Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • U.S. Banking system
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
U.S. Banking system
Tweet Topic Started: Jun 2 2009, 09:11 AM (318 Views)
troubleatiu Jun 3 2009, 06:55 AM Post #16
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
3,218
Group:
Members
Member
#21
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 2 2009, 09:09 PM
thePhilosopher
Jun 2 2009, 09:00 PM
Look out, Lars is busting out the wikipedia to teach trouble a lesson! ;)
Trouble: "it is no coincidence that the fed was created in 1913, and only 3 years later the 16th amendment was passed (income tax) so paying the interest due the fed on our money could be passed on to the american people."

That was one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on this board, right up there with water-gas and some of NLA's posts.
listen asshole, you get on me for "always looking for a fight" after its your dumbass thats baited me just like this.
the fed was created in 1913. the income tax was passed in 1916. are those numbers accurate? YES. our tax money goes to pay the interest on the money we borrow from the fed. this is so obvious and yet youre the only one who doesnt see it?

that was not an ignorant statement. ignorance is in not knowing. i know. the 2nd is directly related to the first.
stupidity is in not knowing but dismissing anyway. thats the approach youve taken for a long time. not only are you erroneous in calling me ignorant; you fit the definition of stupid. shove your banking opinions up your ass; they definately dont belong in the light of day.
and if you want any respect from me, quit baiting me. this isnt your tv show where you can hit and run then turn my mike off or break for commercial dumbass.
Posted Image
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler
"Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 3 2009, 08:46 AM Post #17
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
troubleatiu
Jun 3 2009, 06:55 AM
HoosierLars
Jun 2 2009, 09:09 PM
thePhilosopher
Jun 2 2009, 09:00 PM
Look out, Lars is busting out the wikipedia to teach trouble a lesson! ;)
Trouble: "it is no coincidence that the fed was created in 1913, and only 3 years later the 16th amendment was passed (income tax) so paying the interest due the fed on our money could be passed on to the american people."

That was one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on this board, right up there with water-gas and some of NLA's posts.
listen asshole, you get on me for "always looking for a fight" after its your dumbass thats baited me just like this.
the fed was created in 1913. the income tax was passed in 1916. are those numbers accurate? YES. our tax money goes to pay the interest on the money we borrow from the fed. this is so obvious and yet youre the only one who doesnt see it?

that was not an ignorant statement. ignorance is in not knowing. i know. the 2nd is directly related to the first.
stupidity is in not knowing but dismissing anyway. thats the approach youve taken for a long time. not only are you erroneous in calling me ignorant; you fit the definition of stupid. shove your banking opinions up your ass; they definately dont belong in the light of day.
and if you want any respect from me, quit baiting me. this isnt your tv show where you can hit and run then turn my mike off or break for commercial dumbass.
Trouble:
Quote:
 
the fed was created in 1913. the income tax was passed in 1916. are those numbers accurate? YES. our tax money goes to pay the interest on the money we borrow from the fed. this is so obvious and yet youre the only one who doesnt see it?

Ummmm...., no, the income tax was started in 1913:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Einstein, why don't you study these two lists and figure out which events caused which.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916

And for the record, I tried to be civil with you for a long time, but you started the name calling and belittling. If you want a message board war, bring it, I'm not backing down.
Edited by HoosierLars, Jun 3 2009, 09:00 AM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Jun 3 2009, 12:18 PM Post #18
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 3 2009, 08:46 AM
If you want a message board war, bring it, I'm not backing down.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 3 2009, 12:45 PM Post #19
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 3 2009, 02:31 PM Post #20
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 2 2009, 10:19 PM
aaronk2727
Jun 2 2009, 09:48 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 2 2009, 09:09 PM
That was one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on this board, right up there with water-gas and some of NLA's posts.
damnit.....next time you get anywhere near Fort Wayne, I just have to show you the water-gas test that we rigged up. It worked, and it is very freakin cool. Hydrogen from water has a ton of potential outside of just the hillbilly car experiment that I pulled off. Wind & solar power conversion is the greatest example. These energies are limited by the ability for the power to be stored up in batteries during excess times so it can be used during deficit times (no wind or sun). When these energies are converted to hydrogen, however, they are over 99% efficient in storing the energy.

I am rigging up a solar panel to a hydrogen converter, which will store the gas in a large tank. This tank is then going to be rigged up to my furnace in the barn. If it works, my bard will bge 70 in the winter and have almost no cost associated.
Aaron, creating hydrogen from water using a solar panel is based on solid science. Creating hydrogen gas using the car electrical system is not, because you will always spend more energy than you get back from the hydrogen. When I say "water-gas" I'm referring to the fraudulent adds saying you can increase your gas mileage by utilizing electricity created by the car generator.
Darn, you beat me to it. I was gonna play a 'best of eelbor' repost of my bebunker of the water-gas snakeoil salesman logic.

Ah hell, I will anyway. Aaron. It is impossible to get more energy out of the hydrogen in your hillbilly car experiment than you put into splitting the water in the first place. The solar panel is quite a different story. Solar power is free energy, being converted to a storage mechanism. In this case it is stored as hydrogen gas.

Quote:
 
Ok, people put on your scientist hats.
It takes a net of 118 kcal to decompose 36 grams of H2O into its elements. Actually it more than that but some of the extra energy is given back as the atoms immediately bond together to form molecules of H2 and O2.

The bond energy of the H-O bond is 110 kcal.
The bond energy of H-H bonds is 103 kcal.
The bond energy of the O=O bonds is 116 kcal.
The decomposition of 2 molecules of water requires breaking 4 H-O bonds and thus the input of 440 kcal.
The formation of 2 moles of hydrogen yields 206 kcal (2 x 103).
The formation of 1 mole of oxygen yields 116 kcal.
The difference between
The energy released (206 + 116 = 322 kcal) and
The energy consumed (4 x 110 = 440 kcal)
Gives us the net energy consumed - 118 kcal.


Now how much energy do we get when we burn the H2 gas?

The bond energy of H-H bonds is 103 kcal.
The bond energy of the O=O bonds is 116 kcal.
The decomposition of two H-H bonds and one O=O bond requires 222 kcal.
The formation of 2 moles of water yields 440 kcal (4 x 110).
The energy released (440 kcal) and
The energy consumed (206 kcal + 116 kcal = 322 kcal)

440 kcal released - 322 intput into the system
Gives us the net energy released - 118 kcal.


I am sorry but it takes as much energy to tear down water to O2 and H2 as is gained by burning the hydrogen gas. Unfortunately much of the free energy is given off as heat, which is hard to create electricity from.

Would someone please tell me again where the free energy this system uses to initially split the water molecules apart is coming from?

Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 3 2009, 03:04 PM Post #21
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jun 3 2009, 02:31 PM
Ah hell, I will anyway. Aaron. It is impossible to get more energy out of the hydrogen in your hillbilly car experiment than you put into splitting the water in the first place. The solar panel is quite a different story. Solar power is free energy, being converted to a storage mechanism. In this case it is stored as hydrogen gas.
eel, how would you calculate the "energy" it takes to poor the water into a canister mounted next to the engine, because that is essentially all of the energy it required. The battery does create the charge which seperates the hydrogen, but the alternator is charging the battery using much less energy than the hydrogen creates when burned in the intake.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 3 2009, 03:17 PM Post #22
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 3 2009, 03:04 PM
eelbor
Jun 3 2009, 02:31 PM
Ah hell, I will anyway. Aaron. It is impossible to get more energy out of the hydrogen in your hillbilly car experiment than you put into splitting the water in the first place. The solar panel is quite a different story. Solar power is free energy, being converted to a storage mechanism. In this case it is stored as hydrogen gas.
eel, how would you calculate the "energy" it takes to poor the water into a canister mounted next to the engine, because that is essentially all of the energy it required. The battery does create the charge which seperates the hydrogen, but the alternator is charging the battery using much less energy than the hydrogen creates when burned in the intake.
You're dead wrong on this, Aaron. You will always spend more energy creating the hydrogen than you get from burning it later. There are always loses in any real electrical-mechanical system.

If there was any truth to this urban myth, UPS, FedEx, and most trucking companies would be using this technique to fatten their bottom line.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 3 2009, 03:20 PM Post #23
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 3 2009, 03:17 PM
aaronk2727
Jun 3 2009, 03:04 PM
eelbor
Jun 3 2009, 02:31 PM
Ah hell, I will anyway. Aaron. It is impossible to get more energy out of the hydrogen in your hillbilly car experiment than you put into splitting the water in the first place. The solar panel is quite a different story. Solar power is free energy, being converted to a storage mechanism. In this case it is stored as hydrogen gas.
eel, how would you calculate the "energy" it takes to poor the water into a canister mounted next to the engine, because that is essentially all of the energy it required. The battery does create the charge which seperates the hydrogen, but the alternator is charging the battery using much less energy than the hydrogen creates when burned in the intake.
You're dead wrong on this, Aaron. You will always spend more energy creating the hydrogen than you get from burning it later. There are always loses in any real electrical-mechanical system.

If there was any truth to this urban myth, UPS, FedEx, and most trucking companies would be using this technique to fatten their bottom line.
so I suppose that I use just as much energy pumping gas into my car as my car does driving 300 miles on it huh? You are dead wrong on this one Lars....energy is being used sure, but it is already stored up in the form of the exposive material (gasoline, hydrogen...etc)
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 3 2009, 03:21 PM Post #24
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 3 2009, 03:17 PM
aaronk2727
Jun 3 2009, 03:04 PM
eelbor
Jun 3 2009, 02:31 PM
Ah hell, I will anyway. Aaron. It is impossible to get more energy out of the hydrogen in your hillbilly car experiment than you put into splitting the water in the first place. The solar panel is quite a different story. Solar power is free energy, being converted to a storage mechanism. In this case it is stored as hydrogen gas.
eel, how would you calculate the "energy" it takes to poor the water into a canister mounted next to the engine, because that is essentially all of the energy it required. The battery does create the charge which seperates the hydrogen, but the alternator is charging the battery using much less energy than the hydrogen creates when burned in the intake.
You're dead wrong on this, Aaron. You will always spend more energy creating the hydrogen than you get from burning it later. There are always loses in any real electrical-mechanical system.

If there was any truth to this urban myth, UPS, FedEx, and most trucking companies would be using this technique to fatten their bottom line.
Now, if you were to coat your car with solar panels to split water molecules, you could harness some energy from the sun to do your dirty work, but if you are using a combustion engine to generate electricity to split the water you are inputting more energy than you are getting back out.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 3 2009, 03:26 PM Post #25
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 3 2009, 03:20 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 3 2009, 03:17 PM
aaronk2727
Jun 3 2009, 03:04 PM
eelbor
Jun 3 2009, 02:31 PM
Ah hell, I will anyway. Aaron. It is impossible to get more energy out of the hydrogen in your hillbilly car experiment than you put into splitting the water in the first place. The solar panel is quite a different story. Solar power is free energy, being converted to a storage mechanism. In this case it is stored as hydrogen gas.
eel, how would you calculate the "energy" it takes to poor the water into a canister mounted next to the engine, because that is essentially all of the energy it required. The battery does create the charge which seperates the hydrogen, but the alternator is charging the battery using much less energy than the hydrogen creates when burned in the intake.
You're dead wrong on this, Aaron. You will always spend more energy creating the hydrogen than you get from burning it later. There are always loses in any real electrical-mechanical system.

If there was any truth to this urban myth, UPS, FedEx, and most trucking companies would be using this technique to fatten their bottom line.
so I suppose that I use just as much energy pumping gas into my car as my car does driving 300 miles on it huh? You are dead wrong on this one Lars....energy is being used sure, but it is already stored up in the form of the exposive material (gasoline, hydrogen...etc)
The energy is not put into the gasoline by you pumping it into the tank. The energy in the gasoline is in its chemical bonds.

The energy in the hydrogen gas comes at the expense of splitting some very stable bonds in the water. In this case, the hydrogen gas is acting as a battery for you. It wants to go back to being water, and will release energy to do so. That energy released is slightly less than the cost of splitting the water in the first place.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 3 2009, 03:44 PM Post #26
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
eelbor
Jun 3 2009, 03:26 PM
That energy released is slightly less than the cost of splitting the water in the first place.
I really don't think so. If there were no other factors, then yes, but the fact that it is in a car and the alternator is partially run off of the rotation fo the wheels which can happen without any fuel being injected at the moment (coasting).

Bottom line is that the charge of electricity required to split the H2O is much less than the energy created when burning that same amount of hydrogen.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 3 2009, 04:19 PM Post #27
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 3 2009, 03:44 PM
eelbor
Jun 3 2009, 03:26 PM
That energy released is slightly less than the cost of splitting the water in the first place.
I really don't think so. If there were no other factors, then yes, but the fact that it is in a car and the alternator is partially run off of the rotation fo the wheels which can happen without any fuel being injected at the moment (coasting).

Bottom line is that the charge of electricity required to split the H2O is much less than the energy created when burning that same amount of hydrogen.
"Bottom line is that the charge of electricity required to split the H2O is much less than the energy created when burning that same amount of hydrogen."

If this was really true, the Arabs would be pounding sand, because you just discovered a virtually free, endless energy source.

You're an entrepreneurial business man, Aaron. Why don't UPS and FedEX use water-gas to save millions per year in fuel costs? The answer is anyone with knowledge of chemistry/physics laughs at this urban legend. Eel, you get the next one.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thePhilosopher Jun 3 2009, 04:26 PM Post #28
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,400
Group:
Members
Member
#130
Joined:
February 9, 2008
So what does a water car have to do with the US banking system? :p
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 3 2009, 04:34 PM Post #29
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
thePhilosopher
Jun 3 2009, 04:26 PM
So what does a water car have to do with the US banking system? :p
Sorry, Phil, I'm losing it. :P

Trouble's rant about the income tax being started in 1916 to pay the interest on the Fed money put me over the top. I would expect you, oldschool and other posters to call bullshit on that one. It's ok for you guys to disagree now and then.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 3 2009, 04:40 PM Post #30
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 3 2009, 03:44 PM
I really don't think so. If there were no other factors, then yes, but the fact that it is in a car and the alternator is partially run off of the rotation fo the wheels which can happen without any fuel being injected at the moment (coasting).

Bottom line is that the charge of electricity required to split the H2O is much less than the energy created when burning that same amount of hydrogen.
Welcome to the exciting world of the law of conservation of energy. The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

If your argument is that you have found a way to run engine energy that would otherwise be wasted back through the engine that is one thing. If you are claiming you have found a free energy source that is another thing altogether. Keep in mind that modern combustion engines are about 25-30% efficient. You waste 70% of the energy in gas. You will also waste 70% of the energy in whatever minute quantities of hydrogen your electrolysis creates also when you burn it.

All in all, it will take more energy to create the hydrogen than you will get back by burning it.




Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:45 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy