On 13 Aug 2003 14:06:25 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Get a grip, man, and elect some
moderate people to lead your party.

Gore was a a moderate. So far he's been right about everything, including the
devastating tax refunds the country couldn't and can't afford!

What the **** are you talking about? I could afford my tax refund. I
spent it on boating equipment.

There never was a cash surplus. Bush lied again.

WTF? Clinton lied to us.

Here are the National Debt figgers:


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

The National Debt happened long before George W. Bush was president.




Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Years!

"JaxAshby" wrote in
ink.net:

Unfortunately many of the rats that jumped the sinking SS Democratic
Party swam over to the Republican side.

They're called neo-cons.

no, they aren't Fjukwit.

Wrong, as usual.

Bertei

I'd like to see more R&D with hydrogen fuel cells, (e.g., proton exchange
membrane fuel cells). I built a working Solar / Hydrogen powered model last
year (from a kit). It worked well; had a photovoltaic panel that produced
DC which was used for electrolysis of water. The water and the resultant H
and O gasses were all stored in a baffled tank (attached to car). The H and
O gasses were fed to the fuel cell, which used them to produce (1)
electricty to power the car, and (2) liquid water, which was dumped back
into the storage tank to be reused.
Naturally, I did not fail to consider the possibilities of using this
technology at sea, either for utilities on board, or for propulsion (for
docking purposes only!); hence, this is a sailing post.
So why didn't the car use just the solar panel? (I can hear some wondering)
The solar panel had to produce a minimum amount of H and O before the car
could overcome its initial inertia (move). The output of the solar panel
could generate enough H and O to keep an already car moving, but its
electrical output alone could not get it moving from a stand still. Also,
when the inevitable cloud passed overhead, the stored fuel allowed the car
to keep moving (as long as the sun came back in a reasonable amount of time)
The same tank holding the water also held the accumulating gasses, providing
higher capacity for the start up and sunless time periods. It took about
5-10 minutes in the sun before it began to move. Then it ran and ran and
ran, as long as the sun would shine (or in this case, until I got bored).
It gave me some faith in the concept of fuel cells.
Now, if we can ever get fusion to produce a better than 1 to 1 ratio . . .
Scout


"Vito" wrote
Actually, Bush (and environmentalists) ARE wrong about that. Yasee,
electricity comes from dirty coal-burning plants.

Bobsprit wrote:

The exhaust of today's auto is cleaner
than the exhaust stacks of coal fired electricity plants ...

Ohhhhh! So this means George Bush was wrong when he said full implementation of
electric cars in the future will reduce auto related polution drastically.

Actually, Bush (and environmentalists) ARE wrong about that. Yasee,
electricity comes from dirty coal-burning plants. Most of the energy
from the coal gets lost in the air or water as heat. Then more of it
gets lost heating transmission lines that bring electricity to your car.
Then more is lost converting that to DC, then to chemical energy in yer
battery, then back to electricity and finally to mechanical energy, some
of which is wasted dragging the heavy batteries around. These losses
consume over 90% of the energy in the coal. Infernal g combustion is
far more efficient, loosing only 70% or so.

Reducing emissions of individual cars doesn't help if there are more and
more cars. Ie if you reduce emissions by 50% but have twice as many cars
you're right back where you started from - except that the 2x more
people driving those 2x cars are also farting, taking dumps, heating
their houses, et al. So, all of these "solutions" are really band aids
covering up the real wound.

Oh well, the Yellowstone eruption will take care of it .... (c:

Vito wrote:

..... Yasee,
electricity comes from dirty coal-burning plants. Most of the energy
from the coal gets lost in the air or water as heat.

Speaking as a person who has made an embarrassing amount of money (that is, it would
be embarassing if I had any shame) working on coal fired combustion control systems,
you are full of baloney.

I suggest starting out with a good high school level physics text, it appears you
tried to skip ahead and missed a lot of the basics.


Reducing emissions of individual cars doesn't help if there are more and
more cars. Ie if you reduce emissions by 50% but have twice as many cars
you're right back where you started from - except that the 2x more
people driving those 2x cars are also farting, taking dumps, heating
their houses, et al.

But we're all still better off than if twice as many cars are putting out unreduced
emissions.

Basically, the idea that intelligent & responsible citizens can be complacent about
the environment is disgusting & destructive. I hope you don't have kids to apologize
to about your attitude.

DSK

DSK wrote:

... it appears you tried to skip ahead and missed a lot of the basics.

You're right! CA had me take placement exams then made me skip over
basic physics and chem. But tell me, where am I wrong? Why does the coal
burning plant near me need water cooling if it's so efficient? What are
the transmission losses getting power from (US 301 & Potomac River) into
D.C., including voltage transformations? How efficient is a battery
charger? A battery? A DC motor or an inverter plus an AC motor as the
case may be?


Reducing emissions of individual cars doesn't help if there are more and
more cars. Ie if you reduce emissions by 50% but have twice as many cars
you're right back where you started from - except that the 2x more
people driving those 2x cars are also farting, taking dumps, heating
their houses, et al.

But we're all still better off than if twice as many cars are putting out unreduced
emissions.

Are we? In 1966 a 'vette was $3500, a Cobra or XKE $5000, and a Ferrari
a tad over $10K - all less than a years pay for a recent grad. Today? We
have the same air, etc. quality we could have had by reducing population
but an average 25 year old cannot have a Cobra or XKE, let alone a
Ferrari. He's been forced to give up high performance cars, and a
zillion other things, just so fools can have babies they cannot afford.


Basically, the idea that intelligent & responsible citizens can be complacent about
the environment is disgusting & destructive. I hope you don't have kids to apologize
to about your attitude.

Complacent? Hardly! I deem idiots who pop/father more than two kids
disgusting and destructive, and ignorant to boot - ignorant as in
"Du-uh, I just wanna keep the (pick one) safe for my 12 kids to enjoy,
ka hilk ka hilk ..."

Didn't study thermodynamics did you. Yet another telling post from the
pompous one.

Cheers MC

DSK wrote:



Water cooling has nothing to do with "efficiency." If the plant were 100% efficient, it
would still need some sort of outside heat sink to get over the enthalpy threshold....

DSK wrote:
Water cooling has nothing to do with "efficiency." If the plant were 100% efficient, it
would still need some sort of outside heat sink to get over the enthalpy threshold....



The navigator© wrote:
Didn't study thermodynamics did you. Yet another telling post from the
pompous one.

Hmm, trying to get in a few more cheap shots, Navvie? OK, define "enthalpy" and give a brief
description of how the concept applies to heat engines.

DSK

DSK wrote:
Water cooling has nothing to do with "efficiency." ...

Bottom line is if cold water goes in and hot comes out the calories it
contains are being wasted.

.... For years I worked on the contingency that my pay was
a percent of decreased maintenance & fuel costs due to my work. Now how do you think I
could afford that trawler, by screwing up & whining to Uncle Sam like an Enron exec?

Sounds like you are a very effective BS artist ....

Oh great. Next you'll tell me that we'd be better off had there been a nuclear war ...

.... albeit ignorant and lacking ability to entertain new complex ideas.
Worse yet ...


You're another right wing nut case, aren't you? ....

.... your over-active imagination has no factual basis. That's prolly why
you flim flamed so much $$$ as a BS artist. Works like "magic" on some,
but not your betters.

What kind of boat do you sail, again?

Vito wrote:
Catalina 30

Good, at least some tiny bit of your post makes sense & is on topic.


Vito wrote:
Which means that electric cars make more pollution, they just do it out
of town.

No, electric cars cause less pollution overall because even the dirtiest
fossil fuel electric generating plant is cleaner than car exhaust.

You said to tell you when you were wrong, here's one more... getting to be a
pretty long list, eh? Challenging the Crapton's batting average?

DSK