second case because the
> supplier of the sodium boro-hydride has to use an irreducible minimum
> amount of energy to make it.
>
If this is the same fellow I heard of many years ago, all he claimed was
that he could put water and a "mystery ingredient" in the tank and the
car would run. Even if it was true at face value, it needed more "fuel"
to keep running and it's assumed the energy to split the hydrogen had to
come from the chemical reaction. He never said it didn't. No one has
reproduced the demonstration, but it is at least possible to achieve
virtually the same by other means.
Enkidu
>
> Windmill power is perfect for producing hydrogen fuel since you are
> not trying to transmit electricity over a long distance with a high
> woltage AC current. It can create hydrogen at any voltage needing no
> transformation from DC since the electrodes and the collector tanks
> are adjacent to the windwmill.
>
> So the hydrogen is produced when and whatever speed the wind blows.
>
> And a field of hydrogen producing windmills is no worse than a filed
> of oil derricks.
>
> and when used in cars - hydrogen cells there is NO pollution.
>
The problem with windmills is that they slow down the rotation of the
earth.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?
Enkidu
>
> "chatwarrior" <chatw...@chat.com> wrote in message
> news:CEOri.14484$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Clint Hunter" <cice...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:1185918458....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR
>>>> MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>>>
>>>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>>>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>>>
>>>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>>>> Utopia.
>>>
>>> A water-powered car was never invented. You are confused about the
>>> hydrogen in water H20 as a
>>> potential fuel are you not. Problem is it takes more energy (through
>>> electricity) two separate the hydrogen
>>> atoms than the hydrogen produces as fuel. So the whole idea of water
>>> as fuel for motor vehicles is a non-starter.
>>>
>>
>> here, america and a few other countries. Google is your friend.
>>
>
> Wrong. The first law of thermodynamics is your friend.
>
'working'.
Sylvia Else
As I commented elsewhere, one could certainly run a car on water and
(metallic) sodium, because the two react together to produce hydrogen
and sodium hydroxide. Not recommended though, because it's quite likely
to explode.
Usual problem, though - you don't find metallic sodium lying around, and
extracting it takes energy.
<blink> You can extract sodium from table salt by melting it and passing
an electric current through it. Better put table salt on the restricted
list for chemical sales. Water too. </blink>
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> Not recommended though, because it's quite likely
> to explode.
>
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-2158222101210607510
Sylvia.
jg
Cars
Audi:
* 2004-Audi A2H2-hybrid vehicle
BMW:
* 2002-BMW 750hl
DaimlerChrysler:
* 1994-Mercedes-Benz NECAR 1
* 1996-Mercedes-Benz NECAR 2
* 1997-Mercedes-Benz NECAR 3
* 1999-Mercedes-Benz NECAR 4
* 2000-Mercedes-Benz NECAR 5
* 2000-Jeep Commander II-hybrid vehicle-Commercial
* 2001-Chrysler Natrium-hybrid vehicle
* 2002-Mercedes-Benz F-Cell (A-Class)-hybrid vehicle
* 2003-Jeep Treo-Fuel cell
* 2005-Mercedes-Benz F600 Hygenius
Fiat:
* 2001-Fiat Seicento Elettra H2 Fuel Cell-hybrid vehicle
* 2003-Fiat Seicento Hydrogen-hybrid vehicle
* 2005-Fiat Panda Hydrogen-Fuel cell
Ford:
* 2000-Ford Focus FCV-Fuel cell
General Motors:
* 2001-HydroGen3-Fuel cell
* 2002-GM HyWire-Fuel cell
* 2005-GM Sequel-hybrid vehicle
Honda:
* 2002-Honda FCX-hybrid vehicle
Hyundai:
* 2001-Hyundai Santa Fe FCEV-Fuel cell
* 2004-Hyundai Tucson FCEV-Fuel cell
Hyundai Santa Fe FCEV in the background (on the left) and Toyota
Highlander FCHV in the foreground (on the right) during UC Davis's
Picnic Day activities
Hyundai Santa Fe FCEV in the background (on the left) and Toyota
Highlander FCHV in the foreground (on the right) during UC Davis's
Picnic Day activities
Mazda:
* 1991-Mazda HR-X Hydrogen Wankel Rotary.
* 1993-Mazda HR-X2 Hydrogen Wankel Rotary.
* 1993-Mazda MX-5 Miata Hydrogen Wankel Rotary.
* 1995-Mazda Capella Cargo, first public street test of the
hydrogen Wankel Rotary engine.
* 1997-Mazda Demio FC-EV Methanol-Reducing Fuel Cell
* 2001-Mazda Premacy FC-EV - First public street test of the
Methanol-Reducing Fuel Cell vehicle in Japan
* 2003-Mazda RX-8 Hydrogen \ Gasoline hybrid Wankel Rotary.
* 2006-Mazda 5 Hydrogen \ Gasoline hybrid Wankel Rotary + Electric
Motor hybrid. Tribrid-Vehicle
Morgan:
* 2005-Morgan LIFEcar-hybrid vehicle-concept car
Nissan:
* 2002-Nissan X-Trail FCHV-hybrid vehicle
PSA Peugeot Citroėn:
* Peugeot 207
* Peugot Quark
Toyota:
* 2002-Toyota FCHV-hybrid vehicle
* 2003-Toyota Fine-N-concept car
Volkswagen:
* 2000-VW Bora Hy-motion-Fuel cell
* 2002-VW Bora Hy-power-Fuel cell
* 2004-VW Touran Hy-motion-Fuel cell
[edit] Trucks/buses
Toyota's FCHV-BUS at the Expo 2005
Toyota's FCHV-BUS at the Expo 2005
DaimlerChrysler:
* Mercedes-Benz Sprinter fuel cell van
* Mercedes-Benz Citaro fuel cell bus
Toyota:
* FCHV-BUS
[edit] Vessels
* Ships:
o Leipzig: fuel-cell-powered passenger vessel for 20
passengers (world's first): HYDRA (Christian Machens, 2000)
o Hamburg: fuel-cell-powered passenger vessel for 100
passengers, HDW (2006)
* Submarines: Type 212 submarine (These are equipped with a diesel
engine and fuel cell propulsion)-The silent switch.
