COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[selegue]

Jack…I think you may have missed my point on fuel cells.

 

Fuel cells are NOT, repeat NOT too expensive.

 

 

They are cheaper.

 

 

As positive as I am about fuel cells, expense is still a problem. Granted, this is largely because of up-front cost of conversion and the infrastructure (and subsidies) behind petroleum, IMO. The catalysts contain platinum or a similarly expensive metal, but if we can afford rhodium in internal combustion automobile emission controls, we can afford platinum in fuel cells.

 

See:

 

"What will make fuel cells commercially viable?

 

First, fuel cells must meet durability and performance requirements in comparison to incumbent technologies such as batteries and internal combustion engines. Second, the cost of building fuel cells must be reduced so that it is competitive with those incumbent technologies. Third, depending on the choice of fuel, infrastructure investments must be made to support wide-scale introduction of fuel cells. Finally, public acceptance must be secured to create demand for this exciting technology."

 

Note the comment about "choice of fuel". Fuel cells don't have to run on hydrogen. Hydrogen is cleanest, but technology to use e.g. methane or methanol exists. Using a light hydrocarbon means that you don't have to pre-convert to hydrogen (generating CO2 pollutant in a step that doesn't provide useful energy) and you can avoid the problems of wide-scale handling of hydrogen. Infrastructure to distribute propane is already in place.

 

 

When you read the brochure you will see. Right now, today, any company can go to all the machine shops in their cities and get iron filings and scraps for free, and set them in shallow pools of water and draw off hydrogen. How much hydrogen? Lots! Other methods are used. Even now, you can buy hydrogen in any city, as much as you want.

 

You want more. They’ll simply up their order. Hydrogen suppliers would LOVE to up their orders and increase their business. It’s the most abundant stuff on the planet and there are a hundred methods to get it.

 

I agree up to a point, but if hydrogen fuel cells are widely adopted, iron scraps will no longer provide enough supply. The demand will drive production by other methods, the most reasonable of which are production from coal (up- and downsides together: can be run more cleanly than direct combustion; coal supply is not as endangered as petroleum; coal mining is very destructive; greenhouse CO2 is still evolved as a byproduct) or solar power (technology is not quite up to the task, but just you wait!)

 

 

Jack, it’s all a lie. I don’t know how to say this. It’s not “feasible”; it’s do-able today, yesterday, 10 years ago. It’s far past academic discussion. I don’t expect you to march in the street. That’s up to rowdy people like me.

 

 

I'm no apologist for the foot-dragging on this technology, but even Ballard rightfully acknowledges that it's hard to scale fuel cells up:

 

"Ballard’s development activities are currently focused on small-scale back up power generation and automotive fuel cell technologies for which our PEM fuel cells are ideally suited. As the technology matures, and becomes more reliable and durable, we will explore the commercial potential of larger fuel cells for primary power generation products."

 

The could certainly power cars and individual homes, just not a power grid like we have today.

 

The rowdy people marching will help, but the real turnabout will probably come in from the technology side. The sad truth is, it will probably happen when the entrenched energy companies figure out how they can make as big a buck on fuel cells as they're now making on petroleum etc.

 

On my theory. You gotta relax your shoulders and sip the tea on this one.

 

Let’s say Michaelson and Morely were right in the first place. Fans, it’s an easy look-up.

 

I can’t call it aether, but it’s close enough for comics. I can’t call it dark matter, but that’s close enough for comics, too.

 

Suppose we forget all those muons and glue-ons and such, and we say. The universe, long time ago was nothing. (But potential).

 

Suppose for whatever reason, this area of the whole shootin’ match of nothing exhibited energy. Electro-magnetic energy. Not dynamo like, just sub-atomic like. And it set this section to slow spinning. As electro-magnetic energy seems to.

 

The spin forced the nothing to thin out more than it was.

 

Bubbles formed! The energy of the out-pulling of the universe (the bubbles) and the needful force holding it back in at the core of the bubbles is the core positron. The needful force. These two things and the force between them is all the universe is made of.

 

Billions of years go by till a core is knocked out of the bubble. How? Lord, I wouldn’t know. Happens a lot now. Carl David Anderson saw it in 1932.

 

Back to Michaelson and Morely, by your leave, measuring the speed of light. No matter where, well, you know the experiment(s).

 

Now, let’s say prime matter, the bubbles, is the ocean we exist in…and it’s everywhere.

 

We know prime matter is mildly electro-magnetically sensitive. (1.Attracted by positrons, dark matter, 2. identified by its gravity effect, which I say, is not “gravity”). Since this ‘seems’ to be so, earth’s (and others) electro-magnetic field captures a pod of prime matter and carries it with it, just as earth carries its ‘pod’ of atmosphere.

 

Any light entering the pod of prime matter adjusts its speed within the pod to light speed and when measured, it will always read light speed.

 

As to Einstein’s example, (please…don’t get worked up. We’re just talkin’).

Heheh. Who, me? Worked up?

As light enters the pod of prime matter carried by that sun the speed adjusts to light speed within the pod and again when it leaves. And so Einstein’s observation.

 

I like Einstein. I love Einstein. But if he was given incorrect information and he created a theory based on it…well…

 

N.A.

 

I wish I had time today to reply point-by-point, but losing most of Sunday and Monday put me further behind. It would be so much easier face to face.

 

I'll take the professor's way out and just leave you with a reading list!

 

If you don't already subscribe, you've got to find a copy of the article on "modeling the universe" in this week's Science News. Jumping on my bandstand for a moment, this is the best science magazine of all for the general public. http://www.sciencenews.org/ I buy about 5 subscriptions a year, 1 for us and 4 as gifts. You need this magazine! (I have a discount code somewhere if anyone want it.)

 

I also just read a very good article about critical evaluation of Einstein's contributions and how they were tested in American Scientist (also highly recommended, comes with a membership in Sigma Xi).

 

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/CurrentIssue;jsessionid=aaabs5QINUPywX

 

"Judging Einstein PDF

Before most physicists would believe the claims of relativity, they required proof—which would come in the form of a solar eclipse"

J. Donald Fernie"

 

It took a LOT of convincing for most physicists to be swayed by Einstein's wacky theories. Science is very conservative, as it MUST be to work right.

 

Last month's issue had a similar essay by the eloquent Nobel Prize-winner Roald Hoffman about Einstein's ground-breaking photoelectric effect paper.

 

There's also a good article about hydrogen fuel cells in the same issue as the relativity paper.

 

" Filling up with Hydrogen

Chemical hybrides can be used to store hydrogen, an approach that may one day give a H2-powered vehicle reasonable cruising range

David Schneider"

 

This stuff is amazingly in the news lately. Last week's Time cover story about the evolution battle, fron't page article in today's local paper about life's origins, even yesterday's Foxtrot strip sort of addressed ideas about the earth's structure!

 

Jack

[selegue]

 

Being the guilty party in the direct manner of my criticism of science's methods, I bow my head and ask for your forgiveness, Jack. I had no inclination you'd take it personally. I addressed science as a community and not the individual within it, each individual stands on their own merit. Though collectively, a community can become a unique and substantive entity in and of itself, the individual remains worthy by their own life and works and is not necessarily beholden to the overriding voice of the scientific community. I wouldn't hope to carry on a civil discussion with you by directing the criticism so directly. Your feeling it was directed to you as an academic scientist wasn't intended to be as such at all - and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

 

Really, who was I supposed to think you meant?

If I started railing on about those @#$%^& artists and how they don't know what they're doing, that anybody with any sense knows that it's better to hold the pencil in your mouth than your hand, believe me, I've thought about it a lot -- how would that go over here?

 

I know a lot of scientists. [You remember how it was -- we were the ones leaning against the wall at the high-school dances ogling the cheerleaders dancing with the hip artists, picking our noses and plotting how to deceive the world :-)]

Real scientists are the same Gaussian (Lorentzian?) distribution of people as most occupations: a few jerks, a few saints, lots of "ordinary people" in the middle.

That deserves a Shakespeare quote but it would be sort of tasteless.

 

Have a cappuccino…relax.

 

*Choke* I can't today. Fasting today for an *oooggg* medical procedure.

 

What a coincidence. That was also the Jewish fast day mourning the destruction of the Temple. Tesha b'Av. Or is that the medical procedure you referred to? I can imagine someone making such an analogy. So, maybe not for the same reason, but I fasted right along with you.

 

 

That is a weird coincidence. No, the procedure was more akin to a tax audit or annual performance review than a religious experience. The part I remember went like this:

 

"We're going to give you a sedative and a mild narcotic. This usually takes effect pretty quic

 

 

 

 

 

Open your eyes!"

 

They must have given me enough to put down a bull rhino.

 

Fortunately no bad news -- honestly it was a waste of time except for the swell photos of the "tour".

 

 

Jack

[Neal Adams-migration]

 

As positive as I am about fuel cells, expense is still a problem. Granted, this is largely because of up-front cost of conversion and the infrastructure (and subsidies) behind petroleum, IMO. The catalysts contain platinum or a similarly expensive metal, but if we can afford rhodium in internal combustion automobile emission controls, we can afford platinum in fuel cells.

 

See:

 

"What will make fuel cells commercially viable?

 

 

So you know I'm not exactly the kind of guy that lets sleeping dogs lie. I admit it. It's a failing, I know. Fuel cells: durability and performance. Batteries wear out. Internal combustion engine suffers a VAST MULTITUDE of problems. Fuel cells... Jack, have NO MOVING PARTS. If you run out of hydrogen in Arizona. You can reach in your glove compartment for a small, portable, hand-sized cartridge and drive another 400 miles minimum. Hydrogen is yes the cleanest, most abundant fuel. Conversion is cheap in the extreme. Maintenance is less than one tenth the cost. And it will make a healthier world. Oh, and yes, you can drink the emissions.

 

Iron filings I mention only to point out Jack that you don't have to dig an oil well to get fuel and save lives in a thousand ways. You can simply lets some nails rust. Expense is not a problem. You and I could put one together. Fuel cell $4500. Standard motor and drive shaft, no engine. 10 batteries for pickup acceleration and storage. Machine parts and installation, oh yeah. One of those little plastic hand fans people use to cool their foreheads. About $20K, tops.

[Michael Netzer]

Really, who was I supposed to think you meant?

 

You're supposed to think whatever you think, irregardless of who I meant. I think. I'd also like to think that even if I meant you specifically (which I didn't), then it wouldn't bother you because it would only be what I think.

 

If I started railing on about those @#$%^& artists and how they don't know what they're doing, that anybody with any sense knows that it's better to hold the pencil in your mouth than your hand, believe me, I've thought about it a lot -- how would that go over here?

 

Some people would undoubtedly get upset but that might also be a shortcoming. It wouldn't bother me at all. Actually, it's a good point when considering how artists can become overburdened with the technicality of the craft and forget that their goal is to produce an image which communicates what they want it to.

 

If, for example, you were to say that comics creators, with few notable exceptions, are a cowardly and superstitious lot who fail to display the courage and the vision to put their creative ability and professional stature to good use in order to improve their lot in life and help bring a better tommorrow for their environment - I'd say that might sum up the situation very well, actually. I'd be the first to take the blame but I might think about it for a couple of years and then try a little harder to do something about it and put the comics storytelling ability to better use.

 

Sometimes a little rough criticism can get some wheels turning, I'd suppose. I know I can get carried away with it but, like the comics creators, I believe the scientific community can benefit from an occasional little kick in the arse.

 

I know a lot of scientists. [You remember how it was -- we were the ones leaning against the wall at the high-school dances ogling the cheerleaders dancing with the hip artists, picking our noses and plotting how to deceive the world :-)]

 

I cetainly do remember exactly how it was. The scientists were watching the cheerleaders with us comics artists (because we weren't hip, either). Plotting to decieve the world and take it over from the hands of the bad guys was our favorite passtime. Then we all went our own way. The scientists to science and the comixeers to comics. That's when the world began to crumble because there was no more bantering about operable conspiracies to fix it, by the artists and scientists. Until Neal Adams came along and re-kindled the artist-scientist connection, that is.

 

Real scientists are the same Gaussian (Lorentzian?) distribution of people as most occupations: a few jerks, a few saints, lots of "ordinary people" in the middle.

 

I'm really counting on this being true. It's the only way our conspiracy will work because it depends on the humanity of the scientists.

