1985-1998 [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main 9000 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Yep. Posted by vtsnaab [Email]  (#26)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from vtsnaab) on Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:43:37
In Reply to: To be as reasonable as possible, Ari  [Profile/Gallery]
, Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:54:03
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
|
I wish I had $1 for each time I've heard/read that same exact stuff; it'd
be time for a very nice dinner someplace by now...
So - here we go again with the 'laws of physics' lecture that can be taped
and repeated word for word by almost anyone 'educated' in this country.
It seems perfectly logical, reasonable and intelligent - doesn't it ?
On the surface I agree - but I also see a HUGE problem with this whole
->accepted<- view of science and "proof".
Here's what I mean by that:
Approach any small child over about grade 3, any average grown adult, and
finally a well-read senior citizen and ask them all the same questions:
'Does gasoline burn ?'
They'll all say some variation of 'yes' (and maybe look at you funny or
expect a joke...) and maybe add the silliness about getting a lit match
into a bucket of it, etc., etc..
Now ask: 'Does anything special needs to be done to GET it to burn ?'
The replies will generally be a simple 'no'.
Moving along, assuming you can keep their attention - ask: 'What sort of
things will catch fire and actually burn ?'
Now they'll really think you're nuts and all sorts of answers will follow
paper, gasoline, sticks, witches, and so forth - but they'll almost to a
one miss/ignore/fail to mention or not even know the critical FACT:
ONLY vapors/gasses can ignite directly.
Liquids do not per se' -burn-, neither do solids.
This is why vehicles need to do so much to 'burn' liquid fuels and have
so much unburned stuff leaving engines as we ALL know. Right ?
Many folks have successfully made systems that take advantage of this 100%
solid, proven, factual data - yet they are not on vehicles we're likely
to see or know about and the inventors are oddly...silent when there are
any to be found.
Fuel vaporizers are real, operate according to the stated 'laws' and are
a very good idea IMO - but where are they ? Dunno, right ?
In other countries the GEET is already being used on vehicles with great
success - but not in the US - and it more or less offends these same
naysayers, it is harder to explain at all though, so people like Mr.
Meyers are remembered while not being understood - while nobody has any
idea why his well-documented success vanished and he ended up dead.
Conspiracy ? Nah. It's too obvious for that nasty label and the hour is
too late.
All I mean is that NOT EVERYTHING there is to know is known and not all
that can be done has/is/or will be done - so there is room for vast
improvement, if only we could positively get past the naysayers and do
the work that is needed to make NEW things see the light of days.
But adding a Brown's Gas system to a 9000 or any highly electronic car
is not a good idea just because they weren't made for that and they are
too good and valuable just as they are.
There. Now hit me with all those 'scientific laws' - I've been ready for
many years now.
Best Wishes,
mark
, Sat, 1 Aug 2009 08:51:41, Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:23:13, Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:54:03, Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:43:37 <-- Viewing This Message, Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:25:28
, Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:01:23, Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:05:56, Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:02:41
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
