The Iraq we know is not the Iraq the factions have ever recognized. If the Middle East consumes itself for the coming years with fighting each other over creating new states along sectarian lines, how is that a bad thing for the US?
The world loses a large supply of oil, which will affect the US negatively.
Pollution is likely to be massive (remember Kuwait?) and quite possibly radioactive as well. Not a good thing for anyone.
Muslims in the US and elsewhere are likely to join in, whether by simple financial assistance or physical terrorism to force other countries to take sides.
The US will inevitably be drawn in to protect Israel, with our young men and women again dying in the middle east.
It will only remain separated until Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Al Qaeda and its many affiliates can compel those discrete entities to capitulate. There is a much wider and deeper conflict brewing and it will engulf the entire Muslim world and ensnare the rest of the world. The conflict is between modernity and Islam.
The only thing not addressed in your post is the oil greed that Exxon/Mobil is trying to sell out. Recently Exxon/Mobil sold off part of its' holdings in Iraq to Petro China and is looking to sell out completely if it can. The exit from Iraq by American Big Oil will sign the US support off for good. The US will not have control of the oil so the military will be free to leave for good. No oil = no interest.
Obama went to war with Libya for OIL needed by Europeans, why the sudden belief that OIL for China won't be as important. While stifling American energy production, Obama is all about foreign energy production. Grants to Brazil, ceding the Gulf to Cuban and Chinese exploration while denying American companies, hoping the BP oil disaster would be more catastrophic if ignored long enough, blocking the Keystone pipeline despite Canada's (the best neighbor a country could ask for) patience and desires?
If Obama is anything he is consistent, consistent in his Anti-American decisions. What makes you thinik Iraq will be any different.
I think you have to look at the possibility that Obama is pushing the US towards alternate energy sources. Other reasoning is the regulations tightening up on coal energy and the pollutants it provides.If this is anti American I don't know. With the failed attempts at solar and battery technology because of unrealistic short term success the GOP and some Dems are kicking at his shins. Recently there were reports that the Navy is developing energy from sea water that uses carbon stored in the ocean. It has been said many times that when the US gas prices hit those similar to Europe the US will begin looking for alternative energy sources.The ocean is quickly becoming the recipient of more pollution than the air. I have a lot of problems with Obama on foreign policy and social programs but he has been consistent with clean energy as much as congress will let him.
Obama is pushing America toward poverty, there is no such thing as an alternative to OIL. Sunshine and a cool breeze will not replace the massive energy supplied to the entire world economy by oil. Even the production of solar panels and wind turbines depends on OIL.
Since when do we bow to the whims of a King? Americans rejected rule by MAN in favor of rule by LAW over 200 years ago. Obama has no right to force America to do anything. That is tyranny!!
Oil supplanted coal, for the most part, coal - wood and whale oil and it didn't require a dictator to do it. Oil will be supplanted when a superior energy source is available. The warm feelings lefties get from Obama is insufficient to run the United States, unless Obama succeeds in pushing America back to the Middle Ages when sunshine, babbling brooks and cool breezes were the energy sources of the day.
Obama's energy strategy will leave Americans freezing and hungry in the dark.
As for the Europeans, their alternative energy source is Russian natural gas. When Putin is finished with his Summer War, Europe will kowtow or freeze.
So predictable. You think the President has no agenda when he assumes the office? Alternative energy is the future whether you want to face up to it or not. When the price becomes unprofitable for oil the other shall have met the competition. Of course climate change is out of the question as what does that matter when our children's children are choked to death by our ignorance. Oil is the most popular energy source there is but we are using it faster than time will replenish it and when the time comes that it will be gone or too expensive what will replace it. Lets ignore that scenario as well. I love the lefty/righty spin you put on the argument because your retorts are oh so predictable and flawed.
Climate change? So you think that Unicorn Juice and Rainbows will fix everything? What alternative energy is there that can replace OIL. If you say sunshine and a cool breeze then you are being foolish. The next energy hasn't even come out of the experimental stage yet.
Bogus centrally directed pressures to switch energy sources will result only in increased suffering. It will solve nothing. Oil is not running out anytime soon. There is a trillion barrels of oil in the United States alone. That represents 300 years of oil. We are more efficient in its use now than we have ever been and that revolution continues, apace.
You see doom unless Obama rides his sun and wind powered rainbow unicorn to the rescue. Just like global warming, alternative energies that produce the same benefits as OIL are't real. It is a decade or more before there is a fuel cell inexpensive enough to produce efficiently and fuel cells are the most promising alternative.
It is a left-right thing. Lefties believe that they are superior to the market and therefore think that alternatives only require a powerful central government to force Americans to use Unicorn juice and all will be paradise. Conservatives understand that a centrally directed economic decision is ALWAYS a disaster.
Prepare to freeze hungry in the dark because that is the current alternative to OIL.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/0 … 13822.html
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternat … t-fuel.htm
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newen … -seawater/
I guess this is a lefty/righty conspiracy theory as well.
You waste a lot of time with an argument that is not there. The lefty/righty crap is so played yet you mire yourself in it losing the information in the process. Put away the anger and come up with a solution different then rehashing old arguments that have been fruitless.
Obviously the fueling stations for Unicorn Juice are going up all over America, as we speak. Experimental is exactly that, it is not full blown, tried and true, economically efficient production. It you can run combat operations against the Chinese Navy with Unicorn Juice, I will believe you have won the argument, until then it is OIL.
As for the conservative/lefty argument, one is correct and the other is lefty. A centrally directed authority is the dream of the lefties, it is a nightmare in reality. Join reality and the clarity of understanding that lefties want control or to be controlled and conservatives want the elevation of the individual. Which has produced more prosperity for more people, Unicorn Juice or OIL?
I take it you don't have any faith in science. Just because it is not currently available does not make it Unicorn Juice or what have you. If the world were to think along these same lines as you offer I would be paying dearly for whale oil as electricity is just Unicorn juice and not feasible because who can put lightening in a wire? What a ridiculous argument grounded in fear and unimaginative possibility. This type of fuel is coming a lot sooner than you think.
What is funny is that you judge those you do not know with some sort of mentalists flair. Merely because someone brings up arguments you don't like does not make them the boogeyman you wish them to be. And of course the boogeyman is where? In your mind. Help me the sky is falling!
Oil is currently available, will remain available and is the most widely distributed chemical energy source in the world. When Unicorn Juice can say that you win.
Hold the presses we have found the only viable source of energy to ever be discovered. Unicorn juice! LOL. Just as wood was replaced with coal and coal was replaced with oil so will oil be replaced as it is a very inefficient source of energy that is not renewable as with gas. In the meantime let us sit on our hands and wait for the magic is your answer? LOL You are really quite amusing. If we wait for thinking like yours to find a solution to a clean source of renewable energy it will be too late. Relish your precious oil and the oligarchy that controls it and subsequently your life and lifestyle but I think the prudent and profitable direction is totally opposite of yours.
Name the president who did that. Whale oil was replaced precisely because a viable, effective, efficient, more desirable, more available, more powerful energy source replaced it - coal.
There were a couple President inventors including Jefferson and Lincoln even was granted a patent but what does that have to do with science and new discoveries. Now if you are referring to Presidents who get behind inventiveness and fund new discoveries there are too many to mention.
And gas is after that and then hydrogen and .....
Don't let the timeline get in the way of your thought process
"If the world were to think along these same lines as you offer I would be paying dearly for whale oil as electricity is just Unicorn juice and not feasible because who can put lightening in a wire?"
Exactly. We are in the process of discovery. There was a time when the wisdom of the day said the world was flat.
Who opposes scientific discovery. What I oppose is the imposition of political will upon science. There is no substitute for oil, not because conservatives are anti-science but because there is no substitute for oil - as of yet. The emperor has decreed there will be an end to coal. What is ready to take its place? Coal fired electrical plants are everywhere and have not been replace by solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, tidal, hydro, geo or anything else. They generate billions of watts and are threatened, not by a superior means, but by political whim.
That is what I find objectionable. When the replacement for oil is ready it will be hell to try to stop it. It is not ready, it hasn't even been discovered.
According to Webster Tarpley Obama is a man of the Chicago school of economics. When I refer to his policy, he definitively follows Bush's steps.
Maybe now more than ever we need to find alternatives to oil to minimize the effects of instability of the Middle East on the rest of the world. China is doing a lot of work with regard to alternative energy sources, the same should be done by every country in the world.
If the country divides itself along sectarian lines, that may help the people to live together better but it doesn't mean they won't still fight each other. You might have something like Pakistan and India. They coexist peacefully, ore or less. But Pakistan is more radical. A division of Iraq along sectarian lines will help to identify the more extremist Muslim sects in the country and isolate it from the other two. It would be an interesting development.
If the world is less dependent on oil, there will be no need to worry about Iraq. I personally hope however that these people can find peaceful ways to coexist, whether together or along sectarian lines with borders. Everybody deserves to have peace.
In what way is it a bad thing since WE originated it? Check Brzezinski's "The grand chessboard" and you'll find our involvement! Since our invasion Iraq is exsanguine. Isn't division to reign our motto? Why are the djihadists always present before any intervention? We decided to attack Syria, they are there. Iraq now they are there? Why aren't they in Miami? New Orleans? France? Jordan? Because they are OURS. They are our JANISSARIES.
It is EASIER to export them in instable (instability that we orchestrated) lands. We create the instability like in Maiden Ukraine or Syria, then we let go our dogs to terrorize the population. Then either they call us like Iraq (desperate), either they fight them with the Russian blessing.
Your question would be more relevant if you had asked us, to whom does the crime pay? The obvious would be us. Since our assassination of Ghaddafi, Hussein we shared the natural resources, our cartels are in first positions, we are regulating prices and production. What else do we need? Now, we want PEACE. Why? Because our affairs have to thrive. But we need the consent of the locals that don't agree with us.
Oh my! Call the police! There has been a hijacking!
Hey guys, the topic was Iraq.... remember?
So, back to the point... my opinion is that if Iraq is partitioned, (which looks likely), the Northern Kurds partition is the only one likely to survive.
The Shiite and Sunni partitions will continue to fight each other until the strongest terrorist affiliate wins.
We have created our very own Frankenstein, and the Iraqi people will suffer more than they ever did under Sadam.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it, Twenty years ago I spoke to a scientist friend of mine about extracting hydrogen from sea water, he looked at me as if he should be calling the men in white coats to take me to the loony bin.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe so isn't this where we should be putting our research money?
Iraq is the gate way to Europe for many extremists, once it has been taken over by ISIS it will spread its particular kind of extremism as far as it can.
The fighting now taking place in Iraq has nothing to do with the control of oil wealth it has to do with a religious extremism of which the world has never seen. The fact that it is done in the name of Islam is of no consequence as it could easily have been done in the name of communism or national socialism or great uncle Fred. The brainwashing that results in extremism is the enemy.
Why would we want to hydrolyze sea water into Hydrogen and Oxygen? While there are trace amounts of free hydrogen in the water, it is neither feasible nor reasonable to extract that - hydrolysis yields the only usable amounts of hydrogen and it takes as much energy to extract it as it does to re-combine it (plus a little more, of course, as nothing is 100% efficient).
I know and that is why I said research into it.
...I don't see 1,000 years of research finding a way to get more out of chemical reaction that goes into reversing that reaction. It is, as far as we know and understand the universe, how every reaction works. Chemical, nuclear or anything else, it does not produce more energy than is in it.
I am by no means an expert, I also know that everything in the universe hasn't been discovered yet. So my question would be, if hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be used as a source of energy should we disregard it because we consider it to difficult to find a way of doing it?
Maybe the process the US navy is working on is the thermochemical cycle. Maybe its the S-I cycle which generates hydrogen from water with an efficiency of about 50%.
I was just wondering, after working for a major motor manufacturer for some years in the late 90's early 20's why would they put so much time and effort into developing hydrogen powered vehicles if they thought it wouldn't be the next great power supply. BMW are not a company that wastes money on a whim.
None of that explains getting energy from nothing, which is what you're proposing.
Seawater is chock full of hydrogen - each pair of H atoms combined with an Oxygen atom. The bonds can be split, and hydrogen then burned at a later time to produce energy. The amount of energy produced will be exactly (exactly) what was used to split the bond, less an amount of inefficiency.
