# If Only People Understood and Cared



## Deleted member 61768 (Dec 10, 2018)

There were many young people over 40 years ago right out of college and some also fresh out of the military that went to work for many of the former "Seven Sisters". The major oil companies that at that time were all making quote "windfall profits" according to the U.S. Government. Some of us educated idiots had a "stupid idea" why not start building the infrastructure now for a inevitable switchover to HYDROGEN as a fuel for the American public. Why? Well it is clean burning; one part hydrogen plus 2 parts oxygen equals H2o otherwise known as water. My oil company built hydrogen fuel  cells and fired armor piercing incendiary rounds into them while filming with super-highspeed cameras and found out something amazing. There were no explosions like with gasoline; only a very small flash. So Hydrogen could be used as a non-polluting fuel, it would illuminated the burning deaths gasoline caused, and with the huge profits at the time we could begin building an infrastructure that would allow a smooth switch over to Hydrogen fuel at existing stations. What is not to love? Only the Big Oil companies did not want to do it and National Government could not care less either so here we are 40 years later no further down the path than when I graduated from college and I'm turning 69 years old. How sad and short sighted. If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled. No population and fill your tank with distilled water. No oil, no nations holding America over the oil drum, what a different nation we would live in. But greed and self interest rules just like when Tesla wanted to offer free energy to everyone. Why that was crazy when you can charge everyone for what they get.


----------



## MarathonMike (Dec 10, 2018)

I saw my first hydrogen car demonstration about 25 years ago. The engineer giving the demo fired up the hydrogen fueled engine and some liquid started dripping out of the exhaust pipe. He reached down with a glass, let it fill for a bit and then he drank it! I was floored. Why are we not using this as fuel?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 10, 2018)

Paparock said:


> If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled.



  The ignorance in this post is unbelievable.

  You don't just get energy out of nothing.

  To separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to put energy into it.  If all the processes involved were 100% efficient, then you could then get exactly that same amount of energy back by burning the hydrogen with the oxygen.  But nothing is 100% efficient, so at every step, you lose some energy.

  You've never going to see a car that runs on water, as you describe.  Such a car would need to have some other source of energy, to break apart the water, and whatever that source may be, there will be better,more efficient ways to convert that energy into motion than using it to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burning that hydrogen and oxygen.


----------



## MarathonMike (Dec 10, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled.
> ...


That was a stretch, but it doesn't detract from the use of Hydrogen as a desirable alternative to fossil fuels. I'm amazed that Liberals who beat the drums constantly about carbon emissions say doodly squat about Hydrogen as a fuel.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> I saw my first hydrogen car demonstration about 25 years ago. The engineer giving the demo fired up the hydrogen fueled engine and some liquid started dripping out of the exhaust pipe. He reached down with a glass, let it fill for a bit and then he drank it! I was floored. Why are we not using this as fuel?



Reasons.  Big important reasons accord with very powerful folks plans. 

Remember, fascism is the government working with, favoring and controlling industry.  If folks tell you that it doesn't exist in the US, Britain of other Western nations, they are lying to you.

"Fascist regimes generally came into existence in times of crisis, when economic elites, landowners and business owners feared that a revolution or uprising was imminent.[9] Fascists allied themselves with the economic elites, promising to protect their social status and to suppress any potential working class revolution.[10] In exchange, the elites were asked to subordinate their interests to a broader nationalist project, thus fascist economic policies generally protect inequality and privilege while also featuring an important role for state intervention in the economy.[11] Fascists opposed both international socialism and free market capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third position. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither _laissez-faire_ capitalism nor communism.[12] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and social hierarchy was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists),[13][14] while also arguing that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists)."
Economics of fascism - Wikipedia

Corporate interests do everything they can to destroy competition.  They have governments pass laws, and the corporate structure buys up patents to make innovation impossible.

In the end?  It all boils down to greed and power.


Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries - Wikipedia


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled.
> ...



Just as feasible as electric cars.

"The truth is, electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars both have the potential to be wonderfully non-polluting forms of transportation, but to make them truly green we'll need to move away from methods of producing electricity that burn fossil fuels. Instead of burning coal to generate electricity, we'll need to concentrate on environmentally clean methods like hydropower, solar power, wind power and nuclear power, which produce little or no polluting emissions. When the day comes that most of our electricity comes from these sources, the electric car and the hydrogen fuel cell car will both be nearly perfect forms of green, non-polluting transportation."
Electric Cars vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars

Why does one industry get support and not the other?