Peter Webb
>>
>> Wrong. The first law of thermodynamics is your friend.
>>
> I think he knows that and that is why there are quotes around the word
> 'working'.
>
I don't think so. Look at his post on its own, as a reply to the previous
one.
Perhaps we can ask.
Chatwarrior: Are you flakey enough to believe that cars can run only on
water, with no additional source of energy?
Cardinal Chunder
> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDERED
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> Utopia.
>
It's funny but the "Zionists" surrounded as they are on all sides by oil
rich Islamic states would be absolutely delighted with a water powered
engine.
Not that a water powered car does, did or ever will exist in the form
described.
Cardinal Chunder
> On 31 jul, 21:12, tropi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 6:32 am, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>>> Utopia.
>>
>
> Actually Tropi just pointing out to you that mainstream press is full
> of shit. They overlook the basic laws of thermodynamics.
If Meyer's invention actually worked as described it would be in every
motor vehicle in production today. Since it doesn't work and never did
it isn't. This should be a clue.
> On 9/11 they
> overlooked several basic laws of physics.
Laws such as?
Tankfixer
j...@nospam.com mumbled
> cell technology. The BMW H2R speed record car is also powered by an ICE.
> Both models use Liquid Hydrogen as fuel.
> the Mercedes-Benz A-Class.
> * Ford Motor ? Focus FCV, a hydrogen fuel cell modification of the
> Plus, most notable the Honda FCX, powered by a front-mounted 80 kW AC
> electric motor, with 20 kW pancake motors providing supplemental power
> to the rear wheels. Electrical energy is provided by a 100 kW hydrogen
> fuel cell, with regenerative braking energy stored in ultracapacitors.
> Production versions of the FCX are expected to arrive in 2009.
> * Mazda - RX-8, with a dual-fuel (hydrogen or gasoline)
> rotary-engine [27]
> * Morgan Motor Company ? LIFEcar, a performance-oriented hydrogen
Thank you from proving my point.
Total those vehicles up and you get perhaps 100..
And the majority are research vehicles not suitable for public use.
Or are you saying I can walk in to a HOnda dealership and buy one,
today.
And then fuel it somewhere out in Wyoming or Idaho a week from now.
chatwarrior
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:46b07d43$0$7087$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
is only 1 reason why water fueled cars will never be a option. And no its
not oil industries although they would have good reason to bury this kinda
thing.
chat
Peter Webb
>
> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:46b07d43$0$7087$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The first law of thermodynamics is your friend.
>>>>
>>> I think he knows that and that is why there are quotes around the word
>>> 'working'.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think so. Look at his post on its own, as a reply to the previous
>> one.
>>
>> Perhaps we can ask.
>>
>> Chatwarrior: Are you flakey enough to believe that cars can run only on
>> water, with no additional source of energy?
>>
>>
> No, but there is viable energies available and have been for a while.
> There is only 1 reason why water fueled cars will never be a option.
Why?
Midex
> On Aug 1, 2:21 pm, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 31 jul, 21:12, tropi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > > WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> > > > Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> > > > did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> > > > Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> > > > Utopia.
>
>
> > Actually Tropi just pointing out to you that mainstream press is full
> > overlooked several basic laws of physics.
>
> Probably less than you know about launching a revolution
Well having a BSc from Melbourne University - as you have been told
dozens of times - and yet you continue to fruitloop informed
discussions here on Usenet and try to drive eveyrone's content down to
the gutter of ignorance and foolery, I would probably know quite a bit
about the laws of Physics.
And given what I just said about the laws of thermodynamics and
drawing energy balance boundary curves around an energy system to
determine its plausibility - showing you applied knowledge as taught
in my degrees, well, only a moron like yourself would make such a
counter productive blurt of nonsense.
Midex
> In article <hh7va3db9fv4pukldt110tvf0l7omqn...@4ax.com>,
> noem...@scam.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:32:11 -0700, War Office
> > <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDERED
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> > >Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> > >did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> > >Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> > >Utopia.
>
>
> You forgot gullible scum.
>
> BDK
Why are you insulting your beloved mainstream press? Are you saying
they are scientifically retarded? Then this is the same mainstream
press that brings you 9/11 Officiale - you know the one where sky-
scapers free-fall implode in the exact same speed they would if that
had been rigged with controlled demolition cutter-charges and yet the
mainstream media promotes to us the idea that this was caused THREE
TIMES by localised fires?
You're an idiot beyond anything I have ever known.
Midex
> Michael James wrote:
>
> > Windmill power is perfect for producing hydrogen fuel since you are
> > not trying to transmit electricity over a long distance with a high
> > woltage AC current. It can create hydrogen at any voltage needing no
> > transformation from DC since the electrodes and the collector tanks
> > are adjacent to the windwmill.
>
> > So the hydrogen is produced when and whatever speed the wind blows.
>
> > And a field of hydrogen producing windmills is no worse than a filed
> > of oil derricks.
>
> > and when used in cars - hydrogen cells there is NO pollution.
>
> The problem with windmills is that they slow down the rotation of the
> earth.
You're being ridiculous of course. Mountains and trees slow down the
rotation of the earth too I suppose.
Midex
wrote:
No you miss the point sickhead. They are not interested in oil . They
are interested in global domination.
Midex
wrote:
Ah, law of inertia. The three towers came down at the same speed they
would if they had been rigged with controlled demolition explosives.
And yet we are expected to believe in a progressive collapse theory
sem-interia.
You're an idiot man. Have you gone and looked at the footage of the
three towers again? Go to www.ae911truth.org and look at a few docos
there. Just do the research you ignorant fuckwit. And go have a look
at the latest laws in the west removing all of our civil liberties and
giving police powers to do whatever they want - including criminal
activities.
Dont'beleive me? Australia:
-------------
The Sydney Morning Herald today published a headline story by Tom
Allard: "New Secret Search Powers".
This is one the most shocking headline stories we have seen in this
country. The substance is that the Federal Government intends to rush
through a series of changes to police search and seizure powers which
effectively undermine not just our civil liberties, but the rule of
law and even our national sovereignty.
Does this sound like hyperbole? Read the article before making up your
mind. I have hilighted a few key points:
Police and security officers will be able to assume false
identities to gain entry and conduct the surreptitious searches.
But the person affected by the raid does not have to be informed
for at least six months, and can remain in the dark for 18 months if
the warrant is rolled over.
The warrant is to be issued by the head of a police service or
security agency without the approval of a judicial officer. It can
also be extended for more than 18 months with the sanction of the
minister.
The bill also deals with "controlled operations" - undercover
operations where federal agents are permitted to undertake criminal
activity in order to further their investigations.
Federal authorities will have far greater scope to undertake such
operations and will no longer need approval from the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal.
The bill provides for immunity not only to the undercover police
or security officer involved but also civilian informants.
For the first time it also allows foreign police and intelligence
agencies to take part in undercover operations and to use false
identities.
Repeat this out loud: "Foreign agents are to be allowed into the
country to conduct criminal activity for which they are immune from
prosecution." Say it three times. Now shout it. Now go outside and
shout it. Don't stop! Tell everyone!
We must stop this, however it is not enough to merely prevent this one
bill being passed. Changing the government won't fix things either. We
have to topple the Regime behind the false left/right paradigm.
I believe that only the 9/11 Truth Movement has the ability to do
this. The 9/11 Truth Movement can bring them down. We can do it with
evidence and we can do it with facts, which will prove to the average
person that 9/11 was an inside job, and that, by implication, the "war
on terror" is a fraud.
----------------
Cardinal Chunder
In your imagination perhaps. Reality disagrees. It's also noteworthy how
you sidestepped addressing why these evil joos would kill someone whose
invention (if it worked as claimed) would be a massive benefit to the
state of Israel.
Cardinal Chunder
> On 1 ago, 10:53, Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com>
> wrote:
>> War Office wrote:
>>> On 31 jul, 21:12, tropi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Aug 1, 6:32 am, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>>>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>>>>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>>>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>>>>> Utopia.
>>>> LOL. Sure Jake, we're writing it all down.
>>> Actually Tropi just pointing out to you that mainstream press is full
>>> of shit. They overlook the basic laws of thermodynamics.
>> If Meyer's invention actually worked as described it would be in every
>> motor vehicle in production today. Since it doesn't work and never did
>> it isn't. This should be a clue.
>>
>>> On 9/11 they
>>> overlooked several basic laws of physics.
>> Laws such as?
>
> Ah, law of inertia. The three towers came down at the same speed they
> would if they had been rigged with controlled demolition explosives.
> And yet we are expected to believe in a progressive collapse theory
> sem-interia.
No, the towers came down at a speed entirely consistent with structural
failure and gravity. As indeed they did.
> You're an idiot man. Have you gone and looked at the footage of the
> three towers again? Go to www.ae911truth.org and look at a few docos
> there. Just do the research you ignorant fuckwit. And go have a look
> at the latest laws in the west removing all of our civil liberties and
> giving police powers to do whatever they want - including criminal
> activities.
I have spent more time than is healthy looking at kook videos. The main
conclusions I can draw is that kooks think that quote mining, selective
editing, incredulity and scary music make all evidence go away and
physics bend to their will. It doesn't.
BDK
jbmc...@gmail.com says...
> On 1 ago, 01:46, BDK <B...@shillsrus.com> wrote:
> > In article <hh7va3db9fv4pukldt110tvf0l7omqn...@4ax.com>,
> > noem...@scam.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:32:11 -0700, War Office
> > > <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDERED
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
> >
> > > >Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> > > >did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
> >
> > > >Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> > > >Utopia.
> >
> > > To be replaced by illiterate scum like you?
> >
> > You forgot gullible scum.
> >
> > BDK
>
> Why are you insulting your beloved mainstream press? Are you saying
> they are scientifically retarded?
Midol, the gullible scum I was posting about is you. Jew hating,
kookspewing piece of crap that doesn't have a clue, and is full of
himself all at the same time..You're amazing.
> Then this is the same mainstream
> press that brings you 9/11 Officiale - you know the one where sky-
> scapers free-fall implode in the exact same speed they would if that
> had been rigged with controlled demolition cutter-charges and yet the
> mainstream media promotes to us the idea that this was caused THREE
> TIMES by localised fires?
Again with same old kookspew nonsense. The fact that you claim to have
some degree makes it even funnier. How someone who supposedly had such
an education can swallow some of the stuff you do is just comedy gold.
>
> You're an idiot beyond anything I have ever known.
Until you stop with the McBragg stuff, nobody but a few kooks will ever
take you seriously. Did you think I take you seriously? Or that I ever
did?
If so, you're more deranged than I thought.
Keep the kookspew flying. And the laughs coming.
BDK
jg
> In article <7cVri.14657$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> j...@nospam.com mumbled
happen, it's well on its way to being reality. Are you saying because
you can't buy it, it's not practical?
Michael James
"Enkidu" <enkid...@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:46b06b02$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
Well it's rotating far too fast anyway, especially at the equator.
chatwarrior
>
> "chatwarrior" <chatw...@chat.com> wrote in message
> news:vA1si.14859$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:46b07d43$0$7087$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. The first law of thermodynamics is your friend.
>>>>>
>>>> I think he knows that and that is why there are quotes around the word
>>>> 'working'.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think so. Look at his post on its own, as a reply to the
>>> previous one.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can ask.
>>>
>>> Chatwarrior: Are you flakey enough to believe that cars can run only on
>>> water, with no additional source of energy?
>>>
>>>
>> No, but there is viable energies available and have been for a while.
>> There is only 1 reason why water fueled cars will never be a option.
>
> Why?
>
If water fueled cars ever become a viable option the current monetary system
would not handle it. Imagine if car markers brought out water powered cars
tommorrow. If oil industries all of a sudden go down so does everyone else.
Which is why car makers or governments in their right mind would never
develop one. While the other side of the coin is the sheer amount of
resourses and money to develop such a thing would be huge (its not gonna be
a guy in the backyard). I sorta liken it to the way computers use to be,
they filled the room but these days you have something better that fits in
your hand.
chat
Tankfixer
j...@nospam.com mumbled
Yes, until a practical product the public can afford is produced it is
all just research.
Remember the turbine powered car's of the 1960's ?
Wonderful research effort, lousy product they couldn't build at a price
people could afford. Not to mention operational dificulties with the
exhaust.
DARPA has built a prototype HMVVEE using fuel cells.
It was moderately successful.
They then commissioned a fuel cell powered M113 APC.
It also functioned but not to a level that justified building them for
issue.
Last I heard they were working on a M2 Bradley Fighting vehicle powered
by fuel cells.
I don't doubt they will eventually be able to provide the power and
endurance required. But they are nothing more than research vehicles.
Remember all the talk of how all the airlines would be using supersonic
airliners ?
Again, wonderful aircraft but again not economically justifiable.
If they can't produce vehicle of comparable performance and range as
those currently available that the common man can buy then the idea is a
failure.
$100,000 cars are not.
Peter Webb
> If water fueled cars ever become a viable option the current monetary
> system would not handle it. Imagine if car markers brought out water
> powered cars tommorrow. If oil industries all of a sudden go down so does
> everyone else. Which is why car makers or governments in their right mind
> would never develop one. While the other side of the coin is the sheer
> amount of resourses and money to develop such a thing would be huge (its
> not gonna be a guy in the backyard). I sorta liken it to the way computers
> use to be, they filled the room but these days you have something better
> that fits in your hand.
>
Endiku: I rest my case.
Fran
<snip>
> If they can't produce vehicle of comparable performance and range as
> those currently available that the common man can buy then the idea is a
> failure.
>
> $100,000 cars are not.
What you say is fair comment. As I see it, the chicken and egg problem
applies. There can be no adequate market for hydrogen-powered cars
until hydrogen refuelling is widely available. And very few retailers
will bear the expense of installing the equipment and buying the
hydrogen unless there is an adequate number of buyers of the product.
One possible way to break this problem would be for the governmets of
a number of European countries to come together and agree to purchase
between them, a full viable production run -- let's say it's 1 million
vehicles at whatever the cost proce for that order would work out as.
They then use these vehicles to repalce their oldest and least
efficient comparable vehicles in public service (which they'd auction
off as an offset). In exchange for this helping hand, the manufacturer
agrees to ensure that for evey 1000 vehicles purchased one refuelling
station will be built in the relevant jurisidiction, and that these
will be placed where the relevant government nominates.
Manufacturuers are in the business of making profits so fairly
obviously, if they can recover the bulk of their capital investment
and R & D in the first sale, then all extra vehicles go on the market
at the marginal cost, plus whatever profit they need.
That would surely spur more people to come into the fuel supply
business, and bridge the gap.
Fran
jg
> In article <Yx6si.14884$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
.........
>>>
>> I am saying that while people are saying it's impractical and will never
>> happen, it's well on its way to being reality. Are you saying because
>> you can't buy it, it's not practical?
>
> Yes, until a practical product the public can afford is produced it is
> all just research.
>
I was responding to the assertion that it wasn't even possible.
War Office
wrote:
I didn't side step anything. You must go read the Protocols of Zion.
Havn't read them have you? Hence why you ask stupid questions.
War Office
wrote:
Is that why NIST refused to offer any explanation for the phenomena
past the point of t=0 which is when the collapse initiation first
begins?
You realise that in their 10000 page report they only discuss the
conditions which led to the very first structural failure?
Here, John Gross, the Senior investigator for NIST states this clearly
himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p_o7d8rDCQ
>
> > You're an idiot man. Have you gone and looked at the footage of the
> > three towers again? Go towww.ae911truth.organd look at a few docos
> > there. Just do the research you ignorant fuckwit. And go have a look
> > at the latest laws in the west removing all of our civil liberties and
> > giving police powers to do whatever they want - including criminal
> > activities.
>
> I have spent more time than is healthy looking at kook videos. The main
> conclusions I can draw is that kooks think that quote mining, selective
> editing, incredulity and scary music make all evidence go away and
> physics bend to their will. It doesn't.
Which documentaries have you seen?
Have you seen "9/11: Press For Truth"?
Thats a "kook" video is it?
Paul Thompson, Harvard academic is a kook is he? His compilation of
7000 mainstream articles surrounding 9/11 relevance is a "kook"
compilation is it?
And while we're at it, what degrees in science and engineering do you
have? Are you actually qualified to comment?
