AlpineK Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 (edited) Another Prophet I haven't paid any attention to this thread and all I have to say is: My chipper is diesel, so was my chip truck. My remaining rig is diesel. Diesel kicks ass Edited September 15, 2007 by Feck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 That's their fault for a) Living in E. Bumfuck b) Being poor they could easily change both in America if they'd get off their lazy XXL sweatpants cut for a woman asses. Not everyone can be a smug, urbanite ass, now can they? But, if we are serious about reducing our energy footprint, I vote for carbon footprint rations. You only get to buy so much fuel, use so much energy to heat your home. And yes, your ration includes fuel burnt on exotic destinations for skiing and climbing. Those who want an SUV can have one, they just burn up their allowance quicker. I'm sure all the SUV haters would quickly learn how much they burn themselves and how much it sucks to truly cut back. not cool the rich would simply buy alot of "off sets"(ie credit for fuel buy pulanting trees or some stupid thing) and thereby there use of petro would not reduce one bit it would just cost them more, of cource only till they figured out to use the expence as a tax write off. and those who could not aford it would simply be stuck walking and or frezeing in thier homes. dont tell me every one would get the same and this wouldn't happen. for one the people with big ass houses would have to freze thier asses off cause they wouldnt be able to heat them, and for 2 if you do, well that kinda is starting to sound alittle like socialism... not that i think its a bad idea in theory, it just cant be aplied fairly to everyone in anything but a socailistic or comunistic society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 15, 2007 Author Share Posted September 15, 2007 not cool the rich would simply buy alot of "off sets"(ie credit for fuel buy pulanting trees or some stupid thing) and thereby there use of petro would not reduce one bit it would just cost them more, of cource only till they figured out to use the expence as a tax write off. that wouldn't be part of the deal. everyone would get the same ration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 not cool the rich would simply buy alot of "off sets"(ie credit for fuel buy pulanting trees or some stupid thing) and thereby there use of petro would not reduce one bit it would just cost them more, of cource only till they figured out to use the expence as a tax write off. that wouldn't be part of the deal. everyone would get the same ration. Um, that's called communism. Are you coming out of the political closet, KKK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 Hubbert researched peak oil years ago. 2 things you watch, peak discovery and peak production. US peak discovery was in 1910 US peak production was in 1950 World peak discovery was in 1964 World peak production is this decade. a related statistic. 1st world population stopped growing around 1970, because the 1st world is petroleum based. Maybe part of the Builderbergs fomenting Iraq, method of madness. Iraq was coming into the 1st world, now their not. From this story looks like at least a couple of industry insiders are finally admitting the truth. I don't think it's a big deal, before the world gets in trouble alternatives will be developed. I've seen semi-credible evidence that water has been easily split anyway. Hydrogen and Oxygen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) I've seen semi-credible evidence that water has been easily split anyway. Hydrogen and Oxygen. It's called electrolysis, you drooling twit. I did it in 8th grade science class. Edited September 16, 2007 by builder206 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Now, now. Don't get all excited. I know you meant to tell the good man that oxygen and hydrogen are not easily split from water, by electrolysis or by any other means. We know that by the laws of thermodynamics it takes as much energy to produce hydrogen from water as we get when we burn hydrogen. Hydrogen is best thought of as an energy storage medium. It's promise is derived from the potential to store more useful energy per unit weight in a car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 No, I'm saying water has been split more efficiently. Conventionally it takes 3 times as much energy as you get from the hydrogen, this new process is the reverse. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800 but they killed the inventor, but at least it seems it's possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 No, I'm saying water has been split more efficiently. Conventionally it takes 3 times as much energy as you get from the hydrogen, this new process is the reverse. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800 but they killed the inventor, but at least it seems it's possible OH MY FUCKING DOG!!! THEY KILLED GOD?>:"??!1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Hubbert researched peak oil years ago. 2 things you watch, peak discovery and peak production. US peak discovery was in 1910 US peak production was in 1950 World peak discovery was in 1964 World peak production is this decade. a related statistic. 1st world population stopped growing around 1970, because the 1st world is petroleum based. Maybe part of the Builderbergs fomenting Iraq, method of madness. Iraq was coming into the 1st world, now their not. From this story looks like at least a couple of industry insiders are finally admitting the truth. I don't think it's a big deal, before the world gets in trouble alternatives will be developed. I've seen semi-credible evidence that water has been easily split anyway. Hydrogen and Oxygen. Could you expand on the oil/1st-world-population link in a bit more depth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 ""Could you expand on the oil/1st-world-population link in a bit more depth? "" It can be looked at in oil production per (world) capita which rose sharply and peaked in the 70's. b/c/year is barrels per capita per year http://dieoff.org/page224.htm'>http://dieoff.org/page224.htm This is an alarmist viewpoint because I think alternatives will be found. http://dieoff.org wiki is good also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil ==================== some other fun facts the plant source of oil was laid down during a 200 million year span in the Carboniferous period. In a time of huge plant growth and conditions never seen before or since. In less than 100 years we've burned up about 1/2 of the estimated reserves of this resource that accumulated over a 200 million year period. The USA with 5% of world population uses about 25% of daily world oil production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam13 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 The Apocalypse is going to happen before all of this anyway. That's why Republicans live like it's okay to ruin the Earth by 2050, isn't it??? skull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 You guys are such downers. I bet you hate on Brittany too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 17, 2007 Author Share Posted September 17, 2007 You guys are such downers. I bet you hate on Brittany too. I bet Adam13 listens to Britney and has a few of her posters in his room to, um, enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 (edited) No, I'm saying water has been split more efficiently. Conventionally it takes 3 times as much energy as you get from the hydrogen, this new process is the reverse. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800 but they killed the inventor, but at least it seems it's possible Many chemical reactions have activation energy barriers. Use of catalysis can lower the activation barrier. It's quite possible that that is what is happening here. But I can say without reservation, you can't get more energy out than you put in. This inventor is running a con game. This reminds me of Cold Fusion. Maybe the excess energy is coming from fusion? Edited September 17, 2007 by catbirdseat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam13 Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Bittany Spears???? I thought you were supposed to be really smart. Apparently book smarts doesn't translate into being clever. I don't believe in the same things as you, so you better think of a better way to demean me. How bout calling me an assclown????thats pretty original.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 ""Many chemical reactions have activation energy barriers."" I thought this was more of a cracking than a chemical reaction. ""But I can say without reservation, you can't get more energy out than you put in."" I think it depends HOW you are splitting the atoms. The energy from the hydrogen is there already, you don't have to add it just unleash it from the oxygen. Is something not possible just because we haven't done it yet? A few decades ago it would have been easy to say, we will never have desktop computers in this century (20th). I think an effort not unlike the Manhattan project could unleash new ways of harnessing energy. " This inventor is running a con game." I'm sure that's possible, but it's the concept I'm interested in. All that hydrogen locked up with a combustion accelerant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 "Cracking" is a chemical reaction. it takes exactly as much energy to separate H From H2O as you get burning H2 with O2 to form H2O. Energy barriers control how fast reactions take place not how much energy is required. Desktop computers do not violate conservation of matter or the laws of thermodynamics. We still do not have perpetual motion or "water" engines. And actually they did not laugh at Newton, Edison or Einstein but they did laugh at Bozo the clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I think it depends HOW you are splitting the atoms. The energy from the hydrogen is there already, you don't have to add it just unleash it from the oxygen. not true, read on... I am not going to pin you up as a fool and shoot you down to make me feel good, but you don't have the correct conception of where that energy is actually stored & released from. As far as combustion goes, the energy you are "storing" and "releasing" is locked in the bonds between H-H in the case of hydrogen, O-O in oxygen, and H-O-H in water. The energy is not stored in the atoms themselves. Here's the equation for hydrogen combustion: (2x) H-H + O-O ---> (2x) H-O-H the atoms themselves do not store or release energy, and there are the same number of atoms before and after combustion. What is different is the configuration of which atoms are bonded to which other atoms. Bonds require a certain amount of energy to form, and they release a certain amount of energy when they're broken. Every bond corresponds with a different amount of energy. The amount of energy released when the molecules on the left are broken is greater than the amount of energy you lose by putting the molecules on the right together, therefore you get energy out of combusting hydrogen & oxygen. Unfortunately for us, going backwards requires putting the same amount of energy back in. That was a little simplified, but hits the heart of the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Consumption tax above some minimum? who was it that laughed at me when I said the word "ration?" why aren't you laughing now? it's a crude instrument, but it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.