The State of the Onion (tearing away the layers) (2623 hits)
Category: PoliticsLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Essays
Rating: 1.21 on 163 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-02-01 11:11:39 EST
Nights like last night are not really designed for truth and progressive thinking anymore. Mostly they're used for the cameos, the smiles, and the handshakes.
I would have respected Bush if he'd come out sounding less like a politician and more like someone who wanted to level with the people of this country. You can't go around parroting the POSITIVES with your head in the sands of reality.
He should have come out and admitted his mistakes, laid out where he thinks he's gone wrong, where he thinks he's right, and changed the glossy face of Washington a little bit. Presidents try too hard to follow this bullshit mold of greatness instead of just coming clean about where the average person sees the country heading. I know it's done because they don't want to give the media on the other side any ammunition, and they don't want people to associate them with negativity. In a way, it's a vague attempt at mind control in the same way the blue tie he wore instead of the usual red was meant to portray a feeling of serenity and comfort.
Politicians are the worst politicians in the world really, because they underestimate the people's willingness to forgive and their desire to hear a leader reflecting their own views of the world, instead of trying to frame every issue in the most polished rhetoric possible.
Bush dedicated 75% of his speech to national security. I've got news for all of you...there's more to running a fucking country than national security. I'm sick if the media fixation on it. It creates this atmosphere of false paranoia, and it isn't healthy for ANYONE.
I didn't see where the Democrat's response was anything spectacular, but I thought it was closer to the truth than what Bush was saying in his speech, namely because they preached responsibility of management. Bush has no room to talk on that issue. He's bankrupting the country all the while saying "HEY LOOK OVER THERE! IT'S NATIONAL SECURITY!"
We've got to stop the partisan bullshit. I truly believe the only way to do that is by introducing a viable third party into American politics. It's gonna take a lot of people in the center, both Republicans and Democrats to do that. Unfortunately, Republicans aren't exactly known for making compromises, and the number of centrist Republicans who venture away from voting Republican are far fewer than Democrats.
However, I think with the fiscal irresponsibility of this Republican administration, and the lunacy and criminality of this Congress, I think people of BOTH sides are fed up.
If more people would understand that dividing the issues among just two parties is promoting a tendency toward extremism instead of a tendency toward centrism, we might get this country moving forward sometime in the future.
I think it's important America overcomes this limitation ASAP. I'm like many of you in that I'm sick of them both...and while I prefer Democrats over Republicans 9 times out of 10 because they bring up more issues I think are of the utmost importance, I am a registered Independant, and I'm sick of power being such a predictable commodity, and people being so seemingly willing to abuse it. These are our representatives we're talking about, and they act like they rule US, not the other way around.
As for what Bush said in his State of the Union address about the subject of hydrogen...I am pretty disappointed. Honestly, I didn't expect much, but I sure didn't expect just two sentences on the subject.
He could have done more the lead. That is a clearly bipartisan issue... BOTH sides want it because both sides have their own agenda that gets served by it. The only people who don't want it are the ones getting their pockets lined by NOT doing it, which happens to be mostly Republicans because of their obvious unwillingness to acknowledge environment as an issue.
Notice how Bush's reasoning wasn't environmentally related really; his main reasoning was independence from middle eastern oil. Something tells me at least the Republicans are about to give a little on the environment issue because they realize they can't compete otherwise, although they're not going to call it an 'environmental issue', they'll choose to frame it as a political and financial issue to appeal to their base (who don't tend to give a fuck about the environment because they're the ones perpetrating much of the pollution).
Silvrwolf and Polyamorous were discussing the Ford/BP co-op earlier on another post and, Indoninja was asking how a symbiosis of car and oil companies would benefit the auto companies... Don't you think if the oil companies were to go to the auto companies and say:
"We'd like you to halt your hydrogen research and go slowly toward hybrid first," or "If you wait another 15 years before you introduce hydrogen into the market, we'll give you X% of our net profits, or we'll scratch your back in other ways."
Why do you think auto manufacturers would be cooperating with oil companies to produce a "more fuel efficient automobile" if they've already GOT the most fuel efficent car possible sitting right in their warehouse...the H-Car????
WHY!?!?!?!
It's all PR, and it's all about the kickbacks they receive from big oil. Indo is right about one thing...there would be nothing in it for auto manufacturers UNLESS they're getting a slice of the pie...the TRILLION DOLLAR pie.
Don't kid yourselves, these men are VERY rich and they'll do anything in their power to stay that way.
Think about it. If you want something from someone, what do you do? You get ammunition against them. Normally you'd just ask them nicely, but this is about money and power, not charity, so ammunition it is. You know the old saying "knowledge is power"? Well, how much power and access to oil funds do you think the car companies of the world are getting for simply holding back progress? What would something like that be worth to an oil company? What is the security of your multibillion-dollar-a-year investment worth to you if you're the CEO of a major oil company?
What do you think 15 years of big oil kickbacks are worth if you're a company like Ford who can desperately use the cash? How much do you think it would be worth to you to invest in R&D to produce a hybrid vehicle, or a hydrogen vehicle? Think of it in terms of LEVERAGE.
"We won't mass produce this automobile for...oh...say....10%," or "we won't promote this vehicle, and we'll shelve it for 15 years for x amount."
Just like blackmailing someone, but in this case, all you have to do is create you produce and wait for the nervous prey to come to YOU. This is the underbelly of big business. This is the dog-eat-dog world of billionaires. They have enough power and wealth to put Soloman to shame, and they want to keep it that way.
Unfortunately, Americans are always willing to comply by voting either Democrat or Republican and refusing to recognize that we're being played like a continent-sized fiddle.
User Reviews
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-02-06 02:04:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2006-02-05 14:03:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
But why tell me? I can't change anything.
But man, if I could, it would be nothing but stripper factories and beer volcanoes as far as the eye can see.
And yes, I did steal that from someone.
Submitted by Hyperfuzion (user info) at 2006-02-04 22:59:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I totally and completely agree with ETS. It's time to form a Centrist party... the Independents can deliberate over their green policies as long as they'd like along with half-witted fantasies; but what we really need is an active party that works for the good of the United States. A synergy of the spectrum of politics to work towards common goals such as environmental cleanup, relieving the obcene debt, and working to solidify a future for the younger generations who at this point have little to look up to. This nation has been all but destroyed by the Bush regime.... its time to find a balance; a center.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-02-04 15:46:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Where the fuck are Harry S. Truman and John Wilkes Booth
when we really need them?
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2006-02-04 15:39:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If the oil companies were to throw some money and stock behind hybrid cars
and get the trend rolling they would not only make money but they would
save their own planet. Why are people turning a blind eye to the deterioration
of earth?
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2006-02-04 15:36:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
He should have come out and admitted his mistakes, laid out where he thinks he's gone wrong, where he thinks he's right, and changed the glossy face of Washington a little bit.
---------------------------
If he did that I would hate him just a little less.
Maybe.
Submitted by Durae (user info) at 2006-02-03 13:43:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2006-02-02 16:46:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I HAVE A BELLY BUTTON!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-02 14:35:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-02-02 07:50:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
I once tried to have a serious conversation with you. It was an interesting view on futility. Maybe you recall previously where I explained in depth the positive effects of a weak dollar on the American economy in it's current condition. You see, I have a real knowledge on the subject, not just idealistic speculation. After I completely explained how it works and provided several credible sources you disputed me. Not on any grounds pertaining to what we were talking about, but instead with some half cocked notion that economies are just a "barometer for war." You provided no argument against my presented material. No sources of your own, just your thought on a pretty much unrelated matter. The thing is, regardless of the at least partial truth that may lie in your statement, it had nothing to do with anything. You couldn't seem to understand this. Essentially it was like two people talking about the male anatomy (as you fealt the need to bring up), but really it wasn't a discussion so much as one person explaining how a penis works while the other screamed in the corner I HAVE A BELLY BUTTON. Sure. I bet you do. However it has nothing to do with anything that we are currently talking about...and you want to question my ability to have a discussion?
That's kind of the problem with you ETS. I'd like to like you. You possess a quality I wish all of America possessed. You don't just accept what you are told, and you think. That *IS* the kind of thing that is needed to save America from what it's become. Unfortunately you take this amazing gift of thought and you go the other way with it. No one else could possibly be right on anything that you've thought about, because damnit you know what you are talking about. You don't need sources, you don't need anything. Your words are truth because you said them. Remember, when someone wants to be told the truth about things, they go to ETS... your words, right? This really isn't how real discussion works.
I like your posts. They usually lead to discussion, and I enjoy seeing thoughts thrown around. The problem I have with your posts is that you are so self righteous that you send your thoughts out as TRUTH instead of POSSIBILITY or SPECULATION. These things are far different. Then, from your platform of truth and assumed credibility you think that you are dismantling everyone elses argument, when maybe they actually know what they are talking about, instead of just "Hey, I have a thought, and my thoughts are fact."
I'll save the derogatory comeback in the honor of civil discourse.
-----------------------------
I am with you that I have a problem on this website, but the problem is, I don't come over well in print. For some reason, a lot of you here have gotten the idea that I'm self-righteous. You seem to have gotten this from my accumulated activities on this website or something that I said 'once upon a time' that could have very easily been emotionally charged.
You should try giving me the benefit of the doubt sometime. I'm not all that much of an asshole really. (Well, that's debatable.)
"Remember, when someone wants to be told the truth about things, they go to ETS... your words, right?"
If I said anything like that, you think I'm that arrogant that i'd say that in all seriousness? That I'm the only source of truth? All I've really said is, on matters such as this, I cut the bullshit. I try to delve to the heart of the matter, beyond the bullshit details...like the FAKE ECONOMY. Economy really is a castle in the air. I'm sorry if that's a philosophy you don't share, but if you really think about it at length, it's the honest truth. All it takes to see that is a short consideration of what would happen if you killed all your creditors as a nation. No creditors = no debt.
That's all I'm saying. Mother nature has a way of wiping the slate clean as well. The problem for me is: for this illusion, this castle in the air, we're killing each other and watching people all over the world starve. It's just not right. If I am self-centered, Davy....we ALL are.
I've done my best lately to listen to all sides of these arguments I'm presenting and appreciate, consider, and rebut in a respectful manner. I'm sorry if I came off harsh there. It just seems to be the same people over and over, including yourself, who come to my posts (regardless of subject) with a clear personal vendetta.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-02 12:24:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-02 08:46:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
You fucking idiot, get it through your thick skull that a Hydrogen car can't run forever, you can't 'recycle' the hydrogen in the waste water because water is not energy, you need to spend energy seperating the H from the H2O so the energy can be realeased again, by combining it back into water. I've tried to be patient but would you just shut up about it as you obviously
a) Don't know shit.
b) Can't grasp a very simple concept when that has been explained to you several times.
You are wrong, you FUCKING IDIOT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention the membrane that creates the reaction in fuel cells only last at best 2000 hours. After that, you need to replace them.
If anyone wants a true "never fill it up" car, they should make one with a nuclear reactor.
With the new technology nowadays for lighter, longer lasting batteries, I don't see why anyway hasn't designed a modern steam powered car. You could use a regenerative braking system like hybrids to recharge the battery that powers the boiler. Steam engines have plenty of power, run on water, and are relatively simple to maintain.
I know it has the same industry setbacks as every other new(even though it's centuries old) technology, but I thought I would throw it out here for your mockery.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-02-02 09:48:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Good point.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-02 09:34:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-02-02 09:21:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
I wasn't trying to claim we should always want a weak currency, but that's in the past. Point is, it doesn't matter how much evidence you present in your argument, ETS is right even with the lack of anything resembling an argument on his behalf. That is just how he works.
-------------------
How he works?
He doesn't work, he sits in his barents basement and composes manifestos for ubersite.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-02-02 09:21:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I wasn't trying to claim we should always want a weak currency, but that's in the past. Point is, it doesn't matter how much evidence you present in your argument, ETS is right even with the lack of anything resembling an argument on his behalf. That is just how he works.
Submitted by MANICMOTHER (user info) at 2006-02-02 09:19:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I really hope you consider coming to the 'con in Chicago.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-02 09:07:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah but be fair Davy, you were arguing that weak currency is a good thing, which in the long term it really isn't, although it may have its benefits in certain sticky situations.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-02-02 09:05:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Haha, see my point Woody? Doesn't matter how well you explain something you are wrong, because ETS says so.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-02 08:53:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"It's not a self-sustaining system when you're using the potential energy from the air molecules, the sun, and the mechanical energy of the car's motion n your favor."
You are ALREADY using the energy from air molecules, namely oxygen.
The mechanical energy of the car is what you are generating not what you generate with.
And solar power can no where near produce the 45KW needed, and even if it could it would be more effcient to just get the energy straight from the solar panels
I will design a hydrogen car that doesn't need refuling in my next post. Then you can try and convince me that there is a practical use for it.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-02 08:46:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
You fucking idiot, get it through your thick skull that a Hydrogen car can't run forever, you can't 'recycle' the hydrogen in the waste water because water is not energy, you need to spend energy seperating the H from the H2O so the energy can be realeased again, by combining it back into water. I've tried to be patient but would you just shut up about it as you obviously
a) Don't know shit.
b) Can't grasp a very simple concept when that has been explained to you several times.
You are wrong, you FUCKING IDIOT.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-02-02 07:50:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I once tried to have a serious conversation with you. It was an interesting view on futility. Maybe you recall previously where I explained in depth the positive effects of a weak dollar on the American economy in it's current condition. You see, I have a real knowledge on the subject, not just idealistic speculation. After I completely explained how it works and provided several credible sources you disputed me. Not on any grounds pertaining to what we were talking about, but instead with some half cocked notion that economies are just a "barometer for war." You provided no argument against my presented material. No sources of your own, just your thought on a pretty much unrelated matter. The thing is, regardless of the at least partial truth that may lie in your statement, it had nothing to do with anything. You couldn't seem to understand this. Essentially it was like two people talking about the male anatomy (as you fealt the need to bring up), but really it wasn't a discussion so much as one person explaining how a penis works while the other screamed in the corner I HAVE A BELLY BUTTON. Sure. I bet you do. However it has nothing to do with anything that we are currently talking about...and you want to question my ability to have a discussion?
That's kind of the problem with you ETS. I'd like to like you. You possess a quality I wish all of America possessed. You don't just accept what you are told, and you think. That *IS* the kind of thing that is needed to save America from what it's become. Unfortunately you take this amazing gift of thought and you go the other way with it. No one else could possibly be right on anything that you've thought about, because damnit you know what you are talking about. You don't need sources, you don't need anything. Your words are truth because you said them. Remember, when someone wants to be told the truth about things, they go to ETS... your words, right? This really isn't how real discussion works.
I like your posts. They usually lead to discussion, and I enjoy seeing thoughts thrown around. The problem I have with your posts is that you are so self righteous that you send your thoughts out as TRUTH instead of POSSIBILITY or SPECULATION. These things are far different. Then, from your platform of truth and assumed credibility you think that you are dismantling everyone elses argument, when maybe they actually know what they are talking about, instead of just "Hey, I have a thought, and my thoughts are fact."
I'll save the derogatory comeback in the honor of civil discourse.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-02 07:09:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-02 02:55:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, Davy, in case I didn't make myself clear...
Self-sustaining systems are impossible because of the laws of thermodynamics and entropy say that energy in a closed system will always dissipate unless acted on by some outside force.
The air and sun ARE outside forces to the system. Couple those with the potential for kinetic energy recycling from the motion of the car and the potential energy of the hydrogen you could produce onboard from the waste water
-------------------------
What potential energy does does the hydrogen in the waste water have? Once again you demonstrate your clear lack of understanding of anything to do with science.
It hurt my fucking head that stuff this retarted is actually being read.
Hybrid cars already use the potential energy of the car by charging themselves when breaking the car.
Solar panels used to convert waste water into fuel, no matter what kind of fucking lala land your head is in, are less effecient than putting that energy back into the car.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-02 02:55:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, Davy, in case I didn't make myself clear...
Self-sustaining systems are impossible because of the laws of thermodynamics and entropy say that energy in a closed system will always dissipate unless acted on by some outside force.
The air and sun ARE outside forces to the system. Couple those with the potential for kinetic energy recycling from the motion of the car and the potential energy of the hydrogen you could produce onboard from the waste water and you've got yourself what MIGHT just be a car that could run indefinitely without refuelling.
Next time, fucking listen.
Submitted by SammySnyders (user info) at 2006-02-02 02:53:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Onions, yeah, brilliant!
but heres a monkey with glasses on!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.ubersite.com/m/83297
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-02 02:47:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-02-02 01:11:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
HAHAHA
ETS, the self proclaimed guy that knows enough to "give it to us straight" buys into self sustaining systems and reliably working cold fusion? Should have known.
Go get an education man, than maybe you could reliable speak on at least a few topics instead of spewing your idealistic bullshit on every topic.
--------------------------
It's not a self-sustaining system when you're using the potential energy from the air molecules, the sun, and the mechanical energy of the car's motion n your favor. I'm acknowledging the POSSIBILITY is there for a car that will never have to fill up on anything and can drive indefinitely if the potential of all these sources could be assimilated and fully realized. In case you missed a class...that's what science IS: exploring the possibilities and not being afraid to have big dreams.
Increasing the efficiency of solar panels would be a good place to start.
You know...people have scoffed at nearly every single scientific advancement in the history of mankind. I don't really expect this to be any different. In fact, with the way today's media coverage is treated as a commodity, and more effort is spent on suppression than advancement, it's probably even worse than at any other time in history besides the fucking middle ages - especially with respect to alternate energy sources.
You just keep eating the shit they feed you. I'll be sitting at the finish line when you finally catch on...wondering where you've been.
Next time you try to insult my intelligence or my reasoning on a topic, why don't you try understanding what I'm talking about first. I am not sitting here claiming to be an expert. I am marveling at the possibilities of science from the perspective of someone with a working knowledge and an ability to read and learn new things. I've tried my best to share with you the things I find interesting and fascinating. I've tried to offer some of my personal opinions and insights into where I think our nation's problems lie. I'm sorry that you're so fucking cynical and lacking in brainpower to have a real debate.
From everything i've seen of you, Davyjones, I doubt you could find your dick in your pants, let alone keep up with a serious conversation.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2006-02-02 01:11:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
HAHAHA
ETS, the self proclaimed guy that knows enough to "give it to us straight" buys into self sustaining systems and reliably working cold fusion? Should have known.
Go get an education man, than maybe you could reliable speak on at least a few topics instead of spewing your idealistic bullshit on every topic.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-02-01 22:19:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 discussion.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 20:09:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:13:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sure a lot of people would have scoffed at anyone who said that Enron execs were stealing from the company too, but they were.
Who says the money is going back into the company itself and not a few distinguished pockets at the top? The bottom line is, unless you're the CEO or the CFO of the company, you're probably not going to know about anything I've described there because there are ways to hide the money. Besides...Ford and GM are not going under, my friend; they are shutting down expensive American plants PRECISELY BECUASE they have refused to lead the Hybrid and Hydrogen charge for so long. They realize they can't compete right now, so they're reorganizing.
I don't know what their business strategy is for the next 20 years, but my guess is they are following the lead of countless other countries and moving their operation overseas or to Mexico where they can make the product cheaper.
That in no way indicates their top executives aren't getting kickbacks or negates the possibility of my 'accusation'.
-------------------------
Enron execs weren't exactly stealing from the company, they were lying to make it look good then jumping ship when it went sour, just as bad in my book since they knew what would happen to everyone with life savings tied up in it.
For your theory to hold any water (it doesn't, besides lack of proof it makes no sense), they would have to be bribing every single CEO of EVERY car company for the past 20 years. But wait the CEO does answer to people, the shareholders. So the shareholders (who have a vested interest in the car company doing well) would have to be paid off enough to make up for the damage it would do their investment in the car company. Ok so right now we are talking about bribing hundreds of probably very rich driven people, who might be a little unscrupulous, but still probably have a strong desire for their company to do well. Does that sound likely? Completely ignoring all the money the oil companies would have to hide. what about one of the people approached with this kickback going public?
And your story isn't even constant. First the company was offered bribes, then it was just the leaders of the companies. And when you originally mentioned it they were bribed to keep hydrogen down and only allow hybrids. But now it is only american car companies that were bribed, and that makes them behind the japanese in hybrids and hydrogen. If only american car companies were getting bribed, why are they only a year or so behind the japanese? If they were offered enough to ofset their losses why is their business hurting.
If you are going to spew mindless conspiracy theories, please try and keep them straight.
Oh yeah let me know what you are majoring when you go back to college, I will bet any amount of money you don't get a degree in a hard science or engineering. Your conspiracy theories, and half assed ideas about energy pretty much show you don't have the ability to do it.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 18:16:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by madddonkey255 (user info) at 2006-02-01 18:08:28 (#)
Ranking: 1
While the hydrogen car isn't going to happen anytime soon alcohol is becoming more popular.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I started drinking at work today just from this post alone...bottoms up
Submitted by madddonkey255 (user info) at 2006-02-01 18:08:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
While the hydrogen car isn't going to happen anytime soon alcohol is becoming more popular. Many cars now can use alcohol as an alternative to gasoline with a little modifications. In brazil the government is implementing it and in California E85, 85% ethanol 15% gasoline is also becoming popular. Toyota has already started researching alcohol fueled cars.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 18:06:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm going to have to vote against Gov. Mitch Daniels now for what I see as a terrible idea.
Thanks for the head-up, Stabby. ;)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 18:01:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:56:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
are you purposefully doing obvious posts so you can say AHA! you all thought I was being serious! And then take the piss out of everyone for arguing like spastics?
----------------------
What might be obvious to you or me, Apollo, is not always obvious to many Americans. You should know this seeing as you're one of us now.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:57:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:40:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:30:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
You forget simple economics...people will not use the roads if they are shitty and/or the costs are raised to a level that is not reasonable to the marketplace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mentioned earlier that this particular highway connects chicago to the east coast. It sounds as though this is the only road that some people can use to get where they want. That's the thing about roads, they're there own little monopolies. Unless you have a badass off-road vehicle.
--------------------
That's EXACTLY my objection. I say a big hearty 'NO' to privatizing highways...tollroads or otherwise.
That's about like placing taxes on non-cooked food products. Food is a necessity, and for most businesses and people in the free world, so are highways.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:56:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
are you purposefully doing obvious posts so you can say AHA! you all thought I was being serious! And then take the piss out of everyone for arguing like spastics?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:47:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oxymoron, that is an interesting thing. It is "leased" so is that private or government owned land still? The private company is paying for the state police service in monitoring speed... So does that mean tickets would not go on your record? They'll probably have to pass specific laws to govern this if there are problems. It could be a loophole situation for now... or else not. Either way, you're getting a ticket if you speed.
I used to fly through I-90 saying "I'm paying for this road out of my own pocket, so I'm going as fast as I want." but luckily I was never caught doing it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:46:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:30:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
You forget simple economics...people will not use the roads if they are shitty and/or the costs are raised to a level that is not reasonable to the marketplace.
Private highways are going to be the way of the future...Hell, if EUROPE does it (and they are bastions of socialism) there is a damn good reason.
I applaud Indiana 100% and I think this is going to lead other states to do the same. Well, at least the states that aren't corrupt like Massachusetts. The "Big Dig" is a perfect example of what happens when the government pays for these roads. Who pays for this? Everyone but the construction company making millions upon millions of bucks.
--------------------------
I'm not a fan of the idea of private roads for the reasons I've already stated.
Like I said before, Stabby, the rules of economics do not apply the same way with respect to roads as they do with respect to luxury items. The demand for roads cannot diminish. It remains no matter what the price of tolls, so the companies running the roads, I feel, will go for maximization of profits at a level well above where a non-profit PUBLIC toll would have been under a state-owned roadway.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:44:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry, you didn't say that, the msnbc article said something similar. but my point still stands.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:40:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:30:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
You forget simple economics...people will not use the roads if they are shitty and/or the costs are raised to a level that is not reasonable to the marketplace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mentioned earlier that this particular highway connects chicago to the east coast. It sounds as though this is the only road that some people can use to get where they want. That's the thing about roads, they're there own little monopolies. Unless you have a badass off-road vehicle.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:30:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You forget simple economics...people will not use the roads if they are shitty and/or the costs are raised to a level that is not reasonable to the marketplace.
Private highways are going to be the way of the future...Hell, if EUROPE does it (and they are bastions of socialism) there is a damn good reason.
I applaud Indiana 100% and I think this is going to lead other states to do the same. Well, at least the states that aren't corrupt like Massachusetts. The "Big Dig" is a perfect example of what happens when the government pays for these roads. Who pays for this? Everyone but the construction company making millions upon millions of bucks.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:26:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If they privatize the highway do the traffic laws still apply? Or will it be considered a private road and therefore no traffic laws? That's how it works in Ca. I learned to drive in parking lots, and new housing developments so I couldn't get in trouble for being unlicensed.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:26:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:10:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:43:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill: "Opponents worry that tolls could rise sharply or that road maintenance would suffer."
I don't see how privatizing toll roads could be good in the long term for citizens. First, travellers will have lost a guarantee and say in the maintenance and tolls on the road because the only say they have in the matter, their vote, will be rendered meaningless with respect to the roads, which are often a big issue in local elections.
Plus, this means that while taxes for highway maintenence will probably stay the same as other projects are sought by the state, their travelling expenses will increase, further cutting into the budget of the common citizen for the duration of the contract, which in these cases is the next 75-100 years.
Someone would have to show me some guarantees of toll fees and an assurance the roads would be properly maintained for this to be considered a good idea by me, but either way, what you're essentially doing is taking a NOT-FOR-PROFIT public project and turning it over to people who will milk revenue from it. The companies involved are from Spain and Australia. This will take money from American pockets and put it into Spanish and Australian pockets over the next 100 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number one, nobody ever had a guarantee of maintenance NOW! I've been through certain parts of Indiana where the roads have been in "construction" for going on 10+ years. (I-90 past the skyway and I-94 just out of Chicago).
Now, instead of the state pumping an annual budget of X number of dollars to a company to maintain the roads it will pump $0 into it and it will be on that private company to do the repairs. Since they have a vested interest in the quality of the roads being GOOD, or they will lose profits, you will more than likely see the quality of these roads go up. Also, they will actually utilize modern technology that other companies would refuse to use to ensure the roads last long.
I haven't checked lp.org but I'm going to guess they will hail this as a victory. I think after a few years, you will see more states go to this. And think about this: People actually PAYING for what they use instead of a blanket tax on EVERYONE.
The only question I'd have is, where will the federal tax dollars go to now that they will not go to that highway? Because they sure as hell aren't going to give it back to the taxpayers of Indiana like they should.
--------------------------
What guarantee will you have that the roads will be maintainted better? Of course the company has a vested interest in maintenence to some extent, they can't spend more than they can take in, so any maintenence that IS done will be passed on to the consumer in cost, further increasing tolls.
And in cases where the companies let maintenence go down the shitter, motorists aren't likely to simply boycott the road, because they obviously only travel it because they have to. In a sense, it's equivalent to eating.
There are some things where the principles of supply and demand simply DO NOT APPLY in the traditional fashion, highways is one of them. When people are forced to commute, and shipping companies are forced to ship over land, they'll have to pay whatever tolls the private (non-government-regulated) company decides to impose - and then they will either eat the loss of profits or pass them down the line to consumers (which is the likely scenario). Unfortunately, travellers and commuters do not enjoy this option. They would have to relocate altogether.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:13:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:17:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
It's all PR, and it's all about the kickbacks they receive from big oil. Indo is right about one thing...there would be nothing in it for auto manufacturers UNLESS they're getting a slice of the pie...the TRILLION DOLLAR pie.
------
Interesting argument, unfortuantely, the central premise is totally erroneous.
I'm in the auto industry, and let me tell you, the auto manufacturers Ford and GM are in serious trouble NOW.
Ford announced last week it was closing 14 factories and layoff 30,000 people.
GM had a net loss of 8 billion last year, and spent 3 billion in cash alond to help stay float (they still have 20 billion in cash)
Toyota is moving NONSTOP in selling hybrid vehicles, NOW. There is a 3 month waiting list here in Southern California, and EVERY one of those vehicles is sold at full sticker price.
It wouldn't matter if Exxon turned over its full margin of profit to Ford - unless they make vehicles that people buy, NO AMOUNT of money will save them.
As usual ETS, your rampant paranoia prevents you from seeing the real picture.
----------------------------------
I'm sure a lot of people would have scoffed at anyone who said that Enron execs were stealing from the company too, but they were.
Who says the money is going back into the company itself and not a few distinguished pockets at the top? The bottom line is, unless you're the CEO or the CFO of the company, you're probably not going to know about anything I've described there because there are ways to hide the money. Besides...Ford and GM are not going under, my friend; they are shutting down expensive American plants PRECISELY BECUASE they have refused to lead the Hybrid and Hydrogen charge for so long. They realize they can't compete right now, so they're reorganizing.
I don't know what their business strategy is for the next 20 years, but my guess is they are following the lead of countless other countries and moving their operation overseas or to Mexico where they can make the product cheaper.
That in no way indicates their top executives aren't getting kickbacks or negates the possibility of my 'accusation'.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 17:10:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:43:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill: "Opponents worry that tolls could rise sharply or that road maintenance would suffer."
I don't see how privatizing toll roads could be good in the long term for citizens. First, travellers will have lost a guarantee and say in the maintenance and tolls on the road because the only say they have in the matter, their vote, will be rendered meaningless with respect to the roads, which are often a big issue in local elections.
Plus, this means that while taxes for highway maintenence will probably stay the same as other projects are sought by the state, their travelling expenses will increase, further cutting into the budget of the common citizen for the duration of the contract, which in these cases is the next 75-100 years.
Someone would have to show me some guarantees of toll fees and an assurance the roads would be properly maintained for this to be considered a good idea by me, but either way, what you're essentially doing is taking a NOT-FOR-PROFIT public project and turning it over to people who will milk revenue from it. The companies involved are from Spain and Australia. This will take money from American pockets and put it into Spanish and Australian pockets over the next 100 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number one, nobody ever had a guarantee of maintenance NOW! I've been through certain parts of Indiana where the roads have been in "construction" for going on 10+ years. (I-90 past the skyway and I-94 just out of Chicago).
Now, instead of the state pumping an annual budget of X number of dollars to a company to maintain the roads it will pump $0 into it and it will be on that private company to do the repairs. Since they have a vested interest in the quality of the roads being GOOD, or they will lose profits, you will more than likely see the quality of these roads go up. Also, they will actually utilize modern technology that other companies would refuse to use to ensure the roads last long.
I haven't checked lp.org but I'm going to guess they will hail this as a victory. I think after a few years, you will see more states go to this. And think about this: People actually PAYING for what they use instead of a blanket tax on EVERYONE.
The only question I'd have is, where will the federal tax dollars go to now that they will not go to that highway? Because they sure as hell aren't going to give it back to the taxpayers of Indiana like they should.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:43:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill: "Opponents worry that tolls could rise sharply or that road maintenance would suffer."
I don't see how privatizing toll roads could be good in the long term for citizens. First, travellers will have lost a guarantee and say in the maintenance and tolls on the road because the only say they have in the matter, their vote, will be rendered meaningless with respect to the roads, which are often a big issue in local elections.
Plus, this means that while taxes for highway maintenence will probably stay the same as other projects are sought by the state, their travelling expenses will increase, further cutting into the budget of the common citizen for the duration of the contract, which in these cases is the next 75-100 years.
Someone would have to show me some guarantees of toll fees and an assurance the roads would be properly maintained for this to be considered a good idea by me, but either way, what you're essentially doing is taking a NOT-FOR-PROFIT public project and turning it over to people who will milk revenue from it. The companies involved are from Spain and Australia. This will take money from American pockets and put it into Spanish and Australian pockets over the next 100 years.
Submitted by remote_narcotic (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:37:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The usa is damned. End of story.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:17:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's all PR, and it's all about the kickbacks they receive from big oil. Indo is right about one thing...there would be nothing in it for auto manufacturers UNLESS they're getting a slice of the pie...the TRILLION DOLLAR pie.
------
Interesting argument, unfortuantely, the central premise is totally erroneous.
I'm in the auto industry, and let me tell you, the auto manufacturers Ford and GM are in serious trouble NOW.
Ford announced last week it was closing 14 factories and layoff 30,000 people.
GM had a net loss of 8 billion last year, and spent 3 billion in cash alond to help stay float (they still have 20 billion in cash)
Toyota is moving NONSTOP in selling hybrid vehicles, NOW. There is a 3 month waiting list here in Southern California, and EVERY one of those vehicles is sold at full sticker price.
It wouldn't matter if Exxon turned over its full margin of profit to Ford - unless they make vehicles that people buy, NO AMOUNT of money will save them.
As usual ETS, your rampant paranoia prevents you from seeing the real picture.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:15:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:12:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:07:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
I just thought of a relatively easy way that guy's friend could have pulled off cold fusion.
It's simply a matter of creating a faster-than-light vehicle. Then all he needs to do is zip to the nearest super-intelligent world and borrow the technology from a more advanced civilization than ours.
See? It's totally doable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would he come back?
------------------------------------
So he could be cool and show off to his work buddies that he can do cold fusion on his desk.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:12:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:07:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
I just thought of a relatively easy way that guy's friend could have pulled off cold fusion.
It's simply a matter of creating a faster-than-light vehicle. Then all he needs to do is zip to the nearest super-intelligent world and borrow the technology from a more advanced civilization than ours.
See? It's totally doable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would he come back?
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:07:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just thought of a relatively easy way that guy's friend could have pulled off cold fusion.
It's simply a matter of creating a faster-than-light vehicle. Then all he needs to do is zip to the nearest super-intelligent world and borrow the technology from a more advanced civilization than ours.
See? It's totally doable.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:07:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh.. I kind of hate the term "progressive" also. Because making the interstates private is definitely "Moving forward; advancing" in my eyes but in reality, democrats (the most "progressive ones") would hate this to no end. They'd view it as going backwards which is ridiculous.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-01 16:03:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for recognizing both parties are to blame.
Although, I'm +2ing partly for a victory against "progressive" government in Indiana:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11131603/from/RS.4/
I hope this plan kicks ass and we see it spread across the entire USA.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:58:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The thing is, even if you had to charge a capacitor using energy collected from solar panels, you could still recycle at least SOME of your water back into hydrogen, if not all of it. Like Oxymoron pointed out, the rate might be too slow to sustain the whole system infinitely, but such a system could prolong the amount of time you could go on one tank of hydrogen by constantly refuelling itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It could prolong the amount of time between fuel-ups. But considering the added cost/weight of a system like this, it would make more sense to store the water in a tank and empty it at the fueling station. The fueling station could then use this water to create more Hydrogen, eliminating some of the strain on our fresh water supply.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:53:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:42:53 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:21:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
The rates of water consumption and creation in the system could vary, I suppose. Not sure. This is a hypothetical, and I don't know if it's been done yet in a self-sustaining system.
There are other ways of creating hydrogen from water, which can be put right back into the fuel cell for conversion into electric power:
--------------------
Wow you read about neat ways to make hydrogen on the interweb!!!
Every one you listed that is proven to work for any period of time requires heat, which requires energy. Even if you get it from solar panels, you are better off putting it directly back into the engine. Every time you convert it through another medium you lose energy.
You aren't being clever, you aren't figuring anything out, you are showing you know NOTHING about the topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You took the words out of my mouth.
If you're going to use all this solar energy to convert water into hydrogen, why not just make a car that runs on solar power?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:42:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:21:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
The rates of water consumption and creation in the system could vary, I suppose. Not sure. This is a hypothetical, and I don't know if it's been done yet in a self-sustaining system.
There are other ways of creating hydrogen from water, which can be put right back into the fuel cell for conversion into electric power:
--------------------
Wow you read about neat ways to make hydrogen on the interweb!!!
Every one you listed that is proven to work for any period of time requires heat, which requires energy. Even if you get it from solar panels, you are better off putting it directly back into the engine. Every time you convert it through another medium you lose energy.
You aren't being clever, you aren't figuring anything out, you are showing you know NOTHING about the topic.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:38:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:24:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:52:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
"I was horrible at physics in college."
I'd never have guessed
----------------------------------------
Okay, so what are your credentials, then? And indoninjas? Since you both speak as experts on this subject, I'm assuming you are both doctorates of physics or chemistry or something like that. I set the level on where I'm at...and don't claim to be well-studied on the laws of physics and stuff...but I was simply sharing plain facts passed on to me through my workplace.
I can see that doing so was a big mistake here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got AA at double award science GCSE. :)
Your co-worker has not created cold fusion, he'd be all over the news if he had.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:32:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:24:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Okay, so what are your credentials, then? And indoninjas? Since you both speak as experts on this subject, I'm assuming you are both doctorates of physics or chemistry or something like that. I set the level on where I'm at...and don't claim to be well-studied on the laws of physics and stuff...but I was simply sharing plain facts passed on to me through my workplace.
-----------------
I studied Nuclear engineering at college, but changed to mechanical because I got into too many fights and had too many public drinking citations to get a high enough security clearance.
Anyone with a with a highschool level understanding of physice would know that cold fusion is impossible. If it was, it certainly wouldn't be sitting on some shmoes desk.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:29:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:12:29 (#)
Ranking: 1
Well, you mention sunlight...if you could get good enough solar panels to provide the energy and make the whole thing effecient enough...wait how much power did hydrogen separation need?
Okay 45 kilowatts.
do you have any idea how much solar panel footage would be needed for this? It'd have to be a fucking big car.
And sunny.
---------------------
The thing is, even if you had to charge a capacitor using energy collected from solar panels, you could still recycle at least SOME of your water back into hydrogen, if not all of it. Like Oxymoron pointed out, the rate might be too slow to sustain the whole system infinitely, but such a system could prolong the amount of time you could go on one tank of hydrogen by constantly refuelling itself.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:24:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:52:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
"I was horrible at physics in college."
I'd never have guessed
----------------------------------------
Okay, so what are your credentials, then? And indoninjas? Since you both speak as experts on this subject, I'm assuming you are both doctorates of physics or chemistry or something like that. I set the level on where I'm at...and don't claim to be well-studied on the laws of physics and stuff...but I was simply sharing plain facts passed on to me through my workplace.
I can see that doing so was a big mistake here.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:21:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:01:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Remember that because the byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell is clean, distilled water, there is virtually no net loss of water."
--------------------------------------------------------
But,(here comes that pesimism), is the rate at which the water is being produced from the fuel cell equivalent to the rate at which water is needed to create H? And, is the amount of energy required for the electrolosis smaller than the expendable energy not being used to power the motor/s?
+2 for letting me hijack your post.
----------------------------
The rates of water consumption and creation in the system could vary, I suppose. Not sure. This is a hypothetical, and I don't know if it's been done yet in a self-sustaining system.
There are other ways of creating hydrogen from water, which can be put right back into the fuel cell for conversion into electric power:
# Steam reforming converts methane (and other hydrocarbons in natural gas) into hydrogen and carbon monoxide by reaction with steam over a nickel catalyst
# Electrolysis uses electrical current to split water into hydrogen at the cathode (+) and oxygen at the anode (-)
# Steam electrolysis (a variation on conventional electrolysis) uses heat instead of electricity to provide some of the energy needed to split water, making the process more energy efficient
# Thermochemical water splitting uses chemicals and heat in multiple steps to split water into its component parts
# Photoelectrochemical systems use semi-conducting materials (like photovoltaics) to split water using sunlight
# Photobiological systems use microorganisms to split water using sunlight
# Biological systems use microbes to break down a variety of biomass feedstocks into hydrogen
# Thermal water splitting uses a high temperature (approximately 1000°C) to split water
# Gasification uses heat to break down biomass or coal into a gas from which pure hydrogen can be generated
That website is a pretty good read. I'm checking it out right now. http://www.hydrogen.com/faq.asp
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:20:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:56:43 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:51:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said *I* did. I said a coworker of mine did. I was horrible at physics in college.
--------------------
Your co-worker has perfected cold fusion (something that has never been reliably repeated), and you work on industrial machines?
why isn't your co-worker working on teleportation, or time travel.
Seriously why is your company not on the front paper of every newspaper?
==========================================================================
Because of the usual corporate bullshit that ties everything up in red tape.
Trust me, Bob belongs in a university or something, not here...but he's due to retire next year, and has stuck around for the pension and benefits.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:18:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Well THIS certainly won't make Most Heated.
Nope, not by a LONG shot.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:17:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
If you live in a sunny country, you could combine Solar panels, Hydrogen power and this thing
http://www.inhabitat.com/entry_131.php
To run a car. But you might as well just ride a proper bike.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:12:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Well, you mention sunlight...if you could get good enough solar panels to provide the energy and make the whole thing effecient enough...wait how much power did hydrogen separation need?
Okay 45 kilowatts.
do you have any idea how much solar panel footage would be needed for this? It'd have to be a fucking big car.
And sunny.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:12:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't believe for a second you think this is plausible. You're clearly trolling for more hits on your post.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:06:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:49:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
This +2 is for the amateur physics going on around here.
The perpetual-motion machine, cold fusion. Downright hilarious!
"Lisa, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -HJS
-----------------------
Thermodynamics are still being applied here. Just because it's self-sustaining doesn't mean it's a closed system. There is air and sunlight coming in, and alternators are being used in the system to constantly put power back into the system.
Not saying I have the answers, but the prospect is too intriguing to pass up, and seems plausable enough to me not to completely dismiss as impossible.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:06:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:01:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Remember that because the byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell is clean, distilled water, there is virtually no net loss of water."
----------------------
But,(here comes that pesimism), is the rate at which the water is being produced from the fuel cell equivalent to the rate at which water is needed to create H? And, is the amount of energy required for the electrolosis smaller than the expendable energy not being used to power the motor/s?
+2 for letting me hijack your post.
-------------------------
Even if you weren't running the motors this would be impossible.
Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:04:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I got it--ban lube. Force people to jerk off sans lube; butt-fuck sans lube. The physical friction this causes will create enough energy to power Manhattan for 200,000 years. And we should only need a few thousand of those at most to create cities on Mars.
While we're at it, we'll create Lunar Colonies and we'll figure out how to travel at different multiples of the speed of light (a la K-PAX).
Umm...I won the Nobel Prize in Flawed Idealism.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:03:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:01:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Remember that because the byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell is clean, distilled water, there is virtually no net loss of water."
--------------------------------------------------------
But,(here comes that pesimism), is the rate at which the water is being produced from the fuel cell equivalent to the rate at which water is needed to create H? And, is the amount of energy required for the electrolosis smaller than the expendable energy not being used to power the motor/s?
+2 for letting me hijack your post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Its impossible.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 15:01:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Remember that because the byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell is clean, distilled water, there is virtually no net loss of water."
--------------------------------------------------------
But,(here comes that pesimism), is the rate at which the water is being produced from the fuel cell equivalent to the rate at which water is needed to create H? And, is the amount of energy required for the electrolosis smaller than the expendable energy not being used to power the motor/s?
+2 for letting me hijack your post.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:59:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:55:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
In the quest for a clean, renewable energy source, there's one obvious solution that everyone seems to have overlooked:
Joggers.
All we've got to do is harness the energy of all the people on treadmills throughout the gyms of the world and we'd be sorted for life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats actually not a bad idea for Gyms.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:56:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:51:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said *I* did. I said a coworker of mine did. I was horrible at physics in college.
--------------------
Your co-worker has perfected cold fusion (something that has never been reliably repeated), and you work on industrial machines?
why isn't your co-worker working on teleportation, or time travel.
Seriously why is your company not on the front paper of every newspaper?
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:56:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:49:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Where does it say about the queen eating swans?
I didn't see that.
====
http://www.omrlp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=40
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:55:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
In the quest for a clean, renewable energy source, there's one obvious solution that everyone seems to have overlooked:
Joggers.
All we've got to do is harness the energy of all the people on treadmills throughout the gyms of the world and we'd be sorted for life.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:54:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS,
Never ever talk about anything to do with power unless you can understand this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thermodynamics
It isn't the water being destroyed that is impossible (even though it is, no system can be completely isolated), it is the energy involved.
You can't use hydrogen to power a fuel cell and have it make enough power to convert the water it produces back into hydrogen. That would be a perfect machine, which would break the second law of thermodynamics. On top of being a perfect machine and being able to convert all its spent fuel back into usable fuel it would also have enough energy to power a car? That would break the first law of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed.
This is a simple concept, your lack of understanding in this area goes a long way in explaining why you can't understand why you don't have a fuel cell car.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:52:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I was horrible at physics in college."
I'd never have guessed
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:51:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:39:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Capn. Thorny, go look at your mantlepiece at home.
Is there, on it, a Nobel prize?
If not then you probably haven't developed cold fusion.
------------------------------------------------------------
I never said *I* did. I said a coworker of mine did. I was horrible at physics in college.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:49:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This +2 is for the amateur physics going on around here.
The perpetual-motion machine, cold fusion. Downright hilarious!
"Lisa, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -HJS
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:49:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Where does it say about the queen eating swans?
I didn't see that.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:48:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:46:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
ETS. Water is not energy, spending energy extracting hydrogen from water, then using the hydrogen to power a car thus recombining it into water, doesn't mean you can reextract that hydrogen AGAIN without MORE energy from an outside source.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:45:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
We've devolved. We're so locked in partisan thinking that neither party can even comprehend their own weaknesses.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:43:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:30:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 13:37:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yep, that's where it's at right there.
Extracting the Hydrogen AGAIN from the very water the engine gives off as a biproduct using alternators for the any required electrical current in the process. It's a self-sustaining system.
------------------------------------
Damn those oil companies!!
If it weren't for them we could have fuel cells that could drive cars and with excess energy turn the waste water back into hydrogen to drive the car some more and convert more!!
it is perfect don't you see!!!
------------------------------------
Well...think about it...
Hydrogen is contained in water. H2O. Two hydrogen elements and one oxygen element.
The following is extracted from this website: http://www.hydrogen.com/faq.asp
"How much water is used to make hydrogen?
Producing hydrogen through the process known as electrolysis does not require a significant amount of water. The hydrogen extracted from a gallon of water using a hydrogen generator could drive a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle as far as gasoline vehicles travel today on a gallon of gasoline.
To extract hydrogen from water about 2.3 gallons of water and 45 kilowatts of electricity are needed. That will make enough hydrogen to have an energy content equivalent to a gallon of gasoline (about 120,000 British thermal units--Btus).
Remember that because the byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell is clean, distilled water, there is virtually no net loss of water."
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:41:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Damn Cannuks. Heavy water is used in reactors to eliminate the need for enriched Uranium. It does not create cold fusion.
Cold fusion doesn't exist.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:39:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:33:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:27:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
Cold fusion? I am not sure if you are retarted, stupid, or busting my balls. Cold Fusion has never been been proven it is a baseless theory that any respected scientist knows is impossible. If you were kidding, way to go because it made me mad just seeing someone believes this shit, if you were serious please cut off your balls so you don't reproduce.
=========================================================
If it doesn't work, then please explain why I am staring at a bottle of heavy water from the process output that is on Bob's desk five feet away from me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capn. Thorny, go look at your mantlepiece at home.
Is there, on it, a Nobel prize?
If not then you probably haven't developed cold fusion.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:38:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:33:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
If it doesn't work, then please explain why I am staring at a bottle of heavy water from the process output that is on Bob's desk five feet away from me.
------------------------------
If you have cold fusion at your company why are you on ubersite, not making billions by solving all the world's energy problems?
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:34:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The Lemon Party's recation to the speech is pretty impressive.
http://www.lemonparty.org
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:34:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:23:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
You might have to be english to get some of the jokes, but I think you'll get a kick out of this:
http://www.omrlp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=39
_______________
HAHAHA I love british humour so much.
On a related note, my newly found religious beliefs are that of "Discordianism".
Read snippets of this: http://www.poee.co.uk/doc_files/pd.pdf to get the idea.
Hail Eris.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:33:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:27:34 (#)
Ranking: -2
Cold fusion? I am not sure if you are retarted, stupid, or busting my balls. Cold Fusion has never been been proven it is a baseless theory that any respected scientist knows is impossible. If you were kidding, way to go because it made me mad just seeing someone believes this shit, if you were serious please cut off your balls so you don't reproduce.
=========================================================
If it doesn't work, then please explain why I am staring at a bottle of heavy water from the process output that is on Bob's desk five feet away from me.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:31:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:26:02 (#)
Ranking: 1
They've got my vote.
===
No shit. I like the part about guarding Buckingham Palace with triffids and employing the queen to eat swans.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:30:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 13:37:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yep, that's where it's at right there.
Extracting the Hydrogen AGAIN from the very water the engine gives off as a biproduct using alternators for the any required electrical current in the process. It's a self-sustaining system.
------------------------------------
Damn those oil companies!!
If it weren't for them we could have fuel cells that could drive cars and with excess energy turn the waste water back into hydrogen to drive the car some more and convert more!!
it is perfect don't you see!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:28:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
...or Madonna.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:28:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:16:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:01:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
The have a party called the "Monster Raving Looney Party" who is given equal stage with people from the Labour party (Tony Blair's party).
===
From their website:
"The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is pleased to announce that according to visitors to its website, the Liberal Democrats should be led by an oat cake. The oat cake won with a magnificent 10518 votes, with "my mum" coming in a respectable second place. This is particularly impressive given that nobody was entirely sure whether they were voting for their own mother or someone else's"
(PS. Woody's english.)
----------------------------
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
I still can't get the image out of my head of the guy on stage from the Monster Raving Looney Party with his formal coat and top hat and HUGELY exaggerated party ribbon smiling like someone high on crack as his vote count was read aloud. THAT, my friends, is the beauty of democracy in action! The fact that some average lunatic can get up there on the same stage as the rest of 'em and get his fair shake too.
Now that I think about it, I knew Woody was English. I just didn't immediately catch the subtle sarcasm of the prototypical English wit without it coming from the likes of Benny Hill, Mr. Bean, or Hugh Grant.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:27:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-01 13:26:49 (#)
Ranking: 2
I work for a manufacturer of large engines and machinery for construction and transportation purposes. So I guess "industrial manufacturing" is the closest descriptive pseudonym.
I am saying that they will have the fuel cell cars, and also that this is all they will be making at that point. Fuel stations will become a thing of the past.
Essentially, what happened was that a coworker of mine that is well-educated in the natural sciences figured out a consistent and safe way of reproducing cold fusion in amounts large enough to generate power several years back. The trick has been getting it to work with a self-reproducing energy source that replenishes itself from its own waste...recycling of energy output.
----------------------------------------
I could see applications for fuel cell machinery on remote sites, but as far as a fleet of transportation trucks it wouldn't work in the states, at least not yet.
Three to four years and you say an auto maker will be making nothing but fuel cell cars? Bookmark this page, because I will bet you a hundred dollars this will not happen.
Cold fusion? I am not sure if you are retarted, stupid, or busting my balls. Cold Fusion has never been been proven it is a baseless theory that any respected scientist knows is impossible. If you were kidding, way to go because it made me mad just seeing someone believes this shit, if you were serious please cut off your balls so you don't reproduce.
Submitted by fried-green-potatoes (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:26:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Favorite line from last night: "We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom--or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life."
Liked your story much more than mine.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:26:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"We will issue a 99p coin to save on change.
The Official Monster Raving Loony Party will not join the single European currency. We will invite all Europeans countries to JOIN THE POUND.
Rich people should be taxed to pay for the printing of money, as they use most of it.
Tax credits will be paid to nice people. There will be a "total bastard" tax for everyone else."
They've got my vote.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:24:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:05:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
BLAH BLAH BLAH
BLAH BLAH BLAH
HEY LOOKIT ME I'M REALLY SMART
BLAH BLAH BLAH
AND DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE BLAH AND THE BLAH
ARGUING ABOUT POLITICS IS PRODUCTIVE AND MAKES PEOPLE THINK YOU'RE REALLY KEEN AND TOGETHER
BLAH BLAH BLAH
=========================
The whore is right.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:24:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:01:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 13:56:45 (#)
Ranking: 1
Is there another western country with only two parties? I can't think of one.
------------------------
Great Britain I know has three parties currently in power: Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrats.
The beauty of their system is that you see a LOT more people running from different parties than the most popular ones because they get an equal stage, if not in terms of campaign financing, in terms of official acknowledgement.
The have a party called the "Monster Raving Looney Party" who is given equal stage with people from the Labour party (Tony Blair's party). The end result is, a lot more people are interested and feel connected with the political process in that country, which is the way it should be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently 12 seperate parties in the House of Commons and 2 independants.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:23:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You might have to be english to get some of the jokes, but I think you'll get a kick out of this:
http://www.omrlp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=39
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:21:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd like to see a run down of the total volume the two respective engines take up. You have any data on that by chance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll have to get back to you specifics, but from what I know, the Fuel cell, electric motor and, hydrogen tank would take up less room than a typical 4 cylinder engine and gas tank. That's why they can make the cars so fucking tiny. I'm not sure if they use the same type of drivetrain or not. I don't see a need for anything too different than what Hybrids use.
Which brings me to a tangent...I would not want to drive one of these little death traps if I'm sharing the road with a 80,000lb Truck/Trailer...just my opinion.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:20:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
ETS.
Oil companies are not bribing car companies against producing H-cars.
No, really, they're not. Honest.
And as for saying that Hydrogen could be better for the environment if it was produced using solar power (or whatever), thats just plain retarded. If you switch a nuclear plant to producing hydrogen then you'd have to build another (probably coal) power plant to power whatever the nuclear was supposed to be powering.
H-cells may become the better option, maybe...in fact definatly there are people out there now working on it, maybe they've got quite close, but if/when its ready the oil companies won't be able to supress it.
I still vote veggie oil.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:16:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:01:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
The have a party called the "Monster Raving Looney Party" who is given equal stage with people from the Labour party (Tony Blair's party).
===
From their website:
"The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is pleased to announce that according to visitors to its website, the Liberal Democrats should be led by an oat cake. The oat cake won with a magnificent 10518 votes, with "my mum" coming in a respectable second place. This is particularly impressive given that nobody was entirely sure whether they were voting for their own mother or someone else's"
(PS. Woody's english.)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:13:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:02:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
That wouldn't work either. the frame would have to be modified too much, therefore weakening it drastically. It would still cost less to make a new one.
I'm refreshed by your optimism, I used to be an optimist, then I became an Engineer.
----------------------------
I just happen to believe in the cleverness of man to solve a lot of our problems. Saying something can't be done is easy...putting our noses to the grindstone and the drawing board and not giving up is noble.
I'd like to see a run down of the total volume the two respective engines take up. You have any data on that by chance?
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:11:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nice try but I'm not getting sucked into your argument you arguing arguer!
PS - That wasn't actually aimed at you but whatever.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:11:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 13:37:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yep, that's where it's at right there.
Extracting the Hydrogen AGAIN from the very water the engine gives off as a biproduct using alternators for the any required electrical current in the process. It's a self-sustaining system.
------------------------------------------
Hahahaha!!!!
If you are serious please go talk to a high school physics teacher.
Or look up the laws of thermodynamics.
I bet you really liked that movie the saint.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-01 14:09:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Jeanneee: I don't consider openly discussing