Ride an SUB not an SUV



George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> drydem wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> drydem wrote:
>>>>>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>>>>>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>>>>>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>>>>>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>>>>>>> hydrogen
>>>>>>> powered electric generators) .
>>>>>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
>>>>>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
>>>>>> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
>>>>>> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
>>> solar
>>>>>> cells???
>>>>> Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
>>>>> So they are not by themselves an alternate power
>>>>> solution since they can't provide power on demand.
>>>> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
>>>> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
>>>>> Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
>>>>> point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
>>>>> for our on demand electric utility power
>>> If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all

> have
>>> electric cars.
>>>
>>>

>> Read up on "Ultra caps". They have virtually no degradation with
>> charge/discharge cycles and rival the best batteries in energy storage.
>> We don't all have electric cars because everyone seems to want a few
>> hundred horsepower under their right foot. As for power grid use this
>> type of cap will stay charged for months due to it's new technology.
>> Bill (no BS this time) Baka

>
> Drivel.
>
>

I don't care if you believe me or not. These things are measured in
100's of Farads, not Micro-Farads. Find your own info.
I'm not giving pointers to the obvious.
Bill Baka
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>> drydem wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> drydem wrote:
> >>>>>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
> >>>>>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
> >>>>>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
> >>>>>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
> >>>>>>> hydrogen
> >>>>>>> powered electric generators) .
> >>>>>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles

of
> >>>>>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
> >>>>>> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
> >>>>>> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
> >>> solar
> >>>>>> cells???
> >>>>> Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
> >>>>> So they are not by themselves an alternate power
> >>>>> solution since they can't provide power on demand.
> >>>> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
> >>>> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
> >>>>> Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
> >>>>> point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
> >>>>> for our on demand electric utility power
> >>> If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all

> > have
> >>> electric cars.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Read up on "Ultra caps". They have virtually no degradation with
> >> charge/discharge cycles and rival the best batteries in energy storage.
> >> We don't all have electric cars because everyone seems to want a few
> >> hundred horsepower under their right foot. As for power grid use this
> >> type of cap will stay charged for months due to it's new technology.
> >> Bill (no BS this time) Baka

> >
> > Drivel.
> >
> >

> I don't care if you believe me or not. These things are measured in
> 100's of Farads, not Micro-Farads. Find your own info.
> I'm not giving pointers to the obvious.
> Bill Baka


Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
 
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>drydem wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>drydem wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>>>>>>>>>decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>>>>>>>>>from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>>>>>>>>>fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>>>>>>>>>hydrogen
>>>>>>>>>powered electric generators) .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles

>
> of
>
>>>>>>>>Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
>>>>>>>>easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
>>>>>>>>spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
>>>>>
>>>>>solar
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>cells???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
>>>>>>>So they are not by themselves an alternate power
>>>>>>>solution since they can't provide power on demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
>>>>>>That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
>>>>>>>point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
>>>>>>>for our on demand electric utility power
>>>>>
>>>>> If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all
>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>>>electric cars.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Read up on "Ultra caps". They have virtually no degradation with
>>>>charge/discharge cycles and rival the best batteries in energy storage.
>>>>We don't all have electric cars because everyone seems to want a few
>>>>hundred horsepower under their right foot. As for power grid use this
>>>>type of cap will stay charged for months due to it's new technology.
>>>>Bill (no BS this time) Baka
>>>
>>>Drivel.
>>>
>>>

>>
>>I don't care if you believe me or not. These things are measured in
>>100's of Farads, not Micro-Farads. Find your own info.
>>I'm not giving pointers to the obvious.
>>Bill Baka

>
>
> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>
>


They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
advantages over the batteries.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
 
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> Drivel.
>>>
>>>

>> I don't care if you believe me or not. These things are measured in
>> 100's of Farads, not Micro-Farads. Find your own info.
>> I'm not giving pointers to the obvious.
>> Bill Baka

>
> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.


I hate to break it to you but they could care less unless it is their
invention. The information is out there but I am not digging around to
prove a rather simple point...technology happens.
I have 75 tabs open now in Firefox, searching, and I am not going to
break it now for you.
Sorry,
Bill Baka
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>
>>

>
> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
> advantages over the batteries.
>
> nate
>

They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite
a while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.
Bill Baka
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>
>>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
>> advantages over the batteries.
>>
>> nate
>>

> They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite a
> while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.


I don't know... Aren't those the same thing Dr. Emmett Brown was using in
1985?

-Amy
 
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
>>> advantages over the batteries.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>

>> They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite a
>> while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.

>
> I don't know... Aren't those the same thing Dr. Emmett Brown was using in
> 1985?
>
> -Amy
>
>

Not FLUX capacitors.
Time storage in a bottle?
Bill Baka
 
"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
>>>> advantages over the batteries.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>> They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite
>>> a while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.

>>
>> I don't know... Aren't those the same thing Dr. Emmett Brown was using in
>> 1985?
>>
>> -Amy

> Not FLUX capacitors.
> Time storage in a bottle?


If I could save Time in a bottle
The first thing that Id like to do
Is to save every day
Til Eternity passes away
Just to spend them with you

Don't take it personally, Bill... It's just a song ;-)
 
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
>>>>> advantages over the batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>> nate
>>>>>
>>>> They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite
>>>> a while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.
>>> I don't know... Aren't those the same thing Dr. Emmett Brown was using in
>>> 1985?
>>>
>>> -Amy

>> Not FLUX capacitors.
>> Time storage in a bottle?

>
> If I could save Time in a bottle
> The first thing that Id like to do
> Is to save every day
> Til Eternity passes away
> Just to spend them with you
>
> Don't take it personally, Bill... It's just a song ;-)
>
>

I know, the tune came up in my head. That was a good time for me when
that song came out.
Time flies when you aren't looking.
Bill (rained out day of reminiscence) Baka
 
[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.

>
> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
> indefinitely.
>


I think that is the US governmaents intent

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
dgk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 07 May 2007 20:03:24 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it

after
>>>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US

troops
>>>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives

daily
>>>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>>>
>>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat

up
>>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out

on
>>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>> indefinitely.
>>>

>>
>>I think that is the US governmaents intent

>
> That was unclear. Do you think the intent is to have a group hostile
> to US interests come out on top, or to have a permanent occupation. I
> can make a case for either.
>
> The permanent occupation is a likely goal, because we are, after all,
> building 14 permanent bases including the "US Embassy", actually one
> huge base. This will give the US control of the oil.
>
> However a hostile government is also a plus, depending on how one
> defines US interests. If the interests are those of the average
> American, this is a bad thing. But if you're talking about corporate
> interests, then an enemy is great. After the collapse of the Soviet
> Union, it was looking like we could actually get a reduction in
> military spending, I think we were hoping for something called a
> "peace dividend".
>
> That, however, was a threat to the corporations that make their
> obscene profits from the war industries; that's what Eisenhower was
> referring to with his "military-industrial complex" speech. So, we
> needed another enemy. They tried using Gadaffi but even they couldn't
> blow him up into a real threat.
>
> Of course, we managed to blow Iran into a huge threat now, so perhaps
> we can just take Iraq and still have Iran as a boogyman. Yes, that's a
> good plan. Something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on,
> since they both feed off the GE-NBC-Etc corporate teat. Hmm, let's
> see, yes, combining large "defense" industries with the dominant media
> companies! What a great idea.
>


You hit the nail.........

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On 07 May 2007 20:03:24 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.

>>
>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>> indefinitely.
>>

>
>I think that is the US governmaents intent


That was unclear. Do you think the intent is to have a group hostile
to US interests come out on top, or to have a permanent occupation. I
can make a case for either.

The permanent occupation is a likely goal, because we are, after all,
building 14 permanent bases including the "US Embassy", actually one
huge base. This will give the US control of the oil.

However a hostile government is also a plus, depending on how one
defines US interests. If the interests are those of the average
American, this is a bad thing. But if you're talking about corporate
interests, then an enemy is great. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, it was looking like we could actually get a reduction in
military spending, I think we were hoping for something called a
"peace dividend".

That, however, was a threat to the corporations that make their
obscene profits from the war industries; that's what Eisenhower was
referring to with his "military-industrial complex" speech. So, we
needed another enemy. They tried using Gadaffi but even they couldn't
blow him up into a real threat.

Of course, we managed to blow Iran into a huge threat now, so perhaps
we can just take Iraq and still have Iran as a boogyman. Yes, that's a
good plan. Something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on,
since they both feed off the GE-NBC-Etc corporate teat. Hmm, let's
see, yes, combining large "defense" industries with the dominant media
companies! What a great idea.
 

Similar threads