On May 21, 11:50 am, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:





On May 21, 7:14 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On May 20, 11:22 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

On May 20, 1:44 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:

hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Hydrogen .......  burns very quickly

Less generous people refer to this as an 'explosion' !

Graham

Graham, I'm not generous in my descriptions, it is a result of my
early training in the fireworks industry. When an accident leveled an
entire multi-building fireworks manufacturing facility, it was a fire,
not an explosion. When the largest remains of someone killed in a
'fire' was a skull located 50M away from the building in which he/she
worked, it was labeled 'a bad fire'.

Some might say that this is a euphemism, but to make this claim is a
bit judgemental.  :-)

Those hyrogen 'fires' are particularly bad. I rember three here in the
Greater Boston area over the past 10 or so years, and in each case
there were no survivors.

Draw your own conclusion.

Harry C.

Despite all your training and experience you are blissfully unaware of
the potential of having a flameless explosion free reaction between
oxygen and hydrogen by using an appropriate catalytic reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, you must have either a reading or comprehension issue. What do
you believe that the platinum gauze we use to rid the hydrogen from
oxygent (as I previously described) does?

Isn't english your native language

Temper temper - obviously english is my native language.

, or do you simply not know that
platinum gauze is one of the best catalytic reactor materials known to
man?

I know that.  The point is you can make combustors out of it that
operate flamelessly and hence have no explosion risk.  Plainly you
either do not know that given your rant against hydrogen, or that you
do know it, and how easy it is to make explosion proof heating
elements that burn hydrogen, but wish to protray hydrogen wrongly as
supremely dangerous.

Harry C.

p.s., I'm still waiting to learn where you earned your undergraduate
and graduate degrees.

haha..  that's it when you are outclassed change the subject.

From what you have thus far posted, I'll simply
assume that it was at some community college.- Hide quoted text -

Well, I'm sure you take great solace in the thought - wrong as it is.
lol.   I guess that's better than admitting you don't know what the
hell you're talking about half the time.



- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another idiot shows his true colors. Notice how he refused to post
anything concerning his educational credentials, yet attacks those with
real credentials that have no hesitation in revealing them.

My guess is that our "engineer" friend William is not an engineer at
all, but someone who graduated highschool, and dropped out of some
obscure technician school half way through the program. He likely now
earns a living by repairing car radios and TV sets by randomly plugging
in replacement components, since he gives no indication that he has a
level of understanding to grasp how such devices actually operate. The
too, he equally might be flipping grinders at Burger King. William
doesn't tell us.

Harry C.

On May 21, 12:00 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:





On May 21, 7:14 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On May 20, 11:22 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

On May 20, 1:44 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:

hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Hydrogen .......  burns very quickly

Less generous people refer to this as an 'explosion' !

Graham

Graham, I'm not generous in my descriptions, it is a result of my
early training in the fireworks industry. When an accident leveled an
entire multi-building fireworks manufacturing facility, it was a fire,
not an explosion. When the largest remains of someone killed in a
'fire' was a skull located 50M away from the building in which he/she
worked, it was labeled 'a bad fire'.

Some might say that this is a euphemism, but to make this claim is a
bit judgemental.  :-)

Those hyrogen 'fires' are particularly bad. I rember three here in the
Greater Boston area over the past 10 or so years, and in each case
there were no survivors.

Draw your own conclusion.

Harry C.

Despite all your training and experience you are blissfully unaware of
the potential of having a flameless explosion free reaction between
oxygen and hydrogen by using an appropriate catalytic reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A catalytic reactor?  Dhuh, what is that?

You gotta ask?

Comstock and Wescott Inc. has devised a flameless-combustion catalytic
burner that provides a high heating intensity while producing less
pollutants than open-flame burners.

The burner (useful in applications
such as cooking ranges) comprises a plenum, an ignition zone with a
starting device, and a catalyst zone; each section is separated from
the others by a foraminous member.^The fuel and combustion air
introduced into the plenum pass through a foraminous member and into
the ignition zone.^The flame initiated by the starting device heats
the catalyst bed to the temperature required for flameless
combustion.^At this point, the flow of fuel is stopped momentarily to
extinguish the flame; when the flow resumes, flameless combustion
occurs.^The preferred starting device is a spark igniter attached to a
high-voltage source.

Look up the patent -it tells you everything.   AS I MENTIONED THIS IS
30 YEARS OLD TECHNOLOGY.

Do you possibly refer to the method of operation of that little
alcohol fueled pocket warmer that I carry with me when I go hunting,
which operates flamelessly.  Dhuh!

Could be - I'd have to have a look at it.

Evidently you ARE the type of person satarized in "Our Town". The guy
who spent a year at MIT so knows everything.

Now now, don't try to put words in my mouth.  Obviously one thing we
know for certain is that you cannot use logic accurately.

Just
because I showed that you are wrong in your baseless assertions about
hydrogen necessarily being dangerous doesn't mean I know everything.
It doesn't even mean I know more than you - except in this one
instance.

Sure, right!  ROFL

You are laughing because?   You were wrong about your baseless
assertion that you couldn't make a safe simple reliable hydrogen
fueled burner?

shrug>   You were wrong dude, admit it and move on.- Hide quoted text -

On May 21, 12:28 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



On May 21, 11:50 am, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

On May 21, 7:14 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On May 20, 11:22 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

On May 20, 1:44 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati... at (no spam) hotmail.com
wrote:

hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Hydrogen .......  burns very quickly

Less generous people refer to this as an 'explosion' !

Graham

Graham, I'm not generous in my descriptions, it is a result of my
early training in the fireworks industry. When an accident leveled an
entire multi-building fireworks manufacturing facility, it was a fire,
not an explosion. When the largest remains of someone killed in a
'fire' was a skull located 50M away from the building in which he/she
worked, it was labeled 'a bad fire'.

Some might say that this is a euphemism, but to make this claim is a
bit judgemental.  :-)

Those hyrogen 'fires' are particularly bad. I rember three here in the
Greater Boston area over the past 10 or so years, and in each case
there were no survivors.

Draw your own conclusion.

Harry C.

Despite all your training and experience you are blissfully unaware of
the potential of having a flameless explosion free reaction between
oxygen and hydrogen by using an appropriate catalytic reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, you must have either a reading or comprehension issue. What do
you believe that the platinum gauze we use to rid the hydrogen from
oxygent (as I previously described) does?

Isn't english your native language

Temper temper - obviously english is my native language.

, or do you simply not know that
platinum gauze is one of the best catalytic reactor materials known to
man?

I know that.  The point is you can make combustors out of it that
operate flamelessly and hence have no explosion risk.  Plainly you
either do not know that given your rant against hydrogen, or that you
do know it, and how easy it is to make explosion proof heating
elements that burn hydrogen, but wish to protray hydrogen wrongly as
supremely dangerous.

Harry C.

p.s., I'm still waiting to learn where you earned your undergraduate
and graduate degrees.

haha..  that's it when you are outclassed change the subject.

From what you have thus far posted, I'll simply
assume that it was at some community college.- Hide quoted text -

Well, I'm sure you take great solace in the thought - wrong as it is.
lol.   I guess that's better than admitting you don't know what the
hell you're talking about half the time.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another idiot shows his true colors.  Notice how he refused to post
anything concerning his educational credentials, yet attacks those
with real credentials that have no hesitation in revealing them.

My guess is that our "engineer" friend William is not an engineer at
all, but someone who graduated highschool, and dropped out of some
obscure technician school half way through the program. He likely now
earns a living by repairing car radios and TV sets by randomly
plugging in replacement components, since he gives no indication that
he has a level of understanding to grasp how such devices actually
operate.  The too, he equally might be flipping grinders at Burger
King.  William doesn't tell us.

Harry C.

On Wed, 21 May 2008 15:43:16 -0700, hhc314 wrote:
Another idiot shows his true colors.  Notice how he refused to post
anything concerning his educational credentials, yet attacks those with
real credentials that have no hesitation in revealing them.

My guess is that our "engineer" friend William is not an engineer at
all, but someone who graduated highschool, and dropped out of some
obscure technician school half way through the program. He likely now
earns a living by repairing car radios and TV sets by randomly plugging
in replacement components, since he gives no indication that he has a
level of understanding to grasp how such devices actually operate.  The
too, he equally might be flipping grinders at Burger King.  William
doesn't tell us.

Harry C.

Jesus, what an asshole you are. You sound like a clone of DR Fred 'my
father was more intelligent than your father' Kasner.

On May 21, 6:43 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:





On May 21, 12:28 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On May 21, 11:50 am, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

On May 21, 7:14 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On May 20, 11:22 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

On May 20, 1:44 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati... at (no spam) hotmail..com
wrote:

hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Hydrogen .......  burns very quickly

Less generous people refer to this as an 'explosion' !

Graham

Graham, I'm not generous in my descriptions, it is a result of my
early training in the fireworks industry. When an accident leveled an
entire multi-building fireworks manufacturing facility, it was a fire,
not an explosion. When the largest remains of someone killed in a
'fire' was a skull located 50M away from the building in which he/she
worked, it was labeled 'a bad fire'.

Some might say that this is a euphemism, but to make this claim is a
bit judgemental.  :-)

Those hyrogen 'fires' are particularly bad. I rember three here in the
Greater Boston area over the past 10 or so years, and in each case
there were no survivors.

Draw your own conclusion.

Harry C.

Despite all your training and experience you are blissfully unaware of
the potential of having a flameless explosion free reaction between
oxygen and hydrogen by using an appropriate catalytic reactor.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Again, you must have either a reading or comprehension issue. What do
you believe that the platinum gauze we use to rid the hydrogen from
oxygent (as I previously described) does?

Isn't english your native language

Temper temper - obviously english is my native language.

, or do you simply not know that
platinum gauze is one of the best catalytic reactor materials known to
man?

I know that.  The point is you can make combustors out of it that
operate flamelessly and hence have no explosion risk.  Plainly you
either do not know that given your rant against hydrogen, or that you
do know it, and how easy it is to make explosion proof heating
elements that burn hydrogen, but wish to protray hydrogen wrongly as
supremely dangerous.

Harry C.

p.s., I'm still waiting to learn where you earned your undergraduate
and graduate degrees.

haha..  that's it when you are outclassed change the subject.

From what you have thus far posted, I'll simply
assume that it was at some community college.- Hide quoted text -

Well, I'm sure you take great solace in the thought - wrong as it is.
lol.   I guess that's better than admitting you don't know what the
hell you're talking about half the time.

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another idiot shows his true colors.  Notice how he refused to post
anything concerning his educational credentials, yet attacks those
with real credentials that have no hesitation in revealing them.

My guess is that our "engineer" friend William is not an engineer at
all, but someone who graduated highschool, and dropped out of some
obscure technician school half way through the program. He likely now
earns a living by repairing car radios and TV sets by randomly
plugging in replacement components, since he gives no indication that
he has a level of understanding to grasp how such devices actually
operate.  The too, he equally might be flipping grinders at Burger
King.  William doesn't tell us.

Harry C.

He seems to be pretty talented burger flipper.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7081584/claims.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Despite these fantastically low efficiencies, humans have come to use
these fuels.  Why?   High marginal value!   We shouldn't worry
ourselves about chasing the absolute highest efficiencies - rather we
should keep a close eye on capital costs and marginal cost verus
marginal value - in any system we contemplate.- Hide quoted text -

Better men than you have not forced me to back pedal on matters of
science.

My background in electrical engineering (had most of the
courses in EE finished while in military and then returned to my desired
subject physical chemistry and earned my Ph.D. in that area.) and
chemistry make me something that does not go by the name "usenet
expert". FK

Your trouble lies in wildly and incredibly large estimates of the
available hydrogen you will have in a modest time after producing it by
electrolysis.

Its not a trouble.

You throw away most of your energy in making the hydrogen.

So? The only thing that matters is the cost of capital and the cost
of the resulting fuel. I mean, far more energy is thrown away by
nature when it makes crude oil coal or natural gas from biomass. Of
course we don't pay for it when we discover reserves of these fuels.
So, we don't care. Same here.

As long as the cost is more affordable than existing fuels, it doesn't
really matter that 1,100 GJ of sunlight is needed to produce 54 GJ of
electricity in your home as long as you pay less for it.

As I mentioned before, $15 per square meter of silicon based solar
collector - converting 18% of incident energy to electricity -
produces 243 kWh per square meter in a year at Cleveland Ohio. This
produces 4.42 kg per year per square meter from solar sources.

With a 30 year life span,$15 per square meter costs $0.50 per year.
That' means 8.84 kg of hydrogen can be had for a dollar. A metric
ton for $113 - as I said,with the time value of money, and other
losses,$230 per metric ton easy.

I also mentioned $30 per square meter germanium/gallium-arsenide/
indium-phosphide - collectors - converting 55% of incident energy to
hydrogen - producing the equivalent of 742 kWh of useful energy - 13.5
kg per year per square meter from solar sources. With a 30 year life
span $30 per square meter costs $1.00 per year per square meter. That
means 13.5 kg of hydrogen can be had for a dollar. That's $74 per
metric ton - as I said with the time value of money and other losses
$150 per metric ton easy.

Now the heat value of a metric ton of hydorgen is 143 GJ. This is
equivalent to 6.2 tons of coal or 23.4 barrels of oil. A coal fired
generator is about 38% efficient. So, each ton of hydrogen generates
54 GJ of electricity from $230 worth of stuff. That's $4.25 per
GJ.that's 1.5 cents per kWh - half the price of coal in a coal fired
plant. So, we're golden.

143 GJ of chemical energy for $230. Made with a silicon panel it
required 1,100 GJ of sunlight to make.

So, you are saying that because 1,100 GJ of sunlight resulted in 54 GJ
of electricity in your home we shouldn't use solar power in this way
even if you pay half what you're paying now for coal? What rot..

That's as ridiculous as saying that it took1,100,000 GJ of sunlight to
produce a ton of coal, so we shouldn't burn coal that we can dig out
of the ground and burn for $40 per ton.

Same here.

Because I can deliver the heat equivalent of 6.2 tons of coal to a
coal fired and
trade it for the coal straight up for the coal it otherwise burns -
and
use an additoinal ton of hydrogen to make 45 barrels of oil worth over
$4,600 -
while spending less than $460 -

I am doing that - exactly that. And building up an alternative
energy infrastructure requiring no one to change anything at the
consumer level.
.
No one cares about the free sunlight that's wasted. All I gotta do is
cover stripped out surface mines with solar panels, take the water
draining off of the land convert that water to hydrogen and deliver it
to coal fired power plants. Burn the hydrogen in place of the coal at
these plants, and convert the coal to gasoline also at the plants -
operated as clean coal technology- then sell the gasoline for huge
profits.
. .
The electricity from a purported highly efficient solar operation

You are confusing thermodynamic and economic efficiency.

Thermodynamically my silicon panels are 18% efficient, and the coal
fired power plants are 38% efficient - so overall we're converting
sunlight to baseload electricity at a rate of 6.84% efficiency.
We're not even using electricity sales to pay for the installation.

Economically, I'm trading $230 worth of hydrogen for coal straight up
on a heat value basis,regardless of the value of the coal. I'm
taking $230 more hydrogen to combine with the coal obtained to
produce $4,600 worth of gasoline - which is sold at $4,150 profit on
$460 cost of goods sold. A tremendous return on investment.

would
be worth so much more for use directly as energy to run electric motors
for other purposes.

Thermodynamic efficiency comes at a cost of reduced economic
efficiency. To drive motors directly with the output of my silicon
panel requires that the load and generation match. A load and
generator must match in order to operate efficiently. Too much
generation and not enough load, and you lose efficiency. Too little
generation and too much load, and likewise, you lose efficiency.
Things must be in balance. Loads must be managed to maintain
peakpower point of the solar panels. Since lighting conditions vary
throughout the day,this is a critical factor in solar panels that are
tied directly to loads. The addition of batteries capacitors and
swtiching equipment that maintains peak power conditions for the solar
panel,adds substantially to the cost - $3 to $4 per watt. So, my $15
silicon panel now costs $600 or more - and while it delivers more
power to a motor - it does so at a higher cost per watt - at a cost
that is not competitive.

So why do it? Just because its thermodynamically efficient? Far
better to have an inexpensive panel drive an inexpensive electrolysis
process that automatically changes rate of production to match
lighitng conditions without a lot of cost - and then use that hydrogen
to replace hydrocarbon fuels and then upgrade those fuels and sell
them for profit.

To convert it to hydrogen with no reliable process
for modest long term storage or transmission -

What nonsense. Hydrogen transmission and storage is a solved problem.

http://www.mac.doc.gov/China/Breakout%20D%20-%20Frikkin.pdf

almost all hydrogen used
in the USA if not generated locally is transported by cylinders on
trucks and is not stored for long time as too much H2 can leak from the
cylinders.

Not true.

http://www.praxair.com/praxair.nsf/d63afe71c771b0d785256519006c5ea1/2a5df393598d7f3b85256baf000827be?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,hydrogen

Given the embrittlement properties of hydrogen in base metal
cylinders or in pipelines the whole process fails for lack of even a
modestly reliable technological structure.

This is an oft repeated canard that was outdated in 1959 following
NASA's development of teflon coatings for tanks and pipes to reliably
and safelly handle hydrogen as a rocket fuel. It was noted among
German engineers in the 1920s when they first started using hydrogen
to make fertilizer,that steel pipe would become brittle as the carbon
in the pipe reacted with hydrogen. This was noted as an aging FACTOR -
just like rust - that called for pipes to be replaced in time. It
never was a show stopper - and was fully resolved by 1959. In the
1980s specialty steels were developed that could dispense with the
teflon coatings developed by NASA that were totally impervious to
hydrogen and are reflected in the modern standards for hydrogen
infrastructure.


When you can solve these
problems you might come back with more realistic claims of hydrogen as a
energy carrier.

If you would actually care to understand a thing before offering
pronouncements about it, you wouldn't come off as such an ignorant
ass.

Until such time you really should keep your
pie-in-the-sky schemes to yourself lest you be labeled a scammer by the
more rational but less patient among those who have seen such schemes
again and again posited on this NG.

Fuck you you ignorant fool.. How dare you call me a liar - when you
have said nothing that is even remotely true.

FK

On Tue, 20 May 2008 02:09:46 -0700, Williamknowsbest wrote:

Fred 'My genes are worth more than your genes' Kasner wrote:

Until such time you really should keep your pie-in-the-sky schemes to
yourself lest you be labeled a scammer by the more rational but less
patient among those who have seen such schemes again and again posited
on this NG.
Fuck you you ignorant fool.. How dare you call me a liar - when you have
said nothing that is even remotely true.

Kasner is another usenet 'expert' who has found himself talking to a real
engineer and has started to backpedal, and will continue to backpedal,
until he finally gets very quiet.

On May 20, 9:16 am, Jinker <dx863... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Kasner is another usenet 'expert' who has found himself talking to a real
engineer and has started to backpedal, and will continue to backpedal,
until he finally gets very quiet.

Just to set the record straight, Kasner (and I believe it may be Dr.
Kasner) is a physical chemist of substantial accomplishment.

If anyone on this newsgroup knows anything about electrochemistry, it
is Fred Kasner. Everyone with less credentials posting here on the
subject is simply blowing smoke, engineers included.

Keep in mind that engineering is simply a child of science, or science
reduced to simplified cookbook terms for practical applications.

Also, keep in mind that classic line from "Our Town" -- "He spent a
year at MIT, so he knows everything."

I'm both a physicist and an engineer, with 40+ years professional
experience, so trust me that I know what I am posting about, but I
still don't know everything! :-)

Harry C.

On May 20, 12:39 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On May 20, 9:16 am, Jinker <dx863... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Kasner is another usenet 'expert' who has found himself talking to a real
engineer and has started to backpedal, and will continue to backpedal,
until he finally gets very quiet.
Just to set the record straight, Kasner (and I believe it may be Dr.
Kasner) is a physical chemist of substantial accomplishment.

If anyone on this newsgroup knows anything about electrochemistry, it
is Fred Kasner.

Dr. Fred Kasner, electrochemist has yet to cite the Nernst Equation -
which gives you the conditions and efficiencies in driving ions around
in solution with variable DC potential derived from a photovoltaic cel
exposed to variable sunlight. .

Everyone with less credentials posting here on the
subject is simply blowing smoke, engineers included.

Asserting credentials that may or may not exist, may or may not be
relevant, doesn't make bogus, erroneous, and just plain wrong
assertions contrary to fact comport with fact. All of us, even
renowned PhDs need to explain the factual basis of their statements.
Renowned PhDs seem more capable of this than others. So far, Dr.
Fred Kasner, renowned electrochemist, has done a far worse job. In
fact he has repeated a number of oft repeated lies about hydrogen
piping, and appears to be clueless in nearly every detail he cites.
If he indeed does have a PhD in electrochemistry and is a renowned
author on the subject, I would like to see his CV - and point out he
is doing a lousy job analyzing the potential of alternatives to oil
natural gas and coal.
.

Keep in mind that engineering is simply a child of science, or science
reduced to simplified cookbook terms for practical applications.

Both science and engineering are children of logic and reality.
Anything that is asserted that flies in the face of reality fails even
if its asserted by distinguished scientists. Reality needs no
defense. Only lies are threatened by reality. Reality is never
threatened by lies. That is the beauty of science based on
experimental results.

Also, keep in mind that classic line from "Our Town" -- "He spent a
year at MIT, so he knows everything."

Only a year? I was on loan for a while in graduate school to
Harvard's BETA project back in the day, and spent equal amounts of
time between MIT and Harvard physics.

I'm both a physicist and an engineer, with 40+ years professional
experience, so trust me that I know what I am posting about,

Argument from authority - backed by absolutely no real world data
whatever.

but I
still don't know everything! :-)

You don't need to. Reality remembers what's real without need of your
knowledge, or mine, or the esteemed Dr. Fred Kasner, noted
electrochemist.


Harry C.

I've been looking for 'Fred Kasner' at any .edu site. The only thing
I come up is stuff like this;

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99397.htm

Where Fred is asking questions of a scientist - not providing answers
as a scientist.

He seems to work for sbcglobal - or have a web address that points to
sbcglobal.

But, you brought up his credentials. Where did he get his PhD and
what did he major in where did he get it and how long has worked as an
expert in the field?

Fact is he was wrong about hydrogen embrittlement issues, hydrogen
storage technology and hydrogen pipelines as well as a number of other
things. This suggests that he might be wrong about other things as
well. This doesn't preclude him from getting a phd I suppose, it
doesn't say much about the quality of his mind however that he gets so
many things wrong - despite the purported phd.

On May 20, 12:39 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

On May 20, 9:16 am, Jinker <dx863... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Kasner is another usenet 'expert' who has found himself talking to a real
engineer and has started to backpedal, and will continue to backpedal,
until he finally gets very quiet.

Just to set the record straight, Kasner (and I believe it may be Dr.
Kasner) is a physical chemist of substantial accomplishment.

If anyone on this newsgroup knows anything about electrochemistry, it
is Fred Kasner.

Dr. Fred Kasner, electrochemist has yet to cite the Nernst Equation -
which gives you the conditions and efficiencies in driving ions around
in solution with variable DC potential derived from a photovoltaic cel
exposed to variable sunlight.  .

  Everyone with less credentials posting here on the
subject is simply blowing smoke, engineers included.

Asserting credentials that may or may not exist, may or may not be
relevant, doesn't make bogus, erroneous, and just plain wrong
assertions contrary to fact comport with fact.   All of us, even
renowned PhDs need to explain the factual basis of their statements.
Renowned PhDs seem more capable of this than others.   So far, Dr.
Fred Kasner, renowned electrochemist, has done a far worse job.   In
fact he has repeated a number of oft repeated lies about hydrogen
piping, and appears to be clueless in nearly every detail he cites.
If he indeed does have a PhD in electrochemistry and is a renowned
author on the subject, I would like to see his CV - and point out he
is doing a lousy job analyzing the potential of alternatives to oil
natural gas and coal.
.

Keep in mind that engineering is simply a child of science, or science
reduced to simplified cookbook terms for practical applications.

Both science and engineering are children of logic and reality.
Anything that is asserted that flies in the face of reality fails even
if its asserted by distinguished scientists.   Reality needs no
defense.  Only lies are threatened by reality.  Reality is never
threatened by lies.   That is the beauty of science based on
experimental results.

Also, keep in mind that classic line from "Our Town" -- "He spent a
year at MIT, so he knows everything."

Only a year?   I was on loan for a while in graduate school to
Harvard's BETA project back in the day, and spent equal amounts of
time between MIT and Harvard physics.

I'm both a physicist and an engineer, with 40+ years professional
experience, so trust me that I know what I am posting about,

Argument from authority - backed by absolutely no real world data
whatever.

but I
still don't know everything!  :-)

You don't need to.  Reality remembers what's real without need of your
knowledge, or mine, or the esteemed Dr. Fred Kasner, noted
electrochemist.

Harry C.

I've been looking for 'Fred Kasner' at any .edu site.   The only thing
I come up is stuff like this;

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99397.htm

Where Fred is asking questions of a scientist - not providing answers
as a scientist.

He seems to work for sbcglobal - or have a web address that points to
sbcglobal.

But, you brought up his credentials.   Where did he get his PhD and
what did he major in where did he get it and how long has worked as an
expert in the field?

Fact is he was wrong about hydrogen embrittlement issues, hydrogen
storage technology and hydrogen pipelines as well as a number of other
things.   This suggests that he might be wrong about other things as
well.   This doesn't preclude him from getting a phd I suppose, it
doesn't say much about the quality of his mind however that he gets so
many things wrong - despite the purported phd.

Williamknowsbest wrote:
On May 20, 12:39 pm, hhc... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
On May 20, 9:16 am, Jinker <dx863... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Kasner is another usenet 'expert' who has found himself talking to a real
engineer and has started to backpedal, and will continue to backpedal,
until he finally gets very quiet.
Just to set the record straight, Kasner (and I believe it may be Dr.
Kasner) is a physical chemist of substantial accomplishment.

If anyone on this newsgroup knows anything about electrochemistry, it
is Fred Kasner.

Dr. Fred Kasner, electrochemist has yet to cite the Nernst Equation -
which gives you the conditions and efficiencies in driving ions around
in solution with variable DC potential derived from a photovoltaic cel
exposed to variable sunlight.  .

  Everyone with less credentials posting here on the
subject is simply blowing smoke, engineers included.

Asserting credentials that may or may not exist, may or may not be
relevant, doesn't make bogus, erroneous, and just plain wrong
assertions contrary to fact comport with fact.   All of us, even
renowned PhDs need to explain the factual basis of their statements.
Renowned PhDs seem more capable of this than others.   So far, Dr.
Fred Kasner, renowned electrochemist, has done a far worse job.   In
fact he has repeated a number of oft repeated lies about hydrogen
piping, and appears to be clueless in nearly every detail he cites.
If he indeed does have a PhD in electrochemistry and is a renowned
author on the subject, I would like to see his CV - and point out he
is doing a lousy job analyzing the potential of alternatives to oil
natural gas and coal.
.

Keep in mind that engineering is simply a child of science, or science
reduced to simplified cookbook terms for practical applications.

Both science and engineering are children of logic and reality.
Anything that is asserted that flies in the face of reality fails even
if its asserted by distinguished scientists.   Reality needs no
defense.  Only lies are threatened by reality.  Reality is never
threatened by lies.   That is the beauty of science based on
experimental results.

Also, keep in mind that classic line from "Our Town" -- "He spent a
year at MIT, so he knows everything."

Only a year?   I was on loan for a while in graduate school to
Harvard's BETA project back in the day, and spent equal amounts of
time between MIT and Harvard physics.

I'm both a physicist and an engineer, with 40+ years professional
experience, so trust me that I know what I am posting about,

Argument from authority - backed by absolutely no real world data
whatever.

but I
still don't know everything!  :-)

You don't need to.  Reality remembers what's real without need of your
knowledge, or mine, or the esteemed Dr. Fred Kasner, noted
electrochemist.

Harry C.

I've been looking for 'Fred Kasner' at any .edu site.   The only thing
I come up is stuff like this;

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99397.htm

Where Fred is asking questions of a scientist - not providing answers
as a scientist.

He seems to work for sbcglobal - or have a web address that points to
sbcglobal.

But, you brought up his credentials.   Where did he get his PhD and
what did he major in where did he get it and how long has worked as an
expert in the field?

Fact is he was wrong about hydrogen embrittlement issues, hydrogen
storage technology and hydrogen pipelines as well as a number of other
things.   This suggests that he might be wrong about other things as
well.   This doesn't preclude him from getting a phd I suppose, it
doesn't say much about the quality of his mind however that he gets so
many things wrong - despite the purported phd.

Ph.D. 1961 U. of Chicago. Assistant Professor of Natural Science U. of
Chicago. Professor of Chemistry City Colleges of Chicago.
I don't work for SBC (AT&T) nor have I ever worked in any serious manner
for any other than a college or university.

FK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:03:02 -0500, Fred Kasner wrote:

Better men than you have not forced me to back pedal on matters of
science.

I have nothing to do with it, but you have already backpedaled the length
of a football field by going from addressing Mook as 'Fool!' and claiming
that 'my genes are worth more than your genes', and 'my father was more
intelligent than your father', to addressing what you consider his errors
in a sober, respectful way, as you just did in a post about the ground
water, the cost of electrolysis, etc.

It's good to see that you have been chastened, even if you can't admit it.


My background in electrical engineering (had most of the
courses in EE finished while in military and then returned to my desired
subject physical chemistry and earned my Ph.D. in that area.) and
chemistry make me something that does not go by the name "usenet
expert". FK

'Arrogant fool' would fit the bill.

Rather amusing that I am first told that I am a "usenet expert" which