boestar Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 So. you wanna buy a book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted September 13, 2014 Share Posted September 13, 2014 Well mo32a; Vern would probably be about 90 today if he's even alive. Being I haven't seen him myself since about 1981, I can't comment as to his current location, or even status. BTW, who said anything about a patent?I did.Who asked how old he was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Inchman Have a look at the specifics of Black Lights science and please tell me what you think? http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Permeation%20CIHT%20cell%20011314S.PDF For actual validation reports see: http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I had a look, DEF, and I must admit that I don't understand the vast majority of it. It's either BBB or true, or somewhere in between.But there is a lot of talk of Lithium, Molybdenum, and other metals in the paper. The way it was first presented was that they would send a spark through water (with carbon) and produce hydrinos. All that aside, if they can make a go of this, then more power to them. I certainly won't be investing in it, but don't let me stand in the way if you understand and agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 "It's either BBB or true, or somewhere in between." I'm with you in this respect Inchman. I'll either have to place my trust with the 'validators' and their reports, or spend the rest of my days sifting through all the data provided here hoping to arrive at a conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Or you can just wait until one of these dreams becomes commercially viable and then you can buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I can only hope that day may be right around the corner mo32a. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Me too. That is why some of these claims are so hard to believe, there is such a demand for these processes if they were possible somebody would be making them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 22, 2014 Author Share Posted September 22, 2014 That's precisely where the _____________ [insert your own idea] enter the room and say "They won't let it happen, 'cause they'd lose all their income!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Perhaps there's a certain amount of truth in those claims too Mitch? For example; who would have believed the President of the US would hire burglars to undertake criminal activities in the hope of gaining an election day advantage? Then there's industrial espionage and other equally sneaky things going on every day that we don't necessarily hear about. I can't provide a direct example just yet, but I've got to believe that more than one man has met his maker as a consequence of another's desire to remain at the head of the pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 I Agree with you completely DEFCON, there is so much money involved in all these mega industries that they will do anything to protect it.The medical industry in general and the cancer industry in particular come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 I wonder if this particular group of 1%ers is in the technological know and is moving to save the family fortune? "Published on Sep 22, 2014 http://www.democracynow.org - In major climate divestment news, the Rockefeller family, which made their vast fortune on oil, has announced it will begin divesting from fossil fuel companies. The heirs of Standard Oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller are joining a growing movement of institutions and wealthy individuals who are pledging to divest from oil, coal and natural gas companies. We speak to Scott Wallace, co-chair of the Wallace Global Fund, which has coordinated the Divest-Invest effort. He is the grandson of Henry Wallace, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice president and ran for president in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket. See full coverage of the People’s Climate March & years of our reports on global warming: http://www.democracynow.org/topics/cl... Democracy Now!, is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,200+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET at http://democracynow.org. Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: http://owl.li/ruJ5Q" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 The daily show covering the United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology discussing climate change...Worth the watch...http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows/thedailyshow?vid=445593 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 15 of the 90,000 cargo ships plying the seas make as much pollution as all the cars in the world, If we could wait a couple of days longer for our stuff to get to Wallmart we could cure this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 15 of 90000 is a compelling statistic. It's not that I doubt you mo32a, but I'd like to use it sometime as a reference of sorts and wonder if you could provide a source please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 15 of 90000 is a compelling statistic. It's not that I doubt you mo32a, but I'd like to use it sometime as a reference of sorts and wonder if you could provide a source please.Go here...............http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1020063_pollution-perspective-one-giant-cargo-ship-emits-as-much-as-50-million-cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Thanks Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 As usual, the author of this document is using a small part of the truth to make a spectacular headline. There is no equivalence to the amount of work done.The specific compound the author is comparing is sulfur oxides... it doesn't say anything about other compounds... maybe because the difference isn't as spectacular as this single compound. And it is comparing a car driven 9,000 miles a year to a ship that will probably travel over 100,000 miles a year... probably closer to 150,000. And they are using a giant container ship as their comparison. Not average. GIANT.These giant container ships carry up to 18,000 20 foot cargo containers, each of which can carry up to 64,000 lbs, but the average weight of which is 14 tonnes... about 30,000 lbs.... take off about 8,000 lbs for the weight of the container.So, these ships are carrying 18,000*22,000 lbs. of freight ..... 