Re: H2 burner



No I only said you haven't shown *me* proof that you did the work you
said you did.  That is a very different thing.


How is publishing something in a patent - that is available to the
public generally - not showing you something? You are the public and
have access to it, therefore I have shown it to you. Furthermore, I
have asked you to complete a contact screen on my website to receive
additional information. Obviously you are the one choosing not to
gather relevant information before making conclusions about it.
Clearly you do this because you have your own agenda independent of
the relevant data.

Since you love syllogisms,

I don't love or hate syllogisms, I merely said you are using them to
follow a logical form and wrongly conclude that I'm a liar and blame
it on logic. This is an old disinformation trick - and should be
pointed out whenever its encountered.

let give you one that is actually relevant
to this discussion

Let's recount our discussion shall we? The discussion started out by
you saying that my reported 55% efficiency was impossible. When I
gave you an unimpeachable source showing that 60% was routinely
achieved in systems like mine, you ignored your error and said I
couldn't have done what I said I did since there was no third party
confirmation. When I gave you references to news reports in Jakarta
and US Patents you denigrated the foreign press and the US Patent
Office.


and not some delusional fabricated paranoia.

Now, when I deconstruct your attempts you say I love syllogisms and
imply I'm a delusional paranoid.

Obviously you seek to denigrate my work and achievements no matter
what evidence I present here. So, you are best ignored as the idiot
you are.

Fact is, I produce solar panels that convert water and sunlight to
hydrogen and oxygen at $0.07 per peak watt that are 55% efficient.
This produces hydrogen at $110 per metric ton. I have incorporated
these panels in the design of eight energy projects outside the USA
which I am sponsoring which will pay for the construction of a supply
chain for these panels. Once that is completed I will enter the US
market and convert surplus stations shut down due to low volume sales
caused by high gas prices (gas will be $6 per gallon by August) and
buy re-marketers that are hard hit - and merge them with coal
companies to create with my technology an integrated oil company that
is domestically sourced.

I have explored very closely Sunoco and Westmoreland Coal. These can
be acquired an merged for $5 billion. Looking at their balance
sheets, its easy to see that the value of the integrated companies
with my technology of using a solar assisted Bergius process, that I
can create a $200 billion asset very quickly. This increase in value
will allow me to build a national hydrogen infrastructure along
Sunoco's pipeline rights of way and add stations out West along with
certain parts of Peabody's assets - increasing value to $600 billion -
with over 20 billion barrel equivalent reserves in the form of coal.

In the end, the 8 energy projects will expand to 42 coal-to-liquid
facilities each processing 30,000 tons of coal per day into 220,000
barrels of oil per day, using 3,500 tons of hydrogen per day.

Expanding panel installations at each of the solar sites (I already
have 24,000 sq km of land in sunny regions optioned), increases
hydrogen output, and at that point I will add hydrogen sales to
stationary producers, and retail hydrogen sales at the retail outlets
throughout the nation.

Then, we'll be on the road to a hydrogen economy.


1)   I can not be certain of something if I have not seen solid and
verifiable proof that it is real.

2)  William Mook has described his invention here and in patents but I
have yet to see to solid and verifiable proof that the invention is
real and works as he claims.

3)   I can not be certain that William Mook's invention is real and
works as claimed.

Those are your problems, not mine. It is your choice to ignore
patents and press coverage I gave. Your pattern of behavior toward me
and my efforts are clear. Bottom line you are using any interaction
with me to denigrate me and my efforts. You started off saying that
my efficiency was too high, when that was addressed satisfactorially
you said there was no third party confirmation, when I pointed to
third parties, you say I'm delusional. Obviously, you are the one
with the problem not me. I merely report what I do here from time to
time to get some feedback that is sometimes useful. Clearly when
someone is characterizing me unfairly, as you do, I need to point that
out.

That is the relevant syllogism.  

No its not.

At no time have I claimed you are a
liar.

You implied in response to my statement about product that it couldn't
work as I said - that's implying I'm a liar. More recently, you have
implied I'm a delusional paranoid for objecting to you dismissing my
direct statements in a way that labels me a liar. You have
consistently denigrated me personally throughout all your commentary,
now you pretend that you have not.

I have built solar panels and sponsored projects using this technology
and I am moving forward with these projects creating tremendous
value. You have chosen to classify these efforts as inadequate to
your requirement for proof and continue your mischaracterization of my
efforts and of me - in the absence of any solid evidence that supports
these mischaracterizations.

You just can't resist the strawman can you?

Straw man requires that I misrepresent your position in order to
refute the mis-represented position. I have not misrepresented your
position that you are just being reasonable and fair. You have stated
many times you wish my 'claims' were true, but you have some nagging
doubts that any reasonable person would have - and then launch into a
most unreasonable set of statements. At first I gave you references
to address your concerns, but you pattern is not one of a reasonable
person, no matter how you try to reperesent yourself as such.

 When did I claim to be
the "soul of reason and fairness."  

You are now not claiming to be reasonable and fair in your analysis?
haha.. Like I said, you started out saying you really support my
efforts and so forth, but... and then launch into unreasonable unfair
statements that have no basis in reality. This is posing as a
reasonable and fair person in order to make it seem that your
objections are based solely on logic and fair and equitable
analysis. Of course we see that you are not being fair, and that
your use of logic merely follows the syllogistic form, while ignoring
the facts and denigrating and abusing me personally.

What a load of nonsense.

So, you accept the notion that you are not reasonable and fair in your
analysis?


Wow.  You're really wound up about this.  

No I'm not.

You keep repeating this
nonsense about syllogisms.  

Its relevant, and repeated whenever you repeat the behavior - to point
it out for what it is. Let's recap -

1) You made some favorable statements about my efforts at first
2) You then said despite your desire for my statements to be true you
worried they were not since my 'claims' of thermodynamic efficiency
were so high as to be unbelievable - citing an irrelevant and wrong
reference.
3) I gave you an unassailable reference that shows my thermodynamic
efficiency isn't special
4) You ignored that reference and did not retract your earlier
statements
5) You then changed your position to question why I didn't have third
party confirmation
6) I pointed you toward my patents and newspaper articles in Asia
7) You then denigrated foreign press and the US patent office and the
patent process
8) I pointed out your pattern of abusive behavior
9) You then said I was delusional and paranoid -

Take a pill, bud.

and now you say I need to medicate...

You don't see a pattern here? There is absolutely nothing I could
say that you wouldn't twist into some sort of insulting statement
about me and my efforts.

I gave you the reason.  

You have attempted to paint your efforts as being logical - they are
not logical. They are aimed at undermining my efforts.

I haven't seen verifiable proof that any of it
is true.

This is a continuation of your second argument that you switched to in
step 5 above. My response is step 6 above. How are US patents,
NASA test results, and articles in business magazines insufficient for
your needs?

 That doesn't mean it isn't true, its just that I haven't yet
seen the proof.

Why do you choose to ignore the things I provided?


When a bank asks to see proof of income or assets before they loan you
money are they calling you a liar?  

No - but when a bank says of my tax returns that the IRS has made
mistakes in the past, how do I know these IRS documents don't have
similar mistakes in them? I think it is fair to say that that banker
is demanding a level of proof that is unattainable. That's what you
have done. You changed your argument, and when I said, hey, I have
patents, and those patents have test results from NASA, you say that's
not good enough.

By your absurd logic they are.

Talk about strawman. You have mischaracterized my logic here and now
calling your construction absurd. Stick to the points. You said 55%
efficiency was too high for you to believe. When I showed you how it
was possible, you then shifted your attack to say you needed third
party confirmation. When I gave you patent information and invited
you to visit my website and fill out contact information - you
denigrated the process I have for divulging certain information, and
said the US patent office can't be trusted as a confirming source.
When I said that was just nutty - and pointed out that you would never
have a good thing to say about my efforts - you called me delusional,
paranoid, said I should medicate myself and that I was being
absurd.

Fact is if a bank asks for proof of income and then says they don't
trust the IRS documents because the IRS has made mistakes in the past
- I would say that particular bank was being unreasonable in their
demands for proof - just as you are.

They are not simply taking your word on the matter that you have the
assets you claim.  

You are going on and on and on - talking about your strawman - all the
while gaily ignoring the facts. I'm responding to your pattern of
behavior in this matter.

No they want to see documents, pay stubs, account
statements.  

Right, but I'm not applying for a loan, I'm having a conversation.
You started out saying you thought my statement about 55% efficiency
was totally unbelievable - when I gave you proof that it was in fact
routinely achievable, you IGNORED that and changed your position so
you could maintain your attacks. You then said I needed third party
confirmation and photos and whatnot. I said check out my patents and
if you want photos visit my website and fill out my contact page.
You ignored that and railed against the patent office and railed
against me for wanting to keep track of who gets what I consider
critical information.

So, this is very much like a bank officer who says, do you have any
documents that show that these documents are real?

At some point- in this conversation - you have passed from being a
reasonable person to an unreasonable one - at that point I say f-you.
lol.

Its called verifying, dip***,

See? You create the strawman, come to a totally bogus conclusion, and
then say insulting things to me. f-you again.

and its how the world
works.  

Now, you are taking a superior position implying I don't know how the
world works while you do. Obviously, I know how the world works, and
clearly, I see what you are attempting to do in ALL of your exchanges
with me.

Its not about calling someone a liar.

You are still attempting to paint yourself as a reasonable person and
your commentary as fair and balanced. Obviously nothing could be
further from the truth. You have not only called me a liar, you have
said I was paranoid, delusional, a dip***, someone who doesn't know
how the world works, and more. All without any reason whatever.

Lets take your strawman of the banker asking for proof of income. I
give him the last 3 years of my IRS returns. He wants account
information. I give him 3 years worth. He wants to see a summary.
I get my accountant to put together spreadsheets and confirm their
accuracy. He wants confirmation from the bank, he wants to see the
accounants license.

These are all reasonable - but if the banker then says, you know,
people like you Bill can fool the IRS and I just don't know if what
these documents say is true - what evidence can you give me that you
haven't fooled the IRS and your bank and your accountant?

What is that banker saying about his opinion of me?

At some point you say, you know, I think you're being unreasonable in
your demands...

that's what you are doing here - being unreasonable -and attempting to
say you are being reasonable.


You know, I don't even know what your device looks like.  

Its not my fault. You could fill out a contact screen on my website,
or visit the patent office website and look it up.

You don't
post any photos or even sketches of it.  

You can look up the patents and see.

You can fill out a contact screen and I will send you reports and
such.

Yet you expect everyone to
have complete faith in its capabilities.  

No, you are constructing another strawman again - mischaracterizing
what I said to make your insulting statements seem more reasonable.

You take offense that
someone might want to see verification.  

No, I take no offense at anything. I merely say *** you when you are
being unreasonable.

That's amazingly arrogant.

Now, according to you I'm an arrogant delusional paranoid dip*** who
doesn't know how the world works.

What evidence do you have of that? None. But that doesn't stop you
from saying it. In fact, nothing I say is good enough for you.
Anything you cannot attack, you ignore, and make up *** to continue
your attack. Go back to your original objetction. 55% efficiency -
can you see how I achieve that after reading the Stanford paper?
What other real objections do you have? Since then, you had no real
objections, since then you've just made *** up and found everything
wanting. The patent office isn't good enough for you. Foreign
newpapers can't be trusted.

Fact is, you can see what my panels look like by filling out a contact
screen on my website, or by visiting the patent office and typing in
'mook' and 'solar' in the search engine - to pull up the patents and
applications.

That's because such a position is indefensible, in light of not only
my work, but the work of others in the field.

Well I not the one you need to discuss that with.

You're the one making the abusive statements about my work - so you're
the one who gets my attention.

It has been offered to you, yet you have gone out of your way to say
damning things despite the easy availability of the very things you
ask for.  Obviously, you are not the fair honest and balanced observer
you pretend to be.

Listen, there is nothing preventing you from putting this stuff (test
reports, photos) on your site for all to see.  

Yes there is.

You choose not too.

Yes.

Therefore, a casual observer such as myself does not have easy access
to verifiable proof.  

How is a photo verifiable proof?

That's your fault, not mine

You are constructing another strawman. Patents and information
delivered in confidence after filling out contact information is
providing the sort of proof you seek. You choose to mischaracterize
what I do offer in order to maintain your abusive stance toward me and
my accomplishments.

therefore I qualify my statements with an "if".  Deal with it.

No, you created the syllogism

I created this syllogism:
1)   I can not be certain of something if I have not seen solid and
verifiable proof that it is real.
2)  William Mook has described his invention but I have yet to see to
solid and verifiable proof that the invention is real and works as he
claims.
3)   I can not be certain that William Mook's invention is real and
works as claimed.

The rest of that crap about lying and whatnot is just some paranoid BS
made up by you.  It has nothing to do with me.

Yes it does. Look at what you've really done here. You first stated
you were enthused and supportive of my efforts. You then stated that
my claims of 55% efficiency was way too high to be credible. I gave
you proof that it was reasonable. You ignored that proof and your
earlier argument. You shifted your argument that I didn't have third
party confirmation of my claims. I said I have patents and you can
get any sort of report by filling out a contact screen and agreeing to
maintain confidentiality. You then attacked the patent office and
the patent process and said reporters were your preferred method. I
said I had coverage of my business affairs in Asia where I'm working
and gave you a reference with that. You said foreign press can't be
trusted. I pointed out the pattern of abuse you've been heaping on
me, and now you call me delusional and a number of other things, and
say only confidential stuff posted publicly will satisfy your
criterion.

Please forgive me for laughing at you.

You are an idiot.

    If Mook doesn't have third party confirmation or photos on his
website then he must be lying given the tremendous advances he has
made (I'm paraphrasing)

No you are making *** up as you go.  I never said anything about
lying.

You implied direct statements I made were not true. Going back to
your strawman. There's a difference between a banker that says
please give me 3 years of tax returns and a banker that says I don't
believe these tax returns because despite these returns I think you're
exaggerating your income. The first instance is reasonable, the
second is not, and implying I'm a liar.



Its the second and third steps I am objecting to.   Its also your
pattern of ignoring reality merely to denigrate my efforts that I wish
to point out.

Remember, you started out saying that 55% was outrageously efficient
and could NEVER be achieved by any sort of system...    remember that?

No.  I commented that 55% seemed extremely high but I never used the
words impossible.

Its your pattern of abusive behavior that gives you away.

.