T
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
Addicted is the wrong word. Any country is not addicted to oil, the countries who drill for and supply oil give us no alternative. As opposed to:
“Electric cars were reasonably popular in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when electricity was among the preferred methods for automobile propulsion, providing a level of comfort and ease of operation that could not be achieved by the gasoline cars of the time.[20] In 1900, 40% of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38% by electricity, and 22% by gasoline.[21] The electric vehicle stock peaked at approximately 30,000 vehicles at the turn of the 20th century.[22]”
During World War II, cars and trucks powered by burning wood were not uncommon.
Ed
“Electric cars were reasonably popular in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when electricity was among the preferred methods for automobile propulsion, providing a level of comfort and ease of operation that could not be achieved by the gasoline cars of the time.[20] In 1900, 40% of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38% by electricity, and 22% by gasoline.[21] The electric vehicle stock peaked at approximately 30,000 vehicles at the turn of the 20th century.[22]”
During World War II, cars and trucks powered by burning wood were not uncommon.
Ed
W
Wampa
Guest
I’m halfway through the 10 episodes. It’s excellent and the premise is really fascinating. Recommended for anyone who likes political thrillers.
M
mikekle
Guest
Googling information about patent suppression is pretty eye opening too, I was shocked at some of the patents people had applied for, that were ‘squashed’ for lack of a better word, especially back in the 1950s and 60s, there were 1000s of patents for 100-300 mpg engines, carbs, etc. but they were all doomed to the ‘patent police’, many of these records are available today though.
Ive always thought it strange in these modern times, we dont hear of anyone coming up with stuff like they did back then, I think that is suspect in itself, not to mention there exists a classified patent system to begin with…this shows they do not want people having access to such efficient products, if they could create gas engines that get 200+ mpg back in the 1960s, I have to believe they COULD do the same or better today.
I even started a thread awhile back about this secret patent system.
I dont doubt for a second they suppress certain efficient technology, they have to keep a certain level of revenue coming in from energy/ fossil fuels, if people found out they could get 200 mpg from a vehicle, it would put the energy companies out of business, so even though in modern times, they talk tough about vehicles having higher mpg, there is a limit to this, they would never allow 200-300+mpg technology.
I always find it fascinating when it is proposed that the establishment suppresses invention since they are threatened by it.
I would think quite the opposite.
An invention that would provide high mileage for a car could allow an auto manufacturer to corner the market.
P
Pat_Payne
Guest
The premise does sound far-fetched. Norway, IINM, is a NATO country, so Russia invading them wouldn’t just be “let’s keep the oil flowing and so here’s a nice, clean little war” but “World War Three thanks to Article 5 of the NATO Charter.”
Not to mention that Russia is a major oil producer. Them invading Norway over oil is like Nebraska invading South Dakota over corn.
T
Theo520
Guest
Yes, there are no miracle carburetors being suppressed. The basic physics is well understood and it’s highly competitive to tweak out even modest MPG improvements, usually through weight reduction and less power.
Yes, it has some plausibility gaps. Russia would be applauding a shut-off of Norwegian oil. In what I’ve seen, they’ve avoided where the oil money is going beyond the Russian money booking the restaurant. If Russia was given control of the oil fields and became the sellers of the oil, the plot can work.The premise does sound far-fetched. Norway, IINM, is a NATO country, so Russia invading them wouldn’t just be “let’s keep the oil flowing and so here’s a nice, clean little war” but “World War Three thanks to Article 5 of the NATO Charter.”
Not to mention that Russia is a major oil producer. Them invading Norway over oil is like Nebraska invading South Dakota over corn.
I liked that they were proposing Thorium as the long term replacement though. It was interesting that they thought even Sweden would not support them.
Different mentalities are evident. Norwegians are shown to prefer a peaceful life without resistance vs a ‘Red Dawn’ attitude in America. All the true vikings must have emigrated
M
mikekle
Guest
The Pogue carburetor was one of the most popular, it resulted in 218.8 mpg using a vaporizing method.Yes, there are no miracle carburetors being suppressed. The basic physics is well understood and it’s highly competitive to tweak out even modest MPG improvements, usually through weight reduction and less power.
Another was John Gulley, from Ky, managed 115 from his 8 cylinder Buick, was employed by L. M. Bean, Detroit interests bought and suppressed the device in 1950.
There are many other similar patent applications, its quite easy to Google this
Nikola Tesla also had many of his inventions doomed to being hidden from the public, the powers that be at the time told him there was no way to meter usage of electromagnetism to the public, like fossil fuels can be, so instead of giving the public such technology, it was classified and hidden from the people, where it remains to this day.
If there was so much potential in these efficient technologies, why arent these big energy companies seeking to get them de-classified, so they can make a fortune on it?
W
Wampa
Guest
The show doesn’t aim to reflect the current geopolitical situation, but creates its own. In the show, the U.S. is no longer in NATO, taking away the “World World III scenario” that might exist in the real world. It also doesn’t take place in the current day, but in the “near future”, leaving plenty of room to shift the geopolitics. Plus it’s not really an invasion (in the NATO sense), as the Norwegian Prime Minister is on board with what the Russians are doing; you’d have to watch the first episode to see why
T
Theo520
Guest
There is nothing classified about the Progue carburetor, it just can’t violate the laws of physics. There is only a limited amount of chemical energy available in a gallon of gas and engine inefficiencies are very well understood.
E
Ender
Guest
It is easier to imagine a Russian occupation of Norway than it is to imagine a Green Party supporting nuclear reactors.
Ender
E
edwest2
Guest
All patents are reviewed and any can be suppressed under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. “National security” would be threatened if gas sales were cut in half with more fuel-efficient cars. The oil companies would be a fraction of their current size. Gas taxes would go down since less gas was purchased. It would affect drilling operations and cause the loss of jobs. Such “disruptive technologies” have to be kept in control or filed away, never to see production.
Ed
T
Theo520
Guest
Germany, Japan, and China are major oil importers and don’t give a hoot about protecting oil producers or US National Security. If a new technology was possible that achieved such efficiency gains, they would produce it and further dominate the production of cars, trucks, generators, train engines, etc. They have very capable engineers as well.
Doubling energy efficiency would be a huge win for climate change CO2 reduction as well. Any such inventor would be a hero, the Bill Gates of global energy.
E
edwest2
Guest
The rich in any country would never allow it. The price of oil is valued in dollars, not yen or yuan or marks. On the international front, OPEC agrees on how much oil to supply. Right now, the market is flooded and investors are concerned. But due to the wealthy wanting to make money, expect gas prices to go up artificially soon.
The wealthy don’t care about climate change. Keeping their wealth comes first. In the beginning of the oil boom in the United States, people had to pay the price written on a piece of cardboard, or the “posted price.” If you didn’t you got nothing. Later, government auditors in the US discovered there was more oil/gas on the market than there should be. US oil producers hired men that worked off the books and only at night. They laid false pipes that went from the oil storage containers so when Federal investigators dug to find these pipes, they couldn’t tell which was which. And oil was processed at night but Federal investigators could not find anyone operating the machinery. Then they realized hidden switches had been installed in doors. When the doors were closed, they heard the hum of machinery, but when they were opened, the machinery stopped.
The Supreme Court got involved:
"On May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an “unreasonable” monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act, Section II. It ordered Standard to break up into 90 independent companies with different boards of directors, the biggest two of the companies were Standard Oil of New Jersey (which became Exxon) and Standard Oil of New York (which became Mobil).[39]
“Standard’s president, John D. Rockefeller, had long since retired from any management role. But, as he owned a quarter of the shares of the resultant companies, and those share values mostly doubled, he emerged from the dissolution as the richest man in the world.[40] The dissolution had actually propelled Rockefeller’s personal wealth.”
Richest man in the world. Standard also ran an export business. You don’t replace golden eggs from the Golden Goose with those worth as much as tin.
Ed
M
mikekle
Guest
And you think this is right? I sure dont.
This means, even if someone manages to find a more efficient way of doing things, we must have a Govt agency in place to determine if it would have ‘too much’ efficiency. LOL
I believe it is our right to have access to any product that comes along, especially if it saves people a lot of money, restricting progress for the sake of some industries is ridiculous imo.
E
edwest2
Guest
No, I don’t think it’s right, but, in some cases, building a product or device that costs us less means less money and profits in the hands of producers/manufacturers. Here is something called Planned Obsolescence. This is a to way keep us buying instead of fixing things.
"Estimates of planned obsolescence can influence a company’s decisions about product engineering. Therefore, the company can use the least expensive components that satisfy product lifetime projections.
"Also, for industries, planned obsolescence stimulates demand by encouraging purchasers/putting them under pressure to buy sooner if they still want a functioning product. These products can be bought from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor who might also rely on planned obsolescence. Especially in developed countries (where many industries already face a saturated market), this technique is often necessary for producers to maintain their level of revenue.
"While planned obsolescence is appealing to producers, it can also do significant harm to the society in the form of negative externalities. Continuously replacing, rather than repairing, products creates more waste and pollution, uses more natural resources, and results in more consumer spending. Planned obsolescence can thus have a negative impact on the environment in aggregate. Even when planned obsolescence might help to save scarce resources per unit produced, it tends to increase output in aggregate, since due to laws of supply and demand decreases in cost and price will eventually result in increases in demand and consumption. However, the negative environmental impacts of planned obsolescence are dependent also on the process of production.[13]
“There is also the potential backlash of consumers who learn that the manufacturer invested money to make the product obsolete faster; such consumers might turn to a producer (if any exists) that offers a more durable alternative.”
So the appliances bought in the 1950s and 1960s, were more durable, they worked longer and in some cases, you could replace parts yourself. So if a product stops working today, you just buy another one.
Ed
"Estimates of planned obsolescence can influence a company’s decisions about product engineering. Therefore, the company can use the least expensive components that satisfy product lifetime projections.
"Also, for industries, planned obsolescence stimulates demand by encouraging purchasers/putting them under pressure to buy sooner if they still want a functioning product. These products can be bought from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor who might also rely on planned obsolescence. Especially in developed countries (where many industries already face a saturated market), this technique is often necessary for producers to maintain their level of revenue.
"While planned obsolescence is appealing to producers, it can also do significant harm to the society in the form of negative externalities. Continuously replacing, rather than repairing, products creates more waste and pollution, uses more natural resources, and results in more consumer spending. Planned obsolescence can thus have a negative impact on the environment in aggregate. Even when planned obsolescence might help to save scarce resources per unit produced, it tends to increase output in aggregate, since due to laws of supply and demand decreases in cost and price will eventually result in increases in demand and consumption. However, the negative environmental impacts of planned obsolescence are dependent also on the process of production.[13]
“There is also the potential backlash of consumers who learn that the manufacturer invested money to make the product obsolete faster; such consumers might turn to a producer (if any exists) that offers a more durable alternative.”
So the appliances bought in the 1950s and 1960s, were more durable, they worked longer and in some cases, you could replace parts yourself. So if a product stops working today, you just buy another one.
Ed
W
Wampa
Guest
I just finished the 10-episode first season: fantastic! The producer has said that a season 2 is expected, which is excellent because I really want to see where the story goes next.
The really interesting part of the show is that they’ve specifically constructed it so it’s not simplistic good vs. evil. All of the factions are presented sympathetically: each is merely trying to go what they think is best given the situation they are in. It makes for a much more nuanced viewing experience as you at least partially root for everybody, including the occupiers.
It’s still got all of the tense energy of a geopolitical thriller, but your rooting loyalties are unclear. I’ve never seen a show in this genre do that. It’s fascinating to see how each character decides to react to the events.
The really interesting part of the show is that they’ve specifically constructed it so it’s not simplistic good vs. evil. All of the factions are presented sympathetically: each is merely trying to go what they think is best given the situation they are in. It makes for a much more nuanced viewing experience as you at least partially root for everybody, including the occupiers.
It’s still got all of the tense energy of a geopolitical thriller, but your rooting loyalties are unclear. I’ve never seen a show in this genre do that. It’s fascinating to see how each character decides to react to the events.
T
Theo520
Guest
In a previous life, I spent many years working in product marketing for an OEM electronics firm. We made some of the guts that would go into the computer you would buy from a name brand company.
From the retailer to the component manufacturer, the business is very competitive. Everyone is focused on where they can squeeze some cost out of the product design or assembly. The challenge is winning the program against your competitors without loosing money. Competition keeps the profit margins very low in most cases. You design to the spec and shave it as close as you can.
Capacitors and other electronic components dry up with use and eventually the system will fail (safely) You design to meet say 100,000 hrs MTBF. It works well on products that become obsolete after several years. Your customer and the end consumer don’t want to pay a 50+% premium for gold plated leads and higher end oversized capacitors that would give you a longer operational life. Those components tend to go into military and industrial applications with a much longer required product life, where product cost is a much smaller part of the sales price.
Simply put, price sensitive consumers are mostly getting the product life they are willing to pay for.
M
mikekle
Guest
Some good information. Its strange though, not many years ago, things were much different, companies built products in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc that are still running good today, my grandparents had a deep freezer that was ancient, but it never failed, never needed any kind of repair, they had bought it used from someone else in the 60s and when they died in 2010, it was still running and sold to a neighbor, I assume its still working today.
I have an old bedroom fan, (I like to sleep with a fan on high every night), I have had this same fan for over 15 yrs, I use it every single night, still runs the same as when I bought it, I have cleaned the grills over the years though, I think I paid maybe $20 when I bought it new. This fan has been the butt of many family jokes also!
Seems strange companies back then did not recognize what they seem to today, in building products with an intended lifespan in order to force the consumer to buy another.
T
Theo520
Guest
You are describing very simple machines with few moving parts and without much electronics in them. An old freezer is basically just a compressor with a very simple temperature feedback. One from that day was likely a higher end appliance, not cheap. They would have used a strong compressor with quality ball bearings. Fans definitely use cheaper ball bearings now to save money over older fans.
In truth most modern products are fairly reliable and don’t fail too early. They are also cheap, so you just replace it instead of getting it repaired. Previously it was cheaper to repair the product. But yes, the potential long term product life is reduced as they squeeze out costs.
today you can spend between $200 to $1,500 for a smaller chest freezer. I’d bet the $1,500 commercial grade one will be more reliable and last years longer.
- Status