Gas from Water, (WaterFuel), HHO technology

[yipster]

_
H is how we should write antimatter hydrogen, not HHO but hot
read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen
http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pres.../PR22.10E.html

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by yipster

_
H is how we should write antimatter hydrogen, not HHO but hot
read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen
http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pres.../PR22.10E.html

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/brea...ected-at-rhic/

[yipster]

since we know how to write hydrogen antimatter CERN now trapped these antimatter atoms in its antiproton decelerator
for 1,000 seconds or a little longer as 15 minutes black holes on tv but hey, sounds like we can make them too now
more at: http://www.gizmag.com/cern-traps-ant...m_medium=email and the scientific press

[FAST FRED]

"And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy efficient technology."

The Lie here is weather Gov will allow the use of any advance.

The South Africans make aircraft fuel that produces 15% to 20% more power from natural gas ,.

The USA has better than 500 years of natural gas ,found so far, but what chance is there that we could switch the entire civilian and military aviation to this drop in fuel?

ZERO! With the current administration.

Doing the same thing with coal, results in $30aBBL fuel , less with the NG.

[yipster]

î'm all for a good global technocratie that will be neccesairy in the future sharing resources and wealth with interstellar other civilisations and what more

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by FAST FRED

"And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy efficient technology."

The Lie here is weather Gov will allow the use of any advance.

The South Africans make aircraft fuel that produces 15% to 20% more power from natural gas ,.

The USA has better than 500 years of natural gas ,found so far, but what chance is there that we could switch the entire civilian and military aviation to this drop in fuel?

ZERO! With the current administration.

Doing the same thing with coal, results in $30aBBL fuel , less with the NG.

Why do you say "this administration," Fred? Why would Obama want to stop something like that?

And if it's so wonderfully cheap, why isn't the rest of the world doing it? Qatar has huge natural gas resources, and it's been playing with turning it into jet fuel for years. South Africa has been doing the same with coal for years. It sure as heck isn't the Obama administration that's been stopping them from expanding their programs so far; it's the cost. So far, they haven't gotten it down low enough to be competive.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers, when you say that synthetic fuel from natural gas costs less than $30 a barrel? I work for the largest natural gas utility in the country. I think that if we could turn it into jet fuel for $30 a barrel, we'd be all over it--regardless of who the President was. It would be like having our own printing press for cranking out money.