In TCS
wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:48:51 +1300, Adder wrote:
>>In article <2178807.3OyQhNboTV@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sat, 08
>>Jan 2005 04:33:12 +1300, Peter Lowrie
>>says...
>>> Bok wrote:
>>>
>>> > Peter Lowrie wrote:
>>> >>>The main hurdles preventing commercialisation of H2 fueled cars
>>> >>>are the costs of producing and storing H2.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is in itself propaganda.
>>> >
>>> > Hmmm, I find that hard to believe at this stage.
>>> >
>>> > Where is the evidence and what is the motive behind this, what
>>> > would need to be multilateral, propaganda campaign?
>>>
>>> Try http://www.cheniere.org for excellent explanations to answer
>>> your question.
>
>>Total quackery. Now we really know where you are coming from :)
>
> hilarious. I see the perpetual motion machine is alive and well.

And was patented 2.5 years ago! Still can't buy one in the shops yet,
for some reason.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
________________________________________________________________________
No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:33:06 +1200

In article <8456373.F76GyXUMRD@xbox.pelnet.net>,
Peter Lowrie wrote:
>Have you nothing better to contribute than tired old cliches.

Lost your sense of humour as well, eh?

>That's better, intelligence may be afoot. As you can see in one of the
>diagrams only a small proportion of the exhaust is used to A. pressurise
>the system, B. heat the electrolyte. That exhaust is impulsed for
>regulation...No, not a condenser because most of the exhaust gas exits the
>system and distilled water is added to the cells to replenish them.

Actually, the diagrams give no clue as to what proportion of the exhaust gas
is fed to the electrolysis cells. There is a note that it is cooled to 85
degrees before entering the cells. Since you have stated that it consists
mostly of water vapour, cooling it to below boiling point would condense it.
Since your stated objective is (partly) to heat the electrolyte, even if it
were not condensed on entry it would condense in the first cell, giving up
its latent heat there. Q1: Since the cells are in series, where does the
heat come from for the rest of the cells? Q2: Why are the cells in series?
Why not in parallel?

Next, you were wrong by saying "You start with gases" in your earlier post,
and I called you on it. In fact, your diagrams clearly show that you start
with distilled water and electrical energy. Q3: Does the electrical energy
come from the alternator that you said you need to fit to your test engine?

Q4: Why does the system need pressurisation? Don't you get that from the
electrolysis process itself? Q5: Why not heat the electrolyte with
waste heat from the engine coolant (or electricity from a cold start, just
as some cars electrically heat the catalytic converters from a cold start)?

You are heating the electrolyte. Q6: Is this to increase the reaction rate?
Q7: As a result of the rapidity of electrolysis needed to generate the gas
volumes required, do you have a significant amount of water in the form of
an aerosol escaping into the intake plumbing? I suspect you are, because it
appears you aren't actually getting detonation in the combustion chamber.
Water has a well known detonation suppression effect. It absorbs heat from
the reacting gases as it vaporises, and provides the moderator role normally
provided by the nitrogen in air.

>The air intake is v.v.small, compared to other fuels - petrol, LPG the
>engine runs almost fully choked. I have purposefully omitted dimension
>details in the diagrams in order to protect my IP.

Q8: Why do you need any intake air at all? You have a stoich mix already,
you don't need extra oxygen.

>Strange as it may seem the pistons valves etc don't melt - this is what I
>originally thought would happen, however parts of the exhaust get v.v.hot.
>My current theory on this is that the detonation is so fast 3.9km/sec the
>heat only catches up in the exhaust.

First the detonation ("percussive" is the adjective you used earlier), then
sometime later the heat? All these years I've thought that it's the
detonation that generates the heat. Q9: So what pushes the piston down? The
"hammer blow" of the detonation, or the expansion of the gases as they are
heated by the reaction?
I think you need to re-examine what might actually be happening here. If
you're not getting almost instant engine damage (broken piston lands and
crowns), then you're simply not getting the flame wavefront speeds that you
think you are. 1600cc Honda engines are not built strongly enough to
withstand the peak pressures that would be reached in a detonation scenario.

>Previous posts explain both the thermodynamics (which is also breakable in
>other experiments) and the chemistry, please revisit to bone up on it.

I did that, That's why I'm insistong on covering it again in words of one
cylinder suitable for a bear of little brain such as myself, with no
handwaving and obfuscation. I'll just restate my understanding, modified
with the understandings gained today:

You start with water and electricity and produce hydrogen and oxygen by
electrolysis. You mix this with a small amount of air and admit it
to the combustion chamber and detonate it, producing energy to the drive
train and waste heat. It's not a closed cycle, as some people have assumed,
because water and electrical energy is introduced at the beginning and the
heat and water (vapour) produced is largely discarded.

There is also a general assumption that you generate enough electricity from
the output of the engine to electrolyse enough gases to run it. Q10: is this
correct? Your previous posts have implied that it is, but let's be sure.
The diagram of the cell power supply raises questions, too. It implies an
unsmoothed rectified AC supply to the cells. This will vary the current
density in the cell from zero to peak on each cycle, and in other posts you
have implied that the current density is fairly critical for maximum
efficiency. Either you were wrong then, or the diagram is not representative
of your power supply setup. Q11: Which is it?

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Bok
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:44:33 +1300

Don Hills wrote:
> You start with water and electricity and produce hydrogen and oxygen by
> electrolysis. You mix this with a small amount of air and admit it
> to the combustion chamber and detonate it, producing energy to the drive
> train and waste heat. It's not a closed cycle, as some people have assumed,
> because water and electrical energy is introduced at the beginning and the
> heat and water (vapour) produced is largely discarded.

Yes, I think that's crucial, it's quite possible such an engine could
run for a short time on a car battery :-)

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:50:49 +1200

In article <1590782.PMSaxc5uyK@xbox.pelnet.net>,
Peter Lowrie wrote:
>Matty, you have it ass-about...You start with gases and produce water and
>heat releasing energy the rate of 1312kj/(mole^-1), the resulting oxide is
>then decomposed consuming energy in the order of (2*112kj)/(mole^-1). No
>mysterious breaking of thermodynamic laws here. Ipso facto, the former is a
>reaction the latter a process.

