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

On Dec 18, 7:45 am, 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)
(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

Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
that appear to be black and white seldom are.

DonkeyHody
"We can't all be heros because somebody has to sit on the curb and
clap as they go by." - Will Rogers

"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!

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
DonkeyHody wrote:

Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
that appear to be black and white seldom are.

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.

Talk about sending in the black helicopters...

--

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!

DonkeyHody wrote:

Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
that appear to be black and white seldom are.

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.

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.

--

On 12/18/07 9:45 AM, "Frank Arthur" wrote:


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


And I have a cold fusion reactor running in my basement. (:-)

dpb wrote:
Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
DonkeyHody wrote:

Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
that appear to be black and white seldom are.

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.

Talk about sending in the black helicopters...

--

Despite how that may have sounded to you, I'm really not a conspiracy
theorist in the least. The problem is so well documented that the the
federal government passed legislation giving incentives to drug
companies to encourage them not to let such discoveries go undeveloped.

Would you believe the FDA;s own website?

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/orphan.html

You should rent "The Man in the White Suit" with Alec Guinness...plot
summary from IMDB: A man invents a fabric that won't get dirty or wear
out, but he seems to have made more enemies than friends in the
process....

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
dpb wrote:
Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
DonkeyHody wrote:

Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
that appear to be black and white seldom are.

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.

Talk about sending in the black helicopters...

--

Despite how that may have sounded to you, I'm really not a conspiracy
theorist in the least. The problem is so well documented that the the
federal government passed legislation giving incentives to drug
companies to encourage them not to let such discoveries go undeveloped.

Would you believe the FDA;s own website?

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/orphan.html

Took somewhat out of context, I'll grant...it's a pov thing I guess.
Sure there are things that don't warrant the investment from a purely
economic standpoint. Unless there's some way to support the research
that's a problem no commercial venture can afford (at least
indefinitely). I mistook the intent given the previous, sorry...

--

Robert Haar wrote:
On 12/18/07 9:45 AM, "Frank Arthur" wrote:

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


And I have a cold fusion reactor running in my basement. (:-)

Damn! And I thought I got away w/ the only working one of the prototypes...

Was working w/ EPRI when the furor was raised--a gravy train for some,
albeit shortlived...

--

dpb wrote:
Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
dpb wrote:
Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
DonkeyHody wrote:

Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
that appear to be black and white seldom are.

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.

Talk about sending in the black helicopters...

--

Despite how that may have sounded to you, I'm really not a conspiracy
theorist in the least. The problem is so well documented that the the
federal government passed legislation giving incentives to drug
companies to encourage them not to let such discoveries go undeveloped.

Would you believe the FDA;s own website?

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/orphan.html

Took somewhat out of context, I'll grant...it's a pov thing I guess.
Sure there are things that don't warrant the investment from a purely
economic standpoint. Unless there's some way to support the research
that's a problem no commercial venture can afford (at least
indefinitely). I mistook the intent given the previous, sorry...

--
And I confess that until I did some googling to support what I said, I
didn't realize that quite a bit *has* apparently been done to minimize
the problem.

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

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.

I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have bought
out their competitors and their product since time immemorial, I don't
think good product stand much of a chance of being on the sidelines
anymore. I think too many companies are too hungry and the chance to
make a buck is too much to resist.

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.

I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They had
both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed that
it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill invented
faster than he could come up with a money source to try out his ideas,
and he was ALWAYS cash poor.

They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat. And
since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he felt
like he would have known about a project that had actually gone to
live testing.

But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there for
a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.

Robert

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:45:26 -0500, "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!

....and there is a hole clear through the earth under your garage to
prove it.... boy were those Chinese on the other side surprised!

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)

Straight razor won't do that. Neither will a boron fiber, which
_will_ take your fingers off if you're not careful with it.

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

Most men wouldn't buy it regardless--it closes the option of growing a
beard if one should want to. Women get this done with some regularity
by another process.

Don't believe everything you hear in a lecture.

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!)

If he demonstrated it then the "petroninjas" would have jumped on it
and if it was a cheaper production method than pumping it out of the
ground started using it. Since such a discovery would violate several
principles of chemistry and physics though such claims unless
supported by hard evidence must be taken as urban legends.

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

On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

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.

I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have bought
out their competitors and their product since time immemorial, I don't
think good product stand much of a chance of being on the sidelines
anymore. I think too many companies are too hungry and the chance to
make a buck is too much to resist.

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.

I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They had
both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed that
it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill invented
faster than he could come up with a money source to try out his ideas,
and he was ALWAYS cash poor.

They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat. And
since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he felt
like he would have known about a project that had actually gone to
live testing.

But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there for
a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.


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.
Many cities in the US had very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for
instance). Yet the deal schmoozed out between the man Firestone and
one the US presidents (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of
tires and fuel more important and the whole transportation system went
for crap just to sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences
bad decisions propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign
donations.in fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to
negotiate but doesn't sell hardware.
So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available, it
wouldn't see the light of day.

r----- aka as Zebco6-ultralight... unless I'm stumping for bass.

wrote in message

anymore. I think too many companies are too hungry and the chance to
make a buck is too much to resist.

