Doe's anyone else think that with all our technological achievements in the last hundred years or so, it's almost unbelieveable that we cannot develop & produce a petrol substitute.
What doe's petrol do? It's a highly flammable liquid that reacts to a spark.
Perhaps it's just the cynic in me, but i firmly believe that one already exists, & you wait & see, when the oil doe's eventually run out, the big oil producers will miraculously find the perfect answer, oh & of course the cost of manufacturing this new chemical will be about the same or a little bit more than the present cost of petrol.
Or indeed am i just being cynical

your thoughts.......

Of course substitutes exist. That's not the problem. The problem is that they aren't cheap enough to be popular yet. There is nothing miraculous about it; it's nothing more than business. Once the price of oil becomes to high, the switch will occur to alternatives, and, since the whole reason for the switch was the prices, yes, the prices will indeed be similar.

Read it and weep:


http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/...196.A10731.html

the suppression of replacement technology can be demonstrated in the story of stanley meyers who had found a cheap and effective means for "cracking" water and splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen with less than a 1/4 watt of electricity there by creating major over unity-- he even created a process that was small enough to split water at the carburator and he actually made a video where he drove across country on about 28 gallons of tap water--
stanley meyers story with video

I blame Ford and his decision to go with petrol instead of electric cars when mass producing them.

That is the very simple and only answer to it. Market DICTATES!
Unfortunately there are those who are simply fun of conspiracies.

Soy and/or Corn Biofuel is an exploding industry across the midwest (basically it's just high grade moonshine with some additives). I think it would serve the oil industry right if in the process of making their mega-record profitst the last few years, they end up losing about half of their future market for auto fuel.

Of course the Oil companies have so much money now that they can easily buy off our politicians to give them big advantages in the marketplace.

The other corporations are going to have to stand up to the oil corps and say that their oil profits are not worth the whole planet falling under sharia.

Losing the future market? Who do you think will be bringing the alternative fuels to the public?



Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

Well Walmart is currently doing it in the midwest. Mobil doesn't have the market cornered on trucks and gas stations (most are individually owned)...if there is a demand there will be a supply. Of course the oil companies will try to corner the market so they can control prices...I read somewhere that they have already tried buying bulk biofuel just to keep it off of the market. They'll also drop their prices to try to undercut biofuel producers and force them out (and if they're successful they'll just raise the prices again later).

It won't be easy for biofuels to get a sizeable piece of the action...big oil will use every trick in the books to keep their virtual monoploy.

Ahh...no. You seem to be under the misconception that oil companies are there to sell oil.

Yeah really.. invent free energy and youll be killed or jailed indefinately.. must be lovely in america with all that freedom (and ofcourse the rest of the world)

This guy I guess is still alive...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3a5OHs6Yzk

Shocking. I bet he'll be shot any day now though, for sure, right?

You cant really blame the car makers back then because fossil fuel engines were more efficient and alot more reliable. than electric.
With an electric car back then how would you get a recharge if you were in the middle of nowhere for eg, also imagine the amount of batteries needed just to power a heavy engine back then. the boot compartment alone would house the battery.
Then there would have been the issue of horse power when you need it most(heavy earthmoving equipment etc). We know what happens to electric engines when batteries start to run low.
Once the oil companies had/have a monoply on the whole industry there was no turning back, they had a strangle hold on the market place.

That was amazing. When was that shot?

In answer to your questions itsnotoutthere,..... how bout the ''Electric or LPG'' engines even solar power you can't get more freer than that
Incidentally theres a ''Bio Diesel'' fuel made out of the by product of sugar cane by private independant research and development which is totally pollution free and even more beneficial and 1/4 the price of standard diesel, totally pollution free.
All up & running in in small areas in Aust, the only real problem is getting the goverment to 'fully'support and partly back it's production for total commercial use.
The transport industry is starting to wake up in a big way in Aust, they're fed up with rising fuel prices which have to be passed on to the consumer.
We all may have to start cruzin around in motor scooters like in China soon,$5 to the 100kms.

Earlier this year. Heh, kind of quieted some people... I wonder why.

