Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:34 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If
you
are talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it
would still run out, just might take a little longer. There is
no
level of consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever.
Might be the great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to
transition to a different fuel, but it's still going to happen.

Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with,
huh? I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might
buy ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...

Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations --
whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the
noise of their changes as to make no discernible difference.

Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable. When
they become so, then they'll take off.

--

It is the fact that we over-consume that makes us vulnerable to
making
mistakes.

Who is this "we" and what "mistakes" are "we vulnerable to making"? I
see far more people starving in places where energy consumption is far
lower than in the US than I do in the US. So seems to me that _they_
are the ones who are "vulnerable".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Nova wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:


Remember the same thing. I think "pot metal" was reference to a
very low grade of metal casting that would neither weld, braze, nor
glue well after it was made.



Also known as white metal. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_metal

Well, that's what wiki says. I remember looking at a car once and
being told "please don't lean on that door, the hinges are white
metal". The car was a Ferrari 250GTO and the "white metal" was an
expensive aluminum alloy, not cheap zinc.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Nov 26, 5:57 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Or do you think that I'm consuming
excessively riding my 650 and want me to ride a Vespa instead?
--John

Actually, you are, aren't you? Enlighten us with your MPG numbers and
carrying capacity.

John Martin

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:41:11 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:38:51 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:35:15 -0600, dpb wrote:


Again, I wish many things were the way they used to be, including
casting foundry in McMinnville, but it's a different world...


Why on earth......

Frank

You probably know some/all of these guys:


Yep, know them all. Not experienced with their product other than to
look at it at shows, but the individuals behind the product are the
best in the business as far as I'm concerned.

Frank





http://www.steelcitytoolworks.com/

I know their manufacturing is done in Chiwan, but does anyone have any
comments on their quality?

John Martin wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:57 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Or do you think that I'm consuming
excessively riding my 650 and want me to ride a Vespa instead?
--John

Actually, you are, aren't you? Enlighten us with your MPG numbers
and
carrying capacity.

rolling eyes

If you think that somebody who rides a motorcycle in the winter in New
England is "consuming excessively" then you really, really do have a
screw loose.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:57:15 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Nov 26, 5:41 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:38:51 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:35:15 -0600, dpb wrote:

Again, I wish many things were the way they used to be, including
casting foundry in McMinnville, but it's a different world...

Why on earth......

Frank

You probably know some/all of these guys:

http://www.steelcitytoolworks.com/

I know their manufacturing is done in Chiwan, but does anyone have any
comments on their quality?

I think there are some Delta/Guelph Canada people in there too.

I believe including the former head of Delta, Canada, a fine
individual.

On Nov 26, 5:59 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:34 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If
you
are talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it
would still run out, just might take a little longer. There is
no
level of consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever.
Might be the great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to
transition to a different fuel, but it's still going to happen.

Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with,
huh? I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might
buy ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...

Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations --
whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the
noise of their changes as to make no discernible difference.

Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable. When
they become so, then they'll take off.

--

It is the fact that we over-consume that makes us vulnerable to
making
mistakes.

Who is this "we" and what "mistakes" are "we vulnerable to making"? I
see far more people starving in places where energy consumption is far
lower than in the US than I do in the US. So seems to me that _they_
are the ones who are "vulnerable".

Oh goody, we're talking about energy/fuel, now we have added
herring...I mean food.. I mean lack of herring...food...red
herrings... I'm all confused now. (That tactic is called ridiculing
the opponent)

I'll get right on chasing that.

Try to stay on topic, John.

On Nov 26, 5:57 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If you
are talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it
would still run out, just might take a little longer. There is no
level of consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever.
Might be the great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to
transition to a different fuel, but it's still going to happen.

Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with,
huh?
I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might buy
ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions.

We "found alternate solutions" more than 50 years ago. Right now they
aren't economically attractive and aren't going to be economically
attractive until the price of what we are using now rises to a point
that is higher than the cost not only of the alternatives but of
making the transition including building the necessary infrastructure.

If you were in a
life-boat, you wouldn't eat everything on board in one day, would
you?

In a life boat one hopes to be rescued or to reach land. We are not
in a life boat, nobody is going to rescue us, there is no land to be
reached.

No you wouldn't. You would conserve in the hope that there would be
a
rescue.

By who, space aliens?

This ball of dirt on which we float about in space, will not get
rescued by an outside source. Our resources are finite.
Conserving what we have is nothing but smart.

So what level of conservation to you want to require? Do you want to
just ban SUVs? Then people who want big vehicles will start driving 2
ton trucks instead. Or city buses. Or something else that gives them
the room that they want. Or do you think that I'm consuming
excessively riding my 650 and want me to ride a Vespa instead?



"Smell my exhaust, you serfs!" "I am on this planet all by myself,
eating and drinking and driving what ""I"" want." " I have NO
responsibility to my fellow planet dwellers." "It is all for ME,
ME,
ME *diabolical laughter*."
"And I will kill those who have more fuel for me to burn!!!!"

Nice.

OK, now you've officially lost it.

LOL... you think? Naaa, my sense of the absurd has its own way to
illustrate things.
You probably wouldn't understand why I broke out laughing when I saw
a
Lincoln pick-up truck.

Nahh, I'd have thought it was funny too. By the way, do you have a
problem with pick up trucks or is it just SUVs?

Still trying to steer the conversation, eh?
And I was right again. You didn't understand why I broke out laughing
when I saw a Lincoln pick-up truck.
I had no problem with it. No problem with SUV's either.

But seeing that you've descended into the need to use strawmen and red
herrings in your arguments, I will just just slam the door on this
discussion as there is no hope of it becoming constructive.

r

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:43:16 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:31:47 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

Did the off-shoring decision occur before or after Pentair sold Delta?

Before. ...
Who currently owns the Tupelo and other manufacturing facilities and
what is being done with them, if anything, Frank?

The Tupelo facility is just an empty building, currently owned by
Journal Enterprises a charitable arm of the local newspaper, who have
it available for lease. All the machinery was auctioned off and the
tooling scrapped out for the most part.

The rest of the tool group facilities were transferred to B & D when
the business was sold. I've not fully kept up with that, but I
believe the Oldham facility was closed and Biesemeyer in Mesa, AZ may
be in the process. Jackson, TN, is still open but with an ever
shifting charter.
(Would it be possible to line up a set of investors and try to make an
"All-American" brand?)

Virtually impossible at this point, in my opinion. We continued to be
successful before the consolidation/globalization because, among other
factors, the invested capital was so low. The facility, machinery,
and tooling were, for the most part fully depreciated but well
maintained and continuously upgraded. Capital was spent only as
necessary to maintain quality, improve efficiency and introduce new
products. Which is how it should be.

It takes a tremendous range of equipment and tooling to be a full
product line woodworking machinery manufacturer and the invested
capital to start from nothing would be very large, and put the firm in
an immediate position of being not competetive. While the market for
the higher quality product was slowly but steadily growing when we
were in operation, I believe the premium for product from a start up
operation in the U. S. would be too high to be attractive.
Where is Saw-Stop manufacturing, do you know? I always presumed they
were using offshore contracted production, but don't actually know...

Don't know, have not kept up with Saw Stop except for threads here
relating to whether the technology should be mandated which I am not
in favor of.

I figured it probably had been dispersed, unfortunately. It would be an
interesting thought otherwise, though...

--

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:34 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If you are
talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it would
still run out, just might take a little longer. There is no level of
consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever. Might be the
great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to transition to a
different fuel, but it's still going to happen.
Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with, huh?
I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might buy
ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...
Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations -- whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the noise
of their changes as to make no discernible difference.

Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable. When they
become so, then they'll take off.

--

It is the fact that we over-consume that makes us vulnerable to making
mistakes.

I disagree that that is necessarily a "fact". An opinion, yes...

--

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:59 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 4:34 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If
you
are talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped
it
would still run out, just might take a little longer. There is
no
level of consumption that will result in the oil lasting
forever.
Might be the great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have
to
transition to a different fuel, but it's still going to happen.

Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with,
huh? I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we
might
buy ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions. ...

Tell that to the Chinese and the other developing nations --
whatever
changes in our actions can realistically make will so far in the
noise of their changes as to make no discernible difference.

Options are there, they're just not yet economically viable.
When
they become so, then they'll take off.

--

It is the fact that we over-consume that makes us vulnerable to
making
mistakes.

Who is this "we" and what "mistakes" are "we vulnerable to making"?
I see far more people starving in places where energy consumption
is
far lower than in the US than I do in the US. So seems to me that
_they_ are the ones who are "vulnerable".

Oh goody, we're talking about energy/fuel, now we have added
herring...I mean food.. I mean lack of herring...food...red
herrings... I'm all confused now. (That tactic is called ridiculing
the opponent)

I'll get right on chasing that.

Try to stay on topic, John.

I see, I thought we were talking about people living and dying, not
about substances.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:57 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:

How is "their behavior" "irresponsible, nay, short-lived"? If
you
are talking about consuming fuel, if everybody drove a mo-ped it
would still run out, just might take a little longer. There is
no
level of consumption that will result in the oil lasting forever.
Might be the great grandkids instead of the grandkids who have to
transition to a different fuel, but it's still going to happen.

Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with,
huh?
I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might buy
ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions.

We "found alternate solutions" more than 50 years ago. Right now
they aren't economically attractive and aren't going to be
economically attractive until the price of what we are using now
rises to a point that is higher than the cost not only of the
alternatives but of making the transition including building the
necessary infrastructure.

If you were in a
life-boat, you wouldn't eat everything on board in one day, would
you?

In a life boat one hopes to be rescued or to reach land. We are
not
in a life boat, nobody is going to rescue us, there is no land to
be
reached.

No you wouldn't. You would conserve in the hope that there would
be
a
rescue.

By who, space aliens?

This ball of dirt on which we float about in space, will not get
rescued by an outside source. Our resources are finite.
Conserving what we have is nothing but smart.

So what level of conservation to you want to require? Do you want
to
just ban SUVs? Then people who want big vehicles will start
driving
2 ton trucks instead. Or city buses. Or something else that gives
them the room that they want. Or do you think that I'm consuming
excessively riding my 650 and want me to ride a Vespa instead?



"Smell my exhaust, you serfs!" "I am on this planet all by
myself,
eating and drinking and driving what ""I"" want." " I have NO
responsibility to my fellow planet dwellers." "It is all for ME,
ME,
ME *diabolical laughter*."
"And I will kill those who have more fuel for me to burn!!!!"

Nice.

OK, now you've officially lost it.

LOL... you think? Naaa, my sense of the absurd has its own way to
illustrate things.
You probably wouldn't understand why I broke out laughing when I
saw
a
Lincoln pick-up truck.

Nahh, I'd have thought it was funny too. By the way, do you have a
problem with pick up trucks or is it just SUVs?

Still trying to steer the conversation, eh?

And you're evading the question.

And I was right again. You didn't understand why I broke out
laughing
when I saw a Lincoln pick-up truck.

You mean you laughed at it because it _wasn't_ funny? You is weird.

I had no problem with it. No problem with SUV's either.

Then you might want to read the thread and see what the other person
using your account has been posting under your name.

But seeing that you've descended into the need to use strawmen and
red
herrings in your arguments, I will just just slam the door on this
discussion as there is no hope of it becoming constructive.

I see, so you say "I suppose it is a rich man's option to drive 3 ton
behemoth, spewing
insane amounts of sickening fumes into the faces of people who cannot
do anything about that?" and then when pressed to further explain your
views decide "I have no problem with SUVs" and take your ball and go
home.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Nov 26, 6:36 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
John Martin wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:57 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Or do you think that I'm consuming
excessively riding my 650 and want me to ride a Vespa instead?
--John

Actually, you are, aren't you? Enlighten us with your MPG numbers
and
carrying capacity.

rolling eyes

If you think that somebody who rides a motorcycle in the winter in New
England is "consuming excessively" then you really, really do have a
screw loose.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Since you decline to provide the numbers, let me guess. 40 - 45 MPG
maybe? Or am I too high? The SUV with two or three aboard is
actually a bit more effcient, no? Now, how about the 2.2 liter car
with two or three aboard? Oh, wait - you always have a passenger on
your motorcycle, right?

I'm not objecting to your gasoline consumption. Not at all. What I
am objecting to is your implication that, by riding a 650 cc
motorcycle rather than driving a car, you are more efficient than
others. You're not.

In the winter in New England.... please tell me again who has the
screw loose.

John Martin

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:41:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

You really don't have a grasp on the amount of coal and shale reserves in
the US, do you?

Shale is far too expensive to process efficiently. It only makes
sense if gas is going for $7-10 a gallon.

While deliberate waste is never justified, the idea that having us all
drive Prius's will save the world is hardly a rational approach.

A Prius is a damn ugly car, actually. The fact is, a hybrid might
help slow the use of gasoline, when gas runs out entirely or gets too
expensive, a hybrid isn't going to do any good. The reality is that
we need to look for a way to rid ourselves of gasoline altoghether.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:41:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

You really don't have a grasp on the amount of coal and shale reserves
in
the US, do you?

Shale is far too expensive to process efficiently. It only makes
sense if gas is going for $7-10 a gallon.

Perhaps but we are already hapf way there.



While deliberate waste is never justified, the idea that having us all
drive Prius's will save the world is hardly a rational approach.

A Prius is a damn ugly car, actually. The fact is, a hybrid might
help slow the use of gasoline, when gas runs out entirely or gets too
expensive, a hybrid isn't going to do any good. The reality is that
we need to look for a way to rid ourselves of gasoline altoghether.

Gasoline is not going to run out. But there needs to be
alternatives/competition to bring the price back in line.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 3:54 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:


Might as well blow it all out of our asses and get it over with, huh?
I tend to support the viewpoint that if we conserve, we might buy
ourselves enough time to find alternate solutions.

Buy time? I recall us being out of gasoline 30 years ago and now we have
more than we ever had. ;~)


If you were in a
life-boat, you wouldn't eat everything on board in one day, would you?
No you wouldn't. You would conserve in the hope that there would be a
rescue.

Until the oil companies have the fear of running out and seriousely looking
into alternatives oil will continue to be the king. So far it is way too
easy and profitable.

Hopefully www.zapworld.com will prvide an alternative.

On Nov 26, 7:46 pm, Brian Henderson
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:41:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita

wrote:
You really don't have a grasp on the amount of coal and shale reserves in
the US, do you?

Shale is far too expensive to process efficiently. It only makes
sense if gas is going for $7-10 a gallon.

While deliberate waste is never justified, the idea that having us all
drive Prius's will save the world is hardly a rational approach.

A Prius is a damn ugly car, actually. The fact is, a hybrid might
help slow the use of gasoline, when gas runs out entirely or gets too
expensive, a hybrid isn't going to do any good. The reality is that
we need to look for a way to rid ourselves of gasoline altoghether.

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.
But I do think electrical solutions are the way to go, either through
electrolysis to make hydrogen or by charging nano-technology battery-
like packs. The source for this magic electrical juice would be a
variety of generation devices, with the base-loads carried by a
renewed approach to nuclear plants. What-the-hell, the distribution
network is in place already. I anticipate some serious progress coming
out of France in fusion development.

That whole bio-diesel 'fata morgana' is plain silly.

John Martin wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:36 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
John Martin wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:57 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Or do you think that I'm consuming
excessively riding my 650 and want me to ride a Vespa instead?
--John

Actually, you are, aren't you? Enlighten us with your MPG numbers
and
carrying capacity.

rolling eyes

If you think that somebody who rides a motorcycle in the winter in
New England is "consuming excessively" then you really, really do
have a screw loose.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Since you decline to provide the numbers, let me guess. 40 - 45 MPG
maybe? Or am I too high? The SUV with two or three aboard is
actually a bit more effcient, no? Now, how about the 2.2 liter car
with two or three aboard? Oh, wait - you always have a passenger on
your motorcycle, right?

I'm not objecting to your gasoline consumption. Not at all. What
I
am objecting to is your implication that, by riding a 650 cc
motorcycle rather than driving a car, you are more efficient than
others. You're not.

In the winter in New England.... please tell me again who has the
screw loose.

Do you do anything but whine?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Nov 26, 7:58 pm, "Leon" wrote:


Hopefullywww.zapworld.comwill prvide an alternative.


LOL..about as cool as one of these:

http://uk.geocities.com/tradcarclub/...liantRobin.JPG

Robatoy wrote:

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.

Some claim making the Prius battery is an even bigger problem:

http://tinyurl.com/2u3xyy

On Nov 26, 8:29 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.

Some claim making the Prius battery is an even bigger problem:

http://tinyurl.com/2u3xyy

That is amazing. Thanks for that input.

Same, but different, argument about bio fuels. The NET energy is
negative in some cases.

On Nov 26, 7:29 pm, John Martin wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:36 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:



John Martin wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:57 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Or do you think that I'm consuming
excessively riding my 650 and want me to ride a Vespa instead?
--John

Actually, you are, aren't you? Enlighten us with your MPG numbers
and
carrying capacity.

rolling eyes

If you think that somebody who rides a motorcycle in the winter in New
England is "consuming excessively" then you really, really do have a
screw loose.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Since you decline to provide the numbers, let me guess. 40 - 45 MPG
maybe? Or am I too high? The SUV with two or three aboard is
actually a bit more effcient, no? Now, how about the 2.2 liter car
with two or three aboard? Oh, wait - you always have a passenger on
your motorcycle, right?

I'm not objecting to your gasoline consumption. Not at all. What I
am objecting to is your implication that, by riding a 650 cc
motorcycle rather than driving a car, you are more efficient than
others. You're not.

In the winter in New England.... please tell me again who has the
screw loose.

John Martin

Two frozen rubber wheels on black ice...now THAT is efficient.

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:29 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.
Some claim making the Prius battery is an even bigger problem:

http://tinyurl.com/2u3xyy

That is amazing. Thanks for that input.

Same, but different, argument about bio fuels. The NET energy is
negative in some cases.

Not to mention driving up the cost of food in countries dependent on corn...

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:46 pm, Brian Henderson
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:41:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita

wrote:
You really don't have a grasp on the amount of coal and shale
reserves in the US, do you?

Shale is far too expensive to process efficiently. It only makes
sense if gas is going for $7-10 a gallon.

While deliberate waste is never justified, the idea that having
us
all drive Prius's will save the world is hardly a rational
approach.

A Prius is a damn ugly car, actually. The fact is, a hybrid might
help slow the use of gasoline, when gas runs out entirely or gets
too
expensive, a hybrid isn't going to do any good. The reality is
that
we need to look for a way to rid ourselves of gasoline altoghether.

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.
But I do think electrical solutions are the way to go, either
through
electrolysis to make hydrogen or by charging nano-technology
battery-
like packs. The source for this magic electrical juice would be a
variety of generation devices, with the base-loads carried by a
renewed approach to nuclear plants. What-the-hell, the distribution
network is in place already. I anticipate some serious progress
coming
out of France in fusion development.

That whole bio-diesel 'fata morgana' is plain silly.

Damn, I agree with you. Now I need to reexamine my whole worldview.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 7:29 pm, John Martin wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:36 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:



John Martin wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:57 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Or do you think that I'm consuming
excessively riding my 650 and want me to ride a Vespa instead?
--John

Actually, you are, aren't you? Enlighten us with your MPG
numbers
and
carrying capacity.

rolling eyes

If you think that somebody who rides a motorcycle in the winter in
New England is "consuming excessively" then you really, really do
have a screw loose.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Since you decline to provide the numbers, let me guess. 40 - 45
MPG
maybe? Or am I too high? The SUV with two or three aboard is
actually a bit more effcient, no? Now, how about the 2.2 liter car
with two or three aboard? Oh, wait - you always have a passenger
on
your motorcycle, right?

I'm not objecting to your gasoline consumption. Not at all. What
I
am objecting to is your implication that, by riding a 650 cc
motorcycle rather than driving a car, you are more efficient than
others. You're not.

In the winter in New England.... please tell me again who has the
screw loose.

John Martin

Two frozen rubber wheels on black ice...now THAT is efficient.

Actually when I was living in an apartment there were times when
paddling the bike across the iced-up parking lot to the plowed road
was more efficient than jacking the car up and putting the chains on
it so that it could pull its way out of the ice depressions around the
wheels. That of course was when the car was an econobox and not a 4WD
SUV.

I've encountered black on a public road very rarely, yes it happens
but not often and generally shortly after a snow day.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Nov 26, 8:29 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their
useful life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.
Some claim making the Prius battery is an even bigger problem:

http://tinyurl.com/2u3xyy

That is amazing. Thanks for that input.

Same, but different, argument about bio fuels. The NET energy is
negative in some cases.

Not to mention driving up the cost of food in countries dependent on
corn...

There aren't that many--rice and wheat are the major grains for most
of the world--corn as table food as opposed to livestock fodder is
largely an American (north and south) phenomenon--poor silly furriners
don't know what's good.

But you can also get alcohol from potatoes, wheat, beets, sugar cane,
and many other plants, basically anything with enough sugar to support
fermentation.

All thinking small though--the high tech approach would be a
bioengineered tree that one taps to get diesel directly--one suspects
that such a thing could be bioengineered once biotech matures a bit
more. But talk about forest fires . . .

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Nov 26, 9:30 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:


Damn, I agree with you. Now I need to reexamine my whole worldview.

Now don't get too excited, I'll be wrong again soon enough.G
The energy problems will be solved soon too, as soon as the pipeline
from Iraq to Haifa is built. THEN we'll have a distribution network
the world can trust.

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:27:46 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

Brian Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:50:17 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

Where to the rest of you sit with this question?

I couldn't care less, I buy for quality and price, if it does what I
need it to do at a price I'm willing to pay, I buy it. The U.S. needs
to be able to compete in a world market, artificially picking inferior
tools at higher prices just because of where they were put together is
foolish.

Certainly I wouldn't buy an inferior product just because of it's
country of manufacture, but there is also more to life than cheapness.

I don't want to live in a country which sinks to China's level in
environmental policies, lack of labor protection and government enforced
one-child-per-woman laws. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong
with forcing women to have abortions if they are about to have an
unauthorized second child?

I'm all for commercial competitiveness, but it is not possible to
compete price wise with a competitor who has a much lower set of safety,
environmental, intellectual property and human rights standards.

John

I couldn't agree more. Where and who did the Chinese copy to produce
cheap **** on a unlevel playing field! And we are allowing American
business to sell our future down the drain for profits! How will our
kids feel when the only jobs available here are at third world wages.
American ingenuity created most of the products available and then
were copied in "sweat shops" around the world. The Chinese have been
buying American debt for years and as soon as we can't buy their
products any longer they can trash the dollar and we will be in an
endless economic tailspin that will make mexico look like the golden
era!
Keep on with that "couldn't care less" and drive more nails in the
inevitable coffin. I would hate to admit I was that ill informed!!

On Nov 27, 12:17 am, Digger wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:27:46 GMT, John Horner
wrote:



Brian Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 04:50:17 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

Where to the rest of you sit with this question?

I couldn't care less, I buy for quality and price, if it does what I
need it to do at a price I'm willing to pay, I buy it. The U.S. needs
to be able to compete in a world market, artificially picking inferior
tools at higher prices just because of where they were put together is
foolish.

Certainly I wouldn't buy an inferior product just because of it's
country of manufacture, but there is also more to life than cheapness.

I don't want to live in a country which sinks to China's level in
environmental policies, lack of labor protection and government enforced
one-child-per-woman laws. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong
with forcing women to have abortions if they are about to have an
unauthorized second child?

I'm all for commercial competitiveness, but it is not possible to
compete price wise with a competitor who has a much lower set of safety,
environmental, intellectual property and human rights standards.

John

I couldn't agree more. Where and who did the Chinese copy to produce
cheap **** on a unlevel playing field! And we are allowing American
business to sell our future down the drain for profits! How will our
kids feel when the only jobs available here are at third world wages.
American ingenuity created most of the products available and then
were copied in "sweat shops" around the world. The Chinese have been
buying American debt for years and as soon as we can't buy their
products any longer they can trash the dollar and we will be in an
endless economic tailspin that will make mexico look like the golden
era!
Keep on with that "couldn't care less" and drive more nails in the
inevitable coffin. I would hate to admit I was that ill informed!!

Strong stuff, but right on.

Brian Henderson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:41:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

While deliberate waste is never justified, the idea that having us all
drive Prius's will save the world is hardly a rational approach.

A Prius is a damn ugly car, actually. The fact is, a hybrid might
help slow the use of gasoline, when gas runs out entirely or gets too
expensive, a hybrid isn't going to do any good. The reality is that
we need to look for a way to rid ourselves of gasoline altoghether.

Dipping in:

But its a good stick to beat the populace with, here you can drive a
toyotter prissyarse in London without paying the congestion charge, but
how many people can afford one? Not many!
Then there's the displaced environmental damage caused by building them,
disposal is just as bad, replacement batteries 3-5 years as well add's
to the problem.
You can't carry much in one, their heavy for size and can't tow a
trailer either.
My Diesel 110 Land-Rover is 22 years old, has contributed less polution
during its lifetime per year/mile than a prissyarse ever will and is
almost the ulitmate rebuildable and recycleable vehicle on the road, can
carry large loads and tow upto 3.5 Tons, very useful for a woodworker!

Niel, back to lurk mode...

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:47:43 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
The question you should be asking is why the U.S. completely wasted
their superiority.
Obvious answer, they were reaping in the profits, instead of
spending
some of that money to improve quality and R&D in new technologies.

The big problem was that they were heavily invested in tube technology
and didn't really understand the potential of solid state.

That is total BS. Transistors and integrated circuits were invented in
the US are continue to be manufactured by US companies in volume.
Motorola was a leader in televisions with it's Quasar brand and also was
a big leader in semiconductors.

Ditto RCA in it's heyday.

There was no lack of US involvement in solid state technology or
manufacturing. In fact to this day it is one area where the US still
has a major industrial base.

John

It's a fact that HDTV was pushed by the govt as a jump start to Zenith
and Quasar and Curtis Mathis. The idea was that the consumers would
have to upgrade to a new TV set that would HAVE to be made in the USA,
since the Japanese wouldn't have the capability of making them. It
was a given that it would be an incredible boost to the USA TV
manufacturers. And so HDTV was invented.

This was in 1976. (It's a fact.)

Of course, no TV sets have been manufactured in the USA for over 5
years. Zenith is now LG, and overseas, BTW.

Robatoy wrote:

Ooops...what I was trying to say, was that just because one can afford
it, doesn't mean one has to be stupid about it.

Be people trying to look like they can afford it will be stupid...

J. Clarke wrote:

So get the laws changed so that station wagons and old-style luxury
cars aren't unduly penalized and you'll see SUVs mostly go away.


The laws did change, either this year or in tax year 2006. I seem to
remember hearing that a Section 179 truck depreciation deduction went to
10000 pounds GVW.

I don't own anything that qualifies right now, so I', not positive.

Frank Boettcher wrote:

Don't know, have not kept up with Saw Stop except for threads here
relating to whether the technology should be mandated which I am not
in favor of.

Saw Stop is made in China.

Bob the Tomato wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:47:43 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
The question you should be asking is why the U.S. completely
wasted their superiority.
Obvious answer, they were reaping in the profits, instead of
spending
some of that money to improve quality and R&D in new
technologies.

The big problem was that they were heavily invested in tube
technology and didn't really understand the potential of solid
state.

That is total BS. Transistors and integrated circuits were
invented
in the US are continue to be manufactured by US companies in
volume.
Motorola was a leader in televisions with it's Quasar brand and
also
was a big leader in semiconductors.

Ditto RCA in it's heyday.

There was no lack of US involvement in solid state technology or
manufacturing. In fact to this day it is one area where the US
still
has a major industrial base.

John

It's a fact that HDTV was pushed by the govt

When was it "pushed by the govt"? There wasn't even a standard for
it until 1996, at which time there were no US television
manufacturers.

as a jump start to Zenith

You mean the Zenith division of my favorite Korean electronics
manufacturer, Lucky-Goldstar?

and Quasar

You mean Quasar division of Matsu****a Electronics (aka "Panasonic")?

and Curtis Mathis.

You mean the K-Mart house brand?

The idea was that the consumers would
have to upgrade to a new TV set that would HAVE to be made in the
USA,
since the Japanese wouldn't have the capability of making them. It
was a given that it would be an incredible boost to the USA TV
manufacturers. And so HDTV was invented.

This was in 1976. (It's a fact.)

If in 1976 anybody in the electronics industry thought that the
Japanese couldn't make HDTV they were damned fools. France
demonstrated their first HDTV in 1949, the Soviet Union in 1958, and
Panasonic in 1974. And it's difficult to see how something that had
been running commercially since the early '50s could have been
"invented" in 1976.

Of course, no TV sets have been manufactured in the USA for over 5
years. Zenith is now LG, and overseas, BTW.

And Quasar was Panasonic, and overseas, in 1976. By the way, Zenith
was bought by LG in 1995, a year before there was an HDTV standard.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

B A R R Y wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

So get the laws changed so that station wagons and old-style luxury
cars aren't unduly penalized and you'll see SUVs mostly go away.


The laws did change, either this year or in tax year 2006. I seem
to
remember hearing that a Section 179 truck depreciation deduction
went
to 10000 pounds GVW.

I don't own anything that qualifies right now, so I', not positive.

Huh? What, exactly, does a tax deduction on business use of a motor
vehicle have to do with the fuel economy laws?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.

Since you know this to be true, a compairison was made between a Prius and a
Hummer. The compairison included the energy used to manufacture every
component of both vehicles, the energy used to maintain and operate the
vehicles through their expected life spans, and the energy used to recycle
the components of the two vehicles when the vehicles were considered worn
out. Because the Hummer out lived the Prius by a margin of over 2 to 1 the
Prius had the disadvantage of the energy spent on building, maintaining, and
disposal being increased by the same margin.

The Hummer ended up being the most ecological and effecient vehicle to
produce, operate, and dispose of.




But I do think electrical solutions are the way to go, either through
electrolysis to make hydrogen or by charging nano-technology battery-
like packs. The source for this magic electrical juice would be a
variety of generation devices, with the base-loads carried by a
renewed approach to nuclear plants. What-the-hell, the distribution
network is in place already. I anticipate some serious progress coming
out of France in fusion development.

That whole bio-diesel 'fata morgana' is plain silly.

www.Zapworld.com This company has been producing electric vehicles for more
than 10 years in California and has a great looking vehicle yet to come out
called the Zap X.
A very interesting vehicle.

Also Honda is selling a Hydrogen fuel cell car in California now.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 8:29 pm, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

Not to mention that disposing of Prius batteries, after their useful
life has passed, is going to be a nightmare.

Some claim making the Prius battery is an even bigger problem:

http://tinyurl.com/2u3xyy

That is amazing. Thanks for that input.

Same, but different, argument about bio fuels. The NET energy is
negative in some cases.

Not to mention that fuels with alcohol have a negative effect on the engine.
Alcohol attracts water and water does not settle out like it does in normal
gasoline. The higher the alcohol content, the more likely it is to get
fuel contamination.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 7:58 pm, "Leon" wrote:


Hopefullywww.zapworld.comwill prvide an alternative.


LOL..about as cool as one of these:

http://uk.geocities.com/tradcarclub/...liantRobin.JPG

Lovely, aren't they? LOL

I prefer the ZAP X.

B A R R Y wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Don't know, have not kept up with Saw Stop except for threads here
relating to whether the technology should be mandated which I am not
in favor of.

Saw Stop is made in China.

I figured so, but wasn't sure...

--