The only alternative to oil is human stupidity.
Who Needs oil
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Of which you have a plentiful supply.
now you bringing in a word 'traditional'............. ?
wow you must be younger that i thought
as cheap as a propane tank for your barbeque
big words for a kid who is really unaware of real life
or better still, when the community accepts the truth, then you will, right?
sheep say 'baaaaaaaaa' too
men/women get off their butts and 'think' about making a difference, while they have a chance
and a few succeed
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
You're the sheep if you believe the smoke and mirrors dished out by the media, the illusion that this society will continue relatively unabated using hydrogen or something. We are more likely to go to the horse and carriage.
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
Thank you Captain Obvious...
DwayneD.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
Well, Entering the topic just now, I would say that it becomes key or central to the future of society,and to human existance that the general world population become familure with the use of hydrogen. Given hydrogens importance i would suggest that most combustion driven engines should be engineered to operate on hydrogen, including lawnmowers, weedeaters, automoblies ect... unitll the hydrogen designed products dominate the market world wide. Such a effort would provide a public knowledge of the use of hydrogen. givening the world population the essential familarity and skill with a material that is central to human life.
Not only is hydrogen a bundant resource and useful in propellant but it also is a element that controlls the human biology. The future demands the use of hydrogen in space,exspecially when we find the mass population traveling within the space of our solar system, in other words if the common family is ever to periodically vist space their survial depends on the atomic element hydrogen. Even in the event of a world disaster evacuating the human population from earth surface is dependant on hydrogen.
hydrogen is not a growing stage in society that we can just pass by, the development and conversion to the use of hydroigen will have to be met, for goverments and buissness to prolong the change places human life on our planet at risk, (but not because of enviromental reasons such as exahust emmissions ect..) the sure lack of understanding and development of hydrogen use will leave the general population helpless in the future.
I have heard there have been arguments about mainly the compression of hydrogen when for storgae as a fuel and the weak cylinder compression, Neither of these is a problem if nitrogen is used. nitrogen has the best exspansion to thermal energy ration of all the gases, so really you could design a engine even that runs on nitrogen given is exspansion. so it really starts to look fuuny because the air we breath is some 73 % nitrogen.
108 x10^3 cm. per. cm. per degree Celius, the expansion ratio for nitrogen.
Nitrogen can also be used to cool hydrogen for storage.
Just a few notes to look at...
Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Not only is hydrogen a bundant resource and useful in propellant but it also is a element that controlls the human biology. The future demands the use of hydrogen in space,exspecially when we find the mass population traveling within the space of our solar system, in other words if the common family is ever to periodically vist space their survial depends on the atomic element hydrogen. Even in the event of a world disaster evacuating the human population from earth surface is dependant on hydrogen.
hydrogen is not a growing stage in society that we can just pass by, the development and conversion to the use of hydroigen will have to be met, for goverments and buissness to prolong the change places human life on our planet at risk, (but not because of enviromental reasons such as exahust emmissions ect..) the sure lack of understanding and development of hydrogen use will leave the general population helpless in the future.
I have heard there have been arguments about mainly the compression of hydrogen when for storgae as a fuel and the weak cylinder compression, Neither of these is a problem if nitrogen is used. nitrogen has the best exspansion to thermal energy ration of all the gases, so really you could design a engine even that runs on nitrogen given is exspansion. so it really starts to look fuuny because the air we breath is some 73 % nitrogen.
108 x10^3 cm. per. cm. per degree Celius, the expansion ratio for nitrogen.
Nitrogen can also be used to cool hydrogen for storage.
Just a few notes to look at...
Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Hello Dwayne,
thanks for being a thinking type?
beginning to believe this site had few with any ability to reason.
scary part is many of these folk are kids and youngsters basically assimilated to the ignorance of their parents.
many do not realize, if 'we the people' do not stand up with minds to think; we will be like Gaza in which we are controlled by the power of authority rather than the might of 'we the people.'
there are solutions, but many have become like religious followers; believing that we are simply incapable of being aware. That what ever the business and political community tells us, must be correct. I am thinking maybe people believe them leaders are closer to god or something..
For those those who don't know (which is probably everyone but this retard) the vast, vast majority of scientists agree that most oil comes from dead plants and animals. Obviously this genius - who I assume doesn't even have a geology degree - has decided differently.
But hey, we have plenty of relativity deniers who don't know anything about physics and evolution deniers who don't know anything about biology, so why not fossil fuel deniers who don't know anything about geology?
Edit:
For anyone who is interested in reading what actual scientists think, here is a very thorough article explaining why the abiogenic oil theory is bullshit:
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
I'm not a kid, I'm 37, and my father is a scientist who gives lectures to Al Gore on technology and energy. Hydrogen can be used like a battery to store energy, but it still begs the question, where does this energy come from? Nothing we have now can crack H at the scale we need to run our industrial society as we know it.
then if you are that close to thinking folk who do not accept current beliefs and ideas, it would seem you would not be so ignorant with the material you have access too.
tell your pop, 'entropy is abused by living structures' and watch him blow a fuse.
point being, then you could be right for a change
Al Gore needs to first focus on preschool level material before he'll be able to grasp scientific lectures.
"There has not been any 'debate' about the origin of hydrocarbons for over a century. Competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological material since the last quarter of the 19th century." -- Jack F. Kenney, 2002
"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." -- Fred Hoyle, 1982
It's not me who has decided. It's every intelligent geologist from Von Humboldt (1804) to Plotnikova (2008).
The denyers are people who say petroleum miraculously and magically evolves in the earth's crust.
"The human mind is a lot like the human egg, and the human egg has a shut-off device. When one sperm gets in, it shuts down so the next one can't get in. The human mind has a big tendency of the same sort. And here again, it doesn't just catch ordinary mortals; it catches the deans of physics. According to Max Planck, the really innovative, important new physics was never really accepted by the old guard. Instead a new guard came along that was less brain-blocked by its previous conclusions. And if Max Planck's crowd had this consistency and commitment tendency that kept their old conclusions intact in spite of disconfirming evidence, you can imagine what the crowd that you and I are part of behaves like." -- Charlie Munger, 1995
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full
Read it and weep...:bawl:
Glasby is an idiot. Abiogenic theory does NOT say that petroleum is formed in the earth's crust. Abiogenic theory says petroleum is formed in the mantle.
Last edited:
Yeah, there are a tiny handful of scientists who believe in abiogenic oil generation, but as I said, the VAST majority of geologists and geochemists disagree. You can find a tiny handful of people who will believe virtually anything. There are a few idiots with PhDs in biology who write books about how evolution is a lie and all life was created by magic in seven days, but that doesn't mean it's an idea that's supported by science.
No, the deniers are people who selectively get their information only from nut-job web pages that quote the tiny handful of scientists who are contradicted by 99.99% of their colleagues, rather than looking at the consensus among geologists and geochemists. Try reading actual scientific journals some time instead of your sad little crackpot web pages. You will find roughly a billion articles supporting biogenesis for every one that supports abiogenesis. I'm sure that if you collect all the articles on abiogenesis into a few web pages it might look impressive, but you would have to selectively ignore a huge mountain of contradictory analysis to take it seriously.
Last edited:
Tiny handful? Try thousands.
Link? The vast majority of scientists thought Galileo and Planck were crazy. The vast majority of geologists also believed in uniformitarianism and rejected Wegener's continental drift. Appeal to the majority is a basic fallacy.
Biogenic petroleum origin is a perfect example of this.
DNA prevents evolution.
Oh you mean like the National Academy of Sciences?
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/39/14023.full
Read it and weep...:bawl:
That's funny I haven't even been able to find one.
http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/
You mean like how you selectively ignore abiotic oil sceince and the mountain of biogenic contradiction?
"Even though the biogenic origin theory leads to many inconsistencies, it is nevertheless now impossible in the Western world to conduct any research in petroleum geology that implies a questioning of this accepted position." -- Thomas Gold, 1999
What the hell does that mean? Living things follow the laws of thermodynamics and entropy just like anything else.
Oh, this is just too good - you're also a creationist. Heh, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised.
It's obvious that you have already made up your tiny little mind and are simply looking to argue. If you want to believe outlandish bullshit, by all means knock yourself out. It's not my job to educate you, especially when you clearly aren't interested in actually learning anything.
How does saying DNA prevents evolution mean I'm a creationist? This ought to be good.
Nice job ignoring the rest of the post though.
Nice job ignoring the rest of the post though.
Here's another "sad little crackpot" web page for you: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v198/n4882/abs/198728a0.html
The vast majority of people who don't believe in evolution also believe in creationism. I was simply playing the odds. Was I wrong?
As I said, it's clear that you have already made up your mind and are simply looking to argue. I'm not going to force you to learn anything if you don't want to.