Here is 137 engineers and architects who have concluded controlled
demolition:
www.ae911truth.org
War Office
> In article <1185985480.260613.46...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> jbmccr...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On 1 ago, 01:46, BDK <B...@shillsrus.com> wrote:
> > > In article <hh7va3db9fv4pukldt110tvf0l7omqn...@4ax.com>,
> > > noem...@scam.com says...
>
> > > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:32:11 -0700, War Office
> > > > <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR MURDERED
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>
> > > > >Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
> > > > >did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>
> > > > >Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
> > > > >Utopia.
>
> > > > To be replaced by illiterate scum like you?
>
> > > You forgot gullible scum.
>
> > > BDK
>
> > Why are you insulting your beloved mainstream press? Are you saying
> > they are scientifically retarded?
>
> Midol, the gullible scum I was posting about is you. Jew hating,
> kookspewing piece of crap that doesn't have a clue, and is full of
> himself all at the same time..You're amazing.
Oh so you are defending the mainstream press? You know the one ownded
by corporate oligarchs such as JEW MURDOCH and how he owns 40% of the
world's broadcast television?
I don't hate jews BDK. Whats your real name coward? How come you won't
tell anyone who you really are?
War Office
> In article <1185985480.260613.46...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> jbmccr...@gmail.com says...
laughing at people is what empty vesseled morons do too. Are you proud
to affiliate with them?
>
> BDK
Cardinal Chunder
You mean those long acknowledged forgeries that only nitwits believe?
Cardinal Chunder
What phenomena are you bleating about?
> You realise that in their 10000 page report they only discuss the
> conditions which led to the very first structural failure?
> Here, John Gross, the Senior investigator for NIST states this clearly
> himself:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p_o7d8rDCQ
I wonder why that might be. Do you suggest they should investigate
causes for which they have no evidence of ever happening? Perhaps we
should get them to investigate rust monsters if they ever want to waste
their time with unsupported assertions.
>>> You're an idiot man. Have you gone and looked at the footage of the
>>> three towers again? Go towww.ae911truth.organd look at a few docos
>>> there. Just do the research you ignorant fuckwit. And go have a look
>>> at the latest laws in the west removing all of our civil liberties and
>>> giving police powers to do whatever they want - including criminal
>>> activities.
>> I have spent more time than is healthy looking at kook videos. The main
>> conclusions I can draw is that kooks think that quote mining, selective
>> editing, incredulity and scary music make all evidence go away and
>> physics bend to their will. It doesn't.
>
> Which documentaries have you seen?
> Have you seen "9/11: Press For Truth"?
I have now.
> Thats a "kook" video is it?
That video doesn't particularly assert a conspiracy except that the US
government may have covered up its own intelligence and response
ineptness. It certainly doesn't lend any weight whatsoever to the
multitude of nefarious and ill-defined conspiracies as imagined by kooks.
> Paul Thompson, Harvard academic is a kook is he? His compilation of
> 7000 mainstream articles surrounding 9/11 relevance is a "kook"
> compilation is it?
He compiles a timeline of articles, and that proves a conspiracy how?
And according to Wikipedia he is a Stanford alumnus (i.e. a graduate).
> And while we're at it, what degrees in science and engineering do you
> have? Are you actually qualified to comment?
> Here is 137 engineers and architects who have concluded controlled
> demolition:
> www.ae911truth.org
Creationists love to compile lists of experts too. It doesn't make their
whacky, evidence-list assertions any more credible except to True Believers.
BDK
c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com says...
That's exactly what he means. And he is, a nitwit.
A million dollar nitwit.
BDK
BDK
911fal...@gmail.com says...
I'm very proud to be someone who laughs at you. If I didn't think you
were funny as hell, I would just let you rant away, and do all the
McBragging you want.
What the hell fun would that be?
BDK
BDK
911fal...@gmail.com says...
Yawwwn. You make a valid point for once, but lit your jew hating scumbag
inner bigot come out and spoil the whole thing.
>
>
> I don't hate jews BDK.
Right, like I don't hate Tomatoes.
> Whats your real name coward?
What difference would it make?
> How come you won't
> tell anyone who you really are?
LOL, because I'm neither insane or stupid. Unlike you, who have proven
to be both.
BDK
Vandar
That's what they are required to do, skippy. There's a big difference
between determining what led to the collapse and explaining what
happened DURING the collapse.
>>>You're an idiot man. Have you gone and looked at the footage of the
>>>three towers again? Go towww.ae911truth.organd look at a few docos
>>>there. Just do the research you ignorant fuckwit. And go have a look
>>>at the latest laws in the west removing all of our civil liberties and
>>>giving police powers to do whatever they want - including criminal
>>>activities.
>>
>>I have spent more time than is healthy looking at kook videos. The main
>>conclusions I can draw is that kooks think that quote mining, selective
>>editing, incredulity and scary music make all evidence go away and
>>physics bend to their will. It doesn't.
>
>
> Which documentaries have you seen?
> Have you seen "9/11: Press For Truth"?
> Thats a "kook" video is it?
No. It's more of a docu-drama. It has errors though.
> Paul Thompson, Harvard academic is a kook is he?
Where he went to school doesn't mean shit.
Bush graduated from Harvard.
> His compilation of
> 7000 mainstream articles surrounding 9/11 relevance is a "kook"
> compilation is it?
>
> And while we're at it, what degrees in science and engineering do you
> have? Are you actually qualified to comment?
> Here is 137 engineers and architects who have concluded controlled
> demolition:
> www.ae911truth.org
Bullshit. You've said yourself that there aren't that many at that site,
and anyone who looks at their so-called membership list can see that
there aren't that many.
The Right One
"Chom Noamsky" <b...@t.me> wrote in message
news:UdPri.56197$Io4.16240@edtnps89...
