The Oil Spill

[ZachEY]

Please, show me. I'd love to be wrong right about now. I'll be back in about a half hour. Hopefully I'll come back to some information that could enlighten me outside of general opinion about paranoia. .

I don't have opinions on paranoia, I have the DSM.

As for the court case, ask the guy who brought it up.

[villain_the_foe]

Lawsuit

In 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military.[14] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three expert witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3]

I was wrong about stanley.

Please provide my false stance on the technology itself please since you're the only one looking. At the end of the day, Multiple people have issuing patents on this so if Stanley was a fraud it doesnt mean that the technology is legit.

[JohnnyHector]

Is the information in the court case in those books?

No, just the information that governs how our universe works. Sorry thatI couldn't be more specific.

[villain_the_foe]

Damn dude, wtf are we worrying about alternative fuels for, you've clearly found the secret to eternal life!

lol. Being wrong 1000 times will be alright once you are right in the end. Ask Einstein or any other person that wouldnt listen to reason.

[villain_the_foe]

I don't have opinions on paranoia, I have the DSM.

As for the court case, ask the guy who brought it up.

You commented on it, im asking to prove it then.

The technology is my point. your DSM book is good to have. You'll need it.

[villain_the_foe]

No, just the information that governs how our universe works. Sorry thatI couldn't be more specific.

We no nothing about this universe. Its more strange than we could possibly imagine. stop acting like the book is of a divine nature.

[JohnnyHector]

Multiple people have issuing patents on this so if Stanley was a fraud it doesnt mean that the technology is legit.

Here is another alternative energy patent, The Gas Factory:

"In addition to the environmentally destructive effects of ruminant animal methane emissions, such emissions represent wasted energy, as up to thirteen percent of the food ruminant animals eat is lost as methane."

Now if I could only figure out how to fit a cow under the hood of my car....

[JohnnyHector]

We no nothing about this universe. Its more strange than we could possibly imagine. stop acting like the book is of a divine nature.

As of now, these laws that have yet to be disproven are all that we "no" about this universe.

[villain_the_foe]

Here is another alternative energy patent, The Gas Factory:

"In addition to the environmentally destructive effects of ruminant animal methane emissions, such emissions represent wasted energy, as up to thirteen percent of the food ruminant animals eat is lost as methane."

Now if I could only figure out how to fit a cow under the hood of my car....

that was kinda funny. Doesnt shed light on anything that im talking about though.

[ZachEY]

I was wrong about stanley.

Please provide my false stance on the technology itself please since you're the only one looking. At the end of the day, Multiple people have issuing patents on this so if Stanley was a fraud it doesnt mean that the technology is legit.

This reminds me of an amusing anecdote.

A professor of mine was talking about one of her patients who suffered from delusions. Specifically, he thought that he was the living dead, aka, a zombie.

One day, a nurse on the ward needed to take blood from the patient. The patient brushed her off, telling her that he was the living dead and did not have blood.

The nurse went to my professor, the psychologist, and said how excited she was that she would take his blood and then he'd have to admit that he was alive.

The nurse returned, took the patients blood, which was just as red as anyone else, and the patient responded:

"Oh, I guess I was wrong. I guess dead people do bleed".

[Vicious89x]

I was wrong about stanley.

Please provide my false stance on the technology itself please since you're the only one looking. At the end of the day, Multiple people have issuing patents on this so if Stanley was a fraud it doesnt mean that the technology is legit.

Meyer's patents are still available online,[16] although there has as yet been no independent verification of his claims.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=GNQfAAAAEBAJ&dq=5149407

It seems the patents for the ideas are out there, but the ideas themselves aren't proven to work. Essentially, there is no process to verify the validity of a patent claim. So the counter-point to your claim of "legit" technology is that in fact, the technology does not need to be legit in order to obtain a patent.

[bitonti]

I was wrong about stanley.

ooh my turn. I was wrong about Drob. feels good.

now it's someone else's turn to publicly admit they were wrong to a bunch of strangers who won't remember or care!