As has been pointed out by others in this thread, your knowledge of
chemistry appears to be at the "if you can't blind them with science, baffle
them with bullshit" level. You have not explained where the net excess
energy comes from. In my opinion, until you do that you're just another fuel
catalyst hawker. (Use Google to search uk.rec.cars maintenance for threads
containing "Don Hills" and "Andrew Knott" for background.)

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:36:28 +1300

Don Hills wrote:

> In article <1590782.PMSaxc5uyK@xbox.pelnet.net>,
> Peter Lowrie wrote:
>>Matty, you have it ass-about...You start with gases and produce water and
>>heat releasing energy the rate of 1312kj/(mole^-1), the resulting oxide is
>>then decomposed consuming energy in the order of (2*112kj)/(mole^-1). No
>>mysterious breaking of thermodynamic laws here. Ipso facto, the former is
a
>>reaction the latter a process.
>
> As has been pointed out by others in this thread, your knowledge of
> chemistry appears to be at the "if you can't blind them with science,
baffle
> them with bullshit" level. You have not explained where the net excess
> energy comes from. In my opinion, until you do that you're just another

I have explained it but you are too stupid and dimwitted to understand.
There is no excess of energy! You only have to look in the right textbooks
to discover what the facts are. If you are so bright - which I seriously
doubt, back up your assertion with facts to disprove my point (or shut-up).
So far all you have offered are insults without so much as a single FACT to
back up your claim - because you are talking through your backside I doubt
whether you are able.

:-P Peter

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:16:09 +1200

In article <41e0bfd5$1@clear.net.nz>, Bok wrote:
>
>I'll have to admit my physics/chemistry are very rusty too. I completed
>a degree in physics/maths some 26 years ago and only did stage 1 chem
>papers.

Light years ahead of me... high school level only, 36 years ago.
Thanks for doing the sums. You made me realise I've forgotten more than I
ever knew about chemistry. My next step is to relate the figures to
the ones given by Peter.

>So far to me, this means one of several things;
>a) the electrolysis process sources some of its power from batteries;
>the engine runs for a very short time and runs down
>b) there are additional unknown or unspecified energy or fuel sources on
>the input side
>c) this is all a hoax and doesn't work

d) Peter might say we're being blinded by our preconceptions

>[1] This paper might address some of the issues you have raised:
>http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/pdfs/fcm03r0.pdf

Oh no, this won't do at all for Peter. It's clearly US Government
propaganda.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:34:47 +1300

Don Hills wrote:

> In article <41e0bfd5$1@clear.net.nz>, Bok wrote:

> Oh no, this won't do at all for Peter. It's clearly US Government
> propaganda.

The document I used for hydrogen combustion information came from NACA, a US
quango. Perhaps being 1/2 a world away from US is reason for my doubting
the validity of conspiracy theorists, i simply don't buy into it however
government sponsored researchers do provide valuable information - most of
the time.

Peter

From:	Bok
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:05:32 +1300

Don Hills wrote:
> In article <41e0bfd5$1@clear.net.nz>, Bok wrote:
>
>>I'll have to admit my physics/chemistry are very rusty too. I completed
>>a degree in physics/maths some 26 years ago and only did stage 1 chem
>>papers.
>
> Light years ahead of me... high school level only, 36 years ago.
Oops, we're both giving away our approximate age here :-)

> Thanks for doing the sums. You made me realise I've forgotten more than I
> ever knew about chemistry.
Rediscovering how to do the sums made me realise how much I'd forgotten
too!

> My next step is to relate the figures to the ones given by Peter.

The trouble is, I don't think he has given us enough information to go
on. I would still like to know how the stated 1312kJ/mole value was
derived, including the reaction and conditions:

"You start with gases and produce water and
heat releasing energy the rate of 1312kj/(mole^-1) [sic]"

>>So far to me, this means one of several things;
>>a) the electrolysis process sources some of its power from batteries;
>>the engine runs for a very short time and runs down
>>b) there are additional unknown or unspecified energy or fuel sources on
>>the input side
>>c) this is all a hoax and doesn't work
>
> d) Peter might say we're being blinded by our preconceptions

That's ok, I'm willing to be educated :-)

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:30:58 +1300

In article <41e0d7b5$1@clear.net.nz> in nz.tech on Sun, 09 Jan 2005
20:05:32 +1300, Bok says...
> Don Hills wrote:
> > In article <41e0bfd5$1@clear.net.nz>, Bok wrote:
> >
> >>I'll have to admit my physics/chemistry are very rusty too. I completed
> >>a degree in physics/maths some 26 years ago and only did stage 1 chem
> >>papers.
> >
> > Light years ahead of me... high school level only, 36 years ago.
> Oops, we're both giving away our approximate age here :-)

lol
i did high school physics 20 years ago
long since forgotten :)

From:	Roger Johnstone
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	5 Jan 2005 10:09:21 GMT

In <11285119.kOoaaOVtGi@xbox.pelnet.net> Peter Lowrie wrote:
> Adder wrote:
>
>> no one has ever built a car powered solely on water for the simple
>> reason it can't be done. it takes more energy to electrolyse the
>> water than is recovered from combustion of the products
>
> Actually that is not the case.It is a commonly held misconception that
> there is an energy in, energy out limitation that renders such a plan
> as impossible. Ipso facto there is eight times more energy upon
> combustion than is required to break the H bond in the molecule. That
> H+O detonation is combustion is concussive having a flame temp of
> circa 6000 degrees and a flame front of 3.9km/sec one can see this is
> far more energetic than the paltry amount of power required just to
> break the H bond(s).By all means join the http://groups.yahoo.com/
> group/egaspower group and have a look at the files I have posted there.
> That system runs a Honda 1600 at nearly 6000 RPM quite happily, and NO
> I am not ready to bring it out for demonstration purposes until I can
> afford 60kVA alternator to attach to the flywheel.