> "Clint Hunter" <cice...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:1185918458....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 31, 4:32 pm, War Office <911falsef...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> WATER POWERED CAR INVENTOR
>>> MURDEREDhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkVqCW6B4k
>>>
>>> Thats not originally YouTube. Its mainstream press. Story killed. Who
>>> did it? The ZIONIST SCUM.
>>>
>>> Once people wake up and get read of ZIONIST SCUM we could be living in
>>> Utopia.
>>
>> hydrogen in water H20 as a
>> potential fuel are you not. Problem is it takes more energy (through
>> electricity) two separate the hydrogen
>> atoms than the hydrogen produces as fuel. So the whole idea of water
>> as fuel for motor vehicles is a non-starter.
>>
>> Same as biofuels like ethanol. It takes more fuel to grow, harvest and
>> transport the ethanol (or methanol)
>> than it produces as fuel. So ethanol as a substitute for petroleum is
>> pie in the sky,
>>
>> Windmill power is also out of the question. A windmill farm takes up a
>> huge amount of acreage. So
>> they cannot be built feasibly in or near populated areas. They are
>> also very expensive to build and maintain,
>> they kill birds and they can only produce electricity when the wind is
>> blowing which limits them to only a
>> small portion of the planet where they would be practical.
>>
>> So there is really only one substitute for fossil fuels, and that is
>> nuclear energy. But nuclear energy will
>> only be practical if man can harness nuclear fusion.
>
> From an economic standpoint, your grasp of physics and chemistry seems to
> be much better than your grasp of politics.
>
Oh my Goodness!!!!!!!!!
What has economics got to do with science and politics?
Ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahhhahaahahaa
--
Terry Pearson
Pro- Israel and proud of it
http://www.rightpoint.org
Shaping Canada's Destiny
==========================
Cherranna Joe supports liberal crime.
He says his words stand the test of time.
-------------------------------------
"I can walk upright"
~Peter White
--------------------------------------------------
Dumbski's obsession
http://wildhorsedories.com/ctv.wmv
=========================
Liberalism = Entitlement Culture= Corruption
Tankfixer
j...@nospam.com mumbled
I don't believe it is well on its way to becoming reality.
Until you have a way of producing hydorgen that is acceptable to the
enviromentalist hydrogen power cars or fuel cells will never be marketed
to the public.
Sylvia Else
> In article <Smdsi.15070$4A1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> j...@nospam.com mumbled
>> Tankfixer wrote:
>>> In article <Yx6si.14884$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> .........
>>>> I am saying that while people are saying it's impractical and will never
>>>> happen, it's well on its way to being reality. Are you saying because
>>>> you can't buy it, it's not practical?
>>> Yes, until a practical product the public can afford is produced it is
>>> all just research.
>>>
>> .....
>> I was responding to the assertion that it wasn't even possible.
>
> I don't believe it is well on its way to becoming reality.
> Until you have a way of producing hydorgen that is acceptable to the
> enviromentalist hydrogen power cars or fuel cells will never be marketed
> to the public.
>
>
The environmentalists won't be happy no matter what you do, so there's
little point in concerning yourself with them.
Sylvia.
Tankfixer
syl...@not.at.this.address mumbled
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <Smdsi.15070$4A1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > j...@nospam.com mumbled
> >> Tankfixer wrote:
> >>> In article <Yx6si.14884$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> >> .........
> >>>> I am saying that while people are saying it's impractical and will never
> >>>> happen, it's well on its way to being reality. Are you saying because
> >>>> you can't buy it, it's not practical?
> >>> Yes, until a practical product the public can afford is produced it is
> >>> all just research.
> >>>
> >> .....
> >> I was responding to the assertion that it wasn't even possible.
> >
> > I don't believe it is well on its way to becoming reality.
> > Until you have a way of producing hydorgen that is acceptable to the
> > enviromentalist hydrogen power cars or fuel cells will never be marketed
> > to the public.
> >
> >
>
> The environmentalists won't be happy no matter what you do, so there's
> little point in concerning yourself with them.
>
The unfortunate fact is that the politicians do pay attention to them.
And that is where funding will come from to do the job.
Tankfixer
jbmc...@gmail.com mumbled
> On 1 ago, 08:17, Enkidu <enkidu....@com.cliffp.com> wrote:
> > Michael James wrote:
> >
> > > Windmill power is perfect for producing hydrogen fuel since you are
> > > not trying to transmit electricity over a long distance with a high
> > > woltage AC current. It can create hydrogen at any voltage needing no
> > > transformation from DC since the electrodes and the collector tanks
> > > are adjacent to the windwmill.
> >
> > > So the hydrogen is produced when and whatever speed the wind blows.
> >
> > > And a field of hydrogen producing windmills is no worse than a filed
> > > of oil derricks.
> >
> > > and when used in cars - hydrogen cells there is NO pollution.
> >
> > The problem with windmills is that they slow down the rotation of the
> > earth.
>
> rotation of the earth too I suppose.
What else accounts for the slowing in the rotation ?
jg
> In article <Smdsi.15070$4A1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> j...@nospam.com mumbled
>> Tankfixer wrote:
>>> In article <Yx6si.14884$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> .........
>>>> I am saying that while people are saying it's impractical and will never
>>>> happen, it's well on its way to being reality. Are you saying because
>>>> you can't buy it, it's not practical?
>>> Yes, until a practical product the public can afford is produced it is
>>> all just research.
>>>
>> .....
>> I was responding to the assertion that it wasn't even possible.
>
> I don't believe it is well on its way to becoming reality.
> Until you have a way of producing hydorgen that is acceptable to the
> enviromentalist hydrogen power cars or fuel cells will never be marketed
> to the public.
>
>
You have pronounced it impractical while a lot of people are putting a
large effort into developing it. They could have saved themselves a lot
of trouble by just asking around here. You think "environmentalists" are
in direct opposition to everything you want? You think there aren't
clean ways of producing hydrogen? You think the exercise is pointless
anyway because you can buy petrol?
Fran
> Tankfixer wrote:
> > In article <Smdsi.15070$4A1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > j...@nospam.com mumbled
> >> Tankfixer wrote:
> >>> In article <Yx6si.14884$4A1.13...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> >> .........
> >>>> I am saying that while people are saying it's impractical and will never
> >>>> happen, it's well on its way to being reality. Are you saying because
> >>>> you can't buy it, it's not practical?
> >>> Yes, until a practical product the public can afford is produced it is
> >>> all just research.
>
> >> .....
> >> I was responding to the assertion that it wasn't even possible.
>
> > I don't believe it is well on its way to becoming reality.
> > Until you have a way of producing hydorgen that is acceptable to the
> > enviromentalist hydrogen power cars or fuel cells will never be marketed
> > to the public.
>
> The environmentalists won't be happy no matter what you do, so there's
> little point in concerning yourself with them.
I believe your generalisation is either much too sweeping or moot. One
might say the same thing about any process in which a longstanding
social problem approaches resolution.
Very few things will ever receive universal acceptance. People speak
of 'motherhood' statements, but even motherhood is not universally
accepted as desirable in all circumstances.
I'd count myself an environmentalist, and I welcomed the move to bring
in wider use of CFLs, even though this was only a small step and
introduced by people I'm politically hostile to on almost everything.
I'd be surprised if most environmentalists would dispute this, though
perhaps some might.
Protecting old-growth forests and marine biodiversity would be almost
universally accepted by environmentalists, and while that's certainly
not a blank cheque for what is popularly known as 'greenwash' there
will always be debates about whether more could be done. Those who
think environmental programs have been insuffiently ubiquitous or
robust will be disappointed, but one ought to consider each program on
its merits.
The broader political question is whether anyone should ever be happy
(where "happy" means "this far and no more") this side of the ideal
being arrived at. I believe not. One must always aim to approach the
optimum, taking satisfaction in genuine progress, but remaining
determined to press for further improvement.
Fran
Sylvia Else
CFLs contain mercury, whereas incandescents do not. A good many CFLs
will end up in land fill.
Be that as it may, I think my comment stands up in the context in which
it was made. Anything that's actually capable of providing energy on the
scale required to operate cars in significant numbers is going to have
environmental impacts that will have at least some environmentalists
hopping.
Sylvia.
jg
CFLs also have a power factor of 2, plus a number of other faults which
make their exclusive use ill-advised - perhaps that's what you mean by
never happy. Is "The environmentalists won't be happy no matter what you
do" in this or any context, meant to mean there is no point in even
considering things which might have some environmental benefit?
Sylvia Else
No, it simply means that there's no point in seeking to placate the
environmentalists because you'll never succeed.
Sylvia.
Fran
Your objection neatly illustrates the point I was making. During the
course of its typical life a CFL powered by a coal-fired power station
will cause the release of a small fraction of the mercury than would
the produiction and use of the incandescent bulbs required to deliver
the same number of lumens. This more than compensates for the 4 mg of
Hg or so in a CFL, especially given that the mercury in coal fired
plants is released at large.
Am I "happy" with this? Well yes. Am I satisfied with this? No. The
federal government should set up a disposal regime that can capture
the majority of these when spent and recycle the components. Moreover,
further R & D should take place so as to reduce the mercury content or
come up with an improved lighting device. I've heard some talk of
"solid state lighting" which may turn out to be even better.
> Be that as it may, I think my comment stands up in the context in which
> it was made. Anything that's actually capable of providing energy on the
> scale required to operate cars in significant numbers is going to have
> environmental impacts that will have at least some environmentalists
> hopping.
Yes, but having at least some environmentalists unhappy, is not the
same as having "environmentalists unhappy" unless one means no more
than that more than one such person will be unhappy. If the vats
majority recognise a measure as defencible, then I'd say that meant
that "environmentalists were happy".
I believe most of us know and accept that every proposal has at least
some drawbacks. We humans simply aren't able to go about our business
without disturbing the environment to some extent.
Fran
jg
> jg wrote:
..........
>>>
>>
>> CFLs also have a power factor of 2, plus a number of other faults
>> which make their exclusive use ill-advised - perhaps that's what you
>> mean by never happy. Is "The environmentalists won't be happy no
>> matter what you do" in this or any context, meant to mean there is no
>> point in even considering things which might have some environmental
>> benefit?
>
> No, it simply means that there's no point in seeking to placate the
> environmentalists because you'll never succeed.
>
Who else is going to save you from living in an industrial wasteland? I
guess you mean the tree hugging hippie stereotype, done to death, but
what is anyone who does anything for the environment but an
environmentalist? How often I have heard "normal" people say "call me a
greenie but..." - you know the ones who take lead out of petrol so you
don't have brain damage, stop using DDT on the food you eat, stop using
asbestos, save the local park from becoming a block of flats... What is
the opposite of "environmentalist" - a depletist? Is that something you
think is more desirable to be?
Tankfixer
How long did man research flight before he sucedded ?
They will find ways of making hydrogen fuel cells that work suffeciently
well.
But what will they cost both in economic and enviromental terms ?
You will find that enviromentalist will oppose most anything rational.
Why not list the clean ways of producing hydrogen ?
I don't consider the exercise as pointless. They will undoubtedly find
new ways to do things they weren't even looking for.
Trevor Wilson
> "Enkidu" <enkid...@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
> news:46b06b02$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Michael James wrote:
>>> Windmill power is perfect for producing hydrogen fuel since you are
>>> not trying to transmit electricity over a long distance with a high
>>> woltage AC current. It can create hydrogen at any voltage needing no
>>> transformation from DC since the electrodes and the collector tanks
>>> are adjacent to the windwmill.