 

That is a weird coincidence. No, the procedure was more akin to a tax audit or annual performance review than a religious experience. The part I remember went like this:

 

"We're going to give you a sedative and a mild narcotic. This usually takes effect pretty quic

 

 

Open your eyes!"

 

They must have given me enough to put down a bull rhino.

 

Fortunately no bad news -- honestly it was a waste of time except for the swell photos of the "tour".

 

Good to hear all's well. It's perplexing to see drug abuse becoming so rampant in the medical profession. We knew how to pace our drugs, back in my time.

 

The Superhero Poster is finished and going to press tomorrow. Someone commented on Batman needing a Clint Eastwood look in his eyes instead of the crazed gaze. I like it, actually, but would be curious to hear if others agree.

 

[Neal Adams-migration]

 

Just so you know, Ballard WAS a good forward thinking company, taking stuff out of R+D as soon as it was feasible ….. 10 years ago. Then they signed a contract with Damlier-Benz (Chrysler) then amazingly, Ford, then GM.

 

Now these companies finance Ballard to the tune of 50 to 100 million a year, NOT to produce.

 

 

What do they get out of it? Ballard has stood still for 10 years. They can’t sell fuel cells to car companies because all the car companies already have contracts with Ballard. Who can Ballard sell fuel cells to? You or me? Nope. Their ‘sponsors’ refuse to let them. Read their Q&A

 

Anybody want a worldwide mystery that’s bigger than anything you’ll find in a comic book or movie?

 

Nooooooo. Such things don’t happen in the real world. It’ll come out when they figure out how to make as much money as with gasoline. Meanwhile, people will die, small price to pay to keep rich people getting richer.

 

Hey, how long would movie theatres stay open if you brought your own soda, popcorn, and candy?

 

My whole point visiting was to show some of you worried folks that Neal wasn’t exactly a loon and I have done quite a bit of homework. I also want you to know that I am having the greatest damn time on this project. If you don’t think I am having the damndest time just ask Jack. I think he quite understands what an incredible kick this is, I’ll be doing comics and making movies and I’ll bring this insane theory to popular culture, maybe TV (Discovery or Nova.) You might even all be proud of me in all this. (Of course, it is no ‘String Theory.’) You got questions, I’ve got answers, in English. I say science is the next big COMIC BOOK.

[Michael Netzer]

This is growth. My guess, the universe is growing. Is it a guess? Hmmm. Well growth is one of two possibilities. The other is blowing up, but clearly that no longer fits. It never did.

 

So why isn’t gravity pulling it all together?

 

For exactly the same reason atoms don’t crunch together and join together, and solar systems don’t collide and galaxies (though they intersect) and the universe grows, rather than crunches, because there is a perfect balance between the attractive positive electro-magnetic force and the repulsive negative electro-magnetic force.

 

We don’t live on an electron pushing us away or between solar systems pushing each other away. We live on Earth within a system and we experience mostly the attractive electro-magnetic side of the ‘force’. And we’ve come to call that experience ‘gravity’ as if it were something else.

 

What is it, actually”? It’s the negative and positive force that on balance gives perfect structure to our universe. We don’t need a Big Bang to save us or a Big Crunch to doom us. We are like a molecule on a growing baby. Our forces are balanced, increasing and growing.

 

I’ll bring this insane theory to popular culture, maybe TV (Discovery or Nova.) You might even all be proud of me in all this. (Of course, it is no ‘String Theory.’) You got questions, I’ve got answers, in English. I say science is the next big COMIC BOOK.

 

From what Neal is saying here, it's possible to asume that the orbit path of the planets and moons are a more negatively charged electromagnetic field. Like the path of an electron around a neutron.

 

The question then might be: Is there a way of tapping into this negative electromagnetic charge in the path of the moon, for example, and use it in order to help us more easily break the hold of the positive charge which keeps us grounded. In a controlled manner, of course, to facilitate more extensive air travel.

 

There's no doubt that science is the next big Comic Book. Flying personal vehicles are a serious solution to much waste of time and energy on our planet.

 

The hydrogen fuel cells will undoubtedly change our environment. But there's a big problem with our transportation system. Because cars have to travel on roads, they all get crunched up into a small space and cause immense traffic jams and accidents and waste a lot of time and resources.

 

When cars begin to fly, there'll be so much more room, we'll forget what it was like to wait for a red light.

[Michael Netzer]

Just so you know, Ballard WAS a good forward thinking company, taking stuff out of R+D as soon as it was feasible ….. 10 years ago. Then they signed a contract with Damlier-Benz (Chrysler) then amazingly, Ford, then GM.

 

Now these companies finance Ballard to the tune of 50 to 100 million a year, NOT to produce.

 

 

What do they get out of it? Ballard has stood still for 10 years. They can’t sell fuel cells to car companies because all the car companies already have contracts with Ballard. Who can Ballard sell fuel cells to? You or me? Nope. Their ‘sponsors’ refuse to let them. Read their Q&A

 

Anybody want a worldwide mystery that’s bigger than anything you’ll find in a comic book or movie?

 

Nooooooo. Such things don’t happen in the real world. It’ll come out when they figure out how to make as much money as with gasoline. Meanwhile, people will die, small price to pay to keep rich people getting richer.

 

 

I know everyone would want someone who thinks like this to be President in 2008.

 

Magic doesn't grow on trees, though. We have to work hard to make this kind of magic happen.

 

So, let's start talking it up.

 

The Creator's Party, 2008. An art-science revolution led by the comics creators.

 

We're on a mission from God and we have many signs telling us so.

 

The Anti-Christ must be lifted into the clouds of Heaven.

[selegue]

So you know I'm not exactly the kind of guy that lets sleeping dogs lie. I admit it. It's a failing, I know. Fuel cells: durability and performance. Batteries wear out. Internal combustion engine suffers a VAST MULTITUDE of problems. Fuel cells... Jack, have NO MOVING PARTS. If you run out of hydrogen in Arizona. You can reach in your glove compartment for a small, portable, hand-sized cartridge and drive another 400 miles minimum. Hydrogen is yes the cleanest, most abundant fuel. Conversion is cheap in the extreme. Maintenance is less than one tenth the cost. And it will make a healthier world. Oh, and yes, you can drink the emissions.