Hydrogen is common, yes. 3/4's of the earth is covered in it, plus there is about .000055% of the atmosphere available as free H2. More, of course as hydrogen combined with oxygen, sulfur or other elements.
The problem still remains - "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". We can't get more out of burning Hydrogen than we put in to free it from the other atoms it is combined with. We can even crack petroleum (oil) to get hydrogen, but that is no better than burning the oil in the first place. Cleaner, but no more energy.
As to BMW deciding that the US will go to H2 in the future - I highly disagree. The infrastructure just isn't there, while electricity is. We will eventually see lots of electric cars, but very few hydrogen. Europe, with it's high population density, may find it economic to put hydrogen tanks/pipelines everywhere; the US won't.
So there you go then, a complex answer to a simple question. There will be no Hydrogen use in the future.
Not that it will matter to me as I think oil will be around long after I or my children have popped of the earth.
All these oil companies don't seem concerned that their businesses will be defunct in a few years so I suppose they wont.
We (UK) could always go back to coal, a new reports suggests there is at least 100 years supply under the sea around our coastline.
The truth of the matter is that there are several patents that are on file that do precisely what you say cannot happen. A few of the inventors have been proven nutcases and some have died under mysterious circumstances. There is research that is promising in this where a little energy is multiplied through amplification to produce the splitting of the hydrogen molecule from the two oxygen molecules to harvest the hydrogen gas. Understand that Releasing chemical energy from water, in excess or in equal proportion to the energy required to facilitate such production, would therefore violate the first or second law of thermodynamics is not what these latest revelations claim. An amplification process and facilitated by a chemical reaction is the basis of their claims. Granted this is still in the infancy of development it is a promising direction.
Yes, I know - perpetual motion, energy from nowhere - these things always attract the "nutcases" you mention.
Seen the hydrogen producer for cars? Use the alternator to hydrolyze hydrogen, use it again to compress it and store it. Then feed it into the cylinder and burn it, getting back less energy that was used to produce it in the first place, and that's supposed to increase fuel mileage. The concept of "a little energy is multiplied through amplification to produce the splitting of the hydrogen molecule from the two oxygen molecules to harvest the hydrogen gas" is the same thing; the "amplification" mentioned takes energy and doesn't come from nowhere. Pretty it up with big words (like "amplification") and sell it to a gullible public, but a public too stupid to realize it costs, not produces, energy. TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch).
They're all the same - either a scam for money or some misguided soul that thinks they can re-invent physics because Big Oil is hiding secrets. And yes, I understand the claims are that there is free energy out there, but that doesn't make it so. Again, perpetual motion machines have been around forever, just like this one. Keep your wallet closed.
Amplification of a free source is what is in the process. It does not matter how much energy is expended in the process if the source is free. The equipment is relatively cheap to produce this effect. Your deduction is based on another source than oil of equivalent cost? So what if you only squeeze a fraction of energy from a source that is free as long as it gives you equivocal energy. Something from nothing is the reward if quantified.
.Amplification of a free source. Do you mean amplifying the hydrogen in sea water (free H2 source) or using solar energy (free energy source) to extract hydrogen from sea water or other source?
Sea water as a source of hydrogen is about as free as it can get, but the energy to get it out of the water has to come from somewhere; somewhere where it could be used for something else without the inevitable efficiency losses.
Solar energy would be free (after initial investment, repair/maintenance, etc.) and, applied to sea water could produce nearly unlimited hydrogen. Hydrogen that then must be compressed and transported to where it is needed before it can be used; why not just feed the electricity being produced and used to hydrolyze sea water into the grid already in place?
Amplification by means of electrolysis is being explored. Much like a coil in a car that takes 12 volts and amplifies it anywhere from 25,000 to as much as 100,000 volts, there is research being done to do this electronically.
This process can greatly overcome the more energy needed to produce less that has plagued the process. Yes there are some quacks out there who have tried to bamboozle the manufacturers but the Navy is really on to something with their research.
Solar produced hydrogen could be included in the production of hydrogen cell technology which has proved to be expensive due to the storage and replacement of the equipment.