*GOVERNMENT.*


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 10, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> That was a stretch, but it doesn't detract from the use of Hydrogen as a desirable alternative to fossil fuels. I'm amazed that Liberals who beat the drums constantly about carbon emissions say doodly squat about Hydrogen as a fuel.



  There are some serious impediments to the use of hydrogen as a general fuel.  But the OP was so far removed from actual science that it doesn't even get to the use of hydrogen around those impediments.  What Paparock was describing, in effect, was a water-fueled perpetual motion machine, with no awareness nor attempt to account for the need for energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

  It takes a lot of activity, effort, energy, and resources to mine and process petroleum.  At the end of the process, it's worth it, because the refined petroleum products can be burned to produce far more energy than what it took to obtain them.  This is what makes petroleum, and other fossil fuels, so valuable.

  There is no way to obtain hydrogen, that doesn't involve putting more energy into obtaining it, than what you can get back out by burning it.  The easiest way to obtain hydrogen is by electrolysis of water.  Run an electric current through water, and it breaks apart into hydrogen and oxygen.  Yes, you can then burn that hydrogen in an internal-combustion engine, or a fuel cell, but the amount of usable energy that you get back that way will be less than what you put into electrolyzing water to obtain it.  Much better to just use that electrical power to power a conventional electric motor.

  Hydrogen is also very difficult and dangerous to store in any amount.  The Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon were powered by hydrogen.  The hydrogen had to be kept extremely cold, to liquify it, and loaded into the rocket just before launch.  If the launch had been delayed by very much, it would have been impossible to keep the hydrogen liquified and contained in the rocket.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > That was a stretch, but it doesn't detract from the use of Hydrogen as a desirable alternative to fossil fuels. I'm amazed that Liberals who beat the drums constantly about carbon emissions say doodly squat about Hydrogen as a fuel.
> ...



Most of your post I agree with, however, from what I have read, the tech for storage is every bit as safe as your common gas tank.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

I don't have any data on what is more efficient, the fuel cell or the electric battery.  Neither comes close to efficiency that the internal combustion engine as far as fuel extraction and usage goes.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

But if the left gets their way and dissolves ICE, we will have a new option for transportation. 

We can mass produce these for the illegals.  No pollution or energy use!


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 10, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Just as feasible as electric cars.
> 
> "The truth is, electric cars and hydrogen fuel cell cars both have the potential to be wonderfully non-polluting forms of transportation, but to make them truly green we'll need to move away from methods of producing electricity that burn fossil fuels. Instead of burning coal to generate electricity, we'll need to concentrate on environmentally clean methods like hydropower, solar power, wind power and nuclear power, which produce little or no polluting emissions. When the day comes that most of our electricity comes from these sources, the electric car and the hydrogen fuel cell car will both be nearly perfect forms of green, non-polluting transportation."
> Electric Cars vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars
> ...



  Electric cars, I can see as having a future, if we can overcome some serious limits to current battery technology.  That's really the only thing holding them back.  As it now stands, we do not have any battery technology that comes anywhere close to storing the same amount of energy in a given weight or volume as what can be stored in a comparable weight and volume of gasoline or other fuel to be burned in an internal combustion engine; nor do we have any technology that allows batteries to withstand being charged at a rate that is anywhere close to comparable to the rate of pumping gasoline into a conventional car.  I do not know if it will happen in my lifetime,but if we ever do overcome these limitations on battery technology, I expect that internal-combustion-engined cars will very quickly become obsolete.

  Hydrogen,on the other hand, I doubt if it will ever be practical as a general-purpose fuel.  As I said before, there is  no way at this time, nor do I think there ever will be, to obtain hydrogen, that does not require expending more energy to do so than what you can get back by burning it.  I also do not see any realistic prospect of any time soon overcoming the serious difficulties and dangers in storing it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 10, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Most of your post I agree with, however, from what I have read, the tech for storage [of hydrogen] is every bit as safe as your common gas tank.








  Gasoline can be stored in liquid form, at room temperature, at standard atmospheric pressure.  Propane is a gas at standard temperature and pressure, but it doesn't take very much pressure to liquify it.

  To store hydrogen in liquid form, requires extreme pressure or extreme cold, or both, far beyond what can safely be done aboard an automobile.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 10, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> I don't have any data on what is more efficient, the fuel cell or the electric battery.  Neither comes close to efficiency that the internal combustion engine as far as fuel extraction and usage goes.



  Actually, internal combustion engines are horrendously inefficient, compared to modern electric motors.  Only about a third of the energy that they release by burning fuel comes out the crankshaft in usable form.  The rest is just wasted as heat and vibration.  In fact, most internal combustion engines have a cooling system to remove excess heat.  That's wasted energy, that has to be disposed of in order to keep the engine from destroying itself.

  Where internal engines get their advantage is that they are able to run on fuels that are easily obtained, relatively inexpensive, and which have a far greater energy density than any current battery technology.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

US3980053A - Fuel supply apparatus for internal combustion engines          - Google Patents


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

US1380183A - Gas-generator        - Google Patents


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

Fuel from Water - KeelyNet 01/09/02


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2018)

Paparock said:


> Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled. No population and fill your tank with distilled water.



I was cheering you UNTIL we reached that paragraph above.. 

It takes a LOT of energy to separate hydrogen from water. Slightly less to cleanly separate it from light hydrocarbons.  So the VEHICLE is not likely to be the place to do the fuel production. I've seen reasonable designs for HOME hydrogen production. They are compact and would fit on a garage wall. But if powered from the grid -- it solves very little. If powered from daytime solar -- it doubles the price. 

The fuel cells required for hydrogen cars are pricey, but compare well with high mileage battery cars. So adding the fuel production in would just put it out of reasonable economy. 

BUT -- here's a remarkably GREAT application for wind and solar. Wind and solar on the grid are too entirely flaky and unreliable to be alternatives for large scale grid generation..* But using OFF GRID wind and solar at the site of Hydrogen production plants is an ELEGANT engineering use.* Because the fuel is STORED, the fact that the "sun don't shine and the wind don't blow" is NOT a problem. It really then becomes "almost free". 

Who wouldn't go into large scale hydrogen production with an "almost free" source of energy? 

All 3 South Korean car companies have virtually dropped battery cars in favor of hydrogen fuel cell designs. There is a fairly extensive "Hydrogen Hiway" already started in Europe. By 2025, if the dreams come true, hydrogen fueled electric vehicles will surpass production of battery vehicles. And with a LOT of enviro advantages over grid charged batteries, their toxic waste stream and the "dirtyness" of the power that they are charged from. No major need for a 40% increase in electrical grid capacity to support electric cars. The list of enviro and economic wins is very long.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Why does one industry get support and not the other?



That's the $Bill question. With the government picking winners and losers, you get a lot more losers. And then there is the collusion factor (see every company Elon Musk owns that lives off govt teats) --- and the exclusion factor when the govt picks ONE DESIGN and makes it so cheap with subsidies that other BETTER ideas just die. 

Shouldn't be govt funding ANY mature technologies that you can buy on the open market. Only BASIC and targeted research open to ALL ideas and concepts.


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Dec 11, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > If the nation and the research had be intensified we might by now be able to fill your car with distilled water. Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled.
> ...



Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance as you obviously were unable to read and understand my post. I am truly sorry the education system failed you.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled. No population and fill your tank with distilled water.
> ...




NASA wants to create fuel on the moon to help get to Mars.

“You take the ice, you melt it into water, then you crack it into hydrogen and oxygen, and that represents life support from an oxygen perspective. You can breathe it. It also represents propulsion and power,” Bridenstine said.

“Hydrogen and oxygen, that’s the same fuel that powered the space shuttle. And that gives us opportunities to ultimately create power sources and propulsion on the surface of other worlds.”

NASA Wants Space Fuel Station Around Moon


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Dec 11, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> > Pass the distilled water through a separator to separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen then inject the hydrogen into the drive process and fire it with the oxygen then cool the exhaust back into and condense it back into the reservoir to be recycled. No population and fill your tank with distilled water.
> ...




