Most people use more than one sentence in a paragraph. Your post averages 1.2 sentences per paragraph. Anyway, You tell me where the air comes from and I'll tell you why the following isn’t true.
So your best contribution is to focus upon my writing style and to ignorantly try to refute a report and other accounts which you clearly have not read? Stop wasting my time.
I read the report. They had some nice graphics. Here was my favorite statement, "Mileage presents no problem - the volume and pressure of air in the car can be increased considerably. (by changing the tank size or the air pressure)." So again, waste my time and answer where the air comes from and I'll tell you why you were wrong when you said, "produces as exhaust cleaner air than that which goes into it." Frankly I think you feel no responsibility for what you do and say. With you, it's all about me, me, me. You're as selfish about your opinion as you accuse the rest of the world being about money. Again, answer the question and I'll know you have enough understanding to understand my point. Until then, you are talking to yourself.
While I now have seen this car - and have gotten to know the newest competitors for the license - I haven't met you, but I know, without having met you, that your a liar, ignorant in the extreme, or simply a proponent of chaos...maybe - likely - all three. You haven't read the website at all. Or you don't understand it. I'll keep things simple for you: http://www.motormdi.com/stern3.mpg I asked you not to waste my time; now, I'll ensure you cannot. Bye.
AM, you should know by now that Mel doesn't know what a polytropic expansion is. For Mel, entropy what scrambles his thoughts as they get put into words. Am I correct in my reading of this "technology" that they fill compressed air tanks and then use it to drive pistons in an engine? If so then this is a scam, the only trick is that they seem to reheat the air, since the air cools considerably in the expansion. And the compressed air will necessarily be clean, because any humidity or CO2 will condense and screw things up when the air expands and cools. They left out the larger part of the energy equation - the polytropic compression of the air before you fill the tanks. I wonder why they forgot to mention that? This is an excellent technology for investment of Mel's funds he might otherwise waste on further education.
I was going to convert my car tu run on air, but I couldn't get enough balloons to stick to it, and then there was the problem of letting the ends loose all at once to get that "whoosh" to make it go. Other than that, I'm all for the "air car". In fact, it has inspired me to go back to work on my perpetual motion machine and renew my quest for the Holy Grail. After that I'm going to publish my 5 part "Interview with Bigfoot" before I jump in my time machine to stop JFK from getting into that Limo.
Party pooper. I think I'm going to invent the air powered wrench. It's power will come from a tank of compressed air (or as Mel's link calls it "Reserva de Aire"). The air comming out of my air powered wrench will be cleaner than urban air as I will use a long, long hose to grab country air. I will breath this country air and be healthy. The country folk can go to hell, breathing the exhast from my air compressor. To heck with them I say. They probably voted for Bush anyway.
there will be an air car one day, won't there? it's almost impossible to imagine the future without one, isn't it? or am i your typical plain-ol' fashioned dreamer?
There's several air cars right now; they work, and work, well...I'll place my mom and my children on that. The argument many have is that is takes the same amount of energy (and thu,s they assert, the same amount of pollution) to move a vehicle down the road, whether that energy manifests itself in petrol or in increased pollution from the power plant supplying extra energy to homes charging their pneumatic vehicles. The idiocy of that premise ignores the choices now available to folks who think just a little bit about how they engage the grid, and exhibit just a tiny bit of forethought about how and when they access power. For example, if I attach a generator to this, I'm powering my air car in a way that TREMENDOUSLY reduces pollution. There are only two types of people who would ever advocate against these types of vehicles; the perfect ignorant fool, and the guy feeding his family with the industry springing from fossil fuel. That's it, that's all, that's a wrap.
A 1 KW windmill? At $4,000? Read the fine print Mel. It requires a wind speed of 24.6 mph (10.8 m/s for those of you in Scotland). According to this chart there isn’t a single square inch of land in the US that averages that wind speed. So, on average, you’ve bought yourself a really tall and bad lawn ornament for $4,000. (I do like how they call it “moving sculpture.” That’s a nice touch.) Then again I might be an agent of chaos feeding my family through the use of fossil fuels so you'd better check my math. (BTW - You should probably get two windmills as most houses use more than 1 kW)
I said that I would use it to solely power my air car, not my house, swifty. If the air car costs $12-15,000, and the power source costs 4,000, that's still less than my first car. You keep shilling for GlobalPetrolCorp. though. Maybe, one day, they'll give you everything you deserve for your commitment and loyalty. ......... Now, for the rest of us, back to this idea that it quite simply is time...time to reconsider....well, everything that currently constitutes the American Experiment. Take fast food, for example. My wife and I have been talking for a long time about the idea of opening up a perfectly healthy organic fast food restaurant/drive-thru. What about the idea of getting incredibly healthy, incredibly tasty food quickly? I've heard that there is something like this, but not quite, in California? Who does that form of business (partnership and proprietorship based, never corporate, never hiding away from liability and community responsibility, never legally empowering the entity to do whatever it takes, including the trampling of community, to make money) empower (read Fast Food nation before you answer this one), as opposed to the current form? How might we reconsider the very notion of drive-thru, of fast food, of the way we eat (i.e., it's better for humans to have 5-7 smaller meals a day...shouldn't work be structured around that truth..)?
Gah! There isn't enough energy from a $4,000 windmill to power your car! Physics doesn't like you or hate you Mel. It just is. You can't make informed decisions until you educate yourself. You put far too much emphasis on your own feelings and far too little on nature. You need to come to appreciate God's creation (Which includes the second law of thermo) over your own self-sanctity. I'm trying to figure out why you continue down this road. I'm going to have to read Don Quiote again.
Dude, your position on pneumatic vehicles and on wind energy is heard and understood. My personal experience, my personal observations, refute everythig you've said and frankly make you sound more and more stupid with every post, but you've certainly made yourself clear, and made everyone understand that to which you are committed. Great, thanks. Move on. This thread is about talking effectively about alternatives to everything posited in front of us in the American way of being in the world right now.
Everything? No. Sorry but human thought and logic doesn't make us question everything. The only people who want to question everything are those that don't want to beleive anything. So why is it Mel that you don't want to beleive anything? Why is the world outside of your thoughts of such little value to you? I find, rather than trying to question everything, that I should try to understand. It's a more honest and less egotistical way of living.
It's all good; go start the "Try to, in Honesty and Lack of Egoism, Understand Why we 'Choose' the Systems We Have 'Chosen'" thread. That's not this one. This one takes a look at, well, everything, and asks, rightly, what are the alternatives, why are they, from whom are they, and what are the comparative advantages and disadvantages? This is the last ime I'll engage you here, but, again, I know YOU are not interested in that; I know you whoever you are and for whatever reason, demand an embrace of the status quo, or of whatever the current powers that be place in front of you for consumption. I get that. I understand that's who you strive to be, and that's the position you propagate to others. Easy. Simple. Just not this thread. GO start your own; although I think that Archer's forum is pretty much tantamount to the same thing. Go. Enjoy. We're done. ... Now, again, for the rest of us interested in examining this thing: ...quite simply is time...time to reconsider....well, everything that currently constitutes the American Experiment. Take fast food, for example. My wife and I have been talking for a long time about the idea of opening up a perfectly healthy organic fast food restaurant/drive-thru. What about the idea of getting incredibly healthy, incredibly tasty food quickly? I've heard that there is something like this, but not quite, in California? Who does that form of business (partnership and proprietorship based, never corporate, never hiding away from liability and community responsibility, never legally empowering the entity to do whatever it takes, including the trampling of community, to make money) empower (read Fast Food nation before you answer this one), as opposed to the current form? How might we reconsider the very notion of drive-thru, of fast food, of the way we eat (i.e., it's better for humans to have 5-7 smaller meals a day...shouldn't work be structured around that truth..)?
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. Physics may, in fact, hate Mel. There is no current data to support that physics doesn't hate Mel, so I'd say we need to open our minds to the possibility that the laws that govern the universe may have antagonistic feelings towards one member of the human race, specifically Mel.
the problem with this whole thread is that you (and a few others that are far left of the democrats) keep telling us how bad everything in America is in 2004. You have the right to think the U.S. and it's culture are on the verge of collapse, but it's not. No, it isn't perfect and things need to be changed. However, the fundamental principles of this Country are still strong and still great. Mel can say "we" (I assume he means Americans) need to look at the American 'experiment'. Mel, most of the "we" don't agree with you. You speak for a very small minority of people in America. The duopoloy actually works, Mel, that is why Nader will never get more than 5% because people who are happy and doing well in life don't want radical change.....and the people who are happy and well off heavily outnumber the disaffected and disenfranchised. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan are better for the American masses than Nader could ever be.
Congratulations AM, you've just been called stupid by a village idiot. Now you need to go find a post by verybdog and try for the daily double. When you get more advanced, you may get to have Mel question the size of your dick.
Really? http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm Apparently one half of the population now constitutes a “very small minority of people.” Don’t feed me some line about “wrong track” respondents reflecting merely superficial dissatisfaction. The county is fairly evenly split on the propriety of our being at war. It doesn’t get more fundamental than that. Yet BOTh major parities advocate this war. "A schism in our Union... would be an incurable evil, because near friends falling out, never re-unite cordially; whereas, all of us going together, we shall be sure to cure the evils of our new Constitution, before they do great harm." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Donald, 1788. There’s as very basic difference between inviting discussion of change and advocating revolutionary upheaval. Why do you insist that the constitutional baby must be thrown out with the democratic bath water? Your resistance towards the mere discussion of the idea is revealing. I understand the conservative mind-set can be characterized by a need for stability, avoidance of ambiguity, and the resolution of conflict. I don’t mean that as a slam, because as a flaming liberal, I know I posses personality traits conservatives find troublesome. But my hope is that we consciously acknowledge these traits, and others’ perception of those traits, and then act appropriately as circumstances dictate. You assert that those who disagree with you are entirely dissatisfied with every facet of our government, institutions, and culture. On the contrary. The nadir of pessimism is the conclusion you can’t do any better. Get happy. Again, I’ll side with Jefferson. I know that’s a shameless appeal to authority. But it’s a better authority than you can muster and you know it. "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.
"We" would just like to continually and regularly examine the alternatives to that which the corporatized, commercial sectors place in front of us. they've had their turn, in full trust of the people. They've failed to lead us effectively. It's time for a subsuming paradigm; why would you deny that truth? Why won't you enter into the discussion? Are you that same person, down the ages, who argued that everything was fine under King George; that everthing was fine when we had slavery; that everything was fine when children worked unending factory shifts; that everything was fine when women could not vote; that everything was fine when Manifest Destiny enacted Native Genocide; that everything was fine when the battle for a living wage was first launched; that everything was fine when special tests were given only to Southern Blacks to try to keep them from voting; that everything was fine when women who were not ready to give their lives to either birth or child had nowhere to turn; that everything was fine when 20,000 tons of chemical wastes leaked into Love Canal; that everything was fine when the Village was often a scene of gay-bashing violence on Friday nights; that everything is fine when we spend four hundred billion dollars every three hundred and sixty five days on killing platforms, yet cannot feed or clothe or educate or medicate all our poor, and have no vision to do so? I know you, who you are, timelessly; have seen you rattle against change, against expansion via the Process of Possiblity from the genesis of the Experiment, down through these American ages. You're nothing new; you're typical Ted, in only the most typical of ways, and your numbers increase in proportion to the national propagtion of empire. "We" have watched you lead from the back before, sputtering incoherent clamour, the perfect, ignorant "don't rock the boat" while too many are drowning, within and outwith empire. If by "very tiny minority" you are referring, down the ages, to that ever changing, ever manifesting unswayed tiny minority that led abolition, to that tiny minority that led women's suffrage, to that tiny minority that launched tha labor and child labor and education movements in this nation, to that tiny minority that fought and fights for the right of a woman to control her body, to that tiny minority that fought and fights for civil rights, gay and lesbian rights, economic rights, sustainable environmental rights, agricultural rights...well, then you've taken the measure of me correctly; I'd be proud to be lumped in with those marginalised madmen and lost women who fail your frame of reference time and time again. There's nothing to do BUT fail your frame of reference Ted. It itself IS failed. Typically.
F the South. Those stupid Bible-thumping rednecks with their no wind. Their Grandpa didn't have no stinkin' windmill, so of course they never will either. Don't they realize that they are living in a region that goes against their best interests?!