Young/Goodwin/Kruger Auto X-prize team confirm HHO gas!
Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw, renegade, Hush
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
Young/Goodwin/Kruger Auto X-prize team confirm HHO gas!
Niel Young slipped a bit in this TV interview.. time is 5:35.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_vzNH0nkX4
Here in “state of LinkVoltâ€
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_vzNH0nkX4
Here in “state of LinkVoltâ€
WTF is up with Neil Young in that David Letterman interview? He looks like a homeless man that just got paid $20 to be on some Bumfights video.
And the three guys standing around in the garage seem to be drunk.
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider any of these people to be reliable sources of information.
Again, for something that is supposed to have such a dramatic effect on mileage, why haven't we seen any undisputable evidence that proves that it works?
And the three guys standing around in the garage seem to be drunk.
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider any of these people to be reliable sources of information.
Again, for something that is supposed to have such a dramatic effect on mileage, why haven't we seen any undisputable evidence that proves that it works?
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
You wouldn't consider them reliable sources of information - even thought they may be poised to win the X-prize... REALLY???? Umm.. ok.Blaubart wrote: I'm sorry, but I wouldn't consider any of these people to be reliable sources of information.
Again, for something that is supposed to have such a dramatic effect on mileage, why haven't we seen any undisputable evidence that proves that it works?
And what, exactly, do you consider "(i)ndisputable evidence"; for the sake of F--k man - it's pretty obvious that CO2 levels are at an all time high and the climate is changing... yet that gets 'un-disputed' all the time?
You really should think before you post, and probably even consider having someone ghost write your responses.
- silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
I don't completely agree that THIS is where the dispute is.rsilvers wrote:It used to be called 'global warming' but then we learned that was not selling very well because things were getting colder. So now they call it 'climate change.'
I don't believe anyone disputes that the climate is changing. The dispute is if it is made-made and possible to reverse.
I believe that this is, however, where card-carrying GOP cool-aide drinkers want the dispute to lie.
The real question is, how quickly are we accelerating it.
I don't think that anyone reasonable could argue that mankind has not accelerated it since the industrial age via deforestation and CO2 output.
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 3:57 pm
#1 Who cares?
#2 To what point do you shove regulations up someones ass based on a theory. We are about as clean as we can get without choking off productivity and taking ourselves out of the competitive global market. The big polluters are in China and India and I know they don't give one s--t about emissions. If we ain't all gonna play ball, it ain't gonna make a difference.
#3 The average cyclical global climate shift happens about every 10,000 years, guess how long it's been since the last one. We aren't accelerating s--t. Quit listening to Al Gore, you sound like my cousin
#2 To what point do you shove regulations up someones ass based on a theory. We are about as clean as we can get without choking off productivity and taking ourselves out of the competitive global market. The big polluters are in China and India and I know they don't give one s--t about emissions. If we ain't all gonna play ball, it ain't gonna make a difference.
#3 The average cyclical global climate shift happens about every 10,000 years, guess how long it's been since the last one. We aren't accelerating s--t. Quit listening to Al Gore, you sound like my cousin
- silencertalk
- Site Admin
- Posts: 33978
- Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:31 am
- Location: USA
I am not sure if we have or have not, but I do not take it as a given that we have because extra C02 will just make trees, plants, and algae bloom which consumed C02 and produces O2. If you inject C02 into a greenhouse, plants will grow more quickly. One could make a reasonable argument it is good for the environment if you like green.GlockandRoll wrote:I don't think that anyone reasonable could argue that mankind has not accelerated it since the industrial age via deforestation and CO2 output.
Sure as heck we should not crush the economy in a sudden attempt to correct what we don't understand. We can take 100 years to think about it more. Perhaps if we are wrong, we will gain 1/10 a degree F during that time.
Last edited by silencertalk on Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
Yup. Now add in the black demographic so it is not just another "thing that white people like", and at the same time make it part of the Christian demographic.
Neil Young disparaged CDs, because they didn't capture "the sound of air" the way analog tape did. Sound of air = static noise.
I hope the HHO pans out. I don't understand how it can, tho.
Neil Young disparaged CDs, because they didn't capture "the sound of air" the way analog tape did. Sound of air = static noise.
I hope the HHO pans out. I don't understand how it can, tho.
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
Thomas Jefferson
USPSA FY60903...B-class SS, B-class L10, B-class Prod.
IDPA A30195...Expert CDP, Master SSP
Thomas Jefferson
USPSA FY60903...B-class SS, B-class L10, B-class Prod.
IDPA A30195...Expert CDP, Master SSP
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
Back in the beginning, reel-to-reel and phono DID sound better than CD's... becuase something was lost in the AD conversion.
Same reason tube amps sound better than solid state amps.
Anyway, I just got off the phone with Nicholas at H-Line Conversions... and it looks like I'll be able to order their Hydrogen on Demand units soon.
They currently have 4 cells in LincVolt, and I could hear them talking about the CNG powered wankle in the background.
This is extremely exciting for me.
Same reason tube amps sound better than solid state amps.
Anyway, I just got off the phone with Nicholas at H-Line Conversions... and it looks like I'll be able to order their Hydrogen on Demand units soon.
They currently have 4 cells in LincVolt, and I could hear them talking about the CNG powered wankle in the background.
This is extremely exciting for me.
- Poacher
- Elite Industry Professional
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Berryville, AR
- Contact:
1) It is quite arrogant of us to think we could affect the earth like that.rsilvers wrote:I am not sure if we have or have not, but I do not take it as a given that we have because extra C02 will just make trees, plants, and algae bloom which consumed C02 and produces O2. If you inject C02 into a greenhouse, plants will grow more quickly. One could make a reasonable argument it is good for the environment if you like green.GlockandRoll wrote:I don't think that anyone reasonable could argue that mankind has not accelerated it since the industrial age via deforestation and CO2 output.
Sure as heck we should not crush the economy in a sudden attempt to correct what we don't understand. We can take 100 years to think about it more. Perhaps if we are wrong, we will gain 1/10 a degree F during that time.
2) It's a money maker for alot of companies and Al Gore types
3)All of there theories are based on forcasting models that can't predict a week in advanced reliably.
Those that have been to third world countries know that we couldn't begin to pollute like they do...
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary."-- Vince Lombardi
Director of Training & Special Initiatives
Nighthawk Custom
[email protected]
877-268-4867
Director of Training & Special Initiatives
Nighthawk Custom
[email protected]
877-268-4867
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
Couple of qiuck points.Poacher wrote:1) It is quite arrogant of us to think we could affect the earth like that.rsilvers wrote:I am not sure if we have or have not, but I do not take it as a given that we have because extra C02 will just make trees, plants, and algae bloom which consumed C02 and produces O2. If you inject C02 into a greenhouse, plants will grow more quickly. One could make a reasonable argument it is good for the environment if you like green.GlockandRoll wrote:I don't think that anyone reasonable could argue that mankind has not accelerated it since the industrial age via deforestation and CO2 output.
Sure as heck we should not crush the economy in a sudden attempt to correct what we don't understand. We can take 100 years to think about it more. Perhaps if we are wrong, we will gain 1/10 a degree F during that time.
2) It's a money maker for alot of companies and Al Gore types
3)All of there theories are based on forcasting models that can't predict a week in advanced reliably.
Those that have been to third world countries know that we couldn't begin to pollute like they do...
1. CO2 increase has not been shown to increase plantlife.
2. Based on #1, we have to also understand deforestation = it's real.
3. I'm not blaming American, in fact aside from our cars we are the good guys... our industry is very clean.
4. Gas spectral analysis of polar ice has shown a drastic spike in CO2 over the past 600K years, so there's no debate that CO2 is high.
5. It's a money maker if the free market warrants it, not if federally mandated... that never works.
Point #1 is wrong. Evergreens grew at a point-per-point match capped at 50% presence of CO2. That is, if you increased the presence of CO2 in an greenhouse by 4%, then the evergreen grew 4% faster.GlockandRoll wrote:Couple of qiuck points.
1. CO2 increase has not been shown to increase plantlife.
2. Based on #1, we have to also understand deforestation = it's real.
3. I'm not blaming American, in fact aside from our cars we are the good guys... our industry is very clean.
4. Gas spectral analysis of polar ice has shown a drastic spike in CO2 over the past 600K years, so there's no debate that CO2 is high.
5. It's a money maker if the free market warrants it, not if federally mandated... that never works.
Point #2 is quasi-wrong. There are more trees in the continental US NOW than there were prior to the settling of non-Native-Americans.
Point #3 is a point that proponents of the Kyoto Treaty need to have beat in to them.
Point #4 is kind of nonsensical since large-scale combustion that would produce the levels of CO2 necessary to constitute a bona fide "man-made" shift hasn't been ramped up long enough to account for certain spikes.
Even in colonial days, there was at least one year where winter seemingly DID NOT END. It was later discovered that this was a "nuclear winter" caused by the eruption of a volcano on the other side of the world. Point being, the debris and polution neccessary to cause a nuclear winter that lasted just over a year is astonishing and not really replicable by mankind.
Point #5 is also wrong. "Going Green" may undoubtedly have some altruistic components to it, but I am very confident in saying that it is a trend that has much more to do with capturing market share and earning dollars for most corporations as opposed to any actual die-hard attempt to lessen the environmental impact of any particular industry.
I read that it's douche to list your guns here, so I stopped that.
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
I think it's pretty obvious that CO2 levels are at an all time high - going back more than 600K years. So, dismissing this - when we know it to be fact - does wreak of nonsense.TROOPER wrote:Point #4 is kind of nonsensical since large-scale combustion that would produce the levels of CO2 necessary to constitute a bona fide "man-made" shift hasn't been ramped up long enough to account for certain spikes.GlockandRoll wrote: 4. Gas spectral analysis of polar ice has shown a drastic spike in CO2 over the past 600K years, so there's no debate that CO2 is high.
And, FWIW, I'm not so concerned with the environment as I am shutting down big oil's influence on capital hill, not to mention starving the camel jokey ridden s--t holes that all seem to want to blow me the F--k up.
Gayle Bank's view on this resonates well with me, who said "Look guys... if we keep doing things the way we are doing them, we are going to keep giving money to people that want to kill us, and keep sending our sons to die. If we invested in bio fuels instead, we would be sending the money to the Midwest."
This is a national security issue for me, far more than I see it as an environmental issue as if we do not change our ways - the environment really wont matter that much.
The earth would shrug us off and keep on going, not even the large meteor that impacted the Yucatan that killed the Dinosaurs phased it when you look at it in retrospect.
And, to quote George Carlin... "The planet's not fucked... the people are!"
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
You doubt it will work becuase you refuse to understand the basic concept.Twinsen wrote:Good luck on getting the s--t to work. At the very least, chasing these ideas will unearth more basic ways of getting plain gas cars to use less gas. I doubt HHO will ever work, but hey, they might come up with some great tweaks.
You think some basic law of physics is being violated, and therefor are unable to open your mind to reason.
Here are the facts:
* You can generate HHO from distilled water with an added electrolyte.
* HHO is immensely combustible.
* You can generate HHO on demand in a car.
* The IC engine can use HHO to DRAMATICALLY enhance the combustion processes.
* If you DRAMATICALLY enhance the combustion processes, less petrol fuel is consumed for the same given power output.
If after all my posts on the topic, you still do not understand this, then I simply lack the communication skills necessary to relay this information.
If you refused to understand this... then discussing it with you is moot.
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
See... sometimes trooper, you are just plain full of s--t.TROOPER wrote: Point #5 is also wrong. "Going Green" may undoubtedly have some altruistic components to it, but I am very confident in saying that it is a trend that has much more to do with capturing market share and earning dollars for most corporations as opposed to any actual die-hard attempt to lessen the environmental impact of any particular industry.
Here's proof that you do not know what you are talking about in Pt #5:
Take a look at VMware virtualization. This is not a "trend" as you say, this is a MAJOR paradigm shift in computing and going virtual is now changing the way people are looking at computing. This is becuase of data-center sprawl, which is a huge percentage of our domestic power consumption.
In fact, every single one of the fortune 100 companies, in addition to almost every single fortune 1000 company is adopting this power/environment saving technology - yet no legislation has been passed.
This is all about lowering power consumption and saving money on data center cooling costs and CO2 output.
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
I love it when spelling nazis make mistakes while they're pointing fingers at other people.GlockandRoll wrote:You wouldn't consider them reliable sources of information - even thought(sic) they may be poised to win the X-prize... REALLY???? Umm.. ok.
And I should suck their dicks, ignore their beers and their slurring, and bow down before their third "guest fuel" because they "May be poised to win the X-prize..."?
First, since you have your panties in a wad over it:GlockandRoll wrote:And what, exactly, do you consider "(i)ndisputable evidence"; for the sake of F--k man - it's pretty obvious that CO2 levels are at an all time high and the climate is changing... yet that gets 'un-disputed' all the time?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/undisputable
What would I like to see? Oh, I don't know, maybe running a tankful of gas through an unmodified engine on a dyno, and then running a tankful of gas through a modified engine on a dyno and comparing the results. That would be a good start. Not just saying that a friend of yours has seen great results since installing the device on his vehicle.
Yes, I know CO2 levels are at an all time high, and I do believe that we should start changing our consumption habits and investing in renewable energy sources gradually now, rather than drastically later. "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" or whatever you want to call it aside, we just can't continue consuming non-renewable resources at the rate we are today. But then again, my post didn't even go there, but you certainly took the opportunity to make assumptions and attacks.
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
- GlockandRoll
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 5134
- Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:32 am
- Location: Austin, TX.
- Contact:
Why not just look at what NASA discovered, and published in technical note D-8487 back in the 70's?Blaubart wrote: What would I like to see? Oh, I don't know, maybe running a tankful of gas through an unmodified engine on a dyno, and then running a tankful of gas through a modified engine on a dyno and comparing the results. That would be a good start. Not just saying that a friend of yours has seen great results since installing the device on his vehicle.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 016170.pdf
Here are some of the things I gathered from that article:
They were using steam reformation of methanol, not electrolysis of water. Methanol contains energy, water does not. Also, they were using the heat from the exhaust to create the steam, which is more efficient than placing an additional load on the engine to produce electricity used to perform electrolysis of water.
NOx levels increased when you add reformed hydrogen to the fuel.
Hydrocarbon emissions increase when you add reformed hydrogen to the fuel.
I'm still waiting for some good evidence to back your claims of astronomical increases in fuel efficiency.
They were using steam reformation of methanol, not electrolysis of water. Methanol contains energy, water does not. Also, they were using the heat from the exhaust to create the steam, which is more efficient than placing an additional load on the engine to produce electricity used to perform electrolysis of water.
NOx levels increased when you add reformed hydrogen to the fuel.
Hydrocarbon emissions increase when you add reformed hydrogen to the fuel.
I'm still waiting for some good evidence to back your claims of astronomical increases in fuel efficiency.
"And by the way, if you're gonna take up a hobby of letter writing, you might want to learn how to spell "writing" you stupid F--k." - Nighthawk re kwikrnu
I can't believe I'm allowing my self to be dragged into another thread with G&R discussing scientific results/theories.
Has the temperature gone up? yup.
Is it due to CO2? nope, the sea releases CO2 as the temperature rises, there is always a lag in CO2 concentration behind temperature increases so therefore how can a increase in temperature be due to an increase in CO2 after the temperature rise? This has been proven in the ice core records. Even Al "I invented the internet" Gore's graphs in his presentations show this.
So what causes temperatures rises? mainly the sun
Once again you make statements w/o even knowing what you are talking about. Stop listening the the Global Warming allarmest drivel and actually look at the science and the data that has been generated.GlockandRoll wrote: I think it's pretty obvious that CO2 levels are at an all time high - going back more than 600K years. So, dismissing this - when we know it to be fact - does wreak of nonsense.
Has the temperature gone up? yup.
Is it due to CO2? nope, the sea releases CO2 as the temperature rises, there is always a lag in CO2 concentration behind temperature increases so therefore how can a increase in temperature be due to an increase in CO2 after the temperature rise? This has been proven in the ice core records. Even Al "I invented the internet" Gore's graphs in his presentations show this.
So what causes temperatures rises? mainly the sun
History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science, 1997). The parameter RCO2 is defined as the ratio of the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere at some time in the past to that at present (with a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million). The heavier line joining small squares represents the best estimate of past atmospheric CO2 levels based on geochemical modeling and updated to have the effect of land plants on weathering introduced 380 to 350 million years ago. The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis. Vertical bars represent independent estimates of CO2 level based on the study of ancient soils.
So what is man made Global Warming about? POWER and the control of the little people.
Firearms Engineer for hire on piece work basis.
No job is too expensive :)
http://weaponblueprints.com/
No job is too expensive :)
http://weaponblueprints.com/