*Look people at the point you are centered on I was talking about future research we were envisioning if the Oil Companies and Government would funnel the needed funds into research. The possible eventualities we might achieve NOT what had been achieved only envisioned. Sometimes you have to envision future possible break throughs. We may never get that far and then we may but we will never know unless we try. There are many theoretical possibilities of fuels even magnetic propulsion drive. We will only know their feasibility when we experiment with them and that takes commitment and funds for research.*


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

Paparock said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Paparock said:
> ...




Banned!  Only mods can write their posts in red.


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Dec 11, 2018)

Lewdog said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Paparock said:
> ...



It's an idea many of us studying both chemistry and physics have been toying with my whole generation however many just don't get it.


----------



## Deleted member 61768 (Dec 11, 2018)

*Oh, well Lewdog, as I never saw that anywhere. I'm glad you find that so funny. If, I am banned then just delete me form this forum.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2018)

Lewdog said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Paparock said:
> ...



Since there's a dark and a bright side to the moon -- that MIGHT work out if the "factory" is solar run on "sunny side".  But without extreme LUCK -- all the H2O is likely on the "dark side" of the moon. 

(Yeah it's sarcastic, but in fact, mining water on the moon isn't likely to make it our "interstellar gas station". )

Reality is -- polar regions of the moon are not well lit enough to support hydrogen/oxygen factories there. The material would have to be MOVED from the poles to a more "solar energy friendly" refinery location. So it's NOT CHEAP or simple to make LARGE quantities that way.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2018)

Paparock said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Paparock said:
> ...



It's a great idea. And there is a LOT of R&D going on. I personally think a Hydrogen fuel economy IS the 21st century energy revolution.  But it's not a matter of GOVT funding. There are hundreds of mega and medium size companies already on the case. Just go look up "hydrogen charging stations" on Bing. Or new model hydrogen/electric vehicles. 

It's HAPPENING man. Just was taking issue with where the FUEL gets made.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Well the problem is, they can only have so much fuel on board in order for the ships to be light enough to fight off gravity and make it into space.  By that time however, they won't have enough fuel to make it to Mars.  There is a fine line between the amount of fuel it takes to fight off gravity, but not too much to make the ship too heavy and not be able to make it.  I think China is actually sending a vehicle to the dark side to see what is there.

China launches probe to explore dark side of Moon - Xinhua


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2018)

Lewdog said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...



Backside moon has been thoroughly mapped and probed going back 40 years to the Russians. Same "nothing there" as on the front side. Just different scenery..    Moving ice from the poles to "refine hydrogen" in the sunshine is a BIG trip in itself. Good thing the weather's always nice and predictable.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




I think building a base on the moon would be pretty useful.  I'm just not sure if it is against the space treaty they have that nations can not create bases that might be considered defense systems.  Would it be considered in the same breath that nations are not supposed to make satellite killers either, but we know they have.


----------



## Freiheit (Dec 11, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > I saw my first hydrogen car demonstration about 25 years ago. The engineer giving the demo fired up the hydrogen fueled engine and some liquid started dripping out of the exhaust pipe. He reached down with a glass, let it fill for a bit and then he drank it! I was floored. Why are we not using this as fuel?
> ...


Here we go again another ignorant fool who thinks he can make words mean what he wants.
The Merriam Webster definition of Fascism:
*Definition of fascism *
1 often capitalized *: *a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2 *: *a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality

There has been one fascist government the Italian after WW1 until the mid 1940s.  Fascism has been adopted as the lefts boogey man.  Be afraid be very afraid.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 11, 2018)

Paparock said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Paparock said:
> ...


I'm not sure there is ignorance involved here.

Many posters on this site know exactly what they are talking about.

They seem to have a targeted agenda.  From the writing?  I sense an agenda.

OTH, you might be right, it COULD be ignorance.  It would be instructive for us to view his posts in the climate change threads to be positive.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 11, 2018)

Freiheit said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...




I was talking about the economic characteristics of a fascist nation.  Of course there are also other defining characteristics we could point out.  There are political, cultural, and military characteristics too.

Hitler asked, why nationalize a people when you can nationalize the state.  THAT is what I am talking about.

It is corporatism, putting the economy into service of the agenda of the elites, the creation of an uncontrollable, unaccountable DEEP STATE.

