Eyesore wrote that hanson wrote:

hanson wrote:

Thanks for the laughs, Graham, & let's have fun now b4

"Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message

news:taq%j.20560$Zs3.5432 at (no spam) newsfe20.ams2...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/e67060fff6c23741"hanson" <han... at (no spam) quick.net> wrote in message

news:zHn%j.15470$9H6.5014 at (no spam) trnddc04...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/cd8ff20673edb656
about the oil crisis, its players and the games they play, like here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/0aa53c5ef7317f6b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34
including the use of alternative / Bio fuels
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/35be49f4be7ddb4b
and how Prez Carter's  SYNFUEL project got ruined/bankrupted
after the 1970 oil crisis, in which the Arabs turned the oil spigot
off, because of the USA's policy preferences towards its parasite,
Israel but, why in/from 2007 on the Arabs, instead of turning off
the oil  tap fully again,  they let the oil run and simply said:
"Let the dumb fucking goyim PAY US, THE ARABS, for their
love of and their dependency on the Jews... We'll see how
 much and how long the gyoim will carry that Jewish yoke &
burden..  while we rake in the dough"...  which is seen in that:
::: "Global oil demand has increased only by 1% last year,
 ::: So why has the oil price risen by 200% in that same time"?...

Also, the Enviros must be implicated in the sick & silly oil game
as much as the kikes and Ass-venters are. To wit: Green terrorism:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d8c8b22b4ffedd09
wherein it says:
"If the green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
today plenty of cheap electricity, like France & Japan. We'd
have licked rad-chem disposal problems, we'd have modern
batteries and advanced capacitors in our cars instead of
gas-tanks and we would be driving in hi-powered  nonpolluting
electric cars, and we would not be implicated and heavily
influenced by the irrational behavior of America's parasite, Israel
who has not managed to live in peace with its neighbors for
the last 60 years and has conned the US into treaty guarantees
that Israel will get all the oil it needs first, form the US, even if the
US must ration oil for it own citizens..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...

Androcles wrote:

The pity of it all is that the energy is wasted; if society went in for
greater efficiency - things like better insulation, heat pumps, washing
containers instead of melting them down to make new containers
the costs would be dramatically reduced.  I was watching a show
on TV about the construction of the science base at the south pole
and although I don't give a flying fuck about Big Bang theories
or Dark Energy, I was impressed by the construction of the base
which is scavenging every bit of heat from the motor generators.
Building high tech in those conditions is tough, I take my hat off
to all those guys. When you have to use duct tape to prevent
frost bite from taking your nose off then you are not working in
the most comfortable place.

hanson wrote:

Interesting observation, Andro, though we are drifting off the
immediate subject matter now, it is so true what you say.
Like the S-pole station staffers, almost any desired condition
can be achieved in small isolated communities, or under stress
conditions in large societies as well, like for instance during
times of war ...where  people do or must think alike & fall in line.

True,  recycling and its benefits are great and much less
wasteful  than the way we live now. However consider what
Enviros now call "waste" is someone else's **income**, the
bread and butter on the tables for those millions of people,
who do produce and bring you these "through away" items
of convenience. --- Strictly, academically speaking there is
never any waste. "Waste", like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. "Waste" is simply an energy- & goods consumption
format which others do disagree with.... ahahaha...

Remember, during WWII we had all kinds of recycling programs
in place, as mandates... but as soon as that hardship was over
we began to enjoy life's more pleasant annuities to the hilt...
... until the Green shits appeared and saw golden chances to
fatten their wallets, via permit charges, user fees, enviro sur-
taxes, recycling prepays and now a looming Carbon head tax,
all legalized extortions which they the institutionalized, after scaring
the people, by declaring that everything was polluted and that the
earth must be saved. The Green shits operated strictly according
to  the edicts of their green Bible that says:
Green Genesis:
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." --  Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
3 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
Revelations:
4 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
= things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
= right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift..
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
8 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bankhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14968cc3ee9939d4
hanson

Take care, old pal, ...
hanson





| > --
| > Androcles wrote:
| > Why did Einstein say
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same?
| >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was a lye
solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered the tank and
a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?

A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.

3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed efficiency
improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo groups
instead of in scientific journals?

Matt wrote:


3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed
efficiency improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo
groups instead of in scientific journals?


Check the references here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Fuel_Injection

Mark Thorson wrote:
A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.

1) The claims of increased efficiency are made out of nothing, meaning
that there is no explanation of .

2) Why have the car makers not implemented this when amateurs are able
to get 10% improvements?

3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed efficiency
improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo groups
instead of in scientific journals?

4) Some of the electolysis advocates want you to put their special
circuit board between your oxygen sensor and your computer so that the
computer believes the exhaust has less oxygen than it actually has.
fooling the computer into believing the intake mixture is too rich.
Then the computer runs the engine leaner. Gas mileage is better while
the engine turns to junk due to running too lean.

On Jun 22, 12:34 pm, Matt <m... at (no spam) themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
Mark Thorson wrote:
A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.

1) The claims of increased efficiency are made out of nothing, meaning
that there is no explanation of .

2) Why have the car makers not implemented this when amateurs are able
to get 10% improvements?

3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed efficiency
improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo groups
instead of in scientific journals?

4) Some of the electolysis advocates want you to put their special
circuit board between your oxygen sensor and your computer so that the
computer believes the exhaust has less oxygen than it actually has.
fooling the computer into believing the intake mixture is too rich.
Then the computer runs the engine leaner. Gas mileage is better while
the engine turns to junk due to running too lean.

My recollection is that hydrogen is VERY low octane.

Running a car
engine on hydrogen requires a lot of EGR or some other method to
control detonation.

Fred Kasner wrote:

feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was a
lye solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered the
tank and a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?

Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid in
the batter?

Matt wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:

feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was a
lye solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered the
tank and a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?

Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid in
the batter?

The explosive character of gasoline is a very hardy myth. It occurs but
rarely. A split fuel tank can occasionally cause a gasoline fire but
fatalities from such a fire are rare save for the execution of a person
and an induced fire to hide the evidence. But what can be done when a
lye solution is splattered over the road and sidewalks? Batteries can be
split and sulfuric acid released but those batteries are quite hardy and
don't even require a metal reinforced container. Usually the battery
splits and leaks out the acid in situ. And there isn't a great deal of
it in any event. Not quite what would happen when you used water and an
active metal to produce hydrogen and a strong base as well. Much more
lye or similar base solution would be found in a vehicle using such as a
source for making hydrogen as a "fuel". Compared to the small amount of
sulfuric acid the ratio would be quite large.

Now I've demonstrated the perspective you invoked. And as such your
argument is found wanting.

FK

Fred Kasner wrote:
Matt wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:

feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was a
lye solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered the
tank and a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?

Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid
in the batter?

The explosive character of gasoline is a very hardy myth. It occurs
but rarely. A split fuel tank can occasionally cause a gasoline fire
but fatalities from such a fire are rare save for the execution of a
person and an induced fire to hide the evidence. But what can be done
when a lye solution is splattered over the road and sidewalks?
Batteries can be split and sulfuric acid released but those batteries
are quite hardy and don't even require a metal reinforced container.
Usually the battery splits and leaks out the acid in situ. And there
isn't a great deal of it in any event. Not quite what would happen
when you used water and an active metal to produce hydrogen and a
strong base as well. Much more lye or similar base solution would be
found in a vehicle using such as a source for making hydrogen as a
"fuel". Compared to the small amount of sulfuric acid the ratio would
be quite large.

Now I've demonstrated the perspective you invoked. And as such your
argument is found wanting.

FK

If you want to get rid of the lye just wash it off with vinegar, or hose
it down with CO2 etc.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:
Matt wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:

feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was
a lye solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered
the tank and a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?

Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid
in the batter?

The explosive character of gasoline is a very hardy myth. It occurs
but rarely. A split fuel tank can occasionally cause a gasoline fire
but fatalities from such a fire are rare save for the execution of a
person and an induced fire to hide the evidence. But what can be done
when a lye solution is splattered over the road and sidewalks?
Batteries can be split and sulfuric acid released but those batteries
are quite hardy and don't even require a metal reinforced container.
Usually the battery splits and leaks out the acid in situ. And there
isn't a great deal of it in any event. Not quite what would happen
when you used water and an active metal to produce hydrogen and a
strong base as well. Much more lye or similar base solution would be
found in a vehicle using such as a source for making hydrogen as a
"fuel". Compared to the small amount of sulfuric acid the ratio would
be quite large.

Now I've demonstrated the perspective you invoked. And as such your
argument is found wanting.

FK

If you want to get rid of the lye just wash it off with vinegar, or
hose it down with CO2 etc.


Yeah, we'll have big tanks of vinegar stationed on every street corner
to wash off all those pedestrians and auto passengers before their skin
falls off from lye attack from a street collision.
FK

Fred Kasner wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:
Matt wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:

feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was
a lye solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered
the tank and a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?

Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid
in the batter?

The explosive character of gasoline is a very hardy myth. It occurs
but rarely. A split fuel tank can occasionally cause a gasoline fire
but fatalities from such a fire are rare save for the execution of a
person and an induced fire to hide the evidence. But what can be
done when a lye solution is splattered over the road and sidewalks?
Batteries can be split and sulfuric acid released but those
batteries are quite hardy and don't even require a metal reinforced
container. Usually the battery splits and leaks out the acid in
situ. And there isn't a great deal of it in any event. Not quite
what would happen when you used water and an active metal to produce
hydrogen and a strong base as well. Much more lye or similar base
solution would be found in a vehicle using such as a source for
making hydrogen as a "fuel". Compared to the small amount of
sulfuric acid the ratio would be quite large.

Now I've demonstrated the perspective you invoked. And as such your
argument is found wanting.

FK

If you want to get rid of the lye just wash it off with vinegar, or
hose it down with CO2 etc.


Yeah, we'll have big tanks of vinegar stationed on every street corner
to wash off all those pedestrians and auto passengers before their
skin falls off from lye attack from a street collision.
FK

Just like we have for washing that gasoline from their bodies now?

Fred Kasner wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:
Matt wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:

feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was
a lye solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered
the tank and a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?

Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid
in the batter?

The explosive character of gasoline is a very hardy myth. It occurs
but rarely. A split fuel tank can occasionally cause a gasoline fire
but fatalities from such a fire are rare save for the execution of a
person and an induced fire to hide the evidence. But what can be
done when a lye solution is splattered over the road and sidewalks?
Batteries can be split and sulfuric acid released but those
batteries are quite hardy and don't even require a metal reinforced
container. Usually the battery splits and leaks out the acid in
situ. And there isn't a great deal of it in any event. Not quite
what would happen when you used water and an active metal to produce
hydrogen and a strong base as well. Much more lye or similar base
solution would be found in a vehicle using such as a source for
making hydrogen as a "fuel". Compared to the small amount of
sulfuric acid the ratio would be quite large.

Now I've demonstrated the perspective you invoked. And as such your
argument is found wanting.

FK

If you want to get rid of the lye just wash it off with vinegar, or
hose it down with CO2 etc.


Yeah, we'll have big tanks of vinegar stationed on every street corner
to wash off all those pedestrians and auto passengers before their
skin falls off from lye attack from a street collision.
FK

Just like we have for washing that gasoline from their bodies now?