On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown
wrote:

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

Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
have no legs.

On Dec 19, 8:46�pm, Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown





wrote:
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

Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
have no legs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then get slammed for operating a monopoly?

FoggyTown

On Dec 18, 5:03 pm, Robatoy wrote:
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...

Salt water to me will always equal lead sinkers, about 8 hooks on the
line (which looked a bit like wrapping twine), and just drop the
sucker over the side of a the boat. Wait a bit. Haul it in. Anywhere
from 1 to 5 flounders.

On Dec 19, 3:46 pm, Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown



wrote:
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

Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
have no legs.

They've got legs. They just change their pants real often.

On Dec 19, 3:54 pm, FoggyTown wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:46�pm, Dave Hall wrote:



On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown

wrote:
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

Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
have no legs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then get slammed for operating a monopoly?

FoggyTown

These days?

dpb wrote:
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...

Why, it precatalyzes the fuel so that it undergoes cold fusion in the
cylinder of course.

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

On Dec 19, 4:29 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
dpb wrote:
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...

Why, it precatalyzes the fuel so that it undergoes cold fusion in the
cylinder of course.

But it's usually warm in cylinders, no?

FoggyTown wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:46?pm, Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown

wrote:
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

Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
have no legs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Then get slammed for operating a monopoly?

There's nothing illegal about operating a monopoly. If you're deemed
to be a monoply, there are restrictions about what you can do to maintain
it, but making a better mousetrap and bankrupting the competition isn't
illegal.

Colin

"FoggyTown" wrote:

WHICH old wives' tale?

How about the whole thread?

Lew

J. Clarke wrote:
dpb wrote:
....

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

Why, it precatalyzes the fuel so that it undergoes cold fusion in the
cylinder of course.

I guess I missed that part in the owner's manual theory section...

--

"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.

Jeeezusss! ... a new cultural low.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/10/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote
"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.

Jeeezusss! ... a new cultural low.

Ever get the feeling that just about everything in today's culture, from
facebook, to viagra, to presidential elections, to chiwanese crap tools is
nothing but SPAM!

.... and the pervasiveness is manifested in the fact that, if you run Vista,
"viagra" is included in your spell checker ... try typing it in with a
little "v" and see what happens!

... think about it!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/10/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:

"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.

Jeeezusss! ... a new cultural low.


Yeah, the Samsing Turbo 3000 phone commercial was a whole lot better.


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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Yeah, the Samsing Turbo 3000 phone commercial was a whole lot better.

Yeah ... like the profound lyrics to backing track of the Vonage commercial,
eh?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/10/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Dec 19, 7:45 pm, "Swingman" wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Yeah, the Samsing Turbo 3000 phone commercial was a whole lot better.

Yeah ... like the profound lyrics to backing track of the Vonage commercial,
eh?


I take exception to 'eh?' being used in the discussion of Vonage
commercials.
'eh?'....is kinda personal. Let's try to keep that amongst us friends,
okay? Eh?

r

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 4:29 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
dpb wrote:
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...

Why, it precatalyzes the fuel so that it undergoes cold fusion in
the
cylinder of course.

But it's usually warm in cylinders, no?

Never let facts ruin a good story

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

Swingman wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote

Yeah, the Samsing Turbo 3000 phone commercial was a whole lot better.

Yeah ... like the profound lyrics to backing track of the Vonage
commercial, eh?


Just in case you didn't see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIOIM6hHBk

OTOH, I agree with you -- it used to be somewhat embarrassing to be an
adolescent/teenager when they started advertising feminine products on the
family TV. It is much more profoundly difficult when your 11 year-old asks
what the ED commercials are advertising.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough