Robert Adsett wrote:

snip

You are trying to reason with a guy that has spent many years trolling
usenet with stupidity.

"Don Lancaster" <don at (no spam) tinaja.com> wrote

I strongly suspect the use of a "propeller" in your design will make the
results horribly inefficient.

It is just "like a propeller"
It is not near as flimsy of course.
and it is more like a sturdy water wheel with an angle that forces
the direction of motion to always be the same.

Ferinstance, a windmill can do no better than 42 percent. Not sure how
well boat or airplane propellers do, but yours clearly is in the wrong
place at the wrong time. Especially if there is turbulent flow.

Turbulent flow is not really an issue since the prop is more
like a water wheel like I said,

The biggest loss in the prop chamber would be from tolerance space
in between the prop and walls of the chamber.

Spaceman, from your discussions you are clearly clueless .....

Too funny ! I wonder why they stopped making paddle steamers.

On Jun 14, 4:47 pm, "Spaceman" <space... at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
"Williamknowsbest" <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:fedcf48f-ddca-4682-8aaf-cae5bab246ea at (no spam) m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

You make two statements - I ask you to explain why? Why is what you
say so? Perhaps if you think clearly about a subject you will learn
of shortcomings in your understanding.

I think the shortcoming are coming from a person
that has not even looked at the engine and has made
his own picture in his mind about problems it does not have.

The prop does not have "through space" like a ducted fan,
or boat prop has.
It has about 1/2 mm space around each blade only if made properly
like anything getting pushed by water would have for best output.
I suggest you think a little more and actually look at the site
and design.
I know for fact the "prop design" would not have close
to the losses you are talking about.
It is nothing like a ducted fan nor boat prop.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

How did you come to know for 'fact' this particular article of
information?

C.F. Taylor, The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice.
Volumes I and II, M.I.T. Press, 1966 and 1968.
Reissued in paperback in 1977, and in 1985 as
Second Edition with minor modifications.

So, how many engines did you build? Have you had them on
dynamometers? What are the results?

Since you've read Taylor multiple times, obviously you know changing
the gear ratio has nothing to do with the thermal efficiency of an
engine right?

Wait I minute, I thought you've built dozens or hundreds of engines?
and read Taylor multiple times? Right? Why should others have to
build your engine if you've already built it?

Money isn't an issue. Where there's a will there's a way.
Certainly you're smart enough to figure that our right? I mean,
someone who's built dozens of engines, and thoroughly studied Taylor,
ought to be able to befriend a shop and help out, and get access to a
shop to build an engine right?

Engines are pretty efficient already.

Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <6a-dnQmZIIJG28nVnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com>, Spaceman
says...
Heat engine?
Why?

It transforms heat from your fuel to mechanical energy. That's a
definition of a heat engine.

Okee dokee,
no prob then,
Heat Engine it is.
but that still does not stop it from being better than
a traditional ICE.

On Jun 15, 3:26 pm, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 8:53 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 6:51 pm, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:31 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 8:59 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 9:55 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 12:02 am, "Spaceman" <space... at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:

"Williamknowsbest" <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ebe75388-e9d6-466f-a157-e0c8a403b07e at (no spam) x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Anyone who visits my web site and fills out the contact information
may request information including such photos.
http://www.usoal.com

Nice business.
Must be raking in money.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Its highly leveraged at present - so, like Churchill I find I must
rely on allies I don't particularly trust or like!  lol.  But we will
prevail, that's for sure.

Hey William, have you seen this paper?

http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm

Please check out a more reliable source

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Schultz.pdf

Thanks.  Thats a very interesting link.

And accurate.

They describe a direct-thermal solar to hydrogen process where they
achieved 1 to 2% efficiency.  

Interesting.  Thermal cycles using nuclear or solar sources have
demonstrated over 60% efficiency.  I have a hybrid cycle using sulfide/
sulfate - that is 55% efficient.

The interesting part was the section
near the end talking about efficiencies of various methods.

The Stanford paper is a more reliable source of information.

Probably more up to date.  I don't remember seeing a date on the one I
posted a link to, but apparently the state of the art has progressed
since.

Obviously.

Apparently, the solar-to-hydrogen efficiency obtained using silicon
photovoltaic cells and an alkaline electrolyzer is about 6%.  

That efficiency has been achieved certainly.   Is it the highest
efficiency possible?  No.   As I said, I have a hybrid system that is
55% efficient, which is less than the peak of 60% - however, my system
is the lowest cost per watt.

The
conversion efficiency for a solar dish Stirling generator combined
with an alkaline electrolyzer is 19%.  

Stanford and General Atomics report 60% efficiency - my system is only
55% efficient, but has the lowest cost per watt of any other system.

The long term solar-to-hydrogen
efficiency goal established by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory is 25%.

This was true 20 years ago.  That value has been exceeded recently by
more than double.

Now you come along and say you can achieve 55% thermodynamic
efficiency

Yes.  Its a hybrid cycle - involving BOTH eletrolytic process and heat
with a sulfide/sulfate process.

with a device that is relatively inexpensive to boot.  

Yes.  The MEMs PV/Electrolysis 'dot' unit is 0.775 cents  per square
millimeter ($547 per 300 mm wafer) and operates at 2500x solar
intensity -which means a square meter of collector contains 400 sq mm
and  adds $3.10 per square meter to panel system cost.

How much precision do you need to get the 2500X light beam to hit
right on the little dot?  

I'm at about 16% of the limit for this material.

How much precision is possible with a PET
hot press molded shape?  

Well, one can go through the relevant optical calculations, but since
we can't even get heat engines right, around here, lets take another
route.

This isn't an optics issue its a manufacturing issue.

When you manufacture an optical device, its an optics issue.  You
don't know what you're talking about here.   Think clearly about your
objection.

 What kind of
tolerances do you need and what kind of tolerances can the process
provide with mass production.

Optical tolerances - surfaces accurate to a quarter wavelength of
light - these are routinely mass produced with PET - lens covers, for
automobiles, reflectors for flashlights, packaging that looks shiny
and bright.

I suggest reading Optical Manufacturing by R. M. Scott  specifically
Applied Optics and Optical Engineering, Volume III. of that set,
edited by Rudolf Kingslake. Published by Academic Press, Inc., a
subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1965

Please understand, we are use about 1/6th of the tolerances we are
capable of to matain a 2400x increase in solar intensity from the
solar disk.

Consider a hot press molded package, or a blow molded water bottle.
They're both very shiny, and smooth and attractive as packaging
material because of that.  PET is a preferred packaging material
because of its optical qualities.   This derives from their optically
smooth surface.  Plain polyethelyne is dull by comparison - that's
because the surface is not optically smooth.   Obviously, they're
precise enough.

I don't know the answer but that sounds like
a potential design challenge.

Because you don't know, you can't really say - you are merely looking
for roadblocks in an effort to sound smart - as a consequence you
reveal your ignorance.  On the positive side, you openly admit your
ignorance which makes you easier to take than others who don't admit
such, or worse yet, aren't even aware of what they do not know.

The lenses consist of 2 sheets of 100 micron thick PET hot press
molded into lens shapes - and bonded together in a water bath to
encase water - which is the lens medium.   The focal point is inside
the lens medium.   The water also reacts at the dot when illuminated.

A square meter of two PET films each 100 microns thick  contains 200
cc of PET massing 350 grams costing 0.15 cents per gram totalling
$0.53 per square meter.   Water cost is nil.   Total cost is $3.63 per
square meter.   At 1,000 watts per square meter solar influx, and 55%
efficiency, this generates 550 watts for $3.63 - which 0.726 cents per
peak watt.

This is just the cost of the solar panel.  The entire system - runs on
average $0.07 per peak watt - which is expected to drop to $0.02 per
peak watt as volume increases.

Your
efficiency is more than double the long term goal.  

Long term goal 20 years ago has been doubled recently - you are
absolutely right.   I would suggest you read a more current, and more
reliable source of information - such as Stanford and General Atomics
and current DOE literature.

This seems like a
huge breakthrough.  

It builds on a number of improvements.

As long as you have your designs protected by
patents, why don't you publish some results in a peer-reviewed
journal?  

They already have been published as you can see in my reference.

You say you don't like the allies you have to rely on.  

They're the best ones I have - hell, sometimes, I don't even like my
kids - that doesn't mean I don't love them and cherish them.

If
this breakthrough is real

Fuck you.

Easy killer.

No, fuck you for gratuitously calling me a liar.  

Bill what crawled up your ass?  

You gratuitously stating I was a liar.

Qualifying my statement with an "if"
is not calling you a liar.  

In the context of your discussion, yes it is.   Its like calling a
black man by the n-word and preceding it with the statement 'with all
due respect sir, you are a' - qualifying the statement doesn't make it
any more palatable.  

Fact is you don't know one way or the other, so
to say any more than that is an error for you.

Obviously erring in a
way that impunes my honesty is gratuitously calling me a liar.

It is just reflecting the fact that you
have *not* provided proof

Bullshit.   Patents, prototypes,

photos by filling out a contact card,
and test results by filling out a contact card, is far from providing
zero proof.

that what you invented is real.  

Screw you.

Calling you
a liar would be stating that I *know* you did not invent what you say
you did.

Yes.

 I am not making that statement.  

Yes you are.

If you can't see that then
you are just a belligerent ass who is sorely lacking in people
skills.  

Fuck you again.   Look sweetheart, making the following pair of
statements;

   If you have no proof then you are a liar

   You have no proof

Is logically equivalent to saying

    You are a liar

If you can't see that, then you are sorely lacking in logical and
language skills.

You just asserted (wrongly and against copious evidence to the
contrary) the second part of the syllogism, after repeating the
first.  So, fuck you

Starting in with the "fuck you" is pretty damn immature and
does not help make your case.

Fuck you.

 I have given you
quality references and valid logic for every step along the way I have
published in patent form much of my work and you out of the blue call
me a liar.   The only appropriate response to someone who gratuitously
calls me a liar is fuck you - I mean you don't have evidence what I
say isn't real.  You feel discomforted by my claims.   That's
understandable.  That's your problem not mine.

I like your claims.  

They're far more than claims, calling them claims after constructing
your syllogism is impuning my honesty - needlessly so - since
Obviously one does not obtain patents or bank financing for projects
that are mere claims.

They would make the world a better place.  

They are making the world a better place.

You are merely attempting to denigrate my efforts here.  You are not
being fair or open minded, or even acknowledging the references I did
give -

It
nice to see that someone has the vision and skills to pursue such
things.  

Paying lip service after constructing a syllogism that repeats the
canard that I am lying is a way of defusing the negativism inherent in
what you are saying - but this is merely a tactic to make your
syllogism more palatable to the kind-hearted.   Unless and until, you
disavow your syllogism in light of my accomplishments, I will continue
to say fuck you sweetheart.

When I see third party verification that your claims are true
I will feel better still.

How is the USPTO not a third party?

 You haven't provided any third party confirmation that
your claims are true.

I have patents.  How is the USPTO not a third party?

Bill, I am an engineer and I have a patent (hopefully the first of
many) so I am well aware of what the USPTO requires.  

So, now you say the United States Patent Office cannot be trusted as a
third party.

They don't
require a working prototype.  

Neither do reporters.

  The patent office though requires by law that
something actually work as advertised.  

In a comparison between
reporters and patent reviewers who do you think is more qualified to
determine this?   Why?

They don't require test results.  

Nor are test results rejected.  Have you even seen my patents on this
subject?   The test results are included as part and parcel of the
patents.  If you would trouble yourself to actually look at the
patents, before denouncing the patent process, and impuning the
strength or validity of my patent, you would see test results are
included.

They
care if the idea is unique.  

Its also a requirement that it work as advertised to deliver the
claims made for it.   If you can show that a patent does not work as
advertised or deliver the benefits claimed for it, then the patent is
perforce null and void.   Of course this is hard to do if you have
valid test results from third parties - which I do.

They don't make sure it works as
claimed.  

Yes they do.  Patents must have utility.  That means they must a
useful purpose.   This reduces to claims made for a patent.  Those
claims must be accurate.  Proving that a claim is not accurate voids
the utility of the patent, and excludes that patent from patent
protection.  

Reviewers are trained engineers who are very sharp.
Einstein reviewed patents for the Swiss patent office.  Reviewers for
patents are sharper than most reviewers in a peer reviewed publication
like Nature or Science.   They spend more effort and time than most
magazine reviewers and take longer to review the claims more
thoroughly.  They get paid more too.

Having a patent means *nothing* in terms of proving whether
your invention works.  

Interesting conclusion.  

You ask for an independent third party - I
give you one -and without even looking at my patents - you deconstruct
and attempt to destroy faith in the third party I name.   Obviously,
you are not a fair minded unbiased observer.  You have an axe to
grind.

No, you are wrong in your assertion.  Dead wrong.  Plainly, having a
patent means that the invention works as advertised to provide the
utility claimed for it.   This is a legal requirement for the patent
to be in force.

 More effort is spent, more time is spent, and more
money is spent, reviewing patents for issue than is spent on an
article that appears in a peer reviewed publication such as Nature or
Science.

Of course you already knew that.

Nonsense.  You speak as if they give away patents for the asking.
Nothing is further from the truth.   So, I know nothing of the sort
you describe.

I spent 3 years and $20,000 for each of my patents, for US coverage,
and another $30,000 and another 2 years for PCT coverage in ALL OTHER
patent offices throughout the world.  It is quite an ordeal, and the

 All we have is you saying that you invented
this device that can do these things,

I have patents.  Go to the USPTO web site type in Mook and Solar and
see.

Thats great.  Now how about something that proves the idea works.

If you would take the trouble to actually read the patent, you would
see that NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland verified the
operation of high intensity PV devices at 2,400x solar intensity in
their space environment chamber.  This was instrumental in getting a
patent.

but there are no photos,

go tohttp://www.usoal.comandfillout the contact information and
ask for photos I will send you some.

I might do that but I'm not sure why you don't just put the photos up
for all to see.

I have my reasons.  I want to know who has them, and I want to mark
each photoname uniquely so I can track where they end up - until my
reasons change.

no test
results,

I will send these, or you can review my patents which include test
results of test units.

no articles anywhere.

Please see the 7th article from the top - I don't know why news
organizations ignore me while giving obvious charlatans top billing -
that's not my problem, and fortunately, I'm not dependent on publicity
to fund my projects.

I would be a fool not to be somewhat
skeptical.

You worry about being made out to be a fool - this is a common concern
when dealing with new ideas.  This is your problem, not mine.

I am not worried about being a fool.  

You said you would be a fool not to be somewhat sceptical after
attempting to say things that show you are sceptical -despite them
flying in the face of facts-  following a story that you were
originally enthused about my efforts, but after speaking with experts
you respect, you wish not to be seen as uncritically naive.  You said
all this, not me.  To my mind that tells me you are worried about
being perceived as a fool.  This is a reasonable concern among those
who don't really understand a thing.

I am justing pointing out that
only a fool would not be skeptical.  

After saying you were insufficiently skeptical before - to my mind
that tells me - along with your lame attempts at sounding sceptical -
that you are worried about being percieved as a naive fool.

But you already know that.

This is another propaganda technique - gratuitously changing the focus
of attention from your thought process to my thought process - to
avoid embarassing attention on you.

