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
I read it all, and 'nope' is what everyone says (long!) Posted by vtsnaab [Email]  (#26)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from vtsnaab) on Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:25:28
In Reply to: Re: Yep. Nope!!! (long), xhawksaab, Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:19:47 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
I guess my posts are just always too long, but since I don't know how
to give just one-word or one-line answers that is a hazard of being me.
(My apologies to anyone who really dislikes reading long posts.)
Thanks Xhawksaab for your dedication to defending people's rights to
their opinions.
Yes - I have looked at the GEET claims, and I am not rushing off to pay
$1500+ to be taught about it even from Mr. Pantone directly.
I do strongly suspect that the info about plasma which posits that it
can only exist at very high temperatures/pressures is misinformation.
Regarding 'transmutation of elements' - I firmly believe that there are
properties of materials other than the ones commonly 'known' that will
be exposed over time allowing uses not yet known or accepted.
However:
"Until someone can show me otherwise, I don't see how the GEET system can achieve the claims they make."
I do not claim to understand it either, but 3 things speak very loudly
to me in favor of this idea having merit:
1 - Fuel system developments have largely stagnated for most of my life;
2 - The man perpetuating the GEET was locked away for years without so
much as a hearing and after hurting not a single person in any way.
3 - Stanley Meyer also supposedly had a huge discovery, which could've
easily been de-bunked if it was fake, but instead he got dead and all
his info and stuff just evaporated...
Thank you:
"As for your claims that we don't know everything, you are absolutely correct."
When I was younger automatic sliding doors were SciFi nuttiness; right
now anti-gravity and energy fields are equally dismissed.
I see those doors daily now - so I look forward to these discoveries !
This is not what I said:
"However, many of your later examples of things like storage on early hard drives vs. today's flash drives are NOT examples of things that science said could never be done."
Here is exactly what I posted:
"The above was all quite IMPOSSIBLE 20+ years ago and there were those
who'd argue violently against such 'crazy ideas'.
They were mistaken - closed minded, but still mistaken."
I was pointing to how people resist not only change - but even inference
that change/improvement are POSSIBLE.
I meant to infer only that it -seemed- impossible at that time, but wasn't.
This is really inaccurate:
"As for you statements above, I want to address two of them. Asking a 3 year old, and average adult and a well-read senior citizen, the two questions that you hypothetically posed means nothing."
I never suggested a 3 YEAR OLD - what I wrote was:
"Approach any small child over about grade 3"
Asking a 3 year old is indeed ludicrous and I never suggested that.
I would not so easily dismiss what the 'common man' thinks he knows as
you seem to have in your reply.
I also believe that young children absorb information like a dry sponge
absorbs water - and that they delight in showing off what they 'know'.
I've gotten some very inspired/inspiring thoughts from youngsters.
Finally:
"Fuel vaporizers are in action in every internal combustion engine currently running, they sometimes take the form of carburetors (not so much anymore) and fuel injection. And over time they have been improved. Fuel injection is an improvement over carburation and direct injection is an improvement over common rail or port fuel injection."
No, they are not. Vaporization in ICEs would be a process utilizing the
excess waste heat of the engine to more efficiently pre-process the fuel
in a more direct manner - all current fuel systems of all sorts are just
atomizers.
I will not propose anything else to inspire argument - but I would like
to ask this:
Have you ever made use of a propane powered road vehicle on a daily basis ?
I have. I worked at a place with it's own propane filling equipment and
vehicles which used it every day.
The truck I used most often went an amazing number of miles and used very
little propane - and it's engine oil stayed amazingly clean too.
From what I could tell (and I did look into it quite a bit back then)
propane vehicles are operating on far less raw energy compared to those
using liquid fuels - and they do use engine heat to pre-process the LP
into an all-vapor fuel source.
So, I'll bring my current mad ravings to a real close very soon now...
I challenge anyone to think differently.
I am very glad some people do this so well because I really enjoy such
things as electricity, telephones and the internut !!!
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, Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:25:28 <-- Viewing This Message
, 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.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