I guess Mussolini HE is "_another ignorant fool who thinks he can make words mean what he wants_."  I'm just repeating what that famous fascist once said.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 11, 2018)

Paparock said:


> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance as you obviously were unable to read and understand my post. I am truly sorry the education system failed you.



  Says someone who very obviously lacks an understanding of basic physics.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 11, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Fuel from Water - KeelyNet 01/09/02



  It's nonsense, of course.  The scheme at that link presumes that an internal combustion engine can provide the energy to electrolyze water, to produce fuel for itself, and have enough left over to propel a vehicle.  Anyone with even the most basic grasp of the relevant sciences can see that it wouldn't work.  It takes more energy to electrolyze water than you can get back by burning the hydrogen thus produced.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Fuel from Water - KeelyNet 01/09/02
> ...




It might not even matter... NASA has supposedly developed a REAL warp engine similar to what Ray Bradburry invented in Star Trek.  

Engage warp drive! Nasa reveals latest designs for a Star Trek-style spacecraft that could make interstellar travel a reality | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 11, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Since there's a dark and a bright side to the moon -- that MIGHT work out if the "factory" is solar run on "sunny side".  But without extreme LUCK -- all the H2O is likely on the "dark side" of the moon.
> 
> (Yeah it's sarcastic, but in fact, mining water on the moon isn't likely to make it our "interstellar gas station". )



  Not sure which parts you intended as sarcasm, but you do know, don't you, that the Moon does not have a dark side and a light side?  Every part of it goes through a day/night cycle, just as Earth does, albeit much more slowly, since it's tidally-locked to the Earth.

  In any event, an important bottom line, completely missed by the OP, is that water does not contain energy that can be released chemically.  You can break water into hydrogen and oxygen, which can be burned to produce energy, but to do that, you have to put more energy into breaking the water apart than you will get back by burning the hydrogen and oxygen.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Since there's a dark and a bright side to the moon -- that MIGHT work out if the "factory" is solar run on "sunny side".  But without extreme LUCK -- all the H2O is likely on the "dark side" of the moon.
> ...



There is a side of the moon that ALWAYS faces away from Earth.

55 Year Old Mystery About The Dark Side Of The Moon Solved


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 11, 2018)

Lewdog said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure which parts you intended as sarcasm, but you do know, don't you, that the Moon does not have a dark side and a light side?  Every part of it goes through a day/night cycle, just as Earth does, albeit much more slowly, since it's tidally-locked to the Earth.
> ...



  Yes, but that's not a dark side.  The idea that there is a dark side of the Mojon is based on the misconception that there is a side that always faces away from the Sun.  There is not.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...




The idea of the "dark side of the moon," is based on the side that always faces away from Earth not the sun.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 11, 2018)

Lewdog said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...


It would not surprise me to find out that the government keeps a lot of tech. secret from the public.


The public thinks that the press keeps them informed and the technical community believe they have the latest state of the art information, but I don't believe this is necessarily the case.  We have precedence for the government keeping tech. secrets for long stretches of time. They do this for national security reasons, economic development reason, or a host of any other reasons.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...



Yep, the U.S. had rail guns long before the public found out about them.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 11, 2018)

Lewdog said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...



The story of the Stealth Bomber is fascinating.

From what I hear, they STILL won't let folks anywhere near it.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 11, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Yep, and the U.S. also kept the SR-71 very secretive as well.


----------



## evenflow1969 (Dec 11, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Paparock said:
> ...


We have been pounding our reps for years to use excess electric during non peak hours to separate hydrogen from water currently that excess just goes to waist. I know a group of retired Rockwell engineers that spend nearly all of their time working on better hydrogen extraction methods and hydrogen fuel cell motors. People are working on it. The thing is we may not need to. We have recently made some large scientific strides. We have recently had fusion of nuclear material with significantly more energy coming out than going in on a model scale. They do not think there are any issues on scaling but that is one of those things you truly do not know until trying. Also we have made major strides in quantum entanglement. The whole spooky action at a distance thing. They radiated an atom in the US and it's entangled atom in Europe immediately was also radiated. This leads to the possibility of not having to have the fuel on the vehicle and there by not having to move the weight of that fuel. Add in the fact that we are currently making solid material that is lighter than air, all of these advances make moving weight from one point to another a great deal less energy intensive.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 11, 2018)

Lewdog said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Anti-gravity and the TR-3b.


----------

