>
> On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 03:37:30PM +1200, Apptech wrote:
>>
>>> Hydrogen looks even worse when you factor in the
>>> efficiency of the internal
>>> combustion engine that moves the vehicle.
>>
>> Stirling engine?
>> Fuel cell?
>
> Russell, I'm going to bed and will respond more fully tomorrow, but  
> with
> these two options, your fooling, right?
>
> Matthew

Russell is not fooling around.  He always makes an effort to be  
informative.  Thus it is tiring to see someone say "you are  
fooling".  I interpret such a comment ( perhaps wrongly ) as an  
attempt to belittle Russell.  He may not be agreeable to your  
tastes.  He is not wasting your time.  In addition to the two options  
he mentions, there are many more.  I am sure Russell is aware of  
this.  I also believe that Russell views the world as a big candy  
box; full of surprises and opportunities.  Maybe hydrogen technology  
will prove to be an also-ran.  Right now, hydrogen has so many  
exciting upsides to it , I expect ingenious investigators may find  
ways around the downsides.  Or maybe I wake up tomorrow with egg on  
my face.

Morning Headline:   Hydrogen Economy collapses overnight ; Cedric  
Chang wakes to find fowl based yellow goo up nostrils.

cc

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist