Titanic and Hindenburg Extract

January 2017 “K” Titanic and Hindenburg: Two Tragedies, One Plan
Supplement 1
The cold Oil Industry
There are approximately 100 million cars in the United States. Each and every one of them
is a necessary part of the production of petroleum at the current volumetric levels. Without
them their tank farms, pipelines and refineries become clogged up within weeks. They have
to keep draining those tanks as there’s always more on the way to refill them. Without all
these mouths to feed, excuse me, I mean cars, the entire industry is doomed.
But for now the industry is running at 100% because there is a worldwide demand for their
product. It is this demand for gasoline that makes the oil industry what it is; an energy
monopoly. Perhaps you thought such a monopoly had ended long ago when the largest
anti-trust case in history took place in the United States against big oil resulting in the big
oil break-up? Now you need to consider that this antitrust case merely makes us think that
the former giant corporate conglomerate really split into separate components. You will
note that in the past 20 years these “independent” companies have been allowed to merge
back together. Examples include Exxon-Mobil, Standard-Texaco, Union-Arco and others.
Not a word is being heard from the attorney general about the anti-trust case from 1911.
Why not?
Take note that since 1911, when Standard Oil was supposedly broken up into many
separate and competing companies there has been absolutely no change in the type of
energy the country uses nor in the type of engines the automakers equip our vehicles with.
Thusly the oil industry itself has exposed the fact that there is absolutely no competition
for energy innovation.
The public is burdened with fuel prices just like an ox wears a heavy yoke. There have
been hundreds, if not thousands, of better fuels that could have been adapted to offer
cleaner energy, better efficiency, longer engine life, less maintenance, fewer fuel stops,
reduced fires, etc. Instead we get gasoline and diesel fuel the same way it was formulated
over 100 years ago and at a price that is 100 times the cost of its production. We are thus
held hostage to the price of an outdated, cheap and toxic fuel. The only way this could
have transpired is via an organized, well-funded plan dedicated to the establishment of a
petroleum-powered mechanized world.
162
Examples of an existing monopoly amongst world car manufacturers:
1. Almost all automobiles in the world are powered by gasoline or diesel fuel.
2. Almost all automobiles in the world today use inefficient piston engines.
3. Almost all use rubber tires on asphalt roads. Asphalt is petroleum + gravel.
4. Almost all have iron metal bodies that will rust through in 10 to 20 years.
None are made of or plated with stainless steel, copper, bronze, tin,
nickel or other alloys that do not rust.
5. 99% of them have engines that idle in traffic even when stopped.
6. 85% of them emit a poisonous gas, Carbon Monoxide.
7. 99% of them use ethylene glycol as coolant, a petroleum derivative.
8. 99% of them have a “disposable” battery constructed of a petroleum
derivative.
9. 99% of them require oil changes every 6000 miles.
10. 99% of them require brake pads made with toxic materials and tires which
are made from petro-derivatives.
11. Less than 1% of them will protect the occupants in a severe car crash.
The oil business is more than a very big business. Crude is pulled out of the crust of the
earth only to begin its long journey to the refinery, then onward to the money scalping
pumps finally reaching freedom via the tailpipes of millions of automobiles and trucks
worldwide. The crude-oil-to-car-exhaust program runs worldwide and 24/7 is so gigantic
in size and complexity that its forward momentum must be maintained. Those who are
taking money from the system are making so much money from the system they feel that
they cannot afford to even temporarily stop the flow of this mega-sized one-way-process.
They love their money.
For this reason it is crucial that the crude industry effectively influence the government to
thus constantly endorse petroleum usage, and they do this by rewarding those seeking
political office with campaign money. The corrupt relationship between the crudelum
corporations and government is firmly entrenched within governments of virtually every
industrialized nation today. Today their hand-picked oil lackeys masquerading as public
servants support oil development of every imaginable kind, anywhere, and this includes
the most pristine forests left on the planet. They also serve to veto any and all legislation
that has to do with revolutionizing any and all energy powered systems. These are the
reasons that we use gasoline. It has nothing to do with good science or modern technology.
At the turn of the century the Rothschild/Rockefeller banks began to borrow and use money
based upon the collateral investments they had, which were based upon money deposited
in their banks by ordinary people. They proceeded to use this borrowed money to invest
in and develop crude-oil-powered petroleum engines. They borrowed money against the
people’s collateral to fund the advertising necessary to sell the concept. They used it to
buy off congressmen so they would keep quiet about the gross environmental indiscretions.
163
The result of their investments, made with the people’s collateral investments from
yesterday, generates over $3 trillion dollars annually today.
The auto/oil industry bankers have many friends in high places; such as directors of
corporations, universities and public sector organizations which provide and fund research
grants. They leave no stone unturned. Remember, this is a very big game and without
controlling the transportation and military mechanisms used by governments and without
filtering out innovations within the nation’s education they could never hide all of the
superior designs and fuel sources that are cheaper to operate and do not pollute the air, land
and water. For more information please consult “The Rise and Stall of the Piston Engine”.
Some think we live freer lives because of automobiles, but they are just the same old low-
tech vehicle that is always on manual control. They require our constant attention and good
reflexes just to go down the road at 40 mph. And this is because “modern” high speed
highways pit 70 mile per hour 50 ton trucks driven by professionals against 1 1/2 ton cars
guided by anyone with decent eyesight together on the same highway, whether vacation or
working.
In the broadest terms our modern highway is a place where we risk losing our life every
time we take a trip by car, because our modern highway pits every driver against another
driver going in the opposite direction with only a line and a prayer for separation. Our
modern highway is a place where one person who accidentally doses off because of lack
of sleep or medication can result in a head on collision that is usually fatal. That’s why
presidents use motorcades. That’s why important people rarely travel on roads, and if they
do, ride in vehicles built on the same chassis as a Greyhound bus. We are out there on the
highway alongside them because there are no other options for us folks who can barely
afford the fuel for a Volkswagen.
If you think we have it so good consider that in the 1800’s a steam powered railroad engine
and train could haul any amount of gear and people in coaches or luxurious private cars,
and the whole operation ran on a fuel that was scooped straight from the ground; coal. Now
that was some serious innovation, and the United States possessed it, only to let it fall
victim to the oil gang, their diesel engines and high priced “refined” fuels in the 1940’s and
onward.
From a safety standpoint, riding a train filled with many people driven by one professional
driver, who could be fired from their job if they ever have an accident of any kind, would
yield much safer standards than having 1,000 separately controlled, non-professionally
driven vehicles, in movement at 60 mph, in striped multiple lanes, going in opposing
directions. This honestly delineates where safety ranks in our highway system; at the very
bottom.
All for the sake of gasoline
164
In comparison to other countries, the United States has been particularly supportive of oil-
company polices. These are ones that blindly endorse larger and larger piston engines year
after year, as if nothing better has come along. As a result today the United States ranks
below all of the other industrialized nations in mass transit and high speed rail. Our
transportation debacle is worsened by the fact that petroleum use everywhere is polluting
our croplands, piling mountains of plastic debris on the lands, and turning lakes and rivers
into toxic swamps devoid of fish.
And now after listening to the news and reading the papers, most have concluded that such
are just small prices to pay for our added prosperity. But what is this prosperity worth
when we are all dumbed down by car exhaust and bled of every spare penny in our pockets
week after week? Notice that as these “experts” and “planners” orchestrate the
development of our transportation system, they endorse a system of congestion and traffic
mayhem that feeds poisonous car exhaust into our lungs. Are these costs really necessary
in order for common folks to achieve prosperity?
I’m sorry to tell you this but the current way our laws are being written are more than
accommodating toward oil industry objectives, and they confirm that the oil/auto corporate
plan is to continue to increase the world’s consumption of crust-produced petroleum to
even higher levels than they are now. Conserve it? This has always been a joke to them!
The roads leading to the bankster castles have been paved at the expense of the common
people who have been forced to use a lousy fuel they shouldn’t have been using in the first
place. It has not been the other way around, as the modern press and movies want you to
believe. Driving is not a privilege; it is the only way to get around. Gasoline is not a
valuable commodity; it is a byproduct of a toxic industry. We are not fortunate to have
gasoline; we are forced to help the industry get rid of it so they can sell us more.
Flashy car buyer choices don’t reflect customer care in their design. Our cars our not built
to best suit our needs. Supposed freedoms and choices in vehicle models don’t provide
practical choices for our transportation needs. Today’s automobiles only saddle us with
the same old thing at a higher price. Look at all the fuel we move around just for the
purpose of moving ourselves:
Amount of gasoline consumed daily, worldwide: 44,000,000 barrels/day
Motor Gasoline Retail Prices (U.S. City Average): $4.50/gallon
Daily Sales, projected: $8.3 Billion/day
As you can see from this chart, the corporate gangsters who have set up our current world’s
petroleum reliance are anything but good down-home folk. What a mess we are in now
that we need so much fuel, and all of it is polluted! Remember, no government is really a
government, of and for the people, if they are held hostage to corporations and special
interests within their own borders. In the case of the United States, we are supposed to
accept the fact that our military machine, which runs on petroleum, is dependent on
