dorbie

Potentially but it requires explanation. It is not a water powered car or even a partly water powered car. The end product of H2 and O2 combustion is H2O, you cannot start with H2O and get energy out of it. Further you combust H2O into a gas that is more energetic than the H2O you started with. Now the word hybrid covers all sorts of things. But let's say for example that the guy understands he really does need to power his electrolysis and recognises that fact. Some hybrids take electricity generated under breaking and convert it to battery energy (this is electrolysis inside a rechargeable battery). This chemical energy is later used as electrical power from the battery to drive an electric motor. Now let's say you had a gasoline powered vehicle and you used electricity generated under breaking to power electrolysis to separate water into H2 and O2 and store it. You could then feed that to the engine cylinders for combustion and eliminate the electric motor and the batteries. You need a water tank, probably compressors, storage for the gasses and a feed to the engine. Basically you're replacing a battery with gas storage and it might be a net gain, you have an electrolysis system on the front end of the storage instead of an electric motor on the back end of the storage. The problem here is the history of bogus water powered car claims he's made for years and persists in, and saying he gets a net energy gain from water which he cannot. You'll remember the beginning of the story where the claim was made that he could power a car entirely from water.

You are WRONG, Royder does understand the science and you don't. Just because you don't understand BASIC science, do not criticise people because they point out you are falling for a con. Once again.... 1) electrolysis to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is well understood, it takes energy. 2) Hydrogen and oxygen combust to produce water and energy. 3) In a perfect system stage 1 takes as much energy as 2 outputs. 4) Neither process can be 100% efficient and so 2 outputs less energy than you put into 1. e.g. the water after combustion is hot water gas, the "fuel" is liquid, just where do you think the energy to heat the water into a gas comes from? Never mind the energy to melt metal. 5) If you want to believe this guy you have to accept that you could feed his vehicle's exhaust into its gas tank and run it forever. Not just a perpetual motion machine, but a perpetual motion machine that does work. Dude, just THINK about it, you start with water you end up with water (the guy points his torch at a condensing sheet to show water droplets), what net gain chemically has occurred? HHO is not some magical gas that burns cold. H2O is water. It makes H2 and O2 under electrolysis, you can mix the gas to produce an H2 and O2 mix. Inventing a new chemical notation to show a gas mix is marketing, not chemistry. Hydrogen and Oxygen burn at the same temperature for him as anyone else. Mixing them before combustion is crazy, you store them separately or invite an explosion. No flame magically melts metal but doesn't burn anything else. That flame is burning away from the nozzle and so does not heat it because of the velocity of the gas being emitted and the fact that they only mix for combustion after leaving the nozzle, this is a commonly used principal in all sorts of torches. IF you came up with some moderate/low temperature catalytic separation of water (the guy says he uses electrolysis so he hasn't) but if you did it would take a lot of energy now you'd have to heat the cat to stop it getting extremely cold and being ineffective, but the guy doesn't even make such a claim, which at least would be more feasible if ridiculously outlandish. The likes of you should not be making this decision and neither should congressmen without scientific advisers, because they are not scientifically equipped to see through a very obvious and childish fraud. As it is we'll blow money on a modified hummer and hopefully the testing will reveal that it is less efficient or someone will be smart enough to spot the real engine mods they've made. If this guy DID have something it would be worth a fortune in all sorts of areas including industrial processes etc, he has nothing but a con game he runs on investors and now unfortunately the taxpayer. You should listen to people who can see very clearly what is going on here instead of dismissing what they say. A few posters here understand science and see why this is a fraud.

Sounds interesting. Take a look at GPS varios out there in the paragliding world. They don't meet your specs but they are interesting as integrated units with logging and onboard computers. http://www.flytec.com/Products/Variometers/5030.htm

Did you get that from Revalations? That's about the basest thing you've said to date Bill. I once had some sympathy for your plight with the Canadian parachute association but with shit like that I can only conclude that your personality must have earned it in spades. As far as I'm concerned your accomplishments will be forever tainted by your despicable remarks. Have fun wasting away at the home once those prophecies you've been pinning your hopes on don't pan out. Dirty a sheet for me.

Maybe you're forgetting that in 2000 when Bush was campaigning for president, gas was $1.58 a gallon. He harassed Clinton for not doing anything about gas prices that were hurting Americans. I thought it was suspicious back then. People will unfortunately forget though. Not that congress are doing anything about it. Every time they look at this they draw a blank. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed with these colluding pigopolists. Manipulation of refinery uptime. Price collusion. Price fixing in selective local markets. Fuel blend manipulation. Gouging. Internal supply manipulation with competitors. Elimination of retail alternatives. Frankly I'd investigate the heck outa them and would nail their ass to the wall if any of the above are substantiated, including taking their profits and siezing their refinery capacity (& turning it over to responsible entities), price setting, mandating alternative outlets, fines & other penalties including jail. There is no reasonable way to search for better price, it is set in collusion geographically with variation of a few cents a gallon locally, alternatve fuels could work to a degree until too many folks switch, but that's actually a huge and inconvenient option for many. We can't all mix our own there are few stations (chicken & egg) and the initial costs can be significant. Apart from that some exotic fuel option does not justify the gouging of a massive cartel, it makes it worse because they control the retail outlets.

Oh yes, following a war Israel just occupied those places. That documentary is extremely selective with where it starts, what it says and which UN resolutions it bothers to mention. Starting at the beginning would at least be honest, instead of this "following a war" bullshit.

Just what position that I've taken are you referring to? The only position I've taken in this thread is that the spectacle of you pontificating from atop the misery in VT is a sickening one. It is entirely supported by the facts that are self evident in this thread. You will not deflect such well deserved criticism with a non sequitur. (learn exAFO)

Agreed, but would you agree that it is sad for EITHER side? YES!

Very melodramatic and non-sequitor of you... obviously "non-sequitur" does not mean what you think it means.

Yea climb off the pile of corpses, you're crowding Douva out up there. Do I need to repeat myself? Your hasty and sickening mountaineering expedition to the top of the the pile of corpses at VT makes your attempt to arbitrate posting etiquette in this thread one of the more twisted things I've seen in SC.

Yea climb off the pile of corpses, you're crowding Douva out up there.

Right, that's what I said, Dorbie won't let it go and wants to pin him on us, when he is non-partisn, just a joke. Probably your most oblivious post yet on a number of levels. This started with YOU trying to say he was a right winger I think you used "Conservo Maggot" which says a lot about YOU. It was let go now you're trying to misrepresent what the argument was about. You opined he was a right winger and a "Conservo Maggot" because of how he apologized, that's the joke. P.S. MOST thinking people are all over the map politically w.r.t. the party line dogma you get spoon fed in America.

Even if that player is a cracker?

From your initial post I would never have guessed he had 800 jumps a D license and was extremely current. You need to learn what the requirements are for the ratings you're throwing around somewhat hysterically.

Ask a packer to make one for you, you'll see it when you open.

It's a wall. No, it's a spear. Nonsense, obviously it's a snake. As snake? Don't be silly, it's a tree. You're all wrong, it's a fan. It's nothing like a fan, it's a rope.

Only if they show they're not total hypocrites by going after gangster rap with the same enthusiasm they had when they went after a 66 year old has-been. I won't hold my breath. It is too late for that. If by some miracle they go after them tomorrow (they won't) it's way too late to cover their racism.

Simply repeating the same rubbish does not refute the true nature of the show. Get back to me when you've unlearned your circular reasoning. You can't even agree with Lindsey's insightful observation so entrenched are you. The LA Times called his show a "Democratic soapbox", based on the substance of the show, they are obviously not a publication to do that if Imus were the right winger you claim. The guy voted for Kerry but you ignore that, and according to you McCain is some radical right wing guy, that's just laughable. America is full of people on the left who LOVE John McCain and people on the right who call McCain a RINO. Would you call Christopher Hitchens right wing because of his position on Iraq? Would you call Pat Buchanan a radical left winger because he hates Bush? Your preconceptions about partisan politicts and labels blinds you to the facts, (which you've been filtering in support of your initial conclusion based on circular reasoning) it's sad but entertaining.

And some people run from facts on a reguar basis, why not address these and be the first conservative to do so? - Reg Repub - A Clinton hater - A McCain supporter - A Gore hater The LA times has a lot more credibility than you and your cherry picking. "Democrat soapbox" just about sums it up.

I tend to agree with you on that.

And I don't want to hear it. LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA......................... Right, if it differs from what you want to hear/read, you shut it out, which is how conservatives argue. Oh please, don't compound your error, it WAS a somewhat self-effacing joke. I wrote that intentionally. Merely claiming PA doesn't give you the moral high ground, especially when you strain to make the accusation. There's really nothing to say to someone who holds your beliefs on how conservatives behave, and uses it to confer labels both ways, it's patently ludicrous circular reasoning.

And I don't want to hear it. LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.........................

I'll judge him based on his actions & the dominant political leaning of his show. Simply stating that because of the way he worded his apology that he must be a Republican as was done is absolutely asinine and classic self-reinforcing bullshit. He voted for Kerrey and the LA Times calls his show a soapbox for Democrats, Cracker PLEASE! Republican my ass, although maybe he'll switch back after getting reamed by his own.

If it was discovered that the rig was not TSA'd, then we would know that by law it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that no non-TSA'd rig is allowed to exits his aircraft from altitude. The law is what it is. Yea but more generally anyone named in a lawsuit will have a lawyer pointing to anyone and everyone else to attribute blame. If everyone who might possibly be blamed in the incident by anyone involved (or not) is named then you have covered your bases.

Smearing people who disagree with you on an issue is no better.