Car conversion notes, addendum 2
 

In my last post, which I can't follow up on for
a few hours since I am using http://groups.google.com
his morning, I said:

"but that the conversion"

which should be

"but that there be conversion"

(of cars, ha)

I obviously have to proofread before I post, a little
more, but Iam impatient at times.

David
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton

Did you ever learn what spam was?

No it don't go with your balogna for breakfast.

Mike

David Dalton wrote:
>
> In my last post, which I can't follow up on for
> a few hours since I am using http://groups.google.com
> his morning, I said:
>
> "but that the conversion"
>
> which should be
>
> "but that there be conversion"
>
> (of cars, ha)
>
> I obviously have to proofread before I post, a little
> more, but Iam impatient at times.
>
> David
> http://www.nfld.com/~dalton

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:16:44 -0400, Mike Romain >
wrote:

>Did you ever learn what spam was?

How the f__k is it spam? It is about autos and
the environment. Get a life.

D.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:07:05 -0230, David Dalton >
wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:16:44 -0400, Mike Romain >
>wrote:
>
>>Did you ever learn what spam was?
>
>How the f__k is it spam? It is about autos and
>the environment. Get a life.

A crosspost is not necessarily spam, definitely not if it
on-topic on all groups crossposted to.

If you had read all three of my Car conversion notes,
Car conversion notes, addendum
and Car conversion notes, addendum 2
posts you would have noted they were posted
by google groups within a few minutes of one
another and hence I could not follow up on the
first one with the second and third since the first
had not shown up yet on google groups yet. However
if I had used the same subject line they would have
been threaded in some newsreaders but not those
threading based just on references.

Do not expect a formal journal like environment on
unmoderated or even some moderated newsgroups,
I am quite in my rights to throw in a little partly
off-topic comments about "Rattling Bog" in an
otherwise on-topic thread, especially when if you
are smart you can note that a bog is a sensitive
environment quite affected by nearby cars.

If you are with a car company note that car companies
themselves could make a lot of money from doing
such conversion. Rather than selling a $20,000
car that spews out fumes for ten years and they
don't sell another one for ten years they may be able
to do on top of that a $5000 government subsidized
conversion. (Though I do't know about the
superconducting motors just yet, and will think again
about better energy/hydrogen sources later some more.)

So Mike, do you have anything against such car conversion
(which may or may not be practically engineerable)?

Ideally somehow we could figure out how to catalyze
an action of sunlight on water to produce hydrogen
and oxygen without the intercediary of solar cells
though those are becoming more efficient and eventually
we may have big panels in space broadcasting power
to the ground.

David