View Single Post
Old 11-29-2010, 08:45 AM   #30 (permalink)
user removed
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
Originally Posted by dcb View Post
I listened It's well past time to stop thinking and start verifying though.

and 60%?!? you know that's too good to be true, like electricity, hydrogen is not a "primary fuel", and the books have been cooked in the 60% example certainly.
LOL I agree it's well past time, could have been done 50 years ago .

What I know is you may have read the information but you, like the opponents of the first flying machines, have adopted the "doubting Thomas" attitude, in that you will believe it when the evidence is overwhelming and you can no longer doubt the evidence.

I would be wary of making statements like "you know that's too good to be true" because when it becomes fact, your attitude will be in the majority of those who promoted failure. It's a safe majority position when it's convenient and when the time comes when the combination of developments show your position to be mistaken this conversation will be long forgotten.

Is it really necessary to have an agenda that includes statements that basically allude to me being a purveyor of things false, when the same time could be better spent trying to understand that it is possible.

But then I guess we should keep spending billions on the dream battery that will replace the iC engine and predicting the valhalla of batteries is just around the next corner in development. Been listening to that for many decades as well.

In any pursuit with the goal of energy independence, the effort should never be confined to a single pathway to success. In the Manhattan project they built two different bombs, and even on the day before the first successful test, there were those who believed we would ignite the atmosphere itself and incinerate the whole planet.

So try to remember this in another decade, when the 60% level is no longer unattainable.

Like the conversation between Abraham and God, are you still going to be saying "I told you so and you are a charlatan" if the efficiency is 47% (already done) or 53%. Maybe 57% or even 59%. Will you still be convinced it is not possible? I guess your safe position will only be shown to be short sighted when it actulaly surpasses 60%, but of course then you could argue the method of testing or the integrity of the testing institution.

And while you are nah nahing into irrelevance, please refrain from trying to tell me how to get the job done, since you are not even trying.

  Reply With Quote