corporate oil suppliers just like everyone else. The government supposedly won’t get into
the oil business (even though it is a critical part of our national defense’s business) because
that would stifle free enterprise. So they say. But it does not make strategic military sense
165
that a military’s government would not be as involved in the energy that runs the military
as well as the military itself. No military can call itself a military if it can’t guarantee to
be operational when needed.
Today, what we have controlling our transportation and oil industries looks like free
enterprise that is operating within a democratic government, but what we have in reality is
a corporate/government gang whose controlling members are invisible to the public and
our scrutiny. “Elected” puppets are placed in front of cameras and are given names like
president, senator, court justice, federal reserve chairman, committee chairman, house
majority leader, news anchor, CEO, white house commentators, news editor,
author/commentaries, etc. These “spokespeople” deliver their lines nicely, and, sometimes
with some emotion. But they are never the words or thoughts of their own, only someone
else’s. Think of them as talking camera props.
We see our president behind a teleprompter every time he speaks and we know he has
speechwriters. That is why every politician you see or hear on TV or radio sounds so
disingenuous. We hear the words but we can’t feel the person’s character, and it’s because
they’re not using their own words and thus they are fakes, but I digress. All of what I have
just stated is a result of our friends behind the oil monopoly. They are the ones who have
sponsored our electorate with endless donations, thus turning our election process into a
fund-raising farce for the election of an actor.
There is no stopping the growth of the oil industry until we become aware. As long as the
people continue to go along with the current energy/transportation system, the people who
control this investment will continue to expand their investment. This means the use of
petroleum will increase, both in volume and price.
Do note that “smarter” self-steered cars will probably increase car sales but that they are
not going to reduce petroleum usage. They will be touted as the slickest thing since the
turbocharger but in reality they are just another high-tech gadget to confuse us and make
us think we’re getting something more modern when in reality self-steering will just serve
to reinforce the continued use of a stupid design. Every car will still need a driver. Fuel
mileage will be unchanged. American’s embrace and construction of them will only blow
a much greater opportunity; such as to convert all cars to methanol or electric at the same
time. We have the opportunity to completely revolutionize our cars once we embrace the
idea of replacing them for self-steered models. Too bad we won’t take the opportunity to
really make a quantum jump.
Global Warming and Petroleum burning
166
Never let yourself fall for oil conservation rhetoric constantly blathered to the press.
According to Frontline Magazine, world oil consumption will increase to 119 million
barrels per day in 2020. This tells us exactly what their plan is; in fact the oil industry term
is profit plan, and they are proud of it.
If global warming were real, and since most of the burning we do is burning petroleum,
wouldn’t the first place to begin a reduction of CO2 emissions be the reduction of petroleum
burning? So why is this obvious solution overlooked? The reason is because the oil
conglomerates do not want to reduce petroleum production. The New World Order (which
has just gone capoot) wants a world tax and wants global warming as the reason to scare
us. But look at the utter hypocrisy; blaming global warming on carbon dioxide production,
then continuing to endorse carbon-only fuels. Nuclear is not an option by the way until
they use thorium instead of uranium.
I don’t support the global warming theory for the simple reason that carbon dioxide is a
miracle gas that is critical for plant growth. Nobody seems to remember or find
noteworthy the fact that Carbon Dioxide in our air combines with water in the presence of
sunlight to produce plant growth, and plant growth is, whether it is liquid or structure,
hydrocarbon itself.
You might also be interested to know that an analysis of our air today contains roughly 520
times as much Oxygen as Carbon Dioxide.
CO2 concentration: .039% O2 concentration: 20.9 %.
The fact is the world’s plants need more CO2. More plants mean more Oxygen will be
produced. Thus the real thing to worry about regarding global warming is the fact that they
want to tax us on a made-up problem. But I’m just getting started with this uncovering of
the industry.
The average U.S. motorist is getting screwed over the price of fuel because the price of
fuel is attributed to the supply vs. the demand. What a total crock! Oil companies make
contracts with all of the Middle East countries before any of their oil is allowed to be sold.
These contracts typically pay $1.50 to $2 dollars per barrel. The contracts are for a
minimum of twenty-five years. A recent article in Oil Digest boasted that the major oil
companies had reduced their production costs of gasoline to an all-time low. Libya
produced petroleum for less than $1 dollar per barrel before she was attacked and her oil
production was taken over.
Take a minute to digest this fact: U.S. petroleum consumption is 21 million barrels per
day, yet the U.S. only produces 6 million barrels per day. This means that 15 million
barrels per day (about 1.1 billion dollars goes out) is imported totally. Why would any
leader of a country let these numbers of dollars go out of the country? But that’s just the
beginning. For some reason, the price of crude taken from the foreign country, which is
around $2 per barrel (4.6 cents per gallon), ends up at the price of gasoline, which is around
$4.60 per gallon, here at home. Who are the mysterious “middle men”, who coined the
167
expression “supply verses demand” and use this as a reason why the world’s energy is
marked up by a factor of 100? It is a mystery no longer; they are the IMF. Read The
Energy Non-crisis for the complete story if you desire more proof of this.
The shelling out to other countries, 15 million barrels of oil money every day, is a sure fire
way to destroy a country’s economy from the inside. But to allow corporations and middle
men to control the price, thus to fleece the country even more, is treasonous. This amount
is adding to our debt every day in spite of the fact that the United States once had electric
railroad systems connected to power plants that were run off coal. Supply-demand! What
a complete contradiction of the truth!
This is why these energy-saving systems, that were light years ahead of petroleum powered
mechanisms, were all phased out. Yes, we should be angry, because we’ve been
deliberately set up. We’ve been stuck with a fuel-hungry transportation system, and now
we’re being forced to buy exorbitant quantities of foreign petroleum at exorbitant prices.
The only reason the government goes along with the continued endorsement of an energy
system that bolsters massive foreign debt, is because the government itself is controlled by
the corporate gang. Senators and congressmen spend millions to get elected, thus oil
money pretty much controls the election “show”. Such “elected” diplomats have no choice
but to support big oil, even though no decent politician could possibly put their support
behind such a treasonous trade imbalance.
Why don’t the automakers concentrate more on diesel fuel? Why won’t the refiners crack
their limited petroleum stocks into alcohol, which would increase yield by four fold? Why
won’t they let us have the Stirling Engine design, which would be more efficient? Where
is a small, cheap turbine engine that can run on virtually any liquid fuel that will burn?
Why does the auto industry keep putting high tech electronics into a 200 year old design?
Why won’t they make a cheap electric car like we had in 1895? Why are our trains powered
by petroleum instead of electricity, even though they run on a track? The list of oil industry
anomalies is endless.
These questions will never be answered because the release of buried innovations would
expose the dirty tactics they used to squelch them. In the meantime, as long as we keep
increasing our thirst for a type of energy that we must import, rather than one we produce
here, our sovereign country is destined for bankruptcy. The cost to the United States to
import this amount of oil is approximately $547 billion dollars a year at $100/barrel. Any
person, with mathematical knowledge beyond the 4th grade, can calculate this kind of trade
deficit cannot be maintained.
So why send the country into bankruptcy for the sake of using a toxic fuel which leaves
our lands desolate? Why do these idiot banksters want to not only rape the United States
in the short term, monetarily, only to destroy the United States, environmentally, in the
long term? We have in fact witnessed the United States go from prosperity to foreclosure
in the past 70 years.
168
The only reasonable explanation for why this is happening is that the United States is being
taken down from within. The press, controlled by the ones hiding behind their anonymity,
refuses to acknowledge such a concept (oligarchy) does or could ever exist.
Who or what other countries might benefit by destroying the United States? Is not the list
of enemy countries that have been attacked or occupied by the United States since World
War II near endless? Shouldn’t we be on-guard for a reprisal? Shouldn’t we be on guard
for a financial takedown from within?
Simple and better fuel alternatives that don’t pollute
After 200 years of organic chemistry research in every major university in the world,
including the volumes of chemical research that has been patented regarding every
variation of liquid fuel imaginable, still gasoline remains as the premier fuel, and still it
contains toxic constituents. As highlighted in chapters 1 and 5, there are many alternative
fuels to gasoline; in fact the list is endless.
Gasoline is a 225 F0 “cut” (1250-3500) of heated crude oil, with virtually no other
ingredients added. They won’t even fortify the stuff with oxygen to eliminate smog.
Oxygen is available in unlimited quantities from the atmosphere. An example of an
oxygenated fuel is methanol. That’s what they run at Indy. An example of a double-
oxygenated fuel is nitro-methane. That’s what they run in dragsters. The oil industry
makes these fuels from the same feed stocks they make gasoline from.
A much better choice for a nation’s fuel would be Methanol. It is as easy to obtain as
natural gas, or can be made from crude oil itself by processes which catalytically crack
hydrocarbon molecules from naphtha, gasoline, diesel and/or heavier grades of crude
stocks. These feedstocks are combined with water, which is broken into hydrogen and OH,
which combine with petroleum hydrocarbons under heat and pressure to form methanol.
Here are some methanol facts from the Bonneville Power Administration, taken from
their web site on June 15, 2013:
Fueling the BPA/Utility Alpha and Beta Units

The first fuel cell systems tested under the BPA/utility fuel cell development partnership
use methanol as a fuel source.
What is Methanol?
Methanol is the simplest alcohol, containing one carbon atom. It is colorless, volatile,
and has a very faint odor. Methanol is hygroscopic and totally miscible with water.
Where does Methanol Come From?

It is derived from natural gas feedstock which is then reformed to carbon oxides and
hydrogen. The resulting "synthesis gas" is circulated under pressure and moderate
temperature through a conversion catalyst to form methanol.
169
How Safe is Methanol?

Methanol is safer to handle and kinder to the environment than hydrocarbon fuels.
Toxicity:
Methanol, like most fuels and cleaner agents, is considered toxic and hazardous.
However, a 1991 Department of Energy (DOE) study concluded that methanol is much
less toxic to humans than gasoline. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards rates methanol at only seven on a 1-100 scale for chronic
toxicity. It is poisonous if swallowed, but it is not carcinogenic, as is the benzene in
gasoline. It is not considered to pose any threat to people like service station
attendants who might handle it on a regular basis.
Environmental Impact:
Methanol mixes readily with water and quickly degrades in the environment.
Gasoline, a hydrocarbon, does not. DOE has concluded that environmental hazards of
gasoline releases are greater and longer lasting than those of methane releases. In plant
and animal studies, methanol has proved essentially non-toxic. Petroleum fuels like
gasoline are very toxic to aquatic life.
Fire Danger:
Methanol poses less fire risk than hydrocarbon fuels, for several reasons. In room-
temperature air, methanol's lower flammability limit (LFL) is 6 percent, compared to one
and four-tenths percent for gasoline. Methanol will not ignite at temperatures below 54
degrees, while gasoline will ignite well below freezing. And because methanol vapor is
less dense than gasoline vapor, it does not collect near the floor where ignition is
most likely. When methanol does ignite, it is easier to control because it radiates
significantly less heat than a gasoline blaze.
How is Methanol Being Used?

Fuel cell technology is advancing rapidly, with methanol as the practical fuel choice for
home and automotive power generation. Fuel cells generate clean electricity by mixing
hydrogen with oxygen from the air. Methanol is an economic way to transport and store
that hydrogen.
Advantages of Methanol:
 Does not contribute to air pollution.

 Is less toxic to plants and animals than conventional gasoline or diesel.
 Is biodegradable.
 Is less flammable and safer to handle than gasoline.
 Can be made from renewable resources.
These are the latest facts about methanol alcohol. It is not poisonous, like gasoline and
diesel fuel. It does not need to be made from corn or other food stocks via an expensive
process of fermentation and distillation. Clearly, Methanol is light years ahead of gasoline,
and was the obvious fuel choice for the 20th Century.
170
Sugar and hydrogen peroxide: Delchev Fuel:
Only some attention has been given to ethanol, and less has been given to sugar as a
combustible fuel additive. Now, the formulation of a clean-burning fuel gets even more
interesting: The extraction of the sugar molecules from biomass is much less expensive
than the fermentation of the extracted sugar into ethanol. This is because the fermentation
process requires one or two days, tying up the production line. In contrast, the sugar
extraction process requires only a couple of hours, or less.
If a sugar extraction facility is dedicated to only producing sugar from the

cellulose and hemicellulose portions of biomass, thus freed from the fermentation
to ethanol process, the facility could produce far more sugar and provide a higher
return on investment.
Sugar is just another interesting structure made of hydrogen and carbon. Sugar is a
hydrocarbon. Sugar is a hydrocarbon fuel. The Delchev fuel (the H2O2 + sugar mixture)
provides an opportunity to merge biomass energy with wind, solar and hydro energy by
making the H2O2 from renewable electricity. In so doing, Delchev fuel acts as storage for
wind, solar and hydro-electricity.
Delchev Patent# 4,698,965 Hot gas source and fuel therefor

A method, apparatus and the fuel therefor for creating a hot gas jet from hydrogen peroxide in a
maximum aqueous solution of 55% to which is added a burnable substance. The mixture is passed
through a permeable mass of catalytic material such as manganese dioxide in the form of granules
of natural pyroluside where the hydrogen peroxide is broken down into water and oxygen. The
oxygen thus formed is combined with the burnable substance which may be sugar, coal dust,
alcohol, gasoline or other common fuels. Water is added to the mixture to insure storage stability
of the hydrogen peroxide.
The Delchev fuel can completely replace home heating oil. In this system there is no need
for boilers as steam is the product of H2O2 decomposition. The H2O2+sugar fuel can
produce steam that will power a turbine for electricity and heat for the home as well.
Delchev fuel can also power modified diesel engines by converting them into steam
engines. This I would like to see. Does the Delchev fuel expand in the cylinders or do
they change the valves and camshafts in the engine first to make it more like an air
compressor? At any rate we could replace the huge diesel engines that drive water pumps
and compressed natural gas with ones that run on sugar and produce steam as a byproduct.
You can see why this idea fails to prompt one bit of reaction from the crudelum industry.
Another better choice: Ammonia
There are many fuels that could offer better environmental attributes than gasoline. One
of them is Ammonia, NH3. Ammonia can be made from gaseous or liquid petroleum feed
stocks and can be easily stored as a liquid at the relatively low pressure of 150 psi. It is
171
then combusted in a fashion similar to combusting propane using a propane-equipped

regulator.
Ammonia is simply Hydrogen and Nitrogen (NH3). Notice there is no carbon (C) in “NH3”.
That means when you burn ammonia, it cannot release carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
or other greenhouse pollutants. Here is a way to dramatically reduce greenhouse gasses
and carbon monoxide. This information is well worth knowing. Too bad few of our
scientists and engineers do.
Here is an article from NH3Car.com:
Q: Why use ammonia for a vehicle fuel?
A: Ammonia is one of the few practical liquid high-energy density non-petroleum fuels
that we will ever have. The laws of physics and chemistry limit the ways in which we can
transfer energy efficiently. Ammonia is one of the few chemical compounds which is a
liquid, rapidly releases energy in combustion and has a high energy density by volume.
All of these parameters are needed for powering vehicles in a practical manner. And as
wonderful added bonus, ammonia generates no greenhouse gases or carbon
particulate emissions.
Q: Where do you get Ammonia?
A: Almost all ammonia is manufactured. Most people are surprised to find out that
ammonia is the 4th largest manufactured and transported commodity in the United States.
This is because ammonia is used for fertilizer for growing many of the foods here and
around the world. Because so much ammonia is used by farmers everywhere,
ammonia is available almost everywhere. On the trip across the US, the NH3 Car
“filled up” just once at welding supply store in Wyoming, about half way between
Detroit and San Francisco.
Q: What is needed to manufacture ammonia?
A: Ammonia can be made from air, water and any source of energy. Nitrogen from
the air, and hydrogen from the water. Really!
Q: Can ammonia be made from renewable or “green” energy sources?
A: Yes. This is one of the huge benefits of ammonia as a fuel. It can be manufactured
from any source of energy including great renewables like hydro-electric, solar or wind
power! And manufacturing ammonia does not involve shifting vast quantities of land
from producing food to producing plants for biofuels.
Q: What are the emissions from a converted ammonia fueled vehicle?
A: The emissions from the burned ammonia are nitrogen and water vapor. When
operated as dual fuel, the gasoline or other hydrocarbon may still generate a small
amount of CO and CO2, etc. However, this emission is typically reduced by roughly 60
to 70%.
172
Q: Is ammonia Dangerous?
A: All fuels and energy sources, including even charged batteries have some potential
hazard associated with them. However, ammonia will not explode like gasoline,
natural gas or hydrogen. In fact, it is difficult to get ammonia to burn, even though
it makes an excellent fuel for cars and trucks. Ammonia vehicle fueling and storage
takes place safely without any human access to the ammonia liquid or gas, just like the
fueling process for natural gas vehicles. Also, ammonia does not represent a long term
toxin to cellular biology, whereas gasoline is quite poisonous. Ammonia is classified
as a caustic substance, which means inhaling it or getting it on your skin isn't healthy, but
overall it is far less dangerous than gasoline.
Q: Is ammonia a liquid or a gas?
A: Ammonia quickly turns to a gas when exposed to air but is easily long-term stored as
a liquid at about 150 PSI. This low pressure does not require heavy, high pressure tanks
like hydrogen.
Q: How does ammonia use compare to natural gas?
A: Ammonia contains no carbon and releases no green house gases, as does natural
gas. Natural gas is somewhat cleaner than gasoline, but its use still releases green house
gases in significant quantities.
Q: How does ammonia use compare to Hydrogen as a fuel?
A: Although hydrogen has received a lot of press recently, it has several fundamental
technical problems, which will always dramatically limit its practical rollout for vehicular
use on a broad scale. These problems are not limited to the fact that hydrogen’s energy
density is a tiny fraction of that of ammonia by volume. This means that you’d have to
refuel your hydrogen vehicle as much as 7 times as often to go the same distance on
hydrogen as you would on ammonia.
Hydrogen must also be stored at very high pressures (ie. 10,000 PSI), or at very low
cryogenic temperatures. Both high pressure storage and cryogenic storage require
significant additional power input, further reducing hydrogen’s energy efficiency.
When we burn ammonia, we're actually burning hydrogen, since that's the element in
ammonia that combusts and provides the energy.
As you can see Ammonia is not only a viable fuel but a far superior fuel than gasoline.
The Nitrogen-based molecule is revolutionary and inexpensive “liquefied hydrogen”, the
use of which would end carbon dependence. It can be used to power internal combustion
piston engines, right now, in place of gasoline. It has already been researched and adapted
as a fuel for cars and trucks in Europe during wartime. Any combustion engine can be
converted to run on ammonia, similar to a conversion to propane.
173
Most Ammonia is currently being produced from Ethylen gas, C2H4, also known as natural
gas, and is the source of most of the world’s nitrogen for croplands. Obviously Ammonia
is a lot less toxic than gasoline. But mysteriously, you won’t hear any of the Climate
Change gurus ever mentioning using Ammonia in place of hydrocarbon fuel, though it
would solve the problem easily and require no energy tax.
More about Ammonia
None of this information is new. The Haber process for producing ammonia was invented
in 1905, becoming the prevalent method of manufacturing Ammonia from Natural Gas.
The reason that Ethylene, or natural gas, C2H4, was chosen as the primary ingredient in the
manufacture of Ammonia was because there was so much of it available on a worldwide
basis. That is still true today. The industry should be eager to find a way to use it rather
than burning it off in the oil fields; unfortunately this is the primary practice today. But
the implications are just too scary for the oil industry. After all, here’s a way to produce
all the energy we need, with ingredients that are available from air and water. And we’re
just getting started!
Solid State Ammonia Synthesis (SSAS)
Here is an oil industry-destroying

invention that produces Ammonia from
any source of energy anywhere. This is
how you turn remotely accessible energies
such as wave, wind, tidal, solar or hydro
power into liquid fuel for cars, trucks and
planes. These energies are free. This
device converts 75% of this energy into
Ammonia.
Inside the Black Box:

Solid State Ammonia Synthesis
Figure 2. SSAS reactor [Fig. 4] construction of PCC tubes:
gas management, RE electricity in, NH3 out. The fuel is
6 H2O + 2 N2 → 3 O2 + 4 NH3 water and air plus electricity to produce Ammonia.
Energy consumption: 7,000 – 8,000 kWh per ton NH3:
The oil industry does not plan to let this technology get free of operating incumbencies
soon. Such a device would allow the world to operate on Hydrogen, and as you know,
174
Hydrogen is as abundant as seawater.
Hydrazine
If you want to take Ammonia technology a bit farther then you can convert the NH3 to
N2H4 which is called hydrazine. Hydrazine is used in F-16 fighters in an "emergency
power package". The German ME163 rocket plane used hydrazine mixed with 90%
hydrogen peroxide. Here’s a description of its power, from an old drag racer:
“We carried the hydrazine in the trailer, because we knew the stuff was bad. It was in
what looked like a miniature 55 gallon barrel about 10 inches tall complete with steel ring
on top with a bolt to hold the ring together. Inside was a dark brown bottle with padding
between the container and the bottle. The bottle was about 8 inches tall by about 4 inches
in diameter. We carried one of the small Bayer aspirin glass bottles with us and would
pour the aspirin bottle about half full, no rubber gloves, no small funnel, we would just
pour it from bottle to bottle. Just before we would fire the car someone would pull the lid
on the tank, pour in the Hydrazine, then take a short piece of rubber hose and stick it into
the tank and blow into the hose and mix the Hydrazine and Nitro together. As soon as the
run was over we would immediately drain what was left in the tank and lines.”
Because Hydrazine does not contain any Oxygen atoms in its makeup, it requires massive
amounts of air in which to fully combust. This is why it was mixed with Nitro-methane,
CH3NO2 which has two Oxygen atoms per molecule. An even better way to set it off is to
use Hydrogen Peroxide, H2O2 which provides the necessary oxygen plus even more
hydrogen. Now that is a fuel!!!!!
Gasoline is the wimpiest of them all because it contains no Oxygen in its makeup. For
comparison, an engine running on Nitro Methane will produce 16 Hp. per cubic inch of
piston displacement. A 20 cubic inch engine could generate over 300 Hp. But they don’t
want us to have fuels like that; our cars and trucks would have much smaller engines,
making them lighter and of course more fuel efficient. And as you already know,
lightweight engines would be especially helpful to the aviation industry.
The story gets worse:
Today the world is running on toxic fuels and relying on engines that produce noxious
gasses. On top of this we must endure weekly fuel fill-ups and exorbitant fuel markups.
And that’s not really the worst part. The worst part is that the transportation system itself
is dangerous to use.
The modern automobile works pretty well on a dry road up to about 60 miles per hour.
Now consider what it is like when you are driving at night with reduced visibility,
especially when there is a car in the opposite lane coming right at you with their lights on.
There is a period of several hundred feet as the two cars pass where human vision is
175
dramatically distorted. If you have ever slammed on your brakes on a wet road, then you
know what I am talking about, because you found that your vehicle went into a skid and
continued straight toward the target. Now combine a dark night, a wet road, and bright
lights coming at you. Now try to tell me that the system is still safe at 60 miles per hour.
Yet there is no speed reduction for driving at night. Nor is there a speed reduction for
driving in the rain. We drive the same speeds when visibility is reduced and when the
roadways are slick, and that is flat out stupid. Things have been this way for so long, few
ever stop to realize how often we are needlessly risking our lives, just to get back and forth
from home and work on time. There should obviously be a speed reduction in these
conditions, and the fact that there is not, exposes our cruddy planners for what they are;
safety illiterate. This is noteworthy information when you consider that what Americans
had before, even going back to before the turn of the 20th Century, was a much safer
transportation system than the current 100 million separately driven cars that we rely on
today.
Ship travel has not gotten better either. Recently, the near-sinking of the cruise Costa
Concordia ship with 4,200 people on board revealed that travel at sea is also unsafe.
Recently a modernized Korean Ferry, the Sewol, capsized just from having turned too
sharp, taking hundreds of lives with it. Now let’s take a brief look at air transportation.
How safe is it to travel by modern jet? According to the following article, it has come to
resemble a leap of faith every time we have to board one of these cramped fuel guzzlers:
By Tom Leonard in New York Published: 03 Feb 2010
“At least 65,000 US flights over the past six years should not have taken off because of
poor aircraft maintenance, it has been claimed.”
According to an investigation by USA Today, millions of passengers could have been at

risk. While the number is only a fraction of the 63.8 million flights over that period, the
figure was criticised by John Goglia, a former airline mechanic who was a National
Transportation Safety Board member from 1995 to 2004.
"Many repairs are not being done or done properly, and too many flights are leaving the
ground in what the FAA calls 'unairworthy', or unsafe, condition," he told USA Today.
The investigation concluded that substandard repairs, unqualified mechanics and lax
oversight by airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration are not unusual. Among the
inquiry's findings, it emerged that airlines contract about 70 percent of their maintenance
work to repair shops in America and abroad where untrained and ill-equipped staff can
make mistakes.
When the oil banksters shut down the Hindenburg, they made it obvious that they
were never concerned with people’s safety. From this information it does not
appear that we are very safe, even when we travel by air. This should not be
tolerated in 2016, especially when we have had aircraft designs from the 1920’s
that would not crash to the ground the minute they lost power to the engines.
176
Most of what we think we know about petroleum is wrong

As I outlined in my first book, “The Rise and Stall of the Piston Engine” there has never
been a shortage of petroleum, and there never will be. NEVER!!! Remember, petroleum
is a hydrocarbon and everything that the sun grows on earth is a hydrocarbon. Anytime
we want to tap into free energy we can tap into the sun, which is free, and employ plants,
which self-perpetuate, giving us an efficient system for converting Carbon Dioxide and
Water into hydrocarbons. This is the big secret the oil companies do not want you to be
thinking about. Perhaps that is why they don’t even teach us how to grow potatoes and
onions in our schools anymore.
Another secret they are sitting on top of is a type of oil the Russians discovered called
abiotic oil. Abiotic oil is oil that has been formed at a depth of 50,000 feet. The Russians
have documented the fact that at these extreme pressures the oil is actually created out of
dirt that has turned to rock. Yes, you are reading this correctly. Please consult my other
book or google “Russia Abiotic Oil” for more complete information. This discovery, when
released to the western public, promises to blow the lid off of the oil industry when the
world finally learns that abiotic oil is unlimited in volume and quantity.
Here are some additional misconceptions about petroleum crude oil:
Crude oil is limited because it takes millions of years to make;

What a nonsensical premise when anyone with some knowledge of chemistry can
see that hydrocarbon fats and oils are produced from air (carbon-dioxide), water
(Hydrogen and Oxygen) and energy (sunlight). A blade of grass needs to dry out
first, but it is ready to burn at maximum temperature from day one. Same with
corn, or cotton, or linseed, or hemp oil; all ready to burn and lubricate right now
from day one. The notion that crude oil needs to age beneath the earth is
nonsense.
Crude oil is very hard to find and we have only found just so much of it;
Right! And yet their genius engineers seem to keep finding just enough year
after year to satisfy world demand, which by the way is now at an all-time high.
How’d they find just the amount needed at just the right juncture so that there has
been always plenty for whatever kind of war or freeway expansion that was
carried out, but then somehow, when the wars supposedly ended, there was never
a glut to drive the price back down to where it had been before.
The truth is, the advent of the oil shortage began as soon as some ships had been converted
from coal to oil, along with the anticipation of World War I which placed the stuff in need
and tight supply. This led to a media-produced and promoted oil shortage in 1918 that
never materialized, but helped to drive the price up. They’ve been predicting oil shortages
for over 100 years! And the public keeps buying the stories!
177
There’s never been an oil shortage, nor has there ever been a time when the world was in
danger of running out of oil. But that doesn’t stop them from using the same story over
and over. Look at how often we still hear the term “peak oil” today even though the term
implies there are no alternatives.
The Oil Industry verses the Planet
Total World Oil Production: (2010): 86,790,349 barrels/day
Annual Sales: $3.0 Trillion/year
This is the current result of the Grand Petroleum Business Scheme; in this case one that
consumes $3,000,000,000,000.00 U.S. Dollars from the public every year for a toxic crust-
produced substance that has been “stolen” from other nations at $2 per barrel totaling $63.5
billion dollars. This leaves a gross profit of $2.94 trillion U. S. dollars.
Why does the world use so much of a substance that only the oil industry controls? Why
don’t other nations attempt to energize their countries with a type of energy other than that
which is highest in demand?
It doesn’t make sense that they would all use the same type of energy, especially concerning
the gigantic overall volume requirements of just one resource. It would make much more
sense to mine the energy demands of the planet from many places and thus in smaller
amounts.
Now let’s look at this for what it really says about our current state. Any one person or
organization seeking this much control has in affect self-appointed itself as the big brother
of the planet. The problem is neither the people nor these organizations are interested in
gardening and tilling the soil and never have been. Therefore they don’t know one single
thing about gardening and tilling the soil. These simple facts are the reason why
corporations can’t legitimately ever be expected to address environmental concerns, and
thus they can’t be expected to take part in policy decisions about the ecology of the planet.
They are instead in total control and we have mayhem.
If none of us address environmental concerns, then none of us are candidates to lead this
planet into the next millennium. The world needs to be led by someone or some group
who does care about this planet now and even 1,000 years from now. What has happened
is that over time, as we were coerced into using more and more petroleum, its use has
become almost synonymous with energy, even though its use goes against planetary
zoology and botany.
There are many forms of energy that are mostly free. Crude oil from within the crust is
just one of them, but it is the worst of the lot. Sunlight is another and it is unlimited, eternal
and clean. In order for humans to harness the sun’s energy all we have to do is grow plants
178
and process them into oil or alcohol. Every plant produces cellulose (structure) and lipids
(fatty acids better defined as oils). Both of these molecular molecules, be it solid or liquid,
are forms of hydrocarbons. Some plants produce extremely high levels of fatty acids verses
the amount of ground they take up. An example of this is industrial Hemp, which produces
8 times the yield of soy and rapeseed (canola).
Plants grown in the sun require water, but the cost of water is free if we manage it properly.
Plants require carbon dioxide, which is free from the atmosphere. These are the two main
ingredients of plant growth which is as I stated above, hydrocarbon (liquid or cellulosic).
What do you need to make petroleum? Petroleum is hydrocarbons which are also
composed of hydrogen and carbon. When nature turns carbon dioxide and water into
hydrocarbons, the necessary hydrogen comes from the water. Solar energy +
photosynthesis broke the water molecule, and, combined the hydrogen atoms with carbon
atoms, in the process releasing the oxygen from the water into the atmosphere for animals
to breathe. The equation is a miracle, but we’re not allowed to see the significance of it.
When you burn solids, like dried leaves, or liquids, like extracted vegetable oil, you are in
effect utilizing hydrogen-from-water technology. It’s unfortunate that no one refers to
organic growth in these terms. That would make it possible for us to see the broader energy
picture as it relates to the entire planet. It is a fact, both plant and animal material, provide
liquids that can be substituted for petroleum, and solids that can be combusted like coal.
Now add to this the fact; organically produced fats and solids are far superior to petroleum
and coal because they do not contain toxic constituents, and are thus nontoxic in the
environment.
Carbon is a major component of plants and animals. Always remember the primary source
of the carbon to grow plants comes from carbon dioxide within the air itself and this is free
and abundant. Only a vital few minerals from the earth are needed. Another growing
component is nitrogen. Nitrogen is needed to bond with hydrogen in the process of
composting and/or production of plant fertilizer. A common plant fertilizer is ammonia,
NH3. Once it is sprayed into the soil it combines in a reaction to produce hydrocarbons.
The nitrogen is released as N2, but it is the hydrogen atoms that produced increased plant
growth. Plants get nitrogen from the atmosphere, as well as from fertilizers and animal
manure. The atmosphere is 79% nitrogen, thus it is more than abundant.
The earth vitally needs carbon dioxide, water, plants and sunlight in order to naturally
convert it into hydrocarbons (plant and animal growth) and oxygen. But more importantly,
these are the only ingredients that are needed to make all of the hydrocarbons we will ever
need. Those who state that petroleum is a non-renewable resource are the biggest con men
on the globe.
The fact of the matter is we should all have a greater respect for such a well-designed
planet. In addition we should all have a better understanding of hydrocarbon chemistry
and the natural processes this planet conducts to produce them organically. Once we teach
this kind of knowledge to our students in school, we will finally quit bringing up polluted
fuel from within the crust!
179
Never forget that because crude oil is horribly polluted it qualifies as the worst choice for
human’s energy needs of all the available choices on the planet. Now you know that there
are endless and better alternatives to petroleum that comes from the crust. These are
serious accusations the auto/oily industry will have to fess up to, eventually.
How we lost control of our transportation and energy

mechanisms
The first part of the plan was to sell the public on gasoline. This was a product they
designed and formulated specifically, so that it would detonate at lower compression ratios
than naptha (that taken from above the column of gasoline) and kerosene/diesel fuel (that
fraction taken from below the column of gasoline). Gasoline will not perform in any piston
engine built with a compression ratio greater than 10:1.
Note that neither Avgas, diesel fuel, jet fuel, Ammonia, Methanol, bio-diesel, propane or
natural gas have this shortcoming! And it is a major shortcoming. By specifying lowly
gasoline in our engines we are forever destined to operate low compression engines which
are inefficient. They also produce poisonous Carbon Monoxide as well.
Gasoline was formulated to insure we would never get good mileage. Never forget that.
People the world over have already invented and built better power mechanisms than the
typical piston engine found in most automobiles, but for now that’s what we’ve got.
Luckily, during the interim period needed to develop electromagnetically powered
transportation systems, our existing gasoline engines can be converted to methanol and/or
ammonia. To kick this program off, initially the oil refiners could convert existing crude
stocks into methanol and/or ammonia, thus to halt existing car exhaust pollution.
While these simple conversions were being implemented the auto sector could work to
develop harder wheels and road surfacing materials, electromagnetic power and braking
systems and compact Wankel/turbine driven generator/motor units that could run on a
variety of fuels ranging from methanol to straight vegetable oil. It would be impossible to
maintain an energy monopoly on all of these possible sources of fuel.
Down the road, there would soon be no reason to use hydrocarbons produced from the
crust, then later we would discard hydrocarbon fuels altogether. At this point our
transportation mechanisms would be powered via hydrogen peroxide/metal catalyst,
ammonia fueled hydrogen synthesis, nickel-hydrogen cold fusion steam/electric, thorium
powered electrical plants, solid hydrogen (deuterium) plus air, water/hydrogen
combustion, and a host of others. These are just a few examples of technology, some that
are 1,000 times more potent than hydrocarbon combustion.
Closing comments
180
Normal humans are predisposed to be friendly toward one another. So how does mankind
produce men who care nothing about other men? From where could behavior that is
indifferent to the lives and futures of humans come from if they were born of humans?
Thusly, it doesn’t make logical sense to the majority of individuals that we could produce
such heartless individuals in the first place; much less allow them to be in complete control
of corporations and governments.
But irreverent behavior is rampant in front of our eyes. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Somalia, Yemen, and others they have been bombed, radiated, vaccinated, denied life-
saving drugs, denied clean drinking water, denied electric power, etc. Only a psychopath
would conceive of or carry out such horrible and inhumane tactics on innocent hapless
peoples. Yet this destruction came about based on the whims of a few corrupted politicians.
So if we honestly open our eyes we can’t help but see that we have a misguided government
that is trigger-happy and they could only be acting in this manner if they were psychopaths.
There is no other description for them.
A short history of past world rulers, when viewed in their true colors, reveals a long-term
period that these ultra-ruling psychopaths have been controlling major world affairs, wars
and governments. The leaders of them have been handpicked and handed down, from
within their own ranks of these elitists, for many hundreds of years. Today 99% of the
people are at mercy to the temptations of the very greedy; the ones who have established
this current mechanized yoke of petroleum.
I don’t seek to judge these people. It is possible they are under an even greater force than
the temptation to make money. This is the force brought to bear by their heritage. Such
high heritage concepts are implanted from birth into the minds of children and carried out
during daily activities. They live a life belonging to and being part of a superior group.
It is a person’s inheritance that gradually leads many chosen executives down the path of
acceptance of their lofted positions, which they grow more and more accustomed to having.
For others, as time goes by, they start to feel remorse for their harmful practices that
degrade of millions of people’s health and vigor. Some try to get out. Take note; none of
them ever do.
A war general decides who will die. Today we have corporate leaders deciding the same
thing when they allow workers to spray carcinogenic pesticides on America’s farms or for
a township to inhale toxic gasses from industrial plants they installed in their back yards.
Example of more of these human intrusions include; oil drilling, crude refining, petro-
chemical manufacturing, fracking, shale mining, uranium extraction, etc. These are the
human intrusions carried out by the oil industry goons, whose actions are deficient
theologically, philosophically, religiously and environmentally. It is these types of people
who could or who would be so greedy and callous that they would endorse the destruction
of the Titanic.
181
Supplement 2
Hindenburg vs. Piston

& jet planes
Compared to a B-17 which was less than 1/8 the weight of Hindenburg, their horsepower
was about equal. How fast would a militarized version have flown if it had been built
with 8 times more horsepower?
What has been written to date about the Titanic and Hindenburg merely give us clues as to
what really happened to them and why. To properly delineate their inter-connected roles
the pieces of evidence must be separately analyzed and then checked to make sure they all
fit together. The more pieces we have the more clear the picture.
The story of the Hindenburg pales in comparison to that of the Titanic because for starters
there were only 37 fatalities compared to Titanic’s 1,523. Thusly there has not been as
much emotional appeal for the Hindenburg generated in the public’s mind as with the grand
princess of the sea. This makes the case of the Hindenburg easier to solve as it can be done
so free of the stigmatism the Titanic has been burdened with.
Because of the extent to which an illusion about preferred energy sources and ways to
travel has been brought to bear upon the unsuspecting public it is hard to believe it was all
done to bolster the demand for crust-derived petroleum fuel. This is where the Hindenburg
becomes a pertinent part of the overall story, as from her comes the realization that modern
jet-powered air travel is anything but safe and efficient.
Fixed Wing Performance Combined with Heavy Fuel Loads

Makes for a bad combination
Whether a plane is jet or piston powered, both are configured basically the same. Both
have a long fuselage. Both have the engines outside of the craft, although on the piston
powered planes the engines were built more into the wings. On a modern jet the engines
hang down from the wings on separate pods creating an even larger area of disturbance.
Both have narrow wings that protrude out on either side of the fuselage to provide the
necessary lift to keep the planes aloft.
184
What is lift? Think of it as a boat skimming across the water. Air and water are very
similar; one is denser than the other. It takes effort to move an object through water; it
likewise takes less effort to move an object through air.
The effort to move an object through air becomes increasingly significant as speeds are
increased. For example, if you fall from the sky, the resistance to your motion downward
through the air will eventually limit your maximum or terminal velocity. This terminal
velocity will be equal to the pull of gravity minus the frictional resistance. A person falling
freely through the air will top out at about 130 mph.
Air friction is very much there; we just don’t feel it until we start reaching these higher
speeds. Now applying these basic raw principles into laymen’s terms; take a lightweight
boat hull and propel it on the surface of the water. As it skims to the surface and begins
riding on air you continue to increase speed. Somewhere around 100 miles per hour, if
you just tilt it upwards a little bit, it will totally leave the surface and begin to fly. The
boat’s underbelly at higher speeds acts as a lifting surface and thus it will fly on the air just
as it would plane on the water. Of course the top curvature of the boat does also affect its
lift, but you get the idea of the lifting body.
Aircraft do not need wings in order to fly. They could fly on the lift created from the shape
of their bodies if only their bodies included the necessary surface area of the wings. If the
plane was too heavy it could just fly faster or be designed with a slightly larger bottom and
top. That makes me curious. If aircraft don’t need wings, is it just possible that they
shouldn’t have wings?
I have already documented 100’s of energy contradictions that exist within our current
propulsion and transportation systems. Aircraft designs are no different, and the fact is
designers have known for nearly a century that fixed wings create excessive air friction
and drag. This is because their wings have to be slightly tilted upwards to provide lift.
Many Lifting body type aircraft have been designed and built, the public just doesn’t know
about them. The most obvious shape resembles a flying saucer. Other examples include
frisbies, clay pigeons, bottle caps, hockey pucks, skipping stones, etc. We rarely connect
the disc-shaped designs to aircraft for humans because our aircraft shapes have already
been defined for us. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be using these more practical shapes
and designs.
Aircraft shapes that resemble a cross between a boat and a plane resulted in very stable
aircraft and increased fuel efficiency. The best example is Northrop’s flying wing of 1949
which was the closest thing to a lifting body that we ever got. Many were in production
when the program was cancelled. They would have been too efficient to suit the oil
industries sales objectives.
185
Weight verses drag
It takes constant energy to hold weight aloft using wings. There are two types of drag
holding back an aircraft from flying on its own accord. One is the amount of force
necessary to push the plane through the air in a straight line. Think of drag as aerodynamic
friction between the molecules of the air and the surface skin of the aircraft.
This is skin friction drag. Both a dirigible and a fixed wing aircraft have friction drag.
The other type of drag is the amount of force necessary to keep the aircraft’s weight aloft.
This is lift drag or weight drag. Weight drag is equal to the lift forces of the wings at
take-off when the plane reaches a speed of 100 plus knots and can just leave the runway.
Weight drag decreases with speed, however it spells doom for any fixed wing aircraft that
must fly a long distance because it will require the aircraft to carry much more fuel on
board. This extra fuel requirement will require the plane to have more horsepower in order
to get the aircraft off the ground in the first place. And then compounding this further,
larger engines are both heavier and more fuel demanding, thus adding extra pounds to the
takeoff and cruise weight.
Graf Zeppelin went around the world in 1929 with only one stop for refueling in Tokyo.
Here she sails over Wembley Stadium.
The dirigible is not subject to weight drag since it is the same overall density as air and
thus does not have to overcome gravity. Thus it does not need to carry extra-large engines
to compensate for takeoffs with heavy fuel loads, and as for getting it airborne all that is
required is to release the mooring lines. However in a fixed wing aircraft in order to keep
it aloft it must be pushed forward at 100 plus knots and then tilted upward in order to
186
generate lift. Not until the wings lifting forces are greater than the airplane’s weight will
the plane achieve flight. In the meantime the engines are racing to overcome increasing
skin drag.
Below are three simple horsepower verses take-off weight calculations for two separate
modern winged aircraft verses the Hindenburg.
Example 1. C-130J-30 Military transport, horsepower to takeoff weight = .11 hp./lb.

Example 2. Piper-Comanche six seat plane; horsepower to takeoff weight = .08 hp./lb.
Example 3. Hindenburg passenger ship, horsepower to takeoff weight = .01 hp./lb.
From the figures above, for a fixed-wing aircraft the amount of horsepower required to get
off the ground is roughly 10 times that of the power requirements of the Hindenburg. Let’s
see how the two types of aircraft compared at the time of the Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg
back in 1937 when both of these premiere dirigibles were regularly crossing the Atlantic.
As discussed in Chapters 5 and 11 the superior cargo carrying ability of the airship were
20 to 100 times those of the various fixed wing aircraft that were used in World War II to
transport hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs that were supposedly needed to stop the
Nazi military. I also pointed out that none of these bombers would have been necessary if
any country had elected to construct large and faster dirigibles leading up to the war.
Do not be tempted to believe that these aircraft would have been sitting ducks when they
could have been equipped with significant defenses including their own escort fighters.
These first-generation dirigibles could have later been equipped with larger engines and
their external shapes flattened to more resemble lifting bodies.
Commercial service equally far behind
In the years leading up to the United States
entrance into World War II, just before the
Hindenburg was destroyed along with all of
Germany’s airships, there were two fixed wing
aircraft that had some promise of offering the
public transatlantic passenger service. The first
piston powered plane to take a stab at crossing the
Atlantic with passengers was the Boeing Clipper.
These were flying boats, meaning the body of the
aircraft had a wide V-shaped bottom for added
buoyancy, and this meant the ship had enough
volume in her fuselage to offer the passengers A Boeing 314 “Clipper” taking off; Pan Am's Yankee
Clipper made its first flight across the mid-Atlantic on
berths for long trips. And for a while it looked March 26, 1939. You can see that they didn’t trust
like the public might even get cabins or a berth their engines enough at this stage of development to
when they flew long distances. But it never really do away with the floating hull design. Then again,
perhaps our current fixed wing aircraft should have this
happened. capability?
187
There are many photographs left behind from the short era of the Boeing Clipper service
but in reality only a few hundred people in the whole world ever experienced flying in one.
There are more photos left behind than fit the true historical picture. Still this flying aircraft
represented the best level of technology that piston engine powered fixed wing aircraft
could offer in 1939. Thus it makes a useful technological comparison of aircraft types
available at the time of the Hindenburg.
1939 Boeing 314 characteristics and specifications:

Crew: 11, including 2 cabin stewards
Capacity: Daytime: 74 passengers, Nighttime: 36 passengers
Payload: 10,000 lb. of mail and cargo
Empty weight: 48,400 lb.
Loaded weight: 84,000 lb.
Powerplant: 4 × Wright R-2600-3 radial engines, 1,600 hp.
Maximum speed: 210 mph
Cruise speed: 188 mph at 11,000 ft.
Max Range: 3,685 miles normal cruise
LZ-129 Hindenburg characteristics and specifications:
Lift: 511,500 lb.

Cruising Speed: 76 MPH
Maximum Speed: 84 MPH
Main Powerplant: 4 Daimler-Benz 16-cylinder Diesels: 1320 hp @ 1650 RPM
Crew: 40 flight officers and men, 10-12 stewards and cooks
Passengers: 72 sleeping berths (1937)
Payload: 200,000 lb.
Max Range: Unlimited
When you compare the two aircraft the first fact that jumps out is the total weight of the
aircraft itself, when it leaves the runway, verses how much cargo capacity it can haul to the
destination. In the case of the flying boat, maximum lift is 84,000 lb. and she could haul
10,000 lb. In the case of the Hindenburg, total lift is 511,000 lb. and the payload, estimated
at 39% of her total lifting ability, is 200,000 lb.
To fly the long ranges needed for trans-Pacific service, the 314 carried 4,246 US gallons
of gasoline. The later 314A model carried a further 1,200 US gallons for a total of 5,446
gallons which would equal 43,568 lbs. This would equate to 223 gal/hr. Fuel weight
equates to 52% of the aircraft’ total take-off weight! The fuel load equals 4.4 times the
cargo load. In comparison: the Hindenburg fuel load would be less than ¼ the cargo load.
The following chart lists critical aspects of aircraft. The top line represents the Boeing 314
from 1939 and the line below it represents the Hindenburg in 1937:
188
Lift: 84,000 lb. Fuel: 43,500 lb. Payload: 10,000 lb. Speed: 188 mph Hp. of engines: 6,400 Efficiency: .23
Lift: 510,000 lb. Fuel: 43,500 lb. Payload: 200,000 lb. Speed: 76mph Hp. of engines: 5,280 Efficiency: 2.25
*Efficiency = Payload/fuel X Airspeed x Fuel Consumption:
Payload speed efficiency factor: E; Boeing 314: 10,000/43,500 X 1 X 1 = .23

E; Hindenburg: 100,000/43,500 X 76/188 X 6,400/5,280 X 2/1 = 2.25
The best estimate I found regarding the fuel consumption of the Hindenburg was 200
gal/hr. In these comparative analyses, the cargo capacity of the Hindenburg was
approximated from the cargo capacity of Graf Zeppelin which was equal to 120,000 lb.,
and since the Hindenburg was more than twice the volume of Graf Zeppelin, I
conservatively established 200,000 lb. total cargo lift for the Hindenburg.
The amount of fuel consumed is calculated from the amount of known fuel that was
consumed by the actual Boeing plane as it was equipped with similar sized engines, and
then a factor of 2 was applied for the fuel-efficiency increase that is gained from the use of
diesels in place of gasoline engines. This allows us to make a comparative analyses; the
efficiency of the Hindenburg divided by the efficiency of the Boeing 314 equals 9.8. I will
round this figure off to 10. This is why I state in my earlier comments that had the use of
dirigible airships been expanded it would have resulted in dramatic savings in fuel and men
during World War II. Imagine if they had only used 10% of the fuel!
The first Boeing 314, Honolulu Clipper, entered regular

service on the San Francisco-Hong Kong route in
January 1939. A one-way trip on this route took over six
days to complete and had many fuel stops. In June of
1939 a Yankee Clipper flew across the Atlantic on a
route from Southampton to Port Washington, New York
but required refueling at Foynes, Ireland, Botwood,
Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Transatlantic and
transpacific travel was a serious endeavor for fixed wing
aircraft as they relied on complicated large multi-
16-cylinder Daimler Airship Engine. Each of
cylindered reciprocating engines to keep them aloft. Hindenburg’s four LOF-6 (DB-602) 16-cylinder
These air pioneers tried extremely hard to make piston engines had an output of 1320 hp @ 1650
powered fixed wing aircraft perform satisfactorily over RPM (maximum power), and 900 hp @ 1480
RPM.
vast oceans. For training purposes, many of the
transpacific flights carried a second crew. Only the very best and most experienced flight
crews were assigned Boeing 314 flying boat duty.
Before coming aboard, all Pan Am captains as well as first and second officers had
thousands of hours of flight time in other seaplanes and flying boats. Rigorous training in
dead reckoning, timed turns, judging drift from sea current, astral navigation, and radio
navigation were conducted. In conditions of poor or no visibility, pilots sometimes made
successful landings at fogged-in harbors by landing out to sea, then taxiing the Clipper into
port.
189
But, most unfortunately, only a few of these giant aircraft were ever built for passenger
service before World War II when all production was switched to building military
transports. After the war the decision was made to proceed in the direction of four-engine
fixed wing aircraft like the Constellation, DC-4 and others. Along the way the Spruce
Goose took the seaplane headlines, and it was a design-to-fail-from-the-beginning project
that put the final nail in the flying boat coffin. Good bye cabins, berths, airport-free service
and port-to-port travel!
By the time the war was over the flying boat design along with the flying boat concept
were deemed obsolete. Compared to the new Constellation airliner and the Boeing DC-4,
which were both now capable of transatlantic flight, the flying boat was made to look
inefficient. We now know this type of aircraft should never have been phased out. The
fact is flying boats make a lot of sense especially for getting freight from one harbor to
another as they do not need airports, taxis and roads to land and take off from. They are a
way to reduce overland transport and thus save petroleum costs. In short, the flying boat
was another good project shelved for oil profits.
Of further note is the fact that a flying boat design could have been designed as a lifting
body aircraft, and this design marvel in and of itself would have greatly benefitted the
airline industry had they been willing to explore and develop the lifting-body concept.
The infamous Douglas DC-3

American Airlines inaugurated passenger service on June 26, 1936, with simultaneous
flights from Newark, N.J. and Chicago, IL. Early U.S. airlines like American, United,
TWA and Eastern ordered over 400 DC-3s. These fleets set
in place the aviation standards that are still continued to this
day; the use of fixed wings and multiple large engines that
consume massive amounts of heavy liquid fuels to keep
them in flight. The DC-3 paved the way for the modern
American air travel industry, quickly replacing trains as the
favored means of long-distance travel across the United
States. But as you will see, change does not always equate
to progress.
DC-3 General characteristics

Crew: 2 Capacity: 21–32 passengers Length: 64 ft. 8 in
Empty weight: 16,865 lb.
Gross weight: 25,199 lb.
190
Power: 2 × Wright R-1820 Cyclone 9-cyl. air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,100 hp. each
Optional Power: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S1C3G Twin Wasp 14-cyl. air-cooled two
row radial piston engine, 1,200 hp. each.
Performance
Maximum speed: 230 mph at 8,500 ft.
Cruise speed: 207 mph
Service ceiling: 23,200 ft.
A much heralded “breakthrough” aircraft in 1936, the Douglass DC-3 was able to carry 20
to 30 passengers and 2 tons of freight. The amenities of the DC-3 popularized air travel in
the United States. Here’s a piece of quoted history:
“With only three refueling stops, eastbound transcontinental flights crossing the U.S. in
approximately 15 hours became possible. Westbound trips took 17-1/2 hours due to
prevailing headwinds — still a significant improvement over the competing Boeing 247.
During an earlier era, such a trip would entail short hops in slower and shorter-range
aircraft during the day, coupled with train travel overnight.”
Can you believe what you just read? Back at the times of the Hindenburg the best piston
powered fixed wing aircraft was still making three fueling stops just to cross the United
States! And the reason for this is simple; when you subtracted out the weight of the plane
and what it could lift you only had 8,500 lb. to work with. If you stuck 25 passengers on
there and added a ton of cargo you would only have 2,500 lb. remaining for fuel, which
would equate to approximately 312 gallons. Early DC-3’s didn’t have very large fuel tanks
for this reason. In 1936 the Hindenburg carried 72 passengers and 50 tons of freight all the
way from Germany non-stop.
The DC-3 concept, when compared to the airship concept, does not make sense because it
has to take off and land so often which is the most wasteful part of an aircraft’s flight.
Because the engines have to be so large to get the airplane off the ground the design makes
for a very heavy plane from the beginning. It gets worse when you have to add in the extra
fuel weight. Why on earth would our aviation pioneers have gone toward such a fuel-
hungry design that couldn’t fly very far and took so much fuel just to get up to cruising
altitude?
Even for short hops the fixed wing aircraft comes out well below the airship. The DC-3
had 2,400 horsepower gasoline engines. The Hindenburg had 5,280 horsepower diesel
engines. The following calculation accounts for the 2:1 efficiency gain from the use of
diesel over gasoline.
The chart below reflects the specifications of the Douglas DC-3 on the top line and the
Hindenburg on the 2nd line.
191
Lift: 25,200 lb. Fuel: 3,500 lb. Payload: 5,000 lb. Speed: 207 mph Hp. of engines: 2,400 Efficiency: 1.42
Lift: 510,000 lb. Fuel: 7,000 lb. Payload: 100,000 lb. Speed: 76mph Hp. of engines: 5,280 Efficiency: 19.0
Payload speed efficiency factor: E; Douglas DC-3: 5,000/3,500 X 1 X 1 = 1.42

E; Hindenburg: 100,000/7,000 X 76/207 X 2,400/5,280 X 2/1 = 4.8
So here we have what looks like a better comparison than the Boeing Clipper. In this case
the use of the airship design only comes out 4 times better than the fixed wing craft, but
that’s when it’s hardly carrying any fuel nor traveling very far!
Commercial Airline Development
At the beginning of World War II things looked good for the future of commercial
passenger service. Pan American, with its considerable experience in Pacific and South
American operations with the famous Clipper service, dominated the transatlantic routes.
The airline offered regular flights with its seaplanes from La Guardia airport in New York
City to Lisbon in Portugal, which was the most common entry point into Europe at the
time. But they only had a couple of planes that could make a transatlantic flight. Soon
commercial services during World War II became intermittent at best.
In June 1945 the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board granted permission to three airlines to
operate service across the North Atlantic. American Export became the world's first airline
to offer regularly scheduled landplane, as opposed to seaplane flights across the North
Atlantic by employing the newer and larger DC-4 aircraft. And thus transatlantic and
transpacific travel by piston powered plane did not begin until 17 years after the Graf
Zeppelin had already been making regular transatlantic crossings and the DC-4’s required
two or three fuel stops!
One thing was saved; time. From New York to Bournemouth, England, with stops for
refueling at Gander, Newfoundland, and Shannon, Ireland each one-way flight lasted 14
hours. But you gave up cargo, space, berths and safety and it should be noted that by 1945
they would have been able to increase the speed of the airships such that this time difference
would have been less than 36 hours. Once again, the crudelums had led us into a fuel
hogging plan even though they had a more efficient system all along.
The L-1049G Super Constellation
192
Transatlantic air travel in the immediate

postwar years had remained a novelty but
was beginning to offer a time advantage
over sea travel. A usual journey by sea
across the Atlantic took about five days,
while piston plane travel cut that down to
less than one day.
Two years after the debut of the DC-4, Pan

Am began using the new Lockheed
Constellation and Super Constellation
aircraft, both of which had pressurized cabins that allowed them to fly as high as 20,000
feet. In August 1947 they began regularly scheduled non-stop flights between New York
and London. TWA joined Pan American and AOA in offering regularly scheduled
transatlantic services in February 1948 using the Constellation, and quickly became the
main competitor to the two other U.S. air carriers.
L-1049G Super Constellation

General characteristics
Crew: 5 flight crew, varying cabin crew
Capacity: typically 62–95 passengers
Length: 116 ft 2 in
Wingspan: 126 ft 2 in
Height: 24 ft 9 in
Wing area: 1,654 ft2
Empty weight: 79,700 lb
Useful load: 65,300 lb
Max. takeoff weight: 137,500 lb
Powerplant: 4 × Wright R-3350-DA3 Turbo Compound 18-cyl supercharged radial engines, 3,250 hp ea
Performance
Maximum speed: 377 mph
Cruise speed: 340 mph at 22,600 ft
Stall speed: 100 mph
Range: 5,400 mi
Service ceiling: 24,000 ft
Rate of climb: 1,620 ft/min
Wing loading: 87.7 lb/ft2
Power/mass: 0.094 hp/lb
If a piston engine powered fixed wing aircraft could ever be fuel efficient, the Constellation
would have been one of the best attempts. As we will later discuss, this aircraft exceeded
the Cargo/Fuel ratio of the modern jet liners, even the ones most recently designed for
maximum fuel efficiency. If that sounds odd it should. Note that such “jet progress” did
not in any way help to reduce fuel consumption, exclusive reliance on petroleum, nor the
193
unnecessary pollution of our air. One exception to this is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner which employs electrics rather
than hydraulics for controls, landing gear and brakes. This design actually did reduce overall fuel consumption by approximately 20%.
On September 29, 1957, a Constellation L-1649A Starliner flew from Los Angeles to
London in 18 hours and 32 minutes. This works out to 5,420 miles traveled at an average
speed of 292.4 mph and became the world record for the longest-duration, non-stop
passenger flight. Truly the Constellation was one of the most efficient piston-powered
fixed wing aircraft ever built. Today’s “modern” jet-powered air bus 380 has only just
recently achieved equal fuel consumption per payload passenger of the Super Constellation
L 1649!
The following chart lists critical aspects of the aircraft for a transatlantic flight. The top
line represents the Super Constellation and the line below it represents the Hindenburg.
Lift: 168,000 lb. Fuel: 68,365 lb. Payload: 8,000 lb. Speed: 290 mph Hp. of engines: 13,600 Efficiency: .11
Lift: 510,000 lb. Fuel: 43,500 lb. Payload: 100,000 lb. Speed: 76 mph Hp. of engines: 5,280 Efficiency: 1.20
Payload speed efficiency factor: E; Constellation 1049: 8,000/68,3652X 1 X 1 = .11

E; Hindenburg: 100,000/43,500 X 76/290 X 13,600/5,280 X 2/1 = 1.20
The Constellation 1649 was 11 times less efficient than the Hindenburg, yet it remained
the most efficient aircraft built (excluding airships of course) from 1957 and up until recent
times, with the introduction of the modernized Airbus 380.
The transatlantic route was a rarely traveled passenger route until the 1950’s when it had
become the world's number one route in terms of traffic among 10 major international
airlines. The newspapers heralded in the new age: the Atlantic had finally been conquered
for the common passenger. No further mention of airships was to be made. Passengers
were now flying in cramped tubes aboard planes that carried so much fuel it weighed five
to ten times the weight of the passengers and cargo. These were extremely long routes for
piston powered fixed wing aircraft and they required more fuel, which unfortunately stole
most of their cargo-carrying ability.
The Atlantic had already been conquered by the Titanic. It was turned into a playground
with the Hindenburg. Now it was a petroleum-gobbling endurance run, offering minimized
space, cargo and safety.
Jet engines were more efficient than piston engines,

so the FAA turned up the speeds
194
In 1955, commencing with the introduction of the Boeing 707, the FAA increased the
standard air passenger flying speeds from 300 knots to 550 knots. As a result of running
at these higher speeds the new turbine-powered Boeing 707 consumed almost double the
amount of fuel as the piston-powered Constellations it replaced.
It seemed like a reasonable deal at the time because jet fuel was just kerosene in those days,
being about the same price as diesel fuel which was about 1/3 the price of aviation gasoline.
These were exciting times for kids like me who got to feel the acceleration of one of these
down the runway and then zoom over the seas at 600 miles per hour arriving in Hawaii in
five hours. But look what happened. Passenger aircraft had gone from heavy, inefficient
reciprocating piston engines to near-frictionless rotary turbines that were capable of
producing up to 100 times as much horsepower for the same weight. Yet the fuel efficiency
had gone down! And here we had replaced a multi-cylinder engine, with its 24
reciprocating pistons and a zillion other parts in friction, with a free spinning turbine shaft
but we weren’t able to reduce fuel consumption? Seems like impossible engineering.
What actually happened was that the increased efficiency of the jet turbine engine was
wasted when they turned up the cruising speeds to 550 knots because at these speeds the
jet’s engines had to be run almost flat out. So even though these planes had much lighter
engines the planes themselves never got any lighter because they had to carry so much
extra fuel. This extra fuel was gobbled up by pushing them to higher speeds. Once again,
brilliant petroleum engineering had won the era.
Had they scaled down the fuel weights along with scaling down the engine weights,
brought about by changing from multi-cylindered piston engines, they would have had a
much lighter plane, and it would have obviously been much more efficient. So we did not
get progress! We got a savings in time; the oil companies got a windfall demand for
petroleum, and we all got a system that treats us like cattle.
Comparison with a Modern Jet Liner
In modern times the amount of fuel that jet planes consume has grown so enormous that
they now quote number of gallons carried rather than number of pounds. This makes the
figures look about the same on paper as the old days of aviation. For example, the flying
boats carried 45,000 lb. of fuel, while the newest Airbus 400 passenger jets carry 65,000
gallons of fuel. This is just a clever way to hide the enormous volume increases. This
should come as a shock to all who fall for the colorful seats and flashy flip down screens
as being high tech. The fact is kerosene takes precedence over passengers and cargo and
that is anything but high tech since it all goes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Today a Boeing 747-400ER can carry more than 63,500 gallons of fuel, making it possible
to fly extremely long routes such as Los Angeles to Melbourne. It will contain 508,000 lb.
of fuel at liftoff. There are 147,000 pounds of structural aluminum in the plane’s makeup
195
which equates to only 1/3 of the weight of the fuel it has to carry and in this heavy
configuration consumes more than 9 gallons per mile!
According to published specifications the 747-400 carries 3,300 gallons of fuel in the horizontal
stabilizer which allows it to fly an additional 350 nautical miles. These figures, calculated
together, indicate that the Boeing 747-400 at full load consumes 9.4 gallons per mile!
Even though this design becomes less efficient as flight distances are increased, today it
remains the standard type of passenger aircraft design utilized for long range flights taking
upwards of 17 hours. This is not engineering. This is petroleum engineering! We should
not be using the same design that works marginally for short flights when it performs even
worse on long flights. These are fuel hungry gadgets and the oil wizards adore them.
Passenger for passenger, a piston powered airplane from the 1950’s was getting nearly
double the fuel mileage that our jumbo jets get today.
196

Titanic and Hindenburg Extract

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Titanic and Hindenburg Extract

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

January 2017 “K” Titanic and Hindenburg: Two Tragedies, One Plan

The cold Oil Industry

Examples of an existing monopoly amongst world car manufacturers:

All for the sake of gasoline

Global Warming and Petroleum burning

Simple and better fuel alternatives that don’t pollute

Fueling the BPA/Utility Alpha and Beta Units

Where does Methanol Come From?

How Safe is Methanol?

How is Methanol Being Used?

 Does not contribute to air pollution.

Sugar and hydrogen peroxide: Delchev Fuel:

If a sugar extraction facility is dedicated to only producing sugar from the

Delchev Patent# 4,698,965 Hot gas source and fuel therefor

Another better choice: Ammonia

then combusted in a fashion similar to combusting propane using a propane-equipped

Here is an article from NH3Car.com:

Q: Why use ammonia for a vehicle fuel?

Q: Where do you get Ammonia?

Q: What is needed to manufacture ammonia?

Q: Can ammonia be made from renewable or “green” energy sources?

Q: What are the emissions from a converted ammonia fueled vehicle?

Q: Is ammonia a liquid or a gas?

Q: How does ammonia use compare to natural gas?

Q: How does ammonia use compare to Hydrogen as a fuel?

More about Ammonia

Solid State Ammonia Synthesis (SSAS)

Here is an oil industry-destroying

Inside the Black Box:

Energy consumption: 7,000 – 8,000 kWh per ton NH3:

Hydrogen is as abundant as seawater.

The story gets worse:

By Tom Leonard in New York Published: 03 Feb 2010

According to an investigation by USA Today, millions of passengers could have been at

Most of what we think we know about petroleum is wrong

Here are some additional misconceptions about petroleum crude oil:

Crude oil is limited because it takes millions of years to make;

The Oil Industry verses the Planet

Total World Oil Production: (2010): 86,790,349 barrels/day

Annual Sales: $3.0 Trillion/year

How we lost control of our transportation and energy

Hindenburg vs. Piston

Fixed Wing Performance Combined with Heavy Fuel Loads

Weight verses drag

Example 1. C-130J-30 Military transport, horsepower to takeoff weight = .11 hp./lb.

1939 Boeing 314 characteristics and specifications:

LZ-129 Hindenburg characteristics and specifications:

Lift: 511,500 lb.

Payload speed efficiency factor: E; Boeing 314: 10,000/43,500 X 1 X 1 = .23

The first Boeing 314, Honolulu Clipper, entered regular

The infamous Douglas DC-3

DC-3 General characteristics

Payload speed efficiency factor: E; Douglas DC-3: 5,000/3,500 X 1 X 1 = 1.42

Commercial Airline Development

The L-1049G Super Constellation

Transatlantic air travel in the immediate

Two years after the debut of the DC-4, Pan

L-1049G Super Constellation

Payload speed efficiency factor: E; Constellation 1049: 8,000/68,3652X 1 X 1 = .11

Jet engines were more efficient than piston engines,

Comparison with a Modern Jet Liner

S-ar putea să vă placă și