Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1860)	7/11/2000 12:49:32 AM
From: qdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12231

Reality? Reality is many things, lurking isn't something I do. Been south for sometime now, living the life of Riley, as the expression goes. No, me and Big Brother $ill won't be exchanging Xmas cards anytime in the forseeable future. Off on a wrong tangent on fuel cells? First off, Houston is now the second most polluted air in the US. It ain't from diesel. As a matter of fact, they have one of the biggest fleet of LPG buses in the US. Nope the air is from good ole love affair with the automobile ( an mainly at 70+Mph) and the ever present petro-chemical industrial complex along the ship channel. Diesel usage here is probably no different than other large metro complexes in the US. YEs I agree that fuel cell technology in transport is limited to mass transit and a very long way from commerical application. One reason I steer clear of Ballard. However, in the production of electricity, we are talking entirely different things. OF all the alternative methods, less hydro, fuel cell technology is the most promising and efficent. Turbine technology has been around since the 50's, when GM tinker with it in production auto's and Mario Andretti won the 1969 Indy 500 in a STP turbine that blew the field away two years in a row. It's not new. There is more substantial evidence that oil is a natural occuring element within the earth. This was first postulated around 10 eyars ago by s Swede scientist. But it is still in limit supply and becoming more difficult to produce or housed in some unfriendly places on the earth. Kerosene burns, as it was the fuel of choice in the winters in Italy and German in the 70's, made wonderful little stoves to burn it. Fuel oil is burn here in the US, which essentially is near a diesel grade. Napalm is basically diesel and a thickening agent, that not only explodes and spreads, but burns as well. AS I said, it is less volatile, but still a hazard. At any rate, if I should ever do another gig consulting, I'll keep this company in the back of my mind. Frankly, I don't see it happening, but kicking back and doing noting is starting to grind on me a bit. They claim it will burn sour gas. Otta play real well in Luling, TX. You never did sell me on the LEO's and I think that it started to bear itself out. My fear is that it will render the big bandwidth LEO's as obsolete before deployment as well.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (1860)	7/12/2000 12:51:41 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12231

The fuel for a fuel cell is most cheaply obtained from fossil fuels, so there isn't going to be any reduction in fossil fuel consumption, pollution or dependence on OPEC supplies. Not necessarily so. Check out ENER website and thread (also go to link of Texaco Pres holding solid state storage developed by ENER. Ovshinsky is a bit of a flim flam man, oversells his story and hasn't made a dime of profit on continuing operations. But technology, ecd does have and the world may be catching up to his story. All that and solar panels for earth-orbiting satellites too, Mq: ovonic.com Subject 5931