N-pole
Michael Hannon
>
> In the conventional description of magnets the so-called field lines are
> continuous and so what is called a north pole or south pole is quite
> arbitrary. In fact one has to use more definitive language such as north
> seeking pole to avoid some of the confusion. But since the field lines
> are continuous you can't just have one pole.
Er, if take six thin square magnets (let's say 1"x 1"x .125") each with
one square face being the N pole and the other square face being the S
pole with all side edges beveled so that the N pole faces are the larger
and the S pole faces the smaller, and epoxy them into a cube so that all
N pole faces meet each other at their edges, or vice versa,
you have, for all intents and purposes,
a magnetic monopole.
It can also be done electromagnetically.
Check the JL Naudin labs site.
> Most of the confusion is
> removed if you deal with magnetism and do not refer to things such as
> poles.
The rest of the confusion will be removed
if you put your teeth back in that jar,
take your shoes off,
and get back in bed.
OH (M D)
>
> FK
>
> jamppu wrote:
> >
> > I´m building an experimental N-pole generator, thus I need to measure which
> > "side" of the PERMANENT magnet is North-pole and which is South-pole.
> > So, how I do that ???
> > Ideas ???? Websites of the subject ????
> >
> > jani.o...@nokia.com
Gerry Schneider
Michael Hannon wrote:
> Er, if take six thin square magnets (let's say 1"x 1"x .125") each with
> one square face being the N pole and the other square face being the S
> pole with all side edges beveled so that the N pole faces are the larger
> and the S pole faces the smaller, and epoxy them into a cube so that all
> N pole faces meet each other at their edges, or vice versa,
> you have, for all intents and purposes,
> a magnetic monopole.
Astounding! This guy NEVER gets it right! Guess that's why we rate him a full 1000
on the milliHannon scale. All other wackos can only look up to him in awe!
Gerry
Fred Kasner
to resemble the nature of a magnetic field associated with a "permanent"
magnet (e.g., a piece of magnetized iron) and the lines do not end
abruptly anywhere (such as they would in field lines of an electrostatic
field.) The net effect of this is that without bothering to refer to
Maxwell equations and other such descriptions of fields there can't be a
beginning or an end of a magnetic field and so no such thing as a
monopole. The proper mathematical description of such field lines makes
it abundantly clear that those who opt for "permanent" magnet monopoles
are fooling themselves immensely. A brief course in vector analysis and
some of its applications to things such as fields will disabuse you of
this error fairly quickly, OH (mentally diseased).
FK
Michael Hannon
Please stop sending me your insulting emails. You have been asked more
than once in the past to cease, and you keep stating in this NG that you
will, and never do.
In conducting yourself in this fashion again, I'm afraid that you have
proven again that you show every sign of being the liar and fraud that a
number of people who either watch or contribute to this NG see you as.
The following is the contents of an email I just received from Mr.
Kasner,
who has been sending emails, despite the fact that I have asked him not
to several times before, and he has said he wouldn't, but continues to
do so despite my requests.
"Subject:
Re: N-pole
Date:
Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:09:20 +0000
From:
Fred Kasner <fka...@enteract.com>
To:
Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups:
sci.energy.hydrogen
References:
1 , 2 , 3
Idiot. The field lines (lines of flux) invented by Faraday were designed
to resemble the nature of a magnetic field associated with a "permanent"
magnet (e.g., a piece of magnetized iron) and the lines do not end
abruptly anywhere (such as they would in field lines of an electrostatic
field.) The net effect of this is that without bothering to refer to
Maxwell equations and other such descriptions of fields there can't be a
beginning or an end of a magnetic field and so no such thing as a
monopole. The proper mathematical description of such field lines makes
it abundantly clear that those who opt for "permanent" magnet monopoles
are fooling themselves immensely. A brief course in vector analysis and
some of its applications to things such as fields will disabuse you of
this error fairly quickly, OH (mentally diseased).
FK
Mr. Kasner has made himself a nuisance on the internet
with the insulting emails he send to people who have asked him to cease
and desist, which he refuses to do.
OHannon (M D)
Michael Hannon
>
> Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> > Er, if take six thin square magnets (let's say 1"x 1"x .125") each with
> > one square face being the N pole and the other square face being the S
> > pole with all side edges beveled so that the N pole faces are the larger
> > and the S pole faces the smaller, and epoxy them into a cube so that all
> > N pole faces meet each other at their edges, or vice versa,
> > you have, for all intents and purposes,
> > a magnetic monopole.
>
> on the milliHannon scale. All other wackos can only look up to him in awe!
>
> Gerry
Obviously you and the Internet Menace Kasner have never built one of
these things.
If you don't believe that such a structure is for all intents and
purposes a magnetic monopole, built TWO and try to get them to attract
to each other, from ANY angle. Make them out of Neodymium Boron magnets
while you're at it, and then try to get the two to stick together.
The proof is in the pudding, gents -
of course the interiors of these magnetic structures
are intense S poles, but they are contained,
and the entire exterior of the structures,
except for some weak leakage of those interior S poles,
is of one polarity - N.
So for all intents and purpose,
there is a singular polarity (Monopole)
over the entire exterior surface of the structures.
For more information on building electromagnetic monopole structures,
consult the JL Naudin lab site, where there are construction plans and
photos of electrically generated monopoles as well, as well as other
anomolous magnetic constructs.
OH (M D)
OH (M D)
Gerry Schneider
Michael Hannon wrote:
> Obviously you and the Internet Menace Kasner have never built one of
> these things.
> If you don't believe that such a structure is for all intents and
> purposes a magnetic monopole, built TWO and try to get them to attract
> to each other, from ANY angle. Make them out of Neodymium Boron magnets
> while you're at it, and then try to get the two to stick together.
>
It was mildly interesting to try it about 40 years ago when I was a kid who didn't know
the math. Naturally it didn't and doesn't work, and any basic textbook will tell you
why. Try "Classical Electrodynamics" by Jackson. Chapter 5 on magnetostatics should be
instructive. Either that or you can keep ranting about things of which you know nothing.
I have no interest in trying to educate you or even to protect newbies from your
nonsense; Fred, Harry and the others seem to have the energy and patience for that, but
I just find you too pathetic to bother with.
Michael Hannon
>
> Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> > Obviously you and the Internet Menace Kasner have never built one of
> > these things.
> > If you don't believe that such a structure is for all intents and
> > purposes a magnetic monopole, built TWO and try to get them to attract
> > to each other, from ANY angle. Make them out of Neodymium Boron magnets
> > while you're at it, and then try to get the two to stick together.
> >
>
> the math. Naturally it didn't and doesn't work, and any basic textbook will tell you
> why.
Uhuh.
Context is everything, your Highness.
http://www.mundi.com/tech.html#Anchor-monopole
> Try "Classical Electrodynamics" by Jackson. Chapter 5 on magnetostatics should be
> instructive.
Thanks for sharing.
> Either that or you can keep ranting about things of which you know nothing.
Uhuh.
> I have no interest in trying to educate you or even to protect newbies from your
> nonsense; Fred, Harry and the others seem to have the energy and patience for that, but
> I just find you too pathetic to bother with.
Good -
then that leaves the rest of those who don't
to look at the JL Naudin site, such as ;
http://jnaudin.free.fr/
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tripole.htm
Also,:
http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/Mage/Monopol.html
OH (M D)
Fred Kasner
was a newsgroup post that was sent to sci.energy.hydrogen. It was not
sent to you by e-mail as I send not seh posts to anyone via e-mail. You
are so basically dishonest that I doubt that you could tell if you
fabricated it at all. I send you no e-mails as I send nobody these NG
posts via e-mail. You are a superdummy if you think I would waste any
time sending you a copy of a NG post. Once is enough to be soiled by
your presence for any post.
FK
Fred Kasner
only says there is a S pole both in the interior and even outside of his
device. Case closed he's a total idiot.
FK
Walter Curnow
Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Gerry Schneider wrote:
> > Michael Hannon wrote:
> > > Obviously you and the Internet Menace Kasner have never built one
> > > of these things.
(Mikey is referring to a cube made of square magnets with one surface
north and the other surface south.)
> > > If you don't believe that such a structure is for all intents and
> > > purposes a magnetic monopole, built TWO and try to get them to
> > > attract
> > > to each other, from ANY angle. Make them out of Neodymium Boron
> > > magnets
> > > while you're at it, and then try to get the two to stick together.
> > It was mildly interesting to try it about 40 years ago when I was a
> > kid who didn't know the math.
And it's still interesting for kids who don't know the math!
> > Naturally it didn't and doesn't work, and any basic
> > textbook will tell you why.
> Uhuh.
> Context is everything, your Highness.
>
> http://www.mundi.com/tech.html#Anchor-monopole
Well, that's convincing. A multi-level marketing scam site that sells
magnets that will soften water, increase gas mileage, improve your
health, and make your plants grow better.
ROTFL!!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Harry H Conover
:
: Well, that's convincing. A multi-level marketing scam site that sells
: magnets that will soften water, increase gas mileage, improve your
: health, and make your plants grow better.
So, Walter what else is new. Turned on your TV lately and watched what
is being sold, particularly via the "Infomercials?" Watched any of the
'Faith Healers' on cable?
The lunatics that we tolerate here are tame compared to what is routinely
pitched as fact on the boob tube...still we don't expect to find such gross
ignorance here on the Internet, yet why not?
Thanks to the likes of Al Gore and other self-marketing liberal voices, it
is the common man's right to have Internet access, no matter if he has a
clue, is open to acquiring new knowledge or what. Makes no difference.
You an I have to pay monthly for internet access, or be gainfully employed
by an institution, agency, or business that provides it.
Still, Joe Public, since he is generally depicted as a disfunctional
individual, abandoned/or and culturally deprived youth, criminal, or other
misfit has a right to have Internet access provided to him by us to are the
responsible contributors to the community, work hard and support our families,
and try to improve both outselves and our community by being responsible
citizens.
Sadly, I suspect that we have yet to see the worst cases arrive here on
Usenet, although we do have our Hannons and JW's. Hannon can't support
himself for reasons he doesn't disclose, and JW we really don't know about,
because he hides behind a mask.
Usenet's salvation is that it is not a graphic point and click medium. You have
to do a least a minimal amount of work to post here, and the simple pointing
and clicking for the gratification of the mindless, doesn't really work at
all here. Thanks God for small blessings! (As least you have to be able to
type and press enter..which is fortunately prohibiitive to some of the mindless,but once Al Gore realizes this, watch out -- Text free Usenet posts -- with
everything posted on Usnet determined by multiple choice entries, which can
be pointed and clicked. No discriminatory thought or typing is required!
Oh well, that's another day...hopefully a long way off.
Harry C.
p.s. Somebody is certainly going to call be and elitist for making this
post, but the post is no more elitist than Martha Stewarts' work,
which sets the standard for homemaking and entertaining. After all,
somebody has to set the height of the goal, be it sports or anything
else worth pursuing.
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>if you put your teeth back in that jar,
>take your shoes off,
>and get back in bed.
Oh, izzat how it goes? I've had my teeth on my feet and my shoes in a glass.
-ANT
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>Astounding! This guy NEVER gets it right! Guess that's why we rate him a full
>1000
>on the milliHannon scale. All other wackos can only look up to him in awe!
He's my Ayatolla. (sp?)
-ANT
Fred Kasner
list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief while
limiting the totally off topic maniacs any access that wasn't rational
in any way. Hey you could do your usenet posting at the library just as
the great unwashed are allowed to do. But you are paying for the
privilege of doing it privately at your cost.
FK
Michael Hannon
Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have a
> list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
> moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
Comic relief?
You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
Shows exactly how myopic your world really is, Mr. Kasner.
And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
ROFL
OH (M D)
> while
> limiting the totally off topic maniacs any access that wasn't rational
> in any way. Hey you could do your usenet posting at the library just as
> the great unwashed are allowed to do. But you are paying for the
> privilege of doing it privately at your cost.
>
> FK
>
> Harry H Conover wrote:
> >
Harry H Conover
:
:
: >
: > Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have a
: > list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
: > moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
:
: Comic relief?
: You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
: catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
Yes, that's comic relief, at least to the majority of newsgroup readers
here who understand what a catalyst is, and the role it plays in a chemical
reaction. These same people understand that no chemical reaction takes place
at the air intake of an engine, platinum there or not, since there is nothing
present for the air to react with.
It's such a simple and obvious situation that it makes the silly claims
you post appear humorous to most all educated readers.
Harry C.
Harry C.
Gregory L. Hansen
Heh! It's not "impossible" to use a catalyst in the air intake of an
engine. It's not going to do anything for you, it's just going to sit
there, taking up space. But sure, you could use it if you like!
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
Fred Kasner
But you would be wasting your money since there are no chemical
reactions going on in an air cleaner. The air cleaner is physically
cleaning air. If it isn't it isn't an air cleaner. Try to address the
problem in terms of the names used in your post. Stop trying to convert
the air cleaner to something else other than an air cleaner but
continuing to call it an air cleaner. Real dumb argument on your part,
Grand Dummy.
FK
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Fred Kasner wrote:
> >
> > Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have a
> > list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
> > moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
>
> Comic relief?
> You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
> catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
>
> http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
>
> Shows exactly how myopic your world really is, Mr. Kasner.
>
> And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
>
> ROFL
>
> OH (M D)
>
> > while
> > limiting the totally off topic maniacs any access that wasn't rational
> > in any way. Hey you could do your usenet posting at the library just as
> > the great unwashed are allowed to do. But you are paying for the
> > privilege of doing it privately at your cost.
> >
> > FK
> >
> > Harry H Conover wrote:
> > >
robert luis rabello
Michael Hannon wrote:
> Comic relief?
> You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
> catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
>
> http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
>
> Shows exactly how myopic your world really is, Mr. Kasner.
>
> And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
>
> ROFL
>
> OH (M D)
>
The air cleaner is just an air cleaner. With no fuel present, there is no reaction to "catalyze". If the platinum is injected somehow, it's hardly a
catalyst, as it would be consumed in the process (or, at least, discharged out of the exhaust pipe). I think you misunderstand the definition of a catalyst and
its role in chemical reactions.
robert luis rabello
Walter Curnow
Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Fred Kasner wrote:
> >
> > Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have
> > a
> > list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
> > moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
> Comic relief?
> You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a
> platinum catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
Nobody is saying that it's "impossible" to use a platinum catalyst
in the air intake of an engine. What everybody is saying (including
many engine researchers and the Federal Trade Commission) is that the
use of a platinum catalyst in the air intake of an engine will do
nothing but drain your wallet.
> http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
On that web page they say:
Platinum has the unique ability to make non-burning fuel burn. With
platinum in the flame zone , you increase the percentage of fuel
burning in the engine from 68 to 90 %.
This is total BS. In even the worst tuned engine out there belching
black clouds of unburned fuel burns well over 90% of the fuel right in
the combustion chamber. A well-tuned engine burns more than 99.9% of
the fuel right in the cylinder. If an engine burned only 68% of the
fuel fed into it, the HC level in the exhaust would be on the order of
22,000 ppm!!!
They also say:
Normally that additional 22% of the fuel would only burn when it
came in contact with the platinum surface of the catalytic
converter . Unfortunately , the catalytic converter process takes
place outside of the engine, where the energy produced cannot be
harnessed to drive the vehicle.
Consider a vehicle cruising at 65 mph, getting 25 mpg. Under these
conditions, it is consuming chemical energy at the rate of about
86 kW. 22% of this is 19 kW. The above statement implies that about
19 kW are being dissipated in the catalytic converter. If you were
to dissipate this much power in the converter, it would glow white
hot and melt a hole through the floor of the vehicle and the whole
exhaust system would glow cherry red!
FWIW, once in the middle of the night I came up on a car on the
interstate with its converter and a length of its exhaust pipe
glowing bright orange! I could smell the unburned HC for miles.
> Shows exactly how myopic your world really is, Mr. Kasner.
No. Actually your apparent support of the statements on that web
page show exactly how clueless you are, Mikey.
> And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
Relative to you, my dog is an expert.
Michael Hannon
>
> Michael Hannon (oh2...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> :
> :
> : Fred Kasner wrote:
> : >
> : > Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have a
> : > list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
> : > moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
> :
> : Comic relief?
> : You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
> : catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
>
> Yes, that's comic relief, at least to the majority of newsgroup readers
> here who understand what a catalyst is, and the role it plays in a chemical
> reaction. These same people understand that no chemical reaction takes place
> at the air intake of an engine, platinum there or not, since there is nothing
> present for the air to react with.
>
> It's such a simple and obvious situation that it makes the silly claims
> you post appear humorous to most all educated readers.
>
You obviously didn't even look at the site, Harry.
From the site:
"The system consists of a molded plastic container which contains a
platinum solution . Engine vacuum draws the platinum vapor into the
intake manifold where it joins the fuel air mixture entering the
engine."
Educate yourself - READ THE SITE - in particular, the copy of the
newspaper clipping in which it is stated BY THE FEDERAL COURT that the
system works as claimed (even BETTER than claims by the company) after
FIVE YEARS of tests, and that they awarded the company $22,000 in fees.
Hey, Harry - this is a bona fide Newton,Mass. company, and you're
knocking them, when they are honest?
Get a life.
OH (M D)
>
>
>
> Harry C.
Michael Hannon
awarding the company $22,000 in fees after discovering that the thing
actually WORKS even better than the company claims it does.
OHannon
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>
> In article <8qql98$c...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> Harry H Conover <con...@tiac.net> wrote:
> >Michael Hannon (oh2...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> >:
> >:
> >: Fred Kasner wrote:
> >: >
> >: > Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have a
> >: > list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
> >: > moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
> >:
> >: Comic relief?
> >: You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
> >: catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
> >:
> >
> >Yes, that's comic relief, at least to the majority of newsgroup readers
> >here who understand what a catalyst is, and the role it plays in a chemical
> >reaction. These same people understand that no chemical reaction takes place
> >at the air intake of an engine, platinum there or not, since there is nothing
> >present for the air to react with.
> >
> >It's such a simple and obvious situation that it makes the silly claims
> >you post appear humorous to most all educated readers.
>
Michael Hannon
>
> Oh of course you can put some platinum into the air cleaner of an ICE.
> But you would be wasting your money since there are no chemical
> reactions going on in an air cleaner. The air cleaner is physically
> cleaning air. If it isn't it isn't an air cleaner. Try to address the
> problem in terms of the names used in your post. Stop trying to convert
> the air cleaner to something else other than an air cleaner but
> continuing to call it an air cleaner. Real dumb argument on your part,
> Grand Dummy.
Find your teeth yet, gramps?
Don't bother trying to cross-post this thread into the sci.skeptic NG,
you sneaky old fart.
It doesn't matter where the catalyst solution enters the intake air -
it could just as easily be AT the air cleaner as at the hard engine
vacuum - as a matter of fact, it might be easier - the engine vacuum
begins in the interior of the air cleaner housing, where the air
cleaner is, gramps, so it'll work there as well as anywhere else in the
vacuum,
if fitted properly.
You got caught in another rail against something you didn't know about,
but had plenty of wrong opinion on, and just like always, you can't face
the music.
So what else is new?
OH (M D)
>
> FK
>
> Michael Hannon wrote:
> >
> > Fred Kasner wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have a
> > > list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
> > > moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
> >
> > Comic relief?
> > You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
> > catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
> >
> > http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
> >
> > Shows exactly how myopic your world really is, Mr. Kasner.
> >
> > And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
> >
> > ROFL
> >
> > OH (M D)
> >
> > > while
> > > limiting the totally off topic maniacs any access that wasn't rational
> > > in any way. Hey you could do your usenet posting at the library just as
> > > the great unwashed are allowed to do. But you are paying for the
> > > privilege of doing it privately at your cost.
> > >
> > > FK
> > >
> > > Harry H Conover wrote:
> > > >
Michael Hannon
>
> In article <39D07B80...@earthlink.net>,
> Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Fred Kasner wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have
> > > a
> > > list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
> > > moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
>
> > Comic relief?
> > You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a
> > platinum catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
>
> Nobody is saying that it's "impossible" to use a platinum catalyst
> in the air intake of an engine. What everybody is saying (including
> many engine researchers and the Federal Trade Commission) is that the
> use of a platinum catalyst in the air intake of an engine will do
> nothing but drain your wallet.
Totally moronic, mr curnow, and an outright lie, by the way -
READ THE WHOLE PAGE.
>
> > http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
.....usual curnow drivel snipped............
> > And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
>
> Relative to you, my dog is an expert.
Ruff, ruff, Mr. Curnow.
Obviously you didn't read THE ENTIRE PAGE - the Federal court awarded
these guys $22,000 in fees after spending 5 YEARS investigating their
claims, and discovering that REAL TESTS designated by THE FEDS PROVED
THAT
THE THING ACTUALLY WORKS BETTER THAN THEIR CLAIMS.
Small wonder, though, from a wacko nutcase fraud like you would even
attempt to consider his dog an expert at anything.
OH (M D)
Michael Hannon
>
> Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> > Comic relief?
> > You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
> > catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
> >
> >
> > Shows exactly how myopic your world really is, Mr. Kasner.
> >
> >
> >
> > OH (M D)
> >
>
> The air cleaner is just an air cleaner. With no fuel present, there is no reaction to "catalyze". If the platinum is injected somehow, it's hardly a
> catalyst, as it would be consumed in the process (or, at least, discharged out of the exhaust pipe). I think you misunderstand the definition of a catalyst and
> its role in chemical reactions.
Hardly, Mr. Rubello. I spent the last 2 years researching catalytic
actions on fuels, and where it can be done. A vapor containing a
platinum solution can easily be introduced at the air cleaner housing so
that it mixes with the intake air before the combined volume mixes with
the fuel,
and it WILL increase economy by enhancing the combustion process..
Read the page, Mr. Rubello. Placement of the platinum solution vapor
injection can just as easily be done right at the interior of the air
cleaner housing.
This is a good system, but there are better, many of them patented,
and MANY work, and that includes the Pogue carburetor. The only reason
the Pogue stopped working is that the catalytic chamber became coated
with the additives oil companies add to gasoline that coat the catalyst
and render it ineffective.
I've also read in detail a SIEMENS patent which states that their
catalytic device will work, and it does, but NOT on fuel with the normal
additives oil companies put in the fuel.
That's the whole name of the Game, Mr. Rubello - catalyzing the fuel so
that it doesn't need to be done by the catalitic converter on what isn't
burned inside the engine due to poor combustion, particularly of the
larger molecules in the fuel.
Simple question - can a duodecane molecule, which is very difficult to
burn in an engine because of its sheer mass and molecular structure, be
broken down into smaller, more easily combustible molecules by catalytic
action?
OH (M D)
>
> robert luis rabello
Michael Hannon
>
> Wonderful, he posits a monopole
NEVER did it, gramps.
I stated from the beginning that "for all intents and purposes" it could
be considered one, particularly in the MOTOR THE THREAD WAS BEGUN ON.
Total magnet monopoles cannot exist as far as I know, but they can be
mimmicked, and quite well, thank you very much.
> and then admits it is not
BULL caca, grandpa.
> because he not
> only says there is a S pole both in the interior and even outside of his
> device. Case closed he's a total idiot.
That old fart Kasner certainly is.
OH (M D)
Raphael Korsoski
In article <39C660D9...@enteract.com>,
Walter Curnow
Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Walter Curnow wrote:
> > Nobody is saying that it's "impossible" to use a platinum catalyst
> > in the air intake of an engine. What everybody is saying (including
> > many engine researchers and the Federal Trade Commission) is that
> > the
> > use of a platinum catalyst in the air intake of an engine will do
> > nothing but drain your wallet.
> Totally moronic, mr curnow, and an outright lie, by the way -
> READ THE WHOLE PAGE.
I've read the whole page, and it's the usual pack of lies from a
multilevel marketing scam.
I know this page will be lost on you, but I'll post the URL anyway:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm
> > > http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
>
> .....usual curnow drivel snipped............
>
> > > And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
> >
> > Relative to you, my dog is an expert.
>
> Ruff, ruff, Mr. Curnow.
>
> Obviously you didn't read THE ENTIRE PAGE - the Federal court awarded
> these guys $22,000 in fees after spending 5 YEARS investigating their
> claims, and discovering that REAL TESTS designated by THE FEDS PROVED
> THAT
> THE THING ACTUALLY WORKS BETTER THAN THEIR CLAIMS.
According to "National Fuel Saver, Inc."
The jpeg of the check proves nothing, just like the jpeg of the
"article" about the award. Mikey, that "article" is an advertisement.
Note the telephone number at the end.
Must you fall for every scam that comes along?
Phul Nayme
<oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I've also read in detail a SIEMENS patent which states that their
>catalytic device will work, and it does, but NOT on fuel with the normal
>additives oil companies put in the fuel.
What is the patent number?
robert luis rabello
Michael Hannon wrote:
> Hardly, Mr. Rubello. I spent the last 2 years researching catalytic
> actions on fuels, and where it can be done. A vapor containing a
> platinum solution can easily be introduced at the air cleaner housing so
> that it mixes with the intake air before the combined volume mixes with
> the fuel,
> and it WILL increase economy by enhancing the combustion process..
Hello, Mr. Hannon. I'll try not to take offense at your consistent misspelling of my last name. While you are correct that a vacuum signal occurs inside the air
cleaner, the introduction of a "catalyst" before there is anything to "catalyze", especially when the "catalyst" is consumed in the process, hardly fits the
definition of the word "catalyst".
> That's the whole name of the Game, Mr. Rubello - catalyzing the fuel so
> that it doesn't need to be done by the catalitic converter on what isn't
> burned inside the engine due to poor combustion, particularly of the
> larger molecules in the fuel.
>
Poor combustion is an issue with SOME carbureted engines. A decent, closed-loop fuel injection system essentially solves the problem. The system to which you
refer has been around for awhile, and back in the late 1970's, I was naive enough to install one on my 1973 Chevelle. (I can't remember if it was "National
Fuelsaver", but the principle described on the web page is essentially the same.) I fell for the sales pitch, but the device simply didn't work, and I've always been
in the habit of watching my fuel economy quite closely.
robert luis rabello
Andrew Carol
<oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "The system consists of a molded plastic container which contains a
> platinum solution . Engine vacuum draws the platinum vapor into the
> intake manifold where it joins the fuel air mixture entering the
> engine."
How much does it cost to supply the platinum to this system? Do you
know how that stuff costs a pound?
How is it vaporised? (It has better be pretty damn hot to change solid
platinum into a vapor.)
Oh well...
Scott Craver
>Read the site, Moron, including the article about the Federal Court
>awarding the company $22,000 in fees after discovering that the thing
>actually WORKS even better than the company claims it does.
The "article" appears to be a press release from the company
itself.
I.e., no more authoritative than the rest of the web site, except
it's typeset and scanned in to give the impression of authority
to people such as yourself.
You should have been suspicious of it on 3 counts: 1, it
reads like a sales pitch; 2, it ends with a phone number
for the company ("call 1-800-LESS-GAS"); and 3, it reports
the same bogus factoid of increasing fuel burning "from 68%
to 90%". A car with 68% efficiency (or 90, for that matter)
is probably suffering from a fuel leak.
Perhaps you can ask them what paper and issue this thing was
allegedly printed in? It's not entirely impossible for
press releases to get printed wholesale in papers, after all.
And there are tons of magazines or papers that will print
anything, such as _Fate_ or the Sharper Image catalog.
>OHannon
-S
Michael Hannon
>
> Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Read the site, Moron, including the article about the Federal Court
> >awarding the company $22,000 in fees after discovering that the thing
> >actually WORKS even better than the company claims it does.
>
> itself.
>
> I.e., no more authoritative than the rest of the web site, except
> it's typeset and scanned in to give the impression of authority
> to people such as yourself.
>
> You should have been suspicious of it on 3 counts: 1, it
> reads like a sales pitch; 2, it ends with a phone number
> for the company ("call 1-800-LESS-GAS"); and 3, it reports
> the same bogus factoid of increasing fuel burning "from 68%
> to 90%". A car with 68% efficiency (or 90, for that matter)
> is probably suffering from a fuel leak.
The only suspicion I have, Mr. Craver, is why you would spend the time
and energy to attempt to debunk the validity of a company that has been
selling these things, via the US Mail (if you were right, that'd be over
14 years of mail fraud they would have been open to indictment for, but
no one has seemed to notice).
>
> Perhaps you can ask them what paper and issue this thing was
> allegedly printed in? It's not entirely impossible for
> press releases to get printed wholesale in papers, after all.
> And there are tons of magazines or papers that will print
> anything, such as _Fate_ or the Sharper Image catalog.
Sure, Mr. Craver - and the check is a forgery as well, I suppose.
Hmm - posting a forgery of a Federal Treasury check, making false claims
attributed to a Federal Agency, and over a decade of fraud that has gone
totally unnoticed by the Federal Government?
Yuh - that makes a whole lot of sense.
And the company is still doing it now,
and no one in the Federal Government is doing a thing about it?
The only questions I have are -
WHERE'S THE PAYOFF LINE?!?!
GIVE ME A NUMBER SO I CAN DO IT TOO!!
WHO TAKES THE BRIBES?
Got his phone number????
Get a life, Mr. Craven.
OH (M D)
supposedly
>
> >OHannon
> -S
Michael Hannon
Andrew Carol wrote:
>
> In article <39D1314A...@earthlink.net>, Michael Hannon
> <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "The system consists of a molded plastic container which contains a
> > platinum solution . Engine vacuum draws the platinum vapor into the
> > intake manifold where it joins the fuel air mixture entering the
> > engine."
>
> How much does it cost to supply the platinum to this system? Do you
> know how that stuff costs a pound?
Don't know -
IT'S A SOLUTION CONTAINING PLATINUM, Mr. Carol.
>
> How is it vaporised? (It has better be pretty damn hot to change solid
> platinum into a vapor.)
READ THE ABOVE.
>
> Oh well...
Are you dense, or what???
JC Whitney has been selling a very simple engine vacuum water vapor
injection system for cars for YEARS.
Check it out. Anyone who knows even a modicum of things about fuel
saving devices knows about that simple system that has been around for
DECADES.
Guess what, Mr. Carol -
it works, and it sells for about $20.
The drier the climate you live in, the better it works.
OH (M D)
Michael Hannon
Phul Nayme wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 06:00:02 GMT, Michael Hannon
> <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I've also read in detail a SIEMENS patent which states that their
> >catalytic device will work, and it does, but NOT on fuel with the normal
> >additives oil companies put in the fuel.
>
> What is the patent number?
Haven't got it.
A patent lawyer showed it to me -
I read it, and returned it to him.
If you're so hungry to find out,
do a patent search on it.
If you think I'm lying,
I'm not.
Siemens does, in fact,
own a patent on a catalytic
fuel economy device that works,
but only on fuels that have no additives.
OH (M D)
Michael Hannon
>
> Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> > Hardly, Mr. Rubello. I spent the last 2 years researching catalytic
> > actions on fuels, and where it can be done. A vapor containing a
> > platinum solution can easily be introduced at the air cleaner housing so
> > that it mixes with the intake air before the combined volume mixes with
> > the fuel,
> > and it WILL increase economy by enhancing the combustion process..
>
I'm at a loss for words. Mr. Rabello.
> While you are correct that a vacuum signal occurs inside the air
> cleaner,
> the introduction of a "catalyst" before there is anything to "catalyze", > especially when the "catalyst" is consumed in the process,
Incorrect, Mr. Rabello.
> hardly fits the
> definition of the word "catalyst".
The catalyst in a catalytic converter is also consumed in the process,
but it is still called a catalytic converter, isn't it?
Maybe you should send the manufacturers a corrective letter.
I'm not going to waste my time with that type of logic, Mr. Rabello.
MOST catalysts are consumed in the reactions they catalyze, but the are
not involved in the reactions any more than as catalysts - they are
consumed by fluidic friction, heat, etc., wear.
A catalyst can be used any way it is deemed necessary, act as a catalyst
in a reaction, and go down the drain with the chemicals it catalyzes.
Unless, of course, you know some rule that states that a catalyst MUST
be applied to a reaction as a stationary object, and if it is swept out
with the bathwater, it isn't a catalyst at all.
But if that is the case, Mr. Rabello, perhaps you could enlighten us as
to the role of the platinum as an agent in the chemical reaction taking
place, and the molecular structure of the resulting hydrocarbon
combustion compound which contains the platinum in it, and how it is
formed in the process.
But you're a smart guy, Mr. Rabello, and probably already know this -
so why are you pointing out something you already know exists as though
it doesn't?
Huh?
OH (M D)
>
> > That's the whole name of the Game, Mr. Rubello - catalyzing the fuel so
> > that it doesn't need to be done by the catalitic converter on what isn't
> > burned inside the engine due to poor combustion, particularly of the
> > larger molecules in the fuel.
> >
>
Michael Hannon
>
> He's obviously never heard about a Faraday Cage.
The one you're writing from, Mr. Korsoski?
He probably thinks the frame of a car is a monopole if you just put
enough juice through it. ;)
Wink, nod, Mr. Korsoski.
OH (M D)
Scott Craver
>Scott Craver wrote:
>>
>> The "article" appears to be a press release from the company
>> itself.
Do you disagree with this sentence, Mr. Hannon?
>The only suspicion I have, Mr. Craver, is why you would spend the time
>and energy to attempt to debunk the validity of a company that has been
>selling these things, via the US Mail (if you were right, that'd be over
>14 years of mail fraud they would have been open to indictment for, but
>no one has seemed to notice).
This is an invalid argument. E.g., that they must be legit
because they've gone so long without being arrested.
But: a,) how do you know they've been in business 14 years?
Their own web site? b,) plenty companies sell nonworking
doo-dads, sometimes moving and changing names but otherwise
avoiding prosecution. Are all those quantum-mechanical
plastic laundry balls also legit? Nobody's prosecuting them.
Naperville IL, the town where G.W. Bush called that NY Times
reporter a "major league asshole," once bought a bunch of
expensive fuel-air stabilizers for their police cars that turned
out to be only steel tubes. No special materials, not even
magnets, just short lengths of steel tubing just like you get
at Farm n' Fleet, that you slide onto your gas line. Last I
checked, these guys were still in business too.
>Sure, Mr. Craver - and the check is a forgery as well, I suppose.
>Hmm - posting a forgery of a Federal Treasury check, making false claims
>attributed to a Federal Agency,
This is a false dichotomy fallacy: e.g., either the story is
true or none of it is true. Possibility 3: they were refunded
some of their legal fees, and the check is real, but not because
the Feds concluded their product worked. It's entirely
possible that they are massively exaggerating what the check
MEANS.
Is that illegal? How about the makers of the DKL lifeguard,
who misrepresent data from Sandia National Labs on their
web site? The data indicate their dowsing rod does not find
people any better than random guessing, but they misinterpret
it to say quite the opposite. Why aren't the feds on them?
>and over a decade of fraud that has gone
>totally unnoticed by the Federal Government?
Ha! Ha! Ha! I mean, yes, unless you think all those
electronic dowsing rods, homeopathic remedies diluted to the
point that they don't even contain a single molecule of medicine,
et cetera et cetera are all real, then of course companies
sell this stuff all the time, for a long time, without getting
busted.
>The only questions I have are -
>WHERE'S THE PAYOFF LINE?!?!
>GIVE ME A NUMBER SO I CAN DO IT TOO!!
>WHO TAKES THE BRIBES?
>Got his phone number????
My plonk-o-meter says I can't killfile you because you aren't
using enough capital letters and punctuation marks.
>Get a life, Mr. Craven.
Oop, that's funny, nevermind.
>OH (M D)
>> -S
Scott Craver
>
>JC Whitney has been selling a very simple engine vacuum water vapor
>injection system for cars for YEARS.
And if it's in the JC Whitney catalog, then it must be based
on REAL SCIENCE.
>OH (M D)
-S
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>The catalyst in a catalytic converter is also consumed in the process,
>but it is still called a catalytic converter, isn't it?
>Maybe you should send the manufacturers a corrective letter.
It's consumed? In 25 years of repairing vehicles that's the first time I've
heard of that. There are times that they get contaminated by a poor running
engine, or even fuse (melt) for the same reason. I've even seen them break
apart, but NEVER have I seen or heard of one wearing away.
My layman's understanding of the definition of a catalyst is something that
causes a chemical reaction, but sacrifices nothing of it's mass in the process.
It just aids a process and is NEVER consumed thru this action.
See:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,21092+1+20761,00.html?q
uery=catalyst
You may need to copy and paste that URL if it doesn't appear entirely in blue.
-ANT
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>>injection system for cars for YEARS.
>
> And if it's in the JC Whitney catalog, then it must be based
> on REAL SCIENCE.
Interesting that JC and Dennis Lee sorta rhyme. <G>
-ANT
Michael Davis
>
> The catalyst in a catalytic converter is also consumed in the process,
> but it is still called a catalytic converter, isn't it?
No it is not consumed. The definition of a catalyst is a substance which promotes a chemical reaction but is not consumed in the process. The catalyst in a catalytic
converter is not consumed. The catalyst is embedded in a porous refractory material that allows exhaust gasses to pass over the catalyst particles and react with them but
prevents the catalyst from being blown out the tail pipe. The catalyst in a catalytic converter should last the life of the car as long as the owner doesn't do something
stupid like use leaded gas which destroys the catalyst.
> Maybe you should send the manufacturers a corrective letter.
>
> I'm not going to waste my time with that type of logic, Mr. Rabello.
> MOST catalysts are consumed in the reactions they catalyze,
Incorrect, see the definition of a catalyst above.
> but the are
> not involved in the reactions any more than as catalysts - they are
> consumed by fluidic friction, heat, etc., wear.
Sometimes it is not economically feasible to recover and reuse the catalyst. In the case of platinum, palladium, and rhodium and other very expensive metals the catalyst is
almost always recovered and reused.
> A catalyst can be used any way it is deemed necessary, act as a catalyst
> in a reaction, and go down the drain with the chemicals it catalyzes.
> Unless, of course, you know some rule that states that a catalyst MUST
> be applied to a reaction as a stationary object, and if it is swept out
> with the bathwater, it isn't a catalyst at all.
The rules of economics always apply.
> But if that is the case, Mr. Rabello, perhaps you could enlighten us as
> to the role of the platinum as an agent in the chemical reaction taking
> place, and the molecular structure of the resulting hydrocarbon
> combustion compound which contains the platinum in it, and how it is
> formed in the process.
Why don't you explain it instead since you say:
> > Hardly, Mr. Rubello. I spent the last 2 years researching catalytic
> > actions on fuels, and where it can be done.
From what I've seen of your "research" abilities the results should be good for a laugh.
--
Michael Davis
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
"For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Andrew Carol
<oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Andrew Carol wrote:
> > How much does it cost to supply the platinum to this system? Do you
> > know how that stuff costs a pound?
> Don't know -
> IT'S A SOLUTION CONTAINING PLATINUM, Mr. Carol.
It doesn't do anybody any good to save some percentage of their gas
costs only to have to pay ten times that in buying platinum that will
be sprayed out their exhaust.
If it's sprayed it, it's all going down the drain afterwards. Doesn't
sound very economical to me.
That doesn't even take into account the fact that there is almost no
unburned gasoline left for this process to burn.
> Are you dense, or what???
>
> JC Whitney has been selling a very simple engine vacuum water vapor
> injection system for cars for YEARS.
Last I checked water is much less expensive than platinum. Perhaps
that expains the difference? But then again, I'm dense.
BTW, what do YOU do on your car? Do you inject platinum into your
engine? Do you have magnets on your fuel lines? Do you use a pogue
carborator? Surely if this stuff works, you'd be doing some/all of it.
Oh well....
Chris1
>Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>injection system for cars for YEARS.
>
> on REAL SCIENCE.
Water injection is based on real science, but it doesn't do what dummy
likely wants it to do. Water injection helps reduce detonation. It was used
alot on old turbocharged engines to help keep them in one piece.
Chris
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>likely wants it to do. Water injection helps reduce detonation. It was used
>alot on old turbocharged engines to help keep them in one piece.
Water injection also tends to clean or keep clean the combustion chamber. It's
still widely used on recip aircraft engine to this day. In my opinion, most all
things approve by the FAA do in fact work, and do so reliably with no down side
to them. You can't exactly pull over to a cloud and get out to repair your
plane!
-ANT
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>It doesn't do anybody any good to save some percentage of their gas
>costs only to have to pay ten times that in buying platinum that will
>be sprayed out their exhaust.
Funny you said that, as that's what I'd been thunking. Just like someone who'll
drive 5 towns away to buy 5 cent a gallon cheaper gas.
-ANT
Andrew Carol
I had a friend who used to drive clear across town to save 2 cents a
gallon for his Honda. I never understood that.
---- Andy
Walter Curnow
Andrew Carol <aaccaa...@apple.com> wrote:
> In article <39D28FDA...@earthlink.net>, Michael Hannon
> <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Andrew Carol wrote:
> > > How much does it cost to supply the platinum to this system? Do
> > > you
> > > know how that stuff costs a pound?
> > Don't know -
> > IT'S A SOLUTION CONTAINING PLATINUM, Mr. Carol.
> It doesn't do anybody any good to save some percentage of their gas
> costs only to have to pay ten times that in buying platinum that will
> be sprayed out their exhaust.
And nobody ever considers that if these catalysts really worked as
claimed, Amoco or Mobil or one of the others could start marketing
a gasoline doped with a "platinum solution" guaranteed to increase fuel
mileage by x% and they could charge a premium price for it. There's a
reason they don't. Imagine the demand you could create for a gasoline
guaranteed to increase your gas mileage by even 10%! A 10% price
premium would be a no-brainer. You could probably charge a little more
than that if you play the environmental angle right in your marketing.
> If it's sprayed it, it's all going down the drain afterwards. Doesn't
> sound very economical to me.
>
> That doesn't even take into account the fact that there is almost no
> unburned gasoline left for this process to burn.
That minor fact escapes the True Believers.
Fred Kasner
There are still no chemical reactions going in the air cleaner. It
merely cleans air physically. If you say put a catalyst in a place where
there is no chemical reaction it is not a catalyst for any reaction
since there is no reaction at all there. I know you have trouble
reading. But if you want it explained in finer detail we can arrange for
your local trepanner to open your skull and we can pour in some of that
catalyst to improve chemical reaction in your purported brain. If you
want to make reference, Grand Dummy, to reactions in the combustion
chamber do so. Chemical reactions occur there. However any attempt on
your part to claim that you have put catalyst in a place that has no
chemical reactions in it will always get you the response that your once
again demonstrated what a Grand Dummy you truly are.
BTW have they taken that plate out of your skull lately to clean and
polish it or are they just adjusting your meds regularly? You are one
sick puppy.
FK
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Fred Kasner wrote:
> >
> > Oh of course you can put some platinum into the air cleaner of an ICE.
> > But you would be wasting your money since there are no chemical
> > reactions going on in an air cleaner. The air cleaner is physically
> > cleaning air. If it isn't it isn't an air cleaner. Try to address the
> > problem in terms of the names used in your post. Stop trying to convert
> > the air cleaner to something else other than an air cleaner but
> > continuing to call it an air cleaner. Real dumb argument on your part,
> > Grand Dummy.
>
> Find your teeth yet, gramps?
> Don't bother trying to cross-post this thread into the sci.skeptic NG,
> you sneaky old fart.
> It doesn't matter where the catalyst solution enters the intake air -
> it could just as easily be AT the air cleaner as at the hard engine
> vacuum - as a matter of fact, it might be easier - the engine vacuum
> begins in the interior of the air cleaner housing, where the air
> cleaner is, gramps, so it'll work there as well as anywhere else in the
> vacuum,
> if fitted properly.
> You got caught in another rail against something you didn't know about,
> but had plenty of wrong opinion on, and just like always, you can't face
> the music.
> So what else is new?
>
> OH (M D)
> >
> > FK
> >
> > Michael Hannon wrote:
> > >
> > > Fred Kasner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't worry too much about it, Harry. It is always possible to have a
> > > > list server sending posts by e-mail and a "rec" type usenet that is
> > > > moderated and could allow JW and MH to post for comic relief
> > >
> > > Comic relief?
> > > You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
> > > catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
> > >
> > > http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
> > >
> > > Shows exactly how myopic your world really is, Mr. Kasner.
> > >
> > > And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
> > >
> > > ROFL
> > >
> > > OH (M D)
> > >
> > > > while
> > > > limiting the totally off topic maniacs any access that wasn't rational
> > > > in any way. Hey you could do your usenet posting at the library just as
> > > > the great unwashed are allowed to do. But you are paying for the
> > > > privilege of doing it privately at your cost.
> > > >
> > > > FK
> > > >
> > > > Harry H Conover wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Walter Curnow (walter...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> > > > > :
> > > > > : Well, that's convincing. A multi-level marketing scam site that sells
> > > > > : magnets that will soften water, increase gas mileage, improve your
> > > > > : health, and make your plants grow better.
> > > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > So, Walter what else is new. Turned on your TV lately and watched what
> > > > > is being sold, particularly via the "Infomercials?" Watched any of the
> > > > > 'Faith Healers' on cable?
> > > > >
> > > > > The lunatics that we tolerate here are tame compared to what is routinely
> > > > > pitched as fact on the boob tube...still we don't expect to find such gross
> > > > > ignorance here on the Internet, yet why not?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to the likes of Al Gore and other self-marketing liberal voices, it
> > > > > is the common man's right to have Internet access, no matter if he has a
> > > > > clue, is open to acquiring new knowledge or what. Makes no difference.
> > > > > You an I have to pay monthly for internet access, or be gainfully employed
> > > > > by an institution, agency, or business that provides it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still, Joe Public, since he is generally depicted as a disfunctional
> > > > > individual, abandoned/or and culturally deprived youth, criminal, or other
> > > > > misfit has a right to have Internet access provided to him by us to are the
> > > > > responsible contributors to the community, work hard and support our families,
> > > > > and try to improve both outselves and our community by being responsible
> > > > > citizens.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sadly, I suspect that we have yet to see the worst cases arrive here on
> > > > > Usenet, although we do have our Hannons and JW's. Hannon can't support
> > > > > himself for reasons he doesn't disclose, and JW we really don't know about,
> > > > > because he hides behind a mask.
> > > > >
> > > > > Usenet's salvation is that it is not a graphic point and click medium. You have
> > > > > to do a least a minimal amount of work to post here, and the simple pointing
> > > > > and clicking for the gratification of the mindless, doesn't really work at
> > > > > all here. Thanks God for small blessings! (As least you have to be able to
> > > > > type and press enter..which is fortunately prohibiitive to some of the mindless,but once Al Gore realizes this, watch out -- Text free Usenet posts -- with
> > > > > everything posted on Usnet determined by multiple choice entries, which can
> > > > > be pointed and clicked. No discriminatory thought or typing is required!
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh well, that's another day...hopefully a long way off.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harry C.
> > > > >
> > > > > p.s. Somebody is certainly going to call be and elitist for making this
> > > > > post, but the post is no more elitist than Martha Stewarts' work,
> > > > > which sets the standard for homemaking and entertaining. After all,
> > > > > somebody has to set the height of the goal, be it sports or anything
> > > > > else worth pursuing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
Fred Kasner
thought of as having any familial relationship to you, Grand Dummy. I
have a two year old grandson and I see him learning so quickly that I
believe it won't be too many more years before he will have forgotten
more than you have ever learned. You are really not very bright. As a
matter of fact you are really quite dull. You are so quick to believe
almost anything that is contrary to well established science. That is
the sign of a ill developed mentality. One must be well versed in what
is well believed before one can have even a hope of establishing new
ideas. You would be well advised to take such advice seriously. You
might start with arithmetic. Let's see there was that calculation you
made about frequencies ...
FK
Fred Kasner
goes online. Note that electric fields do differ from magnetic fields.
You can have a real monopole in an electric field (ever heard of a
negative charge?)
FK
Michael Hannon
>
> In article <39D28FDA...@earthlink.net>, Michael Hannon
> <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Carol wrote:
> > > How much does it cost to supply the platinum to this system? Do you
> > > know how that stuff costs a pound?
> > Don't know -
> > IT'S A SOLUTION CONTAINING PLATINUM, Mr. Carol.
>
> costs only to have to pay ten times that in buying platinum that will
> be sprayed out their exhaust.
If that's all you have comprehended from reading the site,
I understand why you would say that.
> If it's sprayed it, it's all going down the drain afterwards. Doesn't
> sound very economical to me.
Ditto my respose above.
>
> That doesn't even take into account the fact that there is almost no
> unburned gasoline left for this process to burn.
>
Ditto again.
> > Are you dense, or what???
> >
> > JC Whitney has been selling a very simple engine vacuum water vapor
> > injection system for cars for YEARS.
>
> Last I checked water is much less expensive than platinum.
An astute observation.
> Perhaps
> that expains the difference? But then again, I'm dense.
You certainly are.
>
> BTW, what do YOU do on your car? Do you inject platinum into your
> engine? Do you have magnets on your fuel lines? Do you use a pogue
> carborator? Surely if this stuff works, you'd be doing some/all of it.
Sounds about as intelligent as the rest of your post here.
Why don't you guess what I do.
I'd never seed a carborator -
wadisit?
>
> Oh well....
I agree.................
Michael Hannon
>
> In article <280920000904582306%aaccaa...@apple.com>,
> Andrew Carol <aaccaa...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <39D28FDA...@earthlink.net>, Michael Hannon
> > <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Andrew Carol wrote:
> > > > How much does it cost to supply the platinum to this system? Do
> > > > you
> > > > know how that stuff costs a pound?
>
> > > Don't know -
> > > IT'S A SOLUTION CONTAINING PLATINUM, Mr. Carol.
>
> > It doesn't do anybody any good to save some percentage of their gas
> > costs only to have to pay ten times that in buying platinum that will
> > be sprayed out their exhaust.
>
> And nobody ever considers that if these catalysts really worked as
> claimed, Amoco or Mobil or one of the others could start marketing
> a gasoline doped with a "platinum solution" guaranteed to increase fuel
> mileage by x% and they could charge a premium price for it. There's a
> reason they don't. Imagine the demand you could create for a gasoline
> guaranteed to increase your gas mileage by even 10%! A 10% price
> premium would be a no-brainer. You could probably charge a little more
> than that if you play the environmental angle right in your marketing.
Makes about as much sense as anything else you've posted here, Wally.
>
> > If it's sprayed it, it's all going down the drain afterwards. Doesn't
> > sound very economical to me.
> >
> > That doesn't even take into account the fact that there is almost no
> > unburned gasoline left for this process to burn.
>
> That minor fact escapes the True Believers.
Duh, apparently that's why you don't comprehend what's going on, Wally.
Why not try hunting down what the company says its customers' primary
reason for buying the product is.
Maybe you could ask for some help from your dog,
since you say he's such an expert.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
OH (M D)
Michael Hannon
>
> In article <39D13596...@earthlink.net>,
> Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Walter Curnow wrote:
>
> > > Nobody is saying that it's "impossible" to use a platinum catalyst
> > > in the air intake of an engine. What everybody is saying (including
> > > many engine researchers and the Federal Trade Commission) is that
> > > the
> > > use of a platinum catalyst in the air intake of an engine will do
> > > nothing but drain your wallet.
>
> > Totally moronic, mr curnow, and an outright lie, by the way -
> > READ THE WHOLE PAGE.
>
> I've read the whole page, and it's the usual pack of lies from a
> multilevel marketing scam.
Really?
Hmmm.
Let's see your detailed analysis of how that is, Wally.
I'd really like to see it -
I haven't had a good laugh yet today.
>
> I know this page will be lost on you, but I'll post the URL anyway:
>
> http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm
Read it.
Didn't get lost at all.
And?
>
> > > > http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
> >
> > .....usual curnow drivel snipped............
> >
> > > > And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
> > >
> > > Relative to you, my dog is an expert.
> >
> > Ruff, ruff, Mr. Curnow.
> >
> > Obviously you didn't read THE ENTIRE PAGE - the Federal court awarded
> > these guys $22,000 in fees after spending 5 YEARS investigating their
> > claims, and discovering that REAL TESTS designated by THE FEDS PROVED
> > THAT
> > THE THING ACTUALLY WORKS BETTER THAN THEIR CLAIMS.
>
> According to "National Fuel Saver, Inc."
>
> The jpeg of the check proves nothing, just like the jpeg of the
> "article" about the award. Mikey, that "article" is an advertisement.
Prove it, Wally.
> Note the telephone number at the end.
Yuh, I did.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Otherwise, I may have missed who to call there.
(Note to sci.skeptic NG readers and posters:
I am simply responding to a post in sci.energy.hydrogen
which Mr. Curnow has chosen to cross-post into your NG -
any other replies by me to posts in sci.energy.hydrogen
which end up as cross-posts into your NG are the result of
someone in sci.energy.hydrogen cross-posting into your NG,
and is not an attempt on my part to post in your NG.
I have NO DIRECT INTENTION to post in sci.skeptic -
I am simply replying to posts in sci.energy.hydrogen
which are cross-posted by someone else, and I am tired
of having to delete your NG from the post list of their posts.
It's their doing - not mine.)
>
> Must you fall for every scam that comes along?
Hey - I've been reading YOUR posts, haven't I?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy, ask Curnow's dog.
OH (M D)
Chris1
>Oh, what joy. Once again the Grand Dummy has demonstrated his dumminess.
>There are still no chemical reactions going in the air cleaner. It
>merely cleans air physically. If you say put a catalyst in a place where
>there is no chemical reaction it is not a catalyst for any reaction
>since there is no reaction at all there.
Please note that the latest scam being referenced by dummy actually
*sprays* the "catalyst" into the air stream in the air cleaner. The
(demonstrably false) claim is that the "catalyst" enters the combustion
chamber to assist in the (already near perfect) combustion. Of course, only
someone with a profound lack of understanding about IC engines and
chemistry would be fooled by such a scam. Dummy's lack of intelligence
seems to have no bounds...
Hey dummy! Why wouldn't Platinum tipped spark plugs have the same effect
without consumming the expensive platinum catalyst? Answer: they would, if
there was any affect to be had, but there isn't.
Chris
Michael Hannon
>
> In article <8qus8s$ets$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) wrote:
> >Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>injection system for cars for YEARS.
> >
> > on REAL SCIENCE.
>
> likely wants it to do. Water injection helps reduce detonation. It was used
> alot on old turbocharged engines to help keep them in one piece.
>
Ah - the voice of a real "expert."
Apparently, since you're such an "expert" on the subject,
you can now describe the emergency power button
that was installed on WWII fighters as well.
(Note to sci.skeptic, ci.physics, etc. NG readers and posters:
I am simply responding to a post in sci.energy.hydrogen
which someone has chosen to cross-post into your NG's -
any other replies by me to posts in sci.energy.hydrogen
which end up as cross-posts into your NG's are the result of
someone in sci.energy.hydrogen cross-posting into your NG's,
and is not an attempt on my part to post in your NG's.
I have NO DIRECT INTENTION to post in sci.skeptic, sci.physics, etc. -
I am simply replying to posts in sci.energy.hydrogen
which are cross-posted by someone else, and I am tired
of having to delete your NG's from the cross-post list of their posts.
It's their doing - not mine.
If you have complaints,
take them up with the original cross-posters.)
OH (M D)
robert luis rabello
Fred Kasner wrote:
> Oh, what joy. Once again the Grand Dummy has demonstrated his dumminess.
> There are still no chemical reactions going in the air cleaner. It
> merely cleans air physically. If you say put a catalyst in a place where
> there is no chemical reaction it is not a catalyst for any reaction
> since there is no reaction at all there.
Mr. Hannon appears to have a different definition of a catalyst than the rest of us do. The device in question purportedly allows diffuse platinum to enter the
combustion chamber (where, as you say, chemical reactions take place) by virtue of the vacuum signal found at the base of the air cleaner.
Because the "platinum" is consumed, it should be considered a reactant and is, therefore, not technically a catalyst. More importantly, however, the device simply
doesn't work.
What a waste of bandwidth!
robert luis rabello
The Grouchybeast
> Obviously you didn't read THE ENTIRE PAGE - the Federal court awarded
> these guys $22,000 in fees after spending 5 YEARS investigating their
> claims, and discovering that REAL TESTS designated by THE FEDS PROVED
> THAT THE THING ACTUALLY WORKS BETTER THAN THEIR CLAIMS.
Interestingly, the Platinum Gasaver is listed in a report on fuel
efficiency improvment devices published by the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/devices.pdf
(bottom of page 27)
Interestingly, it *isn't* marked as one of the devices which produced a
statistically significant increase in fuel efficiency.
The Grouchybeast
Michael Hannon
>
> >
> >The catalyst in a catalytic converter is also consumed in the process,
> >but it is still called a catalytic converter, isn't it?
> >Maybe you should send the manufacturers a corrective letter.
>
> heard of that. There are times that they get contaminated by a poor running
> engine, or even fuse (melt) for the same reason. I've even seen them break
> apart, but NEVER have I seen or heard of one wearing away.
Really?
Never had to replace a CC that wasn't working anymore that was clean
inside, eh?
Who do you think you're kidding, ANT?
Exactly how thick do you think that catalyst coating is, anyway?
Do you think the entire honeycomb is pure platinum?
Do you have any idea what that would cost?
I used to pick up metallic catalytic honeycombs sitting in barrels of
them at a local scrap yard for pennies each - all of them were clean,
and all of them were replaced because they wouldn't catalyze enough to
pass emissions tests anymore.
Why do you think that was?
They looked fine, but they just couldn't clean the exhaust anymore.
Why is it that manufacturers recommend periodic replacement of catalytic
converters?
>
> My layman's understanding of the definition of a catalyst is something that
> causes a chemical reaction, but sacrifices nothing of it's mass in the process.
> It just aids a process and is NEVER consumed thru this action.
Wonderful.
>
> See:
> http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,21092+1+20761,00.html?q
> uery=catalyst
Uhuh.
> You may need to copy and paste that URL if it doesn't appear entirely in blue.
No Problem, ANT.
Ever heard of ANYTHING that can't wear out from heat and friction?
> -ANT
Try that routine on newbies, ANT.
Catalysts WEAR.
If they don't, then they should be used as anti-wear surfaces on
EVERYTHING.
Anyone who thinks that a catalyst that sits in the middle of any rapid
flow of hot chemicals (ie, a HOT exhaust pipe through which thousands of
cubic feet of hot gases flow per hour) doesn't wear under that flow is
simply dreaming.
OH (M D)
Michael Hannon
Michael Davis wrote:
>
> Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> >
> > The catalyst in a catalytic converter is also consumed in the process,
> > but it is still called a catalytic converter, isn't it?
>
> No it is not consumed.
Bullshit.
Friction and wear will remove a coating - it has NOTHING to do with
tghe chemical rection it facilitates.
> The definition of a catalyst is a substance which promotes a chemical > reaction but is not consumed in the process. The catalyst in a catalytic
> converter is not consumed.
More Bullshit.
> The catalyst is embedded in a porous refractory material that allows > exhaust gasses to pass over the catalyst particles and react with them > but
> prevents the catalyst from being blown out the tail pipe. The catalyst > in a catalytic converter should last the life of the car as long as the > owner doesn't do something
> stupid like use leaded gas which destroys the catalyst.
What does that have to do with the wear that takes place from the hot
gases passing acros the surface of the catalyst?
NOTHING.
>
> > Maybe you should send the manufacturers a corrective letter.
> >
> > I'm not going to waste my time with that type of logic, Mr. Rabello.
> > MOST catalysts are consumed in the reactions they catalyze,
>
> Incorrect, see the definition of a catalyst above.
The definition of a catalyst has NOTHING to do with the wear associated
with being in the environment in which the catalyst in a catalytic
converter exists.
Does paint wear off the nose of an aircraft?
Is it because the paint is OXIDIZED off,
or is it due to the friction of all that high-speed air
wearing it off?
>
> > but the are
> > not involved in the reactions any more than as catalysts - they are
> > consumed by fluidic friction, heat, etc., wear.
>
> Sometimes it is not economically feasible to recover and reuse the catalyst. In the case of platinum, palladium, and rhodium and other very expensive metals the catalyst is
> almost always recovered and reused.
And what is the total mass of catalyst left in a used converter vs the
total mass of catalyst in the same NEW one?
Identical, you say?
Dream on.
>
> > A catalyst can be used any way it is deemed necessary, act as a catalyst
> > in a reaction, and go down the drain with the chemicals it catalyzes.
> > Unless, of course, you know some rule that states that a catalyst MUST
> > be applied to a reaction as a stationary object, and if it is swept out
> > with the bathwater, it isn't a catalyst at all.
>
> The rules of economics always apply.
And?
>
> > But if that is the case, Mr. Rabello, perhaps you could enlighten us as
> > to the role of the platinum as an agent in the chemical reaction taking
> > place, and the molecular structure of the resulting hydrocarbon
> > combustion compound which contains the platinum in it, and how it is
> > formed in the process.
>
> Why don't you explain it
I'm not the person claiming it takes place, stupid.
Do you even know the context of what you'e saying?
> instead since you say:
>
> > > Hardly, Mr. Rubello. I spent the last 2 years researching catalytic
> > > actions on fuels, and where it can be done.
>
> From what I've seen of your "research" abilities the results should be good for a laugh.
From what I've seen of your supposedly "educated" account of the
realities that exist in the real-world environment of heat and friction
inside a catalytic converter, the core of which stands right in the
midst of (and in opposition to, I might add) the rapid flow of millions
of cubic feet of pressurized hot gasses AND particulate matter per year,
without wearing at all (what a yuck THAT is), I'm pretty sure that you'd
get a chuckle from just about anything.
(Note to sci.skeptic, sci.physics, etc. NG readers and posters:
Please ignore this post -
I am simply replying to a post in sci.energy.hydrogen
which someone else has chosen to cross-post into your NG's -
any other replies by me to posts in sci.energy.hydrogen
which end up as cross-posts into your NG's are the result of
someone else posting in sci.energy.hydrogen who is also
cross-posting into your NG's,
and is not an attempt on my part to post in your NG's.
I have NO DIRECT INTENTION to post in sci.skeptic, sci.physics,
etc. -
I am simply replying to posts in sci.energy.hydrogen
which are cross-posted by someone else, and I am tired
of having to delete your NG's from the cross-post list of their
posts.
It's their doing - not mine.
If you have complaints,
take them up with the original cross-posters.)
OH (M D)
>
> --
> Michael Davis
> http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
> skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
>
> "For men become stagnant, and their evolution ceases, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
Scott Craver
>>>
>>> The "article" appears to be a press release from the company
>>> itself.
>
> Do you disagree with this sentence, Mr. Hannon?
I don't see a followup to this article yet. I'd really like
to hear your answer to this question. Does that article look
to you like a real newspaper article, or does it look like
a press release written by the company?
Also your remark on the other bits, e.g. how you know the
company was in business 14 years other than that they told
you and you apparently believe them.
>>> -S
-S
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>wadisit?
A contolled fuel leak!
-ANT
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>
I don;t know about you guys, but I've pretreated MY bandwidth with a Platinum
catalyst so I have unlimited room for posts.
-ANT (until the catalyst is consumed of course)
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>inside, eh?
NOPE. Only have had to replace ones that had physical damage to them. By that I
mean ones that had been "neutralized" by either fuel (leaded)--oil
contamination or ones that had melted or broken apart.
There's a local converter rebuilder that I know. Very big operation. You know
how they rebuild the converters? They hook them up to a V8 engine on a stand
and run them till they're real hot and check the emissions. If they clean up
and flow nicely then they're declared rebuilt. PERIOD. No paint, no opening of
the housing. NOTHING ELSE.
>Who do you think you're kidding, ANT?
Who do YOU think you're fooling? None of the rest of us. I speak from real
world experience. I didn't just read about this on the web.
>Exactly how thick do you think that catalyst coating is, anyway?
Obviously not as thick as some people's skulls.
>Do you think the entire honeycomb is pure platinum?
Shows what you know, not all of them are honeycomb structures, many are pellet
form.
>I used to pick up metallic catalytic honeycombs sitting in barrels of
>them at a local scrap yard for pennies each
Is that before or after you collected discarded aluminum cans and bottles?
>Why is it that manufacturers recommend periodic replacement of catalytic
>converters?
THEY DON'T. Where did you hear that one from? As a matter of fact it is a
Federal Offense to replace a funtioning converter with less than 5 years or
50,000 miles of use on it. Why would you want to you may or may not ask? Some
people upgrade to a higher flow performance one, but technically this is
illegal. The Feds really don't want people messing with them. Also in the state
of Californication junkyards are not allowed to sell converters to anyone other
than a converter rebuilder or some sort of precious metal recycler. Go figger.
-ANT
Harry H Conover
: ANT The Monarch of Menace wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >The catalyst in a catalytic converter is also consumed in the process,
: > >but it is still called a catalytic converter, isn't it?
: >
: > It's consumed? In 25 years of repairing vehicles that's the first time I've
: > heard of that. There are times that they get contaminated by a poor running
: > engine, or even fuse (melt) for the same reason. I've even seen them break
: > apart, but NEVER have I seen or heard of one wearing away.
:
: Really?
: Never had to replace a CC that wasn't working anymore that was clean
: inside, eh?
Why would he have to do that, unless of course it has been physically
damaged in an accident? The platinum in a CC never gets consumed, but
it can get 'poisoned' or coated with crap.
: Who do you think you're kidding, ANT?
: Exactly how thick do you think that catalyst coating is, anyway?
It's a very thin film, because that's all required, since in a car's
CC the catalytic action is entirely a surface effect.
: Do you think the entire honeycomb is pure platinum?
: Do you have any idea what that would cost?
Mikey, no one except you would ever believe something as
ridiculous as that. Similarly, do you think that the round
pebbles used in that type of CC are solid platinum? If they
were, realize that that can of pebbles would be valued at many
time the cost of the new car! ;-)
: I used to pick up metallic catalytic honeycombs sitting in barrels of
: them at a local scrap yard for pennies each - all of them were clean,
: and all of them were replaced because they wouldn't catalyze enough to
: pass emissions tests anymore.
: Why do you think that was?
Like most things found for sale at junkyards, they're there because
the car there were in was wrecked, not before they wore out. How long
do you believe that people would buy used car parts from scrap yards
if the parts were they because they didn't work, rather than having been
salvaged from wrecks?
By the way, what was your purpose in picing up metallic catalytic honeycombs
from scrap yards if they no longer functioned? Since you maintain that all
of the platinum in them has been 'used up', why did you buy them?
: They looked fine, but they just couldn't clean the exhaust anymore.
: Why is it that manufacturers recommend periodic replacement of catalytic
: converters?
Can you document even one car manufacturer actually making such a
recommendation? This possibility is not mentioned in either my Ford
Bronco or Chevrolet owner's manual, or even the shop manuals that I
own for these vehicles. Your claim is pure fantasy.
I once owned a Chevy Malibu that during its life had to have the CC
replaced 3-times, not because the platinum because used up, but because
it had a faulty air pump that by supplying insufficient air to the CC
had repeatedly impaired its functioning to the point where each became
fouled up with crud to the point of causing exhaust pressure build-up
that eventually prevented engine operation.
:
: >
: > My layman's understanding of the definition of a catalyst is something that
: > causes a chemical reaction, but sacrifices nothing of it's mass in the process.
: > It just aids a process and is NEVER consumed thru this action.
:
: Wonderful.
Glad to see that you understand this critical point. A catalyst only
modifies (accelerates) the rate of a chemical reaction, but doesn't
otherwise participate in it. Of course sometimes the catalys is disposed
of along with the spent reactants (use of manganese dioxide to catalyse
inorganic chemical reactions is such an example). With these, the 'baby'
is essentially thrown out with the bath water, simply becuase it is not
cost effective to recover it. Platinum and its surface catalysis relatives
are far to costly to employ in such a style, hence it is always employed
in such a way that it is preserved (usually in the form of a low density
metalic gauze, or a surface coating on a permant matrix composed of some
less costly material). In industrial applications, this is usually done
using a gauze or mesh made of platinumized titanium or other stable metalic
or ceramic base coated with a layer of platinum or rhodium only microinches
thick.
: Try that routine on newbies, ANT.
: Catalysts WEAR.
Examples? Mikey...they don't in most applications. The CC in a car
is such an example. It lasts nearly forever provided it isn't fouled
or poisoned. With a well tuned engine with its pollution control system
in good operating condition, unless you use leaded gas, the life of your
CC should exceed that of the car.
: If they don't, then they should be used as anti-wear surfaces on
: EVERYTHING.
Except for cost, you're probably correct. Realize that the majority
of surface catalysts are noble metals like Platinum, Rhodium, etc.
In addition to their unique chemical properties, their physical
hardness and resistance to wear makes them a clear choice for time
and wear resistant objects such as jewelry and utility items. Their
resistance to involvement in chemical reactions means they don't
oxidize or tarnish, which makes them a first choice for protective
platings on high-temperature resistant printed circuit boards,
searchlight mirrors, and other critical applications. (For what it's
worth, rhodium followed by platinum are the most light reflective
elements known to man, which when coupled with the fact that they
don't tarnish or oxidize makes them the first choice for use in the
most cricitical reflector applications.
Damn, Mikey got something right...perhaps for the first time! ;-)
Tell you what Mikey, next Christmas you can send me a Rhodium or
Platinum (on a titanium base) flatware set for my dining room. Do
that and you'll make a life long fan! ;-)
: Anyone who thinks that a catalyst that sits in the middle of any rapid
r
: flow of hot chemicals (ie, a HOT exhaust pipe through which thousands of
: cubic feet of hot gases flow per hour) doesn't wear under that flow is
: simply dreaming.
Or knows chemistry and physics much better than yourself!
Harry C.
p.s. The CC on my 1990 Big Bronco is still sitting there heating away
after nearly 200,000 miles of daily use. It even went through the
Massachusetts ehanced emission tests in August and scored so far
under the limits that emissions are even a concern with this
vehicle (which is now blowing through a quart of oil each month).
Damn amazing that that worn out old catalytic converter, with all
of its platium blown away by 10 years of use and 200,000 miles is
still functioning like a champ! This leads me to believe that at
least one of us hasn't got our facts and stories straight.
Michael Davis
> Michael Davis wrote:
> >
> > Michael Hannon wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The catalyst in a catalytic converter is also consumed in the process,
> > > but it is still called a catalytic converter, isn't it?
> >
> > No it is not consumed.
>
> Bullshit.
> Friction and wear will remove a coating - it has NOTHING to do with
> tghe chemical rection it facilitates.
Don't go trying to move the goal posts. The discussion was about whether or not catalysts are consumed in chemical reactions.
> > The definition of a catalyst is a substance which promotes a chemical > reaction but is not consumed in the process. The catalyst in a catalytic
> > converter is not consumed.
>
> More Bullshit.
How exactly do the chemical reactions going on in the catalytic converter consume the catalyst?
> > The catalyst is embedded in a porous refractory material that allows > exhaust gasses to pass over the catalyst particles and react with them > but
> > prevents the catalyst from being blown out the tail pipe. The catalyst > in a catalytic converter should last the life of the car as long as the > owner doesn't do something
> > stupid like use leaded gas which destroys the catalyst.
>
> What does that have to do with the wear that takes place from the hot
> gases passing acros the surface of the catalyst?
>
> NOTHING.
What does that have to do with the chemical reactions in the original context of the discussion? NOTHING.
> >
> > > Maybe you should send the manufacturers a corrective letter.
> > >
> > > I'm not going to waste my time with that type of logic, Mr. Rabello.
> > > MOST catalysts are consumed in the reactions they catalyze,
> >
> > Incorrect, see the definition of a catalyst above.
> The definition of a catalyst has NOTHING to do with the wear associated
> with being in the environment in which the catalyst in a catalytic
> converter exists.
> Does paint wear off the nose of an aircraft?
> Is it because the paint is OXIDIZED off,
> or is it due to the friction of all that high-speed air
> wearing it off?
The mechanical wear you are now ranting about has nothing to do with the original discussion which dealt with catalysts and chemical reactions. Please try to remember the topic of
this discussion and stop going off on tangents.
> >
> > > but the are
> > > not involved in the reactions any more than as catalysts - they are
> > > consumed by fluidic friction, heat, etc., wear.
> >
> > Sometimes it is not economically feasible to recover and reuse the catalyst. In the case of platinum, palladium, and rhodium and other very expensive metals the catalyst is
> > almost always recovered and reused.
>
> And what is the total mass of catalyst left in a used converter vs the
> total mass of catalyst in the same NEW one?
> Identical, you say?
> Dream on.
Perhaps you have some verifiable facts and figures on the rate of catalyst consumption that you would like to share with us?
> >
> > > A catalyst can be used any way it is deemed necessary, act as a catalyst
> > > in a reaction, and go down the drain with the chemicals it catalyzes.
> > > Unless, of course, you know some rule that states that a catalyst MUST
> > > be applied to a reaction as a stationary object, and if it is swept out
> > > with the bathwater, it isn't a catalyst at all.
> >
> > The rules of economics always apply.
>
> And?
And what? That's an answer to your question.
> >
> > > But if that is the case, Mr. Rabello, perhaps you could enlighten us as
> > > to the role of the platinum as an agent in the chemical reaction taking
> > > place, and the molecular structure of the resulting hydrocarbon
> > > combustion compound which contains the platinum in it, and how it is
> > > formed in the process.
> >
> > Why don't you explain it
>
> I'm not the person claiming it takes place, stupid.
> Do you even know the context of what you'e saying?
You are the self-proclaimed expert on the subject. Should we not defer to YOUR wisdom?
> > instead since you say:
> >
> > > > Hardly, Mr. Rubello. I spent the last 2 years researching catalytic
> > > > actions on fuels, and where it can be done.
> >
> > From what I've seen of your "research" abilities the results should be good for a laugh.
>
> From what I've seen of your supposedly "educated" account of the
> realities that exist in the real-world environment of heat and friction
Heat and friction were not the issue in the above exchange. If you carefully reread your own words it should be clear that the discussion centered around the chemical reactions
taking place in the catalyst. Heat, friction, erosion, wear, etc. are all issues you have introduced in a rather clumsy attempt to change the subject.
> inside a catalytic converter, the core of which stands right in the
> midst of (and in opposition to, I might add) the rapid flow of millions
> of cubic feet of pressurized hot gasses AND particulate matter per year,
> without wearing at all (what a yuck THAT is), I'm pretty sure that you'd
> get a chuckle from just about anything.
Not anything, but your clumsy attempts at moving the goal posts of an argument you are clearly loosing are quite amusing.
> (Note to sci.skeptic, sci.physics, etc. NG readers and posters:
> Please ignore this post -
> I am simply replying to a post in sci.energy.hydrogen
> which someone else has chosen to cross-post into your NG's -
> any other replies by me to posts in sci.energy.hydrogen
> which end up as cross-posts into your NG's are the result of
> someone else posting in sci.energy.hydrogen who is also
> cross-posting into your NG's,
> and is not an attempt on my part to post in your NG's.
> I have NO DIRECT INTENTION to post in sci.skeptic, sci.physics,
> etc. -
> I am simply replying to posts in sci.energy.hydrogen
> which are cross-posted by someone else, and I am tired
> of having to delete your NG's from the cross-post list of their
> posts.
> It's their doing - not mine.
> If you have complaints,
> take them up with the original cross-posters.)
That's ok. We skeptics love it when woo-woos like you come to visit. It really makes our day. Drop by anytime.
> OH (M D)
> >
> > --
> > Michael Davis
> > http://mdavis19.tripod.com
> > http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
> > skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
> >
> > "For men become stagnant, and their evolution ceases, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
The changes you made to my sig are a real juvenile effort at humor.
--
Michael Davis
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://www.mdpub.com/ufo/skeptic.html
skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
"For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Fred Kasner
aluminum the oxide layer is transparent and protects it from further
oxidation. There is only one known example of a metal that does not form
under ordinary circumstances an oxide layer. That is gold. All the other
apparently corrosion resistant metals form self protecting surface
layers of oxide. I do have to admit that I am clueless about technetium.
However a few pounds of technetium for research is beyond my present
means.
FK
Chris1
>Chris1 wrote:
>> Water injection is based on real science, but it doesn't do what dummy
>> likely wants it to do. Water injection helps reduce detonation. It was used
>> alot on old turbocharged engines to help keep them in one piece.
>>
>> Chris
>
>Ah - the voice of a real "expert."
>Apparently, since you're such an "expert" on the subject,
>you can now describe the emergency power button
>that was installed on WWII fighters as well.
Nitrous Oxide? What's that got to do with water injection? Please enlighten
us!
Chris
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>: Apparently, since you're such an "expert" on the subject,
>: you can now describe the emergency power button
>: that was installed on WWII fighters as well.
>
>Some-ones yanking your chain.
Always heard it was a lever, may have even been a position on the throttle past
wide open (full throttle). This would activate Nirous Oxide. Never hear of an
emergency power Button. While we're on this topic, where's the "Any Key" on my
computer's keyboard? I've looked and looked and can't seem to find it, but I
keep getting prompts to press it.
-ANT
gblack
"Michael Hannon" <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39D4588E...@earthlink.net...
: Chris1 wrote:
:
Harry H Conover
: Harry, one point of error about platinum. It does oxidize but like
: aluminum the oxide layer is transparent and protects it from further
: oxidation.
I stand corrected. Still, by contrast, aluminum oxide is anything but
tranparent (freshly turned aluminum is extremely shiney and metalic, but
after a few hours of merely standing in air takes on a whitish coloration).
By contrast I have a few thing strips of very pure platinum and rhodium
that, even after 30 years, are as perfectly reflective as the day they
were produced.
Back around 1969 I had a small electronics company that produced its
own circuit boards (along with circuit boards sold to others). This
involved plating gold on the majority of boards, and rhodium on the
very special products. (Never actually worked with platinum, but rhodium
is chemically very close to platinum except more costly.) We had to
be extremely carefuly in plating the rhodium onto the boards, because
while gold plating could be chemically removed from the board if rework
was required, there was absolutely no known way to remove the rhodium
once it was plated. You couldn't even stain the stuff, much less
disolve it. Quite possibly this was due to the invisible oxide layer
that you've just described.
Still, my most striking memories of precious metals in those days
(although gold still was regulated by the federal government and we
needed a license to buy it for manufacturing use) was the cost difference
between the various metals. At that time, you could buy an ounce of gold
in solution for $55, close to a pound of silver for a similar price, but
a mere gram of rhodium in solution was approximately $75! The prices
struck me an ungodly high at the time, but in retrospect if I had only
stockpiled the gold at $55, I could have made a killing! And that was
the price in solution...bullion was even less. Oh well....
: There is only one known example of a metal that does not form
: under ordinary circumstances an oxide layer. That is gold.
Quite right, gold cannot (AFAIK) form gold oxide. Still, it can
and does oxidize in the formal sense of oxidation (a reaction resulting
in an increase of the valance of the reactant). If memory serves
me correctly, gold chloride is not uncommon, and gold bromide is not
unknown. (Recall that years back I worked for Eastman Kodak who had a
rather vested interest in the subject of halides). In fact, while a
vast majority of photographic emulsions are based on silver halide
chemistry, more than a few specialty products employed gold halides.
So it's probably more accurate to say that gold can be oxidized, but
not readily by oxygen.
Also, recall the semiconductor industry's "Purple Plague" 13-20
years back. Wasn't that ultimately traced to gold chemically reacting
to something post manufacture?
Damn, now you've got me thinking about that...so I'll probably be up
all night digging through books and searching the web! ;-)
Harry C.
Steve Spence
is? or maybe you are from his mama's side? ;-)
--
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
ssp...@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children.
--
"Fred Kasner" <fka...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:39D3D5BC...@enteract.com...
Scott Craver
>> The catalyst is embedded in a porous refractory material that allows
>> exhaust gasses to pass over the catalyst particles and react with them
>> but prevents the catalyst from being blown out the tail pipe.
>What does that have to do with the wear that takes place from the hot
>gases passing acros the surface of the catalyst?
>
>NOTHING.
Can you freakin' READ? He just explained this.
Of course, any company selling a real product with real
platinum will try hard to keep it from being thrown out,
since real platinum is expensive.
>Does paint wear off the nose of an aircraft?
>Is it because the paint is OXIDIZED off,
You make no sense. No matter how you try to exaggerate,
the platinum in a catalytic converter is not worn away
anything like this snake-oil product that is designed
to throw it away. Provided it actually does contain any
platinum. But they say so on the web site, right? RITE?
>> The rules of economics always apply.
>
>And?
And, this should have made you suspicious long ago of this
company.
>OH (M D)
-S
Walter Curnow
Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Phul Nayme wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 06:00:02 GMT, Michael Hannon
> > <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >I've also read in detail a SIEMENS patent which states that their
> > >catalytic device will work, and it does, but NOT on fuel with the
> > >normal additives oil companies put in the fuel.
> > What is the patent number?
> Haven't got it.
> A patent lawyer showed it to me -
> I read it, and returned it to him.
How convenient. He must have squirreled it away with your own
nonexistent patents.
> If you're so hungry to find out,
> do a patent search on it.
A patent search comes up null.
> If you think I'm lying,
> I'm not.
Quite simply, bullshit.
> Siemens does, in fact,
> own a patent on a catalytic
> fuel economy device that works,
> but only on fuels that have no additives.
Simply posting a patent number could prove me wrong, but I say you're
full of shit like you always are.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Fred Kasner
PBY trip to Long Island NY. The P-38 had no emergency power button. When
I mentioned that myth to pilot of the P-38 be laughed. What you are
probably thinking of was the post WWII planes that had a JATO
capability. That is jet assisted take off. The jets were the extra power
for take with a full load of fuel and armament. Once used they were no
longer available.
Poor guy, you will believe any urban or otherwise myth.
FK
Fred Kasner
regia (HNO3 and HCl acids mixed). It's just that all metals (I don't
know about Tc) will to some extent air oxidize. But Au won't.
FK
Michael Hannon
Also interesting : the screen next to the driver's door is a readout
screen for the driving pattern the driver is supposed to apply, with
engine rpm, speed, etc.
In other words, THIS SYSTEM IS DRIVER DEPENDENT, IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATED
COMPUTER-CONTROLLED TESTING SYSTEM, and totally subject to the human
error of the driver, and those prepping the system.
There is what appears to be an IDENTICAL rig at the TNO Lab in Delft
Holland (the rig is of Japanese manufacture), where most of the testing
for the Dutch government takes place (just like the testing for the EPA
takes place at the listed labs.
During one set of tests at TNO in Delft, it was discovered that they had
run maximum horsepower tests with a restrictor venturi clamped to the
exhaust (an absolute NO-NO - all maximum horsepower tests were supposed
to be run with a large, unrestricted pipe clamped to the exhaust), not
only ruining the objectivity of those tests, but edangering the lives of
personnel in the lab, especially the driver, by the possiblility of a
catalytic converter explosion due to the high back-pressure caused by
the heavy restriction of the exhaust at maximum engine load and rpm.
It was also discovered upon shutdown that a large rubber donut had been
placed in front of the venturi between it and the exhaust pipe, and it
was SMOKING during the tests, and upon disassembly showed signs of heavy
distortion and further restriction of the exhaust. When asked what the
smoke was, a TNO official said it was simply "heat."
It was also discovered that there were 130+ of unexplainable extra
kilometers found on the vehicle tested while left overnight in the hands
of the personnel at the TNO lab.
Take another look at that test rig, GB.
It's only as objective as the staff running it,
and is far from bulletproof.
I've been there and seen what kind of "objectivity" such an expensive,
sophisticated lab can toy with.
I have yet to see a lab that is really, truly objective.
I've even seen drivers in labs pumping the accelerator, riding the
clutch and brakes, all during the same tests, and separately, while the
poor customer paid them up to $500/hr to do it. I've seen engine rpms
dance in high gear from one figure to another while the "roadspeed"
remained constant, and smelled the odor of burning clutchplates and
brakepads during and after tests when there shouldn't have been any such
odors at all.
Anyone thinking of having a product tested should beware of any lab
which allows NO ONE but the driver in any area during testing - it opens
up a Pandora's Box of potential fiddling with results.
One test I didn't see was on Z-Max, an oil approved by the FAA as
Avblend. I use it in my car, and since I started, the mileage from a
tankful of gas has gone from ~425 mi to ~540 (on one trip I drove from
Carson City, NV to Kingman, AZ on one tankful in a car loaded with me
and >400 extra lbs of luggage).
I'd really like to see their comments on that one,
whatever good they may serve.
Like Ross Perot said, "It all goes down to where the rubber meets the
road."
OH (M D)
Michael Hannon
Walter Curnow wrote:
>
> In article <39D290EB...@earthlink.net>,
> Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Phul Nayme wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 06:00:02 GMT, Michael Hannon
> > > <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > >I've also read in detail a SIEMENS patent which states that their
> > > >catalytic device will work, and it does, but NOT on fuel with the
> > > >normal additives oil companies put in the fuel.
>
> > > What is the patent number?
>
> > Haven't got it.
> > A patent lawyer showed it to me -
> > I read it, and returned it to him.
>
> How convenient. He must have squirreled it away with your own
> nonexistent patents.
>
> > If you're so hungry to find out,
> > do a patent search on it.
>
> A patent search comes up null.
Or is it your capacity to do one good enough?
>
> > If you think I'm lying,
> > I'm not.
>
> Quite simply, bullshit.
Quite simply, I'm telling the truth.
>
> > Siemens does, in fact,
> > own a patent on a catalytic
> > fuel economy device that works,
> > but only on fuels that have no additives.
>
> Simply posting a patent number could prove me wrong, but I say you're
> full of shit like you always are.
You can say whatever you like, Mr. Curnow -
I've seen the patent, with Siemens as the assignee.
If you don't want to believe it, that's your business.
That in no way denies the fact that I had
the thing in my hands and read it.
So say whatever you like -
I could care less.
Ever been in a RENTAL car that got well over 70mpg@75mph, Mr. Curnow?
I have, and it wasn't a hybrid.
OH (M D)
Michael Hannon
ANT The Monarch of Menace wrote:
>
> >Never had to replace a CC that wasn't working anymore that was clean
> >inside, eh?
>
> NOPE. Only have had to replace ones that had physical damage to them. By that I
> mean ones that had been "neutralized" by either fuel (leaded)--oil
> contamination or ones that had melted or broken apart.
>
> There's a local converter rebuilder that I know. Very big operation. You know
> how they rebuild the converters? They hook them up to a V8 engine on a stand
> and run them till they're real hot and check the emissions.
And??
What if they FAIL the emissions??
> If they clean up
> and flow nicely then they're declared rebuilt.
And what if they don't??
> PERIOD. No paint, no opening of
> the housing. NOTHING ELSE.
Gee, that's reellyy ammazzing, ANT.
>
> >Who do you think you're kidding, ANT?
>
> Who do YOU think you're fooling? None of the rest of us. I speak from real
> world experience. I didn't just read about this on the web.
Apparently your interpretation of Reeel Wooorld events needs some
refinement. Ever seen CC FAIL that runup emissions test?
>
> >Exactly how thick do you think that catalyst coating is, anyway?
>
> Obviously not as thick as some people's skulls.
You've definitely got that one right, ANT.
Let me clear up some other cobwebs in that granite brain of yours -
you are not unbiased, ANT -
not even close,
so don't try peddling yourself here as being so,
because that'd be fraud on your part.
>
> >Do you think the entire honeycomb is pure platinum?
>
> Shows what you know, not all of them are honeycomb structures,
Duh, reeely -
what a revelation!
> many are pellet
> form.
>
And you're claiming that the coating on those pellets NEVER wears off?
You're then simply a fool.
> >I used to pick up metallic catalytic honeycombs sitting in barrels of
> >them at a local scrap yard for pennies each
>
> Is that before or after you collected discarded aluminum cans and bottles?
Never did that one, ANT, but judging by your claims of impartiality and
Reeel Woorld wisdom here, I wouldn't put it past you.
>
> >Why is it that manufacturers recommend periodic replacement of catalytic
> >converters?
>
> THEY DON'T. Where did you hear that one from? As a matter of fact it is a
> Federal Offense to replace a funtioning converter with less than 5 years or
> 50,000 miles of use on it.
> Why would you want to you may or may not ask?
Say what, ANT, the Monarch of Mayonnaise?
>Some
> people upgrade to a higher flow performance one, but technically this is
> illegal. The Feds really don't want people messing with them. Also in the state
> of Californication junkyards are not allowed to sell converters to anyone other
> than a converter rebuilder or some sort of precious metal recycler. Go figger.
I'll leave that to you,
since you seem to need the mental exercise.
OH (M D)
> -ANT
Michael Hannon
>
> Michael Hannon (oh2...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : ANT The Monarch of Menace wrote:
> : >
> : > >
> : > >The catalyst in a catalytic converter is also consumed in the process,
> : > >but it is still called a catalytic converter, isn't it?
> : > >Maybe you should send the manufacturers a corrective letter.
> : >
> : > It's consumed? In 25 years of repairing vehicles that's the first time I've
> : > heard of that. There are times that they get contaminated by a poor running
> : > engine, or even fuse (melt) for the same reason. I've even seen them break
> : > apart, but NEVER have I seen or heard of one wearing away.
> :
> : Really?
> :
> : Never had to replace a CC that wasn't working anymore that was clean
> : inside, eh?
>
> Why would he have to do that, unless of course it has been physically
> damaged in an accident? The platinum in a CC never gets consumed, but
> it can get 'poisoned' or coated with crap.
>
> : Who do you think you're kidding, ANT?
> : Exactly how thick do you think that catalyst coating is, anyway?
>
> It's a very thin film, because that's all required, since in a car's
> CC the catalytic action is entirely a surface effect.
>
> : Do you think the entire honeycomb is pure platinum?
> : Do you have any idea what that would cost?
>
> Mikey, no one except you would ever believe something as
> ridiculous as that.
Very funny, CONman.
More snipped out-of-context manipulation you're famous for.
> Similarly, do you think that the round
> pebbles used in that type of CC are solid platinum?
No I don't.
Similarly, do you believe that those COATED pellets, which normally
vibrate inside the converter (they can be heard doing so)
NEVER lose any of that coating to wear?
> If they
> were, realize that that can of pebbles would be valued at many
> time the cost of the new car! ;-)
Cute, CONman.
Pure misdirecting garbage,
but the wink makes it so cute,
I could pinch your rosey drunken cheeks,
and dribble your red nose.
>
> : I used to pick up metallic catalytic honeycombs sitting in barrels of
> : them at a local scrap yard for pennies each - all of them were clean,
> : and all of them were replaced because they wouldn't catalyze enough to
> : pass emissions tests anymore.
> : Why do you think that was?
>
> Like most things found for sale at junkyards, they're there because
> the car there were in was wrecked, not before they wore out. How long
> do you believe that people would buy used car parts from scrap yards
> if the parts were they because they didn't work, rather than having been
> salvaged from wrecks?
>
> By the way, what was your purpose in picing up metallic catalytic honeycombs
> from scrap yards if they no longer functioned? Since you maintain that all
> of the platinum in them has been 'used up',
NEVER SAID IT WAS ALL USED UP,
YOUR DRUNKEN MISLEADINGNESS.
Of course, putting words in people's mouths
is one of your standard misdirection practises.
> why did you buy them?
Wouldn't you like to know.
>
> : They looked fine, but they just couldn't clean the exhaust anymore.
> : Why is it that manufacturers recommend periodic replacement of catalytic
> : converters?
>
> Can you document even one car manufacturer actually making such a
> recommendation? This possibility is not mentioned in either my Ford
> Bronco or Chevrolet owner's manual, or even the shop manuals that I
> own for these vehicles. Your claim is pure fantasy.
Could be.
>
> I once owned a Chevy Malibu that during its life had to have the CC
> replaced 3-times, not because the platinum because used up, but because
> it had a faulty air pump that by supplying insufficient air to the CC
> had repeatedly impaired its functioning to the point where each became
> fouled up with crud to the point of causing exhaust pressure build-up
> that eventually prevented engine operation.
I'm astonished.
>
> :
> : >
> : > My layman's understanding of the definition of a catalyst is something that
> : > causes a chemical reaction, but sacrifices nothing of it's mass in the process.
> : > It just aids a process and is NEVER consumed thru this action.
> :
> : Wonderful.
>
> Glad to see that you understand this critical point. A catalyst only
> modifies (accelerates) the rate of a chemical reaction, but doesn't
> otherwise participate in it. Of course sometimes the catalys is disposed
> of along with the spent reactants (use of manganese dioxide to catalyse
> inorganic chemical reactions is such an example). With these, the 'baby'
> is essentially thrown out with the bath water, simply becuase it is not
> cost effective to recover it. Platinum and its surface catalysis relatives
> are far to costly to employ in such a style, hence it is always employed
> in such a way that it is preserved (usually in the form of a low density
> metalic gauze, or a surface coating on a permant matrix composed of some
> less costly material). In industrial applications, this is usually done
> using a gauze or mesh made of platinumized titanium or other stable metalic
> or ceramic base coated with a layer of platinum or rhodium only microinches
> thick.
>
> : Try that routine on newbies, ANT.
> : Catalysts WEAR.
>
> Examples? Mikey...they don't in most applications.
In an automotive CC, they do,
and in any application where heat, friction, and any other means of
wearing can take place, the catalyst WEARS.
WEAR is not part of the chemical reaction the catalyst is used to
facilitate, but an incidental factor dependent upon the processes
involved. Throw hot, pressurized, high velocity gases and particulate
matter at a catalytic coating, and some of it will WEAR off.
It can simply BURN or melt off as well, if heated hot enough.
To sit there and say that this can't happen is absurd.
The CC in a car
> is such an example. It lasts nearly forever provided it isn't fouled
> or poisoned. With a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ well tuned engine with its > pollution control system
> in good operating condition, unless you use leaded gas, the life of your
> CC should exceed that of the car.
Duh, NEARLY forever?
Why wouldn't it last forever in a clean-burning well-maintained car,
CONman? ^^^^^^^
Couldn't POSSIBLY be because the catalytic coating wears off from being
in the environment it's in, eh??
>
> : If they don't, then they should be used as anti-wear surfaces on
> : EVERYTHING.
>
> Except for cost, you're probably correct. Realize that the majority
> of surface catalysts are noble metals like Platinum, Rhodium, etc.
> In addition to their unique chemical properties, their physical
> hardness and resistance to wear makes them a clear choice for time
> and wear resistant objects such as jewelry
Haven't seen a lot of platinum or rhodium jewelry - just a little.
Seen lots of gold and silver -
both of them soft metals.
> and utility items.
Such as?
> Their
> resistance to involvement in chemical reactions means they don't
> oxidize or tarnish, which makes them a first choice for protective
> platings on high-temperature resistant printed circuit boards,
> searchlight mirrors, and other critical applications. (For what it's
> worth, rhodium followed by platinum are the most light reflective
> elements known to man, which when coupled with the fact that they
> don't tarnish or oxidize makes them the first choice for use in the
> most cricitical reflector applications.
Worthless pontification, CONman.
Anti-xidation and chemical inertness are characteristics of the soft
metal gold as well, which people have been know to bite into to
authenticate.
Ever seen any high-speed hardened ball bearings coated with platinum or
rhodium simply to improve their WEAR characteristics?
>
> Damn, Mikey got something right...perhaps for the first time! ;-)
>
> Tell you what Mikey, next Christmas you can send me a Rhodium or
> Platinum (on a titanium base) flatware set for my dining room. Do
> that and you'll make a life long fan! ;-)
I'll save you the trouble of waiting, CONman.
Here's an early present -
AA is just a phone call away.
>
> : Anyone who thinks that a catalyst that sits in the middle of any rapid
> r
> : flow of hot chemicals (ie, a HOT exhaust pipe through which thousands of
> : cubic feet of hot gases flow per hour) doesn't wear under that flow is
> : simply dreaming.
>
> Or knows chemistry and physics much better than yourself!
Uhuh.
Let's go back to
"The CC in a car is such an example. It lasts nearly forever provided
it isn't fouled or poisoned." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Harry C.
>
> p.s. The CC on my 1990 Big Bronco is still sitting there heating away
> after nearly 200,000 miles of daily use. It even went through the
> Massachusetts ehanced emission tests in August and scored so far
> under the limits that emissions are even a concern with this
> vehicle (which is now blowing through a quart of oil each month).
Uhuh.
> Damn amazing that that worn out old catalytic converter, with all
> of its platium blown away by 10 years of use and 200,000 miles is
> still functioning like a champ!
Damned amazing that you can get away with blowing a quart of dirty oil
out your exhaust pipe into the air every month and it was never even
picked up on an "ehanced" smog test, catalyst or not.
Even more amazing is the fact that you're bragging about it.
> This leads me to believe that at
> least one of us hasn't got our facts and stories straight.
It would indeed, CONman.
Particularly that last bit about all that oil blowing out your exhaust.
I had a Sable that still passed CA emissions with flying colors at
160,000
miles. That still doesn't mean that the catalytic coating in the
converter was as thick as it was when the car was new.
Fact is that cars aren't built to last forevever in the first place,
CONman.
Run a car long enough with the same catalytic converter, even if that
converter NEVER is contaminated, one day it won't catalyze as well as
when it was new, and one day it won't catalyze at all, because all of
the catalytic coating will have worn, burned, or melted (or any
combination) off.
OH (M D)
Michael Hannon
Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> Oh he knows what a Faraday cage is. He stores his brain there when he
> goes online. Note that electric fields do differ from magnetic fields.
> You can have a real monopole in an electric field (ever heard of a
> negative charge?)
Not one that was perfectly symmetrical in all directions.
>
> FK
>
> Raphael Korsoski wrote:
> >
> > He's obviously never heard about a Faraday Cage. He probably thinks the frame of a car is a monopole if you just put enough juice through it. ;)
> >
> > In article <39C660D9...@enteract.com>,
> > Fred Kasner <fka...@enteract.com> writes:
> > > Wonderful, he posits a monopole and then admits it is not because he not
> > > only says there is a S pole both in the interior and even outside of his
> > > device. Case closed he's a total idiot.
> > >
> > > FK
Harry H Conover
: Harry H Conover wrote:
:
: NEVER SAID IT WAS ALL USED UP,
: Of course, putting words in people's mouths
: is one of your standard misdirection practises.
:
: > why did you buy them?
:
: Wouldn't you like to know.
Sure would, since accordingly to you they are no longer servicable.
As an aside, lay of mixing the booze and meds. Stupid we can deal with
here, but drugged, drunk and nasty makes readers less sympathetic
to your pitiful situation.
: > Except for cost, you're probably correct. Realize that the majority
: > of surface catalysts are noble metals like Platinum, Rhodium, etc.
: > In addition to their unique chemical properties, their physical
: > hardness and resistance to wear makes them a clear choice for time
: > and wear resistant objects such as jewelry
:
: Haven't seen a lot of platinum or rhodium jewelry - just a little.
: Seen lots of gold and silver -
: both of them soft metals.
The hardness of metalic elements is well documented, so there is no
point in debating it.
: Worthless pontification, CONman.
: Anti-xidation and chemical inertness are characteristics of the soft
: metal gold as well, which people have been know to bite into to
: authenticate.
The hardness of metalic elements is well documented, so there is no
point in debating it.
:
: Ever seen any high-speed hardened ball bearings coated with platinum or
: rhodium simply to improve their WEAR characteristics?
No, because they are too costly for this use. The more common element
in use for this purpose is chromium and sometimes vanadium. Ever hear
of chrome-vanadium steel? Duh!
: > p.s. The CC on my 1990 Big Bronco is still sitting there heating away
: > after nearly 200,000 miles of daily use. It even went through the
: > Massachusetts ehanced emission tests in August and scored so far
: > under the limits that emissions are even a concern with this
: > vehicle (which is now blowing through a quart of oil each month).
:
: Uhuh.
:
: > Damn amazing that that worn out old catalytic converter, with all
: > of its platium blown away by 10 years of use and 200,000 miles is
: > still functioning like a champ!
:
: Damned amazing that you can get away with blowing a quart of dirty oil
: out your exhaust pipe into the air every month and it was never even
: picked up on an "ehanced" smog test, catalyst or not.
Wrong again Mikey, it never gets blown out of the exhaust pipe because
it never gets beyond the catalytic converter. Catalytic converters
consume faint traces of oil just well as they do gasoline vapor -- provided
they're in good operating condition. And yes, the Massachusetts enhanced
emission tests verified that this old buggy with nearlly 200,000 miles on
it has better emission characteristics than do the majority of new
japmobiles. I have a printout with the actual measurements to prove
it.
: Even more amazing is the fact that you're bragging about it.
You totally lost me on that comment Mikey, but given the way your drug
numbed, alcohol soaked, warped brain functions, this comes as no great
surprise.
I suspect that it might seem provocative to tell you that I also own
a 1982 Mercury Capri with a sun roof that is still on the road, and
passed Massachusetts inspection in August (as did the Bronco). It
was a bit easier of the Capri, since it does't have to meet any
emission requirements. Sadly, on this guy I am not the original owner,
so to restore it to good operating condition I've replaced the engine,
clutch, exhaust system (including the CC), brakes, battery, carburetor,
tie rod ends, and tires. Probably a few other things. The body came
from New Jersey, hence it has no salt damage. Even with it's oxidixed
gray paint, it still draws attention when you drive it. Next month
it's getting a finish strip down and new bright red finish coat.
At that point it will effectively be in factory new condition, plus
a larger engine than the factory put out. At that point, I'll have put
around $15K into this thing, which if I decide to sell it will fetch
$25K or more.
Getting back to the Bronco --
Indeed, the near perfect operating and physical condition of my 1990
Bronco XLT provides evidence of the driver's skill in operating it, and
the careful attention to maintenance given to it.
In fact, I am quite proud that I have owned an driven this vehicle for
now over 10-years, put nearly 200,000 miles on it, and its still in
pristine cosmetic condition and perfect operating condition. In fact,
I fully expect to sell it for more than the price I paid for it new in
July, 1990. (If you hadn't noticed, Ford discontinued production of the
Bronco several years back. Since they time they have become collectibles.
Sad for me that I can no longer buy a new one -- Good for me since its
price as a collectable may in a year or two even exceed its original
puchase price.)
Looking at things from a practical sense, the Bronco new set me back
$19K, paid off over its first 5 years at $400 a month. Since it was paid
off, it's annual maintenance cost has been about $1,500, or less than
four month's payments. Can you beat that, except by driving a junker
with no reliability? Expensive to operate, you bet -- About $25/week
for gas alone at today's prices. Still, cheap for a vechicle that
can go anywhere under any conditions, haul by 5,000-lb sailboat,
has nearly unlimited room to move around in, and all in air conditioned,
fm stereo, electric everything comfort.
I do love this truck, and am really pissed at Ford for discontinuing it.
The For Expedition is built on the same F150 truck chassis, but the
Expedition for one reason or another just doesn't cut it with Bronco
owners, just as the re-styling of the Taurus didn't cut it with real
Taurus lovers. I figure it's approaching time for something new, and
the Mercedes SUV is looking pretty good right now, but neither have I
ruled out the GMC Jimmy or a Land Rover. Damn Ford!
Am I am bragging? Not one owner in ten is able to drive and maintain
his vehicle for this long without reducing it to a rusty, worn-out wreck!
Some even manage to accomplish this destruction in as little as 2-3
years! Damn right I'm bragging.
Mikey, with the mechanical savy you often claim here, I'd love to learn
how long the cars you own last. For some mysterious reason I suspect thay're
not many people standing in line to buy your trade-ins.
Harry C.
Harry H Conover
:
:
: >
: > Oh he knows what a Faraday cage is. He stores his brain there when he
: > goes online. Note that electric fields do differ from magnetic fields.
: > You can have a real monopole in an electric field (ever heard of a
: > negative charge?)
:
: Not one that was perfectly symmetrical in all directions.
Doses this mean that you know of 'lumpy' asymetrical negative
charge? If not, what do you mean?
Harry C.
p.s. I left out the smiley because from other posts of yours I sense
that it offends you. Just assume that everytime I post a followup
to one of your silly posts, an invisible smiley is present.
Dr. Bob
used up are inherently expensive. Now someone wants us do actually dump
platinum into the carb of an engine. Not likely.
But if we can run the car exhaust into a vacuum cleaner bag, maybe we can
reclaim the platinum! ;-)
Dr. Bob
--------------------------
In article <39D139D7...@earthlink.net>, Michael Hannon
<oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|robert luis rabello wrote:
|>
|> Michael Hannon wrote:
|>
|> > Comic relief?
|> > You mean like your insistence that it is "impossible" to use a platinum
|> > catalyst in the air intake of an engine?
|> >
|> > http://www.nationalfuelsaver.com/webdoc4.htm
|> >
|> > Shows exactly how myopic your world really is, Mr. Kasner.
|> >
|> > And you're the so-called "expert" representative here?
|> >
|> > ROFL
|> >
|> > OH (M D)
|> >
|>
|> The air cleaner is just an air cleaner. With no fuel present,
there is no reaction to "catalyze". If the platinum is injected somehow,
it's hardly a
|> catalyst, as it would be consumed in the process (or, at least,
discharged out of the exhaust pipe). I think you misunderstand the
definition of a catalyst and
|> its role in chemical reactions.
|
|Hardly, Mr. Rubello. I spent the last 2 years researching catalytic
|actions on fuels, and where it can be done. A vapor containing a
|platinum solution can easily be introduced at the air cleaner housing so
|that it mixes with the intake air before the combined volume mixes with
|the fuel,
|and it WILL increase economy by enhancing the combustion process..
|
|Read the page, Mr. Rubello. Placement of the platinum solution vapor
|injection can just as easily be done right at the interior of the air
|cleaner housing.
|This is a good system, but there are better, many of them patented,
|and MANY work, and that includes the Pogue carburetor. The only reason
|the Pogue stopped working is that the catalytic chamber became coated
|with the additives oil companies add to gasoline that coat the catalyst
|and render it ineffective.
|I've also read in detail a SIEMENS patent which states that their
|catalytic device will work, and it does, but NOT on fuel with the normal
|additives oil companies put in the fuel.
|
|That's the whole name of the Game, Mr. Rubello - catalyzing the fuel so
|that it doesn't need to be done by the catalitic converter on what isn't
|burned inside the engine due to poor combustion, particularly of the
|larger molecules in the fuel.
|
|Simple question - can a duodecane molecule, which is very difficult to
|burn in an engine because of its sheer mass and molecular structure, be
|broken down into smaller, more easily combustible molecules by catalytic
|action?
|
|OH (M D)
|
|
|>
|> robert luis rabello
Dr. Bob
Something like 15% more power, or was it higher? Unfortunately, the
efficiency substantialy decreased. So it was a good way of staying alive
in a dogfight, but made it hard to get back to base without running out of
fuel!
Dr.Bob
----------------------------
In article <8qus8s$ets$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
sacr...@ivy.ee.princeton.edu (Scott Craver) wrote:
|Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|>JC Whitney has been selling a very simple engine vacuum water vapor
|>injection system for cars for YEARS.
|
| And if it's in the JC Whitney catalog, then it must be based
| on REAL SCIENCE.
|
|>OH (M D)
| -S
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
------------------------
[...]
|
|Harry H Conover wrote:
|>
|> Fred Kasner (fka...@enteract.com) wrote:
|> : Harry, one point of error about platinum. It does oxidize but like
|> : aluminum the oxide layer is transparent and protects it from further
|> : oxidation.
|>
|> I stand corrected. Still, by contrast, aluminum oxide is anything but
|> tranparent (freshly turned aluminum is extremely shiney and metalic, but
|> after a few hours of merely standing in air takes on a whitish coloration).
|> By contrast I have a few thing strips of very pure platinum and rhodium
|> that, even after 30 years, are as perfectly reflective as the day they
|> were produced.
|>
Walter Curnow
Dr....@anl.gov (Dr. Bob) wrote:
> Water injection was used to increase the power of WWII aircraft
> engines.
> Something like 15% more power, or was it higher?
ISTR numbers upwards of 40%!
> Unfortunately, the
> efficiency substantialy decreased. So it was a good way of staying
> alive
> in a dogfight, but made it hard to get back to base without running
> out of fuel!
Definitely.
The free energy nutcases always forget about the minor fact that
you cranked up the boost and the fuel to make that power. The water
injection was merely to keep the engine from detonating. But talk to
Mikey and he'll probably say that water injection is just one more
avenue to the world of free energy.
Nonnaho
is always quick to claim that people he is arguing with have no real
world experience with what they are talking about, only knowledge gained
from a book. Now we see how he turns the other cheek when the person
he is arguing with does have real world experience. Does Mr. Hannon
have more experience with catalytic converters than ANT? Enquiring
minds want to know!
Nonnaho
Chris1
The usual crackpot explanation is that the water is vaporized in the
combustion chamber, and therefore increases pressure like a steam engine.
LOL! It's not coincidence that the people who fall for fuel milage scams
are also the people who don't have the slightest clue how an engine works.
I'd bet that most of them dropped out of school too.
Chris
Clifford A. Brown
What is the point behind your post?
You don't have any argument as to the expense of spraying platinum in your
fuel/air stream except some terse reply that doesn't mean anything. The
rest of your responses had even less relevence.
Please explain why YOU think that this is such a great idea.
By the way I really am glad that this thread came along because I finally
realized the point behind the platinum spark plug. :-)
Cliff Brown
Michael Hannon <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39D45105...@earthlink.net...
> Andrew Carol wrote:
> >
> > In article <39D28FDA...@earthlink.net>, Michael Hannon
> > <oh2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Carol wrote:
> > > > How much does it cost to supply the platinum to this system? Do you
> > > > know how that stuff costs a pound?
> > > Don't know -
> > > IT'S A SOLUTION CONTAINING PLATINUM, Mr. Carol.
> >
> > It doesn't do anybody any good to save some percentage of their gas
> > costs only to have to pay ten times that in buying platinum that will
> > be sprayed out their exhaust.
>
> If that's all you have comprehended from reading the site,
> I understand why you would say that.
>
> > If it's sprayed it, it's all going down the drain afterwards. Doesn't
> > sound very economical to me.
>
> Ditto my respose above.
> >
> > That doesn't even take into account the fact that there is almost no
> > unburned gasoline left for this process to burn.
> >
> Ditto again.
>
> > > Are you dense, or what???
> > >
> > > JC Whitney has been selling a very simple engine vacuum water vapor
> > > injection system for cars for YEARS.
> >
> > Last I checked water is much less expensive than platinum.
>
> An astute observation.
>
> > Perhaps
> > that expains the difference? But then again, I'm dense.
>
> You certainly are.
> >
> > BTW, what do YOU do on your car? Do you inject platinum into your
> > engine? Do you have magnets on your fuel lines? Do you use a pogue
> > carborator? Surely if this stuff works, you'd be doing some/all of it.
>
> Sounds about as intelligent as the rest of your post here.
> Why don't you guess what I do.
> I'd never seed a carborator -
> wadisit?
> >
> > Oh well....
>
> I agree.................
The Grouchybeast
> > http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/devices.pdf
> > (bottom of page 27)
> Take another look at that test rig, GB.
> It's only as objective as the staff running it,
> and is far from bulletproof.
*All* experimentation has a subjective element. All that can be done is
to write the protocols to try and be as objective as possible, and to
try and ensure the independance of the testers.
That's why they test two vehicles from different manufactureres. With
the vehincle pre-run to ensure equal starting conditions. That's why
they run the tests before the device is fitted, with the device, and
after the device is removed. That's why the test is performed in
triplicate for each configuration. That's why they do a hot start and a
cold start. To a specified shedule designed to test urban milage.
That's why the EPA requries the applicants to provide details of the lab
they use for initial tests, and to ensure the EPA will be able to
contact that lab.
This seems to be a slightly more stringent protocol than that described
on the manufacturers web site.
> Anyone thinking of having a product tested should beware of any lab
> which allows NO ONE but the driver in any area during testing - it opens
> up a Pandora's Box of potential fiddling with results.
Yet, oddly, they produced positive results for some of the products.
Just not most of them, and not the Platinum Gasaver. All they need for
a positive result is a 5% improvement in efficiency.
Basic question: Which seems more independant to you, a test performed to
EPA standards with the result published by them, or a test posted on the
manufacturer's own website?
> OH (M D)
The Grouchybeast
Nonnaho
>
<snip>
> > Bullshit.
> > Friction and wear will remove a coating - it has NOTHING to do with
> > tghe chemical rection it facilitates.
>
> Don't go trying to move the goal posts. The discussion was about
> whether or not catalysts are consumed in chemical reactions.
Yes, this is what Mr. Hannon does when proved to be wrong.
<snip>
> > What does that have to do with the wear that takes place from the hot
> > gases passing acros the surface of the catalyst?
> >
> > NOTHING.
>
> What does that have to do with the chemical reactions in the
> original context of the discussion? NOTHING.
It has everything to do with Mr. Hannon failure to admit he was wrong.
<snip>
> > Does paint wear off the nose of an aircraft?
> > Is it because the paint is OXIDIZED off,
> > or is it due to the friction of all that high-speed air
> > wearing it off?
>
> The mechanical wear you are now ranting about has nothing to do with
> the original discussion which dealt with catalysts and chemical
> reactions. Please try to remember the topic of this discussion and
> stop going off on tangents.
If he didn't go off on tangents, he would have to admit he was wrong
( or stop posting ). But would never do either.
<snip>
> > And what is the total mass of catalyst left in a used converter vs the
> > total mass of catalyst in the same NEW one?
> > Identical, you say?
> > Dream on.
>
> Perhaps you have some verifiable facts and figures on the rate of
> catalyst consumption that you would like to share with us?
He'll claim that he never meant catalyst consumption via chemical
reaction. But we all know differently.
<snip>
> Not anything, but your clumsy attempts at moving the goal posts of
> an argument you are clearly loosing are quite amusing.
Don't let him get away with this!
<snip>
Nonnaho
Dr. Bob
reading the National Enquirer. It's mutch more rational than *this*
newsgroup! Now, 'scuse me, I need to get back to watching Jerry
Springer. ;-)
Dr. Bob
----------------------------
In article <39D89876...@all.org>, Nonnaho <NoBr...@all.org> wrote:
|This ba...........
[...]
ce. Does Mr. Hannon
|have more experience with catalytic converters than ANT? Enquiring
|minds want to know!
|
|[...]
Scott Craver
>
>Basic question: Which seems more independant to you, a test performed to
>EPA standards with the result published by them, or a test posted on the
>manufacturer's own website?
When I brought up some suspicious issues regarding that web site,
Mr. Hannon's response was to show that my arguments made no sense,
given information ... from the suspect web site. It seems.
For instance, he asked how this could all be a sham if they've
been in business 14 years w/o being arrested. Well, if it
_was_ a sham, presumably they could just _say_ they've been in
business 14 years. Unless he has another source for this.
Other references, such as to the "article" on the web site,
all suggest that Mr. Hannon is making certain assumptions of
fact that make it impossible for anyone to argue that the web-site
itself is illegit.
>The Grouchybeast
-S
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>know
>> how they rebuild the converters? They hook them up to a V8 engine on a
>stand
>> and run them till they're real hot and check the emissions.
>
>And??
>What if they FAIL the emissions??
Well, oh great one, then they aren't sold but recycled. WOW! What a concept!
>
>> If they clean up
>> and flow nicely then they're declared rebuilt.
>
>And what if they don't??
See above.
>
>> PERIOD. No paint, no opening of
>> the housing. NOTHING ELSE.
>
>Gee, that's reellyy ammazzing, ANT.
Not as amazing as what some people pass off as fact.
>Apparently your interpretation of Reeel Wooorld events needs some
>refinement. Ever seen CC FAIL that runup emissions test?
Yep, and your point being?? Besides the one on top of your head.
>> Obviously not as thick as some people's skulls.
>
>You've definitely got that one right, ANT.
>
Do you even own a mirror? Try using it for once. Oh, I forgot, Vampires don't
show up in mirrors.
>
>Let me clear up some other cobwebs in that granite brain of yours -
>you are not unbiased, ANT -
>not even close,
>so don't try peddling yourself here as being so,
>because that'd be fraud on your part.
Pardon me, but what the HELL are you talking about? Is that some inference on
your part that I'm some sort of plant here to confuse some technical issue and
subvert the successful implementation of free energy schemes? HOO BOY! Wait'll
I tell the boys back at the CIA about this one. I wonder where this week's
paycheck is.
>> Shows what you know, not all of them are honeycomb structures,
>
>Duh, reeely -
>what a revelation!
I suppose that's about as close as an admission that you don't know something
as I'll ever see.>
>And you're claiming that the coating on those pellets NEVER wears off?
>You're then simply a fool.
Never said that, what I did say if you knew how to COMPREHEND what's written is
that unless the converter is damaged thru a poor running engine then they do
tend to last for an extremely long time (your mileage may vary as they say in
the ads).
>> Is that before or after you collected discarded aluminum cans and bottles?
>
>Never did that one, ANT, but judging by your claims of impartiality and
>Reeel Woorld wisdom here, I wouldn't put it past you.
What the hell does THAT mean? You like to be cryptic, don't you? Why is
everything such a conspiracy in your view? I guess it's easier to blame the
failure of some pet project on outside forces than to face the reality that
you're just plain wrong.
>Say what, ANT, the Monarch of Mayonnaise?
That's so funny I forgot to wipe.
>in the state
>> of Californication junkyards are not allowed to sell converters to anyone
>other
>> than a converter rebuilder or some sort of precious metal recycler. Go
>figger.
>
>I'll leave that to you,
>since you seem to need the mental exercise.
That's ironic coming from someone who's mentally constipated. Don't worry
Mikey, I's still luvs ya. Kisses!
-ANT
ANT The Monarch of Menace
>|have more experience with catalytic converters than ANT? Enquiring
>|minds want to know!
Well seeing as how I happened to invent catalytic converters while working for
the NSA on project Majestik at hanger 11 in Area 52 on reverse engineering
captured Atlantian UFO's, it's a good bet that I know just a tad more than most
on this particular subject. Besides, the Atomic Mole People told me so.
-ANT
ANT The Monarch of Menace
> that it offends you. Just assume that everytime I post a followup
> to one of your silly posts, an invisible smiley is present.
How about an invisible middle finger salute? "You're number one!" hee hee!
-ANT
Steve Spence
--
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
ssp...@webconx.com
(212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children.
--
"Clifford A. Brown" <CB13...@NCR.COM> wrote in message
news:39d8ba02$1...@rpc1284.daytonoh.ncr.com...
Fred Kasner
about dielectric strength being a bond. It is simplistically easy to
produce an electric field that is "perfectly symmetrical in all
directions." Any conductive spherical object with an electric charge on
it (negative or positive) fits that condition perfectly! You have just
shot yourself not in the foot but in the head. Total nonsense on your
part, Grand Dummy!
FK
Michael Hannon wrote:
>
> Fred Kasner wrote:
> >
> > Oh he knows what a Faraday cage is. He stores his brain there when he
> > goes online. Note that electric fields do differ from magnetic fields.
> > You can have a real monopole in an electric field (ever heard of a
> > negative charge?)
Here's the gem folks!
*******************************************************************
>
> Not one that was perfectly symmetrical in all directions.
*******************************************************************
Walter Curnow
s2...@aol.computer (ANT The Monarch of Menace ) wrote:
> Pardon me, but what the HELL are you talking about? Is that some
> inference on
> your part that I'm some sort of plant here to confuse some technical
> issue and
> subvert the successful implementation of free energy schemes? HOO
> BOY! Wait'll
> I tell the boys back at the CIA about this one. I wonder where this
> week's paycheck is.
Wow, that sure took a long time, ANT.
Mikey accuses everybody who disagrees with him of being part of a
conspiracy to suppress him. He has directly accused a number of the
people here of being CIA plants to suppress free energy information on
usenet. It's surprising you haven't caught on to this delusion of his
before now.
By now you must realize Mikey is psychotic. Blame the Reagan
Administration. Before the '80s there were plenty of mental hospitals
to house and treat the mentally incurable. Now they just medicate them
and thrust them back into society. Mikey is a Vietnam vet, 100%
disabled due to severe schizophrenia. He's been in and out of the
VA hospital system for the last 20 years. The doctors can only do so
much for him, because he always stops taking his medication shortly
after he leaves the hospital. He's OK for a few weeks, then the voices
start coming back. You can see it in his posts. His posts get more and
more psychotic over the course of several weeks, then he disappears for
a few weeks altogether. When he reappears, he's surprisingly lucid
until the voices start coming back.
Sure, Mikey is a pest here. (Actually, I think he's wonderful
entertainment in a cruel sort of way.) But if you want to find out
just how much of a pest he can be, contact the Reno NV or Thompson CT
police departments. The guy has already severely injured himself with
his ignorant "mad scientist" antics. It's just a matter of time before
he injures or kills someone else. I would hate to live near him.