Would You Like To Know How You Can Easily Convert Your Car To Run On
Water and Gas Today To Greatly Improve Your Fuel Efficiency and Save
Thousands Of Dollars On Fuel Costs?
http://meenarang.fuelwater1.hop.clickbank.net/

The fastest way to find a job.
INTERNATIONAL JOBS DIRECTORY

Jobs for professionals, IT Information Technology, engineers,
construction, healthcare and many more
http://internationaljobsdirectory.blogspot.com/
Tell A Friend

" wrote:

Would You Like To Know How You Can Easily Convert Your Car To Run On
Water and Gas Today To Greatly Improve Your Fuel Efficiency and Save
Thousands Of Dollars On Fuel Costs?

Gawd. Why didn't I think of that. All that water around and I've been wasting
money on gasoline.

The world would be a better place if more people understood the second law of
thermodynamics. The short version is: "You can't get something for nothing."

-- Doug

I tried to run my car on water but it sank and I nearly drowned!

On Aug 19, 2:40 pm, "JC" wrote:
I tried to run my car on water but it sank and I nearly drowned!

You used to be able to run VW beetles on water, but only until
the body rusted through.

Back in Ohio I ran several vehicles on water
but only in the winter...

--

FF

"JC" wrote in message ...
I tried to run my car on water but it sank and I nearly drowned!

You are not supposed to do that without you have your water wings on.

P D Q

"PDQ" wrote in message
...

"JC" wrote in message
...
I tried to run my car on water but it sank and I nearly drowned!

You are not supposed to do that without you have your water wings on.

P D Q

Oh, I thought those were for when you just wanted to fly over water.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:40 pm, "JC" wrote:
Back in Ohio I ran several vehicles on water
but only in the winter...


I have personal knowledge that a 1965 mustang will readily ride/slide on
nearly 1.5 inches of lake ice until the water below is almost knee
deep....they then sink!!!!!

Brakes will also not necessarily stop a moving car on frozen lakes in a
timely manner.

I also happen to know that potentially frisky teen age girls are no longer
frisky at all after your car sinks.

Life's journey gives all manner of useful information, sometimes a bit
late....Rod

"JC" wrote in message ...

"PDQ" wrote in message
...

"JC" wrote in message
...
I tried to run my car on water but it sank and I nearly drowned!

You are not supposed to do that without you have your water wings on.

P D Q

Oh, I thought those were for when you just wanted to fly over water.


Naaah.. These wings allow one to float like a butterfly.

P D Q

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message acquisition...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:40 pm, "JC" wrote:
Back in Ohio I ran several vehicles on water
but only in the winter...


I have personal knowledge that a 1965 mustang will readily ride/slide on
nearly 1.5 inches of lake ice until the water below is almost knee
deep....they then sink!!!!!

Brakes will also not necessarily stop a moving car on frozen lakes in a
timely manner.

I also happen to know that potentially frisky teen age girls are no longer
frisky at all after your car sinks.

Life's journey gives all manner of useful information, sometimes a bit
late....Rod



You gotta watch those "potentially frisky teen age girls".

They have been known to take one's mind off the driving with undesirable results.

BTB. I am reminded of a full blown new Chrysler that took off from a hill and ended up in Lake Huron in the middle of January. The cops got a laugh out of the brown bettys that floated out of the open windows.

P D Q

wrote:

Would You Like To Know How You Can Easily Convert Your Car To Run On
Water and Gas Today To Greatly Improve Your Fuel Efficiency and Save
Thousands Of Dollars On Fuel Costs?
http://meenarang.fuelwater1.hop.clickbank.net/

The fastest way to find a job.
INTERNATIONAL JOBS DIRECTORY

Jobs for professionals, IT Information Technology, engineers,
construction, healthcare and many more
http://internationaljobsdirectory.blogspot.com/
Tell A Friend


Two things about running your car on water. Unmodified it won't.

Recent developments have found a way to produce hydrogen directly from
water, with a small voltage and sunlight (yes, photosynthesis, but modified
to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water) No this is not BS, but was
written up in a scientific journal. {The problem with hydorgen to day is
that most of what we have is cracked from petrolum) Add to that the fact
that conversion kits already are available to convert the standard intenal
combustion engine to run on pure hydrogen.

Bottom line, the conversion from gasoline to hydrogen may not be that far
off (within a decade).

Deb

Dr. Deb wrote:
wrote:

Would You Like To Know How You Can Easily Convert Your Car To Run
On
Water and Gas Today To Greatly Improve Your Fuel Efficiency and
Save
Thousands Of Dollars On Fuel Costs?
http://meenarang.fuelwater1.hop.clickbank.net/

The fastest way to find a job.
INTERNATIONAL JOBS DIRECTORY

Jobs for professionals, IT Information Technology, engineers,
construction, healthcare and many more
http://internationaljobsdirectory.blogspot.com/
Tell A Friend


Two things about running your car on water. Unmodified it won't.

Recent developments have found a way to produce hydrogen directly
from
water, with a small voltage and sunlight (yes, photosynthesis, but
modified to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water) No this is not
BS, but was written up in a scientific journal. {The problem with
hydorgen to day is that most of what we have is cracked from
petrolum) Add to that the fact that conversion kits already are
available to convert the standard intenal combustion engine to run
on
pure hydrogen.

There is nothing "recent" about this, the process is called
"electrolysis" and in the 1960s it was a standard high school
chemistry experiment. It has been known for more than 200 years.

The difficulty with it is that you have to put as much energy into the
electrolysis as you get out of the resulting hydrogen--in other words
it works like a storage battery, not a primary energy source.

The reason that most commercially produced hydrogen comes from
hydrocarbons is that that process requires much less energy input.

Bottom line, the conversion from gasoline to hydrogen may not be
that
far off (within a decade).

Not gonna happen that soon. At least not using electrolytically
produced hydrogen, and using hydrogen cracked from hydrocarbons
doesn't really gain you anything.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:51:06 -0500, "Dr. Deb"
wrote:

Recent developments have found a way to produce hydrogen directly from
water, with a small voltage and sunlight (yes, photosynthesis, but modified
to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water) No this is not BS, but was
written up in a scientific journal. {The problem with hydorgen to day is
that most of what we have is cracked from petrolum) Add to that the fact
that conversion kits already are available to convert the standard intenal
combustion engine to run on pure hydrogen.

I saw the Myth Busters guys try something like this recently. They
bought one of the kits to convert water to hydrogen with low voltage.
After much trial and error they did get the thing to produce hydrogen.
They figured it would take about 50 of those units in the back seat to
get enough hydrogen to run a car.
Since that didn't really work they decided to try to run the car (a
carbureted Olds) on hydrogen directly from a tank. The Olds actually
ran until it backfired and flames came shooting out of the hose going
to the tank. It was pretty entertaining.

Mike O.

Douglas Johnson wrote:

" wrote:

Would You Like To Know How You Can Easily Convert Your Car To Run On
Water and Gas Today To Greatly Improve Your Fuel Efficiency and Save
Thousands Of Dollars On Fuel Costs?

Gawd. Why didn't I think of that. All that water around and I've been
wasting money on gasoline.

The world would be a better place if more people understood the second law
of
thermodynamics. The short version is: "You can't get something for
nothing."

... and history repeats itself again. This was an old Laurel and Hardy
comedy bit (based upon real scam artists) from the WWII gas rationing era.
Probably been around as long as there have been cars.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mike O. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:51:06 -0500, "Dr. Deb"

wrote:

Recent developments have found a way to produce hydrogen directly
from water, with a small voltage and sunlight (yes, photosynthesis,
but modified to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water) No this is
not BS, but was written up in a scientific journal. {The problem
with hydorgen to day is that most of what we have is cracked from
petrolum) Add to that the fact that conversion kits already are
available to convert the standard intenal combustion engine to run
on pure hydrogen.

I saw the Myth Busters guys try something like this recently. They
bought one of the kits to convert water to hydrogen with low
voltage.
After much trial and error they did get the thing to produce
hydrogen.
They figured it would take about 50 of those units in the back seat
to
get enough hydrogen to run a car.
Since that didn't really work they decided to try to run the car (a
carbureted Olds) on hydrogen directly from a tank. The Olds
actually
ran until it backfired and flames came shooting out of the hose
going
to the tank. It was pretty entertaining.

Not sure what they expected to accomplish with running directly from a
tank. A hydrogen conversion involves the same sort of effort as a
natural gas or LP gas conversion, either of which is doable on most
cars and trucks (call your gas company and they should be able to tell
you where you can get it done). For an idea of what's involved in
such a conversion take a look at
http://www.clean-air.org/Hydrogen%20...en%20Cobra.htm.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
says...
" wrote:

Would You Like To Know How You Can Easily Convert Your Car To Run On
Water and Gas Today To Greatly Improve Your Fuel Efficiency and Save
Thousands Of Dollars On Fuel Costs?

Gawd. Why didn't I think of that. All that water around and I've been wasting
money on gasoline.

The world would be a better place if more people understood the second law of
thermodynamics. The short version is: "You can't get something for nothing."

Three laws of thermodynamics:

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.

--
Keith

"J. Clarke" writes:
Dr. Deb wrote:
wrote:

Would You Like To Know How You Can Easily Convert Your Car To Run
On
Water and Gas Today To Greatly Improve Your Fuel Efficiency and
Save
Thousands Of Dollars On Fuel Costs?
http://meenarang.fuelwater1.hop.clickbank.net/

The fastest way to find a job.
INTERNATIONAL JOBS DIRECTORY

Jobs for professionals, IT Information Technology, engineers,
construction, healthcare and many more
http://internationaljobsdirectory.blogspot.com/
Tell A Friend


Two things about running your car on water. Unmodified it won't.

Recent developments have found a way to produce hydrogen directly
from
water, with a small voltage and sunlight (yes, photosynthesis, but
modified to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water) No this is not
BS, but was written up in a scientific journal. {The problem with
hydorgen to day is that most of what we have is cracked from
petrolum) Add to that the fact that conversion kits already are
available to convert the standard intenal combustion engine to run
on
pure hydrogen.

There is nothing "recent" about this, the process is called
"electrolysis" and in the 1960s it was a standard high school
chemistry experiment. It has been known for more than 200 years.

Jeez John, you're quick to jump on folks aren't you. As a matter
of fact, it was just a couple of weeks ago that scientists at MIT
announced a liquid catalyst they have discovered that leads to purty darn
close to 100% efficiency in electrolysis of water. Coupled with
highly efficient solar cells, one has a viable form of H2 generation.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

scott

Scott Lurndal wrote:


Jeez John, you're quick to jump on folks aren't you. As a matter
of fact, it was just a couple of weeks ago that scientists at MIT
announced a liquid catalyst they have discovered that leads to purty darn
close to 100% efficiency in electrolysis of water. Coupled with
highly efficient solar cells, one has a viable form of H2 generation.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

scott

Something about that story doesn't quite ring true.

Maybe it was written by a journalism major who knows zip about physics,
but it just didn't make sense to me.

Splitting O from water leaves 2 H.

Why is a different catalyst needed to release the H???

Is it bound with the first catalyst?


Dunno...

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

cavelamb himself wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote:


Jeez John, you're quick to jump on folks aren't you. As a matter
of fact, it was just a couple of weeks ago that scientists at MIT
announced a liquid catalyst they have discovered that leads to
purty
darn close to 100% efficiency in electrolysis of water. Coupled
with
highly efficient solar cells, one has a viable form of H2
generation.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

scott

Something about that story doesn't quite ring true.

Maybe it was written by a journalism major who knows zip about
physics, but it just didn't make sense to me.

Splitting O from water leaves 2 H.

Why is a different catalyst needed to release the H???

Is it bound with the first catalyst?


Dunno...

Yeah, I've seen that article too--I have the impression that the
author of the article was so caught up in the wondrous revelation that
you can make hydrogen from water that he missed whatever was the
_real_ point.

Kind of reminds me of http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20631051/, which
gives the impression that the most important innovation in the vessel
in question is that it can cross the Atlantic on a single tank of
fuel.

100 percent efficient electrolysis still means you have to put as much
energy in as you get out, and if we're going to use solar to do it
then we are going to need to get cracking building solar plants to
have 27 quadrillion BTU/year of capacity online in ten years. Not to
mention coming up with some awful good incentives to get people to
trade in their old gas-powered cars for hydrogen powered ones.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote:


Yeah, I've seen that article too--I have the impression that the
author of the article was so caught up in the wondrous revelation that
you can make hydrogen from water that he missed whatever was the
_real_ point.

