Posted by Curbie on February 19, 2012, 4:28 am
Oh, I agree, nothing can be evaluated on solely on its negatives; it's
always, if not one energy source… than what? I don't think the
inactive majority reads here, and for the pro-active percentage that
does, "magic" tech seems of poor option.
Posted by News on February 19, 2012, 9:29 am
>>
>> I don't know what is more damaging about promoting "Magic" tech, ...
>> ...or the overall notion that we can all just sit on our hands
>> and do nothing, and wait for someone else to fix the huge energy
>> problems we have.
>>
>> Curbie
> The inactive majority probably doesn't matter.
> The tiny pro-active percentage capable and willing to innovate, and those
> who invest in them, probably would continue with or without mass support.
> It's the reactives that puzzle me, those who actively attack our current
> energy sources but offer no credible alternatives.
Air is free.
Posted by harry k on February 25, 2012, 6:13 pm
> News wrote:
> >>> I don't know what is more damaging about promoting "Magic" tech, ...
> >>> ...or the overall notion that we can all just sit on our hands
> >>> and do nothing, and wait for someone else to fix the huge energy
> >>> problems we have.
> >>> Curbie
> >> The inactive majority probably doesn't matter.
> >> The tiny pro-active percentage capable and willing to innovate, and
> >> those who invest in them, probably would continue with or without
> >> mass support. It's the reactives that puzzle me, those who actively attack
> >> our
> >> current energy sources but offer no credible alternatives.
> > Air is free.
> Compressed air is not. It is not even efficient.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
But if the compressor is on the car, the heat lost during compression
used to run a stirling, and the stirling to drive the compressor...
Eureka - a way to make "New's" wet dreams a reality
;)
Harry K
Posted by News on February 25, 2012, 6:50 pm
harry k wrote:
>> News wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> I don't know what is more damaging about promoting "Magic" tech,
>>>>> ... ...or the overall notion that we can all just sit on our hands
>>>>> and do nothing, and wait for someone else to fix the huge energy
>>>>> problems we have.
>>
>>>>> Curbie
>>
>>>> The inactive majority probably doesn't matter.
>>
>>>> The tiny pro-active percentage capable and willing to innovate, and
>>>> those who invest in them, probably would continue with or without
>>>> mass support. It's the reactives that puzzle me, those who
>>>> actively attack our
>>>> current energy sources but offer no credible alternatives.
>>
>>> Air is free.
>>
>> Compressed air is not. It is not even efficient.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> But if the compressor is on the car, the heat lost during compression
> used to run a stirling, and the stirling to drive the compressor...
>
> Eureka - a way to make "New's" wet dreams a reality
>
> ;)
Mr K, I have already covered such an unworkable notion.
Posted by News on February 25, 2012, 6:48 pm
Bob F wrote:
> News wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what is more damaging about promoting "Magic" tech,
>>>> ... ...or the overall notion that we can all just sit on our hands
>>>> and do nothing, and wait for someone else to fix the huge energy
>>>> problems we have.
>>>>
>>>> Curbie
>>>
>>> The inactive majority probably doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> The tiny pro-active percentage capable and willing to innovate, and
>>> those who invest in them, probably would continue with or without
>>> mass support. It's the reactives that puzzle me, those who actively
>>> attack our
>>> current energy sources but offer no credible alternatives.
>>
>> Air is free.
>
> Compressed air is not. It is not even efficient.
It depends on its use
XML site map
>> I don't know what is more damaging about promoting "Magic" tech, ...
>> ...or the overall notion that we can all just sit on our hands
>> and do nothing, and wait for someone else to fix the huge energy
>> problems we have.
>>
>> Curbie
> The inactive majority probably doesn't matter.
> The tiny pro-active percentage capable and willing to innovate, and those
> who invest in them, probably would continue with or without mass support.
> It's the reactives that puzzle me, those who actively attack our current
> energy sources but offer no credible alternatives.