tf4624,
Please learn to use the quote feature correctly ... to put your comments inside of a quote credited to me ... is the very definition of you putting words in someone elses mouth ... in this case mine ... I did not write those things... and it is deceptive , and disingenuous the way you did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
I never said IT WAS new.. again stop putting words in people mouths
|
You have mis-read / mis-understood again.
I never put words in your mouth ... I never claimed you were claiming it was new ... read the post more carefully.
You on the other hand are directly putting words in my mouth when you credit your comments as a quote from me.
And here you are again putting words in my mouth ... when I never made any such claim about you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
These companies won't make it and have no intentions to cause of vested interest in the oil companies.. It is possible to do so.
|
I never said it wasn't possible to get over 40% efficient ... I wrote all of your examples are under 40% efficient.
And I wrote I have seen ICEs slightly above 50% efficient.
However there are real world limits ... to move a ~20 MPG ~30% efficient ICE all the way up to 100% efficiency will still not get you past 67 MPG , from the same vehicle driven the same context that got it 20 MPG.
And you will never get 100% efficiency ... the real world has things like friction... etc.
You can suggest all the conspiracies you like ... at the end of the day ... I will still say ... what is the proof? ... give me the 'techy'... bring it.
If you have no proof ... if you have no 'techy' ... if you don't understand how it works ... than your claims have no support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
Again, they build it for less efficiency then they want as they have vested interest in the oil companies.
|
Your conspiracy theories do not count as proof ... or even remotely as 'techy' ... if you have either ... bring it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
Congrates, you can read a book.. since when is what you read ever 100 percent correct.
|
Despite your tone ... you have again mis-read / mis-understood ... It is not about what a book or a person claims ... it is the 'techy', it is the data, it is the complete description of how they determined what they determined.
When they provide this ... anyone can go out and re-create the experiment ... and there have been times when people have done this and got different answers ... and different results.
The results are not scientifically accepted until they are confirmed to be repeatable by 3rd parties.
I can and I have confirmed some things on my own.
They give and offer the 'techy' ... and the data ... and complete descriptions on how they got the data they did.
You still have not offered any of these ... so I still say ... if you got the 'techy' ... bring it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
I'm not missing to much since you seem not to read what I wrote
|
I did read what you wrote ... so that is incorrect.
You are missing several things over and over again ... I have only pointed out a few of the mistakes you have been making in your mis-reading, or mis-understanding.
If you think I have mis-understood some part of your 300% efficiency fuel cell claims ... please clarify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
Yeah congrates you can copy past
Oh i read what you pasted.. doesn't interest me.
|
Do you mean paste? ... or are you referring to the past?
You are incorrect ... it was not a copy and paste post.
Ok so you are not interested.... and? , doesn't matter ... it is what the original poster asked about ... and it is on topic for this thread... the thread is not about you or what interests you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
Claims of the possibilies are what you make them its your choice.
|
I agree... and right now you only got claims and your opinion with nothing to back it up... if you got the 'techy' ... bring it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IamIan
When he wrote about , 'positive energy balance' , he was referring to your claim of 300% efficiency.
|
Yes there is one and no it doesn't exist anymore for now.. Some have come close maybe. |
Notice how I separated my quote of what I actually wrote from what you wrote... try it yourself.
Which is exactly what was posted ... no one was putting words in your mouth ... you were incorrect and mis-understood when you incorrectly thought someone was putting words in your mouth ... you on the other hand are putting words in my mouth.
Friendly tip ... I think your mis-use of the tense confuses your point.
If it does not currently exist right now in the present ... than is it incorrect to say 'there is one' ... if there was one in the past... but it no longer exists today ... it would be clearer for you to write this as ... there was one.
Ok so you are making another claim ... what 'techy' do you have or proof do you have to support that there was one?... what can I independently verify?... just like I can and have gone out and tested energy densities , and some fuel cells... describe it in detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tf4624
You will get it soon enough.. but not yet.. seeing where you guy go with this one.
|
bring it.