That was ground breaking revolutionary stuff. When are they going to start mass producing it.

I don't recond they'll bump him off though, not yet anyway, people know about it now, they'll try and buy his patent/copy rights to keep it out of the mainstream. If that dosn't work then yea your right they'll permanatly switch off his head lights.

When I linked to that a while back http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=68718 http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/hhos Waspie Dwarf basically explained it won't work.

i've read somewhere not exactly sure where, but the article i was reading said they could run an engine off of almost anything, they just need to build it.

Basically true. The problem isn't technological. The problem is economic. Implementing the other technologies is going to be extremely expensive, and the public is unlikely to support it out of anything other than necessitty. Heck, just look at all the whining that occured with the gas prices.

That 's why us pigeons pay taxas,...so the goverment can/should implement and or $upport the private secter to find better ways to combat rising fuel prices, even if it means finding and mass producing better, cheaper more enviromentally friendlier alternative ways to run our vehicles,...at any co$t.
What 'sunofone' said is true the technoligy already exists the goverment are just too
chicken s.h.i.t to do anything about it, cause the multinational oil companies dictate the terms were ever they are and the company shareholders certianly wont give a crap, the more money the company turns over the more they get in their piggy bank.
And ofcourse the oil company don't want alternative fuels not unless they can control it.
Suppress new technoligies which they own already anyway, until they've milked the fossel fuels 'wells' dry and or even screw up the enviroment so friggin bad,...then just like magic, bring out the new alternatives,and as 'itsnotoutthere' said at the start of the thread,....charge us all up the ass at any price they dam well please and theres not a friggin thing you or i can do about it.

Yeah, 'cause, you know...global economics is really that simple...

Its all about money,, just as soon as some alternative to oil comes out OPEC will flood the market with barrels of oil and force a drop in the price of gas. If the price of gas was 1.50 no one would be complaining about alternatives. Just my 2 cents worth.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head Colonel. But we are in a little bit different world these days and people see through things like pre-election cheaper gas. Also, the combination of Middle East uncertainty and the knowledge that a hurricane like Katrina can come along any year gets new entrepreneurs interested. My guess is that a good many smart people are studying the Brazillian (that's a country, not a number W) model of alternative fuel use. If they can do it why can't the USA? Realistically it shouldn't be about replacing oil with something like biofuel - it should be about reducing our requirement for oil to 1. reduce our reliance on imported oil - and - 2. hopefully insure that there will be some oil around for our great grandkids and their grandkids. People need to look past the dollar (IMO).

Of course not 'A1',...That would be asking for to much from the taxpayer.
We can't expect them to simplify matters on any economic level,
that would be just asking for too dam much.
We need more bureacratic red tape people, the more the scarier, sorry i mean merrier.

And so tomorrow we wake up to just another day,....
'I OWE, I OWE it's off to work we go,....I OWE I OWE I OWE'......

So it's back to drawing board 'C'.

What more can we say, that in our technological age of achivements of today,(that's 2006/7) that we hav'nt even found an alternative way to even run some thing as simple as a motor vehicle, put aside anything else. 'hmmmm'....Mighty strange.
What are they waiting for. For us to become like Thialand or China.

Thats simplicity & common sense thinking Lance,...a head even, just enough though, 1 generation thats all you need. By then we would have advanced 5 fold in our wonderous achivements.
And our kids wont be riding bicycles with face masks and or respirators and paying 3 to $5 alitre for petrol.

Yes, it would be. You want to take something that affects millions of people around the world, the economies of several major powers, and dumb it down to the point where the average American can understand it. Heck, why don't you ask those darn engineers to quit it with all the physics and numbers and just simplify why they can't build us another Empire State by next week?

Whether you like it or not, global economics is complex, is serious, and has the power to destroy countries in a matter of days. Anything that affects that power, and oil most certainly affects it in a grand and awful manner, cannot be simplified, no more than the construction of a suspension bridge can be simplified. In order to understand it, you have to learn the complexities of it; it will not be brought down to your level.

Yes why not. You got a problem with the average American or average anyone for that matter. Gee wiz and i thought the people(tax payer), that it was their right to be given a fair go and or a chance to 'understand it', man did i get that wrong. We certianly wouldn't want them to DUMB it down for the average American.
And who's actually running America on behalf of the 'average American', the 'politicians' or the 'major powers.'.....and would that be 'private major powers' aquatus, because we all know how they've always had /have the average American's best interests a heart.
Last time i checked a goverments was/is put in place buy the people to do a job and that job is soley for the people to come first and foremost.
We paying for politicians wages thru tax so we expect them to do a job and that job is for 'us', they work for 'us'...not the major powers.

this guy meyer has no real qualifications .
it shows how the layman can be right and the experts be wrong ?

i wonder if those scientist on the governments 911 payroll got it wrong in some cases?
just a thought.

Yes, I do. That problem is that the average American, despite having no experience in something so utterly beyond their experience as global economics, still feels that that their opinion should be held as equally valid as the opinion of those who have a lifetime of experience and education on the subject.



Well, you were wrong. No one has a "right" to understand anything. If you want to understand something, no one is under any obligation to spoonfeed t to you. You have to avail yourself of the resources available and learn about the matter, get yourself educated in the subject, so that you understand it.



Nonsense. Economics doesn't have a heart. Private major powers influence the government to make decisions that will benefit them. The government makes decisions that will benefit the country in general. If private industry grows, according tot he trickle down theory so will the financial gain of the rest of the country (which is true, to a greater or lesser extend, but many economists are questioning the efficiency of this sytem). If the private industries are not acting in a manner which will benefit the country in general, the government intercedes, such as when they break up monopolies. That the private companies are out for personal gain does not mean that they cannot be used to strengthen the economic status of the country.



Well, you are wrong again. The job of the government is to put the country first and foremost, and people are only one aspect of the country. There is no "solely" about it. There many, many aspects to the government, and thinking that they are some sort of supernanny solely there to care for our individual needs is wishful thinking.



They do not work for "us". They do not work for the "major powers". They work for the country.

Not sure.

Just said WD explained it won't work, not that I believed him...

I'm still open to it and hopefull.

Thanks for clearing that up for me aquatus and God bless.

[attachmentid=28760]

Me too ''C''.

I somehow doubt that you read what I wrote. Makes sense, though. A person who confuses the "right" to understand something with the obligation to educate themselves to understand something is unlikely to go too far to seek knowledge.

I do not believe you are any clearer on the subject. If you were, you would not have taken that sentence out of context, and included the point of the paragraph it introduced:



In short, you do not have the "right" to understand anything; you have to earn it like everyone else. Through education.

"...government of the people, by the people, and for the people..." Whatever anyone says about complexity. When the attitude becomes other, then we have failed, power politics has succeeded, and the constitution is no longer valid. If one examines laws in this country, one finds that virtually none are constitutional amendments. Federal refers to "ship of state", and the "United States codes" are not necessarily constitutional. The attitude that the citizens are issued "privileges", such as various licenses, is not only unconstitutional, it is power politics used for control. Public lands, for instance, are public lands owned by the people, but the regulations for public land usage are set by the forest service, Dept. of the Interior, without vote and without public consultation. These power plays are means of control of the public, who actually owns the lands, and pays for those lands, and has the right, not the privilege, of their use. Period.
Privileges are granted by the public to those who wield the public power in this country. Anyone who has spent time in the service has sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the United States Code, and should realize that.
And we do have the right to know, as stated by law, both in the Code and in the Constitution.

On the thread subject, Brown's gas, or that which is the subject of this thread, has been around a long time, and could be used for vehicle power. As many other discoveries, and all that's required is a bit of research, an open mind, and a little creativity, which seems to be quite lacking among many. Can be done, has been done, will continue to be done in the future.

I ask anyone out there who reads your COMPLETE statements aquatus from start to finish and does'nt find it contradictive, biased, insulting, intimidating & prejudice to all the hard working ''blue collars'' of your country, who incidentally are the ''back bone'' of your great nation.
And with that i leave you with these final thoughts......



-Rebel out.

Thankyou RabidCat.

You "ask anyone" what?

Final thoughts: You find the claim that if one wishes to understand complex global subjects, then they should educate themselves in such matters rather than demand that they be dumbed down, to be a claim that is "contradictive, biased, intimidating & prejudice". I cannot share that opinion. I have met entirely too many blue-collar workers who have gone the extra-mile to learn about a subject they know little about, so that they may argue it intelligently, rather than base their claims on wishes and assumptions. Apparently, you feel that blue-collars workers are incapable of educating themselves or of learning complex subjects.

You said that NOT me. Let's get that straight, right here right now.
Go back a check your own statements.
I'm a blue collar worker, always have been always will be,....and very proud of it.

Bully for you. Now stop embarrasing blue-collar workers and read what I said, not what you heard. You said that everyone has a "right" to understand. I said that no one has a right to understand, but that everyone has to earn their understanding through education. No one is under any obligation to explain things to you; if you want to understand complex things, you need to study them, not demand that others spoon-feed it to you.

Golly gee Mr educated bureaucrat, or is that hypocrite, what about the multi millions of blue collars not just in the states but the world over including the unfortunate lesser class that have no possible chance, and may never get that chance to educate themselves to ''your level''sir.
As for enbarrasing blue collars...huh...that's just your opinion.
I say stop kidding and embarrasing yourself.
The system(corrupt at that)is not designed and never was to work the way you see it.
I think it's time for you to get off your high horse, drop that golden pen, take that silver spoon out of your mouth and get yourself a reality check.

Rebel out. Final.

Hypocrite how? What have I said that would be considered hypocritical? Go ahead and answer that without making it sound like blue-collar workers can't learn complex subjects.



What about them? Are they demanding that their opinions should be held as equally valid as those who understand global politics and economics? Are they pretending that their simple solutions are all you need to fix up the entire countries problems?



Yes, it is. It's right up there with your opinions about high horses, golden pens, and silver spoons.



It's easy to claim that the system is against you. It's easy to blame others because they make things too hard, or make the wrong decisions, or don't do things the way you think they should be done. It's easy to consider success a sign of offensiveness. None of that changes anything. Whether you like it or not, it is nowhere near impossible to educate yourself on matter. Whether you like it or not, other blue-collars have done precisely that, and due to their diligence and hard work, have gained a measure of respect in their fields. You don't need a PhD to talk about global economics. What you do need to do is stop pretending that a subject that affects countries the world over can be dealt with in the same manner as a local grocery market.

Stop being so proud of refusing to learn.



So, if you do respond, meaning that you do something that you claim that you won't do, that would then be considered hypocritical.

asking a gang of super powers to come down to laymans terms would be like expecting sh** from a rocking horse.
physics unlike self important bankers and gig business is an exact science!
and you would need to study it to understand the complex workings of its nature.
but suggesting that these two things are equally as complex to understand is sheer nonsense.
anyone would think you had a vested interest in the big game.
they are screwing you too!!
why do you defend them and their stupid hoodwink system?
like i said earlier an average man can be right and the scientist and the greedy bankers can be wrong.
in the end this wild web of complex lies and all will be these greedy leeches downfall.

The language filters are there for a reason, Conspiracysrus.



Why is that? What leads you to believe that simply because something is not imperical in nature, it is not as complex as something that is? Do you think that all physics is exact? Do you think all economics is theoretical?

When all is said and done, what needs to be realized is that certain things cannot be simplified down to a one-step solution. It is all well and good to wish it was so, but when one is seriously trying to put such a simplistic solution forward, and then not only that, but also to deny that there is any complexity to the situation that would also have to be taken into account, then you have left the realm of serious discussion and entered into wishful thinking.



What makes you think I am defending them? I am not. That is nothing more than an assumption you have made because someone is not agreeing with what you have said. People disagree with others for all sorts of reasons. I have an strong dislike for many of the decisions that have been made in the oil industry, but I do understand why they were made, and I certainly understand why certain decisions cannot be made without setting into motion events that, unless handled carefully, can result in devastation.



You are not supported by history. Can an average man be right and experts be wrong? Of course. They simply, statistically, are not.