REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

New of from Iraq OR better MPG!

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, September 7, 2007 13:56
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7553
PAGE 1 of 4

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There has been a very quiet shift in strategy since Jan 2007 when Gen Petraeus succeeded Gen Casey. It hasn't exactly been shouted from the rooftops because its a reversal of de-Baathification, but the United States has been supporting Sunni militias for quite some time. That news is leaking out little by little as can be found in today's CCN story
Quote:

The health care system is run by one Iranian-backed militia and the national police are dominated by another. Death squads terrorize Sunni neighborhoods. Sectarian cleansing is pushing people into segregated enclaves, protected by Shiite or U.S.-backed Sunni militias and spurring the flight of thousands to neighboring countries.
www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html?iref=mpst
oryview


Meanwhile, what is prompting Bush's criticism of Maliki is prolly not Maliki's failure to make progress with democracy OR security, but his failure to push through the oil law that Bush wants so badly.
Quote:

Depending on how Iraq's petroleum law shakes out, the country's enormous reserves could break the back of OPEC... Both independent analysts and officials within Iraq's Oil Ministry anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will be the Big Four -- the American firms Exxon Mobile and Chevron, the British BP Amoco and Royal Dutch Shell -- that dominate the world oil market. Ibrahim Mohammed, an industry consultant with close contacts in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, told the Associated Press that there's a universal belief among ministry staff that the major U.S. companies will win the lion's share of contracts. "The feeling is that the new government is going to be influenced by the United States," he said.
www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/ The troops can come home when the ink is dry because then the contract will be enforceable internationally.




---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Fromt the same article as above:

On March 7, 2003, two weeks before the United States attacked Iraq, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the inspections protocol had improved to the point where it was "active or even proactive," and that the inspectors would be able to certify that Iraq was free of prohibited weapons within a few months' time. That same day, IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei reported that there was no evidence of a current nuclear program in Iraq and flatly refuted the administration's claim that the infamous aluminum tubes cited by Colin Powell in making his case for war before the Security Council were part of a reconstituted nuclear program.

...

In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush was sworn in, the same energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam's ouster gathered at the White House to participate in Dick Cheney's now infamous Energy Task Force. Although Cheney would go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep what happened at those meetings a secret, we do know a few things, thanks to documents obtained by the conservative legal group JudicialWatch. As Mark Levine wrote in The Nation ($$):

… a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from 30 countries -- but not the United States -- were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oil fields on earth.






---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:56 AM

MAL4PREZ


Oh, it's clear - this administration had a plan in 2001, and 9/11 gave them a way to sell it. And not a damn thing was going to get in their way. The first thing Bush did after the planes hit (well, besides staring stupidly into space) was call for the Iraq invasion plans...

So, back in 2002-2003, it was my belief that Dubya had multiple ideas about how exactly the invasion of Iraq was going to protect Americans. The obvious interpretation of his speeches was the scary WMDs and terrorism, but I think that, in his own mind, he was out to solidify our economic power by gaining control of Iraq's oil reserves.

Seriously, there was a lack of specificity in his wording, and I really think that he knew he was out for oil as much as terrorism, but he couldn't admit that openly. His ongoing righteousness makes it clear to me - this man doesn't operate from greed (though those whispering in his ear might). He thinks he's saving the future of our country by securing oil wealth.

Thing is, there's some truth in that. But the people running this war are so focused and sure of themselves that they can't see the real damage they're doing.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, but here's the kicker: We don't need the oil. The USA automobile fuel economy standards are the lowest in the industrialized world, including China. And WHO has been conistently blocking efforts to improve fuel economy....? The same could be said for our energy consumption all arounbd.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:04 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
He thinks he's saving the future of our country by securing oil wealth.


I truly believe that he truly believes that.
Hitler was out to save Germany, too. Not equatin' them, just stating a small similarity in motive.

Bush is an econo-fascist, not a political one Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Actually Bush is far closer to Mussolini, Chris, go read up on some of the history - the parallels are rather striking.

-F

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Mussolini

He was, um...not good, right?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And then there's this....

August 22, 2007
Clinton: It's time for Maliki to go

WASHINGTON (CNN) — White House frontrunner Hillary Clinton called for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Wednesday afternoon, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in the embattled leader.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Boy I dunno, but I think this is more than just "I'll dump anyone Butch supports". There's been a LOT of talk about changing the Iraq government from three different angles: Dems, Repubs, and Generals. Doesn't matter if they're saying "yes" or "no", they're talking about it. Maybe what that means is that the USA is going to change the government in Iraq. HOW we do that, I have no idea seeing as we have not enuf forces on the ground to accomplish the task and the government WAS elected. Mebbe there's a US-backed "revolution" in the wings, one that will sign that all-important oil law before the December deadline.

