Hello Merlin >Dear Keith, > >Thanks for your reply. There are several things about your letter >that I don't fully understand.
So it would appear. I'll deal with this first: >You seem to be accusing me of having a financial interest in PI. No, I asked if you did have, and you evaded the question, which made it more likely that you did have, so I asked again. >You can accuse me of lying, I didn't do that. >but it only betrays your own cynical >and suspicious nature. Not at all, I don't have such a nature, and there's a LOT of material in the archives of this group, and elsewhere, that proves it. What I do have is a healthy scepticism, but it doesn't go with cynicism and suspicion, it goes with optimism in fact. It'd be very difficult to explain our project otherwise. Which is here, by the way: http://journeytoforever.org/ I think you might have done yourself a favour or two by browsing the list's archives a bit before you leapt in to tell us all what's good and what's not. On the other hand, your own nature seems to be rather paranoid, no? And secretive. >I only learned about fuelsaver a few days >ago. Oh? Yet you've learnt so much about it, including its history, how it's developed, how many are in use (give or take half a million or so). >As I said, I am associated with a group who is able to >produce large amounts of platinum and other PGMs for a lower >price than other producers. That is why I am exploring the >potential properties and markets for these metals. Yes, so you said, and you also said this about it: >>These things all deserve careful scrutiny, in my opinion. To which I responded: >So how do we get to submit your claim that you've solved the supply >problem to a careful scrutiny? And again you haven't answered the question. >With between 500,000 and 1 million fuel savers in operation >worldwide, I think that it should be possible to determine >whether they perform as represented or not. Can you provide some substantiation for that figure? Please try to hoist it aboard that if you're going to make the kind of definitive statements you've been making here about issues you have to know by now are controversial, mere opinionations won't do, we're more rigorous than that here. >And it shouldn't >need to take 35 years. The fuelsavers were developed in the >1970's or 1980's, Yes, that's when Robert says he got bitten by them. >and have been improved over the years by >adding more varieties of PGM's to increase octane rating and >reduce emissions. Many studies have been done, and many >thousands of testimonials accrued. But you don't cite any studies - what studies? Real ones, scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed journals? Please provide citations. We're not impressed by testimonials, all the energy and fuel-saving scams have long been fraught with ample testimonials. >If it can be shown that the downside of catalytic converters is >negligible or slight, That has not been shown. >and the upside enormous, then the decision >should be to use them. No, the decision should be - should long since have been - to determine exactly what the downside is and what it entails before rushing into production. It's called the "Precautionary Principle", maybe you've heard of it. An archive search will help if you haven't. >And that is what society has done. You >seem to be arguing for the banning of catalytic converters. I'm afraid you're being ridiculous, I've done no such thing, nor ever would, quite the opposite, and I'd argue it's been to some effect, and I could prove it. >This >is the first that I have heard of such a proposal. Can you lay out >or provide a link to a cost-benefit analysis? What is your >alternative proposal, which is practical, and more beneficial for >the environment? What I proposed, and I've called attention to it before, was clear enough in my previous message: I called for "somewhat better answers to platinum waste and pollution than those currently available", I cited the two references I gave before (still not sure that you've read them): >From the news articles I reffed: > > >"We know palladium gets off the catalytic particle and is >transferred into the biological system, but we don't know how," says >environmental chemist Greg Morrison of Chalmers University of >Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden. > > >Schneegurt hopes the study will cause manufacturers to consider >making changes to the converters. "Catalytic converters do far more >good than harm, but we don't want to replace one problem with >another," he said. ... and asked why this wasn't investigated 25 years ago. Now how does that amount to calling for a ban on catalytic converters? >You seem to speak of biodiesel and platinum injection as >either/or. No. Biodiesel is real, I'd like to see some substantive indication that platinum injection isn't just magic dust. >But I am interested in exploring the combining of the >two. You're interesting in selling platinum, that's quite clear. >You seem to be interested in practical environmental >solutions. Not primarily. We're a 3rd World rural development group, against poverty and hunger, environmental issues are a subset of that: >Poverty & The Environment >Inequitable land holding, corrupt and inadequate governments and >increasing conflict all add to the burden of the poorest. > >Environmental degradation, undermining the livelihoods of poor women >and men, is both a cause and an effect of poverty. > >According to the United Nations Development Programme, more than 850 >million people live in areas in various stages of desertification. >Growing environmental degradation places particularly acute stress >on women as providers of fuel, wood and water for family needs. http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html Community development - poverty and hunger: Journey to Forever >You seem to be a cheerleader for biodiesel. Hmphh. Keep your labels to yourself. >However, >biodiesel may not be burned efficiently in standard diesel >engines, and we know it pollutes. If biodiesel fuel could be >burned more efficiently, with greatly reduced pollution, then why >would you resist improvement to biodiesel? Resist it? LOL!! We've been at the forefront of promoting and indeed developing improvements to biodiesel for the last four years. But you're not talking about "improvement to biodiesel", you're promoting a dubious technology that's been called into question, and you're not providing any substantiation for your case, just opinionation, hurt innocence and unfounded accusation, and it's not helping you. >Are you a sincere >environmentalist? Are you concerned about tailpipe emissions? >What about global climate change and air pollution? Go and do some homework Merlin, check out the archives, form your own opinion. >How do you >know that platinum isn't beneficial to human health? How do you know that it is? >What >compounds exactly are produced by using PI on a biodiesel >engine? What are their health and environmental impacts? What >is the variability in PGM erosion in different brands and types of >catalytic converters? What is the PGM output, if any, in platinum >injection (PI) engines? Do engines equipped with PI even need >catalytic converters? Do you know the answers to these questions? WHEN you do know them, come back and tell us, eh? We're not interested in the "There's no proof that it does any damage" type of thinking. We've all had enough of that, more than enough, the whole planet has. Proceed according to the Precautionary Principle, or don't proceed at all. It's not exactly new, but its time has come. >Perhaps PI is a solution to catalytic >converter erosion pollution problems, if in fact there are any >pollution problems. So you didn't read the two articles I reffed. Or, if you're casting doubt on the scientific studies referred to, why would you ask us to accept the mere rumour of scientific studies you offer in support of the fuelsaver? >Do you consider gold a pollutant also? No - I consider gold to be the only commodity that our societies recycle effectively, and I quite often hold it up as a model for all recycling efforts. So go figure out how to recycle platinum, whether from platinum injection or erosion of catalytic converters or whatever, as efficiently as we recycle gold, and you'll have done a better and more useful thing than figuring out how to extract more of the stuff at a bigger profit. >Some people are allergic to gold. In fact, many people are >allergic to carrots. So are carrots pollutants also? Depends how they're grown. And you're being foolish. >You seem to be accusing me of having a financial interest in PI. >You can accuse me of lying, but it only betrays your own cynical >and suspicious nature. I only learned about fuelsaver a few days >ago. As I said, I am associated with a group who is able to >produce large amounts of platinum and other PGMs for a lower >price than other producers. That is why I am exploring the >potential properties and markets for these metals. Uh-huh. What was that you were saying about free energy deserving serious and objective analysis? Best Keith >Merlin ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
