eer

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011060339.25496.00000712@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

Does capacitance contain electrical charge?

Does capacitance contain energy?

Is capacitance easily and continually "refreshable"?

Is capacitance mobile?

Yes to all four.

And is it considerably poorer (by orders of magnitude)
at ALL of these than chemical storage?

Gee, looks like it's "yes" to all FIVE...

I rest my case.

....on nothing at all!

Note that each and every one of your questions above can
also be answered "yes" when "capacitance" is replaced by
"a rubber band." Not exactly a great example of a valid
argument, then, is it, Frank?

The term for this is "crackpotism."

Or DAMN good thinking!

It is readily apparent to all reading this thread which it is
in your case.


Bob M.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:15:12 -0600, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote:

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
Caps are in their infancy

Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery -
depending on just what you consider to be the first widespread
examples of each.

Yep. Cazapitors were invented in 1745 by Pieter Van Musschenbroeck of
the University of Leyden. The fun thing to do back then was have 700
monks from the convent of Paris hold hands and watch them
simultaneously jump when electrocuted. What Ben Franklin did in 1752
was not only prove the lightning was electrical, but that the charge
resided in the glass of the Leyden jar, and not in the water as
commonly believed at the time. There's substantial suspicion that he
faked the kite experiment because several contemporaries died trying
to duplicate the experiment.

Methinks the problem might be that instead of cazapitors being
infantile, freerguy might be suffering from the same affliction.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS

 

[Bill Bowden]

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f8af9c4$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011053818.25496.00000711@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

Not yet. I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much
energy in
a lump of coal, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap.

Y'see, Frank just continues to Not Get just what the
distinction between chemical and capacitive storage really
IS...


Caps are in their infancy


Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery -
depending on just what you consider to be the first widespread
examples of each. Ben Franklin knew of capacitors, although he
would have referred to one as a "Leyden jar" for the storage of
"electric fluid." Of the electrolytic types, which is the only type
remotely close to the energy densities you're talking about, wet
electrolytics have been in commercial use since the 1890s, when
they were used in motor starting applications, and dry electrolytics
were first commercialized around 1931. Both types have most
certainly seen very significant development on a continuous basis
since their first introduction, with nothing remotely like your "EER"
silliness in sight.

Bob M.

Well, if caps are continuously seeing progress in terms of
energy density, what would you say the limit is?

I think what Frank needs to know, assuming he would believe it,
and I'm curious myself, is the absolute theoretical upper limit
to energy density in the dielectric of a capacitor.

Any idea what it is?

-Bill

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011060339.25496.00000712@mb-m05.news.cs.com...
Does capacitance contain electrical charge?

Does capacitance contain energy?

Is capacitance easily and continually "refreshable"?

Is capacitance mobile?

Yes to all four.

And is it considerably poorer (by orders of magnitude)
at ALL of these than chemical storage?

Gee, looks like it's "yes" to all FIVE...


I rest my case.


...on nothing at all!

Note that each and every one of your questions above can
also be answered "yes" when "capacitance" is replaced by
"a rubber band." Not exactly a great example of a valid argument, then, is
it, Frank?

Just an analogy.

The term for this is "crackpotism."

Or DAMN good thinking!

It is readily apparent to all reading this thread which it is in your case.

Yea - I know .

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011053818.25496.00000711@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

Not yet. I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much energy
in a lump of coal, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap.

Y'see, Frank just continues to Not Get just what the distinction between
chemical and capacitive storage really IS...

Let me say it this way...

I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much energy in a lump of
coal chemically, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap, as capacitance.

Caps are in their infancy


Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery - depending on
just what you consider to be the first widespread
examples of each. Ben Franklin knew of capacitors, although he would have
referred to one as a "Leyden jar" for the storage of
"electric fluid." Of the electrolytic types, which is the only type remotely
close to the energy densities you're talking about, wet
electrolytics have been in commercial use since the 1890s, when they were used
in motor starting applications, and dry electrolytics were first commercialized

around 1931. Both types have most

certainly seen very significant development on a continuous basis since their
first introduction, with nothing remotely like your "EER" silliness in sight.

I grant that that is all true - because you said so.

But, then I go back to the math.

The energy density math allows for eer. That is, the math does not exclude the
possibitlty of eer.

I suppose that when caps were invented, the scarcity of renewable energy
sources prohibited any effort to match the two.

I suggest that it is different now.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:15:12 -0600, "Bob Myers"
nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote:

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
Caps are in their infancy

Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery -depending on
just what you consider to be the first idespread examples of each.

Yep. Cazapitors were invented in 1745 by Pieter Van Musschenbroeck of the
University of Leyden. The fun thing to do back then was have 700 monks from

the convent of Paris hold hands and watch them simultaneously jump when
electrocuted. What Ben Franklin did in 1752 was not only prove the lightning
was electrical, but that the charge resided in the glass of the Leyden jar, and
not in the water as commonly believed at the time. There's substantial
suspicion that he faked the kite experiment because several contemporaries died
trying to duplicate the experiment.

Methinks the problem might be that instead of cazapitors being infantile,
freerguy might be suffering from the same affliction.

Haha....But, I admit to that EE-wise.

But - look here......my bottom line is that the energy density of coal EXISTS,
so therefore it cannot be physically impossible. If it is not physically
impossible, why can't we duplicate it somehow?

Same with oil.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:<3f8af9c4$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011053818.25496.00000711@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

Not yet. I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much
energy in
a lump of coal, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap.

Y'see, Frank just continues to Not Get just what the
distinction between chemical and capacitive storage really
IS...


Caps are in their infancy


Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery -
depending on just what you consider to be the first widespread
examples of each. Ben Franklin knew of capacitors, although he
would have referred to one as a "Leyden jar" for the storage of
"electric fluid." Of the electrolytic types, which is the only type
remotely close to the energy densities you're talking about, wet
electrolytics have been in commercial use since the 1890s, when
they were used in motor starting applications, and dry electrolytics
were first commercialized around 1931. Both types have most
certainly seen very significant development on a continuous basis
since their first introduction, with nothing remotely like your "EER"
silliness in sight.

Bob M.

Well, if caps are continuously seeing progress in terms of
energy density, what would you say the limit is?

I think what Frank needs to know, assuming he would believe it, and I'm
curious myself, is the absolute theoretical upper limit to energy density in

the dielectric of a capacitor.

Any idea what it is?

I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels, that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the energy
density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy density
of coal or oil.

If I am wrong about that, I am wrong about eer.


Frank

 

[POULINTR]

I think what Frank needs to know, assuming he would believe it,
and I'm curious myself, is the absolute theoretical upper limit

to energy density in the dielectric of a capacitor.

Any idea what it is? <<

Given known dielectrics, it's low. His premise is that there are other
dielectrics which will change that, and it fuels the continuing discussion.

Tom

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014033616.15549.00000675@mb-m28.news.cs.com...

I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels,
that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the
energy
density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy
density
of coal or oil.

If I am wrong about that, I am wrong about eer.

Well, that pretty much puts THAT to rest, then (yeah, SURE
it will). You ARE wrong about that, so you're wrong about
eer. It's that simple.

Note that Frank has yet to point out just where these "errors"
come in. It's "not the math - but the conclusions drawn
from the math." Which is sort of like saying the numbers are
right, but I just don't like those numbers.

Frank cannot show, and does not understand, the "energy
density math" he refers to in the first place, so his opinions
on this whole matter are suspect, at least. And so he most
certainly has NOT "helped here a little."

The "energy density math," though, is actually very, very simple.

The energy stored in ANY capacitor is 0.5CV^2 - which says
that energy goes up directly with the capacitance, but with the
square of the voltage.

For ANY dielectric, the amount of voltage that a capacitor will
withstand before failing is directly related to the thickness of the
dielectric.

Also in any capacitor, the capacitance goes up linearly with the
plate area.

Now, take any given volume. No matter how you arrange things,
additional plate area MUST come at the expense of a reduce
dielectric thickness. You only have so much volume to play in,
after all. So if I double the plate area, but cut the dielectric
thickness in half, I have doubled the capacitance and cut the
maximum voltage in half. Energy density goes DOWN.

This says that energy density will primarily be limited by the
characteristics of the dielectric - both its dielectric constant and
its breakdown voltage. Getting into the physics of dielectrics
is probably beyond the scope of this discussion, and is clearly
beyond Frank, by his own admission. But it comes down to the
fact that for Frank's ideas to be in the least bit practical, he needs
a dielectric that is unreasonably high on both counts. "Unreasonably
high" in this case really means "impossible" in any practical sense.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014031501.15549.00000673@mb-m28.news.cs.com...

Let me say it this way...

I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much energy in a
lump of
coal chemically, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap, as
capacitance.

But you're even wrong on that point.

A lump of coal does NOT actually "contain" the energy
we speak of in discussing the "energy density" of fuels, which
is actually somewhat different that the "energy density" of
something like a battery or capacitor. The "energy density"
figure for coal, or oil or gasoline for that matter, refers to the
energy which will be liberated IF THE FUEL IS BURNED -
which assumes a supply of oxidizer, which in this case comes
from the air. Take a lump of coal into space, and it's useless.

For that matter, "capacitance" is not energy, any more than
the capacity of a bucket - that might hold gasoline, but it might
also hold water - is the energy that bucket might "contain."

You simply DO NOT understand even the most basic points
of energy storage and production.

The energy density math allows for eer. That is, the math does not
exclude the
possibitlty of eer.

Then show the math. You haven't and you can't. You just
keep making this silly and incorrect assertion.


Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014032526.15549.00000674@mb-m28.news.cs.com...

But - look here......my bottom line is that the energy density of coal
EXISTS,
so therefore it cannot be physically impossible. If it is not physically
impossible, why can't we duplicate it somehow?

We can - chemically.

Chemical storage of energy is of a different nature
than capacitive storage. Go learn at least SOMETHING
about both.

To claim that since coal exists, capacitors must
be able to duplicate the energy density, is EXACTLY
the same as saying that since bats and elephants are
both mammals, elephants should be able to fly.


Bob M.

 

[Bill Bowden]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message news:<20031014033616.15549.00000675@mb-m28.news.cs.com>...

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:<3f8af9c4$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011053818.25496.00000711@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

Not yet. I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much
energy in
a lump of coal, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap.

Y'see, Frank just continues to Not Get just what the
distinction between chemical and capacitive storage really
IS...


Caps are in their infancy


Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery -
depending on just what you consider to be the first widespread
examples of each. Ben Franklin knew of capacitors, although he
would have referred to one as a "Leyden jar" for the storage of
"electric fluid." Of the electrolytic types, which is the only type
remotely close to the energy densities you're talking about, wet
electrolytics have been in commercial use since the 1890s, when
they were used in motor starting applications, and dry electrolytics
were first commercialized around 1931. Both types have most
certainly seen very significant development on a continuous basis
since their first introduction, with nothing remotely like your "EER"
silliness in sight.

Bob M.

Well, if caps are continuously seeing progress in terms of
energy density, what would you say the limit is?

I think what Frank needs to know, assuming he would believe it, and I'm
curious myself, is the absolute theoretical upper limit to energy density in
the dielectric of a capacitor.

Any idea what it is?

I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels, that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the energy
density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy density
of coal or oil.

If I am wrong about that, I am wrong about eer.


Frank

It sounds like you are saying the math is correct that shows eer
doesn't work, but since that conclusion is unacceptable, the
conclusion itself must be incorrect, and therefore eer will work.

Is that what you said?

-Bill

 

[Bill Bowden]

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message news:<3f8c2308$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014033616.15549.00000675@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels,
that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the
energy
density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy
density
of coal or oil.


The "energy density math," though, is actually very, very simple.

The energy stored in ANY capacitor is 0.5CV^2 - which says
that energy goes up directly with the capacitance, but with the
square of the voltage.

For ANY dielectric, the amount of voltage that a capacitor will
withstand before failing is directly related to the thickness of the
dielectric.

Also in any capacitor, the capacitance goes up linearly with the
plate area.

Now, take any given volume. No matter how you arrange things,
additional plate area MUST come at the expense of a reduce
dielectric thickness. You only have so much volume to play in,
after all. So if I double the plate area, but cut the dielectric
thickness in half, I have doubled the capacitance and cut the
maximum voltage in half. Energy density goes DOWN.

Energy density should be constant for a given dielectric.
In a given volume, if you double the plate area and reduce
the plate separation by 50% then you have twice the capacitance
at half the voltage, but the same total energy in either case.

Using unity numbers (1 farad, 1 volt) we get
j=1/2(ce^2) = 1/2 joule
Now double the capacitance and half the voltage
and we get the same thing.
j= 1/2 (2*0.5^2) = 1/2 joule.

This means energy is *constant* for any given capacitor
size of the same dielectric. This is a major point that
Frank doesn't get. It proves that etching the plates and
"monumentally" increasing plate surface area does absolutely
nothing to increase energy in a given volume. But of course
a given volume does not include Frank's "innerspace" where
there exists monumentally more volume inside the original
volume. Thus, a gallon is not really a gallon but much more
than a gallon. But Frank still hasn't explained how to
fill a gallon container with 2 gallons of gas.

-Bill

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014031501.15549.00000673@mb-m28.news.cs.com...

Let me say it this way...

I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much energy in a
lump of
coal chemically, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap, as
capacitance.

But you're even wrong on that point.

A lump of coal does NOT actually "contain" the energy
we speak of in discussing the "energy density" of fuels, which
is actually somewhat different that the "energy density" of
something like a battery or capacitor. The "energy density"
figure for coal, or oil or gasoline for that matter, refers to the
energy which will be liberated IF THE FUEL IS BURNED -
which assumes a supply of oxidizer, which in this case comes
from the air. Take a lump of coal into space, and it's useless.

For that matter, "capacitance" is not energy, any more than
the capacity of a bucket - that might hold gasoline, but it might
also hold water - is the energy that bucket might "contain."

You simply DO NOT understand even the most basic points
of energy storage and production.


The energy density math allows for eer. That is, the math does not
exclude the
possibitlty of eer.

Then show the math. You haven't and you can't. You just
keep making this silly and incorrect assertion.

HERE is my math.....someday cars will run on natural renewable energy.

CLOSE all gas stations.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014032526.15549.00000674@mb-m28.news.cs.com...

But - look here......my bottom line is that the energy density of coal
EXISTS,
so therefore it cannot be physically impossible. If it is not physically
impossible, why can't we duplicate it somehow?

We can - chemically.

Yes - and chemical batteries in cars have just taken over, haven't they?

My bet is that we can do it electronically, also.

Chemical storage of energy is of a different nature than capacitive storage.
Go learn at least SOMETHING about both.

To claim that since coal exists, capacitors must be able to duplicate the
energy density, is EXACTLY the same as saying that since bats and elephants are

both mammals, elephants should be able to fly.

Well, not EXACTLY!


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:<3f8c2308$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031014033616.15549.00000675@mb-m28.news.cs.com...
I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels,
that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the
energy
density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy
density
of coal or oil.


The "energy density math," though, is actually very, very simple.

The energy stored in ANY capacitor is 0.5CV^2 - which says
that energy goes up directly with the capacitance, but with the
square of the voltage.

For ANY dielectric, the amount of voltage that a capacitor will
withstand before failing is directly related to the thickness of the
dielectric.

Also in any capacitor, the capacitance goes up linearly with the
plate area.

Now, take any given volume. No matter how you arrange things,
additional plate area MUST come at the expense of a reduce
dielectric thickness. You only have so much volume to play in,
after all. So if I double the plate area, but cut the dielectric
thickness in half, I have doubled the capacitance and cut the
maximum voltage in half. Energy density goes DOWN.

Energy density should be constant for a given dielectric.
In a given volume, if you double the plate area and reduce
the plate separation by 50% then you have twice the capacitance
at half the voltage, but the same total energy in either case.

Using unity numbers (1 farad, 1 volt) we get
j=1/2(ce^2) = 1/2 joule
Now double the capacitance and half the voltage
and we get the same thing.
j= 1/2 (2*0.5^2) = 1/2 joule.

This means energy is *constant* for any given capacitor
size of the same dielectric. This is a major point that
Frank doesn't get. It proves that etching the plates and
"monumentally" increasing plate surface area does absolutely
nothing to increase energy in a given volume. But of course
a given volume does not include Frank's "innerspace" where
there exists monumentally more volume inside the original
volume. Thus, a gallon is not really a gallon but much more
than a gallon. But Frank still hasn't explained how to
fill a gallon container with 2 gallons of gas.

Etch, and re-etch the indide of the glass.


Frank

-Bill

 

[FEerguy9]

feerguy9@cs.com (FEerguy9) wrote in message
news:<20031014033616.15549.00000675@mb-m28.news.cs.com>...
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:<3f8af9c4$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>...
"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031011053818.25496.00000711@mb-m05.news.cs.com...

Not yet. I hold that if it is physically possible to hold that much
energy in
a lump of coal, it is physically possible to hold it in a cap.

Y'see, Frank just continues to Not Get just what the
distinction between chemical and capacitive storage really
IS...


Caps are in their infancy


Nonsense. The capacitor is just about as old as the battery -
depending on just what you consider to be the first widespread
examples of each. Ben Franklin knew of capacitors, although he
would have referred to one as a "Leyden jar" for the storage of
"electric fluid." Of the electrolytic types, which is the only type
remotely close to the energy densities you're talking about, wet
electrolytics have been in commercial use since the 1890s, when
they were used in motor starting applications, and dry electrolytics
were first commercialized around 1931. Both types have most
certainly seen very significant development on a continuous basis
since their first introduction, with nothing remotely like your "EER"
silliness in sight.

Bob M.

Well, if caps are continuously seeing progress in terms of
energy density, what would you say the limit is?

I think what Frank needs to know, assuming he would believe it, and I'm
curious myself, is the absolute theoretical upper limit to energy density
in
the dielectric of a capacitor.

Any idea what it is?

I can help here a little.

The upper limit of caps was so far below the upper limit of fossil fuels,
that
caps were not even considered.

BUT, that upper limit was a an error in the conclusions drawn from the
energy
density math, at the time.

Not the math - but the conclusions drawn from the math.

It was, IMHO, an error that told us that caps could not hold the energy
density
of coal or oil.

If I am wrong about that, I am wrong about eer.


Frank

It sounds like you are saying the math is correct that shows eer doesn't work,
but since that conclusion is unacceptable, the
conclusion itself must be incorrect, and therefore eer will work.

Is that what you said?

No.

The math is correct - naturally.

But then the powers that be concluded that this math told us that the energy
density of caps could never reach the energy density of coal or oil. THIS was
the incorrect conclusion to which I refer.


Frank

 

[FEerguy9]

I think what Frank needs to know, assuming he would believe it,
and I'm curious myself, is the absolute theoretical upper limit
to energy density in the dielectric of a capacitor.

BINGO!!!!!

Any idea what it is?

The math shows a relative number, which is low, low, low.

The conclusion drawn was that it stuck there - limited.

My deal is that this was an incorrect conclusion - that the energy density of
caps could, indeed, go as high as coal or oil.

Given known dielectrics, it's low. His premise is that there are other
dielectrics which will change that, and it fuels the continuing discussion.

Whether it is better dielectrics, or whatever, it is my position that caps have
the ability to hold much more energy than expected.

Enough, in fact, so that a bank of caps could power an EV.


Frank

 

[Bob Myers]

"Bill Bowden" <wrongaddress@att.net> wrote in message
news:ad025737.0310141731.7a221e8e@posting.google.com...

Energy density should be constant for a given dielectric.
In a given volume, if you double the plate area and reduce
the plate separation by 50% then you have twice the capacitance
at half the voltage, but the same total energy in either case.

You're right - I left out a bit. IF you could double the
plate area and reduce the plate separation by exactly
half, then you do get exactly the same total energy. But
that's the ideal limiting case; in practice, since you can't have
zero-thickness plates, doubling the plate area must also involve
a slight but non-zero reduction in the volume that remains for
the dielectric - so you will suffer a loss of energy capacity,
and therefore energy density.

Bob M.

 

[Bob Myers]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20031015085155.28427.00000969@mb-m12.news.cs.com...

HERE is my math.....someday cars will run on natural renewable energy.

CLOSE all gas stations.

Ah, here's the problem. Frank's using his own definition of the
term "math". Of course, if you get to make words mean
anything you want, you can argue anything...as evidenced
here.

Bob M.