PeteMorris Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 I can't believe folks are still flogging this dead horse. I know it's a damp day but it was a sunny weekend. Why is it flogging a dead horse? It's yours, and all of us's future. If it were flogging a dead hose, as I said earlier, we might as well be still living in caves! The fact is that, if the only alternative is electric cars (cos they're more efficient), that's not going to happen. There are millions of cars on the road. Are we all going to abandon them in favour of electric? I think not in the short term. Manufacture of 'synthetic' petrol isn't the complete answer, I know. But in view of the fact that there are so many motor vehicles that rely on it, it makes sense to explore the possibilities. Despite those who know everything dismissing it out of hand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 There are millions of cars on the road. Are we all going to abandon them in favour of electric? Where have all the Ford Sierras gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidgeon Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It would be better spending the money developing room temperature superconductors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It would be better spending the money developing room temperature superconductors. A team in Germany may have already solved that problem. http://www.nature.com/news/tantalizing-hints-of-room-temperature-superconductivity-1.11443 Room Temperature Superconductivity Found in Graphite Grains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 A team in Germany may have already solved that problem. http://www.nature.com/news/tantalizing-hints-of-room-temperature-superconductivity-1.11443 Room Temperature Superconductivity Found in Graphite Grains Not exactly the results, although tentative, merit further scrutiny. Esquinazi concedes that his evidence is “tantalizing” rather than watertight. For one thing, his group has not been able to show that its samples actually conduct electricity with zero resistance. The researchers tried to do this by compressing the soaked powder into pellets to force the grains into electrical contact, but found that this caused the superconducting effect to disappear. It would be a massive step forward though if this could be made to work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Why is it flogging a dead horse? It's yours, and all of us's future. If it were flogging a dead hose, as I said earlier, we might as well be still living in caves! The fact is that, if the only alternative is electric cars (cos they're more efficient), that's not going to happen. There are millions of cars on the road. Are we all going to abandon them in favour of electric? I think not in the short term. Manufacture of 'synthetic' petrol isn't the complete answer, I know. But in view of the fact that there are so many motor vehicles that rely on it, it makes sense to explore the possibilities. Despite those who know everything dismissing it out of hand! This is one of three possible ways that personal transport might go in the short term, the others being hydrogen (which is basically the same as this idea but using a different storage form) or battery (which cuts out the intermediary step, but has other practical problems to overcome). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Yes I do try to post interesting threads which trigger sensible debate and thought. But I didn't claim from the outset that creating petrol from fresh air was financially viable or efficient. Yet 'those who know better' choose to make personal assaults in regard to my intelligence, and lack of understanding of the science behind it. I'd much rather be labelled elitist than a pratt, wouldn't you?...Is it any wonder I get annoyed? And ten pages later you are still banging on about it... You accused me of shilling for the oil companies. You then accused me of being a sodding knowit all, then a sodding smart acle, and then implied my lack of open mindedness... None of the responses I made to you saying why it wouldn't work were a persona assualt on you. They may have been against the ideas, but that is not an attack on you which is something you seem unable to grasp. Now I've asked before, what part of the science is causing you problems? I'm happy to explain it if you remain civil but I fear this will descend into another tedious slanging match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I'll to you, as I pass you by in the slow lane! I don't know why you are so completely negative about the idea! Do you work for an oil company? He has expalined to you why the idea is'nt a good one, that doesn't make him negative, if it is how he says then it sounds like a pretty pointless idea as they have to create the energy they use in the first place which must cause harmful gasses in our atmosphere so are they really taking the co2 out or just using it a different way ? just because someone doesn't agree with you pete it doesn't make them negative or mean that they are wrong, how much do you know about it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Yes I do try to post interesting threads which trigger sensible debate and thought. But I didn't claim from the outset that creating petrol from fresh air was financially viable or efficient. Yet 'those who know better' choose to make personal assaults in regard to my intelligence, and lack of understanding of the science behind it. I'd much rather be labelled elitist than a pratt, wouldn't you?...Is it any wonder I get annoyed? Obelix consistently declines to quote where I actually insulted him prior to him calling me a pratt, and refers to me 'reading it again'. That's because there isn't actually an example of me doing what he claims. Evidently the company developing this process havn't solved any of the fundamental efficiency and cost inplications as yet. I concede that. There is a well known saying that claims 'necessity is the mother of invention'..we shall see. There are many examples of potential inventions being ridiculed and derided, that have subsequently made their way into everyday life!..Or is the earth still flat? But you dont debate or think once someone says something you dont like you instantly call them negative or make out like it's some kind of conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 And ten pages later you are still banging on about it... You accused me of shilling for the oil companies. You then accused me of being a sodding knowit all, then a sodding smart acle, and then implied my lack of open mindedness... None of the responses I made to you saying why it wouldn't work were a persona assualt on you. They may have been against the ideas, but that is not an attack on you which is something you seem unable to grasp. Now I've asked before, what part of the science is causing you problems? I'm happy to explain it if you remain civil but I fear this will descend into another tedious slanging match. yes he either chucks the toys out of the pram, or just leaves the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.