Here's the deal. You make a small model of your water-powered system. It
doesn't need to run a car or drive a 60kVA alternator. Hell, all you
have to do is show it running continously with a small light bulb
glowing and let me look at it to check there's no hidden power source.
That should cost next to nothing to build compared to trying to make one
large enough to drive a car.

When it's done I'll give you a trillion dollars for it. I'm not kidding.
I reckon I could easily raise that sort of cash from a few interested
investors in a short time if I had a system WHICH WOULD SUPPOSEDLY SOLVE
ALL THE WORLDS ENERGY PROBLEMS. Unless, of course, it doesn't actually
work.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
________________________________________________________________________
No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"

From:	Bok
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:20:45 +1300

Roger Johnstone wrote:
> When it's done I'll give you a trillion dollars for it. I'm not kidding.
> I reckon I could easily raise that sort of cash from a few interested
> investors in a short time if I had a system WHICH WOULD SUPPOSEDLY SOLVE
> ALL THE WORLDS ENERGY PROBLEMS. Unless, of course, it doesn't actually
> work.

That's generous of you Roger compared to President Bush's meagre $1.7
Billion initiative to accelerate the commercialisation of Hydrogen
fueled cars in the US.

It's interesting to note that BMW and others (Ford, Mazda) are investing
in Hydrogen fuelled combustion engines as opposed to the more energy
efficient hydrogen fuel cell technology.

The main hurdles preventing commercialisation of H2 fueled cars are the
costs of producing and storing H2.

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:49:35 +1300

Bok wrote:
> The main hurdles preventing commercialisation of H2 fueled cars are the
> costs of producing and storing H2.

This is in itself propaganda.

2c
Peter

From:	Bok
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 23:28:53 +1300

Peter Lowrie wrote:
>>The main hurdles preventing commercialisation of H2 fueled cars are the
>>costs of producing and storing H2.
>
> This is in itself propaganda.

Hmmm, I find that hard to believe at this stage.

Where is the evidence and what is the motive behind this, what would
need to be multilateral, propaganda campaign?

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:33:12 +1300

Bok wrote:

> Peter Lowrie wrote:
>>>The main hurdles preventing commercialisation of H2 fueled cars are the
>>>costs of producing and storing H2.
>>
>> This is in itself propaganda.
>
> Hmmm, I find that hard to believe at this stage.
>
> Where is the evidence and what is the motive behind this, what would
> need to be multilateral, propaganda campaign?

Try http://www.cheniere.org for excellent explanations to answer your
question.

:-) Peter

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:48:51 +1300

In article <2178807.3OyQhNboTV@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sat, 08 Jan
2005 04:33:12 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
> Bok wrote:
>
> > Peter Lowrie wrote:
> >>>The main hurdles preventing commercialisation of H2 fueled cars are the
> >>>costs of producing and storing H2.
> >>
> >> This is in itself propaganda.
> >
> > Hmmm, I find that hard to believe at this stage.
> >
> > Where is the evidence and what is the motive behind this, what would
> > need to be multilateral, propaganda campaign?
>
> Try http://www.cheniere.org for excellent explanations to answer your
> question.

Total quackery. Now we really know where you are coming from :)

From:	TCS
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:59:36 -0600

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:48:51 +1300, Adder wrote:
>In article <2178807.3OyQhNboTV@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sat, 08 Jan
>2005 04:33:12 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
>> Bok wrote:
>>
>> > Peter Lowrie wrote:
>> >>>The main hurdles preventing commercialisation of H2 fueled cars are the
>> >>>costs of producing and storing H2.
>> >>
>> >> This is in itself propaganda.
>> >
>> > Hmmm, I find that hard to believe at this stage.
>> >
>> > Where is the evidence and what is the motive behind this, what would
>> > need to be multilateral, propaganda campaign?
>>
>> Try http://www.cheniere.org for excellent explanations to answer your
>> question.

>Total quackery. Now we really know where you are coming from :)

hilarious. I see the perpetual motion machine is alive and well.

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:20:46 +1300

TCS wrote:
> hilarious. I see the perpetual motion machine is alive and well.

Perpetual motion = Newtons first law.

2c
Peter

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:19:00 +1300

Say Adder, do you hold a doctorate in Physics?

Adder wrote:
>> Try http://www.cheniere.org for excellent explanations to answer your
>> question.
> Total quackery. Now we really know where you are coming from :)

That guy does. I quite liked his explanation of Newtons first law. Oh,and
the invention he has on display has been independently tested...Not bad
work from a duck.

Peter

From:	Dan Bloomquist
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:26:53 GMT

Peter Lowrie wrote:
> Say Adder, do you hold a doctorate in Physics?
>
> Adder wrote:
>
>>>Try http://www.cheniere.org for excellent explanations to answer your
>>>question.
>>
>>Total quackery. Now we really know where you are coming from :)
>
>
> That guy does. I quite liked his explanation of Newtons first law. Oh,and
> the invention he has on display has been independently tested...Not bad
> work from a duck.

You will either bother to learn enough about the science so as to
understand that the stuff on cheniere.org is bogus.

Or, you will become the next S.E.H. idiot.

Your choice.

>
> Peter
>

Best, Dan.

--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...

From:	Roger Johnstone
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	7 Jan 2005 03:58:58 GMT

In <1180180.q2Z8X0quj0@xbox.pelnet.net> Peter Lowrie wrote:
> Dave Taylor wrote:
>
>> Where do you get the gasses from? If you can get the gasses freely
>> or inexpensively, you might have something.
>
> The same place everyone else does, it IS cheap,the diatribes issued by
> the powers that be are smokescreens designed to fool you. The fact is
> that governments and vested interests LIE.
>
> Peter

This is such a load of crap. For every company that's making a nice
profit from selling oil etc. there's another umpteen companies which
aren't selling it, but would love to get into a new market for
alternative energy sources. And for every country exporting oil there
are another umpteen countries with no oil, gas or coal. The first person
to produce a clean, renewable, abundant and cheap energy source would be
instantly rich.

But apparently everyone, including the thousands of scientists and
engineers employed worldwide by research companies, governments and
universities, has secretly agreed not to do it. Well, everyone except
you.

