3  comments

add a commentJump to comment form

Kevin Vonmoses

Mar 1, 2016
04:24

Member


1 |

What I see from nearly all of the current 13 proposals is 'Socialized' transportation that would require significant commitment to both infrastructural and social changes with no provision for being supported by the market(s).

What I see is a small number people served in contrast to those who need transportation at the expense of the majority that won't use them.

Did I miss something?


Kevin Vonmoses

Apr 9, 2016
03:26

Member


2 |

What I wrote about this competition to an Environmental Enthusiast:

 The part that frustrates me with this competition is that, when you read each of the other proposals they are all 'pie in the sky', requiring huge infrastructure investment or a complete behavior change by society...You invoke the name of Al Gore, who is a fraud.  Billions of dollars made for himself threatening Global Warming that is a hoax based on projections and math models that have since be been proven to be contaminated by greed...I suspect that all the other offered proposals have the same agenda: Make the Public pay for someone else's unrealistic programs.Let me tell you how I came to the offered proposal...I was a private pilot and noticed the pall that rose up to about 3,500 around most cities in the mid 70's, and by 1985 that pall extended from Tulsa to Dallas.About that same time GM came out with their first electric car...  I had a friend at GM, (now retired) that got me into see the Volt design before it had a body on it, and by that time I had gotten involved in the math/physics of drive trains.I was Blessed to have no particular dog in the hunt, and so I looked at the impact of millions of tons of batteries from cradle to grave and the shifting of pollution from tailpipes to smokestacks with no real change in the sheer VOLUME of pollution.That lead me to examine the EFFICIENCY of power Production vs power Consumption and concluded that the best car available was only 6% Efficient...Two things should be obvious about my proposal: The first is that it took 33 years of evolutionary development to come up with the design.The second is that whoever jumps in and spends the The second is that whoever jumps in and spends the $100k is going to rule the world for the first year of production, the license it to everyone else, making it a money maker for the owner rather than a Public dollar parasite.00k is going to rule the world for the first year of production, the license it to everyone else, making it a money maker for the owner rather than a Public dollar parasite.Unless a technology can stand on it's own merits, the Environmentalist Community needs to get their hands out of the Public's pockets...Support my proposal and find someone who is serious about having global impact, not rave and protest...


Martin Mizera

Aug 10, 2016
06:48

Member


3 |

A 10-20% combustion process improvements and significantly lower tailpipe emissions are available by using hydrogen doping, with hydrogen being supplied from on-board, on-demand reformer, using native fuel.

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.

Add Comment