Robatoy took a can of maroon spray paint on December 18, 2007 02:52 pm and
wrote the following:

On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...



One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
(over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
Trams (streetcars) are the best example.

So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal
bus approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any
riders would use them.....

The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.

Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.

Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
cars... and there are lots of other examples.

So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?

Then there are people like me, I live in Toronto, work in Mississauga, I
have the choice of getting in my car and driving literally 15 minutes, or
paying transit fares for both the TTC and Mississauga Transit, to take me
around the world (it seems the way the route works) for an hour ride.

Lets see, $1 worth of gas or $9 worth of transit fares for the round trip,
choice seems obvious.
--
Lits Slut #9
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.

On Dec 18, 3:04 pm, FrozenNorth wrote:
Robatoy took a can of maroon spray paint on December 18, 2007 02:52 pm and
wrote the following:



On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...

One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
(over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
Trams (streetcars) are the best example.

So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal
bus approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any
riders would use them.....

The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.

Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.

Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
cars... and there are lots of other examples.

So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?

Then there are people like me, I live in Toronto, work in Mississauga, I
have the choice of getting in my car and driving literally 15 minutes, or
paying transit fares for both the TTC and Mississauga Transit, to take me
around the world (it seems the way the route works) for an hour ride.

Lets see, $1 worth of gas or $9 worth of transit fares for the round trip,
choice seems obvious.
--
You are a 'reverse' commuter like a friend of mine who lives in The
Beaches and works in Mr. & Mrs. Sauga.
He also wouldn't consider taking the TTC. He doesn't pay for parking
at his job either.
Now, live in Scarberia and take a job on Bay street.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:


I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!

But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
good theory in spite of a lack of facts.



And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
'50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
the thing and buried it.

If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.



If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
indicates there is no such product.

On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!

But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
good theory in spite of a lack of facts.

And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
'50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
the thing and buried it.

If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.

If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
indicates there is no such product.

Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-
machines, ever. Not even in the future.
We would have had visitors by now, eh?

Robatoy wrote:

On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:


If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
indicates there is no such product.


Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-machines, ever.
Not even in the future. We would have had visitors by now, eh?


How do you know we haven't???

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:52 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!

But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
good theory in spite of a lack of facts.

And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
'50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
the thing and buried it.

If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.

If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
indicates there is no such product.

Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-
machines, ever. Not even in the future.
We would have had visitors by now, eh?
WOW! for an ultralight you sure are doing pretty good. What do you
use when out in salt water?

On Dec 18, 8:04�pm, FrozenNorth wrote:
Robatoy took a can of maroon spray paint on December 18, 2007 02:52 pm and
wrote the following:





On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message

...

One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
(over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
Trams (streetcars) are the best example.

So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal
bus approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any
riders would use them.....

The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.

Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.

Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
cars... and there are lots of other examples.

So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?

Then there are people like me, I live in Toronto, work in Mississauga, I
have the choice of getting in my car and driving literally 15 minutes, or
paying transit fares for both the TTC and Mississauga Transit, to take me
around the world (it seems the way the route works) for an hour ride.

Lets see, $1 worth of gas or $9 worth of transit fares for the round trip,
choice seems obvious.
--

- Show quoted text -

Not much of a tree-hugger, are you.

Subject

Must be a slow day in the news room for this old wives tale to get any
ink, virtual or otherwise.

Lew

On Dec 18, 4:35 pm, Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:52 -0800 (PST), Robatoy



wrote:
On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:

On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!

But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
good theory in spite of a lack of facts.

And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
'50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
the thing and buried it.

If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.

If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
indicates there is no such product.

Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-
machines, ever. Not even in the future.
We would have had visitors by now, eh?

WOW! for an ultralight you sure are doing pretty good. What do you
use when out in salt water?

I have never fished salt water, but I'm sure my '6 and graphite
ultralight wont get me much. Even my medium action 7' bass rod will
probably be useless even with 20lb test. Naaaa.. just my ultra light
and low-hanging fruit for now...

"FoggyTown" wrote in message
...


(1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)

Maybe if the blade was heavy enough.


(2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
sales)

That would suck if you later decided to grow a beard.



I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
time is right?

I think he's spouting urban myths myself.



(Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a train
and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)


That goes along with the 80mpg carburetor that GM bought from the inventor
and shelved - and thousands of people "saw" it right there - on the shelf.
Water into gasoline - sorta like gold from sea water...

--

-Mike-

On Dec 18, 4:12 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:

If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
indicates there is no such product.

Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-machines, ever.

Not even in the future. We would have had visitors by now, eh?

How do you know we haven't???

I had my doubts about Buddy Hackett, but other than him, I don't think
so.

In article , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

That goes along with the 80mpg carburetor that GM bought from the inventor
and shelved - and thousands of people "saw" it right there - on the shelf.
Water into gasoline - sorta like gold from sea water...

Yeah, except for one slight difference: there really *is* gold in sea water.
g

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

dpb wrote:
FoggyTown wrote:
A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
other established markets.
...

Well, yeahbbut...

If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there may be
an element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this miracle product,
whatever it might be, would be producible at a competitive price or not
have some other problem or somebody would be doing it...there are an
awful lot of bright folks out there.

--

Well, here's one that they tried to squelch, but it finally broke through:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIOIM6hHBk

On Dec 18, 9:45 am, "Frank Arthur" wrote:
"FoggyTown" wrote in message

...





A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
respected designer. One element of his presentation was his
assertion
that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
other established markets.

(1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
(2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
sales)

I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
time is right?

(Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a
train
and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)

FoggyTown

I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!- Hide quoted text -

I thought water was known as the universal solvent.
JP

Doug Winterburn wrote:

dpb wrote:
FoggyTown wrote:
A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
other established markets.
...

Well, yeahbbut...

If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there may be
an element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this miracle product,
whatever it might be, would be producible at a competitive price or not
have some other problem or somebody would be doing it...there are an
awful lot of bright folks out there.

--

Well, here's one that they tried to squelch, but it finally broke through:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIOIM6hHBk

With self-destruct function even. Are they available in time for
Christmas?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Jay Pique wrote:

On Dec 18, 9:45 am, "Frank Arthur" wrote:
"FoggyTown" wrote in message

...





A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
respected designer. One element of his presentation was his
assertion
that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
other established markets.

(1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
(2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
sales)

I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
time is right?

(Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a
train
and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)

FoggyTown

I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!- Hide
quoted text -

I thought water was known as the universal solvent.
JP

If you are willing to wait long enough.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
OTOH, I was pretty certain, when I was about five, that those square
wooden
wheels I put on the first tubafour "car" I made were so easy to make that
they would revolutionize the toy car business ...

Your square wheels and my square bearings! We coulda been rich! We
coulda been contenders!
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Just Wondering wrote:
surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25
mpg get 32 mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put
that particular manufacturer at the top of the heap.

We can do that now, except it's less about tweaking and more about
choices. We could have a more efficient large vehicle, it just wouldn't
go stoplight to stoplight like a 60's muscle car. G

People buying cars want serious acceleration and hauling power, and lots
of amenities and safety gear, regardless of need. Cars are stylish, and
usually purchased on want over need.

Many Prius, smart car, Hemi Mega Cab Power Wagon, and H2 purchasers
actually buy vehicles for similar reasons, they're making a personal
statement. This is documented and studied by auto company marketing
departments, with the advertising for a specific vehicle planned to
match. A perfect example of this is the new crop of crossover SUV's,
with SUV looks, over car or mini-van underpinnings.

My wife had a 1991 4 dr. Mazda Protege "econobox" that reliably got 40
MPG on highway trips with a 1.8L 16v engine. It had decent acceleration
with a stick shift, one airbag, a basic interior with non-powered
windows and locks, etc... Both of us felt relatively comfortable
driving it.

The current car that occupies the same slot in the Mazda line-up weighs
almost 800 pounds more, goes like stink (compared to my Protege), and
includes power everything as standard equipment. In certain, but not
all crashes, it's safer. Heavier cars usually fare better against other
vehicles, properly designed lighter cars are often better in single car
wrecks. Gas mileage is down in the high-20's.

All of this was really drilled into me when I became a pilot.
Everything in physics is a trade-off. More performance = less range,
replace the range, get less payload, replace the range and payload, use
even more fuel, continue in loop... Cars are no different, it's just
not as obvious. If there were some way to drastically increase piston
engine efficiency, I think we'd see it in airplanes. A basic, 4
cylinder, 4 seat piston aircraft goes for ~ $300,000 new!

I'm not intending to judge others. My wife drives a 14 MPG 4.0L Jeep
Wrangler with 32" tires, because she likes it. It rarely goes off road,
never with her at the wheel. It handles like crap, with little accident
avoidance capability. The only 4WD usage is in the snow, but as a
teacher, she gets most snowy days off! I'm the only one who uses it
with the top down, 3-4 days a year, as it messes up her hair. She loves
her Jeep and the outdoorsy image that goes with it. G


My apologies for the looooooong post!

On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y wrote:

[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]

My apologies for the looooooong post!

What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
formulae.
1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next time
the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
stoplight...etc.
If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
aren't going to make one bit of difference.

It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work in
a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or create
steam first.
X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to DO
the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process of
doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
ultimately is stored in that gallon.

I say, hook everything up to a perpetual motion machine.

Just Wondering wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:


If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an
average car 90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car
that now gets 25 mpg get 32 mpg instead. A little clever tweaking
like that would put that particular manufacturer at the top of the
heap. The fact nothing like that has happened indicates there is
no such product.


Which works on the same theory that there will not be any
time-machines, ever.
Not even in the future. We would have had visitors by now, eh?


How do you know we haven't???

The "which works on the same theory" post hasn't appeared on my
server--this is a response to that.

The car manufacturers have a vested interest in getting good gas
mileage. They pay a tax based on average fuel economy. If they had a
way to make a '76 Lincoln get 30 mpg by tacking on a gadget they would
have used that instead of going to all the trouble of redesigning
their entire product line, designing new engines, tooling up new
production lines, and all the other costly and time consuming things
they needed to do in order to avoid that tax.

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

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y wrote:

[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]

My apologies for the looooooong post!

What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
formulae.
1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
time
the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
stoplight...etc.
If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
aren't going to make one bit of difference.

It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work
in
a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
create
steam first.
X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
DO
the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
of
doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
ultimately is stored in that gallon.

While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee
with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted
with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
change in performance. Trouble is we don't know how to make a 100%
efficient engine or anything coming even close. Still any increase in
efficiency will reduce fuel consumption.

The CAFE law was changed recently to require CAFE of 35 mpg by 2020.
That means that the auto manufacturers are going to be making more
small cars and looking for ways to make large ones more efficient.

I say, hook everything up to a perpetual motion machine.

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

Robatoy wrote:

What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
formulae.
1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next time
the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
stoplight...etc.
If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
aren't going to make one bit of difference.

Your premise is quite correct, but I'm not so sure about your conclusion.

Yes, a gallon of fuel contains a fixed amount of energy, but an internal
combustion engine can't get 100% of that energy to the wheels. So what
all the pipe dreams are about is trying to squeeze as much of that
available energy from that gallon of gas as possible.

While preposterous ideas and claims abound, it would be wrong to imply
that there is no possibility of mechanical improvements that would
increase efficiency.

On Dec 19, 10:33 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y wrote:

[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]

My apologies for the looooooong post!

What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
formulae.
1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
time
the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
stoplight...etc.
If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
aren't going to make one bit of difference.

It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work
in
a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
create
steam first.
X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
DO
the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
of
doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
ultimately is stored in that gallon.

While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee
with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted
with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
change in performance.

It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more efficient
Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor.
My Hummer was a constant.
When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or
dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
gallon."
--- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.

r

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:33 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y wrote:
[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
My apologies for the looooooong post!
What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
formulae.
1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
time
the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
stoplight...etc.
If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
aren't going to make one bit of difference.
It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work
in
a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
create
steam first.
X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
DO
the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
of
doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
ultimately is stored in that gallon.
While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee
with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted
with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
change in performance.

It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more efficient
Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor.
My Hummer was a constant.
When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or
dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
gallon."
--- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.

r

I think the confusion sets in when you state:

"X amount of fuel = X amount of work" as if it were a constant. It is not.

X amount of fuel = X amount of energy would be accurate, but the amount
of *work* is going to be determined by efficiency.

On Dec 19, 11:41 am, "Charlie M. 1958"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:33 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y wrote:
[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
My apologies for the looooooong post!
What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
formulae.
1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
time
the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
stoplight...etc.
If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
aren't going to make one bit of difference.
It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work
in
a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
create
steam first.
X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
DO
the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
of
doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
ultimately is stored in that gallon.
While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee
with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted
with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
change in performance.

It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more efficient
Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor.
My Hummer was a constant.
When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or
dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
gallon."
--- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.

r

I think the confusion sets in when you state:

"X amount of fuel = X amount of work" as if it were a constant. It is not.

X amount of fuel = X amount of energy would be accurate, but the amount
of *work* is going to be determined by efficiency.

As you looked at it in that light, you are correct. Stated as an
absolute that 'formula' would be incomplete, to say the least. Even
with the Hummer as a constant. I'll be more careful next time. *G*

Robatoy wrote:

As you looked at it in that light, you are correct. Stated as an
absolute that 'formula' would be incomplete, to say the least. Even
with the Hummer as a constant. I'll be more careful next time. *G*

Just nitpickin'

:-)

Snippage
In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for something
like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across something that
shows promise for treating anther, much rarer condition. If the market
for this potential discovery isn't big enough to warrant the R&D
investment, it does not get pursued.

Or the market is created.

Wayne

NoOne N Particular wrote:
Snippage
In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for
something like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across
something that shows promise for treating anther, much rarer
condition. If the market for this potential discovery isn't big enough
to warrant the R&D investment, it does not get pursued.

Or the market is created.

Wayne

heh...heh... Yeah, just imagine the good fortune of Pfizer looking for
new blood pressure medications, and realizing that one had a very
fortuitous side effect.. a side effect that lots of guys would be
willing to pay dearly for!

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:33 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y wrote:

[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]

My apologies for the looooooong post!

What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct
conversion
formulae.
1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
time
the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
stoplight...etc.
If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of
fuel
to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg
carburator
aren't going to make one bit of difference.

It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of
work
in
a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
create
steam first.
X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
DO
the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
of
doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
ultimately is stored in that gallon.

While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that
Humvee
with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be
fitted
with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
change in performance.

It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more
efficient
Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor.
My Hummer was a constant.

Not if you had two different kinds of carburetor on it it wasn't.

When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work,
or
dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
gallon."
--- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.

All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do the
work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the work". But
this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get more work
out of a given quantity of heat then they become more efficient. That
is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is supposed to do.

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

J. Clarke wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
....
When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work,
or
dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
gallon."
--- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.

All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do the
work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the work". But
this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get more work
out of a given quantity of heat then they become more efficient. That
is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is supposed to do.

One wonders how, precisely, on its own, it does so with so much flair,
however...

--

"Charlie M. 1958" wrote

heh...heh... Yeah, just imagine the good fortune of Pfizer looking for
new blood pressure medications, and realizing that one had a very
fortuitous side effect.. a side effect that lots of guys would be
willing to pay dearly for!

What's more amazing, if the incessant advertising is any indication, is the
astounding number of limp yoyo's in this country. No wonder modern women
observably have a tendency to be such bitches ... just take a drive round
town while all the limp yoyo's are at work and you'll soon see what I mean
.... but be careful, those cell phone piloted SUV's can kill.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"Charlie M. 1958" wrote

heh...heh... Yeah, just imagine the good fortune of Pfizer looking for
new blood pressure medications, and realizing that one had a very
fortuitous side effect.. a side effect that lots of guys would be
willing to pay dearly for!

What's more amazing, if the incessant advertising is any indication, is the
astounding number of limp yoyo's in this country. No wonder modern women
observably have a tendency to be such bitches ... just take a drive round
town while all the limp yoyo's are at work and you'll soon see what I mean
... but be careful, those cell phone piloted SUV's can kill.


Speaking of advertising, that's not you playing in the "Viva Viagra"
commercial, is it? That's the kind of gig you take for the money, but
don't brag to your friends about. :-)

dpb wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
...
When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or
dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
gallon."
--- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.

All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do the
work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the work". But
this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get more work
out of a given quantity of heat then they become more efficient. That
is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is supposed to do.

One wonders how, precisely, on its own, it does so with so much flair,
however...

Particularly since fully-injected, metered per cylinder systems don't
come close...

--

Robatoy wrote:
The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.

Apparently 74%.....and to their credit a higher ratio than most other major
cities however the capital costs (state funds etc.) to build the system, buy
vehicles etc. are not included in these numbers......Akin to ignoring ones
house or car payment when considering operating costs.

In spite of being a reasonably well run efficient system they are presently
dealing with major funding issues and presently cutting routes, deferring
maintenance , planned expansion etc....

Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.

Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
cars... and there are lots of other examples.

Due to congestion.....in the city proper parking cost alone is a deal
breaker.....in a heavily populated city mass transit in some form is pretty
much required.



So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?

TriMet...Portland Oregon

Ctran....Vancouver, Wa (Bus only).....My wife is on the citizen advisory
commision..... Rod

"Charlie M. 1958" wrote

Speaking of advertising, that's not you playing in the "Viva Viagra"
commercial, is it? That's the kind of gig you take for the money, but
don't brag to your friends about. :-)

Haven't seen it, but I don't think so ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"Charlie M. 1958" wrote

Speaking of advertising, that's not you playing in the "Viva Viagra"
commercial, is it? That's the kind of gig you take for the money, but
don't brag to your friends about. :-)

Haven't seen it, but I don't think so ...


I don't know how you've missed it. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PH9qAGPULk

Do yourself a favor and watch it. It's one of the hokiest commercials of
all time.

"Charlie M. 1958" wrote

I don't know how you've missed it. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PH9qAGPULk

Do yourself a favor and watch it. It's one of the hokiest commercials of
all time.

I liked the banned viagra commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfwpG...eature=related

Some wishful thinking on somebody's part.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
FoggyTown wrote:
A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
other established markets.
...

Well, yeahbbut...

If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there may be an
element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this miracle product,
whatever it might be, would be producible at a competitive price or not
have some other problem or somebody would be doing it...there are an awful
lot of bright folks out there.

--

The key people would quit the company and create a startup to market the
miracle product.

On Dec 18, 9:58�pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Subject

Must be a slow day in the news room for this old wives tale to get any
ink, virtual or otherwise.

Lew

WHICH old wives' tale?

FoggyTown

On Dec 18, 5:55�pm, "Colin B."
wrote:
FoggyTown wrote:
A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
respected designer. �One element of his presentation was his assertion
that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
other established markets.

(1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)

Well, there obviously IS pressure--the pressure from the weight of the
knife. Give me a machete and I'll be able to grind a low-angle razor edge
on it to do just the above mentioned. (Of course, it'll be useless as a
machete with an edge that fine.) If you need sharper than that, go buy a
neurosurgeon's glass scalpel.
Sharpness isn't magic, but too fine of an edge will not be resilient
enough for general use. It'll either break, wear, or bend.

(2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
sales)

What's wrong with electrolysis? It's here, it's permanent, and it's
fairly inexpensive. Apparently painful as hell, though. Honestly, it's
not something that most guys want--even if they _do_ shave daily.
An ointment to do the same without bad side effects is possible, but
not all that beneficial.

I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. �I just
wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
time is right?

Lots of things out there. I used to work for a small drug design company.
We had several interesting candidates for drugs, but the synthesis or
work-up was too hard to pursue further. Someday, someone is going to
start selling a gold-based anti-inflammatory that's easily absorbed. It
might be based on the work I did, or it might be based on some other
company's old research that's sitting on the shelf.

The problem with conspiracy theories in general is that there's enough
going on in terms of market forces, economics, and even overt evil, that
there's no NEED for companies to resort to ridiculous and implausible
extents.

Colin

What conspiracy theory? If I invent a compound that can be made into
tires that will last 100,000 miles and I sell it to, say, Firestone
who buys it just to keep it from some other manufacturer - that isn't
a conspiracy. It may be a shame but it isn't a conspiracy. It's
called protecting your market. Firestone can't use it because either
they will have to sell each new-compound tire for 5 times more than
the present ones OR they will have to sell five times more tires than
they do now - maybe more.

Like I say, we have no way of knowing what's been invented but
withheld for economic or safety reasons.

FoggyTown