--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
________________________________________________________________________
No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:16:53 +1200

In article <41df571a$1@clear.net.nz>, Bok wrote:
>
>Yes, I think that's crucial, it's quite possible such an engine could
>run for a short time on a car battery :-)

Not for long, given the power figures on the drawing ("Up to 4KW each"
cell).

One thing that doesn't sound right is the way he's set it up - it needs
distilled water at the beginning and the water produced at the end of the
process is discarded. Why not a closed system, or at least full recycling of
the water? Maybe more water goes in than can be recovered from the exhaust?
As it stands, it's just another fancy steam engine and will require the
roads to be lined with water tanks just like the old steam railways were.

I'm no rocket scientist or chemist, so I'll leave it to someone better
qualified to do the math: Let's assume a 1600cc engine, doing 3000 rpm under
reasonably heavy load. That's about 2400 litres of gas per minute. Work out
how much water would be needed to electrolyse 2400 litres of H2 and O mix.
That'll provide an initial sanity check, then we can go to how many
kilowatts we could expect from burning 2400 litres/min, then how many
kilowatts we would require to electrolyse that much gas. Then we can apply
typical efficiency figures for each stage. As Peter says, let's not let our
preconceptions get in the way, let's just crunch the numbers.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Bok
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:02:40 +1300

Don Hills wrote:
> In article <41df571a$1@clear.net.nz>, Bok wrote:
>
>>Yes, I think that's crucial, it's quite possible such an engine could
>>run for a short time on a car battery :-)
>
>
> Not for long, given the power figures on the drawing ("Up to 4KW each"
> cell).

Not for long no - that's one reason I asked Peter how long he is
actually run such an engine. There has to be some other form of energy
input from fuel or elsewhere apart from that derived from the alternator
for it to work for any length of time at all.

> One thing that doesn't sound right is the way he's set it up - it needs
> distilled water at the beginning and the water produced at the end of the
> process is discarded. Why not a closed system, or at least full recycling of
> the water? Maybe more water goes in than can be recovered from the exhaust?
> As it stands, it's just another fancy steam engine and will require the
> roads to be lined with water tanks just like the old steam railways were.

A steam engine works because it uses coal as a fuel to heat water to
generate steam. Water is NOT a fuel, it requires additional energy to
convert it to a fuel.

> I'm no rocket scientist or chemist, so I'll leave it to someone better
> qualified to do the math: Let's assume a 1600cc engine, doing 3000 rpm under
> reasonably heavy load. That's about 2400 litres of gas per minute. Work out
> how much water would be needed to electrolyse 2400 litres of H2 and O mix.
> That'll provide an initial sanity check, then we can go to how many
> kilowatts we could expect from burning 2400 litres/min, then how many
> kilowatts we would require to electrolyse that much gas.

Power is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy so you just
need to compare the energy released from combustion of H2 O2 (plus air)
mixture to the energy required to electrolyse the water.

From:	www.ttdown.com
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:58:40 +1300

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:16:53 +1200, dmhills@attglobal.net (Don Hills)
wrote:

>In article <41df571a$1@clear.net.nz>, Bok wrote:
>>
>>Yes, I think that's crucial, it's quite possible such an engine could
>>run for a short time on a car battery :-)
>
>Not for long, given the power figures on the drawing ("Up to 4KW each"
>cell).
>
>One thing that doesn't sound right is the way he's set it up - it needs
>distilled water at the beginning and the water produced at the end of the
>process is discarded. Why not a closed system, or at least full recycling of
>the water? Maybe more water goes in than can be recovered from the exhaust?
>As it stands, it's just another fancy steam engine and will require the
>roads to be lined with water tanks just like the old steam railways were.
>
>I'm no rocket scientist or chemist, so I'll leave it to someone better
>qualified to do the math: Let's assume a 1600cc engine, doing 3000 rpm under
>reasonably heavy load. That's about 2400 litres of gas per minute. Work out
>how much water would be needed to electrolyse 2400 litres of H2 and O mix.
>That'll provide an initial sanity check, then we can go to how many
>kilowatts we could expect from burning 2400 litres/min, then how many
>kilowatts we would require to electrolyse that much gas. Then we can apply
>typical efficiency figures for each stage. As Peter says, let's not let our
>preconceptions get in the way, let's just crunch the numbers.

You don't really need to crunch the numbers, your nose smells the rat
already :)

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:25:07 +1200

In article <1334174.C3ezeuGBr8@xbox.pelnet.net>,
Peter Lowrie wrote:
>
>The document I used for hydrogen combustion information came from NACA, a US
>quango. Perhaps being 1/2 a world away from US is reason for my doubting
>the validity of conspiracy theorists, i simply don't buy into it however
>government sponsored researchers do provide valuable information - most of
>the time.

Fair enough. How are you doing with the answers to my 11 questions?

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:16:43 +1300

In article <1812478.Ytv8vMXQRI@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 02 Jan
2005 05:42:23 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
> Try this instead:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egaspower

the latest attempt to promote conspiracy theories and kook science about
water powered cars?

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:25:35 +1300

Adder wrote:

> In article <1812478.Ytv8vMXQRI@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 02 Jan
> 2005 05:42:23 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
>> Try this instead:
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egaspower
>
> the latest attempt to promote conspiracy theories and kook science about
> water powered cars?

I take it that this comment is made with the benefit of knowledge on the
subjects of conspiracy theory (which is not the intention of the NG) and of
fuel and combustion systems.

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:42:14 +1200

In article ,
www.ttdown.com wrote:
>You don't really need to crunch the numbers, your nose smells the rat
>already :)

Either Peter is right, or he is wrong. If he's right, you'll look pretty
silly if your preconceptions blind you to it. And if he's wrong, you'll need
to assemble compelling proof to hit him with whenever he tries to pull the
wool over some credulous person's eyes.

I took a look at the cheniere.org site he mentioned. There are many things
wrong with it. For one example, consider the experiment Tom describes here:

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/051201.htm

He has a 12 volt DC generator, a transmission line and a 12 ohm resistor.
Assuming all perfect devices, 12 watts energy is applied to the generator
shaft and 12 watts is dissipated in the resistor. OK so far, but he then
places receptors / receivers in the magnetic field around the transmission
line to "siphon off" 3 watts of this field and claims that the generator and
resistor are still absorbing/generating and dissipating 12 watts, making the
system "overunity" (12 watts in, 15 watts out).

Problem: To generate energy (EMF) in the "receivers", the magnetic field
has to be changing in strength. It is generated by a DC current, so the
receivers have to move in the field to experience a change in field
strength. In his example, the 3 watts of energy would be actually provided
by the force required to move the receivers... 15 watts total in, 15 watts
total out.

The example image he provides is of the lines of force around a "transmission
line", which implies AC current. Anyone who has worked in the field, such as
radio engineers, knows very well from real-life experience that tapping off
energy from the field around a transmission line results in that much less
energy being dissipated in the load (and/or that much more energy being
provided by the generator.) Again, total power in = total power out.

Another flicker of the bogosity meter occurs when you read the statements
concerning the plans for constructing "over unity" devices - apparently, if
you don't build them exactly to the plans, they won't provide "over unity"
performance. So when you build them and they don't perform as advertised,
it's your own fault - you must have done something wrong.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Bok
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:39:40 +1300

Don Hills wrote:
> In article ,
> www.ttdown.com wrote:
>
> I took a look at the cheniere.org site he mentioned. There are many things
> wrong with it. For one example, consider the experiment Tom describes here:
>
> http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/051201.htm
>
> He has a 12 volt DC generator, a transmission line and a 12 ohm resistor.
>
> Problem: To generate energy (EMF) in the "receivers", the magnetic field
> has to be changing in strength. It is generated by a DC current, so the
> receivers have to move in the field to experience a change in field
> strength. In his example, the 3 watts of energy would be actually provided
> by the force required to move the receivers... 15 watts total in, 15 watts
> total out.

[snip]

> The example image he provides is of the lines of force around a "transmission
> line", which implies AC current. Anyone who has worked in the field, such as
> radio engineers, knows very well from real-life experience that tapping off
> energy from the field around a transmission line results in that much less
> energy being dissipated in the load (and/or that much more energy being
> provided by the generator.) Again, total power in = total power out.

Good spot Don! I hadn't read that particular article.

Bearden appears to be obsessed with energy for nothing and over unity
devices.

I took a quick look at Bearden's claim that the so called Bohren
Experiment produces 18 time more energy than is input.

A google search for relevant articles on this experiment
came up with an indirect reference:

http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9908&L=phys-l&F=&S=&P=1265
or http://tinyurl.com/6oh4m

synopsis:
"Bohren's paper concentrates on absorbtion rather than scattering. He
offers a 2D plot of the Poynting field around a tiny aluminum sphere at
the resonant frequency of 8.8eV and at an off-resonance frequency of 5
eV. Very interesting! At the non-resonant frequency, the Poynting field
passes the sphere almost as if it was not there. The lines of
energy-flow are parallel except within one radius of the sphere, where
they temporarily spread apart and then close behind it without touching
its surface; much like a fluid flow around an object at very low
Reynolds number. He gives the absorbtion efficiency as 0.1, as if the
sphere was *much smaller* than its geometrical area.

At resonance, the depicted Poynting field is very different. Lines of
energy flow which were far from the axis through the sphere are bent
inwards and hit the surface of the sphere. The sphere is "funneling"
energy into itself and acting as a much larger object. Bohren estimates
that the absorbtion cross-sectional area is 18 times larger than
expected, and the "absorbtion radius" is 4.2 times greater than the
geometrical radius. "

The experiment sounds interesting but the results don't bear much
resemblance to Bearden's claims to me. Bearden has somehow translated an
absorption x-sectional area 18 times greater than expected into a factor
of 18 energy gain. Looks pretty dishonest to me.

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:31:00 +1300

In article in nz.tech on Sun, 09 Jan
2005 14:42:14 +1200, Don Hills says...
> In article ,
> www.ttdown.com wrote:
> >You don't really need to crunch the numbers, your nose smells the rat
> >already :)
>
> Either Peter is right, or he is wrong. If he's right, you'll look pretty
> silly if your preconceptions blind you to it. And if he's wrong, you'll need
> to assemble compelling proof to hit him with whenever he tries to pull the
> wool over some credulous person's eyes.
>
> I took a look at the cheniere.org site he mentioned. There are many things
> wrong with it. For one example, consider the experiment Tom describes here:

that's assuming you got past the preposterous claims made on the
homepage!

by the way, Don Lancaster hangs out in sci.energy.hydrogen, corss post
there to get his input

From:	Bok
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:41:59 +1300

Adder wrote:
>
> by the way, Don Lancaster hangs out in sci.energy.hydrogen, corss post
> there to get his input

Is this Don the same Don Lancaster that's authored various technical
books, such as TTL cookbook, which I still have on my bookshelf???

From:	Bok
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:03:26 +1300

Bok wrote:
> Adder wrote:
>> by the way, Don Lancaster hangs out in sci.energy.hydrogen, corss post
>> there to get his input

> Is this Don the same Don Lancaster that's authored various technical
> books, such as TTL cookbook, which I still have on my bookshelf???

Ignore that, I've just discovered the answer is yes!

Keep up the great work Don!

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:16:23 +1300

In article <41e0ee50$1@clear.net.nz> in nz.tech on Sun, 09 Jan 2005
21:41:59 +1300, Bok says...
> Adder wrote:
> >
> > by the way, Don Lancaster hangs out in sci.energy.hydrogen, corss post
> > there to get his input
>
> Is this Don the same Don Lancaster that's authored various technical
> books, such as TTL cookbook, which I still have on my bookshelf???

could be
he is supposed to be some sort of computer/electronics guru

From:	RdM
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:04:39 +1300

The preposterously named "Adder" predictably didn't ...

: > I took a look at the cheniere.org site he mentioned. There are many things
: > wrong with it. For one example, consider the experiment Tom describes here:
:
: that's assuming you got past the preposterous claims made on the
: homepage!

He had a look. You probably didn't even get beyond the foreward ...
Dumb Dunford as ever judges books by their cover. Unable to read tech
detail, he finds comfort in the refuge of scorners and disbelievers ... pah!

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:48:51 +1300

In article in nz.tech on
Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:04:39 +1300, RdM says...
> The preposterously named "Adder" predictably didn't ...
>
> : > I took a look at the cheniere.org site he mentioned. There are many things
> : > wrong with it. For one example, consider the experiment Tom describes here:
> :
> : that's assuming you got past the preposterous claims made on the
> : homepage!
>
> He had a look. You probably didn't even get beyond the foreward ...
> Dumb Dunford as ever judges books by their cover. Unable to read tech
> detail, he finds comfort in the refuge of scorners and disbelievers ... pah!

does he?

i know some of the people who have posted in this thread...they have
debunked Lowrys kook claims in a thoroughly believable manner

Go back and look at Lowrys history, last year he posted endless claims
about some character he had obvoiously read about in some kook
comspricatry theory book by some Jonathan Eisen

so happens it's not the first time IOve heard of this Eisen fellow's book
- remember the Liam Williams-Holloway case? Eisens makes claims about a
devices was supposed to cure cancer. His book was read by Liams parents.
they had their son treated witha kook sciene "device" called a "quantum
vibrator" yet he still died - as did someone I knew

From:	Don Lancaster
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:07:05 -0700

RdM wrote:
>
> The preposterously named "Adder" predictably didn't ...
>
> : > I took a look at the cheniere.org site he mentioned. There are many things
> : > wrong with it. For one example, consider the experiment Tom describes here:
> :
> : that's assuming you got past the preposterous claims made on the
> : homepage!
>
> He had a look. You probably didn't even get beyond the foreward ...
> Dumb Dunford as ever judges books by their cover. Unable to read tech
> detail, he finds comfort in the refuge of scorners and disbelievers ... pah!

There is NEVER any point in reading beyond the word "Beardon".

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

From:	Don Lancaster
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:38:02 -0700

Don Lancaster wrote:
>
> RdM wrote:
> >
> > The preposterously named "Adder" predictably didn't ...
> >
> > : > I took a look at the cheniere.org site he mentioned. There are many things
> > : > wrong with it. For one example, consider the experiment Tom describes here:
> > :
> > : that's assuming you got past the preposterous claims made on the
> > : homepage!
> >
> > He had a look. You probably didn't even get beyond the foreward ...
> > Dumb Dunford as ever judges books by their cover. Unable to read tech
> > detail, he finds comfort in the refuge of scorners and disbelievers ... pah!
>
> There is NEVER any point in reading beyond the word "Beardon".
>

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf for guidelines.
--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:28:07 +1200

In article <41e0f357$1@clear.net.nz>, Bok wrote:
>
>Keep up the great work Don!

I've been meaning to get around to sorting a large stack of electronics
books that I inherited from my father. Now I have an incentive to do it...

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:23:08 +1300

In article <3250691.I5UeH6qPrA@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Wed, 05 Jan
2005 03:25:35 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
> Adder wrote:
>
> > In article <1812478.Ytv8vMXQRI@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 02 Jan
> > 2005 05:42:23 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
> >> Try this instead:
> >>
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egaspower
> >
> > the latest attempt to promote conspiracy theories and kook science about
> > water powered cars?
>
> I take it that this comment is made with the benefit of knowledge on the
> subjects of conspiracy theory (which is not the intention of the NG) and of
> fuel and combustion systems.

the conspiracy theory that YOU promoted endlessly here and on
sci.energy.hydrogen about water powered cars

your endless promotion of these water powered cars based on a kook
conspiracy theory book by one jonathan eisen

no one has ever built a car powered solely on water for the simple reason
it can't be done. it takes more energy to electrolyse the water than is
recovered from combustion of the products

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:07:10 +1300

Hi Adder

Adder wrote:
> your endless promotion of these water powered cars based on a kook
> conspiracy theory book by one jonathan eisen

The more i look in to 'conspiracy theory' the more i think it's a crock of
poos. Methinks ppl's paranoia overcomes their common sense and in this
regard i agree with your sentiment entirely

> no one has ever built a car powered solely on water for the simple reason
> it can't be done. it takes more energy to electrolyse the water than is
> recovered from combustion of the products

Actually that is not the case.It is a commonly held misconception that there
is an energy in, energy out limitation that renders such a plan as
impossible. Ipso facto there is eight times more energy upon combustion
than is required to break the H bond in the molecule. That H+O detonation
is combustion is concussive having a flame temp of circa 6000 degrees and a
flame front of 3.9km/sec one can see this is far more energetic than the
paltry amount of power required just to break the H bond(s).By all means
join the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/egaspower group and have a look at
the files I have posted there. That system runs a Honda 1600 at nearly 6000
RPM quite happily, and NO I am not ready to bring it out for demonstration
purposes until I can afford 60kVA alternator to attach to the flywheel.

As for yourself, you are a part of a large group of detractors and knockers
who have not the balls to court failure and to try something new so you
HIDE behind the convenient anonnimity the internet affords you and blurt
out your sheepish critisisms without so much as a word of encouragement to
those like myself with the gonads to post using my REAL name and who push
the envelope. Come on now, what have you really accomplished in your feeble
existence that would make me think that you are something other than a tall
poppy knocker like so many other feeble minded mental midgets of less than
average intelligence? Every bully that I've encountered in my life turn out
to be complete cowards. Are you one of them, or do you possess a modicum of
decency insofar as you are able to look beyond the drivel taught in High
school to reach out across the time and space that seperate us to implore
kooky scientists like myself to forge ahead and discover something new?

Regards
Peter

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:06:49 +1200

In article <41eb7eed$1@clear.net.nz>, Jerry wrote:
>>
>Hey Don, do you suppose you could make them out of hard drive magnets?
>I have a few hundred of those, I might be able to quit buying petrol at all

If you mean those big slab magnets that were used in pairs in VCM FRUs,
they'll earn you more by selling them than by trying to save gas with them.
(A mechanic friend of mine has one stuck to the side of his car hoist, it's
a handy place to "hang" tools.)

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Jerry
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:07:19 +1300

Don Hills wrote:
> In article <41eb7eed$1@clear.net.nz>, Jerry wrote:
>
>>Hey Don, do you suppose you could make them out of hard drive magnets?
>>I have a few hundred of those, I might be able to quit buying petrol at all
>
>
> If you mean those big slab magnets that were used in pairs in VCM FRUs,
> they'll earn you more by selling them than by trying to save gas with them.
> (A mechanic friend of mine has one stuck to the side of his car hoist, it's
> a handy place to "hang" tools.)
>
I have a couple of the big magnets out of old disk drives, but being
made out of soft iron they are quite fragile and break easily. What I
have a lot of is the magnets out of new hard drives. the magnets out of
a Quantum Bigfoot are quite powerful, and they last well.

Jerry

From:	Dave - Dave.net.nz
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:00:05 +1300

Don Hills wrote:
>>Hey Don, do you suppose you could make them out of hard drive magnets?
>>I have a few hundred of those, I might be able to quit buying petrol at all

> If you mean those big slab magnets that were used in pairs in VCM FRUs,
> they'll earn you more by selling them than by trying to save gas with them.
> (A mechanic friend of mine has one stuck to the side of his car hoist, it's
> a handy place to "hang" tools.)

I used to pull them out and then screw them to the wall... you could
basically just throw the tool in the general direction of the wall and
they'd "stick"

From:	Don Hills
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:17:08 +1200

In article ,
Adder wrote:
>
>i know some of the people who have posted in this thread...they have
>debunked Lowrys kook claims in a thoroughly believable manner

Gone a bit quiet in here...
I'm surprised to find that this doesn't surprise me. And it was starting to
get interesting, too. It brought back fond memories of long and interesting
discussions with Andrew Knott over the charms of Fuelstar / Broquet devices
(the devices that claimed to improve fuel economy etc and allow running
"soft valve seat" cars on unleaded gas) in uk.rec.cars.maintenance.

--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.

From:	Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:33:53 +1300

In article <0o65BtgaX+bM092yn@attglobal.net>,
dmhills@attglobal.net (Don Hills) wrote:

>It brought back fond memories of long and interesting
>discussions with Andrew Knott over the charms of Fuelstar / Broquet devices
>(the devices that claimed to improve fuel economy etc and allow running
>"soft valve seat" cars on unleaded gas) in uk.rec.cars.maintenance.

On a related note, I gather a guaranteed instant way to end an interview
with Peter Brock these days is to mention the Energy Polarizer.

From:	Dave - Dave.net.nz
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:37:45 +1300

Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
>>It brought back fond memories of long and interesting
>>discussions with Andrew Knott over the charms of Fuelstar / Broquet devices
>>(the devices that claimed to improve fuel economy etc and allow running
>>"soft valve seat" cars on unleaded gas) in uk.rec.cars.maintenance.

> On a related note, I gather a guaranteed instant way to end an interview
> with Peter Brock these days is to mention the Energy Polarizer.

same sort of thing was it?

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:58:31 +1300

In article <0o65BtgaX+bM092yn@attglobal.net> in nz.tech on Fri, 14 Jan
2005 23:17:08 +1200, Don Hills says...
> In article ,
> Adder wrote:
> >
> >i know some of the people who have posted in this thread...they have
> >debunked Lowrys kook claims in a thoroughly believable manner
>
> Gone a bit quiet in here...
> I'm surprised to find that this doesn't surprise me. And it was starting to
> get interesting, too. It brought back fond memories of long and interesting
> discussions with Andrew Knott over the charms of Fuelstar / Broquet devices
> (the devices that claimed to improve fuel economy etc and allow running
> "soft valve seat" cars on unleaded gas) in uk.rec.cars.maintenance.

ah, fuelstar
that one was advertised on tv wasn't it? do you have a url for a web page
summing it up?

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:47:07 +1300

Adder wrote:
> do you have a url for a web page summing it up?

Why should I do anything for you, go find your own links.

-Peter

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:10:41 +1300

In article <1438107.2oIg279ap9@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 16 Jan
2005 23:47:07 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
> Adder wrote:
> > do you have a url for a web page summing it up?
>
> Why should I do anything for you, go find your own links.

why should you do anything?

well you are the man who comes in here making all these stupendous
claims, now prove them :)

From:	Dave - Dave.net.nz
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:23:57 +1300

Adder wrote:
Peter Lowrie says...

>>>do you have a url for a web page summing it up?

>>Why should I do anything for you, go find your own links.

> why should you do anything?
> well you are the man who comes in here making all these stupendous
> claims, now prove them :)

The man has the word "consultant" in his email address, you didn't
seriously think that a consultant actually knew anything did you?

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:34:35 +1300

In article <350idfF4eqfn9U1@individual.net> in nz.tech on Mon, 17 Jan
2005 14:23:57 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz says...
> Adder wrote:
> Peter Lowrie says...
>
> >>>do you have a url for a web page summing it up?
>
> >>Why should I do anything for you, go find your own links.
>
> > why should you do anything?
> > well you are the man who comes in here making all these stupendous
> > claims, now prove them :)
>
> The man has the word "consultant" in his email address, you didn't
> seriously think that a consultant actually knew anything did you?

anybody can sign up for one of those addresses
what is he proven to be a "consultant" in? forklift driving?

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:03:31 +1300

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> The man has the word "consultant" in his email address, you didn't
> seriously think that a consultant actually knew anything did you?

LOL.

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:02:39 +1300

Adder wrote:

> In article <1438107.2oIg279ap9@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 16 Jan
> 2005 23:47:07 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
>> Adder wrote:
>> > do you have a url for a web page summing it up?
>>
>> Why should I do anything for you, go find your own links.
>
> why should you do anything?
>
> well you are the man who comes in here making all these stupendous
> claims, now prove them :)

Well I have, time and again but you seem too dense to fathom it. This is why
you revert to insults and put-downs, the solutions require a modicum of
depth, not only of intellect but also of character. The fact is you don't
have the gonads to post using an identifiable name. If you had a real
life and the courage of your convictions you would not post under a
psuodenums but this is the wont of brain deficient types - if i can't
compete, wind 'em up.

I wonder if you would like to visit me here at home and say to my face the
rude and obnoxious things you write.The invitation is open.

Suck on that
:-Peter

From:	Nomon Damad
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:50:44 +1300

On , , Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:02:39 +1300, Re: try, Peter Lowrie
wrote:

>Adder wrote:
>
>> In article <1438107.2oIg279ap9@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 16 Jan
>> 2005 23:47:07 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
>>> Adder wrote:
>>> > do you have a url for a web page summing it up?
>>>
>>> Why should I do anything for you, go find your own links.
>>
>> why should you do anything?
>>
>> well you are the man who comes in here making all these stupendous
>> claims, now prove them :)
>
>Well I have, time and again but you seem too dense to fathom it. This is why
>you revert to insults and put-downs, the solutions require a modicum of
>depth, not only of intellect but also of character. The fact is you don't
>have the gonads to post using an identifiable name. If you had a real
>life and the courage of your convictions you would not post under a
>psuodenums but this is the wont of brain deficient types - if i can't
>compete, wind 'em up.
>
>I wonder if you would like to visit me here at home and say to my face the
>rude and obnoxious things you write.The invitation is open.

What's your address and phone number?

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:05:56 +1300

In article in nz.tech on
Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:50:44 +1300, Nomon Damad says...
> On , , Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:02:39 +1300, Re: try, Peter Lowrie
> wrote:
>
> >Adder wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1438107.2oIg279ap9@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 16 Jan
> >> 2005 23:47:07 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
> >>> Adder wrote:
> >>> > do you have a url for a web page summing it up?
> >>>
> >>> Why should I do anything for you, go find your own links.
> >>
> >> why should you do anything?
> >>
> >> well you are the man who comes in here making all these stupendous
> >> claims, now prove them :)
> >
> >Well I have, time and again but you seem too dense to fathom it. This is why
> >you revert to insults and put-downs, the solutions require a modicum of
> >depth, not only of intellect but also of character. The fact is you don't
> >have the gonads to post using an identifiable name. If you had a real
> >life and the courage of your convictions you would not post under a
> >psuodenums but this is the wont of brain deficient types - if i can't
> >compete, wind 'em up.
> >
> >I wonder if you would like to visit me here at home and say to my face the
> >rude and obnoxious things you write.The invitation is open.
>
> What's your address and phone number?

hey scooter, he might even play golf

From:	Adder
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:29:25 +1300

In article <8859219.QH6hiTQAr7@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Tue, 18 Jan
2005 01:02:39 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
> Adder wrote:
>
> > In article <1438107.2oIg279ap9@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 16 Jan
> > 2005 23:47:07 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
> >> Adder wrote:
> >> > do you have a url for a web page summing it up?
> >>
> >> Why should I do anything for you, go find your own links.
> >
> > why should you do anything?
> >
> > well you are the man who comes in here making all these stupendous
> > claims, now prove them :)
>
> Well I have, time and again but you seem too dense to fathom it. This is why
> you revert to insults and put-downs, the solutions require a modicum of
> depth, not only of intellect but also of character. The fact is you don't
> have the gonads to post using an identifiable name. If you had a real
> life and the courage of your convictions you would not post under a
> psuodenums but this is the wont of brain deficient types - if i can't
> compete, wind 'em up.
>
> I wonder if you would like to visit me here at home and say to my face the
> rude and obnoxious things you write.The invitation is open.
>
> Suck on that

who's being rude and obnoxious now?
the fact is Mr, I leave the technical stuff to the experts
and they are all totally believable unlike yourself
the reason I choose not to post under a real name like most people is
precisely the fac that people like yourself chuse to be rude/obnoxious to
the point of harrassing peopel

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:05:24 +1300

Adder wrote:

> In article <8859219.QH6hiTQAr7@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Tue, 18 Jan
> 2005 01:02:39 +1300, Peter Lowrie says...
>> Adder wrote:
>>
>> > In article <1438107.2oIg279ap9@xbox.pelnet.net> in nz.tech on Sun, 16
Jan

> who's being rude and obnoxious now?
> the fact is Mr, I leave the technical stuff to the experts
> and they are all totally believable unlike yourself
> the reason I choose not to post under a real name like most people is
> precisely the fac that people like yourself chuse to be rude/obnoxious to
> the point of harrassing peopel

But that is your modus operandi Adder, you press buttons till you get a
reaction and then become the victim, this is a transference form of
emotional stamp collecting ipso facto you deserve everything you get.

> the fact is Mr, I leave the technical stuff to the experts

Then you should shut up and make no comments at all with the one exception:
Ask questions in order that you may expand your mind and understanding
instaed of blithely insulting ppl (who have become experts) to the point
where they want to pop your ignorant nose in.

Try a google search for the "zulu principle".

Yes, and the other thing, insofar as I am prepared to be magnanamous and to
overlook your earlier transgressions - you asked a reasonable question, did
you not get a reasonable answer? So in future try not to be so
thin-skinned.

Peter

From:	Dave - Dave.net.nz
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:35:37 +1300

Peter Lowrie wrote:
*snip*
> emotional stamp collecting ipso facto you deserve everything you get.

heh, everyone I have ever known to use the term "ipso facto" has turned
out to be a complete tosser.

--
Dave.net.nz
reply addy is dave@the.domain.above
nice! http://www.dave.net.nz/images/link.jpg

From:	Peter Lowrie
Subject:	Re: try
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:39:49 +1300

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> Peter Lowrie wrote:
> *snip*
>> emotional stamp collecting ipso facto you deserve everything you get.
>
> heh, everyone I have ever known to use the term "ipso facto" has turned
> out to be a complete tosser.
>

Illegitimi nihilo carborundum.

;-) Peter