A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
other established markets.
(1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
(2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
sales)
I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
time is right?
(Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a train
and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
FoggyTown
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> anymore. I think too many companies are too hungry and the chance to
> make a buck is too much to resist.
OTOH, I was pretty certain, when I was about five, that those square wooden
wheels I put on the first tubafour "car" I made were so easy to make that
they would revolutionize the toy car business ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 18, 4:35 pm, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:52 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Charlie Self wrote:
> >> > On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >>I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
> >> >>little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
> >> >>first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
> >> >>became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
> >> >>80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
> >> >>had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
> >> >>fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
> >> >>tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
> >> >>time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!
>
> >> >>But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
> >> >>dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
> >> >>companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
> >> >>good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>
> >> > And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
> >> > popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
> >> > '50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
> >> > the thing and buried it.
>
> >> > If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
> >> > would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.
>
> >> If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
> >> 90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
> >> mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
> >> manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
> >> indicates there is no such product.
>
> >Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-
> >machines, ever. Not even in the future.
> >We would have had visitors by now, eh?
>
> WOW! for an ultralight you sure are doing pretty good. What do you
> use when out in salt water?
I have never fished salt water, but I'm sure my '6 and graphite
ultralight wont get me much. Even my medium action 7' bass rod will
probably be useless even with 20lb test. Naaaa.. just my ultra light
and low-hanging fruit for now...:)
On Dec 19, 10:33 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
>
> >> My apologies for the looooooong post!
>
> > What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
> > formulae.
> > 1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
> > If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
> > time
> > the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
> > resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
> > stoplight...etc.
> > If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
> > to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
> > aren't going to make one bit of difference.
>
> > It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work
> > in
> > a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
> > squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
> > create
> > steam first.
> > X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
> > DO
> > the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
> > of
> > doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
> > reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
> > ultimately is stored in that gallon.
>
> While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee
> with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted
> with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
> change in performance.
It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more efficient
Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor.
My Hummer was a constant.
When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or
dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
gallon."
--- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
r
DonkeyHody wrote:
> Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
> their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
> resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
> for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
> the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
> cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
> to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
> about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
> people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
> hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
> people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
> out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
> that appear to be black and white seldom are.
In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for something
like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across something that
shows promise for treating anther, much rarer condition. If the market
for this potential discovery isn't big enough to warrant the R&D
investment, it does not get pursued.
dpb wrote:
> Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>> DonkeyHody wrote:
>>
>>> Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
>>> their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
>>> resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
>>> for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
>>> the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
>>> cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
>>> to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
>>> about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
>>> people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
>>> hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
>>> people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
>>> out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
>>> that appear to be black and white seldom are.
>>
>> In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for
>> something like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across
>> something that shows promise for treating anther, much rarer
>> condition. If the market for this potential discovery isn't big enough
>> to warrant the R&D investment, it does not get pursued.
>
> Talk about sending in the black helicopters... :(
>
> --
Despite how that may have sounded to you, I'm really not a conspiracy
theorist in the least. The problem is so well documented that the the
federal government passed legislation giving incentives to drug
companies to encourage them not to let such discoveries go undeveloped.
Would you believe the FDA;s own website?
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/orphan.html
dpb wrote:
> Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>>> DonkeyHody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
>>>>> their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
>>>>> resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
>>>>> for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
>>>>> the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
>>>>> cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
>>>>> to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
>>>>> about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
>>>>> people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
>>>>> hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
>>>>> people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
>>>>> out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
>>>>> that appear to be black and white seldom are.
>>>>
>>>> In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for
>>>> something like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across
>>>> something that shows promise for treating anther, much rarer
>>>> condition. If the market for this potential discovery isn't big
>>>> enough to warrant the R&D investment, it does not get pursued.
>>>
>>> Talk about sending in the black helicopters... :(
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Despite how that may have sounded to you, I'm really not a conspiracy
>> theorist in the least. The problem is so well documented that the the
>> federal government passed legislation giving incentives to drug
>> companies to encourage them not to let such discoveries go undeveloped.
>>
>> Would you believe the FDA;s own website?
>>
>> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/orphan.html
>
> Took somewhat out of context, I'll grant...it's a pov thing I guess.
> Sure there are things that don't warrant the investment from a purely
> economic standpoint. Unless there's some way to support the research
> that's a problem no commercial venture can afford (at least
> indefinitely). I mistook the intent given the previous, sorry...
>
> --
And I confess that until I did some googling to support what I said, I
didn't realize that quite a bit *has* apparently been done to minimize
the problem.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
> (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
> Trams (streetcars) are the best example.
So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal bus
approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any riders
would use them.....those terribly inefficient cars only cost around .40 to
.50 cents per mile
> Many cities in the US had very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for
> instance). Yet the deal schmoozed out between the man Firestone and
> one the US presidents (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of
> tires and fuel more important and the whole transportation system went
> for crap just to sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences
> bad decisions propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign
> donations.in fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to
> negotiate but doesn't sell hardware.
> So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available, it
> wouldn't see the light of day.
>
> r-----> aka as Zebco6-ultralight... unless I'm stumping for bass.
If you want to know why mass transit only has legs because of
congestion(major cities).... not price or convenience just try to live a
normal life without a car......My daughter's car recently broke down, her
normal 20 minute each way commute took 2 hrs each way...and yet her
hospital(job) is on a major road and her apartment is not far from another.
Rod
Doug Winterburn wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> FoggyTown wrote:
>>> A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
>>> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
>>> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
>>> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
>>> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
>>> other established markets.
>> ...
>>
>> Well, yeahbbut...
>>
>> If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there may be
>> an element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this miracle product,
>> whatever it might be, would be producible at a competitive price or not
>> have some other problem or somebody would be doing it...there are an
>> awful lot of bright folks out there.
>>
>> --
>
> Well, here's one that they tried to squelch, but it finally broke through:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIOIM6hHBk
With self-destruct function even. Are they available in time for
Christmas?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Dec 18, 9:45 am, "Frank Arthur" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "FoggyTown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cc1305d5-21c9-4ec9-a764-6eccb9cd5e9c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
>> > respected designer. One element of his presentation was his
>> > assertion
>> > that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
>> > perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
>> > average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
>> > other established markets.
>>
>> > (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
>> > tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
>> > (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
>> > need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
>> > sales)
>>
>> > I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
>> > crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
>> > wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
>> > time is right?
>>
>> > (Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
>> > demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a
>> > train
>> > and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
>>
>> > FoggyTown
>>
>> I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
>> because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!- Hide
>> quoted text -
>
> I thought water was known as the universal solvent.
> JP
If you are willing to wait long enough.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy wrote:
> What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
> formulae.
> 1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
> If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next time
> the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
> resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
> stoplight...etc.
> If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
> to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
> aren't going to make one bit of difference.
Your premise is quite correct, but I'm not so sure about your conclusion.
Yes, a gallon of fuel contains a fixed amount of energy, but an internal
combustion engine can't get 100% of that energy to the wheels. So what
all the pipe dreams are about is trying to squeeze as much of that
available energy from that gallon of gas as possible.
While preposterous ideas and claims abound, it would be wrong to imply
that there is no possibility of mechanical improvements that would
increase efficiency.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:33 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
>>>> My apologies for the looooooong post!
>>> What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
>>> formulae.
>>> 1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
>>> If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
>>> time
>>> the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
>>> resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
>>> stoplight...etc.
>>> If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
>>> to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
>>> aren't going to make one bit of difference.
>>> It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work
>>> in
>>> a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
>>> squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
>>> create
>>> steam first.
>>> X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
>>> DO
>>> the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
>>> of
>>> doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
>>> reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
>>> ultimately is stored in that gallon.
>> While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee
>> with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted
>> with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
>> change in performance.
>
> It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more efficient
> Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor.
> My Hummer was a constant.
> When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
> heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or
> dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
> NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
> gallon."
> --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
>
> r
I think the confusion sets in when you state:
"X amount of fuel = X amount of work" as if it were a constant. It is not.
X amount of fuel = X amount of energy would be accurate, but the amount
of *work* is going to be determined by efficiency.
NoOne N Particular wrote:
> <<<<<<<<<< Snippage >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for
>> something like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across
>> something that shows promise for treating anther, much rarer
>> condition. If the market for this potential discovery isn't big enough
>> to warrant the R&D investment, it does not get pursued.
>
> Or the market is created.
>
> Wayne
heh...heh... Yeah, just imagine the good fortune of Pfizer looking for
new blood pressure medications, and realizing that one had a very
fortuitous side effect.. a side effect that lots of guys would be
willing to pay dearly for!
Swingman wrote:
> "Charlie M. 1958" wrote
>
>> heh...heh... Yeah, just imagine the good fortune of Pfizer looking for
>> new blood pressure medications, and realizing that one had a very
>> fortuitous side effect.. a side effect that lots of guys would be
>> willing to pay dearly for!
>
> What's more amazing, if the incessant advertising is any indication, is the
> astounding number of limp yoyo's in this country. No wonder modern women
> observably have a tendency to be such bitches ... just take a drive round
> town while all the limp yoyo's are at work and you'll soon see what I mean
> ... but be careful, those cell phone piloted SUV's can kill.
>
Speaking of advertising, that's not you playing in the "Viva Viagra"
commercial, is it? That's the kind of gig you take for the money, but
don't brag to your friends about. :-)
Robatoy wrote:
> The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
> around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
> you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
> The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.
Apparently 74%.....and to their credit a higher ratio than most other major
cities however the capital costs (state funds etc.) to build the system, buy
vehicles etc. are not included in these numbers......Akin to ignoring ones
house or car payment when considering operating costs.
In spite of being a reasonably well run efficient system they are presently
dealing with major funding issues and presently cutting routes, deferring
maintenance , planned expansion etc....
> Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.
>
> Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
> cars... and there are lots of other examples.
Due to congestion.....in the city proper parking cost alone is a deal
breaker.....in a heavily populated city mass transit in some form is pretty
much required.
>
> So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?
TriMet...Portland Oregon
Ctran....Vancouver, Wa (Bus only).....My wife is on the citizen advisory
commision..... Rod
Swingman wrote:
> "Charlie M. 1958" wrote
>
>> Speaking of advertising, that's not you playing in the "Viva Viagra"
>> commercial, is it? That's the kind of gig you take for the money, but
>> don't brag to your friends about. :-)
>
> Haven't seen it, but I don't think so ... ;)
>
I don't know how you've missed it. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PH9qAGPULk
Do yourself a favor and watch it. It's one of the hokiest commercials of
all time.
Swingman wrote:
> "Charlie M. 1958" wrote
>
>> I don't know how you've missed it. Here is the link:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PH9qAGPULk
>>
>> Do yourself a favor and watch it. It's one of the hokiest commercials of
>> all time.
>
> Jeeezusss! ... a new cultural low.
>
Yeah, the Samsing Turbo 3000 phone commercial was a whole lot better.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Swingman wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote
>
>> Yeah, the Samsing Turbo 3000 phone commercial was a whole lot better.
>
> Yeah ... like the profound lyrics to backing track of the Vonage
> commercial, eh?
>
Just in case you didn't see it:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIOIM6hHBk>
OTOH, I agree with you -- it used to be somewhat embarrassing to be an
adolescent/teenager when they started advertising feminine products on the
family TV. It is much more profoundly difficult when your 11 year-old asks
what the ED commercials are advertising.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Robatoy took a can of maroon spray paint on December 18, 2007 02:52 pm and
wrote the following:
> On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
>> > (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
>> > Trams (streetcars) are the best example.
>>
>> So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal
>> bus approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any
>> riders would use them.....
>
> The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
> around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
> you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
> The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.
>
> Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.
>
> Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
> cars... and there are lots of other examples.
>
> So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?
Then there are people like me, I live in Toronto, work in Mississauga, I
have the choice of getting in my car and driving literally 15 minutes, or
paying transit fares for both the TTC and Mississauga Transit, to take me
around the world (it seems the way the route works) for an hour ride.
Lets see, $1 worth of gas or $9 worth of transit fares for the round trip,
choice seems obvious.
--
Lits Slut #9
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, yeahbbut...
> > If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be, would be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot of bright folks out >there.
>
> I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have bought
> out their competitors and their product since time immemorial, I don't
> think good product stand much of a chance of being on the sidelines
> anymore. I think too many companies are too hungry and the chance to
> make a buck is too much to resist.
>
> I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
> little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
> first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
> became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
> 80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
> had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
> fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
> tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
> time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!
>
> But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
> dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
> companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
> good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>
> I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
> biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They had
> both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed that
> it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill invented
> faster than he could come up with a money source to try out his ideas,
> and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
>
> They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
> something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat. And
> since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he felt
> like he would have known about a project that had actually gone to
> live testing.
>
> But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there for
> a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
>
> Robert
And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
'50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
the thing and buried it.
If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.
So far, the closest thing I've seen is a guy on eBay who was selling
(maybe still is) a booklet that is guaranteed to help you increase
your gas mileage by xx percent. Just for kicks, I sent off five bucks.
When I got it, it turned out to be a carb line heater, not exactly new
news, and almost dead useless in this day of EFI.
What was the last new car you saw with a carburetor?
On Dec 18, 4:12 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
>
> >>If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
> >>90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
> >>mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
> >>manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
> >>indicates there is no such product.
>
> > Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-machines, ever.
>
> > Not even in the future. We would have had visitors by now, eh?
>
> How do you know we haven't???
I had my doubts about Buddy Hackett, but other than him, I don't think
so.
On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well, yeahbbut...
> > If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be, would be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot of bright folks out >there.
>
> I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have bought
> out their competitors and their product since time immemorial, I don't
> think good product stand much of a chance of being on the sidelines
> anymore. I think too many companies are too hungry and the chance to
> make a buck is too much to resist.
>
> I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
> little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
> first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
> became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
> 80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
> had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
> fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
> tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
> time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!
>
> But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
> dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
> companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
> good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>
> I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
> biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They had
> both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed that
> it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill invented
> faster than he could come up with a money source to try out his ideas,
> and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
>
> They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
> something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat. And
> since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he felt
> like he would have known about a project that had actually gone to
> live testing.
>
> But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there for
> a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
>
One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
(over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
Trams (streetcars) are the best example.
Many cities in the US had very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for
instance). Yet the deal schmoozed out between the man Firestone and
one the US presidents (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of
tires and fuel more important and the whole transportation system went
for crap just to sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences
bad decisions propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign
donations.in fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to
negotiate but doesn't sell hardware.
So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available, it
wouldn't see the light of day.
r-----> aka as Zebco6-ultralight... unless I'm stumping for bass.
On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
> >>little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
> >>first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
> >>became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
> >>80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
> >>had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
> >>fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
> >>tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
> >>time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!
>
> >>But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
> >>dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
> >>companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
> >>good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>
> > And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
> > popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
> > '50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
> > the thing and buried it.
>
> > If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
> > would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.
>
> If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
> 90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
> mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
> manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
> indicates there is no such product.
Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-
machines, ever. Not even in the future.
We would have had visitors by now, eh?
"FoggyTown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cc1305d5-21c9-4ec9-a764-6eccb9cd5e9c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his
> assertion
> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> other established markets.
>
> (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
> (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> sales)
>
> I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
> wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> time is right?
>
> (Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
> demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a
> train
> and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
>
> FoggyTown
I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!
On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
>
> My apologies for the looooooong post!
What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
formulae.
1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next time
the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
stoplight...etc.
If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
aren't going to make one bit of difference.
It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work in
a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or create
steam first.
X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to DO
the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process of
doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
ultimately is stored in that gallon.
I say, hook everything up to a perpetual motion machine.
"Charlie M. 1958" wrote
> I don't know how you've missed it. Here is the link:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PH9qAGPULk
>
> Do yourself a favor and watch it. It's one of the hokiest commercials of
> all time.
Jeeezusss! ... a new cultural low.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/10/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:52 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>> > On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
>> >>little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
>> >>first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
>> >>became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
>> >>80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
>> >>had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
>> >>fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
>> >>tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
>> >>time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!
>>
>> >>But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
>> >>dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
>> >>companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
>> >>good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>>
>> > And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
>> > popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
>> > '50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
>> > the thing and buried it.
>>
>> > If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
>> > would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.
>>
>> If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
>> 90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
>> mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
>> manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
>> indicates there is no such product.
>
>Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-
>machines, ever. Not even in the future.
>We would have had visitors by now, eh?
WOW! for an ultralight you sure are doing pretty good. What do you
use when out in salt water?
"Charlie M. 1958" wrote
> Speaking of advertising, that's not you playing in the "Viva Viagra"
> commercial, is it? That's the kind of gig you take for the money, but
> don't brag to your friends about. :-)
Haven't seen it, but I don't think so ... ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Dec 19, 3:54 pm, FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:46=EF=BF=BDpm, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Dec 18, 5:55?pm, "Colin B." <[email protected]>
> > >wrote:
> > >> FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> > >> > respected designer. ?One element of his presentation was his assert=
ion
> > >> > that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> > >> > perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) th=
e
> > >> > average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> > >> > other established markets.
>
> > >> > (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a=
> > >> > tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers=
)
>
> > >> Well, there obviously IS pressure--the pressure from the weight of th=
e
> > >> knife. Give me a machete and I'll be able to grind a low-angle razor =
edge
> > >> on it to do just the above mentioned. (Of course, it'll be useless as=
a
> > >> machete with an edge that fine.) If you need sharper than that, go bu=
y a
> > >> neurosurgeon's glass scalpel.
> > >> Sharpness isn't magic, but too fine of an edge will not be resilient
> > >> enough for general use. It'll either break, wear, or bend.
>
> > >> > (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the=
> > >> > need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and crea=
m
> > >> > sales)
>
> > >> What's wrong with electrolysis? It's here, it's permanent, and it's
> > >> fairly inexpensive. Apparently painful as hell, though. Honestly, it'=
s
> > >> not something that most guys want--even if they _do_ shave daily.
> > >> An ointment to do the same without bad side effects is possible, but
> > >> not all that beneficial.
>
> > >> > I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> > >> > crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. ?I just
> > >> > wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks th=
e
> > >> > time is right?
>
> > >> Lots of things out there. I used to work for a small drug design comp=
any.
> > >> We had several interesting candidates for drugs, but the synthesis or=
> > >> work-up was too hard to pursue further. Someday, someone is going to
> > >> start selling a gold-based anti-inflammatory that's easily absorbed. =
It
> > >> might be based on the work I did, or it might be based on some other
> > >> company's old research that's sitting on the shelf.
>
> > >> The problem with conspiracy theories in general is that there's enoug=
h
> > >> going on in terms of market forces, economics, and even overt evil, t=
hat
> > >> there's no NEED for companies to resort to ridiculous and implausible=
> > >> extents.
>
> > >> Colin
>
> > >What conspiracy theory? =EF=BF=BDIf I invent a compound that can be mad=
e into
> > >tires that will last 100,000 miles and I sell it to, say, Firestone
> > >who buys it just to keep it from some other manufacturer - that isn't
> > >a conspiracy. =EF=BF=BDIt may be a shame but it isn't a conspiracy. =EF=
=BF=BDIt's
> > >called protecting your market. =EF=BF=BDFirestone can't use it because =
either
> > >they will have to sell each new-compound tire for 5 times more than
> > >the present ones OR they will have to sell five times more tires than
> > >they do now - maybe more.
>
> > >Like I say, we have no way of knowing what's been invented but
> > >withheld for economic or safety reasons.
>
> > >FoggyTown
>
> > Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
> > for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
> > times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
> > competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
> > have no legs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Then get slammed for operating a monopoly?
>
> FoggyTown
These days?
On Dec 18, 9:58=EF=BF=BDpm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> RE: Subject
>
> Must be a slow day in the news room for this old wives tale to get any
> ink, virtual or otherwise.
>
> Lew
WHICH old wives' tale?
FoggyTown
On Dec 19, 4:29 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> dpb wrote:
> > dpb wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> Robatoy wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such
> >>>> as
> >>>> heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the
> >>>> work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane for no
> >>>> reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
> >>>> ultimately is stored in that gallon."
> >>>> --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
>
> >>> All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do
> >>> the work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the
> >>> work".
> >>> But this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get
> >>> more work out of a given quantity of heat then they become more
> >>> efficient. That is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is
> >>> supposed to do.
>
> >> One wonders how, precisely, on its own, it does so with so much
> >> flair, however... :)
>
> > Particularly since fully-injected, metered per cylinder systems
> > don't
> > come close...
>
> Why, it precatalyzes the fuel so that it undergoes cold fusion in the
> cylinder of course.
>
But it's usually warm in cylinders, no?
On Dec 19, 8:46=EF=BF=BDpm, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Dec 18, 5:55?pm, "Colin B." <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> >> > respected designer. ?One element of his presentation was his assertio=
n
> >> > that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> >> > perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> >> > average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> >> > other established markets.
>
> >> > (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> >> > tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
>
> >> Well, there obviously IS pressure--the pressure from the weight of the
> >> knife. Give me a machete and I'll be able to grind a low-angle razor ed=
ge
> >> on it to do just the above mentioned. (Of course, it'll be useless as a=
> >> machete with an edge that fine.) If you need sharper than that, go buy =
a
> >> neurosurgeon's glass scalpel.
> >> Sharpness isn't magic, but too fine of an edge will not be resilient
> >> enough for general use. It'll either break, wear, or bend.
>
> >> > (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> >> > need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> >> > sales)
>
> >> What's wrong with electrolysis? It's here, it's permanent, and it's
> >> fairly inexpensive. Apparently painful as hell, though. Honestly, it's
> >> not something that most guys want--even if they _do_ shave daily.
> >> An ointment to do the same without bad side effects is possible, but
> >> not all that beneficial.
>
> >> > I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> >> > crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. ?I just
> >> > wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> >> > time is right?
>
> >> Lots of things out there. I used to work for a small drug design compan=
y.
> >> We had several interesting candidates for drugs, but the synthesis or
> >> work-up was too hard to pursue further. Someday, someone is going to
> >> start selling a gold-based anti-inflammatory that's easily absorbed. It=
> >> might be based on the work I did, or it might be based on some other
> >> company's old research that's sitting on the shelf.
>
> >> The problem with conspiracy theories in general is that there's enough
> >> going on in terms of market forces, economics, and even overt evil, tha=
t
> >> there's no NEED for companies to resort to ridiculous and implausible
> >> extents.
>
> >> Colin
>
> >What conspiracy theory? =EF=BF=BDIf I invent a compound that can be made =
into
> >tires that will last 100,000 miles and I sell it to, say, Firestone
> >who buys it just to keep it from some other manufacturer - that isn't
> >a conspiracy. =EF=BF=BDIt may be a shame but it isn't a conspiracy. =EF=
=BF=BDIt's
> >called protecting your market. =EF=BF=BDFirestone can't use it because ei=
ther
> >they will have to sell each new-compound tire for 5 times more than
> >the present ones OR they will have to sell five times more tires than
> >they do now - maybe more.
>
> >Like I say, we have no way of knowing what's been invented but
> >withheld for economic or safety reasons.
>
> >FoggyTown
>
> Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
> for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
> times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
> competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
> have no legs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then get slammed for operating a monopoly?
FoggyTown
On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
> > (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
> > Trams (streetcars) are the best example.
>
> So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal bus
> approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any riders
> would use them.....
The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.
Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.
Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
cars... and there are lots of other examples.
So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?
"FoggyTown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cc1305d5-21c9-4ec9-a764-6eccb9cd5e9c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
Maybe if the blade was heavy enough.
> (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> sales)
That would suck if you later decided to grow a beard.
>
> I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
> wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> time is right?
I think he's spouting urban myths myself.
>
> (Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
> demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a train
> and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
>
That goes along with the 80mpg carburetor that GM bought from the inventor
and shelved - and thousands of people "saw" it right there - on the shelf.
Water into gasoline - sorta like gold from sea water...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, yeahbbut...
> If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be, would be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot of bright folks out >there.
I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have bought
out their competitors and their product since time immemorial, I don't
think good product stand much of a chance of being on the sidelines
anymore. I think too many companies are too hungry and the chance to
make a buck is too much to resist.
I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!
But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They had
both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed that
it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill invented
faster than he could come up with a money source to try out his ideas,
and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat. And
since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he felt
like he would have known about a project that had actually gone to
live testing.
But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there for
a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
Robert
On Dec 18, 5:03 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 4:35 pm, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:52 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Charlie Self wrote:
> > >> > On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > >> > wrote:
>
> > >> >>On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> >>I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
> > >> >>little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
> > >> >>first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
> > >> >>became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
> > >> >>80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
> > >> >>had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
> > >> >>fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
> > >> >>tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
> > >> >>time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!
>
> > >> >>But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
> > >> >>dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
> > >> >>companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
> > >> >>good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>
> > >> > And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
> > >> > popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
> > >> > '50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
> > >> > the thing and buried it.
>
> > >> > If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
> > >> > would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.
>
> > >> If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
> > >> 90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
> > >> mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
> > >> manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
> > >> indicates there is no such product.
>
> > >Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-
> > >machines, ever. Not even in the future.
> > >We would have had visitors by now, eh?
>
> > WOW! for an ultralight you sure are doing pretty good. What do you
> > use when out in salt water?
>
> I have never fished salt water, but I'm sure my '6 and graphite
> ultralight wont get me much. Even my medium action 7' bass rod will
> probably be useless even with 20lb test. Naaaa.. just my ultra light
> and low-hanging fruit for now...:)
Salt water to me will always equal lead sinkers, about 8 hooks on the
line (which looked a bit like wrapping twine), and just drop the
sucker over the side of a the boat. Wait a bit. Haul it in. Anywhere
from 1 to 5 flounders.
<<<<<<<<<< Snippage >>>>>>>>>>>>
> In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for something
> like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across something that
> shows promise for treating anther, much rarer condition. If the market
> for this potential discovery isn't big enough to warrant the R&D
> investment, it does not get pursued.
Or the market is created.
Wayne
On 12/18/07 9:45 AM, "Frank Arthur" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
> because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!
>
And I have a cold fusion reactor running in my basement. (:-)
"Charlie M. 1958" wrote
> heh...heh... Yeah, just imagine the good fortune of Pfizer looking for
> new blood pressure medications, and realizing that one had a very
> fortuitous side effect.. a side effect that lots of guys would be
> willing to pay dearly for!
What's more amazing, if the incessant advertising is any indication, is the
astounding number of limp yoyo's in this country. No wonder modern women
observably have a tendency to be such bitches ... just take a drive round
town while all the limp yoyo's are at work and you'll soon see what I mean
... but be careful, those cell phone piloted SUV's can kill.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
dpb wrote:
> FoggyTown wrote:
>> A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
>> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
>> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
>> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
>> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
>> other established markets.
> ...
>
> Well, yeahbbut...
>
> If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there may be
> an element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this miracle product,
> whatever it might be, would be producible at a competitive price or not
> have some other problem or somebody would be doing it...there are an
> awful lot of bright folks out there.
>
> --
Well, here's one that they tried to squelch, but it finally broke through:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIOIM6hHBk
<[email protected]> wrote
> So... finish the story.
Sorry, that's classified ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>That goes along with the 80mpg carburetor that GM bought from the inventor
>and shelved - and thousands of people "saw" it right there - on the shelf.
>Water into gasoline - sorta like gold from sea water...
Yeah, except for one slight difference: there really *is* gold in sea water.
<g>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Swingman" wrote
> "Charlie M. 1958" wrote
>
>> I don't know how you've missed it. Here is the link:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PH9qAGPULk
>>
>> Do yourself a favor and watch it. It's one of the hokiest commercials of
>> all time.
>
> Jeeezusss! ... a new cultural low.
Ever get the feeling that just about everything in today's culture, from
facebook, to viagra, to presidential elections, to chiwanese crap tools is
nothing but SPAM!
... and the pervasiveness is manifested in the fact that, if you run Vista,
"viagra" is included in your spell checker ... try typing it in with a
little "v" and see what happens!
... think about it!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/10/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Charlie M. 1958" < wrote
>
> I don't know how you've missed it. Here is the link:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PH9qAGPULk
>
> Do yourself a favor and watch it. It's one of the hokiest commercials of
> all time.
I liked the banned viagra commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfwpGCXVBF4&feature=related
Some wishful thinking on somebody's part.
"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> FoggyTown wrote:
>> A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
>> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
>> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
>> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
>> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
>> other established markets.
> ...
>
> Well, yeahbbut...
>
> If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there may be an
> element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this miracle product,
> whatever it might be, would be producible at a competitive price or not
> have some other problem or somebody would be doing it...there are an awful
> lot of bright folks out there.
>
> --
The key people would quit the company and create a startup to market the
miracle product.
On Dec 19, 7:45 pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" wrote
>
> > Yeah, the Samsing Turbo 3000 phone commercial was a whole lot better.
>
> Yeah ... like the profound lyrics to backing track of the Vonage commercial,
> eh?
>
I take exception to 'eh?' being used in the discussion of Vonage
commercials.
'eh?'....is kinda personal. Let's try to keep that amongst us friends,
okay? Eh?
r
On Dec 18, 1:38 pm, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:18:44 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Robatoy wrote:
> >> On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Well, yeahbbut... If there were a real market, it would make it
> >>>> out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims,
> >>>> it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be, would
> >>>> be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other
> >>>> problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot
> >>>> of bright folks out >there.
> >>> I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
> >>> bought out their competitors and their product since time
> >>> immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
> >>> being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
> >>> hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.
>
> >>> I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
> >>> little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had
> >>> the first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at
> >>> gas. It became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the
> >>> late 70s, early 80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear,
> >>> the genius inventor had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple
> >>> bolt on to any car. In fact (the irony was lost on me at the time)
> >>> the myth went that they tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was
> >>> driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it
> >>> worked!
>
> >>> But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
> >>> dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
> >>> companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with
> >>> a good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>
> >>> I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
> >>> biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
> >>> had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
> >>> that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
> >>> invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
> >>> out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
>
> >>> They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
> >>> something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
> >>> And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
> >>> felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
> >>> gone to live testing.
>
> >>> But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
> >>> for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
>
> >> One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
> >> (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
>
> >But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
> >only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
> >is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
> >be in the end...
>
> >> Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
> >> very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
> >> schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
> >> (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
> >> important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
> >> sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
> >> propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
> >> fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
> >> doesn't sell hardware.
>
> >That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
> >with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
> >automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
> >the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
> >except for the morning/evening commute, if that...
>
> >Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...
>
> >> So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available,
> >> it wouldn't see the light of day.
>
> >That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
> >realizable, which it isn't)...
>
> Well, that's one for the old zebco...
:)
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:18:44 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robatoy wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, yeahbbut... If there were a real market, it would make it
>>>> out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims,
>>>> it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be, would
>>>> be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other
>>>> problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot
>>>> of bright folks out >there.
>>> I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
>>> bought out their competitors and their product since time
>>> immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
>>> being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
>>> hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.
>>>
>>> I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
>>> little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had
>>> the first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at
>>> gas. It became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the
>>> late 70s, early 80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear,
>>> the genius inventor had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple
>>> bolt on to any car. In fact (the irony was lost on me at the time)
>>> the myth went that they tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was
>>> driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it
>>> worked!
>>>
>>> But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
>>> dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
>>> companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with
>>> a good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>>>
>>> I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
>>> biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
>>> had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
>>> that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
>>> invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
>>> out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
>>>
>>> They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
>>> something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
>>> And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
>>> felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
>>> gone to live testing.
>>>
>>> But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
>>> for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
>>>
>>
>> One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
>> (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
>
>But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
>only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
>is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
>be in the end...
>
>> Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
>> very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
>> schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
>> (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
>> important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
>> sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
>> propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
>> fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
>> doesn't sell hardware.
>
>That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
>with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
>automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
>the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
>except for the morning/evening commute, if that...
>
>Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...
>
>> So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available,
>> it wouldn't see the light of day.
>
>That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
>realizable, which it isn't)...
Well, that's one for the old zebco...
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
> realizable, which it isn't)...
>
...and man will never fly.
On Dec 18, 11:39 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:12 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > OTOH, I was pretty certain, when I was about five, that those square wooden
> > wheels I put on the first tubafour "car" I made were so easy to make that
> > they would revolutionize the toy car business ...
>
> I almost spewed my coffee.
>
> So... finish the story. Were you bought out by GM? Did they screw
> you because you were five? Are you secretly using your weatlh from
> that sale to buy new router accessories while depriving the American
> public of one of the worlds (potentially) greatest inventions?
>
> Knowing the state of the auto industry, I am sure your invention
> (hmmmmm.... square wheels, you say... why didn't I think of that? I
> think at five I was still eating dirt, not sure) would easily make it
> through R&D and testing.
>
> Just think - who needs ABS brakes when you have "Swing's Square
> Wheels"?
>
> Robert
They would work well in the snow, me thinks...
On Dec 19, 3:46 pm, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Dec 18, 5:55?pm, "Colin B." <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> >> > respected designer. ?One element of his presentation was his assertion
> >> > that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> >> > perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> >> > average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> >> > other established markets.
>
> >> > (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> >> > tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
>
> >> Well, there obviously IS pressure--the pressure from the weight of the
> >> knife. Give me a machete and I'll be able to grind a low-angle razor edge
> >> on it to do just the above mentioned. (Of course, it'll be useless as a
> >> machete with an edge that fine.) If you need sharper than that, go buy a
> >> neurosurgeon's glass scalpel.
> >> Sharpness isn't magic, but too fine of an edge will not be resilient
> >> enough for general use. It'll either break, wear, or bend.
>
> >> > (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> >> > need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> >> > sales)
>
> >> What's wrong with electrolysis? It's here, it's permanent, and it's
> >> fairly inexpensive. Apparently painful as hell, though. Honestly, it's
> >> not something that most guys want--even if they _do_ shave daily.
> >> An ointment to do the same without bad side effects is possible, but
> >> not all that beneficial.
>
> >> > I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> >> > crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. ?I just
> >> > wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> >> > time is right?
>
> >> Lots of things out there. I used to work for a small drug design company.
> >> We had several interesting candidates for drugs, but the synthesis or
> >> work-up was too hard to pursue further. Someday, someone is going to
> >> start selling a gold-based anti-inflammatory that's easily absorbed. It
> >> might be based on the work I did, or it might be based on some other
> >> company's old research that's sitting on the shelf.
>
> >> The problem with conspiracy theories in general is that there's enough
> >> going on in terms of market forces, economics, and even overt evil, that
> >> there's no NEED for companies to resort to ridiculous and implausible
> >> extents.
>
> >> Colin
>
> >What conspiracy theory? If I invent a compound that can be made into
> >tires that will last 100,000 miles and I sell it to, say, Firestone
> >who buys it just to keep it from some other manufacturer - that isn't
> >a conspiracy. It may be a shame but it isn't a conspiracy. It's
> >called protecting your market. Firestone can't use it because either
> >they will have to sell each new-compound tire for 5 times more than
> >the present ones OR they will have to sell five times more tires than
> >they do now - maybe more.
>
> >Like I say, we have no way of knowing what's been invented but
> >withheld for economic or safety reasons.
>
> >FoggyTown
>
> Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
> for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
> times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
> competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
> have no legs.
They've got legs. They just change their pants real often.
On Dec 18, 7:45 am, FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> other established markets.
>
> (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
> (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> sales)
>
> I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
> wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> time is right?
>
> (Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
> demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a train
> and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
>
> FoggyTown
Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
that appear to be black and white seldom are.
DonkeyHody
"We can't all be heros because somebody has to sit on the curb and
clap as they go by." - Will Rogers
On Dec 18, 10:12 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> OTOH, I was pretty certain, when I was about five, that those square wooden
> wheels I put on the first tubafour "car" I made were so easy to make that
> they would revolutionize the toy car business ...
I almost spewed my coffee.
So... finish the story. Were you bought out by GM? Did they screw
you because you were five? Are you secretly using your weatlh from
that sale to buy new router accessories while depriving the American
public of one of the worlds (potentially) greatest inventions?
Knowing the state of the auto industry, I am sure your invention
(hmmmmm.... square wheels, you say... why didn't I think of that? I
think at five I was still eating dirt, not sure) would easily make it
through R&D and testing.
Just think - who needs ABS brakes when you have "Swing's Square
Wheels"?
Robert
On Dec 18, 8:04=EF=BF=BDpm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy took a can of maroon spray paint on December 18, 2007 02:52 pm and=
> wrote the following:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...=
>
> >> > One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
> >> > (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
> >> > Trams (streetcars) are the best example.
>
> >> So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal
> >> bus approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any
> >> riders would use them.....
>
> > The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
> > around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
> > you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
> > The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.
>
> > Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.
>
> > Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
> > cars... and there are lots of other examples.
>
> > So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?
>
> Then there are people like me, I live in Toronto, work in Mississauga, I
> have the choice of getting in my car and driving literally 15 minutes, or
> paying transit fares for both the TTC and Mississauga Transit, to take me
> around the world (it seems the way the route works) for an hour ride.
>
> Lets see, $1 worth of gas or $9 worth of transit fares for the round trip,=
> choice seems obvious.
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not much of a tree-hugger, are you. :)
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...
>
He wasn't exactly negotiating from a position of strength, now was he?
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OTOH, I was pretty certain, when I was about five, that those square
> wooden
> wheels I put on the first tubafour "car" I made were so easy to make that
> they would revolutionize the toy car business ...
Your square wheels and my square bearings! We coulda been rich! We
coulda been contenders!
--
NuWave Dave in Houston
On Dec 18, 5:55=EF=BF=BDpm, "Colin B." <[email protected]>
wrote:
> FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> > A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> > respected designer. =EF=BF=BDOne element of his presentation was his ass=
ertion
> > that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> > perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> > average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> > other established markets.
>
> > (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> > tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
>
> Well, there obviously IS pressure--the pressure from the weight of the
> knife. Give me a machete and I'll be able to grind a low-angle razor edge
> on it to do just the above mentioned. (Of course, it'll be useless as a
> machete with an edge that fine.) If you need sharper than that, go buy a
> neurosurgeon's glass scalpel.
> Sharpness isn't magic, but too fine of an edge will not be resilient
> enough for general use. It'll either break, wear, or bend.
>
> > (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> > need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> > sales)
>
> What's wrong with electrolysis? It's here, it's permanent, and it's
> fairly inexpensive. Apparently painful as hell, though. Honestly, it's
> not something that most guys want--even if they _do_ shave daily.
> An ointment to do the same without bad side effects is possible, but
> not all that beneficial.
>
> > I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> > crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. =EF=BF=BDI ju=
st
> > wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> > time is right?
>
> Lots of things out there. I used to work for a small drug design company.
> We had several interesting candidates for drugs, but the synthesis or
> work-up was too hard to pursue further. Someday, someone is going to
> start selling a gold-based anti-inflammatory that's easily absorbed. It
> might be based on the work I did, or it might be based on some other
> company's old research that's sitting on the shelf.
>
> The problem with conspiracy theories in general is that there's enough
> going on in terms of market forces, economics, and even overt evil, that
> there's no NEED for companies to resort to ridiculous and implausible
> extents.
>
> Colin
What conspiracy theory? If I invent a compound that can be made into
tires that will last 100,000 miles and I sell it to, say, Firestone
who buys it just to keep it from some other manufacturer - that isn't
a conspiracy. It may be a shame but it isn't a conspiracy. It's
called protecting your market. Firestone can't use it because either
they will have to sell each new-compound tire for 5 times more than
the present ones OR they will have to sell five times more tires than
they do now - maybe more.
Like I say, we have no way of knowing what's been invented but
withheld for economic or safety reasons.
FoggyTown
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Dec 18, 5:55?pm, "Colin B." <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
>> > respected designer. ?One element of his presentation was his assertion
>> > that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
>> > perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
>> > average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
>> > other established markets.
>>
>> > (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
>> > tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
>>
>> Well, there obviously IS pressure--the pressure from the weight of the
>> knife. Give me a machete and I'll be able to grind a low-angle razor edge
>> on it to do just the above mentioned. (Of course, it'll be useless as a
>> machete with an edge that fine.) If you need sharper than that, go buy a
>> neurosurgeon's glass scalpel.
>> Sharpness isn't magic, but too fine of an edge will not be resilient
>> enough for general use. It'll either break, wear, or bend.
>>
>> > (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
>> > need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
>> > sales)
>>
>> What's wrong with electrolysis? It's here, it's permanent, and it's
>> fairly inexpensive. Apparently painful as hell, though. Honestly, it's
>> not something that most guys want--even if they _do_ shave daily.
>> An ointment to do the same without bad side effects is possible, but
>> not all that beneficial.
>>
>> > I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
>> > crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. ?I just
>> > wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
>> > time is right?
>>
>> Lots of things out there. I used to work for a small drug design company.
>> We had several interesting candidates for drugs, but the synthesis or
>> work-up was too hard to pursue further. Someday, someone is going to
>> start selling a gold-based anti-inflammatory that's easily absorbed. It
>> might be based on the work I did, or it might be based on some other
>> company's old research that's sitting on the shelf.
>>
>> The problem with conspiracy theories in general is that there's enough
>> going on in terms of market forces, economics, and even overt evil, that
>> there's no NEED for companies to resort to ridiculous and implausible
>> extents.
>>
>> Colin
>
>What conspiracy theory? If I invent a compound that can be made into
>tires that will last 100,000 miles and I sell it to, say, Firestone
>who buys it just to keep it from some other manufacturer - that isn't
>a conspiracy. It may be a shame but it isn't a conspiracy. It's
>called protecting your market. Firestone can't use it because either
>they will have to sell each new-compound tire for 5 times more than
>the present ones OR they will have to sell five times more tires than
>they do now - maybe more.
>
>Like I say, we have no way of knowing what's been invented but
>withheld for economic or safety reasons.
>
>FoggyTown
Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
have no legs.
On Dec 18, 2:13 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
> >> realizable, which it isn't)...
>
> > ...and man will never fly.
>
> Palm sized fusion maybe. But it's not going to be "cold fusion". If
> you believe in "cold fusion" might I interest you in this nice ski
> resort outside Des Moines . . .
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lukewarm fusion maybe?
On Dec 18, 3:04 pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy took a can of maroon spray paint on December 18, 2007 02:52 pm and
> wrote the following:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 1:50 pm, "Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
> >> > (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
> >> > Trams (streetcars) are the best example.
>
> >> So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal
> >> bus approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any
> >> riders would use them.....
>
> > The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
> > around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
> > you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
> > The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.
>
> > Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.
>
> > Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
> > cars... and there are lots of other examples.
>
> > So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?
>
> Then there are people like me, I live in Toronto, work in Mississauga, I
> have the choice of getting in my car and driving literally 15 minutes, or
> paying transit fares for both the TTC and Mississauga Transit, to take me
> around the world (it seems the way the route works) for an hour ride.
>
> Lets see, $1 worth of gas or $9 worth of transit fares for the round trip,
> choice seems obvious.
> --
You are a 'reverse' commuter like a friend of mine who lives in The
Beaches and works in Mr. & Mrs. Sauga.
He also wouldn't consider taking the TTC. He doesn't pay for parking
at his job either.
Now, live in Scarberia and take a job on Bay street.
On Dec 18, 10:43 am, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So... finish the story.
>
> Sorry, that's classified ...
Gotcha. Tell me later.
Meet you on the grassy knoll. ;^)
Robert
On Dec 19, 11:41 am, "Charlie M. 1958" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 10:33 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> [snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
> >>>> My apologies for the looooooong post!
> >>> What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
> >>> formulae.
> >>> 1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
> >>> If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
> >>> time
> >>> the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
> >>> resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
> >>> stoplight...etc.
> >>> If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
> >>> to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
> >>> aren't going to make one bit of difference.
> >>> It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work
> >>> in
> >>> a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
> >>> squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
> >>> create
> >>> steam first.
> >>> X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
> >>> DO
> >>> the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
> >>> of
> >>> doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
> >>> reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
> >>> ultimately is stored in that gallon.
> >> While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee
> >> with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted
> >> with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
> >> change in performance.
>
> > It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more efficient
> > Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor.
> > My Hummer was a constant.
> > When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
> > heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or
> > dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
> > NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
> > gallon."
> > --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
>
> > r
>
> I think the confusion sets in when you state:
>
> "X amount of fuel = X amount of work" as if it were a constant. It is not.
>
> X amount of fuel = X amount of energy would be accurate, but the amount
> of *work* is going to be determined by efficiency.
As you looked at it in that light, you are correct. Stated as an
absolute that 'formula' would be incomplete, to say the least. Even
with the Hummer as a constant. I'll be more careful next time. *G*
On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Well, yeahbbut... If there were a real market, it would make it
> >>> out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims,
> >>> it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be, would
> >>> be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other
> >>> problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot
> >>> of bright folks out >there.
> >> I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
> >> bought out their competitors and their product since time
> >> immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
> >> being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
> >> hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.
>
> >> I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
> >> little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had
> >> the first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at
> >> gas. It became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the
> >> late 70s, early 80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear,
> >> the genius inventor had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple
> >> bolt on to any car. In fact (the irony was lost on me at the time)
> >> the myth went that they tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was
> >> driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it
> >> worked!
>
> >> But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
> >> dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
> >> companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with
> >> a good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>
> >> I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
> >> biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
> >> had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
> >> that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
> >> invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
> >> out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
>
> >> They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
> >> something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
> >> And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
> >> felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
> >> gone to live testing.
>
> >> But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
> >> for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
>
> > One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
> > (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
>
> But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
> only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
> is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
> be in the end...
>
> > Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
> > very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
> > schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
> > (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
> > important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
> > sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
> > propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
> > fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
> > doesn't sell hardware.
>
> That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
> with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
> automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
> the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
> except for the morning/evening commute, if that...
>
I wasn't exactly suggesting to run a tram track into everybody's
driveway, now was I?
Trams vs busses on main arteries. Railroad freight vs trucks on long
distances. Of course you need a 'spoke' system with the flexibility of
tired vehicles.
Smart people in Toronto, for instance, take the rails to work and
leave the cars at home when they can.
A small hop on a bus to get to the end of your street makes sense in a
system like that. But, of course, I am stating the obvious.
On Dec 18, 9:45 am, "Frank Arthur" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "FoggyTown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:cc1305d5-21c9-4ec9-a764-6eccb9cd5e9c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> > respected designer. One element of his presentation was his
> > assertion
> > that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> > perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> > average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> > other established markets.
>
> > (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> > tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
> > (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> > need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> > sales)
>
> > I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> > crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
> > wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> > time is right?
>
> > (Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
> > demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a
> > train
> > and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
>
> > FoggyTown
>
> I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
> because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!- Hide quoted text -
I thought water was known as the universal solvent.
JP
Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
> DonkeyHody wrote:
>
>> Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
>> their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
>> resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
>> for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
>> the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
>> cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
>> to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
>> about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
>> people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
>> hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
>> people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
>> out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
>> that appear to be black and white seldom are.
>
> In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for something
> like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across something that
> shows promise for treating anther, much rarer condition. If the market
> for this potential discovery isn't big enough to warrant the R&D
> investment, it does not get pursued.
Talk about sending in the black helicopters... :(
--
Frank Arthur wrote:
> "FoggyTown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:cc1305d5-21c9-4ec9-a764-6eccb9cd5e9c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
>> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his
>> assertion
>> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
>> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
>> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
>> other established markets.
>>
>> (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
>> tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
>> (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
>> need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
>> sales)
>>
>> I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
>> crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
>> wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
>> time is right?
>>
>> (Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
>> demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a
>> train
>> and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
>>
>> FoggyTown
>
> I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
> because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!
:)
FoggyTown wrote:
> A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> other established markets.
...
Well, yeahbbut...
If there were a real market, it would make it out. While there may be
an element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this miracle product,
whatever it might be, would be producible at a competitive price or not
have some other problem or somebody would be doing it...there are an
awful lot of bright folks out there.
--
Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>> DonkeyHody wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lots of little drug research companies can cook up new cancer drugs in
>>>> their laboratories. Only the big drug manufacturers have the
>>>> resources to fund the clinical trials necessary to get FDA approval
>>>> for a new drug. Sometimes, a new drug will show lots of promise. But
>>>> the manufacturer will shelve the drug because it would make their LAST
>>>> cancer drug obsolete, and they haven't made enough money from it yet
>>>> to recover the cost of getting it to market - unless a competitor is
>>>> about to launch a product better than their old one. Meanwhile,
>>>> people are dying that could be saved by the new drug. On the one
>>>> hand, it looks immoral to put profits ahead of the needs of dying
>>>> people. On the other hand, if they couldn't make money, they would go
>>>> out of business and no one would be able to fund the studies. Issues
>>>> that appear to be black and white seldom are.
>>>
>>> In a similar vein, sometimes when researchers are looking for
>>> something like a new cancer drug, they accidentally stumble across
>>> something that shows promise for treating anther, much rarer
>>> condition. If the market for this potential discovery isn't big
>>> enough to warrant the R&D investment, it does not get pursued.
>>
>> Talk about sending in the black helicopters... :(
>>
>> --
>
> Despite how that may have sounded to you, I'm really not a conspiracy
> theorist in the least. The problem is so well documented that the the
> federal government passed legislation giving incentives to drug
> companies to encourage them not to let such discoveries go undeveloped.
>
> Would you believe the FDA;s own website?
>
> http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/newdrug/orphan.html
Took somewhat out of context, I'll grant...it's a pov thing I guess.
Sure there are things that don't warrant the investment from a purely
economic standpoint. Unless there's some way to support the research
that's a problem no commercial venture can afford (at least
indefinitely). I mistook the intent given the previous, sorry...
--
Robert Haar wrote:
> On 12/18/07 9:45 AM, "Frank Arthur" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
>> because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!
>>
>
> And I have a cold fusion reactor running in my basement. (:-)
Damn! And I thought I got away w/ the only working one of the prototypes...
Was working w/ EPRI when the furor was raised--a gravy train for some,
albeit shortlived...
--
FoggyTown wrote:
> A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his
> assertion
> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> other established markets.
>
> (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
Straight razor won't do that. Neither will a boron fiber, which
_will_ take your fingers off if you're not careful with it.
> (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> sales)
Most men wouldn't buy it regardless--it closes the option of growing a
beard if one should want to. Women get this done with some regularity
by another process.
Don't believe everything you hear in a lecture.
> I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
> wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> time is right?
>
> (Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
> demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a
> train
> and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
If he demonstrated it then the "petroninjas" would have jumped on it
and if it was a cheaper production method than pumping it out of the
ground started using it. Since such a discovery would violate several
principles of chemistry and physics though such claims unless
supported by hard evidence must be taken as urban legends.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, yeahbbut... If there were a real market, it would make it
>>> out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims,
>>> it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be, would
>>> be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other
>>> problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot
>>> of bright folks out >there.
>> I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
>> bought out their competitors and their product since time
>> immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
>> being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
>> hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.
>>
>> I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
>> little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had
>> the first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at
>> gas. It became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the
>> late 70s, early 80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear,
>> the genius inventor had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple
>> bolt on to any car. In fact (the irony was lost on me at the time)
>> the myth went that they tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was
>> driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it
>> worked!
>>
>> But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
>> dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
>> companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with
>> a good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>>
>> I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
>> biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
>> had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
>> that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
>> invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
>> out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
>>
>> They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
>> something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
>> And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
>> felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
>> gone to live testing.
>>
>> But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
>> for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
>>
>
> One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
> (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
be in the end...
> Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
> very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
> schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
> (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
> important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
> sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
> propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
> fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
> doesn't sell hardware.
That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
except for the morning/evening commute, if that...
Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...
> So, if a palm-sized cold fusion power source ever became available,
> it wouldn't see the light of day.
That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
realizable, which it isn't)...
--
FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his assertion
> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
> other established markets.
>
> (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
> tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
Well, there obviously IS pressure--the pressure from the weight of the
knife. Give me a machete and I'll be able to grind a low-angle razor edge
on it to do just the above mentioned. (Of course, it'll be useless as a
machete with an edge that fine.) If you need sharper than that, go buy a
neurosurgeon's glass scalpel.
Sharpness isn't magic, but too fine of an edge will not be resilient
enough for general use. It'll either break, wear, or bend.
> (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
> need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
> sales)
What's wrong with electrolysis? It's here, it's permanent, and it's
fairly inexpensive. Apparently painful as hell, though. Honestly, it's
not something that most guys want--even if they _do_ shave daily.
An ointment to do the same without bad side effects is possible, but
not all that beneficial.
> I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
> crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
> wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
> time is right?
Lots of things out there. I used to work for a small drug design company.
We had several interesting candidates for drugs, but the synthesis or
work-up was too hard to pursue further. Someday, someone is going to
start selling a gold-based anti-inflammatory that's easily absorbed. It
might be based on the work I did, or it might be based on some other
company's old research that's sitting on the shelf.
The problem with conspiracy theories in general is that there's enough
going on in terms of market forces, economics, and even overt evil, that
there's no NEED for companies to resort to ridiculous and implausible
extents.
Colin
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
>> realizable, which it isn't)...
>>
>
> ...and man will never fly.
There valid scientific reasons why even when it might have been thought
to be impossible, it was theoretically so.
On the contrary, there are valid reasons (at least unless some of our
basic understanding of nuclear physics are revolutionized which seem
unlikely to that level) that "cold" fusion is not...
The point being however, if it does become so and is economically
viable, there will be folks all over it. I was, as I said earlier,
associated enough w/ power generation folks and EPRI at the time of the
previous flap and there were whole divisions of folks looking into the
potential already even as it was still being debated if it were real
(which, of course, it turned out it wasn't).
--
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Neville Chamberlain also thought "negotiating peace" was possible...
>>
> He wasn't exactly negotiating from a position of strength, now was he?
So how was that supposed to be "easy" as compared to what his government
subsequently underwent?
--
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Well, yeahbbut... If there were a real market, it would make it
>>>>> out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims,
>>>>> it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be, would
>>>>> be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other
>>>>> problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot
>>>>> of bright folks out >there.
>>>> I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
>>>> bought out their competitors and their product since time
>>>> immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
>>>> being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are too
>>>> hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.
>>>> I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
>>>> little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had
>>>> the first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at
>>>> gas. It became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the
>>>> late 70s, early 80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear,
>>>> the genius inventor had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple
>>>> bolt on to any car. In fact (the irony was lost on me at the time)
>>>> the myth went that they tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was
>>>> driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it
>>>> worked!
>>>> But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
>>>> dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
>>>> companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with
>>>> a good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>>>> I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a documentary/
>>>> biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
>>>> had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were amazed
>>>> that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
>>>> invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
>>>> out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
>>>> They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up with
>>>> something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
>>>> And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years, he
>>>> felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
>>>> gone to live testing.
>>>> But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
>>>> for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
>>> One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
>>> (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
>> But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily commute--it
>> only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go. It
>> is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one wants to
>> be in the end...
>>
>>> Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
>>> very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
>>> schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
>>> (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
>>> important and the whole transportation system went for crap just to
>>> sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
>>> propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign donations.in
>>> fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
>>> doesn't sell hardware.
>> That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has to do
>> with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an affordable
>> automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't going to choose
>> the individualism of "having it their own way" over mass transportation
>> except for the morning/evening commute, if that...
>>
>
> I wasn't exactly suggesting to run a tram track into everybody's
> driveway, now was I?
> Trams vs busses on main arteries. Railroad freight vs trucks on long
> distances. Of course you need a 'spoke' system with the flexibility of
> tired vehicles.
> Smart people in Toronto, for instance, take the rails to work and
> leave the cars at home when they can.
> A small hop on a bus to get to the end of your street makes sense in a
> system like that. But, of course, I am stating the obvious.
But where's the "government conspiracy" w/ Firestone? It's all
choice--many places can't persuade folks to ride mass transport even if
it is heavily subsidized.
--
Charlie Self wrote:
...
> And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
> popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
> '50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
> the thing and buried it.
...
This is the first time I ever hear of it being associated to Bill Lear
(and unless it's a different Bill Lear than the electronics and aviation
technology I don't think it is his. It doesn't sound at all like
something he would get involved in--he knew physics and engineering and
would recognize a hoax as a hoax from the git-go).
As a sidelight and back to something that has wood in it (at least the
cabinets did :) ), my uncle in Wichita had an Armstrong dealership and
did quite a lot of upper-end remodels in the 50s and 60s. He did the
tile work in the Lear's home in Wichita while I was in college. My
cousin, brother and myself would drive down on weekends from Manhattan
and work as tile mechanics while finishing the job as it was so large.
That went on most of one winter/spring before we finally finished it all...
> What was the last new car you saw with a carburetor?
Check out NASCAR... :) I'm not a fan by any stretch, but aren't they
still fully aspirated? I've always wondered why the stay that way, but
presume because they figure it would open up an unlimited number of
_additional_ ways to cheat--uh, get competitive advantage, I mean.
Maybe that's what they need to save a pit stop late in the race.
--
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Well, yeahbbut... If there were a real market, it would make it
>>>>> out. While there >may be an element of truth in the claims,
>>>>> it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever it might be,
>>>>> would
>>>>> be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other
>>>>> problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot
>>>>> of bright folks out >there.
>>>> I agree. While I am sure that huge manufacturing concerns have
>>>> bought out their competitors and their product since time
>>>> immemorial, I don't think good product stand much of a chance of
>>>> being on the sidelines anymore. I think too many companies are
>>>> too
>>>> hungry and the chance to make a buck is too much to resist.
>>
>>>> I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling
>>>> a
>>>> little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we
>>>> had
>>>> the first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at
>>>> gas. It became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the
>>>> late 70s, early 80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear,
>>>> the genius inventor had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple
>>>> bolt on to any car. In fact (the irony was lost on me at the
>>>> time)
>>>> the myth went that they tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was
>>>> driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the time that got a solid 10 mpg) and
>>>> it
>>>> worked!
>>
>>>> But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100
>>>> million
>>>> dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
>>>> companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up
>>>> with
>>>> a good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>>
>>>> I later saw Bill Lear's wife and his best friend on a
>>>> documentary/
>>>> biography and they even talked about the 90 mpg carburetor. They
>>>> had both heard of it, both got a chuckle out of it, and were
>>>> amazed
>>>> that it had such legs. They both said the same thing: Bill
>>>> invented faster than he could come up with a money source to try
>>>> out his ideas, and he was ALWAYS cash poor.
>>
>>>> They were both in complete agreement that if Bill had come up
>>>> with
>>>> something that important, he would have sold it in a heartbeat.
>>>> And since this guy was at his side for soemthing like 20 years,
>>>> he
>>>> felt like he would have known about a project that had actually
>>>> gone to live testing.
>>
>>>> But we sure "knew" that to be true for about 20 years. And there
>>>> for a while it resurfaced every time we had a spike in gas price.
>>
>>> One of the most efficient ways to move people in large quantities
>>> (over land, not water) is steel wheels on rails.
>>
>> But it is terribly inconvenient other than for the daily
>> commute--it
>> only runs when _IT_ runs, not necessarily when people _want_ to go.
>> It is also a pita if the station isn't all that close to where one
>> wants to be in the end...
>>
>>> Trams (streetcars) are the best example. Many cities in the US had
>>> very advanced trams systems (Chicago, for instance). Yet the deal
>>> schmoozed out between the man Firestone and one the US presidents
>>> (forgot which one) suddenly found the sale of tires and fuel more
>>> important and the whole transportation system went for crap just
>>> to
>>> sell rubber and. Big industry very often influences bad decisions
>>> propelled by their greed and executed by their campaign
>>> donations.in
>>> fact, entire wars. Peace is easier and cheaper to negotiate but
>>> doesn't sell hardware.
>>
>> That's simply wishful thinking and retrofit "history"...it all has
>> to do with consumer choices and preferences. When Henry built an
>> affordable automobile, there was no way in the world folks weren't
>> going to choose the individualism of "having it their own way" over
>> mass transportation except for the morning/evening commute, if
>> that...
>>
>
> I wasn't exactly suggesting to run a tram track into everybody's
> driveway, now was I?
> Trams vs busses on main arteries. Railroad freight vs trucks on long
> distances. Of course you need a 'spoke' system with the flexibility
> of
> tired vehicles.
> Smart people in Toronto, for instance, take the rails to work and
> leave the cars at home when they can.
> A small hop on a bus to get to the end of your street makes sense in
> a
> system like that. But, of course, I am stating the obvious.
How well do trams fit into rush hour traffic? How easy is it to
change the route? And how much does it cost to run trams including
maintaining the infrastructure vs running buses? Don't assume that
"more efficient" in terms of rolling friction means "cheaper to run".
People in NYC also take the rails to work. So what? But NYC has no
trams, you can take the subway to walking distance of just about
anywhere in the city. And in Toronto they are now planning to extend
the system to cover many suburbs that currently have no service.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 12:18 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> That is also patently absurd (even if the concept were physically
>> realizable, which it isn't)...
>>
>
> ...and man will never fly.
Palm sized fusion maybe. But it's not going to be "cold fusion". If
you believe in "cold fusion" might I interest you in this nice ski
resort outside Des Moines . . .
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Just Wondering wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an
>>> average car 90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car
>>> that now gets 25 mpg get 32 mpg instead. A little clever tweaking
>>> like that would put that particular manufacturer at the top of the
>>> heap. The fact nothing like that has happened indicates there is
>>> no such product.
>>
>>
>> Which works on the same theory that there will not be any
>> time-machines, ever.
> > Not even in the future. We would have had visitors by now, eh?
>
>
> How do you know we haven't???
The "which works on the same theory" post hasn't appeared on my
server--this is a response to that.
The car manufacturers have a vested interest in getting good gas
mileage. They pay a tax based on average fuel economy. If they had a
way to make a '76 Lincoln get 30 mpg by tacking on a gadget they would
have used that instead of going to all the trouble of redesigning
their entire product line, designing new engines, tooling up new
production lines, and all the other costly and time consuming things
they needed to do in order to avoid that tax.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
>>
>> My apologies for the looooooong post!
>
> What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
> formulae.
> 1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
> If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
> time
> the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
> resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
> stoplight...etc.
> If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel
> to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator
> aren't going to make one bit of difference.
>
> It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work
> in
> a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
> squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
> create
> steam first.
> X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
> DO
> the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
> of
> doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
> reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
> ultimately is stored in that gallon.
While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee
with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted
with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
change in performance. Trouble is we don't know how to make a 100%
efficient engine or anything coming even close. Still any increase in
efficiency will reduce fuel consumption.
The CAFE law was changed recently to require CAFE of 35 mpg by 2020.
That means that the auto manufacturers are going to be making more
small cars and looking for ways to make large ones more efficient.
> I say, hook everything up to a perpetual motion machine.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 19, 10:33 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> On Dec 19, 8:01 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
>>
>>>> My apologies for the looooooong post!
>>
>>> What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct
>>> conversion
>>> formulae.
>>> 1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period.
>>> If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next
>>> time
>>> the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind
>>> resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next
>>> stoplight...etc.
>>> If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of
>>> fuel
>>> to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg
>>> carburator
>>> aren't going to make one bit of difference.
>>
>>> It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of
>>> work
>>> in
>>> a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you
>>> squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or
>>> create
>>> steam first.
>>> X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to
>>> DO
>>> the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process
>>> of
>>> doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no
>>> reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
>>> ultimately is stored in that gallon.
>>
>> While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that
>> Humvee
>> with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be
>> fitted
>> with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no
>> change in performance.
>
> It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more
> efficient
> Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor.
> My Hummer was a constant.
Not if you had two different kinds of carburetor on it it wasn't.
> When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
> heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work,
> or
> dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
> NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
> gallon."
> --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do the
work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the work". But
this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get more work
out of a given quantity of heat then they become more efficient. That
is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is supposed to do.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
...
>> When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
>> heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work,
>> or
>> dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
>> NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
>> gallon."
>> --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
>
> All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do the
> work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the work". But
> this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get more work
> out of a given quantity of heat then they become more efficient. That
> is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is supposed to do.
One wonders how, precisely, on its own, it does so with so much flair,
however... :)
--
dpb wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
> ...
>>> When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as
>>> heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or
>>> dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will
>>> NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that
>>> gallon."
>>> --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
>>
>> All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do the
>> work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the work". But
>> this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get more work
>> out of a given quantity of heat then they become more efficient. That
>> is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is supposed to do.
>
> One wonders how, precisely, on its own, it does so with so much flair,
> however... :)
Particularly since fully-injected, metered per cylinder systems don't
come close...
--
dpb wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Robatoy wrote:
>> ...
>>>> When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such
>>>> as
>>>> heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the
>>>> work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane for no
>>>> reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
>>>> ultimately is stored in that gallon."
>>>> --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
>>>
>>> All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do
>>> the work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the
>>> work".
>>> But this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get
>>> more work out of a given quantity of heat then they become more
>>> efficient. That is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is
>>> supposed to do.
>>
>> One wonders how, precisely, on its own, it does so with so much
>> flair, however... :)
>
> Particularly since fully-injected, metered per cylinder systems
> don't
> come close...
Why, it precatalyzes the fuel so that it undergoes cold fusion in the
cylinder of course.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 8:46?pm, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:19:53 -0800 (PST), FoggyTown
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Dec 18, 5:55?pm, "Colin B." <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> FoggyTown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
>> >> > respected designer. ?One element of his presentation was his assertion
>> >> > that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
>> >> > perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
>> >> > average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
>> >> > other established markets.
>>
>> >> > (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
>> >> > tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
>>
>> >> Well, there obviously IS pressure--the pressure from the weight of the
>> >> knife. Give me a machete and I'll be able to grind a low-angle razor edge
>> >> on it to do just the above mentioned. (Of course, it'll be useless as a
>> >> machete with an edge that fine.) If you need sharper than that, go buy a
>> >> neurosurgeon's glass scalpel.
>> >> Sharpness isn't magic, but too fine of an edge will not be resilient
>> >> enough for general use. It'll either break, wear, or bend.
>>
>> >> > (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
>> >> > need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
>> >> > sales)
>>
>> >> What's wrong with electrolysis? It's here, it's permanent, and it's
>> >> fairly inexpensive. Apparently painful as hell, though. Honestly, it's
>> >> not something that most guys want--even if they _do_ shave daily.
>> >> An ointment to do the same without bad side effects is possible, but
>> >> not all that beneficial.
>>
>> >> > I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
>> >> > crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. ?I just
>> >> > wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
>> >> > time is right?
>>
>> >> Lots of things out there. I used to work for a small drug design company.
>> >> We had several interesting candidates for drugs, but the synthesis or
>> >> work-up was too hard to pursue further. Someday, someone is going to
>> >> start selling a gold-based anti-inflammatory that's easily absorbed. It
>> >> might be based on the work I did, or it might be based on some other
>> >> company's old research that's sitting on the shelf.
>>
>> >> The problem with conspiracy theories in general is that there's enough
>> >> going on in terms of market forces, economics, and even overt evil, that
>> >> there's no NEED for companies to resort to ridiculous and implausible
>> >> extents.
>>
>> >> Colin
>>
>> >What conspiracy theory? ?If I invent a compound that can be made into
>> >tires that will last 100,000 miles and I sell it to, say, Firestone
>> >who buys it just to keep it from some other manufacturer - that isn't
>> >a conspiracy. ?It may be a shame but it isn't a conspiracy. ?It's
>> >called protecting your market. ?Firestone can't use it because either
>> >they will have to sell each new-compound tire for 5 times more than
>> >the present ones OR they will have to sell five times more tires than
>> >they do now - maybe more.
>>
>> >Like I say, we have no way of knowing what's been invented but
>> >withheld for economic or safety reasons.
>>
>> >FoggyTown
>>
>> Or they sell 3 times as many tires (since they would corner the market
>> for the term of the patent) at twice the price (since the tires last 5
>> times as long) and make many times more profit while driving all
>> competitors into bankruptcy. Yet another reason these silly stories
>> have no legs.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Then get slammed for operating a monopoly?
There's nothing illegal about operating a monopoly. If you're deemed
to be a monoply, there are restrictions about what you can do to maintain
it, but making a better mousetrap and bankrupting the competition isn't
illegal.
Colin
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 19, 4:29 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> Robatoy wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work,
>>>>>> such
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the
>>>>>> work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane for no
>>>>>> reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what
>>>>>> ultimately is stored in that gallon."
>>>>>> --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
>>
>>>>> All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to
>>>>> do
>>>>> the work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the
>>>>> work".
>>>>> But this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get
>>>>> more work out of a given quantity of heat then they become more
>>>>> efficient. That is what one presumes that the magic carburetor
>>>>> is
>>>>> supposed to do.
>>
>>>> One wonders how, precisely, on its own, it does so with so much
>>>> flair, however... :)
>>
>>> Particularly since fully-injected, metered per cylinder systems
>>> don't
>>> come close...
>>
>> Why, it precatalyzes the fuel so that it undergoes cold fusion in
>> the
>> cylinder of course.
>>
> But it's usually warm in cylinders, no?
Never let facts ruin a good story:)
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Just Wondering wrote:
> surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25
> mpg get 32 mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put
> that particular manufacturer at the top of the heap.
We can do that now, except it's less about tweaking and more about
choices. We could have a more efficient large vehicle, it just wouldn't
go stoplight to stoplight like a 60's muscle car. <G>
People buying cars want serious acceleration and hauling power, and lots
of amenities and safety gear, regardless of need. Cars are stylish, and
usually purchased on want over need.
Many Prius, smart car, Hemi Mega Cab Power Wagon, and H2 purchasers
actually buy vehicles for similar reasons, they're making a personal
statement. This is documented and studied by auto company marketing
departments, with the advertising for a specific vehicle planned to
match. A perfect example of this is the new crop of crossover SUV's,
with SUV looks, over car or mini-van underpinnings.
My wife had a 1991 4 dr. Mazda Protege "econobox" that reliably got 40
MPG on highway trips with a 1.8L 16v engine. It had decent acceleration
with a stick shift, one airbag, a basic interior with non-powered
windows and locks, etc... Both of us felt relatively comfortable
driving it.
The current car that occupies the same slot in the Mazda line-up weighs
almost 800 pounds more, goes like stink (compared to my Protege), and
includes power everything as standard equipment. In certain, but not
all crashes, it's safer. Heavier cars usually fare better against other
vehicles, properly designed lighter cars are often better in single car
wrecks. Gas mileage is down in the high-20's.
All of this was really drilled into me when I became a pilot.
Everything in physics is a trade-off. More performance = less range,
replace the range, get less payload, replace the range and payload, use
even more fuel, continue in loop... Cars are no different, it's just
not as obvious. If there were some way to drastically increase piston
engine efficiency, I think we'd see it in airplanes. A basic, 4
cylinder, 4 seat piston aircraft goes for ~ $300,000 new!
I'm not intending to judge others. My wife drives a 14 MPG 4.0L Jeep
Wrangler with 32" tires, because she likes it. It rarely goes off road,
never with her at the wheel. It handles like crap, with little accident
avoidance capability. The only 4WD usage is in the snow, but as a
teacher, she gets most snowy days off! I'm the only one who uses it
with the top down, 3-4 days a year, as it messes up her hair. She loves
her Jeep and the outdoorsy image that goes with it. <G>
My apologies for the looooooong post!
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:45:26 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"FoggyTown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:cc1305d5-21c9-4ec9-a764-6eccb9cd5e9c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>A few years ago I attended a marketing lecture given by a very
>> respected designer. One element of his presentation was his
>> assertion
>> that there are many, many items which have been invented and even
>> perfected BUT which will not see the market - either because (1) the
>> average person couldn't handle them, or (2) their sale would ruin
>> other established markets.
>>
>> (1) knife blades so sharp that you only have to rest the knife on a
>> tomato and it would slice through with no pressure (goodbye fingers)
>> (2) an ointment that safely kills hair follicles and eliminates the
>> need for ever shaving again (goodbye electric razor, blade and cream
>> sales)
>>
>> I don't think he was spouting urban myths and I have no doubt that
>> crass corporate self-interests would support his cynicism. I just
>> wonder what's out there waiting to be sprung when someone thinks the
>> time is right?
>>
>> (Very reminiscent of the old tale from the 50s about the man who
>> demonstrated he could turn water into gasoline and then got on a
>> train
>> and was never seen again. Probably eliminated by the petroninjas!)
>>
>> FoggyTown
>
>I invented a Universal Solvent but was unable to package it for sale
>because it would dissolve glass, plastic & even stainless steel!
>
...and there is a hole clear through the earth under your garage to
prove it.... boy were those Chinese on the other side surprised!
Robatoy wrote:
> On Dec 18, 3:44 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>>
>>If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
>>90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
>>mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
>>manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
>>indicates there is no such product.
>
>
> Which works on the same theory that there will not be any time-machines, ever.
> Not even in the future. We would have had visitors by now, eh?
How do you know we haven't???
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 18, 8:54 am, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>I think we believe what we want to, especially if we are feeling a
>>little screwed about something. I remember in the 70s when we had the
>>first gas crunch, it really changed the way people looked at gas. It
>>became a precious commodity. Then somewhere along the late 70s, early
>>80s, all of us "in the know" KNEW that Bill Lear, the genius inventor
>>had an 80+ mpg carburetor that was a simple bolt on to any car. In
>>fact (the irony was lost on me at the time) the myth went that they
>>tried it on Chevy trucks (wow.. I was driving a 3/4 ton Chevy at the
>>time that got a solid 10 mpg) and it worked!
>>
>>But then GM found out about it and bought it for almost 100 million
>>dollars, because we found out that General Motors owned the oil
>>companies. Yup, the job site brain trust was able to come up with a
>>good theory in spite of a lack of facts.
>>
>
>
> And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
> popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
> '50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
> the thing and buried it.
>
> If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
> would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.
>
If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
indicates there is no such product.