Guess what, I was right!
Andrew Usher
I wrote that 6 years ago, and look at this http://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/
and other stuff you can find searching for "ammonia fuel". They've
even found out how to make ammonia electrolytically, just as I
speculated - all it takes is something that can chemically adsorb N2.
Andrew Usher
galathaea
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_thread/thre...
>
> I wrote that 6 years ago, and look at thishttp://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/
> and other stuff you can find searching for "ammonia fuel". They've
> even found out how to make ammonia electrolytically, just as I
> speculated - all it takes is something that can chemically adsorb N2.
" Current worldwide annual production of ammonia is
~130 million tons, primarily from natural gas and coal "
this is the same as the hydrogen fuel cell fake
in the immediate frame
it's a _storage_ chemical
it's not the source of free energy
it wouldn't solve the energy crisis of hydrocarbons
use of free energy in our environment may involve other chemistries
but they need to be naturally occurring and mined
if they are to contribute as a source
and not just a storage technology
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Mensanator
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_thread/thre...
>
According to that article, you were 60 years late.
> and other stuff you can find searching for "ammonia fuel". They've
> even found out how to make ammonia electrolytically, just as I
> speculated
Predicting the past is a doddle.
jptu...@neuf.fr
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_thread/thre...
>
> and other stuff you can find searching for "ammonia fuel". They've
> even found out how to make ammonia electrolytically, just as I
> speculated - all it takes is something that can chemically adsorb N2.
>
> Andrew Usher
Congratulations Andrew and thank you for the links,
Fuel cells are used now in Norway to recover excess energy from wind
turbines required by the grid.
That excess wind energy is transforming water by electrolysis into
hydrogen, this hydrogen stored in huge tanks.
In lull wind, the Hydrogen stocked is available to generate
electricity to the grid again, through fuel cells then.
Here in France we had a free lance inventor running his car on
Hydrogen,without any pollution as a result. Of course the
Establishment ignored the fact.
You are right indeed, some alternative have to found to the use of Oil
& Coal, which however contrarily to the prevalent views of the
Fraudulent Geology of now, are NOT fossil fuels
( as well the huge carbonate sedimentation of Ca & Mg are not either
the results of fossils decomposition, , as those clueless Retards of
Oxford have forcefully imposed on a groveling & toadyish sci000tific
community since near two centuries .... so much for that lunatic
Column of Ages then ! )
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
True Geology Foundation document :
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
Jacko
NH3 + Fat = Glycerine + NFatLigand
It may have something to do with physical properties of such "fuel"
cheers
Andrew Usher
Putting aside what conditions your reaction would need, your
"NFatLigand" is a fatty acid amide. These compounds melt above
100 C and are not to my knowledge useful as fuels.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> On Jan 19, 11:37 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_thread/thre...
>
> > I wrote that 6 years ago, and look at thishttp://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/
>
> According to that article, you were 60 years late.
True, but I did come up with it myself.
> > and other stuff you can find searching for "ammonia fuel". They've
> > even found out how to make ammonia electrolytically, just as I
> > speculated
>
> Predicting the past is a doddle.
I didn't predict the past! I said that when there was no public
research on the idea.
Andrew Usher
Mensanator
> On Jan 20, 12:01 am, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 11:37 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_thread/thre...
>
> > > I wrote that 6 years ago, and look at thishttp://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/
>
> > According to that article, you were 60 years late.
>
> True, but I did come up with it myself.
We'll just have to take your word for it, eh?
>
> > > and other stuff you can find searching for "ammonia fuel". They've
> > > even found out how to make ammonia electrolytically, just as I
> > > speculated
>
> > Predicting the past is a doddle.
>
> I didn't predict the past! I said that when there was no public
> research on the idea.
And we'll have to take your word for that also.
What's your word worth?
Nothing, based your past postings.
>
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> On Jan 21, 7:52 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 12:01 am, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 11:37 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_thread/thre...
>
>
> > > According to that article, you were 60 years late.
>
> > True, but I did come up with it myself.
>
> We'll just have to take your word for it, eh?
I have no reason to lie here.
> > I didn't predict the past! I said that when there was no public
> > research on the idea.
>
> And we'll have to take your word for that also.
I posted a link to the old thread.
> What's your word worth?
>
> Nothing, based your past postings.
What? When have my posts ever showed dishonesty?
Andrew Usher
Mensanator
> On Jan 21, 7:59�pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 21, 7:52�pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 20, 12:01 am, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 19, 11:37 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/browse_thread/thre...
>
> > > > > I wrote that 6 years ago, and look at this:http://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/
>
> > > > According to that article, you were 60 years late.
>
> > > True, but I did come up with it myself.
>
> > We'll just have to take your word for it, eh?
>
> I have no reason to lie here.
So you say.
>
> > > I didn't predict the past! I said that when there was no public
> > > research on the idea.
>
> > And we'll have to take your word for that also.
>
> I posted a link to the old thread.
I'm not disputing the age of the post.
But this is not proof you got this idea
independently.
>
> > What's your word worth?
>
> > Nothing, based your past postings.
>
> What? When have my posts ever showed dishonesty?
Oh gee, I don't really read most of your stuff.
Wait, maybe a Google search . . .
insubject:cunt author:andrew author:usher
From: Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.men,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
Subject: Go fucking kill yourself, you fucking stupid cunt
Yeah, I guess that's the one I was thinking of. Still think
your word has any value?
>
> Andrew Usher
ernes...@gmail.com
Do they save the oxygen too or is that lost in making hydrogen?
Andrew Usher
> > > > True, but I did come up with it myself.
>
> > > We'll just have to take your word for it, eh?
>
> > I have no reason to lie here.
>
> So you say.
??? You haven't presented any reason why I might lie about that.
> > > > I didn't predict the past! I said that when there was no public
> > > > research on the idea.
>
> > > And we'll have to take your word for that also.
>
> > I posted a link to the old thread.
>
> I'm not disputing the age of the post.
> But this is not proof you got this idea independently.
Yeah. According to your theory, I would have had to plan this
6 years in advance, just so I could get in a pointless debate
with you on usenet. Yeah.
Anyway, I'm certainly capable of it. On this newsgroup, I proved
that the limiting critical density of a homologous series is zero
( http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/browse_thread/thread/713ff77dcdaef696?q=%22critical+density%22
),
which (it seems from the literature) scientists didn't accept until
recently, making me smarter than them; I also modified the
conventional theory of the run-away greenhouse
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_thread/thread/658ea24a2d9815a1?q=run-away+greenhouse
, proving that Prof. Kasting was wrong, and giving a testable
prediction
that Venus had oceans until about 1 Byr ago.
> > What? When have my posts ever showed dishonesty?
>
> Oh gee, I don't really read most of your stuff.
>
> Wait, maybe a Google search . . .
>
> insubject:cunt author:andrew author:usher
>
> From: Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: soc.men,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
> Subject: Go fucking kill yourself, you fucking stupid cunt
>
> Yeah, I guess that's the one I was thinking of. Still think
> your word has any value?
How is that dishonesty? It's an accurate reflection ('accurate' being
another word for 'honest') on what I was thinking about that woman's
trolling me.
Andrew Usher
Mensanator
> On Jan 21, 11:41�pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > True, but I did come up with it myself.
>
> > > > We'll just have to take your word for it, eh?
>
> > > I have no reason to lie here.
>
> > So you say.
>
> ??? You haven't presented any reason why I might lie about that.
>
> > > > > I didn't predict the past! I said that when there was no public
> > > > > research on the idea.
>
> > > > And we'll have to take your word for that also.
>
> > > I posted a link to the old thread.
>
> > I'm not disputing the age of the post.
> > But this is not proof you got this idea independently.
>
> Yeah. According to your theory, I would have had to plan this
> 6 years in advance,
Huh? How does that follow? The fact that you have a post
from six years ago only proves that you made a post six
years ago. It does not prove that, six years ago, you
thought about this subject indepedantly.
> just so I could get in a pointless debate
> with you on usenet. Yeah.
>
> Anyway, I'm certainly capable of it. On this newsgroup, I proved
<nothing anyone gives a rat's ass about>
>
> > > What? When have my posts ever showed dishonesty?
>
> > Oh gee, I don't really read most of your stuff.
>
> > Wait, maybe a Google search . . .
>
> > insubject:cunt author:andrew author:usher
>
> > From: Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>
> > Newsgroups: soc.men,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
> > Subject: Go fucking kill yourself, you fucking stupid cunt
>
> > Yeah, I guess that's the one I was thinking of. Still think
> > your word has any value?
>
> How is that dishonesty?
If you look up "word of honor" in a dictionary, there
won't be any mention of honesty.
While you're at it, look up the definition of "sociopath".
> It's an accurate reflection ('accurate' being
> another word for 'honest') on what I was thinking about that woman's
> trolling me.
QED
>
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > I'm not disputing the age of the post.
> > > But this is not proof you got this idea independently.
>
> > Yeah. According to your theory, I would have had to plan this
> > 6 years in advance,
>
> Huh? How does that follow? The fact that you have a post
> from six years ago only proves that you made a post six
> years ago. It does not prove that, six years ago, you
> thought about this subject indepedantly.
If I had falsely claimed to have thought about it independently
then, there could be no reason for that other than to brag
about it later, could there?
> > just so I could get in a pointless debate
> > with you on usenet. Yeah.
>
> > Anyway, I'm certainly capable of it. On this newsgroup, I proved
>
> <nothing anyone gives a rat's ass about>
Nothing you give a rat's ass about. People actually interested in
science might find it interesing.
> > > From: Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com>
> > > Newsgroups: soc.men,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.astro
> > > Subject: Go fucking kill yourself, you fucking stupid cunt
>
> > > Yeah, I guess that's the one I was thinking of. Still think
> > > your word has any value?
>
> > How is that dishonesty?
>
> If you look up "word of honor" in a dictionary, there
> won't be any mention of honesty.
I never used the phrase 'word of honor', and I don't think anyone
would understand it in the sense you're implying.
> While you're at it, look up the definition of "sociopath".
Irrelevant.
> > It's an accurate reflection ('accurate' being
> > another word for 'honest') on what I was thinking about that woman's
> > trolling me.
>
> QED
QED what? QED, you're an idiot!
Andrew Usher
BradGuth
99.9% of Usenet/newsgroups are populated with Zionist Nazis of the
republican Mafia kind, and pretend-Atheists to boot. Mensanator is
one of the 99.9%.
~ BG
Mensanator
Mensanator is not a newsgroup.
>
> ~ BG
Androcles
"Mensanator" <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fbce1f47-d74e-4867...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
============================
A very logical deduction.
Clearly Brad Guth is 100.0% ignorant lying cretin and should be plonked.
BradGuth
You've entirely miss the point. You deserve one another.
~ BG