hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

"> I see.

I have absolutely no idea why that might be. As I say, I don't post through > Google anyway !

Please don't top-post btw.

Graham, I am now bottom posting, but realize that it take a special
cut and paste effort to do this and have the quoted text visible, and
I sometimes do this for a special purporse, but usually only when
responding to long posts on an item by item basis. The default is to
have the original post included in the followup, but concealed. Hence,
today, top posting or bottom posting really makes no difference for
people who have been following a thread.

You must have a very unusual newsreader if it causes that much trouble. I use the classic
Netscape 4.8 for Usenet (quite intentionally) and have no such difficulties.

Regarding the Google alert on your posting profile. I certainly
wouldn't loose any sleep over it. Actually Graham, are you the same
Graham that has been posting to the newsgroup for years under a
different signature? If not, my error.)

And now a bit of history which can be skipped, without any significant
information loss...

Years ago the primitive newsreaders in use made a difference between
top posting and bottom posting, with fans of each style. Today's
newsgreaders such as Google's and many others will conceal the quote
of the original posted to which the followup pertains, unless one acts
to cause it to be displayed. Hence, there is no real reason to
normally differentiate between top posting and bottom posting, nor any
definite preference one over the other.

I disagree as would most Usenet regulars that I know. Bottom-posting or better still *in-line*
posting (as I use) combined with sensible snippage of old material is the current favourite
method.

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Graham, were I to have the choice, I'd return immediately to the old
Unix based tin newsreader.

Graham, were I to have the choice, I'd return immediately to the old Unix
based tin newsreader. Why, you might ask? Simply because it would
organize the threads on a newsgroup so that those with new posts would be
at the top of the list. It is a shortcoming of modern newsreaders that
most fail to do this.

Whether someone top posts or bottom posts is, IMHO, such a trivial issue
that it is not even worthy of addressing. By contrast, the material
content of their post is all important. Unfortunately, some people have
these priorities reversed.

Harry C.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:21:17 -0700, hhc314 wrote:
Graham, were I to have the choice, I'd return immediately to the old Unix
based tin newsreader. Why, you might ask? Simply because it would
organize the threads on a newsgroup so that those with new posts would be
at the top of the list. It is a shortcoming of modern newsreaders that
most fail to do this.

Whether someone top posts or bottom posts is, IMHO, such a trivial issue
that it is not even worthy of addressing. By contrast, the material
content of their post is all important. Unfortunately, some people have
these priorities reversed.

Harry C.

Hi, Harry. Good to see you posting again.

You might want to try Linux and the Pan newsreader. I changed to Fedora a
year or so ago from Win98 and Agent, and will never go back. Being
experienced in UNIX should make Linux seem pretty familiar to you. AFAIK,
Vista should be compatible with a dual boot. Pan runs under Xwindows, but
tin is probably still available, if you prefer the command line.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing more posts from you. Right now there's
more action over in alt.global-warming.

Take care.

Bill Ward

Bill, it's great to hear from you once again. Like you, I rarely read or
post here anymore, and simply dropped by to post a suggestion about the
utilization of biomass waste material. While not my field, I am somewhat
interested in the subect because I remember when, back around 1970, United
Engineers (a division of Raytheon) was funded to construct I believe 6
pilot plants in this connection. Funding was cut short before the first
plant was completed.

Now that energy has become a first order priority, I believe that serious
investigation of such concepts should be reinitiated. At worst case, worth
a try.

Bill, this newsgroup has forever been a haven for crackpottery, but back
years ago their proponents like Mike Hannon and a few others could "put up
the good fight." It was fun then, but not today. Do you remember the
enless debatats about 'Brown's Gas' and Stan Meyer's 'water fuel cell'?
Fun entertainment! I miss those days.

Curiously, JW (formerly H2OPWR and now posting under the name knews4u2c)
is the only remaining relic of that era. For his persistance, I have to
give him credit.

Bill, I I regularly post on a number of newsgroups, usually sci.physics
and rec.pyrotechnics (I've been a fireworks junkie for over 50 years).
I'm currently promoting the formation of a new science newsgroup which,
if we succeed, it will be called rec.physics.moderated. Hope to see you
there.

Harry,

I spent a considerable time responding to your comments point by point.
Unfortunately even though Google Groups said my response was posted, it
failed to appear. So, rather than go through the whole thing again I'll
summarize1 haha..

1) Conventoinal solar power costs $11 per peak watt including all balance
of systems. Their life span is 8 years and you are exposed to 800 hours
per year,you're only going to produce 6.4 kWh at a total cost of $20
(equipment + time value) - which is your $3.12per kWh.

2) My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system. Its life span is 20 years. And it is operated in
areas exposed to 1,600 hours per year. So, its going to produce 32 kWh at
a total cost of $0.16 - which is $0.005 - one half cent per kWh.

3) I do not sell my equipment. I sell gasoline diesel fuel and jet fuel
to pay for equipment I build. I build own and operate facilities that
produce liquid fuels using this equipment. I take $4 worth of coal,
$0.60 worth of water, along with $4.40 worth of equipment and make one
barrel of gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel blend. The value of this
fuel is well over $70. By selling a portion of the forward production
at a discounted price, I obtain funds to build own and operate the
plant. This cost adds another $9 per barrel of fuel.

2) My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system....

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:11:37 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:
Harry,

I spent a considerable time responding to your comments point by point.
Unfortunately even though Google Groups said my response was posted, it
failed to appear. So, rather than go through the whole thing again I'll
summarize1 haha..

1) Conventoinal solar power costs $11 per peak watt including all balance
of systems. Their life span is 8 years and you are exposed to 800 hours
per year,you're only going to produce 6.4 kWh at a total cost of $20
(equipment + time value) - which is your $3.12per kWh.
2) My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system. Its life span is 20 years. And it is operated in
areas exposed to 1,600 hours per year. So, its going to produce 32 kWh at
a total cost of $0.16 - which is $0.005 - one half cent per kWh.

Reality check time - how many peak kWh of these panels have you actually
produced at that cost? At any cost?

3) I do not sell my equipment. I sell gasoline diesel fuel and jet fuel
to pay for equipment I build. I build own and operate facilities that
produce liquid fuels using this equipment. I take $4 worth of coal,
$0.60 worth of water, along with $4.40 worth of equipment and make one
barrel of gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel blend. The value of this
fuel is well over $70. By selling a portion of the forward production
at a discounted price, I obtain funds to build own and operate the
plant. This cost adds another $9 per barrel of fuel.

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?

snip>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Over the weekend CNN aired an interview with and expert on agriculture
-- The subject being eEthanol.

During the interview, he cited the fact that nearly all Ethanol is
today being produced from our domestic corn crop, and in 2006
accounted for 30% of the total corn market, and anticipated that
should the demand for Ethanol continue to grow, it will soon account
for 50% of our domestic corn production.

Using *corn* extensively to make motor fuel is uniquely daft.

Graham

On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:11:37 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:
Harry,

I spent a considerable time responding to your comments point by
point. Unfortunately even though Google Groups said my response was
posted, it failed to appear. So, rather than go through the whole
thing again I'll summarize1 haha..

1) Conventoinal solar power costs $11 per peak watt including all
balance of systems. Their life span is 8 years and you are exposed to
800 hours per year,you're only going to produce 6.4 kWh at a total
cost of $20 (equipment + time value) - which is your $3.12per kWh. 2)
My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system. Its life span is 20 years. And it is operated in
areas exposed to 1,600 hours per year. So, its going to produce 32
kWh at a total cost of $0.16 - which is $0.005 - one half cent per
kWh.

Reality check time - how many peak kWh of these panels have you actually
produced at that cost? At any cost?

3) I do not sell my equipment. I sell gasoline diesel fuel and jet
fuel to pay for equipment I build. I build own and operate
facilities that produce liquid fuels using this equipment. I take $4
worth of coal, $0.60 worth of water, along with $4.40 worth of
equipment and make one barrel of gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel
blend. The value of this fuel is well over $70. By selling a
portion of the forward production at a discounted price, I obtain
funds to build own and operate the plant. This cost adds another $9
per barrel of fuel.

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?

snip

On the sale side, each plant costs $6.3 billion to complete and I have
arranged to sell forward contracts for 243 million barrels of fuels on
forward contracts to raise this amount of cash for each plant. This
represents about 1/6th of the total production of the facility.

So, I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide over
that same period.

Of course, once production starts at these facilities within the next 60
months, the forward contracts become future contracts and they may be
sold for more than double their face value. This is likely to occur
well before production actually begins.

In the laboratory I have made about 100 gallons of a wide variety of
hydrocarbons to work out the details of the processes I use. The work is
based largely on that of Bergius on the hydrogenation side and on Shell
on the hydrocracking side.

Harry,

I spent a considerable time responding to your comments point by
point. Unfortunately even though Google Groups said my response was
posted, it failed to appear.

Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?

I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

Eeyore wrote:
hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
Over the weekend CNN aired an interview with and expert on agriculture
-- The subject being eEthanol.

During the interview, he cited the fact that nearly all Ethanol is
today being produced from our domestic corn crop, and in 2006
accounted for 30% of the total corn market, and anticipated that
should the demand for Ethanol continue to grow, it will soon account
for 50% of our domestic corn production.

Using *corn* extensively to make motor fuel is uniquely daft.

Yes. This time, talent, capital, and fuel - for both operating the
capital, creating the fertilizers and supporting the farmers - are
better used growing food for a starving world.

Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?
I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

You're just making it up aren't you ?


Graham, note he did not answer the question asked. He was asked about