>>>
>>> So the hydrogen is produced when and whatever speed the wind blows.
>>>
>>> And a field of hydrogen producing windmills is no worse than a filed
>>> of oil derricks.
>>>
>>> and when used in cars - hydrogen cells there is NO pollution.
>>>
>> The problem with windmills is that they slow down the rotation of the
>> earth.
>>
>>
>> Cliff
>>
>> --
>>
>> Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
>> 'hilarious', it usually isn't?
>
>
>
> Well it's rotating far too fast anyway, especially at the equator.
**The Earth is stationary. The rest of the universe is rotataing around it.
Trevor Wilson
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
jg
A long long time before making it work. Hydrogen works now, the effort
is towards replacing oil with it and building (not inventing) ways of
producing it.
> They will find ways of making hydrogen fuel cells that work suffeciently
> well.
> But what will they cost both in economic and enviromental terms ?
>
That all depends on how it's produced. Apart from the price, what do you
care if you aren't an environmentalist? How much will the alternative
cost you?
> You will find that enviromentalist will oppose most anything rational.
>
Who exactly are these environmentalists? Those working on hydrogen
power? Myself who looks forward to it replacing my petrol engine? You,
asking about environmental cost?
> Why not list the clean ways of producing hydrogen ?
>
> I don't consider the exercise as pointless. They will undoubtedly find
> new ways to do things they weren't even looking for.
>
It's not a matter of finding new ways - solar, wind and geothermal power
can produce hydrogen. None of this is new, it's already part of
mainstream power production in many countries and growing fast.
Sylvia Else
Wind power is not as scalable as people would like to believe.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/sharman-winddenmark.pdf
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/White-DenmarkTooGood.pdf
Although wind power could be used to drive the production of hydrogen by
electrolysis. However, the cost is high, and made higher by the
variability of wind power which results in times of under usage of the
wind generator (max electrolysis capacity), or of the electrolysis plant
(max wind capacity).
Sylvia.
jg
The cost is not yet established, and compared to what - oil, coal,
others which will and are becoming increasingly unviable at any price?
Any profits would be far more local than say, importing oil. Since
hydrogen is not yet established as mainstream, economies in such areas
as wind production during off peak electricity demand, are not yet
proved or unproved. Probably nothing will be a single complete energy
solution, but this is one which has promise - why dismiss it out of hand
when people who know more than you or me obviously think it has a lot of
potential?
Sylvia Else
Why do you assume that those who think it has a lot of potential
necessarily know more about it than I do? There a people around who
*want* it to work because having it do so fits an agenda.
A lot of nonsense gets spouted on these subjects by people who clearly
have very limited understanding of the engineering issues.
It is not correct to say that the cost is not yet established. We
already know the costs of wind power, and we know that it is expensive.
The future possible economies of scale are limited. Wind power is going
to stay expensive.
My best bet for a near term replacement for oil in fuelling motor
vehicles is biodiesel derived from algae.
Sylvia.
jg
out how viable it is. Unless it's some giant conspiracy, the message is
that it's on its way. I know it works (and so do you), the only question
is how well?
> A lot of nonsense gets spouted on these subjects by people who clearly
> have very limited understanding of the engineering issues.
>
We both know the engineering principle is sound. 35 years in engineering
tells me that. Beyond that I have not spouted anything except to point
you to websites which all indicate that it's not pie in the sky.
> It is not correct to say that the cost is not yet established. We
> already know the costs of wind power, and we know that it is expensive.
> The future possible economies of scale are limited. Wind power is going
> to stay expensive.
>
> My best bet for a near term replacement for oil in fuelling motor
> vehicles is biodiesel derived from algae.
>
Biodiesel will become more viable because of its changing cost and the
change in the cost of oil, so how can you say the cost of anything is
"established"?
Sylvia Else
> Because they are doing the leg-work. They are best positioned to find
> out how viable it is. Unless it's some giant conspiracy, the message is
> that it's on its way. I know it works (and so do you), the only question
> is how well?
>
>> A lot of nonsense gets spouted on these subjects by people who clearly
>> have very limited understanding of the engineering issues.
>>
> We both know the engineering principle is sound. 35 years in engineering
> tells me that. Beyond that I have not spouted anything except to point
> you to websites which all indicate that it's not pie in the sky.
Technically of course it's feasible. The issue, as with so many such
ideas, is the cost. The cost is frequently ignored by those with an
agenda - they point only to the technical aspects.
Yet cost matters. People will not buy a fuel that they cannot afford, or
which is more expensive than something else that provides equivalent
functionality.
>
>> It is not correct to say that the cost is not yet established. We
>> already know the costs of wind power, and we know that it is
>> expensive. The future possible economies of scale are limited. Wind
>> power is going to stay expensive.
>>
>> My best bet for a near term replacement for oil in fuelling motor
>> vehicles is biodiesel derived from algae.
>>
>
> Biodiesel will become more viable because of its changing cost and the
> change in the cost of oil, so how can you say the cost of anything is
> "established"?
Once a technology is reasonably mature, one can say that its costs are
established. As far as wind power goes, it is mature. While the cost of
electrolysis is not established, we know that it cannot be done for less
than the cost of the power used to run it, and if that power comes from
wind, then it is already too costly.
Sylvia.
liam o'shea
Can't really see why the cost of wind power is so high.
It is, after all, just a propeller and a turbine on a big stick -
neither of which is that expensive to build.
And it is NOT rocket science - just old, proven technology.
It does not even use its own unique grid (so no expense here), it just
adds power to the established grid.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_how.html
The hole thing sounds a bit of a rip off - when it should be simple
and much cheaper than present systems.