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 (316 Views)
eelbor Jun 3 2009, 04:41 PM Post #31
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
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
Easy. Free energy is money in the bank. I thought you would have seen that ;)
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, 08:50 PM Post #32
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 3 2009, 04:19 PM
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.
UPS & Fedex don't manufacture vehicles for starters Lars. The energy source isn't free or endless. It requires water and a level of energy to create the charge. GM began developing a hydrogen car last year. Glenn Beck talks about it all the time. He has riden in a prototype of it, and the engineers showed him how it works. It is remarkable, but there are about a million side affects that are causing problems, such as where are you going to put a tank big enough to hold enough water so the driver doesn't have to refill it every hundred miles.

Have either of you guys looked at the amount of energy required to split hydrogen from oxygen? You are correct in that you cannot get more energy from something than what you put into it. I'm not proposing creating hydrogen out of thin air. It already exists much like oil already exists. We only require the energy to split the hydrogen from oxygen so that it's energy can be utilized in combustion.
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
 
troubleatiu Jun 4 2009, 06:25 AM Post #33
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
3,218
Group:
Members
Member
#21
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 3 2009, 08:46 AM
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.
ill concede i got the date wrong. the 16th amendment is what is was refering to obviously, passed in 1913, the SAME YEAR the fed was created. so they both were enacted in the same year.
does it not make any sense to you that the two go hand-in-hand?
government was granted the ability to borrow endless sums of money the same year they passed a proposal for the american people to pay the interest on it. its been that way ever since.
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 4 2009, 09:02 AM Post #34
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
troubleatiu
Jun 4 2009, 06:25 AM
ill concede i got the date wrong. the 16th amendment is what is was refering to obviously, passed in 1913, the SAME YEAR the fed was created. so they both were enacted in the same year.
does it not make any sense to you that the two go hand-in-hand?
government was granted the ability to borrow endless sums of money the same year they passed a proposal for the american people to pay the interest on it. its been that way ever since.
The government ran minuscule debts back in those days. I bet even the socialists of that era would blush when they see how the government spends today. Hell, even the Russians and Chinese are lecturing The Messiah on excessive socialism. It might make for a funny movie plot, but we're fucking living it as I type.

I'm on the library wait list for "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by Griffin, and need to request an inter-library transfer to get "The House of Morgan" by Chernow. I'll share any key points I learn from these.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 4 2009, 10:54 AM Post #35
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 3 2009, 08:50 PM
Have either of you guys looked at the amount of energy required to split hydrogen from oxygen? You are correct in that you cannot get more energy from something than what you put into it. I'm not proposing creating hydrogen out of thin air.
Aaron,
You are missing a concept here. The energy in this system is not in the hydrogen, the energy is in the chemical bonds between the atoms.

When you split the water it cost you energy. In this reaction, covalent bonds between the hydrogen atoms and oxygen atom in water have been broken and new bonds - between the hydrogen atoms in H2 and the oxygen atoms in O2 - have been formed. This reaction requires the input of energy (electrical in this case). This is because it takes energy to break the chemical bonds. There is some energy released as chemical bonds form in the creation of the H2 and O2 gases but in this case the energy released is less than the energy needed.

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 the net energy consumed - 118 kcal.

This is our cost.


Now, this energy does not disappear. It is now chemical energy stored in the bonds of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The energy stored in this reaction is called free energy because it is still available to do work. This is why when you can burn H2 gas it gives off heat, energy is being released from the H2 and O2 molecules. In this case you have stored the energy you used to split the water in the chemical bonds in each of the hydrogen gas molecules you formed. The H2 gas is your 'battery' if you will.

Now you have some available energy built up in your hydrogen you can use to do some work, but (and there is always a but) the conversion of free energy to work is never 100% efficient.

Now it is time to burn the H2 gas to get your stored energy back. You inject it into a cylinder in your engine and ignite it.

You burn 2(H2) molecules and combine it with a single O2 molecule. This produces two water molecules. Again the Chemical bonds in H2 and O2 will cost some energy to break, but when the water is created it will give off energy when those bonds are created.

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.

This is our payoff.


It costs you 118 kcal to break the bonds in the water, and 118 kcal is given off when you burn the hydrogen.


Stop thinking of hydrogen gas as a free energy source, and start thinking of it as a battery. You can store some energy there for use later. If H2 gas were readily available in that state, by all means you could collect it and burn it for energy, by H2 gas is not that easy to come by. Most of the hydrogen you run into is in molecules with other atoms, such as water. As I have shown you, it costs as much energy to make H2 gas as you will get back burning it.


Now, in the solar example, the 118kcal required to spit the water atoms is coming from the sun( at no cost to you other than the solar panels), and you can store this energy in the H2 gas. In you car though, you are burning gasoline (that you paid for) to create hydrogen gas.

Does that help?
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
 
HoosierLars Jun 4 2009, 11:06 AM Post #36
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Good post, Eel. One other point. Aaron thinks that you can run the generator for free while you are coasting. If this was true, Priuses would get 100's of miles per gallon. Creating electricity using the car generator requires extra energy that must be generated by burning more gasoline in the engine.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 4 2009, 11:17 AM Post #37
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 4 2009, 11:06 AM
Good post, Eel. One other point. Aaron thinks that you can run the generator for free while you are coasting. If this was true, Priuses would get 100's of miles per gallon. Creating electricity using the car generator requires extra energy that must be generated by burning more gasoline in the engine.
I was going to get into the costs of friction in another post. Do you want better gas mileage, reduce the friction between the tires and the road. But watch out for those curves so you do not launch into the cornfield to your right.
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
 
brumdog44 Jun 4 2009, 03:46 PM Post #38
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
What about the possibility of making making gas more efficient rather than relying on water for fuel?

We all know that gasoline is highly inefficient in terms of the converting it's energy to useful energy....lots of energy is lost in the process. It would seem that should be the #1 priority of attack.

If all of gasoline's energy were to be effectively converted into useful output, what would the MPG be for a mid-sized car? Of course we know that we can't get 100% of the energy converted, but I've heard that in terms of gas conversion the rate is EXTREMELY low.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 4 2009, 04:15 PM Post #39
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 4 2009, 03:46 PM
What about the possibility of making making gas more efficient rather than relying on water for fuel?

We all know that gasoline is highly inefficient in terms of the converting it's energy to useful energy....lots of energy is lost in the process. It would seem that should be the #1 priority of attack.

If all of gasoline's energy were to be effectively converted into useful output, what would the MPG be for a mid-sized car? Of course we know that we can't get 100% of the energy converted, but I've heard that in terms of gas conversion the rate is EXTREMELY low.
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?site=sew&textField1=48.54810&textField2=-120.5833&smap=1

Personally, I love the hybrid concept for the short term, with bigger batteries like the Prius will offer in 2010. You could approach the efficiency and cleanliness of an electric car around town, and still be able to take the kids to Wally World for vacation.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
troubleatiu Jun 4 2009, 06:56 PM Post #40
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
3,218
Group:
Members
Member
#21
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 4 2009, 09:02 AM
troubleatiu
Jun 4 2009, 06:25 AM
ill concede i got the date wrong. the 16th amendment is what is was refering to obviously, passed in 1913, the SAME YEAR the fed was created. so they both were enacted in the same year.
does it not make any sense to you that the two go hand-in-hand?
government was granted the ability to borrow endless sums of money the same year they passed a proposal for the american people to pay the interest on it. its been that way ever since.
The government ran minuscule debts back in those days. I bet even the socialists of that era would blush when they see how the government spends today. Hell, even the Russians and Chinese are lecturing The Messiah on excessive socialism. It might make for a funny movie plot, but we're fucking living it as I type.

I'm on the library wait list for "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by Griffin, and need to request an inter-library transfer to get "The House of Morgan" by Chernow. I'll share any key points I learn from these.
good luck on the creature from jekyll island. i tried to buy it from amazon and they couldnt get me a copy. i found it on ebay, im thinking of going that route. i havent read it yet.
you might also consider "the case against the fed" by murray rothbard.
my reading list is backing up significantly. alot of my anti-fed rants have came from watching interviews with griffin. i need to read his book, too.
i need to start another summer reading list, ive got several books here ill mail out again.
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
 
brumdog44 Jun 4 2009, 11:38 PM Post #41
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 4 2009, 04:15 PM
brumdog44
Jun 4 2009, 03:46 PM
What about the possibility of making making gas more efficient rather than relying on water for fuel?

We all know that gasoline is highly inefficient in terms of the converting it's energy to useful energy....lots of energy is lost in the process. It would seem that should be the #1 priority of attack.

If all of gasoline's energy were to be effectively converted into useful output, what would the MPG be for a mid-sized car? Of course we know that we can't get 100% of the energy converted, but I've heard that in terms of gas conversion the rate is EXTREMELY low.
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?site=sew&textField1=48.54810&textField2=-120.5833&smap=1

Personally, I love the hybrid concept for the short term, with bigger batteries like the Prius will offer in 2010. You could approach the efficiency and cleanliness of an electric car around town, and still be able to take the kids to Wally World for vacation.
Any reason there is a link to weather in Washington?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 5 2009, 09:35 AM Post #42
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 4 2009, 11:38 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 4 2009, 04:15 PM
brumdog44
Jun 4 2009, 03:46 PM
What about the possibility of making making gas more efficient rather than relying on water for fuel?

We all know that gasoline is highly inefficient in terms of the converting it's energy to useful energy....lots of energy is lost in the process. It would seem that should be the #1 priority of attack.

If all of gasoline's energy were to be effectively converted into useful output, what would the MPG be for a mid-sized car? Of course we know that we can't get 100% of the energy converted, but I've heard that in terms of gas conversion the rate is EXTREMELY low.
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?site=sew&textField1=48.54810&textField2=-120.5833&smap=1

Personally, I love the hybrid concept for the short term, with bigger batteries like the Prius will offer in 2010. You could approach the efficiency and cleanliness of an electric car around town, and still be able to take the kids to Wally World for vacation.
Any reason there is a link to weather in Washington?
Sorry about that, I must have been typing that reply and pasting that weather link into another email, and got the wrong window focus.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« 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