I'm sorry, but you aren't making any sense to me.
amplify. to make larger, greater, or stronger; enlarge; extend. to expand in stating or describing, as by details or illustrations; clarify by expanding. Electricity. to increase the amplitude of; cause amplification in.
You're going to make more hydrogen, and by using a big word won't need any energy to do it. Sorry, no you're not; it takes energy to hydrolyze hydrogen from water no matter how much you use. X number of ergs per mole, and "amplifying" something (anything) isn't going to change that. You've been flim flammed if someone has convinced you that you can split that bond without using energy to do it with, and more energy than you will get back when the bond is re-instated.
I am sorry if I have been unclear but I thought the term amplify the energy source necessary to hydrolyze the hydrogen was clear. And no I have not been flim flamed as you say. That is why I explained the car coil analogy to illustrate how the energy has been quantified. 12 volts to 100,000 volt amplification. The only difference is the amps is what is being worked on. I have looked into this extensively as I have purchased plans in doing just this process. Right now DIY technology only makes browns gas which is much less potent but there are those that are working on busting the barrier long thought impossible but now are seeing the possibilities. Of course present company excluded.
But that is NOT amplification of the energy, it is merely changing the form of it. The energy in electricity (watts) is measured as the product of amps X voltage, where if the voltage is doubled by this "amplification" the amps is halved, leaving the same amount of energy, less efficiency losses.
But the water molecule needs energy, not just voltage to split. The voltage must be high enough to induce current (amps), but it is the total energy being supplied that determines the amount of hydrogen produced, not voltage OR amperage.
At the same time, if you go from 12V to 100,000V without decreasing the amperage you will need to add enormous energy to the system; energy that must come from somewhere and does not magically appear in the wires. Now your H2 production rate goes way up, but at the cost of adding huge amounts of energy to the system.
I would only add that if you are making brown gas, you're wasting your energy and time. Hydrogen is colorless.
It is hard to pick through this as you are off somewhere else with it. Please let me try again with some examples.
Lets say you have a car that starts the engine with a small amount of gas or stored hydrogen. Once the car starts it immediately begins to produce Hydrogen from a generator in series with the hydrogen now running the car. The car alternator/generator generates electricity that is introduced into an amplification by means of a voltage coil that creates great voltage to separate the hydrogen from the salt water. The amplification is what ramps up the production of the hydrogen over what it needs to operate the car. This has been the way most people have tried to accomplish the task. Right now claims of enough hydrogen has been the controversy.
Brown's gas is named after Yull Brown who claimed that it could power a car in real time. The water car is a myth as many have debunked the patents. Some claim that the Brown's gas helps increase mileage while others say it doesn't work at all
The Navy slant is a new one and is under evaluation presently.
You have indeed been flim-flammed with yet another perpetual motion scam.
Change your scenario just a bit - instead of using all the hydrogen produced from the alternator (and once more, it is not volts that is needed, but watts), store a little of it, replacing that which is being used from your tank full. Viola! Instant perpetual motion, and you could even use the water produced by burning H2, splitting it apart again to produce H2 and then burning that again.
Here's the thing - no matter how hard you try, you cannot hydrolyze water into H2 and O2 using less energy than will be produced when the H2 is burned (recombined with O2). There will always be a net loss of energy as nothing is 100% efficient. Your scheme here is identical to the one I mentioned several posts back; using the energy of the engine to produce H2, then burning that H2 to run the engine. Perpetual motion, and these scams are as old as science is.
And finally, you are not "amplifying" the energy produced by the alternator/generator; you are using a coil to transform (hence the name "transformer") the electricity into a different voltage. A trace less energy, but more voltage; which will do absolutely nothing to increase H2 output from water (as long as the initial voltage is sufficient to produce a current through the water in the first place).
I don't know how I got into this conversation with you but you continue to go back to the same theory which is being transformed as we speak. No perpetual motion is implied nor intended. Through an amplification or increase of voltage there is a chemical reaction created in the H2O to release the hydrogen molecule. The Amplification or increase in voltage is supplied by a coil which is an electromagnet that amplifies or increases the voltage. The workings of this type of process is where the patent attorneys have a field day trying to explain.
Here is an example: https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=An … =yfp-t-901
Yes, yes. I know. Cars will run on water. Cars will run on "Brown's gas" (actually nothing but a mix of hydrogen and oxygen, in the proportions of 2 moles to 1 mole or the same as water and that makes the statement true).
It doesn't work. And yes, it IS purported to be perpetual motion; collect the water of burning hydrogen, split it back into hydrogen and oxygen and burn it again for an engine that will run forever on it's own. It doesn't work.
Rhamson, these scams have been around for decades and not a one has ever worked. They cannot work as there are inevitable losses in the system. This particular one has you convinced that transforming current to a higher voltage will both produce more energy in the electricity and thus more hydrogen via hydrolysis. As both a professional electrician, and before that a chemist by trade, I can assure you that neither one is true. Higher voltages from simple transformers (the "coil" you mentioned) do NOT increase the energy of the system; they lower it slightly. And use of higher voltages does not increase the hydrolysis reaction; only higher energy levels will do that.
W (energy) = I (current) X E(voltage)
When electricity passes through a transformer, the wattage falls slightly due to losses. This means that if voltage is doubled, current is halved while the (theoretical) energy remains constant. I have performed hundreds of these calculations, sizing transformers for a variety of purposes, and that's the way it works. More voltage does NOT equate with more energy.
But don't trust MY word; talk to any chemist or physicist. Ask them if you can hydrolyze water, using only the energy produced by burning the same hydrogen/oxygen to run the machinery doing the hydrolyzing. If you could, it would be truly a miracle; perpetual motion at last. But you can't.
I have a hard time trusting your word in any of this. You claim to have some type of knowledge on the subject and maybe you do. But not even knowing what Brown's gas is and that it was not the color of the hydrogen gas produced by the process leads me to believe you are not up on the subject. Other indicators are that you cannot grasp the concept of amplification of the electricity needed to split the molecule is also disturbing yet you go on about physics and yet we find new discoveries that coincide with the rules if we but look in other directions. I am sorry but this is yet another topic we cannot agree on as you claim to have superior knowledge of it, yet provide little understanding in the process.
Sorry - I mis-read your original reference to Brown's Gas as brown gas. Colored gas, not a made up term by some scammer. (And no, a mix of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas is not startling and, in the chemical field, not worthy of a special name. It isn't a great discovery - it is a made up name by a scammer).
If I haven't provided understanding for you, it isn't for lack of information. Increased voltage coupled with decreased amperage does NOT result in more H2 being produced per kilowatt (KW) of electricity used. Electrical energy is measured in watts, not volts. You cannot get more out than you put in. You don't "amplify" electricity by running it through a transformer to decrease the amperage. You don't even "amplify" it by running it through the other way and increasing the amperage while decreasing the voltage. You "amplify" electricity by adding to the wattage available for use from a second, third or even more sources. Two batteries hooked together, for instance, can "amplify" the power available from just one of them.
All of these have been explained, but you seem to have glossed over them. It wouldn't take you 5 minutes to check out the effect of a transformer on electric current or learn to calculate the energy of a circuit, but you won't because it interferes with your perpetual motion plan. It won't take 5 minutes to find the energy required to break the H-O bonds in water and compare it to increased voltage vs increased energy, but you won't because it interferes with your perpetual motion plan. You won't really look at these scams from the standpoint that they are perpetual motion scams because it interferes with your desire for free energy.
OK - these things are YOUR problem, not mine. You can live in a dream world, wasting your time and money on such scams as you wish. I've tried to help you, to explain not only that it won't work but WHY it won't work while you continue to tell me that I don't grasp "amplification of electricity" after working in the field for 17 years. We all have our fields of expertise - chemistry and electricity happen to be mine, not yours. You can listen to someone more knowledgeable in the fields than you are or you can ignore them. Your choice. I hate scammers - and these "run your car on water" folks are just that - but there is a limit to the time I'm willing to spend to explain it to someone that refuses to listen or learn.
But I DO have some very nice oceanfront property in Arizona for sale right now...If you want to throw your money away on scams you might like that one?
I think we can end this now as it always devolves into you insulting me and then I return the favor. You seem to troll for me in the forums and invariably you take up a crusade against any free thought or thought provoking exchange. Thanks but no thanks. Please avoid me in the future and I will return the favor.
Insulting? Sorry if you think so - it wasn't intended to be. You are obviously not very knowledgeable in the fields of either chemistry or electricity, while I've spent my life in them. I hate scammers like those you linked to, and tried to give you an understanding of how and why they are just a scam out to take you. You refused, and that's OK - like I said it's your life and your pocketbook. Nor do I "troll" for you - it seems that you happen to post things like this a lot and it DOES attract me (see above).
I DO, however, admit to being a little snarky in that last paragraph. If it was offensive, I apologize.
A list of fraudulent companies/people that all tried to sell the idea of running a car on water. Some gone, some in jail for fraud, some dead now, but not a single car ever produced that could run on water. Unless, of course, a separate energy source (plug in to the wall) is used to do the hydrolyzing.
An engine running on water sounds so plausible, to anyone unacquainted with molecular bonds. After all, water has oxygen - you need that to burn fuels and hydrogen - a pretty nifty fuel. The problem arises that separating water into hydrogen and oxygen requires far more energy than the resultant gases can possibly produce, unless you have a wand made of Unicorn horn. Molecular bonds are very powerful, thank God, goodness or quantum mechanics(I prefer all three). Without them everyone would be a big pile of goo not just liberals.
My apologies but the topic swung that way as denial was not a river in Egypt and I had to clarify.
Yes the monster is out and about in Iraq and it was always going this way. We cannot control others. Did anyone not learn this growing up? It is a universal human fallacy and Iraq is no exception. Why do you think they still have these horrific penalties in the Middle East after all these years. It shows that the control of others is fraught with failure. What audacity it is that we think we can control them with the language and cultural barrier so ingrained. Let them work out their own problems. If we are worried about the terrorism spreading in Europe why don't we try to get some of those people to cooperate and catch the bad guys? Because we can't control them either.
"My apologies but the topic swung that way as denial was not a river in Egypt and I had to clarify."
But Who’d A Thought It is a place in Alabama!
I know I will get lambasted for this next comment but I will say it anyway. If you wish to limit the influence of extremism in you country you will have to limit immigration. Letting in people with different ideas about politics, religion, rights and freedom only breads extremism.
The Kurdish region was the first to recover after the fall of Saddam. I agree it is likely to remain, much to the aggravation of of Turkey and Iran who also "own" a slice of "Kurdistan." It is also likely that the Middle East and the World, for that matter, is likely to erupt into even more chaos as Pax Americana comes to a close, not because the United States has collapsed, but because one political group in America despises its super power status.
There are diametrically opposed and deep seeded political aims in this country that have been highlighted through the election of a political radical to the Presidency. One can complain all they wish about conversations continually degenerating into left and right but these two concepts have dominated our entire history and will continue to do so because at their root is a disagreement as ancient as humanity.
Pax Americana is coming to an end not because of the natural course of fading power, like the decline of Roman, but as a specific aim of a specific political party. When the world is without America it will descend into privation and chaos.
Not sure about this but wouldn't these naval vessels that are powered by nuclear reactors have enough energy to spare for hydrogen production?
by CaribeM6 years ago
The recent events in the Gulf after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, reminds us again that offshore oil drilling is too dangerous for marine ecosystems and coastal communities and economies, I think it should not...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://biggovernment.com/asparks/2011/0 … il-crisis/Not entirely true he did have a party at the White House... and I'm sure Muchelle had a healhty menu prepared I realize Obama can't do anything about what's...
by a1servpro6 years ago
1. I agree with suggestion - this is a hub not a question.2. I think most of the energy we "use" could be conserved- so rather then USE green energy, we need to design or plan our energy consumption to...
by Jimbo'daNimbo4 years ago
Watching the failures of companies such as Solyndra that the public was forced to subsidize, when and where will we find an alternative source of energy that could replace our fossil fuel needs?
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
The foreign policy establishment, for the most part including the New York Times editorial page, has called our military activities in Afghanistan a "necessary war," in contrast to our invasion of Iraq....
by My Esoteric2 years ago
One of President Bush's arguments for invading Iraq was the strong Hussain-al Qaeda connection. The anti-Iraq invasion group said there was only very skimpy evidence of that and much stronger evidence that such an...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.