The Lost Art of Automotive Tinkering - Cars as Disposable Appliances

[Teancum]

For those who wonder why we dont have these cool technologies running around commonplace on our roads, This helps to explain why:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/pscrl.pdf

ARMED SERVICES PATENT ADVISORY BOARD
"ASPAB"
PATENT SECURITY CATEGORY REVIEW LIST
PREPARED BY ASPAB SUB-COMMITIEE
CHAIRMAN: H.L. MOURNING, AMC
J.C. MORRIS, AF
BERT CONVEY, NAVY
JANUARY 1971
(Originally classified Confidential - Now Unclassified]
Short Title: PSCRL-1....

Item 3 I. Fuel stabilizing additives (AM C) (AF)....
Group XI - Power Supply
Item l. Batteries, secondary, for low or high temperature operation; Cells for extended low temperature storage
(AM C) (AF) High energy per volume batteries (for submarines, torpedoes and warheads) (NAVY)
Item lA. Batteries, thermally activated (AM C) (NAVY) (AF)
Item 2. Gas powered electrical and hydraulic auxiliary power suppliers for missiles (NAVY)
Item 3. Fuel CeUs: Electro-<:hemical devices in which part of the energy derived from the chemical reaction
maintained by the continuous supply of chemical reactants, is converted to electrical energy (AF) (NAVY)
(AM C)- only if military applications are mentioned.
Item 3a. Electro-<:hemical devices: other unusual and efficient energy conversion devices such as thermoelectric,
thermionic generators (including instaUation procedures), biochemical sensors, and biological electrical power
generation devices (AMC)-military applications only (NAVY) (AF) (AEC) only if Radioactive Material is used)
Item 4. Thermionic convertor: a device which will convert heat energy directly (staticaUy) to electric energy by
means of emission of electrons from a hot cathode and coUection of these electrons on a cold anode within a
vacuum or gas-filled tube. (AF) (NAVY) (NASA)( AM C) 8178 (AEC - only if Radioactive Material is used)
Item 5. A device which will convert heat energy directly (statically) into electrical energy by means of two
dissimilar metals or semi-conductors formed into a closed circuit and maintained at different temperatures
(AF)(AMC)8178(NA VY) (AEC - only if Radioactive Material is used)
Item 6. Biochemical fuel cells and biochemical electric generators (NAVY) (AF)
Item 7. MHD generators (NAVY) (NASA) (AF).(AMC) 8178
Item 8. Solar photovoltaic generators (AM C)- if > 20% efficient (NASA) (AF)
Item 9. Energy conversion systems with conversion efficiencies in excess of 70-80% (AF) (NA VY)(AMC) 8178
Item 10. Novel energy sources and storage devices for fuzes (AMC) (AF) (NAVY)
Item II. Pulsed energy source for high powered lasers (AM C) (AF) (NAVY)....
Item 4. Superconductors (AF) (NASA)....
Item 8. Any invention directed to fuel economy, efficiency, air and noise poUution, or safety

So, when an inventor comes to the patent office with a new gizmo, if it happens to touch on any of these or updated interest categories, then it is referred to the appropriate agency who then slap a National Security Letter on the application, and the applicant is instructed never to speak about the item or do any further development, marketing, or work with the gizmo - under penalty of prison.
Please see:http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/ ... ity-letter

They were sort of grim: “Let’s lock the doors, you’ll be the only person who hears about this.” They said that, according to the law, you have to give them the information they want, and you can only talk to people such that you can fulfill this request. Other than that, there’s nothing else you can do, and then you can’t ever mention it to anybody, ever.

So I asked, “Can I bring this up with my board?” And the answer is no. Could I discuss it with my wife? The answer is no, not without risking being put in prison for years.

This directive to the patent office was in 1971. Do you see why there has really been no commercial improvement in mileage, and energy production in general? Sure, the military has the good stuff, but not for the common slaves. Please see:
http://www.energeticforum.com/200483-po ... ee39c9125f (middle of the thread).
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17233&sid=743e6497d ... 8e1a6a02e3
and
viewtopic.php?t=40390#p656430

So, what is the solution? What can be done so we can enjoy the cool technologies and knowledge God deigns to shed forth?
George says - if you have the magic sauce, then put up or shut up. But if someone does say "Hey! yeah, I got me one of them there new-fangled thing-a-majigs, come on over and set a spell and I'll shew yer how it works ". then they immediately open themselves up to be a target to either be gently persuaded or a litle more roughed up. Jason says - the smart guys keep ther mouths shut and use their magic sauce themselves. The problem with that, is that society as a whole does not ever benefit. One or two people that have their working gizmos out of billions is statistically nothing.