Anyway, sure seems weird to me.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:43 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


Boy I dunno, but I think this is more than just "I'll dump anyone Butch supports".

Their government is a mess- and on vacation at the moment if I'm not mistaken.
Nothing like lame, sloppy asshats that need a vacation. WAIT! They set up the government of Iraq in our own image....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:44 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but here's the kicker: We don't need the oil. The USA automobile fuel economy standards are the lowest in the industrialized world, including China. And WHO has been conistently blocking efforts to improve fuel economy....? The same could be said for our energy consumption all arounbd.

I'm with you on that! Wasn't there a guy who invented some black box you plug into your engine to double your mileage? And then an oil company bought him out and buried it...

OK, I have no proof of that and can't remember where I heard it, but I'm sure things like this are happening. I've worked with these companies, and they operate by buying out their competition.

What really confuses me is this: in 1998, oil was hovering around $15/barrel and the industry was in a tizzy because they had budgeted for $22. Now it's up around $70 - it's been above $22 for years, and they're making record profits. Yet they still don't invest in research for the future. (Yes, I work in the industry. Obliquely.) So... where's all this money going?

And why is the price so high? Well, interesting that it started going up right after Bush and Cheney took office. Yes - it was going up before 9/11, and every time they talk more war (ie Iran) it bumps up again...


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:45 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
He thinks he's saving the future of our country by securing oil wealth.

I truly believe that he truly believes that.
Hitler was out to save Germany, too. Not equatin' them, just stating a small similarity in motive.

Bush is an econo-fascist, not a political one Chrisisall

The history channel did a special about how Hitler took power in the early 30s. The tactics he used to shift control into his own hands were frighteningly familiar. All Bush needs is his own Night of Long Knives, and the metaphor will be complete...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:38 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Actually, Bush is an evil robot put in place to speed the takeover of Earth by alien forces. I don't have a link as proof because the truth has been obfuscated by the evil Cheney-bot. Everyone keep your heads down and your tinfoil hats on and we might just make it through this darkness.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:48 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey MAl4

I have two words for you - water injection ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:51 AM

MAL4PREZ


Hey - wasn't that in a Simpson's episode? OMG, all this time I've been reading the news when I should have been watching the Simpson's to get the truth!!!

Edit: this was in reply to BDN's aliens... still checking on the water injection...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:56 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Home-Building/1979-09-01/Water-In
jection-Wizardry.aspx


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Hey - wasn't that in a Simpson's episode? OMG, all this time I've been reading the news when I should have been watching the Simpson's to get the truth!!!"

More a truth is spoken in jest --- than you'll EVER find on the news.




***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:40 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
More a truth is spoken in jest --- than you'll EVER find on the news.

It's true! Viewers of the Daily Show are better informed than those who watch Fox news...

Good article - this is exactly what I heard of many years ago. It boggles the mind, that this technology was smothered.

I wonder where this guy is now?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:48 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I don't know where he is.

I was put onto the topic by my BIL who is now a big mucky-muck - but as a kid he was interested in planes so he knew about WWII planes and water injection.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:08 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Home-Building/1979-09-01/Water-In
jection-Wizardry.aspx


Thank heavens the government and oil sat on this one, just think of the water shortages we might be experiencing today with this in common use!

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Hey MAl4
I have two words for you - water injection ...



While water injection works well on high-performance air-craft and auto engines, usually super or turbo-charged and requiring rigorous maintenance schedules, it has a few problems in an every-day car.

1. Water freezes. Unless you can provide 24/7 heating, injection water will freeze in cold climates. Anything added as an anti-freeze is not emissions friendly.

2. Water oxidizes things it contacts. Any corrosion preventative, such as the stuff added to anti-freeze, is again not too emissions friendly.

3. A motor tuned to get the most efficiency out of water injection will destroy itself if the water injection stops. On computer-controlled cars (all new ones) this can be detected by sensors and the tuning changed, but the motor will then go into 'limp' mode with much less efficiency.

4. Tap water probably won't do on an every-day car. Mineral deposits can build up on water injection nozzles relatively quickly (100 hrs of engine use?) and shut this system down. This could be a warranty and maintenance nightmare. Distilled water would work better, but how to ensure everyone uses it?

Remember that the car-buyer expects a vehicle they can pretty much ignore, except for gas, oil, warranty service, and tires. The extensive maintenance required for an effective water-injection system just wouldn't sell.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


1. "Unless you can provide 24/7 heating, injection water will freeze in cold climates." In somewhat cold climates people used to buy "dry gas" (at the time I think it was diethyl ether) to keep water in solution with gasoline and keep gas lines from freezing up. Now it's made with isopropyl alcohol (IPA). "Anything added as an anti-freeze is not emissions friendly." Ether is very emissions friendly and was used as a gas additive (MTBE) to reduce winter CO emissions, until it leaked out of fuel storage tanks and contaminated underground water. In REALLY cold climates people already use block heaters to keep oil from turning solid.

2."Water oxidizes things it contacts." Only if it's iron. Most engine blocks are made of aluminum with steel-lined cylinders.

3. "A motor tuned to get the most efficiency out of water injection will destroy itself if the water injection stops. On computer-controlled cars (all new ones) this can be detected by sensors and the tuning changed, but the motor will then go into 'limp' mode with much less efficiency." Which will be restored when the water injection is fixed.

4. "Distilled water would work better, but how to ensure everyone uses it?" Sell it at gas stations for a nominal fee.

"Remember that the car-buyer expects a vehicle they can pretty much ignore, except for gas, oil, warranty service, and tires. The extensive maintenance required for an effective water-injection system just wouldn't sell." No extensive maintenance required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I personally am waiting for a direct-electric drive, ethanol-water fueled, fuel cell vehicle, with titanium roll-cage. But until then, cars could be retrofitted with water injection fairly cheaply, and save billions of gallons of gas every year.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:58 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


As Geezer points out, there are flaws in the technology, but what is being done to address the flaws?


Even if introduced in a more limited area, say city buses in Southern climates it would be a proving ground as well as a sales exhibition for the possibility of a wider use.

In a fleet situation the maintenance could be manageable, and likely attractive with the fuel cost savings.

It would be a start, and once in use the technology would evolve at a faster pace.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:51 AM

MAL4PREZ


And it's absolutely unheard of for engineers to tackle problems like this...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As Geezer points out, there are flaws in the technology, but what is being done to address the flaws?

Even if introduced in a more limited area, say city buses in Southern climates it would be a proving ground as well as a sales exhibition for the possibility of a wider use.

In a fleet situation the maintenance could be manageable, and likely attractive with the fuel cost savings.

It would be a start, and once in use the technology would evolve at a faster pace.




Goggle "water injection" diesel and you'll find any number of research projects and papers. most will note that the technology just hasn't developed enough yet to think of applying it in a real-world situation. I know that this isn't as dramatic as positing some secret government-oil industry plot, but there it is.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:13 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


That's b/c you used diesel in your search. Look under "water injection" engine and you'll find gems like these.

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me3.ht
ml


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:15 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


The approach I suggest would only work for water injection, but electric if the bugs can be worked out or better yet gasoline-hydrogen hybrid vehicles, leading into purely hydrogen fueled vehicles.

Something like this program with its biodiesel oil

http://www.halifax.ca/FleetServices/index.html




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So it looks like water injection works for gasoline-powered engines but not diesel powered engines. Right?

What about electric cars? Electric cars do more than just tranfer pollution production to power plants, they're far more efficient than gasoline-powered engines and would be responsible for a lot less pollution overall. They require almost no service and they really zip! There were a whole bunch in production ten years ago and the people who leased them LOVED them. But the makers- GM specifically- took back ALL the cars. Wouldn't even let people buy them outright. And then they crushed them. You should see Who Killed the Electric Car? for the full story of how a viable, competitive technology was killed outright.

You could make it a better hybrid by simply adding a constant RPM turbine-powered generator: the BIG waste in gasoline engines is that they're expected to work over wide RPM range. Combine that with an electric braking system and you've got a 100 mpg car with a 300 mile-range.

Another form of motive power is the flywheel. Yep, the flywheel. People have been "studying" this form of energy storage for decades. It's actually part of the electric trolley system... that's what provides the motive power when the trolleys switch from one power line to another when they turn. There is nothing infeasible about it, especially with newer materials. Once again, it's being raised as a possibility: A new flywheel the size of a regular auto engine block that can pull a freight engine was just recently built. (I'll try and find the link.) But like the electric car I'll bet it goes.... nowhere.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:29 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Gino

Another thing I learned from my BIL (who was a motocycle mechanic in his younger days) is that bio-oil burns cleaner than fossil fuel oil. That's why they used to use Castrol (castor bean oil) in 2-stroke engines like motorcycles.

Looking it up, fossil fuel oil has a lot more minerals in it - silica, iron and others - that come from the rocks the oil is found in - that don't burn and create a lot of "ash" - and incidentally cause engine wear. That's why bio-diesel fuel cleans engines, it washes off mineral deposits left by fossil fuel diesel.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:35 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM

Sigh ... I'm still holding out for my direct electric drive (like an electric car), ethanol-water fuel (handles just like regular fuel - and renewable), fuel-cell vehicle (much more efficient than IC) with a titanium safety cage (b/c, well, it's light and really, really strong).

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This isn't the link I was thinking of but here's one application of flywheel technology

www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/99oc_issues/oc991202/oc_bus.html

Rue, I want the electric car back. It's an immediately available technology that improved with the development of the Li-H battery. They can still work on more advanced stuff, but why withhold something that would work right now?

This is a good example of why capitalism is not always the best adapter of new tehcnology: old technology and old investments are vastly more profitable than newer technology and having to retool and retrain.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:58 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:


Goggle "water injection" diesel and you'll find any number of research projects and papers. most will note that the technology just hasn't developed enough yet to think of applying it in a real-world situation. I know that this isn't as dramatic as positing some secret government-oil industry plot, but there it is.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



You mean like the water injection kits that have been available for diesel cars in the UK for at least the last 20 years? And can be bought easily today?

http://www.aquamist.co.uk/

In the UK serious off roaders see water injection is a standard addon to any high performance turbo-diesel because it helps lower the flash point of the diesel air mixture and therefore counteracts some of the problems with compression heating.

It's not been popular in cars because you would either have to increase the compression ratio or add a turbo to see any benefit and that makes it more complex than a simple bolt on upgrade.

Quote:



So it looks like water injection works for gasoline-powered engines but not diesel powered engines. Right?




Wrong way around

From the website

Quote:



THE CONCEPT of injecting water into the internal combustion engine has been around for over 50 years. But the desire to extract more power from the standard production engine has increased at a neck-breaking speed. ERL has just revived this old principle, applying the latest techniques in both electronic and mechanical engineering to take water injection into the next millennium.
WATER? Water exists mainly in a liquid state because that is its most stable inter-molecular structure. When we apply heat energy to it, its molecules begin to expand: a great deal of heat is absorbed during this process owing to water's specific heat capacity - approximately 4.2kJ/(kg.K). When the water changes from the liquid to gas state, large amount of heat energy is consumed in sustaining the process. The latent heat of evaporation is 2256kJ/kg, approximately six times more than gasoline!
SO WHAT? Because of its huge specific- and latent- heat capacity, water is the perfect liquid for regulating excess heat under certain engine-operating conditions, for example induction charge air cooling; but its biggest contribution is inside the combustion chamber where, under excessive loading, pre-ignition and detonation can otherwise occur. Such abnormal combustion is particularly common in force induction engines, where exhaust temperature can exceed 1100°C!
WHAT CHANCE has a piston got under these conditions, given that aluminium melts at 660°C? 99% of production cars keep exhaust temperature below 850°C by fuel-dumping, and hold crown temperature below 550°C by conduction to the underside and skirt of the piston, which is constantly being quenched by engine oil. Most of the heat is transferred to the cylinder wall. Simple and wonderful solutions, but ...
TURBO-CARS are easily upgraded just by adjusting the boost pressure and adding a commercially-available pre-programmed chip; but the hidden drawback of this solution is that even more fuel is being dumped -- as a coolant! -- to compensate for standard engine-cooling arrangements (inside the engine bay your fast-road car has more-or-less the same radiators and cooling fans as the family car next door). But as you upgrade your power-upgrade, you will get to the point where the fuel becomes so rich, and the flame is burning so slowly, that power is being lost rather than gained.
WORSE STILL your piston is no longer being lubricated properly: bore-wash is taking its toll of the pistons. You might decide to combat this with a very special synthetic oil, developed from years of research, which helped some car to win a few championships last season. Your favourite racing-driver recommends it on TV, so of course you want to believe him. But have you ever wondered why he has to get his engine rebuilt after every race?
HELP! Help is indeed at hand! The ERL Aquamist system, using sophisticated electronics to process engine-data, injects a precisely-metered quantity of coolant: not gasoline, but water, six times more effective, and freely available! We eliminate fuel-dumping, leaving your air/fuel ratio unaffected, enabling maximum power to be extracted from the engine. To ensure that each cylinder receives exactly the same dosage, we deliver the coolant in a fine mist: not only does Aquamist eliminate piston-ring damage ... it steam-cleans your engine with every stroke!
THERE'S MORE ... The Aquamist system offers a full range of diagnostic features, enabling you to detect blocked nozzles, cut water-pipes, and all sorts of other smashing things. If track record and expertise is what you want, don't wait for your favourite racing driver to tell you about Aquamist on TV: it might be too late ...







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
That's b/c you used diesel in your search. Look under "water injection" engine and you'll find gems like these.

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me3.ht
ml




1. I used Diesel because Gino was talking about city busses, which burn - guess what- Diesel.

2. From the article you cited: ... "but he also added a drag-reducing "air dam", under the Honda's front bumper, to further improve his car's gas mileage."

I did this on my CRX race car, and picked up 5 mph on the Summit Point racetrack's main straight. I'd suspect that this is where most - if not all - of the mileage improvement came from.

3. Note that this 25 year old article refers to carburetted cars, has no data about emissions, no indication that the 'improvement' was rigorously or repeatably tested, and no long term testing to determine if the system would damage the car over several years use.

4. I spend a good bit of time on other boards where performance car nuts who actually do use water injection hang out. As I noted above, it is useful for gaining a bit of performance in forced induction engines, but everyone who uses it is familiar with the technology, well aware of the downside of increased maintenance, and has felt the wallet hit of several thousand dollars it takes to install all the components needed for a useful, reasonably reliable system.

5. A critique of one of the newer water injection systems on the Free Energy News site.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Hydrogen/aquatune.htm

If you want to install water injection on your car, fine with me. I expect I can get better improvements in mileage by properly inflating tires and driving more smoothly.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
You mean like the water injection kits that have been available for diesel cars in the UK for at least the last 20 years? And can be bought easily today?

http://www.aquamist.co.uk/

In the UK serious off roaders see water injection is a standard addon to any high performance turbo-diesel because it helps lower the flash point of the diesel air mixture and therefore counteracts some of the problems with compression heating.

It's not been popular in cars because you would either have to increase the compression ratio or add a turbo to see any benefit and that makes it more complex than a simple bolt on upgrade.



Which is pretty much what I've been saying. Serious car nuts are willing to go along with the expense, trouble, and increased maintenance load these systems require because they're car nuts. Water injection works efficiently on only specific types of engines, and requires much more committment from the owner. Most vehicles can't be effectively retrofitted. The technology is not yet mature enough to be installed in mass production cars which will be expected to work for 100,000+ miles with indifferent care.

If you want water injection run out and buy a system for your car. It may do something useful, or it may kill your motor, depending on who built and installed the system, and how well you maintain it. Try the Aquamist. You apparently believe everything they're trying to sell you on their website.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yeah, but what about the electric car? I want an electric car, damnit! And that's a clear example of a technology being killed so naturally you avoid it and hyperfocus on water injection.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:57 AM

FLETCH2


Like I said, it's old technology. A guy I worked with 20+ years ago had it on his Landrover off roader. Since my car is not supercharged/turbocharged or a diesel there would be no point fitting it (as was pointed out by the Aquamist website.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:00 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, but what about the electric car? I want an electric car, damnit! And that's a clear example of a technology being killed so naturally you avoid it and hyperfocus on water injection.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



Get a Preus and retro fit it as a plug-in hybrid (expensive right now but usefull if you have a relatively short commute AND you get the advantage of a petrol engine for longer trips)

http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, but what about the electric car? I want an electric car, damnit! And that's a clear example of a technology being killed so naturally you avoid it and hyperfocus on water injection.




You can easily do the plug-in Prius conversion Fletch suggests. There are other ways to retrofit to a pure electric car if you want - just don't try any long trips. Current range is pretty much under 200 miles per charge at best. Relatively limited battery life and safe disposal of used batteries are also considerations. Besides, the electricity you use to charge your car has to come form somewhere, quite possibly a coal-fired plant. A nation of electric cars would require massive increases in electrical generation, distribution, etc.

Pure electric cars are a niche product that fits the particular requirements of a small portion of the population. Aside from the Prius, with it's cachet as the car driven by earth-friendly celebs, even hybrids aren't selling well due to relatively high cost. The extra cost generally isn't amortized by gas savings in under 200,000 miles.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


1. I used Diesel because Gino was talking about city busses, which burn - guess what- Diesel.
1. But if one is talking very generally, which is where the discussion is going, restricting the search with diesel artificially limits the responses.


2. From the article you cited: ... "but he also added a drag-reducing "air dam", under the Honda's front bumper, to further improve his car's gas mileage."

2. Also from the article cited: ... "Since that first attempt, Ron has installed his "bubbling bottles" on all sorts of vehicles ... from a BMW R60/2 motorcycle ... to a 1973 Opel GT ... to a 1968 Cadillac. In each case, gas mileage improved dramatically! So, folks, there "ain't no reason" why you can't get better performance and gas mileage by building your own water injector ... no matter what form of gasoline-engined transportation you're driving!"


3. Note that this 25 year old article refers to carbureted cars, has no data about emissions, no indication that the 'improvement' was rigorously or repeatably tested, and no long term testing to determine if the system would damage the car over several years use.

3. Rigorous may be missing, but repeated is certainly there. (see above)


4. ... it is useful for gaining a bit of performance in forced induction engines, but everyone who uses it is familiar with the technology, well aware of the downside of increased maintenance, and has felt the wallet hit of several thousand dollars it takes to install all the components needed for a useful, reasonably reliable system.

4. Ah yes, I remember now. You did mention at some point your Civic which you race. There's a difference between modifying a car for racing to get peak power, and modifying your everyday ride. Of course people who race are going to go for specialized (and expensive) systems. But making a variable output water mist generator that's precise, accurate, and repeatable is no big deal, we do it regularly here all the time. All it takes is a pump, capillary, and sonicator.

5. http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Hydrogen/aquatune.htm

5. Aquatune - well, there's a certain amount of misinformation in that one. Sonication may produce hydrogen, but in infinitesimal amounts. But the link you supplied was written by a competitor to Aquatune. Another link (from the same website) http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4129768 says this about Aquatune specifically:
" On one stretch of highway we got better than 40 miles to the gallon. That beats the 28 miles per gallon we were getting before we installed the Aquatune. We also got a boost in our city mileage from 17 to 23. Both numbers are in line with the 25 percent increase in fuel economy the makers promised."
Now that is something significant, better than well-inflated tires and smooth driving together can manage. And it would be interesting to check out what other mfgs say about their products.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 3:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You can easily do the plug-in Prius conversion Fletch suggests.
But why do I have to make a DIY car? What about capitalism? Isn't it the be-all end-all of technology advancement? (NOT)
Quote:

There are other ways to retrofit to a pure electric car if you want - just don't try any long trips Current range is pretty much under 200 miles per charge at best. ... Pure electric cars are a niche product that fits the particular requirements of a small portion of the population
Like only about 95% of the urban population who don't drive more than 50 miles in any particular day!
Quote:

Besides, the electricity you use to charge your car has to come form somewhere, quite possibly a coal-fired plant. A nation of electric cars would require massive increases in electrical generation, distribution, etc.
The studies have already been done. Despite the inefficiencies of power generation and transmission, even coal-fired plants come out to a net pollution-savings.
Quote:

Aside from the Prius, with it's cachet as the car driven by earth-friendly celebs, even hybrids aren't selling well due to relatively high cost. The extra cost generally isn't amortized by gas savings in under 200,000 miles.
The price would come down if the car were mass-produced. That is supposed to be the genius of capitalism, so why isn't it working?

BTW- If the batteries were lead-acid you'd have a point about disposal, but LIH batteries are OK.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:38 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
1. I used Diesel because Gino was talking about city busses, which burn - guess what- Diesel.
1. But if one is talking very generally, which is where the discussion is going, restricting the search with diesel artificially limits the responses.



However, I was responding to Gino's post, not the general thread. If I were talking generally, I'd probably note (in fact I did) that water injection is currently used in specialist applications only, and note the reasons.
Quote:

Also from the article cited: ... "Since that first attempt, Ron has installed his "bubbling bottles" on all sorts of vehicles ... from a BMW R60/2 motorcycle ... to a 1973 Opel GT ... to a 1968 Cadillac. In each case, gas mileage improved dramatically! So, folks, there "ain't no reason" why you can't get better performance and gas mileage by building your own water injector ... no matter what form of gasoline-engined transportation you're driving!"

Still leaving out the fact that all these are carburated vehicles. Fuel injection is much more finicky. Still considering that this is, without some sort of structured, repeatable process, just anecdotal. Still ignoring the lack of emissions data, engine longetivity data, etc.

Quote:

[3. Rigorous may be missing, but repeated is certainly there. (see above)
Sorry, but we have no idea how his 'dramatic' increases were obtained. Did he drive from LA to Denver (just an example) and check his gas mileage, then install his device and drive from denver to LA? Any repeated routes? Any dynomometer runs? Any actual data besides the word of someone who really wants it to work?
Quote:

But making a variable output water mist generator that's precise, accurate, and repeatable is no big deal, we do it regularly here all the time. All it takes is a pump, capillary, and sonicator.

This would be fine if all that it took was the water injection. To use it effectively requires a higher compression ratio or turbocharging, either of which place added stress on the engine - requiring more expensive alloys or heavire parts to provide reliability. Also requires a seperate, precisely metered water injection system, which had better not fail without some computer failsafe or the engine is toast. And we still have the problem of water freezing at relatively mild temperatures and being an oxidizer of iron and steel.

You can buy the Aquatune if you believe the spiel of the folks selling it, or some TV station who take the word of a guy who makes $400.00 for the hour it probably takes him to install one. Or maybe you should look at this Popular Mechanics test, the only independent test I could find which used at least a bit of rigor and scientific method. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=
4




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, wrenching the thread back on-topic:


Clinton, D-New York, said she already had reservations about al-Maliki's leadership in January, but since then, "Iraqi leaders have not met their own political benchmarks to share power, modify the de-Baathification laws, pass an oil law, schedule provincial elections and amend their constitution."

Yeah, let's not forget that all-important black stuff.
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/nie/index.html


A powerhouse Republican lobbying firm with close ties to the White House has begun a public campaign to undermine the government of Iraqi, CNN has confirmed. A report by the U.S. intelligence community questions Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ability to govern. This comes as President Bush is publicly taking great pains to reiterate his support for the embattled Iraqi leader... When asked whether the White House will ask the prominent Republican lobbying firm to stop lashing out at al-Maliki, the official said, "I don't rule it out." Pressed on why allies of the White House would be contradicting the president publicly, the senior administration official said of the lobbyists, "They're making a lot of money."

One should wonder: WHO is paying them???? The same people who are paying Clinton?
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/anti.maliki.compaign/index.html

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:07 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But why do I have to make a DIY car? What about capitalism? Isn't it the be-all end-all of technology advancement? (NOT)


Not enough demand for a car that can cover only 150-200 miles a day, costs more than a conventional car of the same performance, and loses range if you use the a/c or radio. As noted, hybrid cars that get 50mpg don't sell based on economy alone, based on the time it takes to amortize the extra cost in fuel savings. The market does recognize enough demand to provide aftermarket kits, but not enough to justify the expense of tooling up mass production.

Quote:

Like only about 95% of the urban population who don't drive more than 50 miles in any particular day!

But on some particular days they drive to Grandma's in Texas, or to Disneyworld, or somewhere else. It may also surprise you to know that a lot of the population isn't urban.

Quote:

The studies have already been done. Despite the inefficiencies of power generation and transmission, even coal-fired plants come out to a net pollution-savings.

How about economic savings? Someone still has to pay for the increased generator capacity, the increased transmission and switching capability, the increased amount of electricity used. If you can't always charge up your car at home there has to be some sort of commercial infrastructure to charge it somewhere else. Even if you just swap batteries rather than hooking up to a metered system for a few hours every 200 miles, there is still a massive infrastructure involved, which someone has to pay for.
Quote:

The price would come down if the car were mass-produced. That is supposed to be the genius of capitalism, so why isn't it working?

The cars (hybrids, at least) are mass produced, and most are sold at cost, which is still so high that the mileage savings can't pay off the difference. The technology for storing electricity just isn't mature enough at this point to be economical. Batteries are currently heavy, expensive to make, slow to charge, and reltively short-lived compared to gas-powered engines.

Quote:

BTW- If the batteries were lead-acid you'd have a point about disposal, but LIH batteries are OK.

But the Lithium Hydride batteries are more expensive. They show up in concept cars, but mass production at the price you'd need to sell a car is a ways away.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:28 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

You can easily do the plug-in Prius conversion Fletch suggests.
But why do I have to make a DIY car? What about capitalism? Isn't it the be-all end-all of technology advancement? (NOT)



Toyota are planning a plug hybrid but only when they have made an improvement to the battery. For products that cost say $500 there will be enough people willing to buy v0.1 of a product. For $30k+ ......not so much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:34 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
You can buy the Aquatune if you believe the spiel of the folks selling it, or some TV station who take the word of a guy who makes $400.00 for the hour it probably takes him to install one. Or maybe you should look at this Popular Mechanics test, the only independent test I could find which used at least a bit of rigor and scientific method. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=
4




"Keep the Shiny side up"



Needs to be pointed out that aquatune isn't really a water injection unit as most mechanics would understand it because it doesnt actually contain a pump, it "works" off of manifold pressure.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:09 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
How about economic savings? Someone still has to pay for the increased generator capacity, the increased transmission and switching capability, the increased amount of electricity used. If you can't always charge up your car at home there has to be some sort of commercial infrastructure to charge it somewhere else. Even if you just swap batteries rather than hooking up to a metered system for a few hours every 200 miles, there is still a massive infrastructure involved, which someone has to pay for.



Let's look at that.

1) You probably won't need massive amounts of additional transmission equipment and infrastructure. Your average subdivision has to be configured to supply the expected daytime peak use. If you charge the car at night the hardware already in the neighborhood should be able to supply it. Likewise the generating capacity to provide peak loading is still there during the night. In fact since you cant let the generators cool off you have to run the plants at night even if there is low demand.

Back in the UK you can buy cheap electricity at night, people use it in storage heaters or to run things like washing machines/ dish washers.

2) When I was living in Canada cars had block heaters to stop the oil from freezing. Because people spend 8 hours at work businesses had electrical boxes outside. You drove to work parked then plugged in your car so that it didn't freeze. It was not in general a big problem to set up those kinds of hookups.

Since home and work/school are the two places people spend most of their time electrical charging stations in both of those places deal with the majority of cases. If you need to go to Disneyland take a train, the TGV people make a nice one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer

Quote:

... water injection is currently used in specialist applications only, and note the reasons.
Which are not terribly convincing.
Quote:

... without some sort of structured, repeatable process, just anecdotal. Still ignoring the lack of emissions data, engine longetivity data, etc. ... Any repeated routes? Any dynomometer runs? ... the only independent test I could find which used at least a bit of rigor and scientific method. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive /new_cars/1802932.html?page=4
Did you read it? There's no "emissions data, engine longetivity data" or etc, "repeated routes", or "a bit of rigor and scientific method." And one dynamometer run. It's also anecdotal.
They also apparently used too long a hose to the manifold. Our ultrasonic capillaries are fitted directly into the gas stream.
Quote:

To use it effectively requires a higher compression ratio or turbocharging, either of which place added stress on the engine - requiring more expensive alloys or heavire parts
Or retarded timing, requiring nothing else.
Quote:

Also requires a seperate, precisely metered water injection system
perhaps, or not - see below.
Quote:

which had better not fail without some computer failsafe or the engine is toast.
Like today's cars don't have computers.
Quote:

And we still have the problem of water freezing at relatively mild temperatures and being an oxidizer of iron and steel.
Water could be added directly to fuel and kept in suspension with dispersants (aforementioned diethyl ether or IPA) or added under the hood and prevented from freezing by IPA as antifreeze. The only 'critical parts' exposed to high-temp water needed to oxidize steel are the cylinders and exhaust. But water is normally formed during combustion anyway - by your logic people shouldn't be able to burn gasoline in air b/c the water formed would destroy the engine.

Not that I would go out and buy the product. Its physical set-up looks designed to fail. If I had the time though, I would put something together that would actually put water into the engine, while I'm waiting for the vehicle of my dreams to come out on the market. Or at least, SignyM's e-vehicle that's already been deigned, delivered and road-tested by thousands of consumers.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2007 3:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


So. Okay guys.

Tell me why we aren't all zipping around in electric cars, or in water-injected cars.

Better yet, tell me why European and Japanese manufacturers, who should have an easier sell, what with much higher gas prices and generally shorter distances to drive, aren't churning out electric cars by the millions?

While you're at it, explain why hybrid cars, which are available and mass produced, are selling so poorly that Honda, for example is dropping some hybrid lines.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2007 4:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer: So, if only CHEAP products can be introduced and only mass production can make products less expensive, how does capitalism introduce relatively expensive new technology? What you're saying is that we can drown in hula-hoops and 50 different kinds of toilet paper but nothing ground-breaking stands a chance.

BTW, I accidentally has a "water injection system" because of a pinhole leak in the head gasket. Man, I got GREAT mileage!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2007 6:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: So, if only CHEAP products can be introduced and only mass production can make products less expensive, how does capitalism introduce relatively expensive new technology? What you're saying is that we can drown in hula-hoops and 50 different kinds of toilet paper but nothing ground-breaking stands a chance.



I've explained why I think affordable electric cars aren't in production yet (in case you forgot, it's because the technology needed to build and sell them in volume at a profit is not yet available, along with the associated infrastructure costs). You obviously don't agree with this, so tell me why you think we're not all driving electric right now.


BTW, I mever said only CHEAP products could be introduced. Only products that the manufacturer thinks can be sold at a profit are introduced (in a free market). As mentioned before, most hybrid cars are priced at cost, and many still remain unsold. The only reason they're manufactured at all is to meet government low emissions standards, not to make money.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 24, 2007 8:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You had a question about Germany and hybrid cars. The same thing that's driving the US automakers is driving the German automakers:
Quote:

Rather than emulate Japanese carmakers who have seen success by enhancing fuel economy across varied product lines, it seems Germany's auto industry is closer to the US model: keep pumping out the most historically profitable classes. In their case, that happens to be high-end fuel guzzlers.
This is a problem with capitalism across the board. High profit product does not mean advanced or best product (or better mousetrap). When you have an established technology and infrastructure- such as the gasoline-powered automobile, gas filling stations, roadways, refineries, plus ALL those invested corporate board members- there is a huge incentive to keep things the same. I know, I deal with big refineries often. Their physical plants are more than 40 years old, have been paid off decades ago. Except for maintenance and repair- and precious little of THAT- the oil corporations seem content to keep making money on things as they are. The only oil company that I know of to invest in alternative technology was Arco (now BP-Arco) which invested in solar cells (Arco Solar) and they kind of got their neck chopped off.

You can apply that model to any technology that requires a big investment. Which is why many of the real big advances- like the internet and the interstate- were made by government.

So the process that you postulate is very much a dead-end.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:10 - 4778 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL