So if Obama is Elected...

[Seamaiden]

If it were so easy to make hydrogen, wouldn't everyone be doing it? It's far easier, though, to burn fossil fuels and the like. Me? I'm waiting for those guys with the oil-pooping bugs in Silicon Valley to get a big start-up investment going so they can just MAKE oil. Hydrogen, in the meantime, is pretty much a pipe dream and I've been saying it for years.

Tryin' not to fuck up the fucked up quote gun, here goes...

Now if I'm not mistaken, Robert Boyle produced hydrogen gas in 1671. Now from my calculations that was a few years before electricity was invented. Wasn't it in the 1700's when a inventor/Senator from the British colonies, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania named Benjamin Franklin, that was struck by lightning and said it was electricity. Now here is another source for you to read of a way to create hydrogen without electrolysis.

I hate to be the one.. wait, no, I don't mind, but, electricity was never invented. It was discovered, it's always existed. We haven't. Sorry, but that just stuck out in my face and I had to scratch it.

 

[GrowRebel]

I really dont think Obama will be elected.

The only way McCain can get elected is through election fraud ... and in order for them to do that is the point spread has to be within 10 points ... that's not going to happen ... he is going to be so far behind when gas hits $5 ... and the war(s) continue to go badly ... no matter how much spin corporate media try to put to it ... no way can McSame win in a fair and open election ... Diebold and voter suppression is his only hope ...

Like WMD's in Iran? If we want war, we've got bombs that we can deliver to any location on the globe...If we want occupation, we need troops. We can project power anywhere in the world with our Navy and Air Force. We need ground troops to occupy. His "Blueprint for America" states he's intent on increasing the Army and Marines...Ground troops. He's also NOT saying that he won't use the buildup in military might offensively. He voted in favor of funding this last War Bill.....that DID NOT INCLUDE A TIMELINE ONCE AGAIN. Doesn't this say something to you? It does me.

It does for me too ... I don't like Obama's voting record ... he has proven to me that he will go along with corporate interests ... if he wins the WH I believe he will not go after the war criminals that caused this mess he will be like Clinton and tell us it's time to move on and heal the country ... the country can't heal unless those war criminals are held accountable ...

If they assassinate the vice, I'd really hate that cave-in Nancy Pelosi to be pres. She is a Bushie in disguise

Hopefully we will be able to get rid of her this fall ... and the rest of the worthless dim leadership ...
keep hope alive ...

I think Obama's going to win in the fall. He's not my first choice—I would much prefer Kucinich, if only to be able to ogle his wife for four years—but he's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

I don't consider McCain to be a serious candidate at all. He's only running because the GOP has to run somebody and it's his turn, but I don't think he stands a chance in hell of winning.

Everybody can see how badly the Republicans have fucked up, and everybody feels like it's time for a change.

I like Kucinich too ... he was the most qualified for the office ... someone who was for the people ...
People wanted change back in 2004, but election fraud and voter suppression put a stop to it ... that's why it's essential to vote this Nov. they CAN'T steal a landslide ... and if you don't like either ... then vote indy ... you could shock the world ... if there are enough of you ...

If you are tried of the corruption get out and vote ... get rid of the incumbent and vote fresh blood in ... it's your duty as an american ...

Its hard to vote when no one is worth voting for. We need Chuck Norris to run for office.

Like I said above ... vote independent ... vote out the incumbents ... but remember the evil ones controlling the elections spend a lot of money and went way out of their way to suppress your vote ... are you going to make it easy for them ... or kick them in the balls? It's up to you ...

 

[ceestyle]

If it were so easy to make hydrogen, wouldn't everyone be doing it? It's far easier, though, to burn fossil fuels and the like. Me? I'm waiting for those guys with the oil-pooping bugs in Silicon Valley to get a big start-up investment going so they can just MAKE oil. Hydrogen, in the meantime, is pretty much a pipe dream and I've been saying it for years.

Tryin' not to fuck up the fucked up quote gun, here goes...

I hate to be the one.. wait, no, I don't mind, but, electricity was never invented. It was discovered, it's always existed. We haven't. Sorry, but that just stuck out in my face and I had to scratch it.

Basically, you can convert fossil fuels to make hydrogen chemically, or you can use an energy source - currently fossil fuels - to make it via electrolysis. The hydrogen economy concept banks on the future of alternative energy sources to power electrolysis. I'm not saying that's not a possibility, but there are a number of other technological and infrastructure issues to be addressed before it's anywhere near a realistic possiblity.

 

[ceestyle]

So Cee, the wise ass one, Have you looked at HHO or brown gas. A gas created by, you guessed it, electrolysis. A gas when used correctly in an ICE, can increase gas mileage from 20-60%. How about getting 28 miles per gallon in a Hummer, or 50-70 miles per gallon in a honda civic, sound like something of interest to the American public. Before you go writing off Water cars, you may want to look into this mr. Chemical engineer, LOL, my ass. The real water cars have been suppressed, you can take that to the bank.
Run Your Car on Water

I don't really care whether or not you believe I'm an engineer. I only responded with that information when my arguments were insulted ad hominem - as a way of avoiding simply addressing the merits of what I said. If you would stick to addressing the validity of what I've said so far, then you wouldn't need to insult my education.

Your strawman argument above assumes that I said there is no possibility of increasing our energy efficiency or doing so with the use of alternative fuels or energy sources.

But to address brown's gas: this is NOT running a car on water. This is using electrolysis powered by the combustion process already occurring in your engine (via the battery) to supplement your fuel with hydrogen. It is highly controversial whether this works at all, but at best it marginally improves your gas mileage. The only reason this works is that the ICE running on gasoline is intrinsically very very inefficient. So by altering the fuel, you can run it leaner and slightly improve efficiency.

This is one of the key principles to the electric/gas hybrid. The gasoline engine as run in our cars runs far far outside of its most efficient powerband range or the vast majority of the time. By running a smaller engine full-time in the peak efficiency of its powerband, you increase efficiency.

For the last time MM, smokedoper, whatever you're calling yourself, do your own research!

 

[medicineman]

In another thread, you clearly said that you found America's march into fascism "frightening." Which is it for you Med ... freedom or fascism?

Vi

You are a one trick pony, freedom or fascism. I guess there is no in between for you. Pretty sad for a supposed learned individual.

 

[ceestyle]

You are a one trick pony, freedom or fascism. I guess there is no in between for you. Pretty sad for a supposed learned individual.

As are you. Try arguing without ad hominem. I bet you can't do it.

 

[medicineman]

I don't really care whether or not you believe I'm an engineer. I only responded with that information when my arguments were insulted ad hominem - as a way of avoiding simply addressing the merits of what I said. If you would stick to addressing the validity of what I've said so far, then you wouldn't need to insult my education.

Your strawman argument above assumes that I said there is no possibility of increasing our energy efficiency or doing so with the use of alternative fuels or energy sources.

But to address brown's gas: this is NOT running a car on water. This is using electrolysis powered by the combustion process already occurring in your engine (via the battery) to supplement your fuel with hydrogen. It is highly controversial whether this works at all, but at best it marginally improves your gas mileage. The only reason this works is that the ICE running on gasoline is intrinsically very very inefficient. So by altering the fuel, you can run it leaner and slightly improve efficiency.

This is one of the key principles to the electric/gas hybrid. The gasoline engine as run in our cars runs far far outside of its most efficient powerband range or the vast majority of the time. By running a smaller engine full-time in the peak efficiency of its powerband, you increase efficiency.

For the last time MM, smokedoper, whatever you're calling yourself, do your own research!

I have and I've found HHO (converted from water and baking soda with a little help from a cars charging system, 15-30 amps@12-14 volts, can add as much as 50% increase in fuel mileage. Now do you dispute the fact that this a good thing, or do you just dispute anything I have to say?

 

[ceestyle]

I have and I've found HHO (converted from water and baking soda with a little help from a cars charging system, 15-30 amps@12-14 volts, can add as much as 50% increase in fuel mileage. Now do you dispute the fact that this a good thing, or do you just dispute anything I have to say?

Strawman. You can't stick to one argument, can you? If you keep changing the subject, you're bound to find something you can state with veracity.

Try this: tell me what color the sky is. I can't argue with that.

The website you cited - besides that it's obviously designed to sell product and therefore completely suspect - advertises devices that run on HYDROGEN, not water.

Citing the first internet reference that comes up on brown's gas is meaningless. Let me give you an example:

I say the world is flat. It's completely true, because there's a site on the internet that says it's so: The Flat Earth Society -- Home

I only believe reputable sources. Read this : How to Run Your Car on Water - Truth About Water-Powered Car, Water Fuel - Popular Mechanics

Sound familiar?

 

[Seamaiden]

Basically, you can convert fossil fuels to make hydrogen chemically, or you can use an energy source - currently fossil fuels - to make it via electrolysis. The hydrogen economy concept banks on the future of alternative energy sources to power electrolysis. I'm not saying that's not a possibility, but there are a number of other technological and infrastructure issues to be addressed before it's anywhere near a realistic possiblity.

The problem that I have with the "hydrogen economy" is that it isn't a hydrogen economy ipso facto simply because hydrogen is being produced. At the current state of technology, every turn makes hydrogen a less viable source of energy because, as you point you, it requires energy to "make" (gain) hydrogen. Also, from what I understand, it seems that it actually requires MORE energy to gain hydrogen than can be reaped from the hydrogen itself. That's called a diet, and I'm already on one. Another method might be via batteries. Oh yeah, those are so much better than any fossil fuel, right?

Converting our economy to a hydrogen economy would be crippling. It's why I'm for developing resources that would truly replace oil in all aspects, so that we wouldn't have to bear astronomical costs for R&D, infrastructure, etcetera. Like those guys in Silicon Valley, they've got the right idea. The article may be a little misleading, the title says they "find" a bacteria, elsewhere I believe they mention it is a manipulated bacterium.
Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol - Times Online

 

[ceestyle]

The problem that I have with the "hydrogen economy" is that it isn't a hydrogen economy ipso facto simply because hydrogen is being produced. At the current state of technology, every turn makes hydrogen a less viable source of energy because, as you point you, it requires energy to "make" (gain) hydrogen. Also, from what I understand, it seems that it actually requires MORE energy to gain hydrogen than can be reaped from the hydrogen itself. That's called a diet, and I'm already on one. Another method might be via batteries. Oh yeah, those are so much better than any fossil fuel, right?

Converting our economy to a hydrogen economy would be crippling. It's why I'm for developing resources that would truly replace oil in all aspects, so that we wouldn't have to bear astronomical costs for R&D, infrastructure, etcetera. Like those guys in Silicon Valley, they've got the right idea. The article may be a little misleading, the title says they "find" a bacteria, elsewhere I believe they mention it is a manipulated bacterium.
Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol - Times Online

Well, the reason that the push has been for the H economy is manyfold, not the least of which - to MM's chagrin I'm sure - is that it is the direction auto manufacturers are embracing.

The existing propulsion technologies based on fossil fuels depend on, well, fossil fuels. Ideally, the H economy can exist independent of fossil fuels, should we develop a clean source of electricity, e.g. wind, solar, biomass, wave, geothermal, etc. Those sources of electricity cannot power our technologies as they currently exist: electricity can't run your suburban.

I confess to not being read on the petrol-producing tech that you cited there, but I would say that the problem with that is that it still produces a fossil fuel that - upon combustion - creates a lot of environmental problems that we are trying to get away from. The consensus is that the combustion of NG and petrol derivatives is not the ideal route. This is another major concern with technologies that use electricity directly - the byproducts of the industry, namely the chemicals in batteries, are a major concern.

I work in photovoltaics, which aim to produce electricity that is essentially environmentally free. I am in the field because I believe it is the future. The other potentially clean sources of energy are largely location dependent, or have a showstopping technological hurdle.

 

[medicineman]

Geeze, interesting stuff, bugs that shit gasoline. You know the old saying you cant get more than you give, meaning there would have to be millions of barrels of feed for millions of barrels if petrol. BTW, what if: the bugs got away and took over the earth, covered it in petrol, no food but all the gas you wanted, Man I'd be one hungry happy hot rod owner, my 6 mile to the gallon hot rod would be in heaven.

 

[ceestyle]

Geeze, interesting stuff, bugs that shit gasoline. You know the old saying you cant get more than you give,

so ... apply this logic to splitting water and recombining it to form water and expecting a net energy gain.

meaning there would have to be millions of barrels of feed for millions of barrels if petrol. .

plants harness the sun's energy, which is free. bugs take that energy and use it convert the energy stored in plants to another energy source.

 

[Seamaiden]

Well, the reason that the push has been for the H economy is manyfold, not the least of which - to MM's chagrin I'm sure - is that it is the direction auto manufacturers are embracing.

The existing propulsion technologies based on fossil fuels depend on, well, fossil fuels. Ideally, the H economy can exist independent of fossil fuels, should we develop a clean source of electricity, e.g. wind, solar, biomass, wave, geothermal, etc. Those sources of electricity cannot power our technologies as they currently exist: electricity can't run your suburban.

I confess to not being read on the petrol-producing tech that you cited there, but I would say that the problem with that is that it still produces a fossil fuel that - upon combustion - creates a lot of environmental problems that we are trying to get away from. The consensus is that the combustion of NG and petrol derivatives is not the ideal route. This is another major concern with technologies that use electricity directly - the byproducts of the industry, namely the chemicals in batteries, are a major concern.

I work in photovoltaics, which aim to produce electricity that is essentially environmentally free. I am in the field because I believe it is the future. The other potentially clean sources of energy are largely location dependent, or have a showstopping technological hurdle.

AHA! I've been wondering why and how it is that you know so much about light!

Man.. ok, if I get going I'll completely divert and hijack my own husband's thread. He hates when I sneak food from the cutting board.

Wait, you lazy fuck!

(I will see your ad hominem, and raise you one non sequitur.)



















Sorry, that was probably REALLY badly pulled off. I can't blame it on anything just yet, but give me time, I'll find something.

 

[ceestyle]

The problem that I have with the "hydrogen economy" is that it isn't a hydrogen economy ipso facto simply because hydrogen is being produced. At the current state of technology, every turn makes hydrogen a less viable source of energy because, as you point you, it requires energy to "make" (gain) hydrogen. Also, from what I understand, it seems that it actually requires MORE energy to gain hydrogen than can be reaped from the hydrogen itself. That's called a diet, and I'm already on one. Another method might be via batteries. Oh yeah, those are so much better than any fossil fuel, right?

Converting our economy to a hydrogen economy would be crippling. It's why I'm for developing resources that would truly replace oil in all aspects, so that we wouldn't have to bear astronomical costs for R&D, infrastructure, etcetera. Like those guys in Silicon Valley, they've got the right idea. The article may be a little misleading, the title says they "find" a bacteria, elsewhere I believe they mention it is a manipulated bacterium.
Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol - Times Online

oh, btw - i have some friends working on a similar idea using bacteria to create hydrogen. another way of harnessing the sun without too much "high-tech" at all.

 

[Seamaiden]

oh, btw - i have some friends working on a similar idea using bacteria to create hydrogen. another way of harnessing the sun without too much "high-tech" at all.

Did they have to go with those... damn, now I'm drawing a blank, I wanna call 'em Archaeo-bacteria.. or... something-phytes. DAMN I hate when that happens! The bugs you find in volcanic hot springs and seeps and deep ocean, methane pools.. those places. Dammit, bad places.

 

[medicineman]

[/color]so ... apply this logic to splitting water and recombining it to form water and expecting a net energy gain.




plants harness the sun's energy, which is free. bugs take that energy and use it convert the energy stored in plants to another energy source.

So in a sense it may actually be a "Bugs world" after all.

 

[ceestyle]

Did they have to go with those... damn, now I'm drawing a blank, I wanna call 'em Archaeo-bacteria.. or... something-phytes. DAMN I hate when that happens! The bugs you find in volcanic hot springs and seeps and deep ocean, methane pools.. those places. Dammit, bad places.

extremophiles, yes, i believe they use some thermophiles. i'm def not on the bio side of things, so i'd have to point you somewhere else for info on that.

 

[Seamaiden]

extremophiles, yes, i believe they use some thermophiles. i'm def not on the bio side of things, so i'd have to point you somewhere else for info on that.

I think that the oil bugs (reminds me of the oil alien of X-files) are gen-en'd from extremophiles (THANK YOU).

 

[ViRedd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRedd In response to Med's statement that if he had the power, he would nationalize the oil industry ...

"In another thread, you clearly said that you found America's march into fascism "frightening." Which is it for you Med ... freedom or fascism?"

Med replied ...

"You are a one trick pony, freedom or fascism. I guess there is no in between for you. Pretty sad for a supposed learned individual."


If you are referring to my constantly pointing out your hypocrisy and convoluted political logic, then I proudly wear the label of "One Trick Pony."

Nationalizing industry IS fascism, Med.

See Spot run ... See Jane Jump.


Vi

 

[ceestyle]

Quote:


Nationalizing industry IS fascism,


Vi

not by any definition of fascism that i know.