You can not patent your gizmo, you can't market your gizmo, and if you try to just share information and inform others on the internet, then you are mocked and called names, made to look like crazies and fools. The same treatment the great and spacious building dishes out all the time.
If you try to become wealthy from your endeavors, then that is one sure way to fail - as it was free knowledge given by God to many different people at the same time in the first place.

What if you shared with your family, neghbors, farmers and ranchers, even church members and curious internet forum members (kind of quietly) but getting enough copies of your gizmo out there that it cannot be stopped? Would you take the advice of some nobody on the forum who happens to say - it might be worth your while to look into it yourself. After all, isnt that how most everyone gains a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? They plant the seed, and do the experiment themselves. Those who don't soon wither and fall away.

I have planted my own seeds and they have grown and born fruit. You may take my testimony however you want. Nothing but the best of intentions for you.

[Separatist]

I think oil, natural gas and coal are cool technologies.

[dconrad000]

I think oil, natural gas and coal are cool technologies.

I agree...cool...

...but increasingly prohibitively expensive due to the modern-day-secret-combination's market machinations and anthropogenic climate change policy.

[Separatist]

I think oil, natural gas and coal are cool technologies.

I agree...cool...

...but increasingly prohibitively expensive due to the modern-day-secret-combination's market machinations and anthropogenic climate change policy.

Not really:
http://www.aei.org/publication/isnt-is- ... umers-buy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fo ... op?ie=UTF8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gclayjr]

but increasingly prohibitively expensive due to the modern-day-secret-combination's market machinations and anthropogenic climate change policy.

I think it would be cool to take all of these highly emotionally charged meaningless words that conspiracy enthusiasts like to use to cover the lack of substance in their arguments into a Mad-Libs book.

Wouldn't this make a great Mad Libs book?

Regards,

George Clay

[dconrad000]

[directed to Gclayjr]

You have mentioned elsewhere that you have read the book, "None Dare Call It Conspiracy", by Gary Allen -- which we were all urged to read by Ezra Taft Benson, in General Conference, in April 1972 https://youtu.be/pJNMcD2IY_k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . If you have read that book, do you believe it? If so, you may wish to re-read it, because you seem to have forgotten everything about it. The same applies to Cleon Skousen's book, "The Naked Capitalist", referenced above.

[dconrad000]

I think oil, natural gas and coal are cool technologies.

I agree...cool...

...but increasingly prohibitively expensive due to the modern-day-secret-combination's market machinations and anthropogenic climate change policy.

Not really:
http://www.aei.org/publication/isnt-is- ... umers-buy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fo ... op?ie=UTF8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shutting down coal plants all over the country, driving up electricity costs under the pretense of anthropogenic climate change policy is just one example.

...but really, it is all very expensive when in reality we could be using water fuel cells if it weren't for the modern-day-secret-combination's agenda with respect to energy...but that is the least of our problems with respect to their plans for us.

[Separatist]

I think oil, natural gas and coal are cool technologies.

I agree...cool...

...but increasingly prohibitively expensive due to the modern-day-secret-combination's market machinations and anthropogenic climate change policy.

Not really:
http://www.aei.org/publication/isnt-is- ... umers-buy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Case-Fo ... op?ie=UTF8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shutting down coal plants all over the country, driving up electricity costs under the pretense of anthropogenic climate change policy is just one example. Oh, I got ya. I agree.

...but really, it is all very expensive when in reality we could be using water fuel cells if it weren't for the modern-day-secret-combination's agenda with respect to energy...but that is the least of our problems with respect to their plans for us. It really isn't expensive. One of the cheapest liquids I buy. Would be cheaper without taxes on top of it. Not so sure about water cars. Seems like water for cars would be a misallocation considering waters vastly more important uses: drinking, sanitation, agriculture etc. Seems like oil fits the bill perfectly. But the only way to find out is to let the market decide.

[dconrad000]

The water is not lost in the process. It is simply converted into water vapor, to be returned to the earth in liquid form with the passing of time, in the natural cycles of nature.

[Ezra]

The water is not lost in the process. It is simply converted into water vapor, to be returned to the earth in liquid form with the passing of time, in the natural cycles of nature.

