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: Zimbler0 in POPE 5 | Recommend this post (0)
Sat, 15 Jun 19 3:03 AM | 55 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Pope 5 		Msg. 34022 of 62138
(This msg. is a reply to 34020 by hydro_gen)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Hydro_Gen > WHY have we not accomplished the same with energy?? WHY??????


Let me see . . .
Airplanes went from flying kites to high speed streamlined machines.

Our energy sources went from largely animal powered through steam power
to diesel engines to nuclear reactors. We also have solar cells and
gas turbine generator sets.

Automotivs? Mechanical transport went through many of the improvements
that the airplane did. From clunky boxy beasts to machines designed to
be as aerodynamically efficient as possible. Now the airplane went (mostly)
from propellor powered by piston engines to jet engines. The auto did not
make such a quantum leap in motive force.

Why did the automobile not have a quantum leap in engine technology? For
the same reason one sees small airplanes with piston driven propellers.
The piston driven infernal combustion engine is still relatively cheap
and cost effective.

As for the 'hidden patents'? Not knowing what they might be for or why
they are hidden I can't speculate. But I'm pretty sure a patent for a
'car that runs on water' either doesn't actually exist or was used to
defraud a lot of folks.

I'd love to be proven wrong . . .

Hidden patents . . . . There are some good reasons for hiding some patents.
For example, that 'stealth coating' on stealth aircraft. That had better
be hidden good - I would not want the russkies or chinks reading the patent
and stealing the secret.

Zim.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Free energy - Zimbler
By: hydro_gen in POPE 5
Fri, 14 Jun 19 11:52 PM 		Msg. 34020 of 62138

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

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