Car powered by compressed air?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.
Click to expand...
You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.
 
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:53:26 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
<thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.
Click to expand...
Quoting yourself,

"I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to
run the H O separator each night. "

You'd be doing good to get 5% efficiency out of that process.

Personally, I find that gasoline works pretty well. And I don't watch
TV; it rots the brain.

John
 
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:7o40o69ci17p3ovn13je9jr9p6m5qmosns@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:53:26 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.

Quoting yourself,

"I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to
run the H O separator each night. "

You'd be doing good to get 5% efficiency out of that process.

Personally, I find that gasoline works pretty well. And I don't watch
TV; it rots the brain.

John
Click to expand...
Q.E.D.


tm
 
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:34:41 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:53:26 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.

Quoting yourself,

"I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to
run the H O separator each night. "
Click to expand...
Exactly. Now show me where I ever said that it would be all I needed
to do.
You'd be doing good to get 5% efficiency out of that process.
Click to expand...
Again, you are a goddamned retard.

Bike, alternator, battery charge cycle. Proven efficient.

Battery, separator, containment, done.

It is what it is.

Result... A little bit more to shave a few dollars off the monthly
cost.

Again, I did the math. You are the idiot.
Personally, I find that gasoline works pretty well.
Click to expand...
The idea is to NOT pollute, dumbfuck.

And I don't watch
TV; it rots the brain.
Click to expand...
You're an idiot. Folks that put ANY credence in any of the crap you
spout have rotted brains. You sport a self inflicted disease.

There is daily news, and there are several channels that have many
hundreds and thousands of great educational offerings for the masses.
Then, there is the entertainment wedge of the TV pie...

Even Charlie Sheen has more to offer than a school marm mentality ditz
like you.

Hint: You have to actually be smart to be a school marm, John. You
fail miserably at it. You lose.

What you are is a mass. A mass of idiot boy. You rotted your own
brain with those hard wired horse blinders you have glued onto your face.

John
Click to expand...
Yes, you. The blank lines after your text is further evidence of your
stupidity.
 
On 3/15/2011 7:53 PM, TheQuickBrownFox wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.
Click to expand...
This from a dolt who cannot even calculate the flight time of light from
Earth to Jupiter?

Bwahahahahahahahah!
 
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:52:17 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
<thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:34:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:53:26 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.

Quoting yourself,

"I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to
run the H O separator each night. "

Exactly. Now show me where I ever said that it would be all I needed
to do.

You'd be doing good to get 5% efficiency out of that process.

Again, you are a goddamned retard.

Bike, alternator, battery charge cycle. Proven efficient.

Battery, separator, containment, done.

It is what it is.

Result... A little bit more to shave a few dollars off the monthly
cost.

Again, I did the math. You are the idiot.
Click to expand...
Show us the math.

John
 
On 3/15/2011 9:11 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:52:17 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:34:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:53:26 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.

Quoting yourself,

"I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to
run the H O separator each night. "

Exactly. Now show me where I ever said that it would be all I needed
to do.

You'd be doing good to get 5% efficiency out of that process.

Again, you are a goddamned retard.

Bike, alternator, battery charge cycle. Proven efficient.

Battery, separator, containment, done.

It is what it is.

Result... A little bit more to shave a few dollars off the monthly
cost.

Again, I did the math. You are the idiot.

Show us the math.

John
Click to expand...
Come on, John. That's like putting him in a round room and telling him
to go sit in the corner.

John
 
Wimpie wrote:
On 14 mar, 15:21, Phil Hobbs<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net
wrote:
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote:



On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:51:27 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Wimpie wrote:

When isothermally discharging this volume to 1 Barg, you will get 28
MJ from the tank. I can hardly imagine that the exhaust gas
temperature will be equal to ambient temperature, so the net energy
will be less.

For comparison, Petrol and Diesel have energy densities of about 35 MJ/
liter.

This shows that the amount of stored energy in the pressure cylinders
is less then that of 1liter petrol. To have a useful range, this
requires extreme change in driving behavior and car design.

Overall efficiency is another issue.
Air compression is inefficient if you can't use the generated heat.
You need to add more then twice the mechanical energy to the gas to
compress the air to 350 bar.

Given the efficiency of the compressor itself (friction, leakage, etc)
I have doubts whether they will reach 25% efficiency for pressurizing
the tanks. Of course, during winter the generated heat can be used for
heating.

When you "charge" the tanks at home (from the mains), you also have to
include the (low) overall efficiency of the electrical energy (from
power plant to the socket at home).

Besides some niches (explosive environments?), electric traction will
outperform the "air" variety in my opinion (better efficiency, better
control).

Not to mention being a lot safer in a collision.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Since they'll only do 30 kph when (lightly)loaded!

Tell that to the truck that knocks a hole in a 5000 psi carbon fibre air
tank a foot away from you!


Hello Phil,

They mention to have approval for road use and they use same type of
cylinders as used for natural gas. They also mention rupture pressures
700bar.

We have public transport and private cars that run on CNG, as far as I
know, without accidents involving failure of the gas cylinders. The
cylinders are on top of the bus.

Probably you know the Seoul bus explosion.

Best regards,

Wim
PA3DJS
www.tetech.nl
Click to expand...
Putting them up out of harm's way is a good idea. That way they'll
probably be knocked some distance before rupturing--though the usual
failure is cracking the valve off, which generates enough thrust to
send a scuba tank through a concrete wall.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net
 
On 3/15/2011 10:34 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Putting them up out of harm's way is a good idea. That way they'll
probably be knocked some distance before rupturing--though the usual
failure is cracking the valve off, which generates enough thrust to send
a scuba tank through a concrete wall.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
Click to expand...
You're a diver, Phil?

John
 
In article <7o40o69ci17p3ovn13je9jr9p6m5qmosns@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:53:26 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.

Quoting yourself,

"I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to
run the H O separator each night. "

You'd be doing good to get 5% efficiency out of that process.

Personally, I find that gasoline works pretty well. And I don't watch
TV; it rots the brain.

John
Click to expand...
and you'd have to be in pretty good shape to put out > 100 W continuous
into the exercise bike.
 
John - KD5YI wrote:
On 3/15/2011 10:34 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Putting them up out of harm's way is a good idea. That way they'll
probably be knocked some distance before rupturing--though the usual
failure is cracking the valve off, which generates enough thrust to send
a scuba tank through a concrete wall.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


You're a diver, Phil?

John
Click to expand...
Nope. I know several, though.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net
 
TheQuickBrownFox wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.
Click to expand...
Speaking of idiots, where is all this hydrogen supposed to come from?

Thanks,
Rich
 
Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

No, it only needs to be maintained below its boiling point. I routinely
Click to expand...
see tank trucks labeled "Nitrogen, refrigerated liquid" which are vented
to air. The vessel is called a "dewar" or "dewar flask."

What are you, about 12 years old?

Thanks,
Rich
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 01:33:30 -0700, Rich Grise
<richg@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

No, it only needs to be maintained below its boiling point. I routinely
see tank trucks labeled "Nitrogen, refrigerated liquid" which are vented
to air. The vessel is called a "dewar" or "dewar flask."

What are you, about 12 years old?

Thanks,
Rich
Click to expand...
Except that we are not talking about Nitrogen, you retarded twit.

Nitrogen is not flammable, Grise, you dumb fucktard.
 
Rich Grise wrote:
TheQuickBrownFox wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.
You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

Speaking of idiots, where is all this hydrogen supposed to come from?

Thanks,
Rich

Why, by burning coal to generate electricity for use in the
Click to expand...
electrolysis of water; every step (except the electrolysis) limited by
Carnot efficiency of each one worked 100 percent, which they fail to do
so miserably
..
 
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:52:17 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
<thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:34:41 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:53:26 -0700, TheQuickBrownFox
thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:40:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

I prefer math. If you want to pedal to work, a bicycle would be
roughly 20x as efficient as the rig you propose.

You're an idiot.

The Hydrogen moped would operate better than the petroleum moped.

That is the comparison, not a bicycle to a motorized bike.

I propose no 'rig'. It takes very little effort to make a petro fuel
engine run on a gas. I could choose propane, but I am looking toward a
new direction.

As far as my many methods for slowly gathering the Hydrogen goes, that
is merely supplemental. I would actually have to get Hydrogen or Propane
by the bottle. That was already the plan. The supplemental methods are
part of the fun.

You have serious problems with your math if you fail to first
conceptualize well. I propose that your 'rig' is old and worn out, and
the horse blinders you have on are superglued in place.

Quoting yourself,

"I would sit at home, watching TV, and pumping the exercise bike to
run the H O separator each night. "

Exactly. Now show me where I ever said that it would be all I needed
to do.

You'd be doing good to get 5% efficiency out of that process.

Again, you are a goddamned retard.

Bike, alternator, battery charge cycle. Proven efficient.

Battery, separator, containment, done.

It is what it is.

Result... A little bit more to shave a few dollars off the monthly
cost.

Again, I did the math. You are the idiot.

Personally, I find that gasoline works pretty well.

The idea is to NOT pollute, dumbfuck.
Click to expand...
Then why are you here?
 
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:08:27 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
<theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:33:42 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:32 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

LNG is at atmospheric pressure at -161C. Look it up.


That is why an LN (Liquid Nitrogen) truck that delivers cold stuff to
the laboratory IS an insulated, chilled tanker, and the LNG (Liquified
Natural Gas) truck IS NOT.

LNG is usually shipped cold. Its critical point is -83C, but you
probably don't know what that means.

John

I worked in Infra-red thermometry back when imagers required a liquid
nitrogen bath.

I also worked in refrigeration and have made chambers the length of
missiles (over 100 feet). I have made cascaded cooling systems that go
to a couple hundred below. Something you might have seen once if you
opened the grill on the thermal chamber, and actually knew what you were
looking at. I also made the hyper-hypothermia machines
that doctors used to do open hearth surgery with. Now, they place a
thermal catheter right directly into your vein/artery. They can chill or
revive a patient far faster than the hyper-hypothermia machine did it.
Direct contact with the blood and all.

I wish that clot in your brain would reach its critical point.
Click to expand...
Something doesn't quite add up here. If you achieved all these things,
how come you ended up as a janitor? I think you're full of shit.
 
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:41:17 +0000, Pomegranate Bastard
<pommyB@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:08:27 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:33:42 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:56:32 -0700, Chieftain of the Carpet Crawlers
theslipperman@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:43:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

LNG doesn't need to be at high pressure. It only needs to be cold.

Idiot! It has to be at high pressure in order to be in liquid state as
well!

LNG is at atmospheric pressure at -161C. Look it up.


That is why an LN (Liquid Nitrogen) truck that delivers cold stuff to
the laboratory IS an insulated, chilled tanker, and the LNG (Liquified
Natural Gas) truck IS NOT.

LNG is usually shipped cold. Its critical point is -83C, but you
probably don't know what that means.

John

I worked in Infra-red thermometry back when imagers required a liquid
nitrogen bath.

I also worked in refrigeration and have made chambers the length of
missiles (over 100 feet). I have made cascaded cooling systems that go
to a couple hundred below. Something you might have seen once if you
opened the grill on the thermal chamber, and actually knew what you were
looking at. I also made the hyper-hypothermia machines
that doctors used to do open hearth surgery with. Now, they place a
thermal catheter right directly into your vein/artery. They can chill or
revive a patient far faster than the hyper-hypothermia machine did it.
Direct contact with the blood and all.

I wish that clot in your brain would reach its critical point.

Something doesn't quite add up here. If you achieved all these things,
how come you ended up as a janitor? I think you're full of shit.
Click to expand...
He didn't actually _do_ any of that stuff. That's obvious. He was just
sort of around it, probably pulling cables and bolting things into
racks.

John
 
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:65q4o612rhgvnafv82lqjrejh7jvgkvgi5@4ax.com...
He didn't actually _do_ any of that stuff. That's obvious. He was just
sort of around it, probably pulling cables and bolting things into
racks.
Click to expand...
When I was in grade school playing one-upsmanship-of-one's-parents with some
other kid, I claimed that if it weren't for my stepfather, Hoover Dam couldn't
have been built.

In reality...

My stepfather was a land surveyor.

Who worked for a civil engineering firm.

That had another division, thousands of miles away.

That had, indeed, done a small bit of the design work for Hoover Dam.

A few years before my stepfather had been born.

Close enough, right? :)

After all, it's not like Hoover Dam had much of anything to do with Herbert
Hoover either!

---Joel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top