You mean broken down into its elements hydrogen and oxygen. Which hho is very flammable when broken into its individual components.

Some of the hho is recombined durring the burning process and becomes water again. The rest is water vapor.

The process makes either pure water or water vapor with the impurities being lost in the process.

A really cool hho set up I saw was a guy built a hho generator that was solar powered which created the hho gas then compressed it in a storage tank. He then would fill up his tanks on his truck from that tank and run hho simalar to propane.

His set up cost he was figuring would be about a 15 year investment befor it would pay for itself and he would start driving for free.

[Jason]

Jason,

The cost is not in the designs and experiments that end up producing a product. The cost is in bringing a product to market - marketing, legal, mass production, market share warfare, etc.

I was suggesting that you could bring the light of day to this conspiracy by simply building it and showing it without necessarily marketing it.

I didn't take the time to read everything you linked to , but I did peruse some of it. This is also a typical Conspiracy Theorist distraction. Every time anybody challenges any single wacko idea, I see a blizzard of links to Ezra Taft Benson, and Cleon Skousen, etc, as if they were making pronouncements about water carburetors, who killed Kennedy, falsifying moon landings, bringing down the Word Trade Center, Convincing George Bush to invade Iraq, etc.

I started out by taking issue with conspiracies by that evil empire big Oil, you know that entity that exists in its own sphere, not to be the stockholder's who own it, the managers, who run it, or the scientists and engineers who work there, but some self aware powerful rich entity, hiding in the inky shadows, who has murdered to kill magic products that convert water into hydrogen, so that we no longer need oil or gasoline from this evil beast to run our automobiles.

I started by responding to kensurplus posting stuff that implied that big oil was responsible for killing the electric car, which was then followed by dconrad000 posting videos about how there have been a number of of people who have developed "water" carburetors, and that we would be using these things to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen and burning the result, thus negating the need for petroleum. I said this is bogus, and the physics, and math pretty much proves it.

So you respond by showing information pertaining to the Webster-Heiss valve, that doesn't even use water. It continues to use gasoline. That your own post seems to encourage anybody that wants to experiment with it to do so, and by its own definition, only has the potential to marginally improve fuel efficiency.

This report should not be considered to be a recommendation for or
against the Webster-Heise valve or the related technology. There is
not yet enough evidence to support such a judgment either way. The
data that is available, however, suggests that a closer investigation of
it by the auto industry and by the Federal Government would not be
inappropriate. If its potential for greater fuel conservation, reduced
emissions, and lower octane requirements can be even partially realized,
the introduction of the Webster-Heise valve could be a very significant
development.

and

The test results vary to some extent
with the type of test and the conditions under which they were run,
but data (see Summary of Tests) comparing the Webster-Heise modified
car with a baseline car (including the same car without the valve) show
the following representative results:
Fuel economy increased from 6 to 20 percent;
Torque (power) at 1500 RPM increased from 13
to 40 percent;
NOx emissions declined from 4 to 48 percent;
Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions declined from 17
to 54 percent;

Which certainly suggests, that this technology is not proven, it is recommended that people explore this further, and that the best potential benefits are marginal performance gains.

So let me follow your logic here, The fact that there exists a valve that might improve fuel efficiency, that nobody is trying to stop research into , proves that big evil oil companies have used their murky power to the point of murder to stop the creation of water carburetors? I'm sorry, I really don't see how one even implies the other, let alone proves it.

Regards,

George Clay

I used that one because it's an easy cheap stupid simple example that worked...however marginal you might view the improvements (tearing down motor at 60,000 with nearly zero signs of wear and tear - due too heavy hydrocarbons getting broken down rather than leaking past piston rings and diluting oil in my book is well worth the small cost in and of itself without getting into horsepower, torque and mileage improvements)...

Kruppa's firestorm spark plugs is another example of a very simple design that works with demonstrated improvements. Stanley's patents on using voltage step regulator to split water are a little more difficult but certainly not overwhelming. Cotrell's water emulsifier is a little more technically challenging but certainly not overwhelming. Pantone's fuel catalyst is another step up. Guy from Price UT that sold out to Caterpillar with his conductive cylinder head gaskets...up there as well.

I could go on but there is certainly no point. Everyone is certainly entitled to their beliefs. Whether researched and investigated...truthful or not...in all aspects of this earth life.