Then there's this one:
http://www.hydrogensolar.com/

Kind of gives the impression on the home page that they on verge of burying the
world in hydrogen. You dig in deeper and discover they still have some pretty
basic technology to conquer. Sentences like "We are developing processes to
obtain high efficiency films in a usable form." Uh, huh. I'm not holding my
breath.

we are going to need to get cracking building solar plants to
have 27 quadrillion BTU/year of capacity online in ten years. Not to
mention coming up with some awful good incentives to get people to
trade in their old gas-powered cars for hydrogen powered ones.

Time and the price of gas will take care of the latter. But we also need to
build a whole new distribution infrastructure. Hydrogen is a tiny little
molecule that leaks out of holes natural gas can't even see.
-- Doug

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:42:52 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
wrote:

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Aug 19, 2:40 pm, "JC" wrote:
Back in Ohio I ran several vehicles on water
but only in the winter...


I have personal knowledge that a 1965 mustang will readily ride/slide on
nearly 1.5 inches of lake ice until the water below is almost knee
deep....they then sink!!!!!

Brakes will also not necessarily stop a moving car on frozen lakes in a
timely manner.

I also happen to know that potentially frisky teen age girls are no longer
frisky at all after your car sinks.

Life's journey gives all manner of useful information, sometimes a bit
late....Rod

Now I can picture that and it is funny.....

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:


Yeah, I've seen that article too--I have the impression that the
author of the article was so caught up in the wondrous revelation
that you can make hydrogen from water that he missed whatever was
the
_real_ point.

Then there's this one:
http://www.hydrogensolar.com/

Kind of gives the impression on the home page that they on verge of
burying the world in hydrogen. You dig in deeper and discover they
still have some pretty basic technology to conquer. Sentences like
"We are developing processes to obtain high efficiency films in a
usable form." Uh, huh. I'm not holding my breath.

we are going to need to get cracking building solar plants to
have 27 quadrillion BTU/year of capacity online in ten years. Not
to
mention coming up with some awful good incentives to get people to
trade in their old gas-powered cars for hydrogen powered ones.

Time and the price of gas will take care of the latter.

Yep, but not in the ten years that was mentioned earlier.

But we also
need to build a whole new distribution infrastructure. Hydrogen is
a
tiny little molecule that leaks out of holes natural gas can't even
see.

That too.

I like what Honda's doing--get a few fuel cell cars on the road, let
them run in the hands of the public for a while, take them back and
tear 'em down.

-- Doug

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

Back in Ohio I ran several vehicles on water
but only in the winter...

I have personal knowledge that a 1965 mustang will readily ride/slide
on
nearly 1.5 inches of lake ice until the water below is almost knee
deep....they then sink!!!!!

A common Northern Ohio winter time diversion on Lake Erie around the
islands.

One year, guy drove a brand new, expensive Jeep something a couple of
miles out on the Lake Erie ice to go fishing.

The ice cracked behind him leaving the jeep stranded.

People got off ice, Jeep didn't.

The approach of spring could be monitored by where the Jeep was in the
sinking process.

Just another example of,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"If you buy them books and the eat the covers".

Lew

This whole "running a vehicle on water" debate reminds me of a tragedy that
occurred last winter. It seems some local "newfie" boys had been binge
drinking down at the bait shack when they suddenly discovered themselves
deficient of hooch. The "head honcho" of this trailer park brigade decided
that they should all pile into his cousin's pick up truck and head to the
nearest liquor bender, a mere few kilometers across a frozen lake. As you've
probably guessed... the truck broke through the ice! The driver and his
passenger managed to extricate themselves from the rapidly submerging Detroit
iron, unfortunately their 2 buddies who'd been riding in the truck bed were
not so fortunate.

They drowned 'cuz they couldn't get the tailgate opened! (wink)

--
Message posted via CraftKB.com
http://www.craftkb.com/Uwe/Forums.as...rking/200808/1

"toolman946 via CraftKB.com" u40139@uwe wrote in message
news:88fa04e9026f2@uwe...
This whole "running a vehicle on water" debate reminds me of a tragedy
that
occurred last winter. It seems some local "newfie" boys had been binge
drinking down at the bait shack when they suddenly discovered themselves
deficient of hooch. The "head honcho" of this trailer park brigade decided
that they should all pile into his cousin's pick up truck and head to the
nearest liquor bender, a mere few kilometers across a frozen lake. As
you've
probably guessed... the truck broke through the ice! The driver and his
passenger managed to extricate themselves from the rapidly submerging
Detroit
iron, unfortunately their 2 buddies who'd been riding in the truck bed
were
not so fortunate.

They drowned 'cuz they couldn't get the tailgate opened! (wink)

--
Message posted via CraftKB.com
http://www.craftkb.com/Uwe/Forums.as...rking/200808/1


Not too long ago I saw on National geographic or Nova (I'm not sure) where
the German Navy has a submarine that's powered by sea water/hydrogen.. So a
car powered by water can't be too far off and it is not science fiction.

Joe wrote:
"toolman946 via CraftKB.com" u40139@uwe wrote in message
news:88fa04e9026f2@uwe...
This whole "running a vehicle on water" debate reminds me of a
tragedy that
occurred last winter. It seems some local "newfie" boys had been
binge drinking down at the bait shack when they suddenly discovered
themselves deficient of hooch. The "head honcho" of this trailer
park brigade decided that they should all pile into his cousin's
pick up truck and head to the nearest liquor bender, a mere few
kilometers across a frozen lake. As you've
probably guessed... the truck broke through the ice! The driver and
his passenger managed to extricate themselves from the rapidly
submerging Detroit
iron, unfortunately their 2 buddies who'd been riding in the truck
bed were
not so fortunate.

They drowned 'cuz they couldn't get the tailgate opened! (wink)

--
Message posted via CraftKB.com
http://www.craftkb.com/Uwe/Forums.as...rking/200808/1


Not too long ago I saw on National geographic or Nova (I'm not sure)
where the German Navy has a submarine that's powered by sea
water/hydrogen.. So a car powered by water can't be too far off and
it is not science fiction.

That would be the Type 212 or Type 214, which uses a hydrogen fuel
cell for low speed submerged propulsion. The hydrogen and oygen are
put on board at the dock, not made onboard from sea water, and the
primary propulsion is a thoroughly conventional diesel-electric
system.

Hydrogen fuel cells are nothing new--they were used on the Gemini and
Apollo spacecraft back in the '60s. Further, you can lease a
fuel-cell powered Honda _today_. But that is a far cry from "running
on water".

Water is burned hydrogen. To use water for fuel you have to unburn it
first. Unburning it takes as much energy as you get out of burning
it, plus more to make up for inefficiencies in the process.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Aug 19, 9:15 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Dr. Deb wrote:
wrote:

Would You Like To Know How You Can Easily Convert Your Car To Run
On
Water and Gas Today To Greatly Improve Your Fuel Efficiency and
Save
Thousands Of Dollars On Fuel Costs?
http://meenarang.fuelwater1.hop.clickbank.net/

The fastest way to find a job.
INTERNATIONAL JOBS DIRECTORY

Jobs for professionals, IT Information Technology, engineers,
construction, healthcare and many more
http://internationaljobsdirectory.blogspot.com/
Tell A Friend

Two things about running your car on water. Unmodified it won't.

Recent developments have found a way to produce hydrogen directly
from
water, with a small voltage and sunlight (yes, photosynthesis, but
modified to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water) No this is not
BS, but was written up in a scientific journal. {The problem with
hydorgen to day is that most of what we have is cracked from
petrolum) Add to that the fact that conversion kits already are
available to convert the standard intenal combustion engine to run
on
pure hydrogen.

There is nothing "recent" about this, the process is called
"electrolysis"


No.

Electrolysis does not use sunlight.

...

The difficulty with it is that you have to put as much energy into the
electrolysis as you get out of the resulting hydrogen--in other words
it works like a storage battery, not a primary energy source.

No, you have to put more energy into it to get the hydrogen than you
get back by burning it. But the Sun shines for free. That is the
advantage
to the new process as compared to electrolysis.

--

FF

In article , "Joe" wrote:

Not too long ago I saw on National geographic or Nova (I'm not sure) where
the German Navy has a submarine that's powered by sea water/hydrogen.. .

You must have misunderstood something; that's not physically possible. It
requires more energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen than one gets
back by burning the hydrogen.

So a car powered by water can't be too far off and it is not science fiction.

Incorrect conclusion, driven by incorrect premises. A car, submarine, or
whatever, powered solely by water, is a physical impossibility. There *must*
be an additional power source.

On Aug 21, 6:31 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "Joe" wrote:
Not too long ago I saw on National geographic or Nova (I'm not sure) where
the German Navy has a submarine that's powered by sea water/hydrogen.. .

You must have misunderstood something; that's not physically possible. It
requires more energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen than one gets
back by burning the hydrogen.

So a car powered by water can't be too far off and it is not science fiction.

Incorrect conclusion, driven by incorrect premises. A car, submarine, or
whatever, powered solely by water, is a physical impossibility. There *must*
be an additional power source.

Indeed.

Even hydroelectric power is ultimately, a form of solar energy
utilization.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Even hydroelectric power is ultimately, a form of solar energy
utilization.

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion. -- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion.

Eh? Sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun2.htm

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote:

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar
energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion.

Eh? Sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun2.htm

So you are saying it is all nucular?
;-)
--
Froz...

On Aug 21, 5:22 pm, FrozenNorth
wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar
energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion.

Eh? Sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun2.htm

So you are saying it is all nucular?
;-)
--
Froz...

Tidal power is not, but without nuclear power to
keep the oceans liquid, the tides would be solid
earth/ice tides

--

FF

In article a73f891f-37b5-4c6d-94c2-4f622281c7a2
@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...
On Aug 21, 5:22 pm, FrozenNorth
wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar
energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion.

Eh? Sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun2.htm

So you are saying it is all nucular?
;-)
--
Froz...

Tidal power is not, but without nuclear power to
keep the oceans liquid, the tides would be solid
earth/ice tides

Without nukular power (from the above mentioned "some earlier star")
there wouldn't be tides.

--
Keith

Morris Dovey wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote:

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion.

Eh? Sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion as is all
the other energy we are currently using on earth. The exception would be if we
actually tamed nuclear fusion here on earth. Then we would have some energy
that did not originate in this or some other star.
-- Doug

In article ,
says...
Morris Dovey wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote:

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion.

Eh? Sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion as is all
the other energy we are currently using on earth. The exception would be if we
actually tamed nuclear fusion here on earth. Then we would have some energy
that did not originate in this or some other star.

Only if the fuel is H1. Anything else would have been made by in
another fusion reaction (star).

--
Keith

On Aug 21, 7:36 pm, krw wrote:
In article a73f891f-37b5-4c6d-94c2-4f622281c7a2
@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...



On Aug 21, 5:22 pm, FrozenNorth
wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar
energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion.

Eh? Sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun2.htm

So you are saying it is all nucular?
;-)
--
Froz...

Tidal power is not, but without nuclear power to
keep the oceans liquid, the tides would be solid
earth/ice tides

Without nukular power (from the above mentioned "some earlier star")
there wouldn't be tides.


There will be tides on planets in orbit around brown dwarfs.

But without some other star, they would have no water.

--

FF

In article a9bcc20d-4c65-49ca-b8d1-df57aa1d2bc3@
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says...
On Aug 21, 7:36 pm, krw wrote:
In article a73f891f-37b5-4c6d-94c2-4f622281c7a2
@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...



On Aug 21, 5:22 pm, FrozenNorth
wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:

In fact, all energy, including nuclear fission, is a form of solar
energy. Maybe
not this sun, but some earlier star. The only exception would be nuclear
fusion.

Eh? Sunlight is a product of nuclear fusion.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun2.htm

So you are saying it is all nucular?
;-)
--
Froz...

Tidal power is not, but without nuclear power to
keep the oceans liquid, the tides would be solid
earth/ice tides

Without nukular power (from the above mentioned "some earlier star")
there wouldn't be tides.


There will be tides on planets in orbit around brown dwarfs.

But without some other star, they would have no water.

No planet.

--
Keith