F-insweet

Seeing as how people, and Americans in general, have an obsession with having homes that are 2,000-3,000 and beyond in square footage it was really nice for me to see this article. It’s all about a house that only has 96 square foot. However when you look inside at actually looks fairly comfortable.

This dream house is the love child of artist-builder Jay Shafer, who lovingly hand-crafted it. The stainless-steel kitchen, gleaming next to the natural wood interior, is outfitted with customized storage and built-ins. From his bed, Shafer can gaze into the Northern California sky through a cathedral window. In his immaculate office space, a laptop sits alongside rows of architectural books and magazines — many featuring his house on the cover. And from the old-fashioned front porch, he can look out on a breathtaking setting: an apple orchard in full bloom.

But in an era when bigger is taken as a synonym for better, calling Shafer’s home a dream house might strike some as an oxymoron. Why? The entire house, including sleeping loft, measures only 96 square feet — smaller than many people’s bathrooms. But Jay Shafer’s dream isn’t of a lifestyle writ large but of one carefully created and then writ tiny.

I really enjoyed this article. We as a people no longer believe in simplicity it seems. Huge homes, huge cars and infinite junk we don’t need seem to be our only interests and obsessions. I think most of us could learn a thing or two from this guy. Having more doesn’t mean being more or doing more with your life, it’s best not to get caught up in the material things.

And on top of that it takes up so much less space allowing for more plants and open soace.

A man named Stan Meyner made a Dune Buggy, but instead of using gasoline or electricity, it used WATER! The best part is that the water used goes into the air and comes back down as regular rain water! The man who made this was poisoned in 1998, my guess is that the gasoline companys did it.

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

—–O—–

Stan Meyer’s Dune Buggy that ran on water. Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel in an ICE motor. On board electrolysis, no hydrogen tanks, no bombs on-board, just water. (1998) It ran 100 miles per gallon! The 2nd best inventor of the Century, besides Tesla, who was and will always be #1. Stan is the mustard seed of Water Powered Cars! The video left above is a one timed aired news cast, from his home town of Grove City , Ohio that you are not to view. The video screen to the right is a segment of the Equinox program about Stanley aired back in Dec. 1995 (approx.) See the entire program entitled “It Runs on Water” narrated by Arthur C. Clarke in video clips below.
It is in 4 parts, made possible by Andy the WizardKing from Blackpool, England.
Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 • Part 4

He was a shame to hear that he was poisoned (March 98′) and longer with us. He died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town of Grove City, Ohio. Sharks came a week later and stole the the dune buggy and all of his experimental equipment, according to his brother, Steve. Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corp.s The Military was going to use this technology in their tanks, jeeps, etc. He had patents on his invention and was ready for production. Only $1,500 to equip your car! See the Videos above. No gasoline, just water. Stanley said he was offered a billion dollars from an Arab to basically shelf his idea. Stan said, “no, this technology is for the people.” Who you suppose poisoned Stan? A jealous onlooker? Do you think the Oil Corp.’s are happy to see a converted car running for FREE?? Our own US DOE, and the present administration are heavily involved in the Oil business. If GW wanted my respect,I’d have inventors like Stan on TV and with me in the White House, discussing how to save this dying planet and break the bonds of ruled corruption and greed. I have read the DOE’s hydrogen & fuel cell technology and they don’t mention making hydrogen from pure water, until the last page. They rather get hydrogen from hydrocarbons. They don’t mention “On Board Hydrogen Electrolysis” make the egas as you go. They talk about Hydrogen Gas Stations at how much per gallon?

So what is happening with Stan’s Great Invention of the 20th Century!! Absolutely nothing. Are they manufacturing his invention. NO, Why not? because it would solve all the world’s problems today. That is NOT how politics work, MONEY is the ruler here. Common Sense is NOT for humans, only good for OUTLAWS & so called terrorists.? Huh? We live in a time when good is spoken of as evil and evil spoken up as good. Why do I say that because it is true. We were told the US twin towers was taken down by airplanes, when the truth is, it was taken down by C4 explosives. William Rodriguez holds the master key, he was there that day, he lost his job and 250 of his friends and colleges. Connect the dots, it is that simple. Sorry to have shocked you and made your face turn red, but Building #7 came down in 7 seconds, not reported in the 911 commission report. No planes hit that building, only a few offices fires happened. It was all too fishy from me, and continues to stink like a dead rat.

All they talk about is hydrogen gas stations run by Shell and a Canadian Oil Firm. Then they talk all about “hydrogen fuel cells” which take a lifetime of gas burned just to make one fuel cell. A hydrogen fuel cell factory is a real SMOG factory. To explain better read on. There Fuel Cells are not as efficient as a “On board Hydrogen Electrolysis” fuel cell. Stan made the gas as he drove, no hydrogen tanks, no fuel cells, no need for Shell Hydrogen Stations. He spent 30 years of research all on his own.

—–O—–

Why are the brilliant people always suspiciously killed when they come up with a potentially new way to save the planet?

Well, hasn’t this turned into an interesting topic?
Half the world believes it, half is not, and all look to the media for their thoughts. Not once have I ever talked to anybody who has been able to produce any sort of scientific article, if it is from a magazine, or on the internet. Every single “unmuzzled” scientist has been talking through the media, and the rest say that it is natural. The republicans deny it, while the democrats think we need to so something and I am by no means a republican.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/earth/02cnd-climate.html?ex=1328072400en=1cafd041af902dd5ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss
Media
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/
Media
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_global_warming_is_probably.html
Written by a scientist

In fact, since the government controls so much of the media, despite what we call a democracy, it is hard to find scientific data on this. The fact that I was only able to get one article written by one scientist, whereas a couple years ago I could bring up sites that say humans contribute .22% to global warming, and 5% if you include water vapor, on every single site I went to including only science related topics, shows you what kind of proof the internet has. If I were to tell its reliability, I would send it to about 30%. Now all you will find are “nytimes” or “CNN” or “MSNBC” and those journalists writing “over 90% of global warming is because of humans”
Although, how can that be true, when ABC news tells us that 12% of global warming is produced by livestock?
“Do some math, the authors say, and you find that livestock is responsible for 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas problem.”

Oh well, go on believing every white lie the media spits out at you, and while your at it, suck Al Gores pathetic little dick.

Ontario, Canada is set to ban the sale and use of Incandescent bulbs following Australia’s lead (it was Australia, right?).

The government estimates that replacing the 87 million incandescent bulbs in use across Ontario with more efficient bulbs would save six million megawatt hours every year — enough to power 600,000 homes.

This is really great stuff, and I’m glad to see more people are catching on. They just really need to make sure people understand how to properly dispose of fluorescent/CFL bulbs. They all contain mercury, and if the popularity of the bulbs skyrocketed we could have a problem with mercury on our hands once again. Regardless, the energy savings are exciting!

I’ve been using CFL bulbs exclusively in our house for the past two years and our energy bill has never gone over $40 a month, and that’s coming from a heavy PC user and gamer, so you know that eats up some power. Haven’t had a single one burn out yet either! The only disadvantage is that the brand of bulbs we buy takes about 1.5 seconds to turn on after you flick the switch, but does that really make a difference? 1.5 seconds for 75% less energy used is a pretty damn good tradeoff if you ask me.