In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.

As well as Ethanol production, thanks for making my point.

In article om, hank57
@socialworker.net says...

On 5/4/2013 8:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.


It's hard to believe that this individual was, last year, posing as a
patent attorney. ;-)

I was? Cite?

On 5/4/2013 8:53 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.


It's hard to believe that this individual was, last year, posing as a
patent attorney. ;-)

at 11:40 AM :

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...


It's hard to believe that this individual was, last year, posing as a
patent attorney. ;-)

at 11:28 AM :

"iBoaterer" responded in message
...

I was? Cite?

----------------------------------------------

Look, I am confused enough as it is. Please refrain from responding
to a comment before it is made.

On 5/4/2013 4:35 PM, Eisboch wrote:


at 11:40 AM :

"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...


It's hard to believe that this individual was, last year, posing as a
patent attorney. ;-)

at 11:28 AM :

"iBoaterer" responded in message
...

I was? Cite?

----------------------------------------------

Look, I am confused enough as it is. Please refrain from responding to
a comment before it is made.




That was my fault. My clock was an hour fast.

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.

As well as Ethanol production, thanks for making my point.

Distillation has been around for 6000 years or more.

On 5/5/2013 12:14 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.

As well as Ethanol production, thanks for making my point.

Distillation has been around for 6000 years or more.


Probably millions... it was around long before man discovered it

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 2 May 2013 13:15:57 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

You are the one who brought up the Wright brothers but it is not the
first silly thing you have said.

*I* didn't say that technology doesn't change, YOU did by comparison.

Huh?I gave you the example of technology that did change, using your
example of the Wright brothers. The difference was that they had
something people wanted. I have not seen any real desire for ethanol
except by the corporate farmers who are getting rich on it.


The problem with these cellulose schemes is simply the number of
processes necessary to get grass turned into a form of energy a car
can use and the meager amount of energy the grass has in the first
place.
You can hate oil if you want but you can't deny that it has an energy
density many times that of just about any other source of energy that
doesn't involve nuclear fission. (or the holy grail, fusion)
DoE says "trash" biomass only yields a theoretical 56 gallons of
gasoline per ton of dried material and nobody has even approached that
theoretical number. OTOH you might get 124 gallons of gas from a ton
of corn, again assuming 100% efficiency and that is not happening..

So we should abandon all hope and go back to horse and buggy I guess? Or
do you want to go back further, say before fire?


No, we should develop technology people want, like maybe another way
to oxygenate gasoline that isn't a pollutant like MTBE or a
operational and environmental problem like ethanol.

If it was left to people like you and other FOXites who have been told
by them that new technology is bad and evil, we'd go back and not
develop the wheel.

The wheeel was an invention. Manufacturing technologies have improved upon the wheel.

As well as Ethanol production, thanks for making my point.

Distillation has been around for 6000 years or more.

And you think it's the same as it was 6000 years ago, right? No
advancement in methods or materials, same as a car engine, right? No
advancements, same thing.