|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Three buses in Chicago working for two years. 50% operation rate. (Not bad for first generation fuel cells.) They have also gone forward with several other pilots. Including a car project in California. The folks a Ballard are realistic enough that they intend to get the manufacturing process down to where they can produce the engine for roughly the same amount of money as conventional combustion engines. They are also working on a hydrogen bromide salt fuel which is combined with water to produce hydrogen and oxygen needed for operation. (Something your model lacks is adequate power to perform electrolosys efficient enough to put enough power back into the battery and run the engine. At some point, your vehicle needs to be recharged. People won't like that.) The Oil companies still have a market in petroleum products. It just removes gasoline from the mix. Not the products used in lubrication of moving parts, petroleum jelly, or it's military counterpart jellied petroleum. The hydrogen market could be done by any number of labs. There are several major suppliers of hydrogen gas. Any chemical company could produce the hydrogen bromide salt in quantity. Do you honestly think that Dow chemical and Eastman chemical companies don't have the cash to fend off the oil companies? Don't forget DuPont and Pharm-Eco either. In addition, Gillig Corporation, which produce heavy duty transit buses, has ordered three fuel engines for buses to enter service in 2004 for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
__________________
Valiant Dancer |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Me, I go with cheap. The difference between a good haircut and a bad one is...about two weeks. Silas |
|
|||
|
I'm very interested in alternative fuel and propulsion, though I don't know enough about it. However, it has no place in a PlanetX thread. Since it seems like some people have interesting things to say about the subject, why not start a new thread? In fact, I'll start it. Why bury an important topic like this in the wrong thread?
|
|
|||
|
FYI, I started the thread I mentioned above at:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...2190&forum=1&0 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
All I merely suggested was that exhaust water can be reused in the system. It's very easy to see how verbal communication can get twisted and misinterpreted but when the written or typed word gets twisted that's very amazing to me. Again, I say please indicate precisely when and where I said this is an over unity system. I know over unity is a four letter word in the mainstream of science but unfortunately they will eventually find out that over unity devices are REAL. Westinghouse has a patent for an over unity device that was a part of the minuteman missle guidance system. PS. I'm ba-ack !!! 111 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also don't forget people have mysteriously disappeared or even died that were involved in such technologies. It is not my desire to become one of those stats so I will be very careful who I tell if I get something that really works. 777 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Awesome ... who said that ??? |
|
|||
|
Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense? probably anybody anytime they want someone to believe something but have absolutely no proof at all.
Its a convienient saying to say the least. The problem with saying "I think god exsists" is that it really is the same thing as saying "I believe god exsists", the same as saying the opposite. You cannot think one way or the other about something without believing one way or the other. Believing something isn't a problem. The problem is blindly believing something in the face of evidence to the contrary. |
|
|||
|
[quote]
On 2002-09-02 10:26, GENIUS'02 wrote: [quote] On 2002-08-30 21:26, overrated wrote: to separate the H and O in water, Quote:
If there is no way around the amount of energy needed then there is a second approach that will supply all the energy required plus even more from the active vaacum using a device that will induce electricity from scalar EM waves that exist throughout the Universe in amounts so abundant that you might as well say it's infinite. This device can supply the required electricity and voila ... you need but modify your engine a tad and build a fuel delivery system and you have a car that only needs to be filled with water in it's fuel tank. This approach, I believe, would be easiest for the transition to all electric vehicles as it allows us time to convert to all electric, otherwise all our present vehicles are scrap metal. I am in agreement with the fact that liquid hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells is the way to go for the all electric car but not with using yet another fossil fuel to generate the hydrogen. Your just shooting yourself in the foot with this line of thinking. 12:12 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
It is my understanding that the Ballard system is just an electric motor powered by electricity generated in a hydrogen fuel cell. After a while the hydrogen must be replenished. If I'm wrong please enlighten. I would like nothing more than to see the Oil companies go the way of the dinosaur. (pun intended) They've had their stab at the cash cow and I think they've had there fill but I agree that we still need petroleum products for lubrication and plastics etc,unfortunately. There are however alternatives to this as well.(synthetics) As for the other chemical mfg'ers you mention I don't really like that idea either as they have been equally responsible for biosphere degradation as the Oil firms. Unless they really clean up their act they will still pollute and then they will be the new fuel cartel sucking our pockets dry. About that hydrogen bromide reaction ... I used to be pretty good at chem but tell me again what the by-products are again ... H an O and what of the bromide and is this toxic. I know they use a bromide in swimming pools in place of chlorine. Well, lost my thought train for the time being bye bye. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