 

We are agreeing at the 90% level here, but fuel cells, despite all their great properties, do have a finite lifetime. No moving parts, but the catalyst and ion-exchange resin eventually get fatigued -- sort of like the way a rechargeable battery can only be recharged a finite number of times. Processes that should be reversible are slightly irreversible. Particles sinter, surfaces get gunked up, that sort of thing. Even the fine Ballard site admits it:

 

"What is the lifetime of a fuel cell product? What happens when it doesn't work anymore? Can I get a replacement?

 

Fuel cells are designed to different lifetimes, depending on the application in which they are intended to be used. Each fuel cell manufacturer has different warranty and service policies when it comes to replacing fuel cells that have completed their lifetime. We have set lifetime targets for Ballard® fuel cells that vary depending on their application. These lifetimes are based on the requirements of today’s marketplace. For example, a backup combustion generator on the market today is expected to last for between 500 and 1,500 hours. For passenger vehicles, fuel cell engine lifetime is expected to be about 5,000 hours; for buses about 20,000 hours."

 

 

Iron filings I mention only to point out Jack that you don't have to dig an oil well to get fuel and save lives in a thousand ways. You can simply lets some nails rust. Expense is not a problem. You and I could put one together. Fuel cell $4500. Standard motor and drive shaft, no engine. 10 batteries for pickup acceleration and storage. Machine parts and installation, oh yeah. One of those little plastic hand fans people use to cool their foreheads. About $20K, tops.

 

I'm with you, but there's a point where hydrogen demand would outstrip supply, and you've got start hunting for the cheapest, cleanest manufacturing process. Scavenging iron will only go so far. Since this is a funnybook group, here's a cheezy analogy. If I were selling a few books, my packing expenses would be zero because I could scavenge a few used boxes and packing noodles. If I were shipping five thousand, I'd have to go down to Office Depot and pay for boxes and packing noodles.

 

Believe me, I'd be thrilled if the US would wean off petroleum and phase in fuel cell cars. It's possible that a light hydrocarbon (probably from coal and natural gas itself) will end up more viable than hydrogen as fuel though.

 

Jack

[selegue]

Just so you know, Ballard WAS a good forward thinking company, taking stuff out of R+D as soon as it was feasible ….. 10 years ago. Then they signed a contract with Damlier-Benz (Chrysler) then amazingly, Ford, then GM.

 

Now these companies finance Ballard to the tune of 50 to 100 million a year, NOT to produce.

 

 

What do they get out of it? Ballard has stood still for 10 years. They can’t sell fuel cells to car companies because all the car companies already have contracts with Ballard. Who can Ballard sell fuel cells to? You or me? Nope. Their ‘sponsors’ refuse to let them. Read their Q&A

 

AWP! No, I hadn't read the "strategic alliances" section.

 

Anybody want a worldwide mystery that’s bigger than anything you’ll find in a comic book or movie?

 

Nooooooo. Such things don’t happen in the real world. It’ll come out when they figure out how to make as much money as with gasoline. Meanwhile, people will die, small price to pay to keep rich people getting richer.

 

I have to agree again. When the day arrives that there's more money to be made converting to fuel cells than continuing the petroleum economy, the tide will turn so fast it will make your head spin!

 

Hey, how long would movie theatres stay open if you brought your own soda, popcorn, and candy?

 

My whole point visiting was to show some of you worried folks that Neal wasn’t exactly a loon and I have done quite a bit of homework. I also want you to know that I am having the greatest damn time on this project. If you don’t think I am having the damndest time just ask Jack. I think he quite understands what an incredible kick this is, I’ll be doing comics and making movies and I’ll bring this insane theory to popular culture, maybe TV (Discovery or Nova.) You might even all be proud of me in all this. (Of course, it is no ‘String Theory.’) You got questions, I’ve got answers, in English. I say science is the next big COMIC BOOK.

 

Yeh, this has been fun. I've had to learn a lot more about topics that I knew just a little about and question a lot of assumptions. There are few things I enjoy more than that (that the auto-censor will let through to the forum).

 

Jack

[Neal Adams-migration]

 

Oh golly Jack,

Just some clarification, though I think you’re putting the pieces together.

 

The fact that fuel cells can be intentionally designed for 20,000 hours is a phenomenon. There is NO gunk. No pistons. None of the sins that engine flesh is heir to.

 

Busses have been running for 12 years. Maintenance is under 10% normal for a bus. That means, of everything that could happen to a system, ALL INCLUSIVE, less than 10% maintenance. Even this is a false statement. Of this under 10%, 90% is outside the hydrogen fuel system. If a transmission locks, or breaks need realignment, or replaced, they might steam wash the cell housing or replace a strip of material.

 

When you say, “Even Ballard”, I gotta chuckle, (not at you), because Ballard is owned, financed, and controlled by the car companies. They have such a perfect and fabulous product that they have to make up [embarrasing lack of self control] to imply they are perfecting an already perfect system. At H power ne plug 10 years ago, I watched an R & D Stax put together, 1 inch, by 1 inch, by 1 inch. It was a crude little affair, put together with 4 nuts and bolts.

It was running a portable laptop, off of a cartridge of H about as small as a double A. The thing was running 12 hours straight without needing a squirt of H. The discussion was, what sort of grooved design pattern molded into the carbon would capture the most H atoms as they rode through the system, and thereby how much less H would the nozzle have to release for maximum efficiency. A few simple designs in an hour’s time increased the efficiency an estimated 5 times.

 

That was 10 years ago.

 

(1) With H power, if you crash in a plane, unless the crash kills you, you WON’T

BURN.

(2) You won’t have to buy your fuel from a utility. In fact, you can sell power back

To the utility.

(3) You will never run out of fuel. Your cell phone will never run out of power.

(4) The environment will wash itself clean in 4 to 5 years.

(5) But some people won’t be as rich as they are today.

 

Finally … so far, the need for hydrogen has never out-stripped the supply. There are simple basic and cheap technologies poised to give us as much hydrogen as we want, we need only ask.

 

You and I can’t know where that tanker truck filled with hydrogen packed in a form of hydride, far safer than gasoline, CAME FROM.

 

It’s not our job to worry about it or think about it, unless the industry wrings it’s hands about the subject, “Oh where, oh where will my H supply come from,” and they’re NOT.

 

People talk about trees for paper, “Oh, we’re going to run out.” No, we already RAN OUT. Now we farm trees, the way we farm wheat, in cycles. There are problems yet, but the system has a lock on it. You’ll get your daily paper in the morning, there’s enough hydrogen to go around. We’re just converting electrons into energy in our cars rather than up in the sky. We’re capturing just a little of the lightening in our bottle and using it to run our world rather than exploding gunk and breathing the leftovers.

[selegue]

...

When you say, “Even Ballard”, I gotta chuckle, (not at you), because Ballard is owned, financed, and controlled by the car companies. They have such a perfect and fabulous product that they have to make up [embarrasing lack of self control] to imply they are perfecting an already perfect system. At H power ne plug 10 years ago, I watched an R & D Stax put together, 1 inch, by 1 inch, by 1 inch. It was a crude little affair, put together with 4 nuts and bolts.

It was running a portable laptop, off of a cartridge of H about as small as a double A. The thing was running 12 hours straight without needing a squirt of H. The discussion was, what sort of grooved design pattern molded into the carbon would capture the most H atoms as they rode through the system, and thereby how much less H would the nozzle have to release for maximum efficiency. A few simple designs in an hour’s time increased the efficiency an estimated 5 times.

 

That was 10 years ago.

 

 

Impressive

 

 

Finally … so far, the need for hydrogen has never out-stripped the supply. There are simple basic and cheap technologies poised to give us as much hydrogen as we want, we need only ask.

 

You and I can’t know where that tanker truck filled with hydrogen packed in a form of hydride, far safer than gasoline, CAME FROM.

 

It’s not our job to worry about it or think about it, unless the industry wrings it’s hands about the subject, “Oh where, oh where will my H supply come from,” and they’re NOT.

 

People talk about trees for paper, “Oh, we’re going to run out.” No, we already RAN OUT. Now we farm trees, the way we farm wheat, in cycles. There are problems yet, but the system has a lock on it. You’ll get your daily paper in the morning, there’s enough hydrogen to go around. We’re just converting electrons into energy in our cars rather than up in the sky. We’re capturing just a little of the lightening in our bottle and using it to run our world rather than exploding gunk and breathing the leftovers.

 

That's my only disagreement with the points you made.

If everyone were running hydrogen fuel cells for cars etc., the demand would quickly outstrip the supply. While there's a nearly limitless supply of hydrogen compounds (mostly water), it takes a reducing agent to convert it to the useful form, H2. You can't "grow" it like a tree. Coal or solar energy are the only possibilities that I see to make all that H2. (Everything else you can suggest like iron or aluminum ultimately leads back to one of those, petroleum or another source of electricity like hydroelectric power).

 

I do agree that fuel cells could supply a huge amount of our power needs cleanly. Look what a mess petroleum has gotten us into!

 

Jack

[Neal Adams-migration]

To Jack and the one and a half persons listening in, let me give you two lists to compare.

 

A.

1. A big bang exploded a previously existing (origin unknown) concentrated ball of matter out into the universe. This matter is essentially the same amount of matter we now have, but all packed together, now blown apart. We have no knowledge of the origin of this matter (or, really, why it exploded.)

 

2. While it’s flying out it begins to collect into clumps that begin to sort of spin into unevenly dispersed galaxies. (No explanation of how clumps collect. Possibly gravity overcoming even dispersal.)

 

3. Within this newly forming galaxy, nodes of material begin to form nascent solar systems complete with planets, moons, and a central sun. All this time the universe is blasting out. Some suns create helium in fusion reaction. We don’t know what purpose the helium serves.

 

4. The planets collect from all the stuff from the Big Bang, and the pressure and compression heats the planets to molten balls. Differentiation lets the heavier elements fall to the cores leaving the lighter substances at the surface. They cool.

 

Up to recently, it was believed the Big Bang explosion would slow down and stop and gravity would pull it back into a big crunch, to start all over again.

 

But recently it was found the universe was accelerating away. Acting opposite from an explosion.

 

B.

1. A universe is, through some unknown process, converted from nothing, into pre-matter and from these single particles of matter are created the simplest atom on going ‘till the universe is filled with hydrogen.

 

2. The hydrogen collects in spinning electro-magnetic-galaxies of hydrogen and the hydrogen is drawn in.

 

3. In the hydrogen galaxy, nodes spin out into small hydrogen suns. In time these compacted hydrogen balls ignite into suns. Around them they have an electro-magnetic field, this is called their system.

 

4. The heat of the sun converts hydrogen to neutrons so that the sun can make a limited on going amount of helium. The sun fires off, helium ions and electrons collect into higher elements in its system. The ions do their job and the new higher count atoms are attracted into almost pure, in many cases elemental atom structures called meteorites.

 

Groups of meteorites will collect on the elliptical electro-magnetic lines of the sun. On these lines the new planetesimals will grow from accreting other meteorites collected in the system.

 

The spin of these planetesimals on the electro-magnetic lines of the sun builds up a powerful field in the core where new matter from prime matter is created and attaches to the silicate interior.

 

Pushing out is the greatest force within each planet. Its surface cracks and spreads. Water falls into the cracks on planets where water can exist on the surface.

 

Planets never get fully molten except right under the crust. Non-differentiated, silicates support an empty core. At the core is plasma. Just as in the sun, matter is made from prime matter on going.

 

There is no gravity, in pulling, to fight any such Big Bang.

 

There is only negative and positive balancing forces holding the growing structure of the universe in balance.

[Neal Adams-migration]

Jack,

 

Google-Hydrogen Production-Hydrogen Supply Sources Info

 

1. The National Academies Press, book called "The Hydrogen Economy."

 

2. China's Next Cultural Revolution-Wired Magazine.

 

The guy who created the VCR couldn't sell it in America so he went to Japan.

 

In two years America will be buying Chienese Hydrogen busses, then cars and we will look like the fools we are. 'Wired' is actually missing the boat as usual.

 

3. List. Producers Hydrogen Producers Price Catalogue.

 

Steam reforming of light hydrocarbons or recovered as a by product from chlor-alaki plants or chemical synthesis operations.

145 LOCATIONS IN THE US.

 

And more, the tip of the iceberg.

[Michael Netzer]

I’ll be doing comics and making movies and I’ll bring this insane theory to popular culture, maybe TV (Discovery or Nova.) You might even all be proud of me in all this. (Of course, it is no ‘String Theory.’) You got questions, I’ve got answers, in English. I say science is the next big COMIC BOOK.

 

Seeing the thread is winding down, I'd like to offer a closing thought.

 

Neal's science project is gaining momentum in public perception. Once it reaches the airwaves and becomes an issue of public controversy and debate, it'll make the big bang look like a fizzle. The following was an annonymous comment, made at my site, on a short article I wrote about "How Mountains are Made" based on one of Neal's observations.:

 

I hate to say this, but I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Adams that the Earth has been growing. Even without all the evidence he presents, it's just illogical to assume the land masses are floting around on a relatively solid shell.

 

I was pondering his theories while using Google Maps the other day. I was zooming in on Antarctica and the Norh Pole. I was pondering the path of the Gulf stream. It made me curious as to how much the energy of the sun may be affecting where the Earth's crust splits. - Defiant1

 

It's really the tip of the iceberg, but it's also part of a greater mechanism for change in the world coming out of the comics industry. Neal stands at the head of it but there are other forces in play and they'll draw the wider comics creators community into it. As someone who's had his share of being dubbed a lunatic, I've learnt not only to let it slide - but also to embrace it and allow this perception to become a springboard to inspiration and achievement. And I learnt it all from Neal.

 

It's the beginning of a revolution of sorts. Tying up a many loose ends in civilization today and consolidating the operating structure under which society develops, into one entity.

 

Politics, Religion, Economics and Science - the divided frontiers of the modern world - coming together under one roof. PRES. That's where the creators are going, led by Neal Adams.

 

Fueling this phenomenon with the coming union of the comics creators is Flaming Sword Productions. Our first offering is at the printer and will ship a few days. A-Z Superhero Poster is unique and special product which brings new luster to the Superhero genre and begins the road to building a home for the creators. Order your copies today while supplies last and help forge the revolution.

 

[mrwoogieman]

 

Looks like the Japanese want to drill down into the earth's mantle...

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-1987747,00.html

 

[mrwoogieman]

Bah, link not working. Go to Drudgereport.com, it's one of the linked stories today.

[Xooxer-migration]

I'd like to start by apologizing to everyone for this necromancy. I know this is a huge thread, though having just discovered the whole topic, I find myself compelled to contribute to the madness. Again, I'm sorry. With that....

 

Hello everyone! I'm new here, obviously, and not a huge fanboy of comics, though I thuroughly enjoy them when chance happens that I stumble upon one. I like to call myself an artist, and can really appreciate the insight and immagination that goes into such great works, but in light of such awe-inspiring talent, I barely hold a flickering candle to these great masters. Now that the butt-sniffing is out of the way, onto the topic at hand.

 

Well, I guess I should address the original posts complaining about Mr. Adam's use of the radio show as a sounding board for his theories. Personally, I don't mind when a discussion drifts off topic into fascinating realms, but I have to agree with some of the folks here. It was a bit self-serving to demand a full half of the show to discuss a topic that many of the listeners are not interested in. This is very disrespectful, not only to the fans of your work who tuned in to listen to your thoughts on comics, but also to the show itself, who made the discussion possible.

 

I can appreciate Mr. Adam's passion for his studies and theories, and applaud his efforts to get his ideas out into the public eye. On the other hand, I think a bit more tact could have been employed when approaching the show. After all, fans who tune in may very well tune out when the topic switched from comics to scientific discussion. Other mediums may not be so open to having you on knowing you will most likely be trying to use thier venue to push forward a personal agenda. Your talent won't cover your lack of empathy for the fans forever, and it certainly won't validate your position, though more will listen because of it than otherwise.

 

All in all, though, I think no real harm was done here. You managed to get a lot of people thinking about plate tectonics who may otherwise have not even contemplated it since it was covered in science class. I just hope in the future, you will take the fans into account. After all, they pay your bills.

 

I found this forum by accidently stumbling upon Mr. Adam's science project pages. I had no idea who he was, or that he was a big name in comic book art. I only saw a man proposing a very fascinating view of the formation of the Earth, with little scientific evidence aside from some pretty pictures. My first impression was the animations of the collapsing and expanding Earth. How elegant it seemed, and somehow, so right. I was convinced from that moment, despite whatever was stated in the remaining pages and discussions, that this theory was spot on accurate. I was astonished at the sheer beauty of it, especially the collapsing of the plates on the moons and Mars.

 

I felt that Mr. Adam's pages were lacking in a fundamental way. I can't quite put my finger on it, but without firm facts and figures to bolster your position, it's very difficult to get past the first impressions towards more solid discussion of science. Also, you lept some chasms, taking your growing Earth theory and bashing, not just plate tectonics, but the scientific assumption of the creation of the entire universe. It took me more than a little brain matter to connect the dots and see your big picture. I think you should focus primarily on the strong point of your theory, namely, the growing planetary bodies. Leave the bigger picture alone for now. It draws from your credibility when you drift from what is an obvious scientific discovery, to more esoteric growth theories. If your growing Earth proves correct, it will innevitably lead to larger discoveries. No need to cram it all at once and ruin your chance at making a solid impression in the scientific community.

 

Mr. Netzer's Creators postulation is even more out there, though he seems to be the sort of fellow who enjoys the fringe. I think it would be best to leave such foo-foo in the comics, and let the elegance and simplicity of Mr. Adam's theory of a growing Earth speak for itself. It's like how advocates hobble their own efforts for legalizing Hemp for industry and medical uses, by trying to also use it to push forward thier own New-Age, hippy agenda for total legalization of all canabis. You're giving your detractors an easy out by pointing to the more fantastic ideas and using them to dismiss the entire discussion as the ravings of a kook.

 

 

Subduction. There does seem to be some evidence for it, despite claims otherwise. The volcanic activity along the coasts of Japan, for instance, almost clearly indicate subduction taking place. Does this mean the growing Earth theory is wrong? No! It just means that plates can, and do subduct. How far down they go is still up for specualtion, and I think Mr. Adams is right that the plates do not recycle. Still, it seems to me that some slipping and subduction is taking place. Think of it like this: Forces push new material to the surface at the oceanic rifts. This material puts pressure on the existing oceanic plates, which push against the continental plates. Subduction takes place at the continental plate, with the less dense oceanic plate sliding under slightly. I don't believe the plates can penetrate the outter mantle, so they lock. Compression can account for the earthquakes, and the material may eventually become dense enough to slightly violate the outter mantle. Still, though, they can not subduct completely, or there will be no resistive forces for the growing Earth to leverge on.