Some deep irony and tempting to go off about the good people in the CIA, FBI, DIA, etc...yet how the organizations have ended up doing some pretty horrific things...compartmentalism etc. But deaf ears and for another day...

[Teancum]

The water is not lost in the process. It is simply converted into water vapor, to be returned to the earth in liquid form with the passing of time, in the natural cycles of nature.

You mean broken down into its elements hydrogen and oxygen. Which hho is very flammable when broken into its individual components.

Some of the hho is recombined durring the burning process and becomes water again. The rest is water vapor.

The process makes either pure water or water vapor with the impurities being lost in the process.

A really cool hho set up I saw was a guy built a hho generator that was solar powered which created the hho gas then compressed it in a storage tank. He then would fill up his tanks on his truck from that tank and run hho simalar to propane.

His set up cost he was figuring would be about a 15 year investment befor it would pay for itself and he would start driving for free.

Yes and no, certainly there is a dissociation of water into Hydrogen Hydrogen + Oxygen, but there is also a benefit from straight water as a mist.
Google says:

At average atmospheric pressure, the expansion ratio between water in its liquid form and steam is 1:1700. This means that under ideal conditions, 1 part of liquid water expands to 1700 times the volume as steam when boiled.

So, a cool water mist entering the intake of an engine (not a stream or a vapor)is a benefit by flashing to steam by the heat of compression and the heat of ignition and burning of the fuel. This flash steam expands 1700 times the original volume adding extra power and increasing mileage.
Each addition of a subsystem (cool water mist, and HHO, etc...) increases efficiency by itself but combined does even better. There are thermodynamic equations one can play with for the compression of air or other specific gasses in an engine too.

There are much more things one can do if they are not hampered by the Master Control Program of the car dumping more gas into the system.

<EDIT> I noticed you mentioned compression of HHO, which is a big no-no. Very bad to compress HHO as it self ignites at 15 to 30 or so psi depending on the quality of gas produced (energetically different - para to ortho - watch those vids I posted). HHO is best used made on demand and not stored. There are other gasses that MAY be able to safely stored, which are made from splitting water, but it is very difficult to distinguish between the differences at this point. </EDIT>

[Jason]

The water is not lost in the process. It is simply converted into water vapor, to be returned to the earth in liquid form with the passing of time, in the natural cycles of nature.

You mean broken down into its elements hydrogen and oxygen. Which hho is very flammable when broken into its individual components.

Some of the hho is recombined durring the burning process and becomes water again. The rest is water vapor.

The process makes either pure water or water vapor with the impurities being lost in the process.

A really cool hho set up I saw was a guy built a hho generator that was solar powered which created the hho gas then compressed it in a storage tank. He then would fill up his tanks on his truck from that tank and run hho simalar to propane.

His set up cost he was figuring would be about a 15 year investment befor it would pay for itself and he would start driving for free.

Yes and no, certainly there is a dissociation of water into Hydrogen Hydrogen + Oxygen, but there is also a benefit from straight water as a mist.
Google says:

At average atmospheric pressure, the expansion ratio between water in its liquid form and steam is 1:1700. This means that under ideal conditions, 1 part of liquid water expands to 1700 times the volume as steam when boiled.

So, a cool water mist entering the intake of an engine (not a stream or a vapor)is a benefit by flashing to steam by the heat of compression and the heat of ignition and burning of the fuel. This flash steam expands 1700 times the original volume adding extra power and increasing mileage.
Each addition of a subsystem (cool water mist, and HHO, etc...) increases efficiency by itself but combined does even better. There are thermodynamic equations one can play with for the compression of air or other specific gasses in an engine too.

There are much more things one can do if they are not hampered by the Master Control Program of the car dumping more gas into the system.

Works even better if you emulsify the water in with the fuel so that when the water molecules vaporize...they shatter the large hydrocarbons in the process...

[David13]

I do know they used to have cars that ran on water vapor. They were called steamers. Tractors also. My grandfather was a big fan of them and had several.
They still have an annual California Antique Farm Equipment show just north here in Tulare, CA, where they run a lot of them.
100 years ago or more they also had electric cars. I have a photo of a Baker Electric from 1913 on my wall. And I have seen them in several locations, one of which is Henry Ford's Greenfield Village near Detroit.
dc

[gclayjr]

Jason,

used that one because it's an easy cheap stupid simple example that worked...however marginal you might view the improvements (tearing down motor at 60,000 with nearly zero signs of wear and tear - due too heavy hydrocarbons getting broken down rather than leaking past piston rings and diluting oil in my book is well worth the small cost in and of itself without getting into horsepower, torque and mileage improvements)...

I'm not devaluing any of these technologies. I'm merely saying that they have nothing to do with converting water to hydrogen, which I have ridiculed, and show nothing about a grand conspiracy by the murky, powerful Oil barons to stifle such stuff to the point of conspiring to kill anybody invoked.

Regards,

George Clay

[Jason]

Jason,

used that one because it's an easy cheap stupid simple example that worked...however marginal you might view the improvements (tearing down motor at 60,000 with nearly zero signs of wear and tear - due too heavy hydrocarbons getting broken down rather than leaking past piston rings and diluting oil in my book is well worth the small cost in and of itself without getting into horsepower, torque and mileage improvements)...

I'm not devaluing any of these technologies. I'm merely saying that they have nothing to do with converting water to hydrogen, which I have ridiculed, and show nothing about a grand conspiracy by the murky, powerful Oil barons to stifle such stuff to the point of conspiring to kill anybody invoked.

Regards,

George Clay

Have you studied Stanley's patents? Researched his history and death? Researched the technology?

[gclayjr]

Jason,

Have you studied Stanley's patents? Researched his history and death? Researched the technology?

Now we have come back full circle. I started out by saying that I don't believe the physics, and the math., or in a grand conspiracy to get rid of the water carburetor, and kill anybody involved.

Remember TANSTAAFL?

I also said that I don't believe in some murky over arching conspiracy of Illuminati, or whoever, that are not major stockholders, are not major executives, and are not the scientists or engineers working for any identifiable Oil Companies, conspiring to murder anybody who might endanger the Oil Companies hold on American transportation

Since I don't believe the math and the physics, I'm not going spend a lot of time investigating that which I am completely convinced is bogus.

While I do believe in conspiracies, I don't believe in these crazy conspiracies that are whispered and rumored about by those who marinate in this stuff. I do believe in cronyism conspiracies, where people in big business, use money to buy off politicians to support legislation and rules that secretly help them and destroy competition, but grand schemes that the illuminati, the CFR, or the Rothschild's are running the world are bogus.


So I don't know why you wasted my time in showing me various potential gadgets that are being worked on, that might improve fuel economy, that nobody is suppressing as some sort of proof of this grand conspiracy. I already spent more time than I have chasing these non sequitur links you gave me out of respect for you.

If you have some short, simple , clear proof of this, out of respect for you, I will read it. Otherwise, I will have to conclude, that while you make sense on a lot of topics, I am going to have to sadly conclude that you are a conspiracy Kool-Aid drinker.

Regards,

George Clay

[dconrad000]

[directed to Gclayjr]

You have mentioned elsewhere that you have read the book, "None Dare Call It Conspiracy", by Gary Allen -- which we were all urged to read by Ezra Taft Benson, in General Conference, in April 1972 https://youtu.be/pJNMcD2IY_k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . If you have read that book, do you believe it? If so, you may wish to re-read it, because you seem to have forgotten everything about it. The same applies to Cleon Skousen's book, "The Naked Capitalist", referenced above.

[dconrad000]

This is quick and is powerful evidence, but you can't judge it if you don't watch it.

This starts out in Dutch as the interviewers are Dutch, but they switch over to English when Stanley Meyer comes out. Stanley Meyer then proceeds to show them everything about the car and explains in detail how it works.

[dconrad000]

[directed to Gclayjr]

You have mentioned elsewhere that you have read the book, "None Dare Call It Conspiracy", by Gary Allen -- which we were all urged to read by Ezra Taft Benson, in General Conference, in April 1972 https://youtu.be/pJNMcD2IY_k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . If you have read that book, do you believe it? If so, you may wish to re-read it, because you seem to have forgotten everything about it. The same applies to Cleon Skousen's book, "The Naked Capitalist", referenced above.

[gclayjr]

dconrad000,

You do realize that you are just copying and pasting your previous posts and this does NOTHING to improve your credibility. Yes, I have read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy", and Cleon Skousen's , "The Naked Communist" and the"The Naked Capitalist".

While I don't believe every word of these books, I do believe they generally make important points.

However, THey are silent on

Gclayjr, I agree with that statement. There are a number of whacko, bogus conspiracy theories out there that muddy the waters with respect to real conspiracies...

...such as the following real conspiracies:

1. The sinking of the Lusitania event designed to get the American public angry enough to go to war.

2. The Reichstag fire false flag event, used by Hitler to manipulate public sentiment.

3. The funding and support of the Bolshevik revolution, Hitler, and Mao's China by western capitalists to create "the best enemies that money can buy".

4. The stand down operation of Pearl Harbor, designed to get the American people angry enough to go to war.

5. The Gulf of Tonkin false flag event, designed to justify US entry into the Vietnam war.

6. Operation Gladio false flag terror campaign, designed to instill fear and manipulate the public in Europe.

7. 9/11 false flag terror event, designed to get the American people angry enough to go to war.

8. The government cover-up of who was really behind the murders of JFK, Bobbie Kennedy, and Martin Luther King.

9. The "suiciding" of Vince Foster, Gary Webb, and the DC Madam.

10. The government cover-up of the murder of the inventor of an efficient and usable method of hydrogen conversion and combustion, Stanley Meyer -- an honest and good man, albeit naive about how the the world works -- which got him killed.

...just to name a few.

particularly #10.


I might agree with a couple of the above , depending on exactly what you mean. For example, it is no secret that Hitler arranged to have the Reich-stag burned, and then blame it on the Jews, and it is no Secret that Wilson used the sinking of the Lusitania to gin up anger for a declaration of war, it is no secret that the Franklin administration was "poking" the Japanese and expected an attack somewhere, but some how I expect that your definition of these "conspiracies" goes way into La-La land.

I also hold Cleon Skousen's opinions higher than Gary Allen's

So continually referencing them to support the killing of Stanley Meyer, just demonstrates that you are an illogical fanatic!

REgards,

George Clay

[dconrad000]

While I don't believe every word of these books, I do believe they generally make important points.

Then you contradict yourself. You continually deride 95% of what is contained in those books, while claiming to believe them. You may want to revisit those books, but I warn you that if you pay attention this time, what is contained in those books will set your world view on its head.

You asked for evidence, so I reposted the videos you refuse to watch. The evidence is right before you. But you don't really want evidence. You want to continue to live in your state of denial of a powerful, global conspiracy -- which includes many aspects of your life -- including your access to energy, among many other things.

If you prefer to live in a state of denial of reality, that is your prerogative.

[Ezra]

Jason,

Have you studied Stanley's patents? Researched his history and death? Researched the technology?

Now we have come back full circle. I started out by saying that I don't believe the physics, and the math., or in a grand conspiracy to get rid of the water carburetor, and kill anybody involved.

Remember TANSTAAFL?

I also said that I don't believe in some murky over arching conspiracy of Illuminati, or whoever, that are not major stockholders, are not major executives, and are not the scientists or engineers working for any identifiable Oil Companies, conspiring to murder anybody who might endanger the Oil Companies hold on American transportation

Since I don't believe the math and the physics, I'm not going spend a lot of time investigating that which I am completely convinced is bogus.

While I do believe in conspiracies, I don't believe in these crazy conspiracies that are whispered and rumored about by those who marinate in this stuff. I do believe in cronyism conspiracies, where people in big business, use money to buy off politicians to support legislation and rules that secretly help them and destroy competition, but grand schemes that the illuminati, the CFR, or the Rothschild's are running the world are bogus.


So I don't know why you wasted my time in showing me various potential gadgets that are being worked on, that might improve fuel economy, that nobody is suppressing as some sort of proof of this grand conspiracy. I already spent more time than I have chasing these non sequitur links you gave me out of respect for you.

If you have some short, simple , clear proof of this, out of respect for you, I will read it. Otherwise, I will have to conclude, that while you make sense on a lot of topics, I am going to have to sadly conclude that you are a conspiracy Kool-Aid drinker.

Regards,

George Clay

Cool I guess all that is required is a belief. I don't believe your a real person George. Yay it's true now.

Stan Myers had a Car that he was driving around that ran on water. There is even news vid coverage.

But I guess your belief is more powerful.

It does not matter how strongly you believe something to be. If it's not right or correct then it's just insanity.

[David13]

If he could build such a car, why cannot anyone else?
Why aren't there others making this car? The conspiracy killed everyone who could potentially build this car? If he could figure it out, why couldn't anyone else.
dc

[shadow]

If he could build such a car, why cannot anyone else?
Why aren't there others making this car? The conspiracy killed everyone who could potentially build this car? If he could figure it out, why couldn't anyone else.
dc

thats where real rubber would meet a real road.