I do have some news on the PX front. A fellow by the name of Lloyd Pye was on Art Bell a few nights ago discussing the Starchild skull. (I know uz are all astronomers here and not anthropologists) so I doubt if you are familiar with this story. Lloyd is a proponent of Zach Sitchin's theories (don't forget folks I lean towards the pro PX side and that's not to say I buy all of it hook line and sinker but I don't dismiss it totally either) ... so Art threw the question of PX 2003 at him and this is what he said. He believes that PX is real but not due back here 2003, he very much doubts this will happen. He did admit that he thinks it's out there though and he knows an astronomer of standard repute (like uze guyz) that thinks he may have found it. He is currently tracking this item of interest and is not ready to come out with it so to speak. Of course Lloyd could not give his name on worldwide radio without his permission and suggested to watch for some posts on his own website for any updates or official releases. I'm sure if Mr. Anonymous Astronomer verifies what he has found he will have his own website and press releases. I will try to find out more about this person from Lloyd. I would suggest that some of you make an attempt as well, you may know of this anonymous astronomer in your circles. Another note about Z. Sitchin ... as far as I am aware, Sitchin has never publicly stated a when time for Nibiru's return and I'm not even sure if he gives a date in his books. I have not read his books but did read some very in depth reviews that were quite illuminating. Richard C. Hoagland and crew at enterprisemission.com have gone on record as quoting Zach that PX's return will not come till 2160. Keeping in mind again that Sitchin has not publicly disclosed.(as far as I know) Sitchin has refuted the 2003 claim by Leder, Hazelwood et al. on his own website. SO I have no idea how Hoaglands crew came up with 2160. From what some have gathered from Sitchins writings is that the last time it was here was during the time of Exodus, when the Jews were lead out of Egypt by Moses. I believe Sitchin puts this approx. 1600 BC. plus minus a few decades or so. If this is true then adding the 3600 years or so that the planet takes to orbit puts the return right around 2003. 2003AD-3600=1597BC. Now the thing we must determine is when was Exodus...was it around 1600BC. A lot of things that were described in Exodus are similar or indentical to what some say happens when this giant passes by. Who knows, maybe this planet is smaller than they say but passes by so closely that it looks huge and causes isolated cataclysmic disruptions. This might explain why the whole planet would not be affected. Another interesting note is this, I have a friend who has a doctorate in paleoecology. I have told him of Nibiru and what it does and when they say it may return. We got talking about his work and how, from his coring sample records and others records of either moderate or extreme climatic changes in the geological record, occur every 3600 years or so. Think on that one for a while. Like I said, the trick is nailing down when the last passage was to within plus or minus 25 years or so and then we will know the WHEN time. PS> I had sat down to respond to this msg and I think a blabbed for at least an hour or more and had so much to say. Unfortunately for me and probably fortunately for you, I forgot to fill my username/password boxes and lost all of it when I submitted. oh well say le'vee ... it's time for my beer fridge to open. <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-09-14 04:50 ]</font> |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
"The problem is blindly believing something in the face of evidence to the contrary." However, there is no evidence either way and it's that leap of faith that most are not afraid of but terrified of. And it doesn't have to be your faith in God or Science or whatever, it may be just the faith in yourself to be able to know the truth and feel safe and comfortable with it, because truth will make you feel so ... it's like being at peace and there are no worries because you know and you don't need a math formula to tell you so. That is spirit. The new quantum physics are now proving that the Universe or our reality is non-local. Meaning that what is known by one can be known by all and vise-versa. This is the mechanism if you will, that can dissolve dualities and paradoxes which are only illusions in this space/time contiunum (dimension). In the new theory, time and distance have no effect on two particles that are linked so to speak. What one particle knows or does on one side of the Universe is simultaneously known or replicated by the other particle on the other side of the Universe.(Countless billions or trillions of light years apart and yet no time lag) These are the types of things that are shattering old paradigms that may have been wrought out of malice or greed or just plain ignorance and selfishness.(That last one should encompass all else including greed and malice.) If one could just imagine for a moment that there is no money, there is no status and there are no inequalities ... then we would have an environment where there is no ridicule, there is no oppression or suppression, science could roll ahead unfettered by controlling, squabbling factions, spirituallity is married to science ... for if there was no spirit there would be no life and no science ... the same can be said of science, without it we probably would have died out as a species from exposure long time ago. Damn !!! I'm babbling again !!! PS. This isn't me talking ... I'm channeling this stuff from my neighborhood. It must be that other newbie from Surrey ... eh ??? 333 <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-09-14 04:56 ]</font> |
|
||||||||
|
Warning: this is a very long post in response to Skeptigal's reply to my post's. Anyone not interested should scroll past. It gets a little sticky near the middle. Quote:
Quote:
tou'che parry parry lunge lunge !!! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are right about one thing though, I don't think either side in this debate has enough facts in their data set just to get past PX's existence. However, the two teams that think they have found a large object out past the Oort cloud is one point for the astronomers and it also may be a point for the pro PXers as well. Something IS out there. And this new fellow astronomer that has been tracking something has got my interest big time, especially since the rumor of this man came from an anthropoligist. Quote:
Quote:
(Is that a real word ???) Quote:
Can you honestly say that you have spent time looking for it on your own telescope time ??? I have read recently about not enough being done to set up a detection system for NEO's. This is the same thing. No one is taking any of it seriously enough. Because if it comes down to a crunch we will lose against a few kilometers of space rock let alone a giant close to the size of Jupiter or at least the mass of Jupiter maybe. Who knows what the hell it is or how big it is. Bottom line is that it may be there whether we like it or not. |