Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:14:21 -0400
Reply-To:     David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject:      NVC Re: Vanagon emissions
Comments: To: "John C..." <JCarp2001@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To:  <45037641.716191254523027091.JavaMail.root@sz0088a.emeryvil
              le.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 06:37 PM 10/2/2009, John C... wrote:
>Surely a smart man like you can think of more options than that ?

No, I really can't, barring something totally unexpected.  For
example *if* there's comparable hydrogen energy (to liquid fuels) in
a pound of water, and *if* a means is found to electrolyze it or more
likely catalytically decompose it that is small, lightweight and
doesn't use lots of energy itself -- hence catalytic -- *and* can
convert 20,000 gallons worth (two full-size road tankers) in the time
it takes to fly a 747 across the Atlantic ocean (around 8 hours IIRC)
-- then I can see it.  But I don't think any of that is likely.

Barring that I think we're back to dirigibles, where the ship itself
floats in air like a ship on the water.  And I'm not at all sure
that's a bad idea.  I would love for them to come back, and they
won't unless regular aircraft are out of the picture (I think).  But
we'd end up with a world where we still have instant communications
but actually traveling will take a real investment of time and
probably of money, and I think society would be better off for
it.  The ability to travel across country at the drop of a hat and
comparatively little cash puts big stresses on families with
scattered members.  In the olde dayes when you waved goodbye to your
relatives traveling to San Francisco you *knew* that you probably
wouldn't ever see them again.  Now if you don't (or they don't, or
both) get in a horrible bus with lousy service and conditions
--  you're neglecting them, or they you.

Yrs,
D