396 million lbs of freight. Let's round it to 400 millionI'm pretty sure the author of the article was probably quoting the sulfur output of a small car to even further exaggerate their argument, so that car would probably be rated to carry 1200 lbs and probably only carries 200 lbs most of the 9000 miles it drives. So, let's give it 500 lbs.Total annual load of a small car .... 500 lbs *9000 miles = 4.5 million lb-miles.Total annual load of a giant container ship 400,000,000 lbs * 100,000 miles = 40,000,000,000,000 . 40 trillion lb-miles. 40 million-million lb-miles. So round numbers.... the ship carries 10 million times the amount of freight that the car carries.If it emits 50 million times the sulfur oxides, the ship really only emits about 5 times the amount of sulfur oxide per unit of work. Not great, but not 50 million times as bad. And the article does say that 90% sulfur must be removed from bunker fuel by 2020... meaning that the ship will actually be twice as clean per unit work by 2020.The author doesn't discuss the other aspects of pollution: nitrous oxides or carbon oxides, which I can only assume are more equivalent or they would have made a big deal about them as well.If the same test were applied comparing nitrous oxides between trains (considered an eco-friendly mode of transport) and cars, one could say that a train was equivalent to hundreds of thousands of cars... maybe millions, when one considers how many miles they travel compared to that single compact car. And nitrous oxides are 400 times worse than carbon oxides for climate change. But nobody is writing bad things about trains.Bottom line... another spectacular headline comparing apples to chipmunks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Come 2020, things sound like they're finally going to get a little better sulfur wise, but overall, I think Inchman's analysis looks pretty sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Yes, but the cargo ships don't have to be that dirty, They could reduce their pollution immensely by using higher quality fuels. I would pay 10 cents more for an item at Wallmart to cover the cost of all these ships converting over to higher quality fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Yes, but the cargo ships don't have to be that dirty, They could reduce their pollution immensely by using higher quality fuels. I would pay 10 cents more for an item at Wallmart to cover the cost of all these ships converting over to higher quality fuels.I agree Mo, Bunker fuel is disgusting and toxic. It also smells awful. Make them run clean fuel by, how's this? Stop selling it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 I agree, it would be great if we could demand an immediate improvement in fuel quality, but as sad as it is, can you imagine the effort that must have gone into just getting the 2020 changes in place? I recall former PM Martin re-registering his ships offshore to avoid double hull requirements in his home Country...we kept re-electing the scourge??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Yes, but the cargo ships don't have to be that dirty, They could reduce their pollution immensely by using higher quality fuels. I would pay 10 cents more for an item at Wallmart to cover the cost of all these ships converting over to higher quality fuels.From Wikipedia:As of 2011 existing ECAs include the Baltic Sea(SOx, adopted 1997; enforced 2005) and the North Sea (SOx, 2005/2006 adopted July 2005; enforced 2006),[4] the North American ECA, including most of US[6] and Canadian coast (NOx & SOx, 2010/2012)[5] and the US Caribbean ECA, including Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands (NOx & SOx, 2011/2014).[5][8]So, if your ship offloaded in Canada or the US (ie, Walmart, etc), it already meets much stricter rules of 1m/m vs 3.5 m/m for the general world. Starting next January, ships must meet restrictions of 0.1 m/m in the SECA. One problem I have discovered with reducing sulfur in bunker fuel is that it increases internal engine friction quite a bit. So maintenance costs go up. And let's not forget that removing sulfur will increase energy use to some extent in the manufacturing of the fuel, thus it is not just a simple one way improvement in pollution.The amount of goods being shipped from overseas by these boats is only a function of our insatiable need to consume products made there. If we were willing to spend a bit more on things made here, supporting jobs and the economy here, this might hardly even be an issue. But we have told the Walmarts, Targets and Costcos and auto manufacturers that price is king and we are willing to spend the money on fuel to ship the cheap stuff here with all of the base pollution it creates regardless as to how much sulfur is in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If this isn't enough to make even the most jaded naysayer on this site and elsewhere sit up and pay attention..... http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/move-tesla-new-car-powered-salt-water-900-horsepower.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.