"Prometheus" wrote in message

Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.



More and more machines are being made overseas. In my business, molding foam
plastics, the dozen of so US manufacturers are all gone. Last one was
closed about a dozen years ago.

I can buy machines from Austria, Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea.

It is good to see that companies like Minster are still around but others
have shut the doors. Heald, and many like them are long gone.

If you take the coal we have and process it with the abundant energy of the
reactor, you don't need to use productive land for "biofuel."

Not to worry about the money. As long as the press and candidate X continue
to savage those friendly to us and make friendly with those who savage us,
it's wasted regardless.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Just think - nukes for the electric, bio-fuels for the mobile stuff.
The Arabs could try to sell oil to each other. The capacity is there,
but instead of spending money making bio-fuels practical, and instead of
building the nuke plants to get us away from foreign oil, and instead
of using domestic oil in the meantime, we keep giving lots of money to
people who are neutral to us at best, and who mostly want to kill us.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:08:41 -0400, George george@least wrote:
If you take the coal we have and process it with the abundant energy of the
reactor, you don't need to use productive land for "biofuel."

But the productive land we're not using for biofuels is sitting idle.
Trust me on this one, I've got 30 acres of it that they're paying me
not to farm. If I had soybeans on it, I could make more in a good year
than I get paid to not farm it, the extra demand would balance out the
extra production, and we could stop giving money to people who hate us.
Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
y'see. Give 'em a fuel that's grown locally, that they can buy at
the same places they go to now for fuel, _that_ will be accepted and
used.

Not to worry about the money. As long as the press and candidate X continue
to savage those friendly to us and make friendly with those who savage us,
it's wasted regardless.

Yeah, it's interesting how he keeps doing that, and his supporters
don't seem to notice and/or care.

Dave Hinz

jo4hn writes:
Jay Chan wrote:
[snip]
Glad to hear that people is open to the idea of using nuclear power. I
was wondering if someone might jump in and lecture me about the
"evils" of using nuclear power.

Jay Chan

1. A terrorist will crash a plane into it and we will all go ka-boom-boom.

Not possible. Worst that can happen from this is an unintentional
release of radioactivity at a scale much closer to TMI than Chernobel.
Certainly won't explode.

2. A diddly-dip will accidentally crash his car/boat/plane into it and
we will all go ka-boom-boom.

Not possible (the ka-boom-boom part).

3. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
left in piles along side the road and we will all glow in the dark and
die of bippy cancer.

Reprocess the waste into more fuel. Known and available technology
(although the US shutdown its reprocessing facilities in the 70's, other
countries still reprocess their spent fuel rods).

Reprocessing creates useful fuel from the waste. The waste from
reprocessing is fairly low-level (half life in the 100 year range
rather than 100,000 year range) and occupies little volume.

http://www.anlw.anl.gov/htdocs/anlw_history/reactors/ifr.html

4. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
used by terrorists to make dirty bombs and we will all glow in the dark
and die of bippy cancer.

A dirty bomb is much overrated. The contamination produced by the
explosion of a typical dirty bomb (medical isotopes or old fuel rods)
will provide a radiation dose pretty close to background (its within
the noise) outide of the immediate proximity (100's feet) of the
explosion. [See the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for details].
Anyone close enough to the explosion to be affected by any exposure
to radiation is probably dead from the blast effects anyway. Granted
decontam will need to be done, but on a fairly small (a block ortwo)
scale.

Sure it sucks, but it ain't the end of the world, or even a singificant
problem (excepting the inevitable irrational mass panic from the uneducated
masses).

Note that the core of a dirty bomb is still conventional explosive and
even a ton of TNT going off is relatively minor on the scale of a city.

5. There will be an accidental melt-down all the way to China which will
**** them off enough to launch missles and we will all go ka-boom-boom.

watching those stupid fonda flix again are you? SNL had it right with
the Pepsi Syndrome.

scott

You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol for
Messerschmitts.

Then you could farm that 30 and feed "the children" somewhere else. I'll
keep my homestead in forest.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:08:41 -0400, George george@least wrote:
If you take the coal we have and process it with the abundant energy of
the
reactor, you don't need to use productive land for "biofuel."

But the productive land we're not using for biofuels is sitting idle.
Trust me on this one, I've got 30 acres of it that they're paying me
not to farm. If I had soybeans on it, I could make more in a good year
than I get paid to not farm it, the extra demand would balance out the
extra production, and we could stop giving money to people who hate us.
Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
y'see. Give 'em a fuel that's grown locally, that they can buy at
the same places they go to now for fuel, _that_ will be accepted and
used.

Not to worry about the money. As long as the press and candidate X
continue
to savage those friendly to us and make friendly with those who savage
us,
it's wasted regardless.

Yeah, it's interesting how he keeps doing that, and his supporters
don't seem to notice and/or care.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:18:45 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message

Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.



More and more machines are being made overseas. In my business, molding foam
plastics, the dozen of so US manufacturers are all gone. Last one was
closed about a dozen years ago.

I can buy machines from Austria, Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea.

It is good to see that companies like Minster are still around but others
have shut the doors. Heald, and many like them are long gone.

HE&M is still making some damn nice bandsaws with a flag on them- and
the HEM guys still come out to do PMs and such. A lot of the other
machines are older, so I suppose it's possible the companies are no
longer around. But this area is still booming like crazy when it
comes to manufacturing, and it's hard to believe the hype when I see
the huge amounts of spin that the news programs are using when they
report layoffs around here. I live in a small town, so I usually know
someone that works at any given place, and there is usually a very
good reason for layoffs that has nothing to do with China or Korea.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:08:28 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
wrote:

I agree with what you are all saying here. I am so thankful that my son
is
working for a company making war machines right now because that is all
that
I see that is safe in the US manufacturing area. I went to Sam's club
today
and wondered around looking at where the products were made. Almost
everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers,
dryers
and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.

People like Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that we have always found a way
to
compete in the past. I am looking for someone to tell me how except for
a
very few areas (like high tech war machines).

Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.

You mean all that American industrial equipment like Okuma, Hitachi Seiki,
Mazak, Mori Seiki, Komatsu, Matsuura, Karaki ect? Yep, use that stuff daily.
How about that English made Bridgeport?

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:20:18 -0400, George george@least wrote:
You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

How so? I'm saying "let's start using them more", not "they never
existed before today" or whatever you're trying to say I'm saying.

Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol for
Messerschmitts.

Yes, I'm aware of it.

Then you could farm that 30 and feed "the children" somewhere else. I'll
keep my homestead in forest.

I never brought up feeding "the children", I made the point that I'd
rather we support USA'n farmers with our money, than give that same money
to a bunch of Arabs who want to kill us.

Maybe you're responding to a different message than the one I wrote?
That'd make more sense than thinking it's actually about my post.

Dave Hinz

Nope, I'm certainly not responding to what you _think_ you wrote, but rather
what you wrote.

You Wrote:
Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
y'see.

I merely pointed out that heat and coal have been making fuel suitable for
vehicles for a long time.
You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

Even the same fuel the culture is used to.

Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol
for
Messerschmitts.

Further, I didn't attribute "feed the children" to you. It's a stock
liberal phrase. And a better use for land than growing and blowing it
through a tailpipe, even though ****CAUTION NEW INFORMATION*** the park
service vehicles they're fuelling with grease from fast food frycookers
hereabout do have an intriguing smell. ***END NEW INFORMATION***

Are your dyslexic or just dyspeptic?


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:20:18 -0400, George george@least wrote:
You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

How so? I'm saying "let's start using them more", not "they never
existed before today" or whatever you're trying to say I'm saying.

Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol
for
Messerschmitts.

Yes, I'm aware of it.

Then you could farm that 30 and feed "the children" somewhere else.
I'll
keep my homestead in forest.

I never brought up feeding "the children", I made the point that I'd
rather we support USA'n farmers with our money, than give that same money
to a bunch of Arabs who want to kill us.

Maybe you're responding to a different message than the one I wrote?
That'd make more sense than thinking it's actually about my post.

Dave Hinz

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:43:34 -0400, George george@least wrote:
Nope, I'm certainly not responding to what you _think_ you wrote, but rather
what you wrote.

You Wrote:
Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
y'see.

I merely pointed out that heat and coal have been making fuel suitable for
vehicles for a long time.

Ah, I see. Since you didn't, you know, include that context, I didn't
know that that was what you were talking to.

The problem with coal gasification (I'm familiar with it; my grandfather
was a chemical engineer in a coal gas plant in Milwaukee for decades -
google "Milwaukee Solvay" and my last name for confirmation). The thing
is, that's (a) just transforming one fuel into another, and (b) not something
that will run in unmodified vehicles of today. Contrast this to biodiesel
and/or gasoline/alcohol blends, where the same people can fill their same
cars at the same stations using the same pumps, with a product that is at
least partially domestically produced. Changing too much of consumer's
pattern at once is going to result in a technology not being widely adopted.
This is why hydrogen cars continue not to happen, but why hibrid/electrics
are more viable and available.

You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm

Even the same fuel the culture is used to.

How does coal gas work in a current unmodified automobile? Where can
I fill up on it today? Use that chemical energy for something it's more
suited for; stationary applications. It's not a good fit for wide
mobile distribution and point-of-use combustion.

Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol
for
Messerschmitts.

Further, I didn't attribute "feed the children" to you. It's a stock
liberal phrase.

I wouldn't know, not being one.

And a better use for land than growing and blowing it
through a tailpipe, even though ****CAUTION NEW INFORMATION*** the park
service vehicles they're fuelling with grease from fast food frycookers
hereabout do have an intriguing smell. ***END NEW INFORMATION***

First of all, your attitude is getting in the way of presenting your
point, which I'm _still_ not sure what the hell it is. Secondly, I am
very familiar with the current state of biodiesel and the various sources
from which it can be obtained.

As far as "feeding the children" with my land, if that's what your point
is saying I should be doing (rather than growing soybeans for oil, or letting
it sit in the Clinton-era contracts to lay fallow rather than farm), well,
I guess that's a choice I get to make. Once those contracts expire, I can
either choose to continue to grow the trees on it, or to do whatever else
is economically feasable, and/or technically interesting and or possible with
it.

Are your dyslexic or just dyspeptic?

Yawn. I'm sure if you have an actual point and/or value to add to this
conversation, you could do better than whatever that was. Couple of
questions: are you disagreeing that the arabs don't like us? Do you agree
or disagree that it is preferable to spend money supporting USA'n farmers,
as compared to sending that same money to people in arabic countries?

If you agree that the local farmers are more deserving than the people who
want to kill us, then would you agree that a solution which improves both
aspects of that equation would be one to pursue?

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:12:11 -0700, "CW" no adddress@spam free.com
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:08:28 -0400, "Eric Anderson"
wrote:

I agree with what you are all saying here. I am so thankful that my son
is
working for a company making war machines right now because that is all
that
I see that is safe in the US manufacturing area. I went to Sam's club
today
and wondered around looking at where the products were made. Almost
everything I saw with any real manufacturing content (except washers,
dryers
and some tools) were made in China. Scares the heck out of me.

People like Rush Limbaugh seem to believe that we have always found a way
to
compete in the past. I am looking for someone to tell me how except for
a
very few areas (like high tech war machines).

Industrial grade equipment (excluding forklifts, for the most part)
almost always has a made in the USA tag on it, as far as I've seen in
any factory around here. I can't imagine using a brake press that was
made in China out of plastic and tin. Maybe it is all dying out, but
it really doesn't seem like it on the production floor.

You mean all that American industrial equipment like Okuma, Hitachi Seiki,
Mazak, Mori Seiki, Komatsu, Matsuura, Karaki ect? Yep, use that stuff daily.
How about that English made Bridgeport?


All right, I'll give you Mazak and Bridgeport. Honestly, though- I've
never seen the others around here, with the exception of forklifts.
This is probably a case where I should open my mouth and insert foot.
It just seems like in a lot of cases where I'm at people are only
unemployed because they don't want to work, and I have a hard time
trusting anything the media tells me anymore.

"Prometheus" wrote in message

All right, I'll give you Mazak and Bridgeport. Honestly, though- I've
never seen the others around here, with the exception of forklifts.

If you have an industry that does much machining, they are around. The
Japanese dominate the CNC machine tool market and have for many years. You
do see a fair amount of Haas and Fadal (American made) though those are sold
to the type of people that shop at Harbor Freight. Pretty low quality
machines but they are cheap.

This is probably a case where I should open my mouth and insert foot.
It just seems like in a lot of cases where I'm at people are only
unemployed because they don't want to work, and I have a hard time
trusting anything the media tells me anymore.

I tend to agree with you there.