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 ...


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

On Dec 18, 10:12 am, "Swingman" wrote:


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 ...

I almost spewed my coffee.

So... finish the story. Were you bought out by GM? Did they screw
you because you were five? Are you secretly using your weatlh from
that sale to buy new router accessories while depriving the American
public of one of the worlds (potentially) greatest inventions?

Knowing the state of the auto industry, I am sure your invention
(hmmmmm.... square wheels, you say... why didn't I think of that? I
think at five I was still eating dirt, not sure) would easily make it
through R&D and testing.

Just think - who needs ABS brakes when you have "Swing's Square
Wheels"?

Robert

wrote

So... finish the story.

Sorry, that's classified ...

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

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

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.
I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
bought out their competitors and their product since time
immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.

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.

I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.

They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
gone to live testing.

But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.


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

But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
be in the end...

Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
(forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
doesn't sell hardware.

That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
except for the morning/evening commute, if that...

Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...

So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available,
it wouldn't see the light of day.

That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
realizable, which it isn't)...

--

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

On Dec 18, 10:43 am, "Swingman" wrote:

So... finish the story.

Sorry, that's classified ...

Gotcha. Tell me later.

Meet you on the grassy knoll. ;^)

Robert

On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:


That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
realizable, which it isn't)...


....and man will never fly.

On Dec 18, 11:39 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:12 am, "Swingman" wrote:



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 ...

I almost spewed my coffee.

So... finish the story. Were you bought out by GM? Did they screw
you because you were five? Are you secretly using your weatlh from
that sale to buy new router accessories while depriving the American
public of one of the worlds (potentially) greatest inventions?

Knowing the state of the auto industry, I am sure your invention
(hmmmmm.... square wheels, you say... why didn't I think of that? I
think at five I was still eating dirt, not sure) would easily make it
through R&D and testing.

Just think - who needs ABS brakes when you have "Swing's Square
Wheels"?

Robert

They would work well in the snow, me thinks...

On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:


Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...

He wasn't exactly negotiating from a position of strength, now was he?

On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

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.
I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
bought out their competitors and their product since time
immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.

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.

I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.

They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
gone to live testing.

But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.

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

But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
be in the end...

Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
(forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
doesn't sell hardware.

That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
except for the morning/evening commute, if that...


I wasn't exactly suggesting to run a tram track into everybody's
driveway, now was I?
Trams vs busses on main arteries. Railroad freight vs trucks on long
distances. Of course you need a 'spoke' system with the flexibility of
tired vehicles.
Smart people in Toronto, for instance, take the rails to work and
leave the cars at home when they can.
A small hop on a bus to get to the end of your street makes sense in a
system like that. But, of course, I am stating the obvious.

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:

That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
realizable, which it isn't)...


...and man will never fly.

There valid scientific reasons why even when it might have been thought
to be impossible, it was theoretically so.

On the contrary, there are valid reasons (at least unless some of our
basic understanding of nuclear physics are revolutionized which seem
unlikely to that level) that "cold" fusion is not...

The point being however, if it does become so and is economically
viable, there will be folks all over it. I was, as I said earlier,
associated enough w/ power generation folks and EPRI at the time of the
previous flap and there were whole divisions of folks looking into the
potential already even as it was still being debated if it were real
(which, of course, it turned out it wasn't).

--

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:

Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...

He wasn't exactly negotiating from a position of strength, now was he?

So how was that supposed to be "easy" as compared to what his government
subsequently underwent?

--

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:
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.
I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
bought out their competitors and their product since time
immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.
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.
I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
gone to live testing.
But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
(over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
be in the end...

Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
(forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
doesn't sell hardware.
That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
except for the morning/evening commute, if that...


I wasn't exactly suggesting to run a tram track into everybody's
driveway, now was I?
Trams vs busses on main arteries. Railroad freight vs trucks on long
distances. Of course you need a 'spoke' system with the flexibility of
tired vehicles.
Smart people in Toronto, for instance, take the rails to work and
leave the cars at home when they can.
A small hop on a bus to get to the end of your street makes sense in a
system like that. But, of course, I am stating the obvious.

But where's the "government conspiracy" w/ Firestone? It's all
choice--many places can't persuade folks to ride mass transport even if
it is heavily subsidized.

--

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:18:44 -0600, dpb wrote:

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

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.
I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
bought out their competitors and their product since time
immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.

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.

I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.

They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
gone to live testing.

But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.


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

But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
be in the end...

Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
(forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
doesn't sell hardware.

That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
except for the morning/evening commute, if that...

Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...

So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available,
it wouldn't see the light of day.

That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
realizable, which it isn't)...

Well, that's one for the old zebco...

On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

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.

I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have bought
out their competitors and their product since time immemorial, I don't
think good product stand much of a chance of being on the sidelines
anymore. I think too many companies are too hungry and the chance to
make a buck is too much to resist.

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.

I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They had
both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed that
it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill invented
faster than he could come up with a money source to try out his ideas,
and he was ALWAYS cash poor.

They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat. And
since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he felt
like he would have known about a project that had actually gone to
live testing.

But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there for
a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.

Robert

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.

So far, the closest thing I've seen is a guy on eBay who was selling
(maybe still is) a booklet that is guaranteed to help you increase
your gas mileage by xx percent. Just for kicks, I sent off five bucks.
When I got it, it turned out to be a carb line heater, not exactly new
news, and almost dead useless in this day of EFI.

What was the last new car you saw with a carburetor?

"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.....those terribly inefficient cars only cost around .40 to
..50 cents per mile





Many cities in the US had very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for
instance). Yet the deal schmoozed out between the man Firestone and
one the US presidents (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of
tires and fuel more important and the whole transportation system went
for crap just to sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences
bad decisions propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign
donations.in fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to
negotiate but doesn't sell hardware.
So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available, it
wouldn't see the light of day.

r----- aka as Zebco6-ultralight... unless I'm stumping for bass.

If you want to know why mass transit only has legs because of
congestion(major cities).... not price or convenience just try to live a
normal life without a car......My daughter's car recently broke down, her
normal 20 minute each way commute took 2 hrs each way...and yet her
hospital(job) is on a major road and her apartment is not far from another.
Rod

Charlie Self wrote:
....

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.
....

This is the first time I ever hear of it being associated to Bill Lear
(and unless it's a different Bill Lear than the electronics and aviation
technology I don't think it is his. It doesn't sound at all like
something he would get involved in--he knew physics and engineering and
would recognize a hoax as a hoax from the git-go).

As a sidelight and back to something that has wood in it (at least the
cabinets did ), my uncle in Wichita had an Armstrong dealership and
did quite a lot of upper-end remodels in the 50s and 60s. He did the
tile work in the Lear's home in Wichita while I was in college. My
cousin, brother and myself would drive down on weekends from Manhattan
and work as tile mechanics while finishing the job as it was so large.
That went on most of one winter/spring before we finally finished it all...

What was the last new car you saw with a carburetor?

Check out NASCAR... I'm not a fan by any stretch, but aren't they
still fully aspirated? I've always wondered why the stay that way, but
presume because they figure it would open up an unlimited number of
_additional_ ways to cheat--uh, get competitive advantage, I mean.

Maybe that's what they need to save a pit stop late in the race.

--

On Dec 18, 1:38 pm, Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:18:44 -0600, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb wrote:

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.
I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
bought out their competitors and their product since time
immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.

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.

I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.

They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
gone to live testing.

But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.

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

But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
be in the end...

Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
(forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
doesn't sell hardware.

That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
except for the morning/evening commute, if that...

Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...

So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available,
it wouldn't see the light of day.

That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
realizable, which it isn't)...

Well, that's one for the old zebco...

Robatoy said:

Just think - who needs ABS brakes when you have "Swing's Square
Wheels"?

Robert

They would work well in the snow, me thinks...

Yeah, as skis. ;-)
Especially once they got a nice glaze of ice on them.


Greg G.

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:


That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
realizable, which it isn't)...


...and man will never fly.

Palm sized fusion maybe. But it's not going to be "cold fusion". If
you believe in "cold fusion" might I interest you in this nice ski
resort outside Des Moines . . .

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

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "

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

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.
I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
bought out their competitors and their product since time
immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are
too
hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.

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.

I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a
documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were
amazed
that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.

They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up
with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years,
he
felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
gone to live testing.

But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.

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

But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily
commute--it
only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go.
It is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one
wants to be in the end...

Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
(forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
important and the whole transportation system went for crap just
to
sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign
donations.in
fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
doesn't sell hardware.

That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has
to do with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an
affordable automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't
going to choose the individualism of "having it their own way" over
mass transportation except for the morning/evening commute, if
that...


I wasn't exactly suggesting to run a tram track into everybody's
driveway, now was I?
Trams vs busses on main arteries. Railroad freight vs trucks on long
distances. Of course you need a 'spoke' system with the flexibility
of
tired vehicles.
Smart people in Toronto, for instance, take the rails to work and
leave the cars at home when they can.
A small hop on a bus to get to the end of your street makes sense in
a
system like that. But, of course, I am stating the obvious.

How well do trams fit into rush hour traffic? How easy is it to
change the route? And how much does it cost to run trams including
maintaining the infrastructure vs running buses? Don't assume that
"more efficient" in terms of rolling friction means "cheaper to run".

People in NYC also take the rails to work. So what? But NYC has no
trams, you can take the subway to walking distance of just about
anywhere in the city. And in Toronto they are now planning to extend
the system to cover many suburbs that currently have no service.

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

On Dec 18, 2:13 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb wrote:

That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
realizable, which it isn't)...

...and man will never fly.

Palm sized fusion maybe. But it's not going to be "cold fusion". If
you believe in "cold fusion" might I interest you in this nice ski
resort outside Des Moines . . .

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

Lukewarm fusion maybe?

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?