Business laws/Regulations create jobs.

reply to post by Aim64C




Ah, you poor clueless rubes. Since you like wiki, quick and easy for such a reference.

en.wikipedia.org...

The 2000 Insight ranks as the most efficient United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified gasoline-fueled vehicle ever, with a highway rating of 61 miles per US gallon (3.9 L/100 km; 73 mpg-imp) and combined city/highway rating of 53 miles per US gallon (4.4 L/100 km; 64 mpg-imp).

What gas mileage was the Vega getting back in the 1970ties?

Last real tech break through I heard of was compressed digital back in the 90ties. They transmitted a 49ers superbowl victory to Menlo Park via compressed digital. Combined with Berners_Lee's critical code for the www, U of I development of servers and browsers, it has been pretty dead since then. Oh, freq drives, did a little R&D on the tech myself.

But hey, give your best shot at naming a real tech breakthrough in the last ten years,.

We've been at "peak oil" since I was in diapers.

That is what the propagandists have programmed you to believe. Try doing your own research. The main people making these predictions predicted Texas running out of oil in the seventies, and the Sauds around 2005, and they have been pretty much dead on. I have been hearing about embrionic oil since before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye, but those Texas oil fields have yet to fill up. They have known about tar sands for a very long time, but are only now beginning to refine them. Why do you think that is?

Clearly this next link is almost as one sided as the links you provided, but at least they produce verifiable facts. This is a quick grab of a 2005 article, but it proved to be very prophetic.

www.theoildrum.com...

Declaring peak on light sweet crude would be a lot more comfortable with the whole curve before us. Still, there are other interesting indications. The Saudi's have been saying for some time that the world's current problem is lack of refining capacity for heavy oil, not lack of oil per se. And, as Econbrowser noted recently, the price spread between light sweet crude and heavier grades has grown unprecedentedly: consistent with the idea that the good stuff is in decline, while there's still increasing amounts of the not-so-great oil.

If we are some time past the peak of light sweet production, that is profoundly important. Firstly: nobody noticed till now! Truly a tribute to the lousy data in the oil market.

But, more importantly, it suggests that light sweet might be a canary in the coal mine: a predictor for what depletion of the whole liquid fuel sector might have in store for us. If the light sweet depletion stays at moderate annual percentages, that suggests there'll be time for gradual adaptation as we all start driving hybrids, building windmills and nuclear power plants, and digging up more coal. But suppose light sweet falls off a North-sea style cliff (10% plus per year); if Matt Simmons is right about Ghawar then it surely must. Then we shall know that we are in for a very nasty experience, but with a little warning before the medium and heavy oil follow the light trend.

Gasoline is the most heavily subsidized industry in the U.S.. You have no idea how much shipping, another heavily subsidized industry, is slaved to gas prices.

Compressed air of course comes from electricity, but it could also be created by wind mills, and stored much more easily than electricity, and then used to produce electricity later on.

Do you know what was used to produce the first diesel, that the diesel engine was designed to run on?

Congrats on your understanding of how much more efficient our houses could be built.

Here are two realities that you should put together.

We could be far far more efficient than we currently are.

Efficiency is bad for big corporate economics/profits.

reply to post by poet1b


www.edmunds.com...

But the effort to save weight drag pays a price in the handling department. The Insight is highly susceptible to crosswinds and the narrow tires easily track any groove in the pavement, causing the driver to adjust the steering continually to compensate.

You're no longer talking about a car that is practical beyond personal use. Sure - if I'm commuting a lot, something like that is an option (more than likely, I'm going to choose something safer and heavier, rather than a golf ball on wheels - A corolla is a #ing hammer compared to this thing). But if you're looking for a family vehicle (as many are) - this is completely impractical. Not to mention I have seen motorcycles that could slice right through it like a hot knife through butter....

You're looking at the big brother those goofy pod-looking cars, basically. That's not a car.

Last real tech break through I heard of was compressed digital back in the 90ties.

Then you've, obviously, been under a rock. OLED, entangled-photon encryption, countless improvements to SOI processes, nanoconstruction methods, curing of genetic diseases via programmed viruses - the list goes on.

In terms of automotive - you're starting to approach the theoretical limits of the application. Direct catalyst conversion of fuel into electricity is, more or less, the next mark of improved efficiency. The ICE is limited in its efficiency for the range of velocities and loads it is expected to handle. Powerful engines are going to consume more fuel and be less efficient. For some applications, the power and capability is greatly desired over the fuel economy (you're not using a Prius to tow your U-haul... you'll destroy your car).

For the family vehicle, we are about as efficient as we can get without switching to an all-electric drive train with in-wheel motors. That gets expensive in a hurry, and is only going to show marginal improvements.

That is what the propagandists have programmed you to believe. Try doing your own research. The main people making these predictions predicted Texas running out of oil in the seventies, and the Sauds around 2005, and they have been pretty much dead on.

Really? seekingalpha.com...

Recent data for the Foundation for Energy Education shows Texas has 28 of the top 100 oil fields in the United States, as ranked by proven reserves. In 2008, Texas had proven reserves of 4.555 billion barrels.

But that number could turn out to be low -- way low. You now see horizontal drilling and fracking techniques – pioneered by the natural gas industry – being applied to shale oilfields in Texas. The results are prompting experts to declare that Texas is on the verge of a second oil boom. This time however, it’s going to come from the state’s vast shale oil fields.

A RAND study conducted in 2005 indicated that crude would have to be in the range of $75-90 per barrel for shale oil extraction to be economical. We’re certainly beyond that. Even better, with technological improvements, shale oil can now be extracted for as little as $20-30 per barrel.

Compressed air of course comes from electricity, but it could also be created by wind mills, and stored much more easily than electricity, and then used to produce electricity later on.

Windmills, huh? Think you need to go back to the drawing board and do some energy calculations.

Do you know what was used to produce the first diesel, that the diesel engine was designed to run on?

Do you know why we don't use it? Because it wasn't practical.

We could be far far more efficient than we currently are.

I'll be sure to write that down.

Efficiency is bad for big corporate economics/profits.

This is incorrect. Resources cost money to acquire - even if you are a resource producer. Efficiency is the core of effective business. Efficient practices reduce the cost to provide a product/service, which allows for the reduction in price to drive market competitiveness or the expansion of other areas of the business.

Think about what you are saying for a minute, boy-wonder. Oil companies are "running out of oil" (they are simply having to do more than drill a hole in the ground and scoop up what runs out - but whatever) - and, yet, you assert they are all about profits and that they know they are running out of oil.... yet benefit from inefficiency.

This is a silly accusation. Why would they seek to hasten the depletion of their own source of income? Sort of defeats the purpose of being a business, now doesn't it? The fact is - they make more profit off of the "easy to get" oil. Decreasing volume demand would secure larger profit margins and overall net profit.

reply to post by Aim64C


Why do you keep making these ridiculous claims?

You're no longer talking about a car that is practical beyond personal use.

Maybe you are a bit too squeamish? Never rode a motorcycle? Definitely less safe than the Insight. Others found the vehicle completely satisfying. I test drove one, nice ride. Personally, I like small cars, and motorcycles. You can use them for anything, except towing.

www.automobilemag.com...

I wasn't expecting much. But the Insight surprised. Nimble and fun to drive around town, thanks to its slick-shifting five-speed, compact dimensions, and minimalist curb weight of 1887 pounds, it is that rarest bird, a fuel-sipper with (kind of) sporty car essence. Low weight makes it easier to build cars that go, steer, and stop well, even when all she wrote on the subject of going turns out to be 73 horsepower (67 without the electric motor's assist).

What is ridiculous is driving a two ton vehicle a couple of blocks to pick up a few groceries. Four wheel drives that have never been off road, pick up trucks that have never been used for work.

Um, all the tech you mentioned is old tech, developed long ago. Maybe new to you, but those of us who pay attention have been watching that stuff for years, far more than a decade. Only real tech app I have heard of lately is using excitation linking of particles for a new type of processor. Couldn't find any info in a quick look, but sounds like something that is actually new.

(you're not using a Prius to tow your U-haul... you'll destroy your car).

Did you know that the engines that pull freight trains are hybrids? They use diesel motors to drive generators that power the electric motors that pull the train.

How often do you move? Daily? Weekly? or once a decade or so? It is pretty stupid to buy a truck to tow a uhaul once or twice a decade, when you can rent one far more cheaply, that will work better for the job.

Personally, I think that the pneumatic electric hybrid is the way of the future.

The problem isn't lack of tech, it is IC control over our markets that don't want vehicles made that will last a million miles. Do you know how long the life span is on electric and pneumatic motors is? Pneumatic breaking that charges the collector, could greatly boost range.

If most cars on the road only weighed a thousand pounds, accidents would be far less life threatening. Personal rail driven vehicles that carry the road vehicle for inter city, or state travel, so that you have a vehicle to drive once you get to your new destination, would be a truly effective transportation system. Drive your small hybrid on a small rail car, program in your destination, and commute at a 100+ MPH, and you wouldn't have to drive, you could enjoy the ride, in privacy.

Texas had proven reserves of 4.555 billion barrels.

Yeah, that will last the U.S. about half a year.

They are fracking because the world is running out of oil, and that is the only reason they are turning to such drastic measures. Fracking is extremely environmentally hazardous, not only does it horribly pollute the water supply, it creates massive underground damage, and possibly tectonic instability.

Great, lets do even more environmental harm so we can drive huge vehicles to the store. All to support an extremely inefficient system which only exists to continue to line the pockets of the super rich.

Windmills and bio-diesel are very practical, and efficient, they just aren't good for corporate profits, so the ICs have colluded to keep these things from being used.

Oil companies are running out of oil, a little research easily demonstrates this, but people who choose to live in denial like you. They are so desperate to find additional reserves they are willing to do massive environmental damage, because it is their control of oil that gives them their power and control over the markets.

All that I am posting here is easily verifiable. Once you learn to face the reality, you might want to look into who programmed you into being such a corporate slave, too hooked on running the rat maze to realize that you have surrendered your freedom.

Sure, laws create lawyers, but these jobs are not productive and are ultimately a drain on both the economy and the corporation. Corporations have the money to hire for these positions so they still make money regardless, but the smaller businesses have no chance.

reply to post by filosophia


It is lack of law enforcement in business that actually increases the demand for lawyers.

Essentially, under dereg, if you get scammed by a corporation, you have to find a lawyer willing to take on their army of lawyers to get any justice, when there was a time, you could report the fraud, and the government would do its job and investigate the crime.

Corporations, with their armies of lawyers are like warlords, with private armies. They do what they want to private individuals, and the governments does nothing to protect the average civilian. That is how screwed up things have become.

Imagine if all crimes were handled in the same manner. Some gang robs you and rapes your wife, you have to hire some thugs to go after them.

Laws exist for a reason, because when we don't have to constantly be on alert to defend ourselves, like animals, we can concentrate on doing productive things.

When business laws are not properly enforced, the same is true.

When the gov does not do its job of enforcing business laws, we get the dog eat dog type of business environment that currently exists. Everybody is too busy covering their rears to do any real business.

Corporations act more like warlords than business entities.

reply to post by poet1b

Why do you keep making these ridiculous claims?

The feeling is mutual.

Maybe you are a bit too squeamish? Never rode a motorcycle? Definitely less safe than the Insight. Others found the vehicle completely satisfying. I test drove one, nice ride. Personally, I like small cars, and motorcycles. You can use them for anything, except towing.

A wife and a kid destroys the practicality of your toy car and the added mass to make it a four-door vehicle will drop its fuel economy by about 30% given the need for a slightly larger engine and the added mass.

What is ridiculous is driving a two ton vehicle a couple of blocks to pick up a few groceries. Four wheel drives that have never been off road, pick up trucks that have never been used for work.

I'll agree with you. Hence why I have a small, four-door car. I don't need a 4x4 pickup and don't care to pay the extra gas prices that come with it just so I can drive around in a truck.

Why do you want to write a law to keep people from doing that, though?

Um, all the tech you mentioned is old tech, developed long ago.

You're full of ... poo... Quantum entanglement encryption is a development within the past five. Advances in nanoconstruction have been made across the board - too numerous to list. Genetic engineering has been advancing hand-over-fist (the future of chemical processing is going to be in genetically modified bacteria - and the future of many industrial processes is going to be in using viruses for construction).

Those are all within the last decade. Silicon-on-Insulator technologies are a completely different world compared to their use and capability in 2001.

OLED is another one that is new (within the past several) with QLED poised to succeed it (and very recent). It's a case of the technology being obsolete before it even saw much in the way of market activity.

Did you know that the engines that pull freight trains are hybrids? They use diesel motors to drive generators that power the electric motors that pull the train.

Are you in-friggin-literate? I just stated, not all that long ago, that the ICE was application-limited. You are not going to get more than about 40% efficiency out of the engine - and that is with very stringent optimization to specific load conditions.

Electric motors can attain 98% efficiency with in-wheel designs with storage-to-kinetic total efficiencies of 80% or higher (including switching losses and the like). All-electric drive-trains are the way of the future (though you'll want to ditch the transmission and go with directly driven wheels - those are expensive as all holy hell, though). The future are direct fuel-to-electric catalysts en.wikipedia.org... - Efficiencies will improve over time with much of the nanoscale research that is ongoing.

The issue is that the body of cars like the Prius are completely unsuited to all but a very few tasks. We routinely see three inches of snow on the ground, here. You're better off skiing to work.

I worked on our college's solar car team - it was nothing more than bragging rights. There was zero practicality in -any- solar car design.

Personally, I think that the pneumatic electric hybrid is the way of the future.

Not likely. It will not appear outside of niche roles for transportation needs within areas subject to strict emission and material controls.

If most cars on the road only weighed a thousand pounds, accidents would be far less life threatening. Personal rail driven vehicles that carry the road vehicle for inter city, or state travel, so that you have a vehicle to drive once you get to your new destination, would be a truly effective transportation system. Drive your small hybrid on a small rail car, program in your destination, and commute at a 100+ MPH, and you wouldn't have to drive, you could enjoy the ride, in privacy.

Sure - but you're talking about a program costing well over ten trillion dollars and taking decades to complete. With little more value than being a gimmick.

All that I am posting here is easily verifiable. Once you learn to face the reality, you might want to look into who programmed you into being such a corporate slave, too hooked on running the rat maze to realize that you have surrendered your freedom.

I'll not address your ill-informed claims about fracking. That's another debate, entirely.

However, what I will address is this. "Everything you think you have, you don't - because of them!" That is what makes you an insufferable loon. The future will speak for itself as you fade into your twilight.

reply to post by Aim64C


Yeah, lets explore your recent history on the 60-70 MPH car.

60/70 MPG is not possible out of the internal combustion engine. Not in anything we recognize as a car.

You're no longer talking about a car that is practical beyond personal use.

A wife and a kid destroys the practicality of your toy car

First it is not possible, (no mention of if not being a hybrid was every made), then it was impractical, and now it won't work as a family car.

When proven wrong, rather than admit you were wrong, you keep digging yourself in deeper. Learning to admit when you are wrong is one of the critical characteristics people need to learn in order to continue to advance.

Think what you want, obviously you are not the type to wander outside of of the box, but compressed air technology is advancing very nicely, and the compressed air electric hybrid will most likely be the vehicle of the future.

Here are some articles on the subject.

www.mbtmag.com...

Question: “Today energy savings are more important than ever before. How can I make my air motor operate at its peak efficiency?”

DD:You should consider the following rule: An air motor achieves its maximum power when it is operating as close as possible to its rated speed (50% of the rated idle speed). The energy balance is best in this area, the compressed air is used efficiently and the motor makes optimal use of the energy supplied.

Run the motor at the maximum efficiency speed to drive a generator. Use wind mills to compress air, which is easily to store. Europe gets most of its power from wind mills right now, so the concept is very feasible.

The big advantage of compressed air motors is that they are so light weight in comparison to combustion or electric motors, or water hydrogen converters for that matter.

freeenergynews.com...

pesn.com...

www.blueearthtechnology.com...

newenergyandfuel.com...:/newenergyandfuel/com/2007/12/12/could-the-new-air-motor-designs-be-used-for-high-efficiency-stirling-engines/

While water hydrogen conversion might have its day, it is still a lot further out than compressed air electric hybrid possibilities.

You keep repeating about the lack of efficiency of the internal combustion engine as if you think it makes you sound clever, um, not hidden knowledge.

Refinement of technologies that already exist does not count as new tech., these are not significant break throughs.

Quantum entanglement concept was developed by Bohm several decades ago now. I have a thread on plasma that talks about Bohm's work, one of the great under recognized physicists. If they succeed at putting this tech to work, than that would be a very significant breakthrough, but they have yet to make this happen.

en.wikipedia.org...

Deregulation that has handed far too much power over to the IC warlords is what keeps this new tech from developing. The last thing the ICs want to see on the market is a highly efficient lightweight vehicle which can be built with low levels of capital investment and powered at the local level. This would essentially cut them out of everybody's pocket.

The ICs exist for one reason, take from those who create wealth.

When people wake up and start using government for what it is intended, to put these oversized institutions in their place, than we will have a far more efficient system for the exchange of goods and services. Instead of spending out lives running through the corporate rat maze, we will work less as the result of technical advancement, and spend more quality time with family and friends enjoying life.