***

when we see the costs of cleanup, the costs of the tourism and seafood industries that collapsed... all of a sudden spending 5 or 10k more per car isn't such a bad expense... the 500k extra acoustic preventer isn't such an expensive measure for BP.

using hindsight there are many situations where an ounce of provention was worth a pound of cure...

the truth is BP's liabilities are capped, their stock will recover, they have a huge credit line to borrow from... (they made 17 Billion last year in profits)... and they will be just fine. BP probably isn't going bankrupt or even close to it because of this... Many "little people" will go broke but BP will be fine.

[JohnnyHector]

Meyer's patents are still available online,[16] although there has as yet been no independent verification of his claims.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=GNQfAAAAEBAJ&dq=5149407

It seems the patents for the ideas are out there, but the ideas themselves aren't proven to work. Essentially, there is no process to verify the validity of a patent claim. So the counter-point to your claim of "legit" technology is that in fact, the technology does not need to be legit in order to obtain a patent.

Since his patents have expired, I would expect people to be flooding the marketplace with this wonderful technology any day now.

[ZachEY]

ooh my turn. I was wrong about Drob. feels good.

I need to spread the rep around, unfortunately.

[JohnnyHector]

I need to spread the rep around, unfortunately.

Yes, that one is sig-worthy. This is like Pete Rose admitting he bet on baseball.

[Greenranger]

Something similar to this? I just typed in his name to snopes and found a thread there. I'm not a science major nor do I pretend to be.

Yeah, its like that. You would be using more energy with that car then you are with your car now.

[Biggs]

The oil is going to run out, and the sooner the USA gets off it's oil dependency, the better. Of course it's going to be hard. Tough decisions are rarely easy. This one should be.

The US currently subsidizes oil companies, and has one of the lowest petroleum taxes in the free world. If gas prices were as high here as in other places on the planet, then electric cars and solar panels would all of a sudden look a lot more affordable.

They could be more affordable right now if the US taxed oil products and put that money into renewable energy. The country has a highly educated, un(der)employed workforce. The nation as a whole needs high quality manfacturing jobs, and we need to get off oil. Why the hell isn't the government investing in green energy, then? The US should be be the world leader in the field. Instead, we're well behind China. That's inexcusable.

Going green -investing in green technology and energy- is good for the environment, the economy, and national security.

So who's it not good for? The Oil Companies and their investors.

Big business owns this country. Don't lose sight of that.

Obama says he's pursuing criminal charges against BP. Good. We'll see what comes of that, though.

We aren't behind anyone and technology isn't border bound. If the government wants to promote investment they should be promoting risk capital instead of trying to stifle it.

Our economy is stagnating because the appetite for risk is being stifled by a complex tax code and every increasing rules and regulations which are yet unclear. The Government subsidized housing through the tax code and the HSA. How did that work out?

Innovation will never come from what is essentially a large public employee Union whose number one goal is cradle to grave health benefits and early retirement with fully funded State pensions.

You correctly pointed out just what the government is good at, making transfer payments. That

[villain_the_foe]

Meyer's patents are still available online,[16] although there has as yet been no independent verification of his claims.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=GNQfAAAAEBAJ&dq=5149407

It seems the patents for the ideas are out there, but the ideas themselves aren't proven to work. Essentially, there is no process to verify the validity of a patent claim. So the counter-point to your claim of "legit" technology is that in fact, the technology does not need to be legit in order to obtain a patent.

Why havent there been any independent, big corp verification of its claims.

I would think that chemistry would be able to prove this.

Think about it...The first guy that found "black stuff" in a pool and told people black water came from underground and he could burn it was called a fool, too. Now we use oil for almost everything.

Hell, the guy that came up with the concept of teleportation was called a luny too...but HEY!!!!! scientist have successfully teleported a photon. Better than that, a recent article proclaims they may have caused light to move BACKWARDS. I don't know WHAT the hell that means...but someone who's brain is a million times larger than mine MIGHT have a few thoughts and some understanding I don't have. Im not willing to throw it to the side as if its not important though. Thats the difference.

Tell you what, all you nay-sayers who get a kick out of this, its cool. I dont claim to know everything...but im certainly not afraid to be wrong simply because im not afraid to be right, like most people here. I'll dig further, because thats what I love to do. Ill see how far you guys could go.

I did this with the vaccinations and ultimately proved my point. I'll do it with this now.

[JohnnyHector]

I did this with the vaccinations and ultimately proved my point. I'll do it with this now.

[Vicious89x]

Why havent there been any independent, big corp verification of its claims.

I would think that chemistry would be able to prove this.

Think about it...The first guy that found "black stuff" in a pool and told people black water came from underground and he could burn it was called a fool, too. Now we use oil for almost everything.

Hell, the guy that came up with the concept of teleportation was called a luny too...but HEY!!!!! scientist have successfully teleported a photon. Better than that, a recent article proclaims they may have caused light to move BACKWARDS. I don't know WHAT the hell that means...but someone who's brain is a million times larger than mine MIGHT have a few thoughts and some understanding I don't have. Im not willing to throw it to the side as if its not important though. Thats the difference.

Tell you what, all you nay-sayers who get a kick out of this, its cool. I dont claim to know everything...but im certainly not afraid to be wrong simply because im not afraid to be right, like most people here. I'll dig further, because thats what I love to do. Ill see how far you guys could go.

I did this with the vaccinations and ultimately proved my point. I'll do it with this now.

There's a difference between being right on plausibility than being correct on the practical use of something.

The science of this, just as Greenranger pointed out, is impractical. I've been reading this stuff and you simply require too much electricity to even make this work.

[ZachEY]

8HUvTp8ZcJs

[ZachEY]

There's a difference between being right on plausibility than being correct on the practical use of something.

The science of this, just as Greenranger pointed out, is impractical. I've been reading this stuff and you simply require too much electricity to even make this work.

Exactly.

And no one is arguing the fact that hydrogen fuel cells are legitimate, just that they are years away from being ready for mass market.

[Vicious89x]

Exactly.

And no one is arguing the fact that hydrogen fuel cells are legitimate, just that they are years away from being ready for mass market.

Not to mention the safety of the cells themselves. A reaction that violent in a car crash is what popped into my head first.

I think the difference in opinion is that you might think it's years off. Others think it's corporations stifling this "technology" in order to continue to reap big profits.

[villain_the_foe]

There's a difference between being right on plausibility than being correct on the practical use of something.

The science of this, just as Greenranger pointed out, is impractical. I've been reading this stuff and you simply require too much electricity to even make this work.

To say that its impractical is to say that its not workable...I wouldnt say that.

I'm not a chemist or a physicist. I'm a true believer in the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". On that note, If you were a scammer, would you:

A) Ignore previous research and rebrand Brown's Gas as your invention

or

Publish a scientific article about your invention and explain why it's not Brown's Gas

Here's the article, published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy:

Go to hytechapps.com and then /presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/Santilli,%20International%20Journal.pdf

or go to sciencedirect.com and search for "a new gaseous and combustible form of water"

Although I don't have the qualifications to debunk or credit this paper, at least they published. From reading the article, they seem to directly address why their invention is not Brown's Gas. This decreases my initial assumption that this is a scam because he went to court. Your thoughts?

[ZachEY]

Not to mention the safety of the cells themselves. A reaction that violent in a car crash is what popped into my head first.

When has anything bad ever happened involving hydrogen and transportation?

[villain_the_foe]

Exactly.

And no one is arguing the fact that hydrogen fuel cells are legitimate, just that they are years away from being ready for mass market.

They may not be years away from mass market if it wasnt for the fact that you wouldnt have to pay for water as fuel.

Thats all Im sayin.

The technology is there....THATS what I said. You asked for the price, and I sent you something with a price.

Now, if Stanley is an alleged fraud, that doesnt mean Denny Klein is.

[Vicious89x]

To say that its impractical is to say that its not workable...I wouldnt say that.

I'm not a chemist or a physicist. I'm a true believer in the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". On that note, If you were a scammer, would you:

A) Ignore previous research and rebrand Brown's Gas as your invention

or

Publish a scientific article about your invention and explain why it's not Brown's Gas

Here's the article, published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy:

Go to hytechapps.com and then /presentation/linked%20files/Hydro%20Tech/user%20added/Santilli,%20International%20Journal.pdf

or go to sciencedirect.com and search for "a new gaseous and combustible form of water"

Although I don't have the qualifications to debunk or credit this paper, at least they published. From reading the article, they seem to directly address why their invention is not Brown's Gas. This decreases my initial assumption that this is a scam. Your thoughts?

My thoughts that as a scammer this is EXACTLY what I do. Repackage, give a new fancy name and sell it as a different idea. If people bought into it once, others will buy into it again.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4HVDJBT-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2006&_alid=1355780227&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5729&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=2811&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=16b4efc88ec2e3d7d1b0a3ece5141334

Ruggero Maria Santilli

Santilli's theory has been discredited by other scientists as having 'many serious misinterpretations, and misunderstandings of the

[NIGHT STALKER]

When has anything bad ever happened involving hydrogen and transportation?

The Japanese would probably say back in 1945.

[Vicious89x]

When has anything bad ever happened involving hydrogen and transportation?

Never. It was evil corporations planting seeds of doubt in the unsuspecting public.

[NIGHT STALKER]

Never. It was evil corporations planting seeds of doubt in the unsuspecting public.

Are you serious?

Atom bomb...there's your hydrogen.

B-29...there's your transporation that delivered it.

[Vicious89x]

Are you serious?

Atom bomb...there's your hydrogen.

B-29...there's your transporation that delivered it.

Psssst I was being sarcastic.

[ZachEY]

They may not be years away from mass market if it wasnt for the fact that you wouldnt have to pay for water as fuel.

Thats all Im sayin.

Maybe not. Unfortunately, there's no proof of this claim, so all it is is a theory.

The technology is there....THATS what I said. You asked for the price, and I sent you something with a price.

Now, if Stanley is an alleged fraud, that doesnt mean Denny Klein is.

I completely agree that the technology exists to make a hydrogen fuel cell car. Ignoring Klein, we've all seen them.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

Take a look at that, it's a real car that you can get. But, in every instance, it seems that making hydrogen fuel cell cars is not cost efficient enough to bring to the market on a large scale.

You can get this little Honda on a 3-year lease for $600 a month. Combine that w/ a 0 to 60 of 10 seconds (roughly that of Ford's largest SUV, the Excursion, and the Hummer H2) and it's just not practical.... YET.

As for Klein, apparently he has not allowed anyone outside of his company to verify his product. Why does that not raise doubts for you?

[villain_the_foe]

My thoughts that as a scammer this is EXACTLY what I do. Repackage, give a new fancy name and sell it as a different idea. If people bought into it once, others will buy into it again.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4HVDJBT-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2006&_alid=1355780227&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5729&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=2811&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=16b4efc88ec2e3d7d1b0a3ece5141334

Ruggero Maria Santilli

Santilli's theory has been discredited by other scientists as having 'many serious misinterpretations, and misunderstandings of the “data” presented... [the paper] creates some doubt as to whether [the author] actually knows the difference between a gas chromatograph (GC) and a mass spectrometer (MS).'[15]

In conclusion, the author provides absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the existence of a new form of matter called “HHO gas.” From the data presented, the gaseous product from the electrolyzer behaves in the same manner as would be expected of a mixture of hydrogen, oxygen, and watervapor.

In reference to my first video.....trying to explain the HHO flame, we would have to first assume that it is not the traditional combustion of hydrogen in the presence of oxygen.

(Actually, while it's true that the combustion reaction itself of hydrogen and oxygen does not require induction, burning hydrogen will have magnetic effects, and create an induction effect + joule heating [however small]. Hydrogen is diamagnetic and oxygen is paramagnetic. Assuming it is done in a magnetic field, the reaction of the two to yield water, a diamagnetic molecule, will have a net reduction of the overall magnetic field. This effect, of course, drops to zero as the random motion approaches infinity and the magnetic field approaches zero, which is true enough in the real world to not have a noticeable yield and imply that I am also making a pedantic argument.

I can't explain it at this point, but it would have to be some sort of crazy magnetic concoction that links the H and O together as described in his patent.

In previous posts, it has been stated that such a possibility is "impractical" , which brings me to another point I wanted to bring up. By any stretch of valence bond or molecular orbital theory, the molecule that he describes is not possible. However, molecular orbital theory (the overall best molecular model) is admittedly a large approximation of the Schrodinger equation (check that out). In this approximation, a large number of magnetic effects from spin-spin coupling, spin-orbital coupling, etc. are assumed to have no part in the total energy calculation. If magnetic effects were more prominent (you can google: toroidal electron-orbital magnetic dipoles) then the largest effect when the nucleus is small and has a large proton:neutron ratio i.e. Hydrogen then it completely compromises our idea of what a molecule is classically supposed to be wouldnt you think? Basically, if it is a magnetic molecule, then disregard any idea of what is a valence-bonding molecule.

All im saying is that this is a highly theoretical topic, too theoretical to say that somthing is impractical.

[ZachEY]

Psssst I was being sarcastic.

I was going for the obvious:

[Vicious89x]

In reference to my first video.....trying to explain the HHO flame, we would have to first assume that it is not the traditional combustion of hydrogen in the presence of oxygen.

(Actually, while it's true that the combustion reaction itself of hydrogen and oxygen does not require induction, burning hydrogen will have magnetic effects, and create an induction effect + joule heating [however small]. Hydrogen is diamagnetic and oxygen is paramagnetic. Assuming it is done in a magnetic field, the reaction of the two to yield water, a diamagnetic molecule, will have a net reduction of the overall magnetic field. This effect, of course, drops to zero as the random motion approaches infinity and the magnetic field approaches zero, which is true enough in the real world to not have a noticeable yield and imply that I am also making a pedantic argument.

I can't explain it at this point, but it would have to be some sort of crazy magnetic concoction that links the H and O together as described in his patent.

In previous posts, it has been stated that such a possibility is "impractical" , which brings me to another point I wanted to bring up. By any stretch of valence bond or molecular orbital theory, the molecule that he describes is not possible. However, molecular orbital theory (the overall best molecular model) is admittedly a large approximation of the Schrodinger equation (check that out). In this approximation, a large number of magnetic effects from spin-spin coupling, spin-orbital coupling, etc. are assumed to have no part in the total energy calculation. If magnetic effects were more prominent (you can google: toroidal electron-orbital magnetic dipoles) have the largest effect when the nucleus is small and has a large proton:neutron ratio i.e. Hydrogen) then it completely compromises our idea of what a molecule is classically supposed to be. Basically, if it is a magnetic molecule, then disregard any idea of what is a valence-bonding molecule.

All im saying is that this is a highly theoretical topic, too theoretical to say that somthing is impractical.

Theory is theory. That is the WHOLE point that you fail to respect when others think differently. Some are more abrasive than others but at the base of it here's what I think:

It's theory, and very far off from being proven. You can teleport a proton, and it means teleportation could be possible, but how far off are we from teleporting something of substance? At that point it's impractical to believe it's plausible for use. The same line of thinking applies to this. The HHO or water torch has been around since the 19th century. Just because it exists in one form does not mean it's readily available to be used in some other form.

Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen soon? I don't think so.