Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Discussion board help and admin topics => Skeptical views and scam alerts => Topic started by: raburgeson on May 09, 2014, 01:54:11 AM

Title: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on May 09, 2014, 01:54:11 AM
They are ridiculing the very idea of wanting free energy on the net. This is the work of government spooks. Of course we want free energy. We want free of the ridiculous gouging bills. The control over the people. If you think there is none pull yourself off the grid and see how long it takes to get a nasty visit.

What you can afford you house payments? The conditions of the loan state you must have insurance. This being mandatory they will just jack the price of the insurance high enough you can't keep up. How about an additional 1200 bucks this year and we want that sent for your escorial account right now. That is just one of the things on that account.

There are homeless and where are they? You drive down the street and you don't see them. What is the government doing to them? I heard there was I woman in the South that revealed she was homeless and they forced a chip on her. Can her and her family still be found?

I hope Keshe is for real. He says he can create a living environment in a space without a structure. I am sure interested in that. We can use it for the homeless and green houses and many other things. Imagine going diving without tanks. Imagine not having to pour money into an infrastructure like roads and bridges. Imagine you have become a flying human and have a reactor in you pocket. As a joke you could play quidditch.

First they ban the technology. This tech can jam all signals in a large area was their excuse. Sounds like you need another device to jam the required GPS so they can't find you if they decide to round everyone up and stick them in a FEMA camp. Those camps are in existence you can visit one near you. If you want an actual tour though take friends and very large guns.

You want free of the globalists and the military/industrial complexes around the world. That is why this forum exists. It's best that they hear this up front. We are tired of them and want those monkeys off our backs.

This is stated because we need the basic human rights they deny us, stand up and say what is on your mind.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: LibreEnergia on May 09, 2014, 02:24:25 AM
They are ridiculing the very idea of wanting free energy on the net. This is the work of government spooks. Of course we want free energy. We want free of the ridiculous gouging bills. The control over the people. If you think there is none pull yourself off the grid and see how long it takes to get a nasty visit.

What you can afford you house payments? The conditions of the loan state you must have insurance. This being mandatory they will just jack the price of the insurance high enough you can't keep up. How about an additional 1200 bucks this year and we want that sent for your escorial account right now. That is just one of the things on that account.

There are homeless and where are they? You drive down the street and you don't see them. What is the government doing to them? I heard there was I woman in the South that revealed she was homeless and they forced a chip on her. Can her and her family still be found?

I hope Keshe is for real. He says he can create a living environment in a space without a structure. I am sure interested in that. We can use it for the homeless and green houses and many other things. Imagine going diving without tanks. Imagine not having to pour money into an infrastructure like roads and bridges. Imagine you have become a flying human and have a reactor in you pocket. As a joke you could play quidditch.

First they ban the technology. This tech can jam all signals in a large area was their excuse. Sounds like you need another device to jam the required GPS so they can't find you if they decide to round everyone up and stick them in a FEMA camp. Those camps are in existence you can visit one near you. If you want an actual tour though take friends and very large guns.

You want free of the globalists and the military/industrial complexes around the world. That is why this forum exists. It's best that they hear this up front. We are tired of them and want those monkeys off our backs.

This is stated because we need the basic human rights they deny us, stand up and say what is on your mind.

Absolute piffle..

Free energy is a 'ridiculous idea' because it does not exist. Not one 'over-unity' device ever described on here or anywhere for that matter actually works.

There is 'free energy' in the form of such things as wind, solar etc. but it takes investment in technology to harness it. Such investment has to weighed against readily available sources like buying it ready to consume from existing energy suppliers. For the majority of people such investment doesn't stack up on purely economic grounds.

The rest of your diatribe comes across as paranoid and delusional.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on May 09, 2014, 03:44:22 AM
Hi raburgeson, thank you very much, you stated that very clearly and i agree completely.
Speaking of, where are all the homeless people that we know have to exist.
A while ago, there were many homeless people at this park for many weeks, then i noticed they were not there anymore.
A few weeks later, they were doing some kind of construction there at the park, maybe you can guess what they were installing, yep, 360 degree camera mounted on a tall pole and I have no doubt that motion sensors and audio devices were also installed.
These people that blindly follow orders from sociopaths, are just as much the problem as the sociopaths themselves.
All people need to seriously wake up now and forever more.
peace love light wisdom
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: memoryman on May 09, 2014, 05:10:40 PM
No 'free energy' is needed or even desirable; since none of the devices ever worked, we don't know what will happen IF we tap into : zpe, aether, scalar waves etc. Maybe the earth will blink out of existence...
On a practical level, Thorium can fill all our energy needs safely and cleanly for thousands of years.
I wish that the CIA would pay me for disinformation, I can use the money.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on May 14, 2014, 08:07:30 AM
Tesla's worked and it is still above top secret after how many decades? He is not the only one, Gabriel Kron's work is hidden as well. You nay says better check your History books.

We are just cash cows, the same Volkswagen model sold in the US gets 20 more MPG in Europe. That is still rediculas, the Volks in Europe should be doing far better than it is. They are screwing us and we know it!
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on May 14, 2014, 01:30:36 PM
Tesla's worked and it is still above top secret after how many decades? He is not the only one, Gabriel Kron's work is hidden as well. You nay says better check your History books.

We are just cash cows, the same Volkswagen model sold in the US gets 20 more MPG in Europe. That is still rediculas, the Volks in Europe should be doing far better than it is. They are screwing us and we know it!
A little bit of misinformation can lead to all sorts of misconceptions.  The Blue TDI VWs get slightly better actual mileage in Europe because they are lighter due to different safety and emissions requirements in the US versus Western Europe.  All cars get ~20% better MPG from Imperial gallons than US gallons, because one Imperial gallon ~= 1.2 US gallons.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: utilitarian on May 14, 2014, 11:40:23 PM
A little bit of misinformation can lead to all sorts of misconceptions.  The Blue TDI VWs get slightly better actual mileage in Europe because they are lighter due to different safety and emissions requirements in the US versus Western Europe.  All cars get ~20% better MPG from Imperial gallons than US gallons, because one Imperial gallon ~= 1.2 US gallons.


It is crazy we do not adopt the Imperial Gallon here in the USA!!!  We could all save 20% on fuel costs.  I guess those oil lobbyists are too strong here to make that happen.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on May 16, 2014, 12:00:07 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk)

In US gallons 62 mpg. Now go check the mileage sticker in the US. I look up info before I post to make sure I understand correctly. I'm no ford fan but, what happened to the guy that was eeking 300 mpg out of a ford V8? A simple software hack of a Toyota hybrid over 300 MPG? The people in EU are getting taken too.

I had a 68 Buick Sport Wagon with a clogged fuel filter and a 350 CID engine giving me 35 MPG and that car weighed 2 1/2 times what a car weighs today and I repeat we are being screwed. The auto companies are owned by the same companies that own big oil. In 1966 they said, oh no we can't produce cars that run on propane they would have 20 percent less power. Then they reground the cam increasing valve over lap and reduced the HP 20%. They didn't stop there, they increased back pressure with a catalytic converter and lowered the compression ratio. You are paying for a computer in the car that makes it impossible to lean the fuel unless you build a circuit to trick it. Ask the water for gas people, they will give you a complete history on this if you need it.

They have a circuit ready for sale if you'd like too.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on May 16, 2014, 12:20:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk

In US gallons 62 mpg. Now go check the mileage sticker in the US. I look up info before I post to make sure I understand correctly. I'm no ford fan but, what happened to the guy that was eeking 300 mpg out of a ford V8? A simple software hack of a Toyota hybrid over 300 MPG? The people in EU are getting taken too.
I think you need to do better diligence.  Then you will find out that you are buying myths and outright lies.
Quote

I had a 68 Buick Sport Wagon with a clogged fuel filter and a 350 CID engine giving me 35 MPG and that car weighed 2 1/2 times what a car weighs today and I repeat we are being screwed.
Maybe it could get that kind of mileage while it was in freefall off of a cliff.  Go calculate the minimum consumption based on idle speed, displacement, and the minimum stoichiometric mixture that will burn.  Station wagons with big engines in the 1970s were 12mpg to 16mpg affairs.
Quote
The auto companies are owned by the same companies that own big oil.
No they are not.  You cannot name one car company and an oil company that owns that car company.
Quote

 In 1966 they said, oh no we can't produce cars that run on propane they would have 20 percent less power. Then they reground the cam increasing valve over lap and reduced the HP 20%. They didn't stop there, they increased back pressure with a catalytic converter and lowered the compression ratio. You are paying for a computer in the car that makes it impossible to lean the fuel unless you build a circuit to trick it. Ask the water for gas people, they will give you a complete history on this if you need it.
You are badly misinformed.  Drive behind any 1960s or early 1970s era car and you can easily smell the unburnt gas coming out the tail pipe.  Engine HP output per liter of fuel has increased by more than 25% since the 1970s, despite the additional pollution controls.  In the early 1970s 25mpg highway was something that a 1 liter or smaller, very sub 100HP engine delivered.  Modern engine and transmission combinations with up to 150hp (current standards equals about 165hp under 1970s standards) are delivering 35-40mpg highway.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Gwandau on May 16, 2014, 03:55:54 AM

Quote
The auto companies are owned by the same companies that own big oil.

No they are not.  You cannot name one car company and an oil company that owns that car company.
End Quote

I am not taking any position in this discussion, but I don't think he means owned in a legal sense. Most of us know what the big American families are up to, and there does not take much time to check out the interests presented by the Rockefeller-family and the since many years closely connected Morgans- and Rothschilds. They have big interests to secure.

A personal friend of me works at one of our Swedish car companies as an engine developer.  When presenting a variety of the HHO-effect, with a quite sophisticated system that utilized a preheated fuel injection instead of using HHO, but with virtually the same enhanced combustion effect, his fully working alternative was rejected and when asking for an explanation he was told that the car company does not benefit from anything that too radically starts to threaten the economic stability of the oil industry. There is a balance maintained in those industrial sectors, making the money continue to flow up as planned.

And money flows up. That's the very idea with the present monetary system, it's designed to effectively shunt the flow, making it more easy to increase ones riches the richer one is. :-) 

The validity of the concept Over-Unity is of course questionable, but theoretically any energy harvested from an unknown source initially would be regarded as Over-Unity until the source is detected and categorized into our present scientific belief system.

I am pretty sure most guys at this forum knows Over-Unity for what it is - A description of something yet to incorporate into the existing thermo dynamic laws.

Cheers,

Gwandau
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on May 16, 2014, 04:18:21 AM
Quote
The auto companies are owned by the same companies that own big oil.

No they are not.  You cannot name one car company and an oil company that owns that car company.
End Quote

I am not taking any position in this discussion, but I don't think he means owned in a legal sense. Most of us know what the big American families are up to, and there does not take much time to check out the interests presented by the Rockefeller-family and the since many years closely connected Morgans- and Rothschilds. They have big interests to secure.
The return to the (joys) of a feudal system is well on its way and there is much to criticize about that.  But wrong is wrong.  He said oil companies own car companies and they do not.
Quote

A personal friend of me works at one of our Swedish car companies as an engine developer.  When presenting a variety of the HHO-effect, with a quite sophisticated system that utilized a preheated fuel injection instead of using HHO, but with virtually the same enhanced combustion effect, his fully working alternative was rejected and when asking for an explanation he was told that the car company does not benefit from anything that too radically starts to threaten the economic stability of the oil industry. There is a balance maintained in those industrial sectors, making the money continue to flow up as planned.

Your unverified story is difficult to reconcile with the absolute fact of the billions that car companies have competitively put into increasing fuel efficiency.  There is no trail of money that I know of into car companies from oil companies.  One could postulate that the boards and management have under the table, and therefore illegal deals with oil companies that would result in things like your story.  Such ideas are just postulates until someone comes up with hard evidence.
Quote


And money flows up. That's the very idea with the present monetary system, it's designed to effectively shunt the flow, making it more easy to increase ones riches the richer one is. :-) 
Feudalism lives and is growing.
Quote

The validity of the concept Over-Unity is of course questionable, but theoretically any energy harvested from an unknown source initially would be regarded as Over-Unity until the source is detected and categorized into our present scientific belief system.
Yes, and there is no problem with that.
Quote

I am pretty sure most guys at this forum knows Over-Unity for what it is - A description of something yet to incorporate into the existing thermo dynamic laws.

Cheers,

Gwandau
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: utilitarian on May 16, 2014, 05:46:32 PM

The validity of the concept Over-Unity is of course questionable, but theoretically any energy harvested from an unknown source initially would be regarded as Over-Unity until the source is detected and categorized into our present scientific belief system.

I am pretty sure most guys at this forum knows Over-Unity for what it is - A description of something yet to incorporate into the existing thermo dynamic laws.



You know, this sounds plausible, but it has never worked out this way.  No credible scientist ever found some magical energy and said, hey, there is no source for this!  Look, energy for nothing!!  Think about all the energy sources man has tapped over the centuries?  Has the source of that energy ever been a mystery?  Sure, the exact how and why may not have been immediately clear, but it has never appeared like it was energy from nowhere.  Fire always consumed something, early battery cells would drain, and the Sun, well the Sun has always been pretty visible up there, and it sure looks like it is burning something.


You want to know some truth?  I have some truth.  The truth is, this website is a waste of time, and I am guilty as anyone of wasting time on it in the past.  Guys like Mr. Burgeson here, and no offense to Mr. Burgeson, he is no doubt an intelligent person, but he is gravely misinformed.  People like Mr. Burgeson, arguing with them about these simple things is like shooting fish in a barrel.  You are guaranteed to be right.  It does not matter where exactly the free energy proponent made a mistake, but he for sure made a mistake somewhere, or he would not arrive at the answer he has.


It is like someone taking a $10 roll of quarters, breaking and mixing up the quarters, and then stacking them in various and elaborate ways and claiming, "Hey, I have $10.75 here!"  No, you don't.  They may line them up this way or that way, in lines or stacks or pyramids.  It does not matter.  You do not have to count every stack or figure out where they made a mistake, but for sure they made a mistake somewhere.


To be honest, if you are a skeptic, meaning a normal freaking person with a high school understanding of math and science, you do not belong here.  If you are a normal person, you are a troll on this board.  I do not know why reasonable people like MarkE here, and TK and others even post here.  There is nothing to be learned, nothing to be gained.  Just entertainment value, I guess, making fun of the poor individuals caught in some kind of glitch where they refuse to see simple evidence.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on May 29, 2014, 07:24:19 AM
Well there is this hot off the press:

http://thespiritscience.net/2014/05/25/volkswagens-new-300-mpg-car-not-allowed-in-america-because-it-is-too-efficient (http://thespiritscience.net/2014/05/25/volkswagens-new-300-mpg-car-not-allowed-in-america-because-it-is-too-efficient)

This says it all!  -  Why no copy and paste for links?
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CANGAS on May 29, 2014, 09:53:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBnlXGvA1Wk)

In US gallons 62 mpg. Now go check the mileage sticker in the US. I look up info before I post to make sure I understand correctly. I'm no ford fan but, what happened to the guy that was eeking 300 mpg out of a ford V8? A simple software hack of a Toyota hybrid over 300 MPG? The people in EU are getting taken too.

I had a 68 Buick Sport Wagon with a clogged fuel filter and a 350 CID engine giving me 35 MPG and that car weighed 2 1/2 times what a car weighs today and I repeat we are being screwed. The auto companies are owned by the same companies that own big oil. In 1966 they said, oh no we can't produce cars that run on propane they would have 20 percent less power. Then they reground the cam increasing valve over lap and reduced the HP 20%. They didn't stop there, they increased back pressure with a catalytic converter and lowered the compression ratio. You are paying for a computer in the car that makes it impossible to lean the fuel unless you build a circuit to trick it. Ask the water for gas people, they will give you a complete history on this if you need it.

They have a circuit ready for sale if you'd like too.


WTF?

Quote
Then they reground the cam increasing valve over lap and reduced the HP 20%.

Many decades ago one of the first tricks the Hot Rodders learned was that increasing overlap was the way to get more horsepower (HP). Of course the auto company engineers had learned that first.

 But you tell me that MORE overlap is REDUCED HP!

Maybe you got a little mixed up?

How much more of what you say is a little mixed up?


CANGAS 41
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on May 30, 2014, 01:58:18 AM
In furtherance to previous points debated...

The owners of the oil and car companies are at the very least in fact pedophiles by proxy, and very possibly active pedophiles to the most depraved levels...bots have seats around their "enhanced" global monopoly table, where you and I are all commodities...and a most readily disposable one at that.

And to profess by implication, misdirection, or distraction that we do not exist in an electro magnetic medium, easily tapped by simply using the correct method is to open ones self up for criticism and negative speculation.

Regards...
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on May 30, 2014, 06:05:36 AM
The simple definition of a gasoline engine is a (heat pump). As the piston is moving and both valves are open, even without the vacuum in the intake considered, the piston is not moving air in it's entire stroke. This limits the compression of the engine, there is literally less fuel/air mixture to compress. Removing valve overlap can quickly result in compression so high you can't start the engine. Add to this the vacuum of the intake manifold and you have less than one atmosphere of pressure for the compression stroke. As the intake valve is still open at a crucial time the vacuum lowers the chamber pressure and sucks heated exhaust into the chamber which is expanded already. This makes the power stroke far weaker.

Best situation is to suck in all the fuel/air mixture you can and and ignite the charge. Gasoline engines perform best around 15 to 1 compression. They have dropped the compression from 10 to 12 to 1 down to what you have today. It was common to have a horse power per cubic inch of displacement when I was young. In other words a hi proformance engine 350 had 335 HP and a 427 had 435 HP. You can still get hi proformance engines today but not from the factory. Example:

http://www.proformanceunlimited.com/ (http://www.proformanceunlimited.com/)

Of course they will not have factory cams and will be higher compression. Gasohol probably does not have a high enough octane to start these engines. I had a 1962 Jetstar convertible that required 104 octane to start, the label under the hood told you this fact. Lower octane fuel causes detonation damage in an engine with compression that high.

If you don't believe me grab a 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 horse power used lawnmower engine and grind the valve overlap out with a hand grinder. You will not be able to turn it over.

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on May 30, 2014, 07:19:22 AM
The simple definition of a gasoline engine is a (heat pump). As the piston is moving and both valves are open, even without the vacuum in the intake considered, the piston is not moving air in it's entire stroke. This limits the compression of the engine, there is literally less fuel/air mixture to compress. Removing valve overlap can quickly result in compression so high you can't start the engine. Add to this the vacuum of the intake manifold and you have less than one atmosphere of pressure for the compression stroke. As the intake valve is still open at a crucial time the vacuum lowers the chamber pressure and sucks heated exhaust into the chamber which is expanded already. This makes the power stroke far weaker.

Best situation is to suck in all the fuel/air mixture you can and and ignite the charge. Gasoline engines perform best around 15 to 1 compression. They have dropped the compression from 10 to 12 to 1 down to what you have today. It was common to have a horse power per cubic inch of displacement when I was young. In other words a hi proformance engine 350 had 335 HP and a 427 had 435 HP. You can still get hi proformance engines today but not from the factory. Example:

http://www.proformanceunlimited.com/ (http://www.proformanceunlimited.com/)

Of course they will not have factory cams and will be higher compression. Gasohol probably does not have a high enough octane to start these engines. I had a 1962 Jetstar convertible that required 104 octane to start, the label under the hood told you this fact. Lower octane fuel causes detonation damage in an engine with compression that high.

If you don't believe me grab a 2 1/2 or 3 1/2 horse power used lawnmower engine and grind the valve overlap out with a hand grinder. You will not be able to turn it over.
What are you talking about?  Engines are routinely available in cars and trucks that have much higher power density than 1HP/in3.  Many of the engines offered by Honda, the world's largest manufacturer of ICEs, feature greater than 1.6HP/in3 burning today's gas, including with its HP robbing ethanol, and when measured using the SAE 2005 certification standards that are far more conservative than the standards used in the 1960's and 1970's. 4 cyl: K20Z3 1.61 HP/in3, K20Z4 1.64 HP/in3, K23A1 1.71 HP/in3... Honda's 6 cylinder engines tend more to 1.3HP/in3.  GM's supercharged Northstar engines came in around 1.7HP/in3
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on June 06, 2014, 02:16:20 AM
All HP and no torque. I noticed that they must be using those 1 foot tall dinosaur horses now days too. Look a 383 magnum would flip a charger right on it's back if you let it when I was a kid. That 62 Jetstar with the 400 Rocket Olds ran like this! First gear terrible screaming of the tires. Shift. Tires slowing down and catch. You can't miss second when car jumps ahead. Engine slows and car jerks slower. You bounce ahead and floor the accelerator. There is a brief squeal from the rear tires and you hear the countershaft of the transmission ricochet off the pavement and hope it doesn't hit anything expensive. The Hurst Olds transmission couldn't take half the beating a super T could. I tell you that from experience. These new cars don't have it. They have had a lot of time to figure out how to improve engines.

Take 150 inch engines. 4 cylinder, six cylinder, 8 cylinder, 12 cylinder as the number of cylinders go up so does the horsepower. The reason why is the higher the number of cylinders the more power overlap you have. Power overlap is more than one cylinder in the power stoke at one time. 4 cylinders have no power overlap unless they are 2 cycle. I think there was one tried in the past (4 cylinder) that fired on both sides of the piston. It didn't pan out and was never developed. Brickland Turners joint effort developed an engine that was very interesting, check that one out. It was all horsepower and torque. It could have been scaled down to 300 HP and used. It wasn't to bad on gas either. The test engine had a single barrel carburetor and had around 700 HP, to much for a factory car.

One more time, what happened to the guy building ford V8s that was well over 200 MPG and fighting to get 300. He has disappeared from the net completely. Some one in here must remember.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CuriousChris on June 06, 2014, 10:52:23 AM
The ridicule leveled at some here is not current.

It is persistent and long standing.

Unlike overunity believers who swing to and fro in the prevailing winds, those that see fault in the false claims remain steadfast and consistent.

Criticism usually comes with an explanation as to why the claim is incorrect or off the mark or just a straight fabrication. That is the difference between believers who "want to believe" and skeptics who while they may want to believe as well, don't allow that desire cloud their judgement.

While every person on these forums is seeking to find cheaper, more efficient sources of energy. Not every person on this forum is prepared to be taken by fools, fakes and frauds.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: bugler on June 06, 2014, 11:11:32 AM
Things are not going to improve cause most people behave like kids uncapable of learning new things and, more difficult, changing concepts.
Until we identify the enemy things will get worse and worse.


The enemy is described clearly in this book: [size=78%]http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/reeedcontrov.pdf (http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/reeedcontrov.pdf)[/size]


But most people cannot face the truth. Most attack the informer after a whole life being manipulated by the system.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: eatenbyagrue on June 06, 2014, 01:46:05 PM
.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 06, 2014, 05:29:53 PM
Things are not going to improve cause most people behave like kids uncapable of learning new things and, more difficult, changing concepts.
I agree.  People need to stop acting like kids.  Like that complex problems (How do we best use the raw materials we have? How do we best treat disease?) have ideological simple solutions (The government is suppressing the electric car, the pharmaceutical companies are suppressing natural remedies). 

That's what it really means to act like a kid:  To be ideologically driven.   To sort things into a simple "good guy/bad guy" dichotomy.  Many important questions are rarely that simple.
Quote
Until we identify the enemy things will get worse and worse.
We are the problem.
(http://abearsrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/pogo-we-have-met-the-enemy.jpg)

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on June 10, 2014, 08:32:05 AM
All right, check out the top stock holders in oil and auto and compare the lists. You will find the lists for railroads and others are about the same too. Bottom line is we pay monopoly prices for everything plus hidden taxes on all services rendered in between. We do not need a car that is hard to handle because it is over powered. We need cheap transportation until we can move to overunity. It can be done, the government has done it, killed for it, and stolen it. It's up to us to figure it out. They do not want us to have it. That would give people freedom. If you want to know their view on that watch this.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/175971/Obama_Briefly_Explains_New_World_Order__2014/

They feel you are allowed to do what they allow you to do. They do not want you off the grid or traveling freely period.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 10, 2014, 04:42:09 PM
All right, check out the top stock holders in oil and auto and compare the lists
Since you've obviously done this perhaps you can show us your work?
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 11, 2014, 09:26:37 AM
All HP and no torque. I noticed that they must be using those 1 foot tall dinosaur horses now days too. Look a 383 magnum would flip a charger right on it's back if you let it when I was a kid. That 62 Jetstar with the 400 Rocket Olds ran like this! First gear terrible screaming of the tires. Shift. Tires slowing down and catch. You can't miss second when car jumps ahead. Engine slows and car jerks slower. You bounce ahead and floor the accelerator. There is a brief squeal from the rear tires and you hear the countershaft of the transmission ricochet off the pavement and hope it doesn't hit anything expensive. The Hurst Olds transmission couldn't take half the beating a super T could. I tell you that from experience. These new cars don't have it. They have had a lot of time to figure out how to improve engines.

Take 150 inch engines. 4 cylinder, six cylinder, 8 cylinder, 12 cylinder as the number of cylinders go up so does the horsepower. The reason why is the higher the number of cylinders the more power overlap you have. Power overlap is more than one cylinder in the power stoke at one time. 4 cylinders have no power overlap unless they are 2 cycle. I think there was one tried in the past (4 cylinder) that fired on both sides of the piston. It didn't pan out and was never developed. Brickland Turners joint effort developed an engine that was very interesting, check that one out. It was all horsepower and torque. It could have been scaled down to 300 HP and used. It wasn't to bad on gas either. The test engine had a single barrel carburetor and had around 700 HP, to much for a factory car.

One more time, what happened to the guy building ford V8s that was well over 200 MPG and fighting to get 300. He has disappeared from the net completely. Some one in here must remember.
In your diatribe asserting that there is a conspiracy against fuel efficiency you incorrectly claimed that power to volume has gone down.  You cited 1 HP/in3 as how wonderful power / volume was in the great old days.  I have shown your claim is false:  Japanese and American car makers alike mass market production engines with almost twice the power density you cite. 

Now, you have switched to claiming that it's cylinder count and torque that is what's needed.  Once again you talk through your hat.  Friction losses per cylinder follow ring contact area which follows bore diameter.  But energy per stroke follows cylinder volume which follows the cube of the diameter.  Having lots of smaller cylinders to realize the same displacement runs up the relative friction losses.  As to having all the HP at the low end with lots of torque, that is another bad idea for automobile fuel economy.  A wide rpm range with a relatively flat torque curve coupled to a wide gear ratio transmission allows a car to operate at low power and low SFC at low rpms and high power when needed at high rpms.  This deals reasonably well with the stochiometric limit problem.  Over the past 40 years car makers have developed the variable valve timing, direct injection, and sophisticated engine controls to get amazingly flat torque curves compared to the cars of our fathers.

The guy who claimed several years ago to be building 300HP, 200mpg engines was a fraud.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 11, 2014, 06:23:06 PM
hey raburgeson,  ignore MarkE and his minions.   they are stuck in the clueless box or trolls of the PTB.   I know a guy that got 200 MPG from a full size vehicle and it is not fake and no not the Pogue carb.   what is taught about fuel to air mixture is false. 

btw what were you doing to get 35mpg on that old gas hog?   i'm currently working on a vehicle largely with electronics and expect to get at least double the manufacturer spec mpg.   it's already way better than spec.

                        
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 11, 2014, 06:34:34 PM
hey raburgeson,  ignore MarkE and his minions.   they are stuck in the clueless box or trolls of the PTB.   I know a guy that got 200 MPG from a full size vehicle and it is not fake and no not the Pogue carb.   what is taught about fuel to air mixture is false. 

btw what were you doing to get 35mpg on that old gas hog?   i'm currently working on a vehicle largely with electronics and expect to get at least double the manufacturer spec mpg.   it's already way better than spec.
Sure you know a guy ...  And where may one find an independent test report on this wonderful mythical car?

It's nice that you merely assert that the stoichiometric limits are BS.  I don't suppose you have any actual test data to support your assertion do you?

When you are done with your modifications you can take your car out for dynamometer testing.  Then you can report what you get for: mileage and pollutants.  Evaluating whether you burn valves and/or cause other damage by running ultra lean will require that you put a good deal of miles on the car. You can get a fiber optic bore scope and take pictures of one or more cylinders right before you start running with your modifications, and then periodically after.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 11, 2014, 09:29:09 PM
what's the use responding to you as anything i say you will just claim is a lie.   try google.   start with Tom Ogle and his story.  only a little over 100 mpg with a ford galaxie 4000 pound car and it's not all about running lean but what state the fuel is in before getting to the cylinders.    there are a number of 200 plus mpg cars and i just happen to know one guy out of many.   got over 10,000 miles on my mods which have seen over 75% better mpg than the manufacturer says is the best highway mpg possible.   already a high mileage car and it's still running great.   but you'll just claim everything is say is a lie.  dig deep enough and you'll find info on the air/fuel mix lies but i suspect you already know that.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 11, 2014, 10:12:28 PM
start with Tom Ogle and his story.
"story" is right.

Average car fuel efficiency = 23 mpg.
Average engine efficiency ~ 25-35%.

Hence a car running at 100% efficiency wouldn't be able to break 100 mpg and that's in a car that's likely 1000 lbs lighter than Tom Ogle's.  Not to mention that a car that is 100% efficient would produce no noise.  Something missing from the scant reports of Ogle.

Most likely conclusion:  Tom was wrong.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 12, 2014, 05:00:51 AM
ahh nazikrees did they give you a pay raise to finally expand to bashing another message thread beside quentron?   lol  .   guess you missed the 300mpg vw?   scant reports of ogle?  hardly scant as there are newspapers that ran his story.  try this one  http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=787      as i recall he got a lot of attention and suddenly had a lot of money.   then still in his 20's he supposedly died of a drug or alcohol overdose.    imo the ptb gave him a good amount of money so he would do what most young people would do when they lose a friend.  his friend was killed when a car jack supposedly gave out and crushed him.   so Tom gets drunk.   At that point i'll bet they slipped drugs into his drink which OD'd him.  easy solution to their problem of how to make the 100 mpg full size ford go away. 


Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 12, 2014, 05:18:46 AM
ahh nazikrees
Who is that?
Quote
did they give you a pay raise to finally expand to bashing another message thread beside quentron?
And the MIB's gave me use of one of their nifty black SUV's - on weekends I get the helecopters.
Quote
guess you missed the 300mpg vw?
Unless you're suggesting that Ogle cheated or lied then I don't see how that applies.  The 300mpg is for a hybrid vehicle.  In which case mpg is calculated in equivalence units and it's less than half the weight Ogle reported his car to be.
Quote
scant reports of ogle?  hardly scant as there are newspapers that ran his story
I read it.   It's narrative not science.  It's pretty much unsubstantiated claims.  It's far easier to make claims and print them in newspapers.  Than it is to make something more than 100% efficient.  Ogle was probably wrong.  Why is that such a difficult claim for you?  He is human, he is flawed and very frequently his judgement sucks.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MileHigh on June 12, 2014, 06:10:17 AM
Those are classic tall tales when you talk about incredibly high gas mileages.  I assume that some people pitch kits that offer 200 mpg or more.

There is a finite amount of energy in the gas.  There are the thermodynamic efficiencies to factor in.  A given car burns power overcoming internal friction and road and air friction.

You crunch the numbers and for a given car there is an upper limint to the mpg, it's a wall.  Some people don't realize this.

Just do a "virtual crunch" in your head, simple common sense.  You can't affect the amount of energy in the gas or the thermodynamics.  There is essentially nothing you can do about the road friction.  There is not much you can do about the air friction.  So those factors define an ideal upper mpg limit.  Then you are left with the internal friction.  If you drive an "ideal car" you reach the ideal upper mpg limit.  But there is no such thing as an "ideal car."  So you can only back away from the ideal mpg limit.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 09:17:05 AM
what's the use responding to you as anything i say you will just claim is a lie.   try google.   start with Tom Ogle and his story.  only a little over 100 mpg with a ford galaxie 4000 pound car and it's not all about running lean but what state the fuel is in before getting to the cylinders.    there are a number of 200 plus mpg cars and i just happen to know one guy out of many.   got over 10,000 miles on my mods which have seen over 75% better mpg than the manufacturer says is the best highway mpg possible.   already a high mileage car and it's still running great.   but you'll just claim everything is say is a lie.  dig deep enough and you'll find info on the air/fuel mix lies but i suspect you already know that.
If you want me to believe an improbable story then present strong evidence that the story is true.  We have piles and piles of good experimental data that establish the stoichiometric limits.  So far you have offered nothing but outrageous assertion.  As I mentioned before:  Honda makes more ICEs than any other company on the planet.  Honda has for decades researched ultra lean burn engines.  Honda's has for decades been producing lean burn engines with almost twice the power density that you claimed was only available in the good old days before some imaginary conspiracy came along to supposedly rob us of power and mileage.  So if back yard tinkerers can get 200mpg by burning gas ultra ultra lean, why doesn't Honda?  Is your thesis that they are part of a conspiracy?  Just how does that conspiracy work?  Maybe the reason that we don't have 200mpg cars has something to do with the fact that current generation ICEs are limited to a high value of ~35% chemical to mechanical efficiency.  That means that there is just over 40MJ mechanical to be had from a gallon of gas.  A typical passenger car requires about a MJ / mile at cruise.  Cars with better drag ratios, lower rolling losses, and other mechanical improvements do better.  Some old 4000 pound tank with a drag coefficient of 0.4 or higher is going to do much worse.  Even if 100% chemical to mechanical efficiency could be had, your 4000 pound Galaxy would have had to have been able to make one mile on 600kJ.  Good luck with that.

If you are actually interested in what is being done to improve fuel economy, this presentation from ORNL is a good place to start:  http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2011/wednesday/presentations/deer11_edwards.pdf
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 13, 2014, 01:28:32 AM
suggest you watch this video titled
1000 Miles Per Gallon sHell Research Late 70's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYyVnCeWV1A
a shell oil scientist discusses getting 149 mpg from a 1947 studebaker which is a very heavy car.   that was in the late 40's.  the book he wrote which was in the library of congress can no longer be found there.   he mentions by the late 70's getting 1000 miles per gallon.   so who are you going to believe.   the people who make many billions of dollars per year on gas sales ?   is it really in their interest to let us know how to get hundreds of mpg from a gallon of gas?   or maybe believe a few good backyard mechanics or pro mechanics who decided to tinker their way to hundreds of mpg?   also one of the people being interviewed in that video was with tom ogle on their 200 mile trip which used 2 gallons of gas - now a very old guy.   
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 01:53:48 AM
suggest you watch this video titled
1000 Miles Per Gallon sHell Research
I generally don't watch videos sorry.  Documentaries dispense information about seven times slower than I can read.
Quote
he mentions by the late 70's getting 1000 miles per gallon.   so who are you going to believe.
Someone who knows how to multiply.  Which apparently isn't this guy.  A 2 Ton car getting 1000 mpg of ordinary gasoline is simply wrong.
Quote
is it really in their interest to let us know how to get hundreds of mpg from a gallon of gas?
Sure.  You sell a car that gets 1000 mpg and you have an instant competitive advantage over your competition.   Even if things go back to the status quo.  There are at least fifty small manufacturers in the US alone who would love to get some free publicity and sell some cars.
Quote
or maybe believe a few good backyard mechanics or pro mechanics who decided to tinker their way to hundreds of mpg?
Tinkering is a fine hobby.  Tinkerers are sometimes useful people to hire but a backyard mechanic isn't a research scientist or statistician.  It would be wrong to trust his figures as if he/she knew how to measure things.

Quote
also one of the people being interviewed in that video was with tom ogle on their 200 mile trip which used 2 gallons of gas - now a very old guy.
Telling a very old story.  So often that he probably couldn't disbelieve it even if he wanted to.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 03:14:00 AM
suggest you watch this video titled
1000 Miles Per Gallon sHell Research Late 70's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYyVnCeWV1A
a shell oil scientist discusses getting 149 mpg from a 1947 studebaker which is a very heavy car.   that was in the late 40's.  the book he wrote which was in the library of congress can no longer be found there.   he mentions by the late 70's getting 1000 miles per gallon.   so who are you going to believe.   the people who make many billions of dollars per year on gas sales ?   is it really in their interest to let us know how to get hundreds of mpg from a gallon of gas?   or maybe believe a few good backyard mechanics or pro mechanics who decided to tinker their way to hundreds of mpg?   also one of the people being interviewed in that video was with tom ogle on their 200 mile trip which used 2 gallons of gas - now a very old guy.
I believe what repeatable reliably obtained data shows.  If one puts very hard tires on a car to remove rolling resistance, drives slowly so as to avoid aerodynamic loading, and does not start and stop, then very high mileage can be obtained.  Under those conditions, the car has been turned into a four wheel bicycle.  Look at the designs for the solar racing vehicles where every Joule counts.  Such designs are of little practical value in a production vehicle because people stop and start their cars and expect to be able to drive them at least at posted highway speeds. 

1000 mpg at 100% HHV conversion requires a mechanical load of less than 120kJ/mile.  At actually obtainable conversions, it is more like 40kJ/mile.  That's about the same energy as in five AA NiMH batteries when charged.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 03:18:53 AM
I generally don't watch videos sorry.  Documentaries dispense information about seven times slower than I can read.Someone who knows how to multiply.  Which apparently isn't this guy.  A 2 Ton car getting 1000 mpg of ordinary gasoline is simply wrong.Sure.  You sell a car that gets 1000 mpg and you have an instant competitive advantage over your competition.   Even if things go back to the status quo.  There are at least fifty small manufacturers in the US alone who would love to get some free publicity and sell some cars. Tinkering is a fine hobby.  Tinkerers are sometimes useful people to hire but a backyard mechanic isn't a research scientist or statistician.  It would be wrong to trust his figures as if he/she knew how to measure things.
Telling a very old story.  So often that he probably couldn't disbelieve it even if he wanted to.
People seem to miss that what kills mileage in a heavy car is:  braking losses, and rolling resistance.  Trains get very high effective mpg because their steel wheels have very low rolling resistance and they go long distances without braking.

I get a kick out of people who hold up an expired patent and claim that it has an utilized miracle as was done in the video.  Anyone who desires can practice an expired patent.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 13, 2014, 03:27:11 AM
sarkz   people on the internet rearrange letters in their name like anagrams to hide what they are really saying or their agenda.  letters in your name rearrange to nazi krees.   just thought you might have a hidden agenda but we won't go on about that.

mh and marke  a couple facts you can verify.    " People have achieved over  9000 miles per gallon, (see current  Guinness Book of World Records). If  this technology was applied to ordinary road vehicles, well over 200 mpg would result.
  We know these test vehicles are light,  but they still weigh a couple of hundred pounds 'curb weight' with the driver.   This means that demonstrated and documented efficient use of fuel generates 35 times better mileage than a typical car."

now also consider a recent test by a company that had a fully loaded 18 wheeler so that is 80,000 pounds or 40 tons get 13.9 mpg.   now assuming you don't believe me on that even though i'm sure you can google and find it my point is that even normal 18 wheelers get aroun 8 mpg with 80,000 pounds.  that's 320 mpg per ton.  in the first case it would be 556 mpg per ton.   using standard technology.  the first truck was doing 13.9 mpg largely due to aerodynamics iirc.  however standard diesel pickups only get maybe 20mpg per ton.   ever wonder why that is?   everything goes by big trucks and if they weren't getting at least 7 or 8 mpg the price of everything would drive the economy to ruins.   

the energy advisor to president bush senior stated in the wall street journal that he would advise the president to oppose any bill that reduces income from the sale of fuel.   our government gets a good share of every dollar spent on gasoline. 

then there is the well documented shell car that got 376 mpg

               starting about 1939, Shell engineers started an annual
competition between themselves, to see who could achieve the highest
mileage.
They would work on their own project in their spare time in their own garages.
Shell then held a mileage marathon each year at their company picnic.
The 1973 winner achieved 376.59 mpg with a modified 1959 Opel P1 at an
average speed of 30 mph. This happened during the ‘Oil Crisis...’
The engineer cut away all the weight he could (it still weighed 2500 lbs) and
gave it a chain drive. He used a standard 4 cylinder ic engine (that was part of
the competition rules) and he VAPORIZED the fuel to achieve the high
mileage.

lots more if you want to know abou it but i'm done playing here cause everyone left in this thread won't believe anything even if it's smacks them upside the head.   or they have an agenda to suppress. 
for those who want the truth try google and try some of this stuff.   
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 04:00:21 AM
People seem to miss that what kills mileage in a heavy car is:  braking losses, and rolling resistance.  Trains get very high effective mpg because their steel wheels have very low rolling resistance and they go long distances without braking.
Good point.  I had not really thought about that.  Makes sense with the rise of regenerative braking in hybrids.  When it comes to things like "you just remove the carburetor" I'm assuming ceteris paribus.
Quote
I get a kick out of people who hold up an expired patent and claim that it has an utilized miracle as was done in the video.  Anyone who desires can practice an expired patent.
Reminds me of Gavrocks current tirade: "If someone wrote a paper with 'simulated universe' in the title it must be highly likely there's a simulated universe".   To be fair his delusion has helped by a number of low-brow and not-so-low-brow web sites stating that the paper had produced evidence instead of a series of constraints which may be testable and have some useful result.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 04:45:20 AM
sarkz   people on the internet rearrange letters in their name like anagrams to hide what they are really saying or their agenda.  letters in your name rearrange to nazi krees.   just thought you might have a hidden agenda but we won't go on about that.

mh and marke  a couple facts you can verify.    " People have achieved over  9000 miles per gallon, (see current  Guinness Book of World Records). If  this technology was applied to ordinary road vehicles, well over 200 mpg would result.
Look it's all pretty basic:  You have so much chemical energy available in the fuel, you have a mechanical load, and you have the drive train in between.  Start with the mechanical load for acceptable driving characteristics.  Set the load to the minimum that it can be at a price that people will accept.  Then move up to the drive train.  Again begin with the minimum acceptable performance / highest fuel utilization characteristics that offer acceptable performance and cost.  Then go engineer to those criteria.  Son of a gun that is what the car makers have been doing.  What is ironic here is that you keep waxing nostalgic about an era with much less efficient engines and mechanical loads.
Quote


  We know these test vehicles are light,  but they still weigh a couple of hundred pounds 'curb weight' with the driver.   This means that demonstrated and documented efficient use of fuel generates 35 times better mileage than a typical car."
There are lots of reasons for that.  A $500,000 vehicle is out of the reach of a typical consumer being one.
Quote

now also consider a recent test by a company that had a fully loaded 18 wheeler so that is 80,000 pounds or 40 tons get 13.9 mpg.   now assuming you don't believe me on that even though i'm sure you can google and find it my point is that even normal 18 wheelers get aroun 8 mpg with 80,000 pounds.  that's 320 mpg per ton.  in the first case it would be 556 mpg per ton.   using standard technology.  the first truck was doing 13.9 mpg largely due to aerodynamics iirc.  however standard diesel pickups only get maybe 20mpg per ton.   ever wonder why that is?
I know exactly why that is.  You don't seem to understand that you are comparing apples and oranges.
Quote
   everything goes by big trucks and if they weren't getting at least 7 or 8 mpg the price of everything would drive the economy to ruins.   
Energy requirements per mile * ton are lowest for locomotives, then multiple trailer semis, then single trailer semis, then vans, then passenger cars, then scooters.  Do you see the pattern yet?
Quote

the energy advisor to president bush senior stated in the wall street journal that he would advise the president to oppose any bill that reduces income from the sale of fuel.   our government gets a good share of every dollar spent on gasoline. 
There is little secret that the Bushes are tied in deep with the oil industry.
Quote

then there is the well documented shell car that got 376 mpg

               starting about 1939, Shell engineers started an annual
competition between themselves, to see who could achieve the highest
mileage.
They would work on their own project in their spare time in their own garages.
Shell then held a mileage marathon each year at their company picnic.
The 1973 winner achieved 376.59 mpg with a modified 1959 Opel P1 at an
average speed of 30 mph. This happened during the ‘Oil Crisis...’
The engineer cut away all the weight he could (it still weighed 2500 lbs) and
gave it a chain drive. He used a standard 4 cylinder ic engine (that was part of
the competition rules) and he VAPORIZED the fuel to achieve the high
mileage.
Note:  Low vehicle speed to limit aerodynamic drag: 30mph has 1/4th the drag of 60mph.  Very hard tires.  Reduced displacement engine.  Hyper miling techniques.  Those are all useful for competitions and demonstrations.  It is the public who insist on driving high hp, heavy vehicles.
Quote

lots more if you want to know abou it but i'm done playing here cause everyone left in this thread won't believe anything even if it's smacks them upside the head.   or they have an agenda to suppress. 
for those who want the truth try google and try some of this stuff.
Facts prevail.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MileHigh on June 13, 2014, 04:46:08 AM
I ain't driving around in a three-wheel teardrop-shaped car made of balsa wood and Saran Wrap powered by a model airplane engine.  No thanks, I'll pass.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 13, 2014, 04:47:17 AM
sarkz   people on the internet rearrange letters in their name like anagrams to hide what they are really saying or their agenda.  letters in your name rearrange to nazi krees.
When I want to hide what I'm saying I use a symmetric key stream cypher.
Quote
"People have achieved over  9000 miles per gallon, (see current  Guinness Book of World Records). If  this technology was applied to ordinary road vehicles, well over 200 mpg would result.
I don't have a copy of GBWW - but you're not telling me what the "technology" is.  Before you were talking about some dude taking a 4000 lb car and modifying the carburetor.  That is not the same as some tailored piece of technology, which is ultra light, single purpose (doesn't have to be able to haul an Ikea side table home) and runs on a track where it doesn't have to stop or climb a hill or change speed.
Quote
We know these test vehicles are light,  but they still weigh a couple of hundred pounds 'curb weight' with the driver.   This means that demonstrated and documented efficient use of fuel generates 35 times better mileage than a typical car."
First rule of optimization.  You have to know how much of your resources are going where otherwise you can't optimize anything. 
Quote
now also consider a recent test by a company that had a fully loaded 18 wheeler so that is 80,000 pounds or 40 tons get 13.9 mpg.   now assuming you don't believe me on that even though i'm sure you can google and find it my point is that even normal 18 wheelers get aroun 8 mpg with 80,000 pounds.  that's 320 mpg per ton.
Corollary to the first rule of optimization.  The same optimization applied to different scenarios does not necessarily optimize the metric to the same degree.
Quote
then there is the well documented shell car that got 376 mpg
Which you would never drive because it can't go up a moderately steep hill.  Clearly that car has nothing in it which can revolutionize the automobile world.  Why?  Because anyone can buy it for half a million dollars.  Yep all it's secrets available to anyone.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 13, 2014, 05:58:49 AM
like i said none of you will see it.   just had to jump back in for one more thing i'd like to see you explain.   i forgot tom ogle had a patent.   i'll put it here.   or look it up #  4177779     now why would he go to the huge expense to get a patent if it didn't work?   or better yet why did shell oil offer him 25 million dollars to buy it?   he refused.   not long after that he is dead.   i'm sure you'll dream up answers.   i just want something more to chuckle about 
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 07:03:44 AM
like i said none of you will see it.   just had to jump back in for one more thing i'd like to see you explain.   i forgot tom ogle had a patent.   i'll put it here.   or look it up #  4177779     now why would he go to the huge expense to get a patent if it didn't work?   or better yet why did shell oil offer him 25 million dollars to buy it?   he refused.   not long after that he is dead.   i'm sure you'll dream up answers.   i just want something more to chuckle about
Lot's of people obtain patents that are not worthwhile.   Once a patent application has been filed the horse is to say: out of the barn.  If you believe that Ogle was murdered, it did not stop: the patent application from publishing, the patent being issued, or expiring, allowing anyone who cares to practice it to do so.  Ask yourself who has practiced or is now practicing his patent if it describes something that is valuable.  Modern fuel injectors, particularly direct injectors do one heck of a job of atomizing fuel.

The Shell story sounds a lot like urban legend.  Do you have any documentation of the deal?  Then we also might consider that robber barons rarely tip their hands.  When Goodyear, Standard Oil, and GM really did work together to eliminate the Los Angeles Red Car system, they didn't go around telling people what their intentions were.  Why would Shell tell Ogle that they intended to shelve his patent if he were to sell it to them?
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CANGAS on June 13, 2014, 10:45:41 AM
Lot's of people obtain patents that are not worthwhile.   Once a patent application has been filed the horse is to say: out of the barn.  If you believe that Ogle was murdered, it did not stop: the patent application from publishing, the patent being issued, or expiring, allowing anyone who cares to practice it to do so.  Ask yourself who has practiced or is now practicing his patent if it describes something that is valuable.  Modern fuel injectors, particularly direct injectors do one heck of a job of atomizing fuel.

The Shell story sounds a lot like urban legend.  Do you have any documentation of the deal?  Then we also might consider that robber barons rarely tip their hands.  When Goodyear, Standard Oil, and GM really did work together to eliminate the Los Angeles Red Car system, they didn't go around telling people what their intentions were.  Why would Shell tell Ogle that they intended to shelve his patent if he were to sell it to them?


You have given many insightful comments to this discussion. Thank you!

I am trying to get started muddling my way through figuring out this thing. In compiling a summation of ENERGY IN versus ENERGY OUT, it might help get me kick started to guesstimate the aerodynamic drag coefficient of a long train, say, a 100 car train. Its rolling friction will practically drop out of the equation and in the presumed absence of braking over a long haul, the dominant factor will be air drag.

I have no clue about the drag coefficient of a 100 or 200 car train. Its probly pretty low.

What do you think?   


CANGAS 46
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 05:11:06 PM

You have given many insightful comments to this discussion. Thank you!

I am trying to get started muddling my way through figuring out this thing. In compiling a summation of ENERGY IN versus ENERGY OUT, it might help get me kick started to guesstimate the aerodynamic drag coefficient of a long train, say, a 100 car train. Its rolling friction will practically drop out of the equation and in the presumed absence of braking over a long haul, the dominant factor will be air drag.

I have no clue about the drag coefficient of a 100 or 200 car train. Its probly pretty low.

What do you think?   


CANGAS 46
Actually, for freight trains, I expect that CD is quite high.  You have the right idea though: They only pay the price of that frontal area once for the entire train.  The power loss gets amortized over a much bigger payload.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 13, 2014, 06:21:32 PM
Lot's of people obtain patents that are not worthwhile.   Once a patent application has been filed the horse is to say: out of the barn.  If you believe that Ogle was murdered, it did not stop: the patent application from publishing, the patent being issued, or expiring, allowing anyone who cares to practice it to do so.  Ask yourself who has practiced or is now practicing his patent if it describes something that is valuable.  Modern fuel injectors, particularly direct injectors do one heck of a job of atomizing fuel.

The Shell story sounds a lot like urban legend.  Do you have any documentation of the deal?  Then we also might consider that robber barons rarely tip their hands.  When Goodyear, Standard Oil, and GM really did work together to eliminate the Los Angeles Red Car system, they didn't go around telling people what their intentions were.  Why would Shell tell Ogle that they intended to shelve his patent if he were to sell it to them?

i was hoping someone would ask that.   it was reported in the media that shell offered to buy his patent.  shell oil is not a car manufacturer so it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they would want to buy the patent.   keeps the car makers from being able to use it.   think shell doesn't buy such patents?   here is just one such vaporizer patent shell bought I found in a 2 minute search   pat #  3935849
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 13, 2014, 08:03:16 PM
i was hoping someone would ask that.   it was reported in the media that shell offered to buy his patent.  shell oil is not a car manufacturer so it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they would want to buy the patent.   keeps the car makers from being able to use it.   think shell doesn't buy such patents?   here is just one such vaporizer patent shell bought I found in a 2 minute search   pat #  3935849
The media reports lots of things, some of them quite dubious.  But Shell did not buy his patent did they?  As for patent 3935849, it is indeed assigned to Shell.  Now your task is to show: 1) the patent offers a real benefit, and 2) that despite that benefit, Shell shelved the device.  It has been public domain since around 1991.  In the past 23 years who has used it?  Or if no one has, why not?
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: gravityblock on June 15, 2014, 07:35:35 AM
sarkz   people on the internet rearrange letters in their name like anagrams to hide what they are really saying or their agenda.  letters in your name rearrange to nazi krees.   just thought you might have a hidden agenda but we won't go on about that.

Of course sarkeizen has a hidden agenda, and his screen name and postings are evidence of this.  Gwandau, a user on this forum, goes to great lengths to hide his agenda.  The letters in 'gwandau' has been inverted and reversed to hide his true agenda.  He inverted the 'n' and the 'u' which says, 'gwaudan' to mimic the sound of "God" (gwaud) and "garden" (gwaudan).  He also inverted the 'w' which would then say a "man".  Then if you throw out the first and last letters of 'gwandau', to represent the beginning and the end, you then have an inverted and reversed sound of 'aduam' to mimic the sound of "Adam".  Thus, he is saying the serpent ['gwandau'] was in the form of God inside the garden of eden to deceive Adam.  Then there is 7 letters in 'gwandau' to represent perfection which he has inverted.  He has inverted all Truths.

Gravock   
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CANGAS on June 15, 2014, 11:13:22 AM
The media reports lots of things, some of them quite dubious.  But Shell did not buy his patent did they?  As for patent 3935849, it is indeed assigned to Shell.  Now your task is to show: 1) the patent offers a real benefit, and 2) that despite that benefit, Shell shelved the device.  It has been public domain since around 1991.  In the past 23 years who has used it?  Or if no one has, why not?


WOW! You're good, Marky!

But, you have tipped your hand.  8)


PS  You're on the right track if you realize that "tipped your hand" is poker talk.


CANGAS 47
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 11:21:19 AM

WOW! You're good, Marky!

But, you have tipped your hand.  8)


CANGAS 47
Yes, there must be some terrible black conspiracy to rely on facts and logic.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CANGAS on June 15, 2014, 11:38:36 AM
Yes, there must be some terrible black conspiracy to rely on facts and logic.

Not at all. But, it raises a flag when "facts and logic" are abused to throw a Red Herring on the trail and apparently attempt to divert and derail the discussion.

It is a perfectly valid question "why would Shell buy a patent that would supposedly greatly nreduce oil consumption?".

You have attempted to divert us away. You taunt us to prove why Shell should not want the patent.

The IMPORTANT question is ....WHY DID SHELL WANT THE PATENT?

What is your guess?



CANGAS 48
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CuriousChris on June 15, 2014, 11:44:41 AM
i was hoping someone would ask that.   it was reported in the media that shell offered to buy his patent.  shell oil is not a car manufacturer so it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they would want to buy the patent.   keeps the car makers from being able to use it.   think shell doesn't buy such patents?   here is just one such vaporizer patent shell bought I found in a 2 minute search   pat #  3935849

I can step in here with a personal account.

The Shell story is NOT an urban myth. It is a fact I can personally testify to after hundreds of hours of research.

In the early eighties I was doing a lot of research into fuel atomisation as part of my developing what I called Viper, "Vapour Injection Power and Economy Regulator". In those days long before the internet you had to spend many hours reading patents and summaries in the actual Patent office. I became very familiar with Melbourne's office.

I looked at heat vapourisation. Sound vapourisation using crystals, atomisation using pressure. different types of combustion chambers designed to vapourise the fuel just prior to ignition. In short I studied dozens if not hundreds of patents.

Without fail 95% of the patents I studied were attributed to Shell Oil of Canada. I surmised at the time that the Canadian office was in charge of buying up EVERY SINGLE fuel saving patent it could get its hands on.

Jokingly I considered patenting devices purely so that Shell would buy them. Over thirty years later I truly wish I had done that. perhaps I would be wealthy now.

But that's history....

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 11:48:42 AM
Not at all. But, it raises a flag when "facts and logic" are abused to throw a Red Herring on the trail and apparently attempt to divert and derail the discussion.

It is a perfectly valid question "why would Shell buy a patent that would supposedly greatly nreduce oil consumption?".

You have attempted to divert us away. You taunt us to prove why Shell should not want the patent.

The IMPORTANT question is ....WHY DID SHELL WANT THE PATENT?
Conspiracy theory thinking is fun.  To the conspiracy theorist it doesn't matter what someone actually did or did not do.  All that matters is that the conspiracy theorist can concoct a believe in their own preconceived ideas of what someone might have wanted to do.

If Ogle's patent had commercial value then someone should have at least attempted to practice it.  Where is there any evidence that anyone tried?

Ogle dying did nothing to unpublish his patent application.  Anyone who found what it disclosed to be valuable was free to seek a license or full assignment.  Where is there any evidence that anyone tried after he died?

If Shell bought up patents for the purpose of shelving them, where is any record of them litigating against someone who attempted to practice one or more patents that Shell supposedly locked up?  What happened after the patents expired?
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 11:52:30 AM
I can step in here with a personal account.

The Shell story is NOT an urban myth. It is a fact I can personally testify to after hundreds of hours of research.

In the early eighties I was doing a lot of research into fuel atomisation as part of my developing what I called Viper, "Vapour Injection Power and Economy Regulator". In those days long before the internet you had to spend many hours reading patents and summaries in the actual Patent office. I became very familiar with Melbourne's office.

I looked at heat vapourisation. Sound vapourisation using crystals, atomisation using pressure. different types of combustion chambers designed to vapourise the fuel just prior to ignition. In short I studied dozens if not hundreds of patents.

Without fail 95% of the patents I studied were attributed to Shell Oil of Canada. I surmised at the time that the Canadian office was in charge of buying up EVERY SINGLE fuel saving patent it could get its hands on.

Jokingly I considered patenting devices purely so that Shell would buy them. Over thirty years later I truly wish I had done that. perhaps I would be wealthy now.

But that's history....
And yet over that same period of time SP, and MP fuel injection in automobiles became common as did direct injection in Diesel engines.  So if Shell's intent was to prevent fuel efficiency improvements, why didn't they block fuel injection developments?  Have you considered that a smart businessperson tries to identify trends and get ahead of those trends in a profitable way?
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CuriousChris on June 15, 2014, 12:08:04 PM
And yet over that same period of time SP, and MP fuel injection in automobiles became common as did direct injection in Diesel engines.  So if Shell's intent was to prevent fuel efficiency improvements, why didn't they block fuel injection developments?  Have you considered that a smart businessperson tries to identify trends and get ahead of those trends in a profitable way?

It only proves that you can't suppress innovation. No matter how big and wealthy and powerful you may be. you can only slow it down.

They held off the inevitable for a period of time. but patents expire and there are plenty willing to make a buck. but If you don't accept what I say and you should know already I am a major sceptic on conspiracy theories so I am not likely to support this sort of thing without proof, find out for yourself its easy to do.

Google patents held by shell oil of Canada. You will see hundreds from the 50s through to the eighties all related to fuel saving devices. Perhaps Shell themselves actually developed these patents perhaps they actively suppressed them. I cant really say. But at the time I thought they were suppressing them.

The thing that struck me as really really odd was it was Shell Oil of Canada. Not Shell Oil international nor Mobil or Caltex. Why Shell Oil of Canada. I figured there was legal reasons but did not have the resources to find out why that may be so.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CANGAS on June 15, 2014, 12:13:59 PM
And yet over that same period of time SP, and MP fuel injection in automobiles became common as did direct injection in Diesel engines.  So if Shell's intent was to prevent fuel efficiency improvements, why didn't they block fuel injection developments?  Have you considered that a smart businessperson tries to identify trends and get ahead of those trends in a profitable way?


MarkE, I have already praised your skill at trying to pervert a discussion. Now you are still trying to outdo your previous performance. You sure have bravado!

You have (as a joke, perhaps?) suggested that Shell bought , and , therefore, controlled the use of, all those patents because they just wanted to learn about business trends that might naffect the oil business. Well, uhhhh, why go to all the expense of buying the patents when ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS JUST READ THE PATENT WHEN IT WAS ISSUED AND PUBLISHED??? 

THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS.....WHY DID SHELL WANT TO BUY THE PATENTS ON METHODS TO GREATLY REDUCE THE CONSUMPTION OF OIL??


CANGAS 49
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 15, 2014, 01:11:56 PM

MarkE, I have already praised your skill at trying to pervert a discussion. Now you are still trying to outdo your previous performance. You sure have bravado!

You have (as a joke, perhaps?) suggested that Shell bought , and , therefore, controlled the use of, all those patents because they just wanted to learn about business trends that might naffect the oil business.Well, uhhhh, why go to all the expense of buying the patents when ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS JUST READ THE PATENT WHEN IT WAS ISSUED AND PUBLISHED??? 

THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS.....WHY DID SHELL WANT TO BUY THE PATENTS ON METHODS TO GREATLY REDUCE THE CONSUMPTION OF OIL??


CANGAS 49
I suggest that you reread what I wrote.  Businesses buy into promising technologies in their field all the time.  Do you think that PriceLine just bought Open Table so that they can shelve it?  Buying into a technology that if successful would cut into a company's core business is called hedging.  It is rather routine.  It does not have to be the least bit sinister.  You have yet to show that Shell did anything untoward.  You need to show where they bought up technology rights and then kept them from the market.  So far, all you have is them buying some technology rights.  You need to come up with the other half.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 15, 2014, 03:36:15 PM
Google patents held by shell oil of Canada.
You're going to have to be more specific.  A Canadian patent search on "Shell oil" and "fuel" returns 40 results.  Majority of which are about fuel composition.   Most of them appear to be held by Shell USA too.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CuriousChris on June 16, 2014, 03:22:35 PM
You're going to have to be more specific.  A Canadian patent search on "Shell oil" and "fuel" returns 40 results.  Majority of which are about fuel composition.   Most of them appear to be held by Shell USA too.

Remembering I am referring back 30 years...

I definitely recall it as being Shell Canada but nonetheless I limited the search to just Shell...

This search has 167 hits on just one type of system which I was researching at the time

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=inassignee:%22Shell+Oil+Co%22#hl=en&q=inassignee%3A%22Shell%22+vaporize+internal+combustion&tbm=pts

Given some time and a little inclination I think I could do better than a quick 5 minute attempt



Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on June 16, 2014, 03:30:08 PM
Remembering I am referring back 30 years...
Why would that matter.  At least one of the patents I found was 40 years.
Quote
I definitely recall it as being Shell Canada but nonetheless I limited the search to just Shell...
Even so, a google search doesn't mean much if your claim is that there is a Canadian patent.  CIPO tracks those.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 16, 2014, 03:59:20 PM
Remembering I am referring back 30 years...

I definitely recall it as being Shell Canada but nonetheless I limited the search to just Shell...

This search has 167 hits on just one type of system which I was researching at the time

https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=inassignee:%22Shell+Oil+Co%22#hl=en&q=inassignee%3A%22Shell%22+vaporize+internal+combustion&tbm=pts

Given some time and a little inclination I think I could do better than a quick 5 minute attempt
3987773, 3939813, 3927651 and 3763838 look they are the inventions of Shell USA employees.
3935849 looks like a patent they bought.
2234407 is a 1939 patent.  So, they have a long history of interest in fuel vapor developments.


And on it goes. 
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 17, 2014, 04:21:54 AM
I can step in here with a personal account.

The Shell story is NOT an urban myth. It is a fact I can personally testify to after hundreds of hours of research.

In the early eighties I was doing a lot of research into fuel atomisation as part of my developing what I called Viper, "Vapour Injection Power and Economy Regulator". In those days long before the internet you had to spend many hours reading patents and summaries in the actual Patent office. I became very familiar with Melbourne's office.

I looked at heat vapourisation. Sound vapourisation using crystals, atomisation using pressure. different types of combustion chambers designed to vapourise the fuel just prior to ignition. In short I studied dozens if not hundreds of patents.

Without fail 95% of the patents I studied were attributed to Shell Oil of Canada. I surmised at the time that the Canadian office was in charge of buying up EVERY SINGLE fuel saving patent it could get its hands on.

Jokingly I considered patenting devices purely so that Shell would buy them. Over thirty years later I truly wish I had done that. perhaps I would be wealthy now.

But that's history....

i've got to laugh at myself for a minute considering how much of a hard time i was giving you in some message threads and stop now to thank you for validating what i was saying about shell oil.  at least we can agree on that.   thank you.

as far as why fuel injectors and some other fuel saving innovations moved into production i clearly recall the government making requirements back about that time that the car manufacturers had to start making cars with higher mpg.   so i would guess they went with some of the tech cars now have but which could be controlled easily by computer to limit just how much better it could get.  or maybe the limit of how much better mpg it can achieve is inherent in the design.   of course the goals they were told to achieve by certain dates or years have largely been forgotten.  look at what happend to mpg ratings when suv's came about. 

i said i was done with this thread but i had to thank curious chris.   does anyone really think big oil does not have an interest in keeping mpg low.  say aye loudly if you think they have no interest in keeping mpg low.

   crickets chriping

  8)   

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: steeltpu on June 17, 2014, 04:26:51 AM
3987773, 3939813, 3927651 and 3763838 look they are the inventions of Shell USA employees.
3935849 looks like a patent they bought.
2234407 is a 1939 patent.  So, they have a long history of interest in fuel vapor developments.


And on it goes.

exactamundo     
maybe it is also worth mentioning that some of the ingredients added to gasoline in recent decades are directly responsible for making it much more difficult to turn gasoline into vapor.   
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 04:53:02 AM
i've got to laugh at myself for a minute considering how much of a hard time i was giving you in some message threads and stop now to thank you for validating what i was saying about shell oil.  at least we can agree on that.   thank you.

as far as why fuel injectors and some other fuel saving innovations moved into production i clearly recall the government making requirements back about that time that the car manufacturers had to start making cars with higher mpg.   so i would guess they went with some of the tech cars now have but which could be controlled easily by computer to limit just how much better it could get.  or maybe the limit of how much better mpg it can achieve is inherent in the design.   of course the goals they were told to achieve by certain dates or years have largely been forgotten.  look at what happend to mpg ratings when suv's came about. 
Sigh.  The goals were never lost.  SUV's got around CAFE limits and they were appealing to consumers because of CHEAP GAS.  Engine improvements from 1985 to at least 2000 went into making bigger, heavier, faster accelerating cars that consumers ate up.  Now, we finally have new regulations in place that are again raising CAFE limits and now include SUVs.
Quote

i said i was done with this thread but i had to thank curious chris.   does anyone really think big oil does not have an interest in keeping mpg low.  say aye loudly if you think they have no interest in keeping mpg low.
Are you aware where big oil makes most of its money?  It is not in the refining and distribution.  It is in exploration and production.  Asian demand assures growing consumption even if the US stopped consuming all gasoline tomorrow.
Quote

   crickets chriping

  8)   
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CANGAS on June 17, 2014, 05:21:40 AM
And yet over that same period of time SP, and MP fuel injection in automobiles became common as did direct injection in Diesel engines.  So if Shell's intent was to prevent fuel efficiency improvements, why didn't they block fuel injection developments?  Have you considered that a smart businessperson tries to identify trends and get ahead of those trends in a profitable way?


Uhhhh......direct injection in Diesel engines predates the era you cite. Predates by about a century.


CANGAS 50
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CANGAS on June 17, 2014, 05:53:15 AM
I suggest that you reread what I wrote.  Businesses buy into promising technologies in their field all the time.  Do you think that PriceLine just bought Open Table so that they can shelve it?  Buying into a technology that if successful would cut into a company's core business is called hedging.  It is rather routine.  It does not have to be the least bit sinister.  You have yet to show that Shell did anything untoward.  You need to show where they bought up technology rights and then kept them from the market.  So far, all you have is them buying some technology rights.  You need to come up with the other half.


Quote
Buying into a technology that if successful would cut into a company's core business is called hedging.  It is rather routine.

LOL! 20 years ago today (Say! That would make a catchy song lyric. Someday somebody will use it and teach the band to play.) I invented a novel improvement to intake and exhaust methodology for piston engines. Midway through making a patent search in the Patent Deposit Library in the basement of LSU Library I ran through some numbers to get a good guess about how much the invention would be worth. I went through an analysis of how much the market would reasonably bear based on the worldwide annual production of very roughly 50 million piston engine vehicles per year. My business plan was to sell licenses to use my patent to car manufacturers and such. My analysis plan was to determine the dollar amount per car that the market would bear. So this whole subject is very familiar to me.

If good  MarkE would make even a rough analysis PRIOR to make statements half-cocked, he would realize that the patent license royalty income GAINED would be a minor fraction of the amount of oil consumption revenue LOST as a result of switching to a different technology which would reduce oil consumption down to a 1/4 or thereabout.

The Internal Combustion Engine market for oil sales would be 75% GONE. Patent license royalty income would not even be in the same ballpark (or the same town) for making up the loss.

Hedge, my DONKEY!   



CANGAS 51


Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: minnie on June 17, 2014, 07:47:41 AM


   For the car/light commercial direct injection has only become a reality
 in the last 20 years.
    I don't believe that manufacturers of vehicles could make anything like
 a 75% improvement in economy. They even consider electric power steering
 to try and find an extra mpg.
                                  John.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CuriousChris on June 17, 2014, 11:04:48 AM
i've got to laugh at myself for a minute considering how much of a hard time i was giving you in some message threads and stop now to thank you for validating what i was saying about shell oil.  at least we can agree on that.   thank you.

as far as why fuel injectors and some other fuel saving innovations moved into production i clearly recall the government making requirements back about that time that the car manufacturers had to start making cars with higher mpg.   so i would guess they went with some of the tech cars now have but which could be controlled easily by computer to limit just how much better it could get.  or maybe the limit of how much better mpg it can achieve is inherent in the design.   of course the goals they were told to achieve by certain dates or years have largely been forgotten.  look at what happend to mpg ratings when suv's came about. 

i said i was done with this thread but i had to thank curious chris.   does anyone really think big oil does not have an interest in keeping mpg low.  say aye loudly if you think they have no interest in keeping mpg low.

   crickets chriping

  8)   

I absolutely agree big oil and big pharma and big whatever operate in their own interests. They also collude to keep prices up.

These are known facts protected by donations to various politicians around the world. an example was the recent sudden dropping of patent reform in the US. While it cannot be proven its almost sure  Senator Reid had Leahy drop it because of pressure from lobbyists. The money is on big pharma for that one.

But as we say at work. Never attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence or greed.


Also my comments about the big gap in time was in reference to my memory. My recollection is that many of the patents I looked at were assigned to Shell Canada which is to say they bought them. I also only did a quick search based on one search term. not the many many hours I spent in the patent office.

Also You may recall I said I spent my time in the Melbourne patent office. A search of google while quick and dirty will not produce the same results. It is most probable that the same patents owned by Shell Oil US may well have been assigned to Shell oil Canada for international patents

The point of my producing a simple google search was to provide proof that

1. Shell owns a lot of patents in relation to fuel economy
2. A good researcher provides references for claims he makes (even if quick and dirty google searches)
3. To make a claim its an urban myth without checking your facts is as bad as the believers making false claims and NOT providing evidence to support those claims.

So while I suggest you keep up the good fight Mark E I suggest you also subscribe to those principals you claim to support.

P.S. I tried to search Australia's PO but was disgusted with its uselessness in under a few minutes. Perhaps I should have stuck it out rather than referring to the google search as it would back my claims better. But maybe not, Australia's PO online search is the worst I have ever used.

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on June 17, 2014, 11:53:04 AM
I absolutely agree big oil and big pharma and big whatever operate in their own interests. They also collude to keep prices up.

These are known facts protected by donations to various politicians around the world. an example was the recent sudden dropping of patent reform in the US. While it cannot be proven its almost sure  Senator Reid had Leahy drop it because of pressure from lobbyists. The money is on big pharma for that one.

But as we say at work. Never attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence or greed.


Also my comments about the big gap in time was in reference to my memory. My recollection is that many of the patents I looked at were assigned to Shell Canada which is to say they bought them. I also only did a quick search based on one search term. not the many many hours I spent in the patent office.

Also You may recall I said I spent my time in the Melbourne patent office. A search of google while quick and dirty will not produce the same results. It is most probable that the same patents owned by Shell Oil US may well have been assigned to Shell oil Canada for international patents

The point of my producing a simple google search was to provide proof that

1. Shell owns a lot of patents in relation to fuel economy
2. A good researcher provides references for claims he makes (even if quick and dirty google searches)
3. To make a claim its an urban myth without checking your facts is as bad as the believers making false claims and NOT providing evidence to support those claims.

So while I suggest you keep up the good fight Mark E I suggest you also subscribe to those principals you claim to support.

P.S. I tried to search Australia's PO but was disgusted with its uselessness in under a few minutes. Perhaps I should have stuck it out rather than referring to the google search as it would back my claims better. But maybe not, Australia's PO online search is the worst I have ever used.
Chris, Steel, it is no secret that oil companies seek the highest profits they can get.  It is also no secret that they exercise what they can to pump up those profits.  Bush's wars and $6 trillion in US treasury, and over 100,000 maimed and 7,000 dead US soldiers to fight them is a national tragedy.  People should be jailed for that treason.  But the specific charge of Shell trying to prevent fuel economy improvements by buying up patents and somehow preventing them from being practiced is missing a key component:  Evidence showing that Shell prevented the patents from being practiced.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: CuriousChris on June 17, 2014, 11:57:39 AM
Chris, Steel, it is no secret that oil companies seek the highest profits they can get.  It is also no secret that they exercise what they can to pump up those profits.  Bush's wars and $6 trillion in US treasury, and over 100,000 maimed and 7,000 dead US soldiers to fight them is a national tragedy.  People should be jailed for that treason.  But the specific charge of Shell trying to prevent fuel economy improvements by buying up patents and somehow preventing them from being practiced is missing a key component:  Evidence showing that Shell prevented the patents from being practiced.

LOL. OK Whatever.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: gravityblock on June 25, 2014, 10:33:02 AM
posted in wrong thread by accident

Gravock
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on January 17, 2015, 02:59:35 PM
So, now it is in the news. It is in Snowden's scarfed information we find out that you are dealing with a government paid agent when you find yourself fighting to speak your mind.

Let me tell you it is not just corporations that are buying patents or developing them to keep them off the market. I will give you an example. When it became public that hemp is a good medicine the U.S. government stepped up and said we have a patent on that. That is an insight for you. Not only did they know that it worked on cancers and more, they did seek to bully the public with a patent that can not exist because hemp is a natural substance and can not be patented.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on January 17, 2015, 06:46:18 PM
So, now it is in the news. It is in Snowden's scarfed information we find out that you are dealing with a government paid agent when you find yourself fighting to speak your mind.
Not likely. If your view is, by your own admission an extreme minority.  Then BY DEFINITION the number of people who think you are crazy is going to be large.  Significantly larger than the number of MIBs in your twisted fantasy world.  Hence
What Snowden's documents allege is that specific government agencies at least at one time are not above attacking specific person to harm their reputation online.
Quote
When it became public that hemp is a good medicine the U.S. government stepped up and said we have a patent on that.
They have a patent on cannabinoids for treating certain diseases like Alzheimer's.  They may have more.  However this was long before there were any large controlled studies on this or other outcomes. You almost always, in medicine file for a patent before you have anything more than preliminary data.   The patent databases have patents for hydrazine sulphate which failed as a useful drug.  Right now the evidence for medical cannabis is pretty...*meh*.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 10:51:37 PM
Not likely. If your view is, by your own admission an extreme minority.  Then BY DEFINITION the number of people who think you are crazy is going to be large.  Significantly larger than the number of MIBs in your twisted fantasy world.  Hence
What Snowden's documents allege is that specific government agencies at least at one time are not above attacking specific person to harm their reputation online.They have a patent on cannabinoids for treating certain diseases like Alzheimer's.  They may have more.  However this was long before there were any large controlled studies on this or other outcomes. You almost always, in medicine file for a patent before you have anything more than preliminary data.   The patent databases have patents for hydrazine sulphate which failed as a useful drug.  Right now the evidence for medical cannabis is pretty...*meh*.
The evidence for the medical use of cannabis is beyond reproach.  It is a very effective treatment for double fudge chocolate ice cream adversity syndrome.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on January 17, 2015, 11:50:49 PM
The evidence for the medical use of cannabis is beyond reproach.  It is a very effective treatment for double fudge chocolate ice cream adversity syndrome.
I am intrigued by your hypothesis.  Tell me more.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 18, 2015, 02:24:07 AM
Not likely. If your view is, by your own admission an extreme minority.  Then BY DEFINITION the number of people who think you are crazy is going to be large.  Significantly larger than the number of MIBs in your twisted fantasy world.  Hence
What Snowden's documents allege is that specific government agencies at least at one time are not above attacking specific person to harm their reputation online.They have a patent on cannabinoids for treating certain diseases like Alzheimer's.  They may have more.  However this was long before there were any large controlled studies on this or other outcomes. You almost always, in medicine file for a patent before you have anything more than preliminary data.   The patent databases have patents for hydrazine sulphate which failed as a useful drug.  Right now the evidence for medical cannabis is pretty...*meh*.

The main problem as I see it is that you need to be high while reading this research.  If you were high, then all of the numbers make perfect sense.

So, you need to be high while conducting this research, and then, you need to be high when reading about this research.  Only then will it make perfect sense.

Bill
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2015, 03:21:30 AM
I am intrigued by your hypothesis.  Tell me more.
Test study groups in Berkely California were selected based on their annual consumption of double fudge chocolate ice cream between the hours of 11pm and 4am.  Those who consumed less than 8 ozs per year were labeled "adverse" and included in the study.  Double blind tests were conducted where at 9pm on Saturday nights where members were served snacks some laced with THC and others that were not.  At 11pm the subjects were exposed to speeches from the US House of Representatives on repeal of certain sections of Frank Dodd.  Some subjects fell asleep, others became entranced by the angle and style of ties worn by certain speakers, and some were able to overcome the aversion to double fudge chocolate ice cream.  These groups overlapped.  These tests ran for 26 consecutive weeks.  The data was statistically processed before the double blind protocol was broken.  Finally correlation was performed between the treated and untreated subjects in the study.  The reports show a stunning 532.672904% correlation coefficient with error bands of 0.000000lots000023%  (We later learned that the interns performing the statistical reductions had obtained materials used in the study.)
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MileHigh on January 18, 2015, 03:39:01 AM
The results of the study were audited by the accounting firm of Cheech, Chong, Chong, Chong, Chong, and Bong.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on January 18, 2015, 04:07:31 AM
Finally correlation was performed between the treated and untreated subjects in the study.  The reports show a stunning 532.672904% correlation coefficient with error bands of 0.000000lots000023%  (We later learned that the interns performing the statistical reductions had obtained materials used in the study.)
I think I read that article.   Wasn't there a qualitative component where they created a matrix of post-hoc responses to the study?   IIRC the table of respondents to responses was something like:

24% No response.  (Still Sleeping)
4%   "Will I still get credit for this" (all in control)
72% "Have you ever *really* looked at your hand?"
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2015, 04:29:15 AM
I think I read that article.   Wasn't there a qualitative component where they created a matrix of post-hoc responses to the study?   IIRC the table of respondents to responses was something like:

24% No response.  (Still Sleeping)
4%   "Will I still get credit for this" (all in control)
72% "Have you ever *really* looked at your hand?"
Most of the last group were big fans of James Franciscus.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on January 18, 2015, 06:12:37 AM
I didn't mean to drag the post in this direction but, The government itself admitted it could use hemp for post trauma stress disorder for returning troops. Also besides working on cancer it can be used to negate upset stomach problems from chemo therapy. It is reported to work well on seizures as with Charlot's web. Everyone is saying oh no, not the children but, helps with ADHD.

I suspect it is a good weight lose drug also because the hippy group I went to school with that still smoke are thin as a rail.

The only drug I take is a blood pressure pill twice a day, I don't even drink alcohol because it messes up the mind. I have no agenda for drugs here. It's just that facts are the facts. And you still can't patent a natural substance even if you are the government.

With the record built by chemo we definitely need something else. If someone is dying of cancer it is not going to hurt to send them to la la land for a bit.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 18, 2015, 06:29:00 AM


If someone is dying of cancer it is not going to hurt to send them to la la land for a bit.



I agree with this point totally.

Bill
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on January 18, 2015, 06:54:21 AM
Alright that was an example. The subject was companies shelving patents and here a little background on the example. Please do not argue with the facts because I don't see progress in reading all the official documents on this.

http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/

http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/104411303/Why-Marijuana-and-Hemp-is-Illegal---THE-TRUTH

Bottom line is this is a documented fact, Oil, Chemical, and, Pharma companies lobbied to keep this off the shelf. The government conspired with them and illegalized hemp, pure and simple. So here we have proof of conspiracy. You just can't argue with the facts.

What you can do is wake up to what is going on around you. Double post because I was not prepared to deal with an example as an actual subject.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on January 19, 2015, 03:03:33 AM
The government itself admitted it could use hemp for post trauma stress disorder for returning troops.
What the government may or may not have admitted to is irrelevant.  The question is what evidence exists.
Quote
Also besides working on cancer
There is no real significant evidence that cannabinoids affect cancer progression.
Quote
it can be used to negate upset stomach problems from chemo therapy.
The evidence is mixed here.  Depending on if you are looking at efficacy or comfort.  Two meta-analyses stand out here one says slightly better in effect but only in small cases.  The other significant effect but significantly higher side-effects.
Quote
It is reported to work well on seizures as with Charlot's web.
Dravet syndrome is a special case of seizures.  There are allegedly a number of cases which a very particular strain of cannabinoid has anecdotes concerning treatment.   One clinical trial is planned but has not been executed AFAIK. 
Quote
Everyone is saying oh no, not the children but, helps with ADHD.
Again no real useful evidence here.
Quote
With the record built by chemo we definitely need something else.
Yeah, that increase in survival rate is a real bummer.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 19, 2015, 04:22:16 AM
Then there's the jamacian study where the gestating ganga kids's scored higher than, never lower than the "normal" kids in tests conducted at 5 years of age.

The study in on the net for anyone interested.

Getting darn near doobie time at my place too.

Regards...

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on January 19, 2015, 09:54:42 AM
Increased survival rate? If they do survive the chemo temporarily it comes back as a super cancer that can not be treated. Well and radiation, radiation causes cancer to begin with. Old age is the highest risk for getting cancer, not what they have been telling you. And all these radioactive discharges they hide from the public is probably second. You can go for the snake oil poison if you like but, the majority of doctors here in the United States will not prescribe it for their families. That's the cold hard facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8bt8eUB1CU
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on January 19, 2015, 01:25:49 PM
Increased survival rate?
The five and ten year survival rates are considerably higher in cancers where chemo is indicated.  Now if you think those people should have died earlier that's your call. 
Quote
If they do survive the chemo temporarily it comes back as a super cancer that can not be treated.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that.  In diseases AMR second round remission is usually shorter than the first.
Quote
Well and radiation, radiation causes cancer to begin with.
But it is more likely to destroy cells.  Secondary risk is something like 1 in 1000 over a 20-30 year period.  So you weigh that risk.
Quote
Old age is the highest risk for getting cancer, not what they have been telling you.
Most cancers are age correlated.
Quote
You can go for the snake oil poison if you like but, the majority of doctors here in the United States will not prescribe it for their families. That's the cold hard facts.
Nope.  It's the warmth of internet regurgitated nonsense. :)  But please cite a study where this is shown. :)
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on January 20, 2015, 03:05:15 AM
Yes, let's look at the survival rate.

http://blog.bestzapper.com/2011/10/chemo-cancer-cure-rate-is-3-a-97-failure-rate/ (http://blog.bestzapper.com/2011/10/chemo-cancer-cure-rate-is-3-a-97-failure-rate/)

This will give you an idea how big the lie is. There is a lot of money in gouge priced medicine, hospital gouging prices, lawyers, estates and funerals. They are cashing you in cow.

http://reachingutopia.com/cure-for-cancer-found-in-canada-dichloroacetate-dca/ (http://reachingutopia.com/cure-for-cancer-found-in-canada-dichloroacetate-dca/)

There are several cures all kept off the market. Hey, look, no side affects. Of course you have to have a diagonsis for some rare disease to get it and that diagnosis is not Cancer.

Have you thought of the claims of superior high tech medicine when they still have no cure for the common cold or any type of virus? Oh the fear , we are going to have a flu pandemic. On the other hand, they seem to be great at diseases popping up around biological warfare labs.

Why is Chemotherapy still high in price after the patent has obviously ran out? Why are there no generic manufacturers of Chemo? Why does the government say you have no alternative?

How about measles breaking out on kids the have been immunized? People getting the flu that have had their shots. Should these be manatory? What disease have they cured in the last 50 years? Answer the last question and don't just go by the figures of big Pharma.

Now let's address big oil companies. Some big oil clown talked about pig farmers have learned to sell the whole pig and the smart thing to do was to create a market for all the ingredients in oil. No longer on the net because this is big oil we are discussing here.Yes they buy patents to keep them off the market. Look at the US response to the 300 MPG Volkswagen. Look it up, search it, if it is good for you you will not see it. They have screwed themselves this time though. China has enough new millionaires to allow Germany to ignore what the US wants in this regard. The market is there and healthy. They will produce the model anyway. They have already lost market share they had with Russia. They can't afford to lose in the market in China as well. It is a slightly different world we live in. As far as medicine goes if you have a real problem then you need to discover medical tourism. They no longer have the illegal monopoly they use to have either.There are some countries out there that will not kill you for money. Also there are alternatives that will allow you to realize 1000% efficiency over what is legally offered were you are. It is all because products are put on a shelf. Computers are designed 10 generations ahead. However they distribute the components out one at a time to empty your wallet(or purse, ladies). Examples all around you there in plain sight and all you have to do is look and you will see them.

As far as the Volkswagen goes it will be kept off the market. I hope China has already bought some of them and if their hand is forced they will clone them. That is one saving grace about China. Isn't the NWO just ducky! It is a conflict of interest to allow major oil stock owners to be major automobile stock owners. It's a loose loose situation for the consumer. I would at this point like to bring up the 10 million dollar handshake. Many inventors have disclosed it's existence.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 20, 2015, 03:21:24 AM
In the days before big pharma got their chemical tipped talons in us, cannabis oil ruled the waves.

They still have a few of the empties left, to be found around on the net...check the omitted history section.

Regards...

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 20, 2015, 03:28:02 AM
Well, that 300 mpg VW would not pass US collision standards and China, has none of those.

For less than $500, I built a 150 mpg vehicle.  It works and I used it a lot.  I could never sell it as it would not pass the required safety standards, even for a motorcycle.  (Motorized bicycle)

This is not big oil doing this, it is all of the liberals that think the government should protect all of us from ourselves.  Who banned trans fats?  Was that Big Trans Fat inc.?  No, it was a bunch of liberals that just can't keep their nose out of everyone's business.  If the medical industry and big pharma are so influential, then why were trans fats banned?  That would have generated big money for drug companies and hospitals no?

Why are cigarettes being banned everywhere?  Just look at all of those cancer cases that would need chemo drugs and hospital care.

A buddy of mine just bought a new (new to him anyway) 1980 VW Rabbit Diesel that gets 55 mpg.  He had one in college and I remember that car well.  Now, you can by a hybrid Prius for like what...$40,000?  That stupid thing gets like 40 mpg and they are proud of this?  But see, that old Rabbit would not come anywhere near meeting today's safety standards, but it is grandfathered in so he is "allowed" to drive it. (for now) 34 years later and we still can't have a vehicle that gets the same, or better mileage than that old Rabbit?  Again, it is not big oil stopping this, the leftists are just trying to make sure we do not hurt ourselves.

I am tired of it to be honest.

Bill
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on January 20, 2015, 05:25:34 AM
Yes, let's look at the survival rate.
Uh...were you going to actually show it?  3% "cure" rate means nothing.  Farther down it seems to say that they actually meant 5 year survival rate.  So what is 3%?  Is that the average across all cancers?  Is that the average across all cases?  Is that the average adjusted for cases where chemo is indicated?

For example the average 5 year survival for a case of AML is 23%.  Ever think of getting statistics from some place other than a garbage can? 

Quote
This will give you an idea how big the lie is.
It seems to be someone who doesn't know what they are talking about pretending they do. :)
Quote
http://reachingutopia.com/cure-for-cancer-found-in-canada-dichloroacetate-dca/ (http://reachingutopia.com/cure-for-cancer-found-in-canada-dichloroacetate-dca/)

There are several cures all kept off the market.
*sigh* I can not stress enough how different petri dish science is from animal trials is from human trials.  DCA might have clinical merit.  There was one trial that was completed in August so we might see some good data.  If we are lucky there will be some effect but in general effect size is reduced as you move up the hierarchy of evidence.  Strong effects in a petri dish generally translated to much weaker effects in humans.

So there's no conspiracy, nothign being kept off the market.  In fact if anyone was hindering DCA as a real therapy.  It is people like you.  Do you know how hard it is to find researchers for a drug trial that is being sold off-label on the internet?

Quote
Have you thought of the claims of superior high tech medicine when they still have no cure for the common cold or any type of virus?
There are many things which make rhinoviruses hard to vaccinate against.  One would be the enormous number of serotypes. Today we have anti-virals which can treat a rhinovirus but there's little reason to use them except perhaps on the immunocompromised.

Quote
Why is Chemotherapy still high in price after the patent has obviously ran out?
Chemo isn't one drug, so there isn't one patent.   Paclitaxel is available in generic form.
Quote
How about measles breaking out on kids the have been immunized?
Immunizations are not perfect but they do have a much lower fatality rate than the disease.  However again, people like yourself which propagate nonsense are correlated to lower immunization rates.  Which means when someone does manage to get infected they have a much higher chance of infecting someone else.

In particular there was a particularly moronic parent who brought their unvaccinated child into the ER for some seemingly unrelated issue.  Almost accidentally they were diagnosed with measels.  Which means, everyone had to be informed that they were exposed.  Including all the mothers with children who are not eligible for vaccination.  All endangered because of one stupid parent.

Quote
Should these be manatory?
As long as vaccination rates remain high.  I don't mind that people have a choice to act stupid.  If they get low I'd support mandatory vaccination.
Quote
What disease have they cured in the last 50 years?
Define "cure".   As I mentioned earlier it's not a word that's used in actual science very much.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 20, 2015, 05:41:32 AM
Have they worked out all the bugs in their new fast acting "organic" chemo yet ?

The only known side effect so far is schlight anal leakage.

Regards...

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 05:47:24 AM
Well, that 300 mpg VW would not pass US collision standards and China, has none of those.

For less than $500, I built a 150 mpg vehicle.  It works and I used it a lot.  I could never sell it as it would not pass the required safety standards, even for a motorcycle.  (Motorized bicycle)

This is not big oil doing this, it is all of the liberals that think the government should protect all of us from ourselves.  Who banned trans fats?  Was that Big Trans Fat inc.?  No, it was a bunch of liberals that just can't keep their nose out of everyone's business.  If the medical industry and big pharma are so influential, then why were trans fats banned?  That would have generated big money for drug companies and hospitals no?

Why are cigarettes being banned everywhere?  Just look at all of those cancer cases that would need chemo drugs and hospital care.

A buddy of mine just bought a new (new to him anyway) 1980 VW Rabbit Diesel that gets 55 mpg.  He had one in college and I remember that car well.  Now, you can by a hybrid Prius for like what...$40,000?  That stupid thing gets like 40 mpg and they are proud of this?  But see, that old Rabbit would not come anywhere near meeting today's safety standards, but it is grandfathered in so he is "allowed" to drive it. (for now) 34 years later and we still can't have a vehicle that gets the same, or better mileage than that old Rabbit?  Again, it is not big oil stopping this, the leftists are just trying to make sure we do not hurt ourselves.

I am tired of it to be honest.

Bill
The nanny state stuff does get old.  The current vitriol against E-cigarettes is some crazy stuff.  However, with cars everyone enjoys lower insurance rates because bodily injury and death claims per person and per mile driven have gone way, way down.  Tens of thousands of lives saved and countless injuries reduced or avoided altogether for about $50b / year in added new car costs I think is a good trade-off.  That's one place where I think government has done a public service that the public and industry would not have done for themselves.  Government regulation is also what took lead out of gasoline, and that's turning out to have an incredible positive impact on society.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 20, 2015, 06:03:17 AM
The nanny state stuff does get old.  The current vitriol against E-cigarettes is some crazy stuff.  However, with cars everyone enjoys lower insurance rates because bodily injury and death claims per person and per mile driven have gone way, way down.  Tens of thousands of lives saved and countless injuries reduced or avoided altogether for about $50b / year in added new car costs I think is a good trade-off.  That's one place where I think government has done a public service that the public and industry would not have done for themselves.  Government regulation is also what took lead out of gasoline, and that's turning out to have an incredible positive impact on society.

I don't really disagree with what you have said here Mark, A lot of folks do die on the roads and it is terrible.  My point was that it was not Big Oil that is keeping super mileage cars from the market.  I would like to think that if someone marketed an unsafe vehicle, not many would buy it and they would go under.  Maybe folks are not smart enough to do that any more?  When it comes to safety, usually there are unintended consequences.

I do not remember the statistical numbers but, we all can agree that flying commercial is far safer than driving...right?  When Airlines were told that a mother could no longer hold their infant in their lap, and had to buy a seat for the child, many parents decided to drive instead of fly as they could not afford it any longer. 

At the point the Government made this decision...guess how many kids were injured as a result of sitting on their Mom's laps in a commercial aircraft?  0.  Now, how many were injured or killed when they had to drive instead of fly?  As I said, I do not recall the number but it was way more than 0.

I would not want to have to make these decisions that affect real people's lives, for many reasons including the example above.  I just think the Gov., which is nothing more than a group of people, make many bad decisions like this all of the time because it looks good...at first.

I agree about the e-cigs.  Now our town has banned "smoking" them in buildings and businesses.  When asked why, the Mayor said that.."Well, when people see folks using these E-cigs, they might mistake them for a real cigarette and then light a real one up themselves, and we can't have that"  I kid you not.

Bill
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 06:44:57 AM
I don't really disagree with what you have said here Mark, A lot of folks do die on the roads and it is terrible.  My point was that it was not Big Oil that is keeping super mileage cars from the market.  I would like to think that if someone marketed an unsafe vehicle, not many would buy it and they would go under.  Maybe folks are not smart enough to do that any more?  When it comes to safety, usually there are unintended consequences.

I do not remember the statistical numbers but, we all can agree that flying commercial is far safer than driving...right?  When Airlines were told that a mother could no longer hold their infant in their lap, and had to buy a seat for the child, many parents decided to drive instead of fly as they could not afford it any longer. 

At the point the Government made this decision...guess how many kids were injured as a result of sitting on their Mom's laps in a commercial aircraft?  0.  Now, how many were injured or killed when they had to drive instead of fly?  As I said, I do not recall the number but it was way more than 0.

I would not want to have to make these decisions that affect real people's lives, for many reasons including the example above.  I just think the Gov., which is nothing more than a group of people, make many bad decisions like this all of the time because it looks good...at first.

I agree about the e-cigs.  Now our town has banned "smoking" them in buildings and businesses.  When asked why, the Mayor said that.."Well, when people see folks using these E-cigs, they might mistake them for a real cigarette and then light a real one up themselves, and we can't have that"  I kid you not.

Bill
I don't smoke.  When I first started working in a town where workplace smoking was banned it was something that made life for me more pleasant, even though I always considered other people's smoking mostly a minor annoyance from the ashes and smell of stale ashes being everywhere.  But this E-cig stuff is just nuts.  There are crazies wandering around shouting up the completely unevidenced notion of "second hand vapor". 

The separate seat for an infant might have made sense in 1970.  These days I don't see a safety justification.  Travel with an infant is tough on everyone.  People should avoid it if they can.  The way the airlines cram seats together an extra seat or two are needed just so the mother can have what they need to care for the infant accessible.

Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: raburgeson on January 20, 2015, 11:50:24 PM
Survival rate has nothing to do with money. At the end of 5 years 3% are cancer free. The 300 MGP Volkswagen has never entered the US. So, how do you figure they tested it? Now, let's talk money. The price of oil drop over 50%, it did not drop over 50% at the pumps.

When I spoke of money and chemo I was pointing out gouging high prices and an illegal monopoly. The government is one hundred percent behind protecting that monopoly.

3% is being to kind as there is misdiagnosis and those people that would beat the cancer themselves without medication of any sort. This is horse crap medicine at best. Most western nations have real cures and they are on a shelf. That was the point of bringing up chemo in the first place and now I will go on to other fish to fry. Although big pharma has all kinds of big bad skeletons in their closet there are several other companies gouging and shelving and false advertising, and buying governments world wide. Why don't we go on and discuss Monsanto next.

Someone is starting to look like a government goon, I know how to fight with them. I get a lot of lame excuses all over the net for phama. There are many Big Pharma whistle blowers on the net. Search them with a good search engine and it will take you days to go through all the videos and articles. These are people that were on the inside and know the real story.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 12:51:27 AM
Survival rate has nothing to do with money. At the end of 5 years 3% are cancer free. The 300 MGP Volkswagen has never entered the US. So, how do you figure they tested it? Now, let's talk money. The price of oil drop over 50%, it did not drop over 50% at the pumps.
The 300mpg VW is not 300mpg even in Germany, and is a technology demonstration vehicle.  VW is a leader in gas mileage worldwide, including products sold in the USA which have to meet stringent pollution and safety standards that impact fuel economy.  Even at that, when normalized to km/liter the USA versions of VW product get mileage very close to their European siblings. Oil gets: transported and refined.  Then the gasoline gets distributed, and taxed.  (A/2 + B + C + D) > (A + B + C + D)/2
Quote

When I spoke of money and chemo I was pointing out gouging high prices and an illegal monopoly. The government is one hundred percent behind protecting that monopoly.
The state of pharmaceutical market manipulaton and collusion with politicians in the USA is shameful.
Quote

3% is being to kind as there is misdiagnosis and those people that would beat the cancer themselves without medication of any sort. This is horse crap medicine at best. Most western nations have real cures and they are on a shelf. That was the point of bringing up chemo in the first place and now I will go on to other fish to fry. Although big pharma has all kinds of big bad skeletons in their closet there are several other companies gouging and shelving and false advertising, and buying governments world wide. Why don't we go on and discuss Monsanto next.

Someone is starting to look like a government goon, I know how to fight with them. I get a lot of lame excuses all over the net for phama. There are many Big Pharma whistle blowers on the net. Search them with a good search engine and it will take you days to go through all the videos and articles. These are people that were on the inside and know the real story.
Title: Re: Current ridicule
Post by: sarkeizen on January 21, 2015, 01:43:51 AM
Survival rate has nothing to do with money.
Which is irrelevant.  Chemotherapy increases the 5yr and 10yr survival rate.  You seem to want people to die.  Just sayin'
Quote
At the end of 5 years 3% are cancer free.
You could at least take the time to read your own exceptionally moronic articles.
Quote from: someone too stupid to live but does...its a miracle
No, it only means that they survived at least 5 years before expiring.  If they die of cancer the day after their 5 year survival date, then they are still classed as cured!!
This moronic excuse for an article IS talking about the 5 year survival rate...and of course like most things you post...it's wrong.

It's likely a reference to an Australian study which attempting to look at the contribution chemotherapy makes to five year survival.  The figure is around 3%.  The cancer survival rate with chemotherapy is, at least according to one article closer to 60%. 
Quote
When I spoke of money and chemo I was pointing out gouging high prices and an illegal monopoly.
What monopoly?  There are generic brands of taxol.  Medicines do not get any special protection than any other chemical patent.
Quote
This is horse crap medicine at best.
Again you are simply and completely incorrect.  ALR with chemo is about 25% 5yr survival overall.  Without it you are pretty much dead in less than a year.
Quote
Most western nations have real cures and they are on a shelf.
The only "cure" you made up....I mean mentioned was DCA.  DCA is not a cure, for example in murine studies it either did nothing or CAUSED tumors...but of course you didn't read that study...or any study...or much of anything at all that might challenge your intellect or your moronic preconceptions.   There is exactly one Phase I trial with published information on DCA.  The first Phase II trial was completed last year.  It might turn out to be a good treatment for some cancers...assuming people like you don't make it hard to hire good research staff.
Quote
Someone is starting to look like a government goon
That clicking?  That's just the sound that you're out of ammo and now you're going to pretend like you have something else to do. :)
Quote
These are people that were on the inside and know the real story.
LOL.  Now your argument is: "Oh it's out there on the internet somewhere.".  Tell you what, you post any article which is well sourced from actual science and strongly makes your case and I'll read it...then I'll tear it to shreds. :)  I highly doubt any such evidence exists on the internet but please feel free to surprise me. :)