Obviously, me having patents that include test results from NASA, show
that products were built and tested and that they work.   The fact
that some patents in the past have not worked, out of the millions
issued, the fact that design patents - ones that do not look at
functionality - have broad utility claims - aren't germaine to my
patents which are recent, and are issued on the basis of functionality
which REQUIRES specific utility claims that are quite solidly based in
a working prototype that was tested.

Clearly, if you took the trouble to read my patents before attempting
to deconstruct and diminish my accomplishment, you would see the
fool's errand you are setting yourself up for.   Obviously, you care
little for the truth here.   Had you taken care to be fair and honest
you would have at least glanced at my patents and the claims made for
them, and the evidence I cite for my claims.

 That said, I *hope* your claims are true.

I understand, but just because you lack the innate capacity to figure
this out for yourself

In article <ruydnUMWZuX1_8nVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com>, Spaceman
says...
Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <6a-dnQmZIIJG28nVnZ2dnUVZ_h3inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com>, Spaceman
says...
Heat engine?
Why?

It transforms heat from your fuel to mechanical energy. That's a
definition of a heat engine.

Okee dokee,
no prob then,
Heat Engine it is.
but that still does not stop it from being better than
a traditional ICE.

It places a strict upper limit on the efficiency. Now that you
realise you are dealing with a heat engine read up on elementary
thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle. You will find what that limit
is and why it is what it is.

While doing a little browsing I found that this engine has existed
since the 1930's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-piston_engine

Apparently fairly efficient as a compressor.

Williamknowsbest wrote:
C.F. Taylor, The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice.
Volumes I and II, M.I.T. Press, 1966 and 1968.
Reissued in paperback in 1977, and in 1985 as
Second Edition with minor modifications.

I read it in school I am pretty sure
I went to automotive school for 4 yrs.
and not once did they ever call it a heat engine

On Jun 15, 5:10 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:





On Jun 15, 3:26 pm, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 8:53 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 14, 6:51 pm, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:31 pm, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 8:59 am, Monkey Clumps <spacebrai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 9:55 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 12:02 am, "Spaceman" <space... at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:

"Williamknowsbest" <William.M... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ebe75388-e9d6-466f-a157-e0c8a403b07e at (no spam) x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Anyone who visits my web site and fills out the contact information
may request information including such photos.
http://www.usoal.com

Nice business.
Must be raking in money.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Its highly leveraged at present - so, like Churchill I find I must
rely on allies I don't particularly trust or like!  lol.  But we will
prevail, that's for sure.

Hey William, have you seen this paper?

http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm

Please check out a more reliable source

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Schultz.pdf

Thanks.  Thats a very interesting link.

And accurate.

They describe a direct-thermal solar to hydrogen process where they
achieved 1 to 2% efficiency.  

Interesting.  Thermal cycles using nuclear or solar sources have
demonstrated over 60% efficiency.  I have a hybrid cycle using sulfide/
sulfate - that is 55% efficient.

The interesting part was the section
near the end talking about efficiencies of various methods.

The Stanford paper is a more reliable source of information.

Probably more up to date.  I don't remember seeing a date on the one I
posted a link to, but apparently the state of the art has progressed
since.

Obviously.

Apparently, the solar-to-hydrogen efficiency obtained using silicon
photovoltaic cells and an alkaline electrolyzer is about 6%.  

That efficiency has been achieved certainly.   Is it the highest
efficiency possible?  No.   As I said, I have a hybrid system that is
55% efficient, which is less than the peak of 60% - however, my system
is the lowest cost per watt.

The
conversion efficiency for a solar dish Stirling generator combined
with an alkaline electrolyzer is 19%.  

Stanford and General Atomics report 60% efficiency - my system is only
55% efficient, but has the lowest cost per watt of any other system.

The long term solar-to-hydrogen
efficiency goal established by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory is 25%.

This was true 20 years ago.  That value has been exceeded recently by
more than double.

Now you come along and say you can achieve 55% thermodynamic
efficiency

Yes.  Its a hybrid cycle - involving BOTH eletrolytic process and heat
with a sulfide/sulfate process.

with a device that is relatively inexpensive to boot.  

Yes.  The MEMs PV/Electrolysis 'dot' unit is 0.775 cents  per square
millimeter ($547 per 300 mm wafer) and operates at 2500x solar
intensity -which means a square meter of collector contains 400 sq mm
and  adds $3.10 per square meter to panel system cost.

How much precision do you need to get the 2500X light beam to hit
right on the little dot?  

I'm at about 16% of the limit for this material.

How much precision is possible with a PET
hot press molded shape?  

Well, one can go through the relevant optical calculations, but since
we can't even get heat engines right, around here, lets take another
route.

This isn't an optics issue its a manufacturing issue.

When you manufacture an optical device, its an optics issue.  You
don't know what you're talking about here.   Think clearly about your
objection.

 What kind of
tolerances do you need and what kind of tolerances can the process
provide with mass production.

Optical tolerances - surfaces accurate to a quarter wavelength of
light - these are routinely mass produced with PET - lens covers, for
automobiles, reflectors for flashlights, packaging that looks shiny
and bright.

I suggest reading Optical Manufacturing by R. M. Scott  specifically
Applied Optics and Optical Engineering, Volume III. of that set,
edited by Rudolf Kingslake. Published by Academic Press, Inc., a
subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1965

Please understand, we are use about 1/6th of the tolerances we are
capable of to matain a 2400x increase in solar intensity from the
solar disk.

Consider a hot press molded package, or a blow molded water bottle.
They're both very shiny, and smooth and attractive as packaging
material because of that.  PET is a preferred packaging material
because of its optical qualities.   This derives from their optically
smooth surface.  Plain polyethelyne is dull by comparison - that's
because the surface is not optically smooth.   Obviously, they're
precise enough.

I don't know the answer but that sounds like
a potential design challenge.

Because you don't know, you can't really say - you are merely looking
for roadblocks in an effort to sound smart - as a consequence you
reveal your ignorance.  On the positive side, you openly admit your
ignorance which makes you easier to take than others who don't admit
such, or worse yet, aren't even aware of what they do not know.

The lenses consist of 2 sheets of 100 micron thick PET hot press
molded into lens shapes - and bonded together in a water bath to
encase water - which is the lens medium.   The focal point is inside
the lens medium.   The water also reacts at the dot when illuminated.

A square meter of two PET films each 100 microns thick  contains 200
cc of PET massing 350 grams costing 0.15 cents per gram totalling
$0.53 per square meter.   Water cost is nil.   Total cost is $3.63 per
square meter.   At 1,000 watts per square meter solar influx, and 55%
efficiency, this generates 550 watts for $3.63 - which 0.726 cents per
peak watt.

This is just the cost of the solar panel.  The entire system - runs on
average $0.07 per peak watt - which is expected to drop to $0.02 per
peak watt as volume increases.

Your
efficiency is more than double the long term goal.  

Long term goal 20 years ago has been doubled recently - you are
absolutely right.   I would suggest you read a more current, and more
reliable source of information - such as Stanford and General Atomics
and current DOE literature.

This seems like a
huge breakthrough.  

It builds on a number of improvements.

As long as you have your designs protected by
patents, why don't you publish some results in a peer-reviewed
journal?  

They already have been published as you can see in my reference.

You say you don't like the allies you have to rely on.  

They're the best ones I have - hell, sometimes, I don't even like my
kids - that doesn't mean I don't love them and cherish them.

If
this breakthrough is real

Fuck you.

Easy killer.

No, fuck you for gratuitously calling me a liar.  

Bill what crawled up your ass?  

You gratuitously stating I was a liar.

When did that happen?

Qualifying my statement with an "if"
is not calling you a liar.  

In the context of your discussion, yes it is.   Its like calling a
black man by the n-word and preceding it with the statement 'with all
due respect sir, you are a' - qualifying the statement doesn't make it
any more palatable.  

Now you're just being silly.  

"If" is hardly insulting in this or any
other context.  

If this really bothers you (which I doubt) grow some
thicker skin.

Fact is you don't know one way or the other, so
to say any more than that is an error for you.

Right, and normal sane people use the word "if" to qualify such
statements.

Obviously erring in a
way that impunes my honesty is gratuitously calling me a liar.

"erring in a way that impunes my honesty"? What the fuck are talking
about?

 If I was calling you a liar I would tell you your claims are
impossible.  

It seems many in this group have staked out that
position, but I am not one of them.

It is just reflecting the fact that you
have *not* provided proof

Bullshit.   Patents, prototypes,

where?

photos by filling out a contact card,
and test results by filling out a contact card, is far from providing
zero proof.

Whether you have proof or not, it has not been provided to me at this
time,

therefore I qualify my statements with an "if".  Deal with it.

that what you invented is real.  

Screw you.

Now you're just being a dick.

In article <ruydnUMWZuX1_8nVnZ2dnUVZ_q7in... at (no spam) comcast.com>, Spaceman
says...

Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <6a-dnQmZIIJG28nVnZ2dnUVZ_h3in... at (no spam) comcast.com>, Spaceman
says...
Heat engine?
Why?

It transforms heat from your fuel to mechanical energy.  That's a
definition of a heat engine.

Okee dokee,
no prob then,
Heat Engine it is.
but that still does not stop it from being better than
a traditional ICE.

It places a strict upper limit on the efficiency.  Now that you realise
you are dealing with a heat engine read up on elementary thermodynamics
and the Carnot cycle.  You will find what that limit is and why it is
what it is.

While doing a little browsing I found that this engine has existed since
the 1930's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-piston_engine

Apparently fairly efficient as a compressor.

Robert
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <ruydnUMWZuX1_8nVnZ2dnUVZ_q7in... at (no spam) comcast.com>, Spaceman
says...
Robert Adsett wrote:
In article <6a-dnQmZIIJG28nVnZ2dnUVZ_h3in... at (no spam) comcast.com>, Spaceman
says...
Heat engine?
Why?

It transforms heat from your fuel to mechanical energy.  That's a
definition of a heat engine.

Okee dokee,
no prob then,
Heat Engine it is.
but that still does not stop it from being better than
a traditional ICE.

It places a strict upper limit on the efficiency.  Now that you
realise you are dealing with a heat engine read up on elementary
thermodynamics and the Carnot cycle.  You will find what that limit
is and why it is what it is.

While doing a little browsing I found that this engine has existed
since the 1930's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-piston_engine

Apparently fairly efficient as a compressor.

I have read all that,
and if you read more it is also for consideration in
hybrids of today.

It is a very possible engine and the super stroke
makes a big difference compared to limited stroke
engines.
the problem is, not many drawings are posted on the net
so I posted mine.
Sadly I got all sorts of shit (from people that did not even look
at the design at all and just babbled along without
thinking about each and every part
so that did not matter especially since
I know every concept of the thing works not only in theory,
but in real world applications today,
and in some cases.. carnot efficiency might even be wrong.
so..
We will see, but for now
Carnot is not a problem except maybe to itself.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Williamknowsbest wrote:
The point is, ANYONE no matter where they start, what problems they
face, if they're healthy, can make it in America - haha

MORON

Spaceman wrote:
Williamknowsbest wrote:
C.F. Taylor, The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice.
Volumes I and II, M.I.T. Press, 1966 and 1968.
Reissued in paperback in 1977, and in 1985 as
Second Edition with minor modifications.

I read it in school I am pretty sure
I went to automotive school for 4 yrs.
and not once did they ever call it a heat engine

So you went to a crap shool.

NO surprise there ! You are the living evidence.

Graham