John McCain: Military Draft?

[GuerillaBlack]

John McCain Agrees: “If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden”

QUESTIONER: If we don’t reenact the draft, I don’t think we’ll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

[Applause]

MCCAIN: Ma’am, let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said.

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMFwXGBMfI

[u2sarajevo]

Scare tactics? Worked in 2004..... or.....

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

John McCain Agrees: “If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden”

QUESTIONER: If we don’t reenact the draft, I don’t think we’ll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

[Applause]

MCCAIN: Ma’am, let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said.

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMFwXGBMfI

What is it that you mean to convey with this post?

As a thinking person with a brain and at least one ear that works, you know that's not what he meant. You know it certainly wasn't even the main subject of that particular part of the conversation. I'm sure if they video hadn't been cut off, the draft wasn't even a part of his answer. What clever editing.

You are a child of 16 or 17, you've said before, so let me assure you son, the draft isn't coming back. Don't worry about it.

And don't parade stupid crap like this around, it really makes you people look bad. And rest assured that when you are old enough to vote, it still won't count. You're in Texas.

[GuerillaBlack]

If the draft comes back. I would not want to fight, but if I have to I would (i don't know, I might pull a Muhammed Ali). I'm against war except under dire circumstances, so if there was a draft, I guess we would be in serious need right? No turning back on America.

And I'm 16, but birthday on Saturday. Still can't vote.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

What is it that you mean to convey with this post?

As a thinking person with a brain and at least one ear that works, you know that's not what he meant. You know it certainly wasn't even the main subject of that particular part of the conversation. I'm sure if they video hadn't been cut off, the draft wasn't even a part of his answer. What clever editing.

You are a child of 16 or 17, you've said before, so let me assure you son, the draft isn't coming back. Don't worry about it.

And don't parade stupid crap like this around, it really makes you people look bad. And rest assured that when you are old enough to vote, it still won't count. You're in Texas.

Yep, it sucks being in Texas, where the conservatives are only so because they think they're supposed to be. It's disgusting how John Cornyn will probably get re-elected simply because he has an R next to his name, despite his horrendous job these last six years.

The woman's point was "If we do not improve the benefits for our veterans, nobody will join our all-volunteer force, and therefore we would need a draft." The draft part was not particularly serious, I don't think.

John McCain didn't disagree with that.

Well, John McCain has a 20% rating from Disabled Veterans of America and a D from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America. If he's not willing to better conditions for our veterans, then I guess he's okay with a draft.

And McCain's stance on the draft isn't nearly as clear-cut as it would seem. “I might consider it, I don’t think it’s necessary, but I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally could serve.” He is not against the idea of a draft.

[dude1394]

Only national person I've seen advocate a draft in the last 10 years has been a democrat.

But I've heard the democrats scream that if a republican is elected we'll have a draft every election cycle. Typical..

[chumdawg]

If you are going to take on Russia and fight World War 3, you are going to need a whole lot of military personnel. McCain better step light on this issue. If he wants to beat the war drum, he might see his support erode.

[dude1394]

*double-post*..

[Kirobaito]

We hear you, dude. Charlie Rangel was wrong. You don't have to re-post.

[dude1394]

He could take the Ron Paul approach...F'em...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

We hear you, dude. Charlie Rangel was wrong. You don't have to re-post.

As I said, it's an election season, so democrats will be screaming about a draft. Happens everytime. I don't see much different here.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by dude1394

As I said, it's an election season, so democrats will be screaming about a draft. Happens everytime. I don't see much different here.

... are you high?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

... are you high?

Nope..happens every election season, every single one budda'..

[Flacolaco]

where the conservatives are only so because they think they're supposed to be

Small government, low taxes, strong national defense, border security, pro-life, pro-capitalism...second amendment rights (a.k.a. READING THE CONSTITUTION)... maybe it's the way I "just think I'm supposed to be" (I'm not even originally from TX, and I can assure you I did NOT get here as fast as I could) but it seems like common sense to me.

Texas may be an arrogant, obnoxious state, but at least it's got it's political priorities within the realm of common sense.

And on the subject of conscription...would that really be such a bad thing? (mind you, we won't ever get there again)... but if every male had to Serve, wouldn't society have a little more honor, dignity and decency?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

And on the subject of conscription...would that really be such a bad thing? (mind you, we won't ever get there again)... but if every male had to Serve, wouldn't society have a little more honor, dignity and decency?

Judging from the soldiers I've met...yup...

[Flacolaco]

Yeah well most of the people who read this forum don't know what 'conscription' means, so...

[Flacolaco]

I was trying to stay up, Kirobaito, to see what you had to say after 20 minutes of "Replying to Thread John McCain: Military Draft?..." but I have to go to bed.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Small government, low taxes, strong national defense, border security, pro-life, pro-capitalism...second amendment rights (a.k.a. READING THE CONSTITUTION)... maybe it's the way I "just think I'm supposed to be" (I'm not even originally from TX, and I can assure you I did NOT get here as fast as I could) but it seems like common sense to me.

Texas may be an arrogant, obnoxious state, but at least it's got it's political priorities within the realm of common sense.

And on the subject of conscription...would that really be such a bad thing? (mind you, we won't ever get there again)... but if every male had to Serve, wouldn't society have a little more honor, dignity and decency?

I've spent my entire life here, and conservatism is taught like a religion, both figuratively and literally. I spent my entire childhood thinking I was a conservative, then I started thinking for myself and realized that wasn't how I felt about life at all. I can assure you I am not alone in being raised this way. I realize now that my dad is exactly the same, just hasn't come to the same conclusion that I did. Yet. But I try to convince him. He'll come around.

The things you listed, Flaco, about 'conservatism', have always seemed contradictory to me. Small government, but strong national defense (which in this world today cannot be done effectively with small government)? I don't even see how being 'pro-capitalism' (capitalist being something that we're not as a country, and never have been.. we've always had a strong mix of both capitalism and collectivism), but also concerned about border security that is needed because so many aliens enter the country illegally as a result of push-pulls that stem from capitalism, fit together. Do you wish to be a power in the world today? You can't really do that with 'small government.' I'm not saying it doesn't seem like common sense to you, but it's not really reasonable in the world today. At least to me, it isn't.

I consider conscription to be slavery, basically. The government is taking you away from the liberty and pursuit of happiness that are, according to our declaration of independence, unalienable rights, regardless of the public's, or individual's, opinion on the reasoning for the conscription. Yep, society might have more honor, dignity, and decency (though with the way our government treats its veterans, perhaps not), but would it be real honor, real dignity, and real decency, if it's pounded into its citizens by the government? Talk about socialism.

My religion does not allow me to use violence against others. I cannot, therefore, condone any government attempt to inflict violence on others, and that includes non-combat options that come about from conscientious objector status. On the chance that conscription returns to this country, I won't be a part of it.

(I had a longer response originally, but accidentally browsed away from it. I will add more tomorrow).

[chumdawg]

Yep...Texas can get away with small government and low taxes because it doesn't have to deal with that pesky national defense. Or national entitlement programs. If you carry it to its logical conclusion, it's like wondering why the rest of the world can't be like Southlake.

And by the by, saying that Texas is "pro-life" isn't saying much of anything intelligible.

I'm proud to be a Texan, too, but to think that Texas has the national formula down pat is awfully naive. For that matter, Texas is facing several issues that it needs to deal with intelligently, not just from the perspective of "the smaller the government the better." You can be penny rich and dollar poor, and Texas may advance down that path if its government doesn't get more proactive.

[Rhylan]

Kiro -

1. You can be a world power with a small government. The USA did it up through WWII. A limited government can still have a strong military.

2. What part of the constitution "strongly" steers the USA towards collectivism?


Edit: WWII, not WWIII.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

John McCain Agrees: “If we don’t reenact the draft I don’t think we will have anyone to chase Bin Laden”

HE DOESN'T SAY THIS. The QUESTIONER does.

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

MCCAIN: Ma’am, let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said.

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMFwXGBMfI

That video is an awesome truncation. McCain's answer goes for about 4 minutes, all on details of Veterans' benefits. Maybe it was so boring, the original video maker decided to cut out all the bull and leave the meat?

Oh OOPS, McCain says he opposes the draft.

Let's just totally take some of his words out of context anyways to make him sound like an ultrahawk.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

I've spent my entire life here, and conservatism is taught like a religion, both figuratively and literally. I spent my entire childhood thinking I was a conservative, then I started thinking for myself and realized that wasn't how I felt about life at all. I can assure you I am not alone in being raised this way. I realize now that my dad is exactly the same, just hasn't come to the same conclusion that I did. Yet. But I try to convince him. He'll come around.

The things you listed, Flaco, about 'conservatism', have always seemed contradictory to me. Small government, but strong national defense (which in this world today cannot be done effectively with small government)? I don't even see how being 'pro-capitalism' (capitalist being something that we're not as a country, and never have been.. we've always had a strong mix of both capitalism and collectivism), but also concerned about border security that is needed because so many aliens enter the country illegally as a result of push-pulls that stem from capitalism, fit together. Do you wish to be a power in the world today? You can't really do that with 'small government.' I'm not saying it doesn't seem like common sense to you, but it's not really reasonable in the world today. At least to me, it isn't.

I consider conscription to be slavery, basically. The government is taking you away from the liberty and pursuit of happiness that are, according to our declaration of independence, unalienable rights, regardless of the public's, or individual's, opinion on the reasoning for the conscription. Yep, society might have more honor, dignity, and decency (though with the way our government treats its veterans, perhaps not), but would it be real honor, real dignity, and real decency, if it's pounded into its citizens by the government? Talk about socialism.

My religion does not allow me to use violence against others. I cannot, therefore, condone any government attempt to inflict violence on others, and that includes non-combat options that come about from conscientious objector status. On the chance that conscription returns to this country, I won't be a part of it.

(I had a longer response originally, but accidentally browsed away from it. I will add more tomorrow).

I was born and have lived in Texas all my life, except for my military time.
I don't know where you were reared in Texas, but your description might have been true of Texas for about 10 of the 40 years I have been alive. The rest of the years, Texas has been a moderate, somewhat liberal state as a whole. In fact, I know many, many democrats that vote democrat and have no IDEA of what they believe or anything else. In fact, most people in general either vote how their parents tell them, or vote change over one issue that they really have no real clue about.

Most college age and young people are very liberal, it seems. They want the government to take care of them, and they have no clue about sacrifice or honor.

You claim that conservatism is a religion. I claim that it is logical.

You say that you can't have small government and strong national defense. I claim that if they would stop all the "other" stuff, and use government for national defense only -- that we would easily have small government and a strong national defense.

You say that you won't be involved in conscription. I say, if I were running the country, that you could leave by voluntary means or force ably. I have yet to find any religion that does not allow for defense and even killing, unless you are trying to interpret the bible in a way that fits your need.

I know in the old testament that Joshua was told to destroy entire villages.
I know that Elijah took the prophets of Baal and slew them in the valley of Kinshon.
I know that in 1Sam15 Saul was told to:

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

So to say that your religion does not allow for killing of a human -- is not in alignment with Muslim, Jewish, or Christianity.

Now yes, Jesus did say to love they neighbor as thyself. He did say to love your enemy, and to turn the other cheek. He didn't say not to defend, if someone comes to kill you and your family though. In fact, Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
So if you were to give your life for friends, family, and/or country -- you could show not greater LOVE --- 1Jn 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Be very very careful in your rebellion. God is in control, even when man is being allowed to screw it up. Conservatism is not about killing or war -- although I must admit that the Republicans have used that part of it for their political advantage (and somewhat disadvantage). Conservatism is about personal responsibility instead of governmental responsibility. Conservatism is about control by "the people" instead of control by the few individuals involved in government.

Generally, I'll tell you that Republicans have taken on the "conservative" role, but they aren't really conservative -- they are moderate. The democrats have taken the "liberal" role and they have gone out of left field, and some even out of the park,city,county,state,country, etc.. Both sides want power and control. Politics is nasty.

I'll leave you with one more thing though about war. It is always a rich mans war, but it is always a poor mans fight. (It's been this way since the beginning from what I have seen/read).

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

I consider conscription to be slavery, basically.

I don't think there is any question that conscription IS slavery....it's just slavery for the purposes of toting a weapon rather than picking cotton, slavery for old white dudes in Congress rather than slavery for old white dudes in plantations.

The issue of conscription is one where the two parties show their real colors, I believe, even when they don't advocate it. If they were talking about picking cotton instead of mowing down arabs I imagine that the Democrats would oppose it because we have more important crops than cotton, and the Republicans would oppose it because there are more efficient means of picking cotton. Neither party is terribly concerned about individual liberty or lack thereof for the conscript, and certainly neither questions much less doubts the State's divine right to enslave.

[Flacolaco]

Listen to this man.

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Most college age and young people are very liberal, it seems. They want the government to take care of them, and they have no clue about sacrifice or honor.

You claim that conservatism is a religion. I claim that it is logical.

You say that you can't have small government and strong national defense. I claim that if they would stop all the "other" stuff, and use government for national defense only -- that we would easily have small government and a strong national defense.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

You say that you can't have small government and strong national defense. I claim that if they would stop all the "other" stuff, and use government for national defense only -- that we would easily have small government and a strong national defense.

Well, you can have a strong national defense. But you can't run an empire. Do you agree?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Arne

Well, you can have a strong national defense. But you can't run an empire. Do you agree?

Actually, yes I do.

I have no desire to rule the world, but the US does......... as well as many other nations.

I still think the if the US would offer $10B to US companies in grants to develop "other" sources of energy -- wind, solar, magnetic, hydro, etc., instead of building 5 more jet fighters --- that you would have more people working and a better form of cleaner energy.

Problem is -- you would lose control of the world economy (power) that is based on oil at the present time, and those in control -- wouldn't have it anymore. IE the US wouldn't need to import all that oil, so why fight in Iraq, Iran, Saudia, etc. The middle east would be back in the third world with a product that no one wants anymore, but the US could no longer control economics because we (sheeple) have to have this product so we agree to give up lots to get it.

If I could run my EV car (or house for that matter) that was powered by a hydrogen motor running off distilled water (or a permanent magnet motor) that I could get anywhere -- who would I be in debt to?

I mean -- right now, I need fuel to get to and from work. I need electricity to run my refrigerator and keep my home warm/cool. If I had these problems resolved -- I could subsist without the government (since I live on the family farm)-- except where protection is involved. Then the gov would only need to be in charge of national defense.

IE they would lose lots of power -- even though the technology is technically out there to do much of this today.


Just as a question --- if the US had developed a hydrogen engine that would convert water to hydrogen and oxygen using the harmonics of water to break it down at low amperage --which could then in turn power an engine which burned the hydrogen with a oxygen catalyst -- which could then power generators to make substantial more energy than that which is required to break down the water in the first place. Then we would have a motor that could make enough electricity for your home -- running on water. Make an electric vehicle that this hydrogen motor runs to charge the batteries -- even when you were inside working and it was parked.

Making distilled water is pretty simple using solar methods in Texas and various places around the world.

The technology is there, and then we wouldn't have near the reason to fight if everyone had their energy needs met. But starvation is about the only way to control people then, and that makes for a whole different discussion.

<edit> Which would be better for the US people though? trying to control the world and the economy of the world, or having close to free energy that would make us dependent on no one?

[wmbwinn]

Last time I read about hydrogen as a fuel, the following was true:
1)dangerous to produce.
2)impossible to transport, requiring that it be produced on site and not carried in tankers from a center of some sort.
3)could not put a production plant in a car, too complicated.
4)would have to basically turn gas stations everywhere into hydrogen production plants where you could there "fuel up" with a connection more like a propane attachment rather than a flowing hose (like with petrol or ethanol).
5)two ideas of hydrogen production were:
a)electrolysis
b)pure metallic sodium

Anyway, if the hydrogen process is perfected and made safe, then oil will only be used for jetliners, other airplanes, NASA, the military, and for oil changes in machinery and other similar applications.

If hydrogen production on your own property (such as the family farm) ever becomes a reality, then the farmer and rancher will be in really good shape. As a matter of fact, land values will sky rocket because who would want to live in Dallas when you could live energy free/independent outside of Dallas and drive into Dallas on your own produced hydrogen???

[dude1394]

I think free energy is pretty good. I'm not so sure that we've found it yet, in fact I'm pretty sure we haven't.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Last time I read about hydrogen as a fuel, the following was true:
1)dangerous to produce.
2)impossible to transport, requiring that it be produced on site and not carried in tankers from a center of some sort.
3)could not put a production plant in a car, too complicated.
4)would have to basically turn gas stations everywhere into hydrogen production plants where you could there "fuel up" with a connection more like a propane attachment rather than a flowing hose (like with petrol or ethanol).
5)two ideas of hydrogen production were:
a)electrolysis
b)pure metallic sodium

Anyway, if the hydrogen process is perfected and made safe, then oil will only be used for jetliners, other airplanes, NASA, the military, and for oil changes in machinery and other similar applications.

If hydrogen production on your own property (such as the family farm) ever becomes a reality, then the farmer and rancher will be in really good shape. As a matter of fact, land values will sky rocket because who would want to live in Dallas when you could live energy free/independent outside of Dallas and drive into Dallas on your own produced hydrogen???

Pretending that I haven't researched this a whole lot, and haven't seen some things, let's just suppose that you are correct here, and we don't actually have this ability at this time.

How many companies do you think you could get to work on developing it -- if they could get a $1M grant to help with development costs. $1B would be 1000 (1M) grants. Maybe a company has something better so you could offer 20M to that company in secondary grants if they have a working model/concept.

No storage, just hydrogen production at the cylinder.

I said 10B -- so you could have companies working on solar, wind, water, magnetic, etc. Then use the best designs to get GM and Ford to build electric vehicles that have 0 emissions. Build generators for individual power of houses, instead of being dependent on the Grid. Houses built with the idea of using solar, wind, and hydrogen power in concept.

They have some mighty wicked EV's out there if you would like to research it a little bit.

In fact, all-wheel drive, massive power and economical.......possible.

Not allowable though.

And lets face it --- 10B is minor in the big picture of defense.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think free energy is pretty good. I'm not so sure that we've found it yet, in fact I'm pretty sure we haven't.

If we had, would it be allowed to be mass produced? or would the patent be bought out?

Example.
Don't ask what Ghz processor they are working on right now --- because you can't buy what is out there now. Too much money to be made and all the development costs to be reaped before certain things are released to the public.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If we had, would it be allowed to be mass produced? or would the patent be bought out?

Example.
Don't ask what Ghz processor they are working on right now --- because you can't buy what is out there now. Too much money to be made and all the development costs to be reaped before certain things are released to the public.

Dalmations, if you are right and we already have the ability to produce privately owned hydrogen production plants and then safely use hydrogen, then someone is guilty of treason...

It would border on treason to hold back the country's solution to nearly everything...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Pretending that I haven't researched this a whole lot, and haven't seen some things, let's just suppose that you are correct here, and we don't actually have this ability at this time.

How many companies do you think you could get to work on developing it -- if they could get a $1M grant to help with development costs. $1B would be 1000 (1M) grants. Maybe a company has something better so you could offer 20M to that company in secondary grants if they have a working model/concept.

No storage, just hydrogen production at the cylinder.

I said 10B -- so you could have companies working on solar, wind, water, magnetic, etc. Then use the best designs to get GM and Ford to build electric vehicles that have 0 emissions. Build generators for individual power of houses, instead of being dependent on the Grid. Houses built with the idea of using solar, wind, and hydrogen power in concept.

They have some mighty wicked EV's out there if you would like to research it a little bit.

In fact, all-wheel drive, massive power and economical.......possible.

Not allowable though.

And lets face it --- 10B is minor in the big picture of defense.

In my opinion, if the answer is this close to our reach, then it is treason to not get it, use it, etc...

And, yes, I like the idea of funding the grants. I believe the bill that Pelosi walked out on called the "all of the above bill" is basically the idea of funding with grants and other incentives every possible energy solution...

So... Pelosi may be guilty of treason... at least figuratively

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Dalmations, if you are right and we already have the ability to produce privately owned hydrogen production plants and then safely use hydrogen, then someone is guilty of treason...

It would border on treason to hold back the country's solution to nearly everything...

Rumor has it that one version was taken by the dept of homeland security (2003), and they claim they are going to use the technology on future subs due to the ability to break down water into the hydrogen they can burn, and oxygen to keep them alive under water.

The second rumor was that the second version that developed this form was purchased in the 80's for an unmentionable amount of money and the inventor sent out of country. Basically told to either take the money and never come back, or die.

The basis for all of this came from some stuff developed many years ago -- 30's or 40's from a vehicle that supposedly could run from lakewater. I believe it was actually tested at Lake Lewisville (I think) from all places........ then put under wraps. The patent he filed didn't work, but someone found a copy somewhere that did, and used it with some of todays technology to build a working prototype.

I know there are rumors out there everywhere, plans, etc that are available. I have seen a video of an engine being run from hydrogen -- that was produce at the engine. Straight water run to it, and then it was broken down into hydrogen and oxygen and gave off water vapor as the exhaust.

I do not know how much electricity was being used to break down the water -- they claimed very little amperage, but claims aren't worth much.


And I am not sure how you would call it treason exactly. The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Keeping technology back is not exactly treason because it isn't levying war against the US nor is it aiding the enemy --- but I get your point.

The US and many "haves" lose control of everything though, if you don't need power from them anymore. No need for oil - gas. No need for stations. Automakers have to totally redo their stuff. Lots harder to control people when all they need to survive is food, and everything else is basically taken care of each month.

Send this technology to Africa, and they no longer are third world.

You would change the power structure in the WORLD.

It isn't going to happen.

[chumdawg]

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! I ventured in here without my tin foil hat on. I hope I haven't been permanently damaged!

[wmbwinn]

perhaps not technically treason. Perhaps worse than treason if indeed the technology already exists and is being suppressed to maintain power...

If we could quickly convert to hydrogen as a power source, then we could quickly bancrupt the middle east AND Russia. What do we have to lose?

I understand that oil interests would suffer. But, I still suspect that oil interests will probably end up controlling the majority of hydrogen production anyway. The fuel companies have the vested interest to continue to be the fuel companies.

Sure, I could see farmers buying their own equipment. Think of it. A farmer puts up a windmill (may not even have to be the big fancy one that looks like a white airplane wing). The windmill pumps water (this occurs all over the place already to provide water to cattle). A hydrogen production device breaks down the water to hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is immediately burned as a fuel to power the irrigation system (center pivots). Pumped water from the ground is sprayed on the crops at no cost to the farmer whatsoever other than the original price of the hydrogen production device and the engine/generator running on hydrogen and the original windmill that he already often has.

But, outside of farmers and wealthy land owners, I suspect that it would be somewhat unusual for the rest of us to have hydrogen production devices unless we were talking about cars. If we are talking about cars, then the automakers are still in business. They are making the cars with the integral hydrogen production device (if it really can be done safely in a car rather than done at a "gas" station.

If everyone was running tap water to power their homes, then the use of water would go way up.

Now, you could probably device a way to re-capture the water since water is the product of the combustion of hydrogen.

Anyway, I find it hard to assume that conspiracy for power is the reason that we aren't already energy independent based on hydrogen.

If you are right, then I suspect that we will suddenly "release" the technology and go to hydrogen as a way to harm Russia probably irrereparably and sink our middle east foes...

Israel has the same interest, you know. Israel is actually in the very process of releasing a novel battery pack car system to divorce its need for oil from its next door enemies...

So, if the technology is available, why isn't Israel using it?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If we had, would it be allowed to be mass produced? or would the patent be bought out?

Example.
Don't ask what Ghz processor they are working on right now --- because you can't buy what is out there now. Too much money to be made and all the development costs to be reaped before certain things are released to the public.

I expect that there would such an outcry that they would either be forced by public opinion to release it or the guvment would create a law saying it was for national security.

No one with "free" energy technology is going to keep it a secret.

If the technology were in another country (especially a week country like in africa) someone would just take it. You are skirting very close to looney-tunes-land here methinks.

[Flacolaco]

No, they're going to make a billion dollars and buy an island.

(As they should, btw)

[chumdawg]

I want an island. Will the Democrats give me an island? I want my island.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I want an island. Will the Democrats give me an island? I want my island.

If you don't get an island, you might be a victim.

Speaking of which, are the libs going to insist that the rich Americans have too many Olympic medals, and that we should give like 40% of them to people who didn't try as hard as we did?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I expect that there would such an outcry that they would either be forced by public opinion to release it or the guvment would create a law saying it was for national security.

No one with "free" energy technology is going to keep it a secret.

If the technology were in another country (especially a week country like in africa) someone would just take it. You are skirting very close to looney-tunes-land here methinks.

Really -- would you believe we have technology for a 50,000 HP Permanent Magnet Motor currently tested?

DRS Technologies Successfully Completes Testing of Permanent Magnet Motor System At US Navy Land-Based Test Site

PARSIPPANY, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 9, 2008--DRS Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: DRS) announced today that it has successfully completed full-power testing, as required by the U.S. Navy, of its power-dense Permanent Magnet Motor (PMM) and drive at the U.S. Navy's Integrated Power System (IPS) Land-Based Test Site (LBTS) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Engineering, design and development of the motor and drive were contracted to DRS as part of the DD(X) destroyer, now DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class Multi-Mission Surface Combatant, Engineering Development Model (EDM) program for inclusion into the IPS testing program.

DRS' Permanent Magnet Motor provides 36.5 megawatts (approximately 50,000 horsepower) and over two million foot-pounds of torque in a dual-ring design. During testing, the motor ran at full power on a single ring at 18.25 megawatts, the maximum load available at the Land-Based Test Site. This test validated the thermal and electrical operation of the motor and drive.

This milestone achievement validates that the company's Permanent Magnet Motor technology is a viable alternative for naval ship propulsion applications. DRS' Permanent Magnet Motor technology offers several benefits and advantages to the Navy over conventional ship propulsion systems, including high power density resulting in lower weight and volume than traditional motors, increased operating efficiency resulting in fuel savings, increased power and improved performance.

DRS has now embarked on an enhanced design of the motor, which incorporates lessons learned from the EDM testing. The company's evolutionary motor design will provide additional benefits to the Navy, including lower weight, decreased volume and greater performance.

"The validation of Permanent Magnet Motor technology is a significant milestone for the Navy and DRS," said Roger N. Sexauer, II, president of DRS' Power Systems business. "The completion of this test and our improved PMM motor design now provide the Navy with the confidence that the substantial weight, volume, cost and performance advantages of PMM technology can be realized in future ship designs."

Permanent Magnet Motor technology is a key component of next-generation all-electric drive ship systems. All-electric ships with integrated power systems allow an electric generation plant to supply sufficient power for all the ship's electrical requirements, including advanced weapons launch, combat and sonar systems, ship's maneuver and propulsion, among other power needs. DRS' Permanent Magnet Motor technology is applicable for all military electric drive propulsion systems and platforms, including the DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class Multi-Mission Combatant, CG(X) next-generation cruisers, submarines, mobile landing platforms and commercial marine applications.

Now we can get 50,000 HP, but can't get a couple of hundred for a car ? ?

Oh yea, I am in the looney tunes land -- that's right.

What technology did they use to get up to this size? I mean what would it take to drive a multi thousand ton sub through the water, but we can't drive a car down the road?

Also, google Orthohydrogen -- you might be able to find a few patents on designs that seem intriguing. I am not saying that they have this perfected in any way -- just that I know it to be feasible.

Using a orthohydrogen motor at constant speed as a generator to recharge batteries for an EV -- which is what would actually be the drive line of a vehicle is not way out right now.

Permanent Magnet Motors might even be a better option than orthohydrogen, and the concept is there -- I am just not sure it is as close to being perfected in a way that is economically feasible - yet.