 

This resistive force can aid in the formation of mountian ranges, in addition to the recurvature theory. I don't think recurving the plates would be quite enough to form the ranges we see today, but coupled with slight subduction, and the tremendous forces aplied there could cause the cracking plates to jut upwards giving us the Alps. There is obviosuly some warping of the crust taking place. Look at the way rock layers fold and protrude at steep angles from the crust. Some force is acting on them to deform and push the layers out of line. If there were no subduction taking place, and the Earth simply expanded, these layering patterns would be hard-pressed (heh) to form. Also, without subduction, there would be no explaination for the Ring of Fire, or indeed, any volcanic activity.

 

As for the hollow Earth theory, I can't comment. I don't like the analogy given on Mr. Adam's site using geodes. It's misleading, and to this day there is much debate on how geodes form. Saying the same process that created the geodes we find is proof of a hollow Earth is really stretching. Honestly, do you need to explain HOW the Earth expands to show that it does? Isn't there other methods you could employ, such as matching rocks across the Pacific, or fossile records to match up the western Americas with Eurasia and Austrailia? Perhaps solid proof lies in Antartica. Either way, comparing a geode to the Earth is like trying to say the Earth formed inside of a chicken because it resembles an egg with its crusty shell.

 

I just don't buy the matter-creating planetary core, though. Actually, you don't need more matter to have the planet expand. You just need a process in the core that can raise the internal pressure. I believe conventional theories already support this. Think about it: Back in the early formation of the Earth, particles of matter collected together into a clump, or many clumps. These attracted more matter, and the clumps clumped creating a large mass. According to conventional science, this clumping and coming together created a lot of heat, due to things like friction and kinetic energy. The early earth had to be very hot at this stage of its development. The core would be the hottest, but with a near molten surface, pressure was easily vented through the soft matter. As the surface cooled down, and formed the tough granite rock, the venting became less pronounced, and the core's pressure rose dramtically. This pressure had to be released, cracking the surface and pushing the pieces apart, filling the gap with new matter from the core. Matter from the inside of the rock sheel was worn away with time, heated in the core under tremendous pressure, and again pushed to the surface. The new rock cooled much quicker, and thus has less density. It takes less matter to cover the same area as the old rock, so not much was lost at all, only the inner surface of the old continental plates. These are 13 miles thick today, how thick were they when the shell first cracked? 20 miles? 25? More? Does it matter?

 

The point is, you can use the material in the core and underside of the old crust to create new crust, expand the shell and not have gained or lost any matter. Shell doesn't expand as it cools, as someone suggested early in this thread, but the core expands with heat, melting old rock and using it to fill in the gaps made by escaping pressure from the core. It's rather like how lava hardens, splits and spews forth from the crack to cool again, and splitting once more when the pressure rises again. Look at video of lava seeping into the deep ocean. This is exactly what happens, and I see no reason why it can't happen on a global scale, though much more slowly.

 

By eliminating the need for matter generation at the core, all your other far out creation theories are unecessary to explain a growing Earth. I think it would be very benefitial for you to drop all these ideas about particles and primal matter. Like I said before, they bring down the main theory in a wash of nonsensical ramblings and postulations you'll never be able to prove. Yes, prove. You must prove things to people for them to believe. Otherwise, you might as well just start a new religion, because without proof, that's all you have. If I say I can levitate matter because a magnet can, and I have the same minerals in my body as magnets and have an electromagnetic field, you'd still want to see it in order to believe it. It's the same with your theory. until you can prove, not just with pretty pictures, but with REAL FACTS AND FIGURES, you're doomed. Mind experiments don't count, since no two people have the same mind, immagination or point of view. There has to be a clear and defined outside source of proof for a hypothesis (which is all you have right now) to move into theory. You do this with experimentation. Experiment, then show us the proof. until then, you're just stroking ego. Ego doesn't keep Earth growing, math and physics do.

 

~X

[ronm3-migration]

I'd like to start by apologizing to everyone for this necromancy. I know this is a huge thread, though having just discovered the whole topic, I find myself compelled to contribute to the madness. Again, I'm sorry. With that....

 

Hello everyone! I'm new here, obviously, and not a huge fanboy of comics, though I thuroughly enjoy them when chance happens that I stumble upon one. I like to call myself an artist, and can really appreciate the insight and immagination that goes into such great works, but in light of such awe-inspiring talent, I barely hold a flickering candle to these great masters. Now that the butt-sniffing is out of the way, onto the topic at hand.

 

Well, I guess I should address the original posts complaining about Mr. Adam's use of the radio show as a sounding board for his theories. Personally, I don't mind when a discussion drifts off topic into fascinating realms, but I have to agree with some of the folks here. It was a bit self-serving to demand a full half of the show to discuss a topic that many of the listeners are not interested in. This is very disrespectful, not only to the fans of your work who tuned in to listen to your thoughts on comics, but also to the show itself, who made the discussion possible.

 

I can appreciate Mr. Adam's passion for his studies and theories, and applaud his efforts to get his ideas out into the public eye. On the other hand, I think a bit more tact could have been employed when approaching the show. After all, fans who tune in may very well tune out when the topic switched from comics to scientific discussion. Other mediums may not be so open to having you on knowing you will most likely be trying to use thier venue to push forward a personal agenda. Your talent won't cover your lack of empathy for the fans forever, and it certainly won't validate your position, though more will listen because of it than otherwise.

 

All in all, though, I think no real harm was done here. You managed to get a lot of people thinking about plate tectonics who may otherwise have not even contemplated it since it was covered in science class. I just hope in the future, you will take the fans into account. After all, they pay your bills.

 

I found this forum by accidently stumbling upon Mr. Adam's science project pages. I had no idea who he was, or that he was a big name in comic book art. I only saw a man proposing a very fascinating view of the formation of the Earth, with little scientific evidence aside from some pretty pictures. My first impression was the animations of the collapsing and expanding Earth. How elegant it seemed, and somehow, so right. I was convinced from that moment, despite whatever was stated in the remaining pages and discussions, that this theory was spot on accurate. I was astonished at the sheer beauty of it, especially the collapsing of the plates on the moons and Mars.

 

I felt that Mr. Adam's pages were lacking in a fundamental way. I can't quite put my finger on it, but without firm facts and figures to bolster your position, it's very difficult to get past the first impressions towards more solid discussion of science. Also, you lept some chasms, taking your growing Earth theory and bashing, not just plate tectonics, but the scientific assumption of the creation of the entire universe. It took me more than a little brain matter to connect the dots and see your big picture. I think you should focus primarily on the strong point of your theory, namely, the growing planetary bodies. Leave the bigger picture alone for now. It draws from your credibility when you drift from what is an obvious scientific discovery, to more esoteric growth theories. If your growing Earth proves correct, it will innevitably lead to larger discoveries. No need to cram it all at once and ruin your chance at making a solid impression in the scientific community.

 

Mr. Netzer's Creators postulation is even more out there, though he seems to be the sort of fellow who enjoys the fringe. I think it would be best to leave such foo-foo in the comics, and let the elegance and simplicity of Mr. Adam's theory of a growing Earth speak for itself. It's like how advocates hobble their own efforts for legalizing Hemp for industry and medical uses, by trying to also use it to push forward thier own New-Age, hippy agenda for total legalization of all canabis. You're giving your detractors an easy out by pointing to the more fantastic ideas and using them to dismiss the entire discussion as the ravings of a kook.

 

 

Subduction. There does seem to be some evidence for it, despite claims otherwise. The volcanic activity along the coasts of Japan, for instance, almost clearly indicate subduction taking place. Does this mean the growing Earth theory is wrong? No! It just means that plates can, and do subduct. How far down they go is still up for specualtion, and I think Mr. Adams is right that the plates do not recycle. Still, it seems to me that some slipping and subduction is taking place. Think of it like this: Forces push new material to the surface at the oceanic rifts. This material puts pressure on the existing oceanic plates, which push against the continental plates. Subduction takes place at the continental plate, with the less dense oceanic plate sliding under slightly. I don't believe the plates can penetrate the outter mantle, so they lock. Compression can account for the earthquakes, and the material may eventually become dense enough to slightly violate the outter mantle. Still, though, they can not subduct completely, or there will be no resistive forces for the growing Earth to leverge on.

 

This resistive force can aid in the formation of mountian ranges, in addition to the recurvature theory. I don't think recurving the plates would be quite enough to form the ranges we see today, but coupled with slight subduction, and the tremendous forces aplied there could cause the cracking plates to jut upwards giving us the Alps. There is obviosuly some warping of the crust taking place. Look at the way rock layers fold and protrude at steep angles from the crust. Some force is acting on them to deform and push the layers out of line. If there were no subduction taking place, and the Earth simply expanded, these layering patterns would be hard-pressed (heh) to form. Also, without subduction, there would be no explaination for the Ring of Fire, or indeed, any volcanic activity.

 

As for the hollow Earth theory, I can't comment. I don't like the analogy given on Mr. Adam's site using geodes. It's misleading, and to this day there is much debate on how geodes form. Saying the same process that created the geodes we find is proof of a hollow Earth is really stretching. Honestly, do you need to explain HOW the Earth expands to show that it does? Isn't there other methods you could employ, such as matching rocks across the Pacific, or fossile records to match up the western Americas with Eurasia and Austrailia? Perhaps solid proof lies in Antartica. Either way, comparing a geode to the Earth is like trying to say the Earth formed inside of a chicken because it resembles an egg with its crusty shell.

 

I just don't buy the matter-creating planetary core, though. Actually, you don't need more matter to have the planet expand. You just need a process in the core that can raise the internal pressure. I believe conventional theories already support this. Think about it: Back in the early formation of the Earth, particles of matter collected together into a clump, or many clumps. These attracted more matter, and the clumps clumped creating a large mass. According to conventional science, this clumping and coming together created a lot of heat, due to things like friction and kinetic energy. The early earth had to be very hot at this stage of its development. The core would be the hottest, but with a near molten surface, pressure was easily vented through the soft matter. As the surface cooled down, and formed the tough granite rock, the venting became less pronounced, and the core's pressure rose dramtically. This pressure had to be released, cracking the surface and pushing the pieces apart, filling the gap with new matter from the core. Matter from the inside of the rock sheel was worn away with time, heated in the core under tremendous pressure, and again pushed to the surface. The new rock cooled much quicker, and thus has less density. It takes less matter to cover the same area as the old rock, so not much was lost at all, only the inner surface of the old continental plates. These are 13 miles thick today, how thick were they when the shell first cracked? 20 miles? 25? More? Does it matter?

 

The point is, you can use the material in the core and underside of the old crust to create new crust, expand the shell and not have gained or lost any matter. Shell doesn't expand as it cools, as someone suggested early in this thread, but the core expands with heat, melting old rock and using it to fill in the gaps made by escaping pressure from the core. It's rather like how lava hardens, splits and spews forth from the crack to cool again, and splitting once more when the pressure rises again. Look at video of lava seeping into the deep ocean. This is exactly what happens, and I see no reason why it can't happen on a global scale, though much more slowly.

 

By eliminating the need for matter generation at the core, all your other far out creation theories are unecessary to explain a growing Earth. I think it would be very benefitial for you to drop all these ideas about particles and primal matter. Like I said before, they bring down the main theory in a wash of nonsensical ramblings and postulations you'll never be able to prove. Yes, prove. You must prove things to people for them to believe. Otherwise, you might as well just start a new religion, because without proof, that's all you have. If I say I can levitate matter because a magnet can, and I have the same minerals in my body as magnets and have an electromagnetic field, you'd still want to see it in order to believe it. It's the same with your theory. until you can prove, not just with pretty pictures, but with REAL FACTS AND FIGURES, you're doomed. Mind experiments don't count, since no two people have the same mind, immagination or point of view. There has to be a clear and defined outside source of proof for a hypothesis (which is all you have right now) to move into theory. You do this with experimentation. Experiment, then show us the proof. until then, you're just stroking ego. Ego doesn't keep Earth growing, math and physics do.

 

~X

 

 

I just collect comics. Speak to the guy from Massapequa he seems to know everything.

[FlyingDonut]

Xooxer makes Hulk head hurt.

[Xooxer-migration]

If you think that's a brain twister, try reading the whole thread!