Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« POPE 5 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Free energy - Zimbler 

By: hydro_gen in POPE 5 | Recommend this post (3)
Fri, 14 Jun 19 11:52 PM | 65 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Pope 5 		Msg. 34020 of 62138
(This msg. is a reply to 34016 by Zimbler0)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Zimbler you said Hydro_Gen - here should be a link to the patent office. Looks like there is a tutorial to help you navigate the murky waters. LMAO!!!! Zimbler you are a little over the tips of your skis sir and obviously either are ignoring the salient points or failed to comprehend my earlier post, message #33993 regarding the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 especially the part that I bolded that said: At the end of fiscal year 2018, there were 5,792 secrecy orders in effect!! SO you do not think that there might be something hiding within the 5,792 patents they have told us are secret - not to mention the numerous other inventions that patents were NOT filed for?? If you answered in the affirmative then I have bridges for sale, and cheap. Also, I KNOW how to search the USPTO databases, as well as other US databases such as PACER, and have done so for decades as it has been personally very beneficial exploring potential investment opportunities. I have NEVER EVER stated that You seem to want the government to search the patents . . . the same government you
accuse of hiding the patents in the first place. I have stated that we need a Manhattan Style effort to scour the Global patent databases. This does NOT have to be government funded or controlled - we DO NEED FULL access to said databases. I am advocating for smaller government and you guys seem to love the damned IRS!!

Zimbler you also said The Model-T had a tiny engine
driving a light weight vehicle. My mid sized pickup trucks got better mileage and weighed a lot more. (And went a LOT faster.) How can you call a 480 POUND MOTOR a tiny engine when the Model T curb weight was 1200 pounds?? The engine representing 40% total vehicular weight is not what most would consider being tiny. A current smallest base F150 pickup truck weighs in at 4,100 pounds. Its engine does NOT weigh 40% of the curb weight AND the fuel economy is still only 22mpg.

Since you seem to be so knowledgeable and so quick in attempting to add edification to my posts, can you address this question I posted in message #33993? We went from the Wright Brothers biplane flying 59 seconds and 852 feet in 1903 to the SR 71 in 1964, a mere 61 years later and a massive leap in technology. WHY have we not accomplished the same with energy?? WHY??????

I look forward to the next chuckle or your reply - which ever comes first.

PEACE


 - - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Free energy
By: Zimbler0 in POPE 5
Fri, 14 Jun 19 10:45 PM 		Msg. 34016 of 62138

Hydro_Gen > You guys really do NOT think, that what I will call the Masters of the Universe, have not hidden these discoveries for their own gains and continued stranglehold on the planet?? You guys must actually trust our Government (you ALL seem to love and want to keep the IRS LOL)


Trust the government?
Not with all those lying thieving demoncarps in it.

But what can one do? Every 'solution' seems to call for more government 'control'.
You seem to want the government to search the patents . . . the same government you
accuse of hiding the patents in the first place.

Kind of like accusing a fox of eating your chickens . . . then demanding said
fox guard your chicken house.

You also claimed the internal combustion engine is not very efficient.
That is true enough. But, it is relatively cheap and very reliable.

You also said the Model-T got 13 to 21 mpg . . . The Model-T had a tiny engine
driving a light weight vehicle. My mid sized pickup trucks got better mileage
and weighed a lot more. (And went a LOT faster.)

But OK. I've been told that gas turbines are a lot more fuel efficient than
internal combustion engines . . . But the special materials make them a lot
more expensive than the piston engines on our cars. (That would be why
airlines fly jets these days.) There's a trade-off. Do 'we' try to build
gas turbine auto-mobiles that will cost a lot more . . . or do we go with the
tried and true gas engines we use today?

Most important of all. There are con artists, charlatans, and outright thieves
all over the place. When oil prices shot up in the 1970's a number of the
charlatans saw opportunity. Come up with something cockimany enough and convoluted
enough but promising sounding . . . get the rubes (investors) to shower the would
be inventors with money . . . and run away with the money before the fraud is
uncovered.

Kind of like Obozo was going to make green energy work . . . By showering taxpayers
money all over his friends for pretending to be green energy companies. Then they
all declared bankruptcy so's they wouldn't have to pay the money back.

Zim.

« POPE 5 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next