Eeyore wrote:

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

Brad you're a nut job.

FUCK YOU TOO.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Graham

Gee, 7,8 O'clock in the UK, and you are on your fifth pint?

Eeyore wrote:

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

Brad you're a nut job.

FUCK YOU TOO.

Graham

Gee, 7,8 O'clock in the UK, and you are on your fifth pint?

On Jun 15, 12:29 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
No

Did you really have to quote 200 lines of text to say that you lying *CUNT* ?

Graham

Wow,look at the time I posted and the time you posted.

On Jun 14, 3:16 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Which is better for the environment: LH2/H2O2 ?

What are you doing with it?

Bradyou're a nutjob. Your belief in hydrogen peroxide is misplaced.
Hydrogen peroxide while useful in some specialty applications doesn't
contain enough energy to be of interest as a general fuel. Even so
hydrogen peroxide is highly explosive in high concentrations and a
powerful bleach. Anyone who has put a 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide
on a wound,knows how easily the stuff can decompose. Ammonia
solutions don't do that. And neither does gasoline.

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil
6.2 tons coal
6.5 tons ammonia
65.0 tons hydrogen peroxide
130.0 tons sodium sulfur batteries
1,300.0 tons lead acid batteries

Hydrogen peroxide is more in line with batteries than fuel. AND its
highly explosive.

Ammonia on the other hand has a lot going for it - and can be almost a
1 for 1 replacement for coal - while eliminating all the CO2 emissoins
as you siad.

NOx emissions are not an issue to a properly designed plant - any more
than rust is an issue to a properly maintained ship. Yeah you can get
it if you're not careful. But its not an issue to a well run plant.

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 12:29 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
No

Did you really have to quote 200 lines of text to say that you lying *CUNT* ?

Graham

Wow,look at the time I posted and the time you posted.

You ignorant PRICK

On Jun 15, 10:29 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:





Bradyou're a nutjob. Your belief in hydrogen peroxide is misplaced.
Hydrogen peroxide while useful in some specialty applications doesn't
contain enough energy to be of interest as a general fuel. Even so
hydrogen peroxide is highly explosive in high concentrations and a
powerful bleach. Anyone who has put a 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide
on a wound,knows how easily the stuff can decompose. Ammonia
solutions don't do that. And neither does gasoline.

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil
6.2 tons coal
6.5 tons ammonia
65.0 tons hydrogen peroxide
130.0 tons sodium sulfur batteries
1,300.0 tons lead acid batteries

Hydrogen peroxide is more in line with batteries than fuel. AND its
highly explosive.

Ammonia on the other hand has a lot going for it - and can be almost a
1 for 1 replacement for coal - while eliminating all the CO2 emissoins
as you siad.

NOx emissions are not an issue to a properly designed plant - any more
than rust is an issue to a properly maintained ship. Yeah you can get
it if you're not careful. But its not an issue to a well run plant.

I'm not talking about any stinking plant for creating H2, or that of
commercial sized fuel cells utilizing H2. I'm talking about us end-
users that'll burn that H2 getting to/from work and play, and/or for
whatever heating and cooking instead of natural gas that has it's
element of radium which contributes radon gas.

BTW; H2 fuel cells can also produce h2o2 as their byproduct, so not
all is lost in your having created all of that affordable H2 in the
first place.

You still haven't listed the side by side worth of those pro/con
issues of birth to grave (all-inclusive) factors. What are you afraid
of?

If Earth's atmosphere didn't have so much N2, as such we'd be good to
go with H2, even though it's taking more energy by at least 25% in
order to utilize H2 (actually by the time of taking in those all-
inclusive birth to grave factors into account, we'd be doing good at
H2 taking a 50/50 share (in other words equal parts) in order to
safely create, store, distribute and utilize.

BTW I've never stipulated that LH2 shouldn't be created from
whatever's of clean and renewable energy that's in surplus, just
insisting that a greater portion of that spare/surplus energy should
go into creating h2o2 that can be made as powerful as you'd like, or
all of it made into 3% mouth wash. Either way it's a win-win for
humanity and for our badly failing environment that doesn't exactly
have enough spare/surplus energy to go around, much less for the
making of H2 that's going to unavoidably create those nasty secondary
elements of NOx.

The last time I'd checked, mother Earth doesn't need any more NOx.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil

Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil


Brad Guth



A totally worthless factoid.

Don Lancaster wrote:

BradGuth wrote:

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil


Brad Guth



A totally worthless factoid.

Brad is notorious for unstable thinking. I'll assume he ran out of
action on the other groups and why he is here. He will soon be talking
about Venus.....

In article <0LEci.10446$ya1.8568@news02.roc.ny>, Dan Bloomquist says...

Don Lancaster wrote:


BradGuth wrote:


Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil


Brad Guth



A totally worthless factoid.

Brad is notorious for unstable thinking. I'll assume he ran out of
action on the other groups and why he is here. He will soon be talking
about Venus.....


Wrong attribution, the quote is from William. I think Don got a little
over enthusiastic with his editing.

Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <0LEci.10446$ya1.8...@news02.roc.ny>, Dan Bloomquist says...

Don Lancaster wrote:

BradGuth wrote:

Fact is one ton of hydrogen gas has a heating value equal to;

1 ton H2 = 3.2 tons crude oil

Brad Guth

A totally worthless factoid.

Brad is notorious for unstable thinking. I'll assume he ran out of
action on the other groups and why he is here. He will soon be talking
about Venus.....

Wrong attribution, the quote is from William. I think Don got a little
over enthusiastic with his editing.

Yep. Don has done that many times, this isn't the first. Often enough
that it may be purposeful. Then again, he may be using an adobe
newsreader...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, he's right about the low density of hydrogen....

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:16:03 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:

And we've developed a system that costs $0.02 per peak watt - has
variable load characteristics to work well with variable sources like
solar panels and windmills, and even as a secondary load to a baseload
generator -

I don't think so. You may _think_ you have developed a $0.02/watt
system, but you've shown nothing but talk here. You have described some
plausible and innovative improvements, but your demeanor is that of a
megalomaniac, which reduces the probability of anything coming to
fruition, IMHO.

A polymer alkaline exchange membrane (one that moves OH- through the
ionomer chain not H+) using nickel and tin as catalysts achieve the
efficiencies quoted AND cost 1/2% that of Nafinol - made with a very
simple method that orients the chains and made in sufficient quantity to
make material costs dominate!

See, this is a central problem of solar power or any alternative power
systems. Everyone in the biz is constrained by capital and management
gurus that look to the LAST big technology win to inform them about how to
manage the NEXT one. As a resuilt you have under-sized mis- managed
companies. Oh, good people, great people, but they can't compete against
experts in the energy business. So, what do they do? Demonize the
competition. Yeah, that works! haha..

NOT

Look you accuse me of being a meglomaniac. I say to you NUTS! haha.. You
don't know what you're talking about. The fact of the matter is, you've
GOT to think big in order to be competitive against the others in the
energy business. If you DON'T think big then you WON'T COMPETE! And
that's pretty much the history of the alternative energy business. A
bunch of small thinking losers that bad mouth major energy and don't do a
DAMN THING to change anything. And they sponge off the government worse
than a welfare mom on crack, and lie about the importance of what they
really do.

Shit

And I come along and say rather plainly what our cost targets have to be,
what I am doing to achieve them, and what I have done to achieve them. I
also say the scale of the projects we need to achieve my targets. And
then I go out and achieve them. And when I come back to a place like this
and report what I've done - I get blasted as being a meglomaniac! haha..

The most interesting thing I think has happened is I've gotten interviewd
by reporters from the New York Times AND the Wall Street Journal following
the press release and HUGE coverage in Asia - after I got back. 2 billion
tons of coal, 180 sq km of land, 60 million solar panels 30 GW. $800
million downstroke.. DAMN! We're in business boddy. Small by oil
project standards, but in the ballpark to achieve what I need to achieve.
MAJOR NEWS right? haha..

So, I flew to New York City and sat there for two days of interviews at
the request of reporters - my nickel. No problem, I had to meet with my
bankers anyway. Then what happened? After the interviews?

The editors for BOTH papers thought it wasn't newsworthy enough. Who
cares what happens in Indonesia. Then I see this asshole John Neumann
with his so called Free Energy machine on the Science Channel - and I just
gotta laugh.

I got other things to do. haha..

I talk to one reporter one day when she calls. She's bummed that her
story didn't get picked up. I tell her about Neumann's machine and ask
her why not run it on the funny angle you know? I don't care. She said
that's not the problem, if I would have looked like a kook they would have
run it that way. The problem is different. How? I asked. She says read
CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN and A GAME AS OLD AS EMPIRE. She's
thinking about getting into PR work - she's tired of the politics in News
reporting - its not like she thought it would be. She always said things
would be different at the Times. as she worked her way up. And she finds
out its worse. Too bad sweety.

So I found the latter title, and bought it. Pick up the book, read the
first chapter. It explains everything - if you believe it. I don't
believe it. I still believe in America. Too bad your editors an asshole
baby.

So, I'm using my success overseas to cut a deal here in the US. One the
US press won't ignore. Not that press isn't that important - but we think
we get the straight scoop here in America - and oftentimes we do. But
sometimes, we dont'. Sometimes we get a skewed message. Like we know how
toxic rocket fuel is and that its cancer causing, but it took 30 years for
us to admit that cigarette smoke might cause cancer, and we still haven't
even done tests to let us think about gasoline fumes causing cancer,
although scientists reluctantly admit that tumors in rats are caused by
low amounts of gasoline vapor. haha...

I'm a meglomaniac? Not likely. I think you're ensconced in an industry
that's used to thinking tiny and small and incremental - and you've been
that way since the first solar cell was built in 1954!! Its time to wake
up and smell the coffee dude! Quit dreaming that small incremental
changes will bring about massive change. Quit hoping that somwhow someway
people will 'wakeup' -

Fact of the matter is YOU have to wake up - and focus like a laser beam on
the REAL problems facing alternative energy, and THEN come up with
solutions, and THEN figure out how to get them funded on a scale where
they can make a REAL DIFFERENCE!!!

An project financing is the way - and coal hydrogenation is the first step
- and monetizing oil that will be made is how the bills get paid - just
like Jed Clampett monetized the oil under his ground to buy his Beverly
Hills mansion. haha..

And this is but ONE energy project in a world of energy projects, and as
more energy projects are completed, I will leverage the success of each to
create a company large enough to make a difference - and use market forces
to force fundamental change in the energy business - while taking
advantage of a sea change in how oil is produced (the world is entering a
period of secondary production in ALL OIL FIELDS WORLDIWDE).

I rest my case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -