Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #181

    Jul 15, 2011, 10:32 AM
    The videos are filled with comments from people that Pantone scammed.
    infoguy's Avatar
    infoguy Posts: 108, Reputation: 8
    Junior Member
     
    #182

    Jul 15, 2011, 12:07 PM
    Comment on NeedKarma's post
    Wow! Paul and Molly Pantone must have been a really clever team, to scam the United States Patent Office, with patent # 5794601. Does that mean that all U.S. patents ever granted need to be labeled scams until proven otherwise... and If so, proven to whom?
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #183

    Jul 15, 2011, 12:13 PM
    I didn't say he didn't get a patent. The patent office is overflowing with unique patents for items that aren't commercially viable. Why are you equating someone having a patent with being immune from scamming others?
    infoguy's Avatar
    infoguy Posts: 108, Reputation: 8
    Junior Member
     
    #184

    Jul 15, 2011, 12:41 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    I didn't say he didn't get a patent. The patent office is overflowing with unique patents for items that aren't commercially viable. Why are you equating someone having a patent with being immune from scamming others?
    "Commercially viable" is usually a time-sensitive term. How long was it, from the time the Wright brothers flew their flying machine at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, until people could pay for a ticket, and ride in an airplane from one city to another? Even after their first flight at Kitty Hawk, people who thought they were much smarter than the Wright brothers kept on insisting that flying was impractical for mankind. Who says the GEET processor will not be commercially viable, at any time in the future? It was demonstrated to work at the USPTO, with existing materials and existing fossel fuel components!
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #185

    Jul 15, 2011, 01:35 PM
    I refer you to the Segway.
    If you want to invest your money with Pantone then please do it.
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,701, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #186

    Jul 15, 2011, 01:56 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by infoguy View Post
    Tut317, the main point I was trying to address is the thermal discharge from internal combustion engines in motor vehicles equipped with fuel injectors and catalytic convertors. How you morphed that into a carbon dioxide issue is a mystery to me! All humans exhale, and breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2). That has always been the case. Personally, I don't buy into the CO2 bashing. Have you ever used a hair dryer? Does it pour out huge amounts of CO2, or just heat the air mixture that it draws in? We do ourselves a huge disservice by equating all warming with carbon dioxide! Besides, the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom are in a mutually beneficial relationship. We need oxygen and they need carbon dioxide! But who needs catalytic convertors? NOBODY, if we could get fuel efficiency above 90% . . . but the oil industry wants us to have fuel efficiency (fuel mileage) as low as possible! One way they have achieved that, was to reformulate the fuels so that the droplets had high surface tension, making it very difficult to completely vaporize the liquid fuel. Reformulation was exactly what intentionally killed Charles Pogue's super carburetor designs, because the principle no longer worked on the new fuels. The result is, only ten to twenty percent of the expensive fossel fuel you buy today is converted to mechanical energy, and the rest (eighty to ninety percent of your expensive fuel) is delivered into your catalytic converter, to FINISH burning at extermely high temperature! What mixtures and/or compounds of elements (from the periodic table of elements) is discharged from the tailpipes, I cannot say, but how much HEAT is being released into our atmospere from all those horrendously inefficient machines? There have been a scant few clever people who have come up with methods to circumvent the intentionally high INefficiency of internal combustion fuels, such as using catalytic cracking to reformulate the fuel "on the fly," making it possible to vaporize it much more completely. But it is nearly impossible to vaporize (or, more correctly stated, put air spaces between molecules of) fossel fuels that are being delivered into combustion chambers as a liquid, under high pressure . . . which is exactly why the oil companies like fuel injectors so much more than carburetors! Oil companies are virtually assured that we will have terrible fuel mileage, as compared to the 200 MPG figure that was demonstrated with the Pogue carburetor, around 80 years ago, on huge, heavy cars with monstrous engines in them!
    I have to say this. You make a good argument for the disinformation your spewing in many of the posts to bolster your opinion. The problem is that even repeating a lie isn't going to change the fact that it is still a lie.

    Do you actually believe that the carburator met its demise because of the oil companies? That's a falacy. The reason for it was because they became too expensive to put on cars due to EPA regulations.
    Fuel injectors don't squirt fuel into the cumbustion cycle of an angine they spray it as a micro spray. The heat inside the cylinders vaporizes it instantly.
    The EPA is the worst of the offenders with their false dreams and ability to push law without regard to the common good.
    Catalytic converters used to be a problem because they allowed excessive amounts of CO2 and other green house gasses to escape unreguleted until they had warmed up to operating temprature. (15 - 20 minutes of driving). The new ones heat up in about 5 minutes. Also the systems that are in place like oxygen sensors have changes to preheated ones so they can start detection earlier.
    If 80% of the fuel passing through an enfine went unburned you would foul spark plugs and ruin cylinder walls in a very short time.
    When you do go on your rants make sure to include the EPA as they are stopping the technology that can overcome many of the current problems. Their standard (Stoichiometric) guidelines are what they push and its not about anything else. Any deviation outside those guidelines and your motor is not allowed to market.
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,701, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #187

    Jul 15, 2011, 02:02 PM

    You might wish to read this for some reference. Even they recommend fuel injection for running an engine lean.

    Lean Burn Combustion, 101.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #188

    Jul 15, 2011, 03:12 PM

    Cal ;you're burdened by facts.
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,701, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #189

    Jul 15, 2011, 03:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    cal ;you're burdened by facts.
    Im still waiting on my flux capacitor you promised me from last year.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,328, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #190

    Jul 15, 2011, 03:34 PM

    French fry grease turned into fuel

    Lunch and a fill up anyone??
    smoothy's Avatar
    smoothy Posts: 25,495, Reputation: 2853
    Uber Member
     
    #191

    Jul 15, 2011, 03:35 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    French fry grease turned into fuel

    Lunch and a fill up anyone???
    Not unusual... I know several people personally that are doing that and have for years. I don't because I haven't found a clean source yet. The partially hydrogenated stuff makes a poor quality biodiesel that will cloud and clog up filters in temps as high as the low 60's F. And the locals use at least enough of that to screw it up for me, at least as far as my standards go.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #192

    Jul 15, 2011, 03:52 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by califdadof3 View Post
    Im still waiting on my flux capacitor you promised me from last year.
    That's because I'm trying to bypass the plutonium reactor 1.21 gigawatt requirement to ignite the plasma and go directly to the one that's fueled by extracting hydrogen atoms from garbage.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,328, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #193

    Jul 15, 2011, 04:45 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    That's because I'm trying to bypass the plutonium reactor 1.21 gigawatt requirement to ignite the plasma and go directly to the one that's fueled by extracting hydrogen atoms from garbage.
    Pour hot grease on the garbage to ignite it, but you have to have the right garbage. I would try dilitium chrystals instead of plutonium, its cheaper.

    Dilithium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Dilithium - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,701, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #194

    Jul 15, 2011, 04:45 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    That's because I'm trying to bypass the plutonium reactor 1.21 gigawatt requirement to ignite the plasma and go directly to the one that's fueled by extracting hydrogen atoms from garbage.
    Ohhhhh, no wonder. Heck that's easy. Just look up freeenergyforlifeandforcars.com
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #195

    Jul 15, 2011, 04:48 PM

    Of course if I do that I'll be accused of 'throwing my garbage in the air '.

    No way to win.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #196

    Jul 16, 2011, 05:15 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    of course if I do that I'll be accused of 'throwing my garbage in the air '.

    No way to win.
    Hey Tom have you stopped beating your wife?

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Another rift in the Climate Change ranks [ 11 Answers ]

It seems the idea that man can affect the outcome in dealing with climate change is rapidly coming apart, even the guy who started the idea of global warming says nothing will be achieved at Copenhagen because the approach is fundamentally flawed Global warming 'godfather' goes cold on...

Climate change causes political revolt [ 25 Answers ]

An impending vote on cap and trade legislation has caused a revolt in the Australian parliament which could spill leadership of the key opposition party as the government attempts to stitch up its position ahead of Copenhagen. Abbott to challenge Turnbull This revolt is led by climate change...

Climate change scam uncovered? [ 75 Answers ]

Someone has seemingly hacked emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit that appear to show a conspiracy to hide data that doesn't fit the climate change rhetoric. And yes, the director of the unit has said the emails seem to be genuine. Some samples: Hiding and...

EU Agrees Climate Change [ 95 Answers ]

Hello Today ahead of a meeting in Copenhagen it was agreed that the EU will fund the improvement of the newer states to help them bring into line their emissons News Sniffer - Revisionista 'EU strikes climate funding deal' diff viewer (2/3) The essence is the EU will offer some 100bn...

Climate change 'crisis' clearing up [ 25 Answers ]

With a hat tip to Walter Williams for the heads up, from Senator James Inhofe's blog... As Williams points out this is nothing new - but it is getting clearer that behind this whole climate change 'crisis' is an agenda to be furthered at all cost, much like the left's obsession with...


View more questions Search