Stupid World

[unstuck]

You should feel bad about that.

I prefer feeling good, so much more powerful a feeling.

[Ocean1]

I prefer feeling good, so much more powerful a feeling.

That's profoundly true.

It's also the very best reason to de-bunk the endless tirade of negativity and fact-free bullshit emanating from mashland over there. We get enough of it from the professional fact ignorers: the press.

[unstuck]

Rather than waste my energy on de-bunking anything, I would rather put my energies into finding ways of doing things that are a little more out there. I know what I mean anyway, just cannot seem to get it into words.


I have always loved people telling me I could not do something, I will find a way to do it, somehow.

[Ocean1]

Rather than waste my energy on de-bunking anything, I would rather put my energies into finding ways of doing things that are a little more out there. I know what I mean anyway, just cannot seem to get it into words.

I know exactly what you mean, I do it for a living.

[Scuba_Steve]

Have you read any of the releases?

No, I'm too lazy for that sorta carry-on

I have always loved people telling me I could not do something, I will find a way to do it, somehow.

You can't give me the ability to turn anything I want into pure gold when I want

[unstuck]

No, I'm too lazy for that sorta carry-on




You can't give me the ability to turn anything I want into pure gold when I want

No sorry, thats Merlin. But you never know, apparently there is an alchemist living in the sudanese desert who can though.

[unstuck]

I know exactly what you mean, I do it for a living.

More solution based thinking than problem based thinking. Like riding a bike, look where you want to go, not where you dont.

[Ocean1]

More solution based thinking than problem based thinking. Like riding a bike, look where you want to go, not where you dont.

Yeah, it's a recognised planning methodology.

But you've got to be wary of the an affect evolutionary anthropologists warn of, the arrogance that assumes your predecessors were less smart or less committed than you. They might have been less well resourced than you, but you'll still need to be very, very fucking good to build a genuinely better mousetrap.

[unstuck]

Yeah, it's a recognised planning methodology.

But you've got to be wary of the an affect evolutionary anthropologists warn of, the arrogance that assumes your predecessors were less smart or less committed than you. They might have been less well resourced than you, but you'll still need to be very, very fucking good to build a genuinely better mousetrap.

Yeah, that Da vinci was a smart cookie, wonder what he was smoking.

[mashman]

Once again, you imply water is combustible....

Though, I guess I've missed your point again.

You're more than free to assume what I am implying... in fact you'll be a darn fine company.

[mashman]

I cannot believe the depth of your ignorance. Simply stunning.

Try harder.

Yes. Mashmind made it sound like it could, because he's convinced the true freedom fighters have it sussed and the evel corporate baddies have covered it all up.

No. You made it sound like that even though we had previously discussed the elements that comprise water, as well as you saying that there are engines that will work using those elements. But as it's a free world, you carry on making the facts fit your own agenda.

[Ocean1]

No. You made it sound like that even though we had previously discussed the elements that comprise water, as well as you saying that there are engines that will work using those elements.

If you're going to discuss even very basic chemistry you need to understand enough to at least argue the correct statement.

You compared the energy required to refine petrol with that required to fill your car with water. You intended to infer that burning water was a valid energy comparison to burning petrol. Don't pretend that it simply slipped your mind to include the energy required to make hydrogen from water, you're not that sophisticated.

Imbecile.

[Fergus]

You're more than free to assume what I am implying... in fact you'll be a darn fine company.

Feel free to set me straight so we can have a rational debate.....If that is what you want?

[mashman]

If you're going to discuss even very basic chemistry you need to understand enough to at least argue the correct statement.

You compared the energy required to refine petrol with that required to fill your car with water. You intended to infer that burning water was a valid energy comparison to burning petrol. Don't pretend that it simply slipped your mind to include the energy required to make hydrogen from water, you're not that sophisticated.

Imbecile.

As I said in an earlier post, I made my own crude device that ran using a computer power supply connected to the 12v output and generated hydrogen. Given that a car uses a 12v battery and has a charging system the power required for splitting hydrogen from the water is already there. So no, if you had have read the post where I highlighted the device I had made, you would realise that I wasn't that it hadn't slipped my mind at all. Carry on making up your own story's though, tis very funny.

Feel free to set me straight so we can have a rational debate.....If that is what you want?

The implication that I was expecting to burn water given that I have tried this myself, no not burning water, but splitting hydrogen out to make it go bang (which I never tried), allowed me to sit back and watch the pack chasing their tails saying that that's what I was talking about... the fervor with which they go about their task is always amusing. But yes, I will refer to it as running on water because water is poured into the tank, similarly to petrol being poured into the tank still requires oxygen and a spark to make it go bang. Fun fun fun

[bogan]

As I said in an earlier post, I made my own crude device that ran using a computer power supply connected to the 12v output and generated hydrogen. Given that a car uses a 12v battery and has a charging system the power required for splitting hydrogen from the water is already there. So no, if you had have read the post where I highlighted the device I had made, you would realise that I wasn't that it hadn't slipped my mind at all. Carry on making up your own story's though, tis very funny.



The implication that I was expecting to burn water given that I have tried this myself, no not burning water, but splitting hydrogen out to make it go bang (which I never tried), allowed me to sit back and watch the pack chasing their tails saying that that's what I was talking about... the fervor with which they go about their task is always amusing. But yes, I will refer to it as running on water because water is poured into the tank, similarly to petrol being poured into the tank still requires oxygen and a spark to make it go bang. Fun fun fun

So what comes out the exhaust then?