PDA

View Full Version : I'm sure you got a team of men sittin around jus thinking s*@$ up!



Captshady
01-06-2009, 12:20 AM
"And this is the best that you cou - that the government, the *U.S. government* could come up with? I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud, you put a man on the moon, you're geniuses! You're the guys that are thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up!"
-Harry Stamper, Armageddon

Do you ever experience this thought? We've had gasoline powered cars for over a century now, and all of us have witnessed massive strides in technology in our lifetimes, but is there anything you see that baffles you that we haven't come up with something fricken better yet? We put men on the moon 40 years ago, but we still have garbage dumps! I find the whole thing amazing.

Meerkat
01-06-2009, 12:23 AM
We voted J.R. Ewing and his son into the White House in order to stifle just such thoughts.

Keep thinking oil. Good, delicious oil.

Captshady
01-06-2009, 12:25 AM
We voted J.R. Ewing and his son into the White House in order to stifle just such thoughts.

Keep thinking oil. Good, delicious oil.

I saw a show on the discovery channel about 2 or 3 weeks ago that said that we had electric motors, for use in cars, back as late as 1880-something, but "we" opted as consumers for the combustion engine. Okay, fine, but our excuse now?

brad_b
01-06-2009, 12:35 AM
I saw a show on the discovery channel about 2 or 3 weeks ago that said that we had electric motors, for use in cars, back as late as 1880-something, but "we" opted as consumers for the combustion engine. Okay, fine, but our excuse now?

Several years back I read a book by Paul Harvey, famous radio commentator. In it he had a story about a guy who invented an engine that ran on water. Makes sense, you pass an electric current through water and hydrogen and oxygen are produced - both environmentally friendly and water is a cheap source as a fuel. The 'rest of the story' as Paul Harvey always said, someone bought the idea and the patent and it hasn't been heard of since. Makes me wonder which oil company is sitting on that technology but knows keeping us oil dependent means higher revenues.

ChaosTitan
01-06-2009, 12:37 AM
I loved that movie. I may be one of five people who did.

cray
01-06-2009, 12:37 AM
$$$$$$$

Captshady
01-06-2009, 12:38 AM
I remember reading about a guy in Australia that re-invented the two stroke motor so that it was pollution free, and got 400 miles to the gallon. He was going to put it up for sale ... never heard a thing about it, and this was 20 plus years ago.

Captshady
01-06-2009, 12:39 AM
I loved that movie. I may be one of five people who did.

It had some pretty profound comments, too.

Shadow_Ferret
01-06-2009, 12:41 AM
GM had already created an all-electric car back in the 90s called the EVO-1 or something. They test marketed it, letting people drive it for a while, then they took them all back and destroyed the cars. Never did a thing with the research and now they're scrambling with bankruptcy, government loans, and trying to get us an electric by 2010.

Great forward thinking there.

James81
01-06-2009, 12:46 AM
I won't be impressed until we put the moon on mars.

James81
01-06-2009, 12:48 AM
But I always enjoy hearing about good ole Harry-all-go-no-quit-big-nutz-Stamper.

Captshady
01-06-2009, 12:50 AM
GM had already created an all-electric car back in the 90s called the EVO-1 or something. They test marketed it, letting people drive it for a while, then they took them all back and destroyed the cars. Never did a thing with the research and now they're scrambling with bankruptcy, government loans, and trying to get us an electric by 2010.

Great forward thinking there.

The EV-1. Now, suddenly it can't be done. The EV-1 was used with substandard parts as well, like antique battery technology.

ChaosTitan
01-06-2009, 12:50 AM
It had some pretty profound comments, too.

Kinda like Rockhound saying: You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?

:D

Captshady
01-06-2009, 12:53 AM
It's not just cars though. Cell phones are amazing technology. To roughly quote Louis C.K., we used to have stand right by the phone, to make a call, and you had to DIAL. You'd get ticked at somebody if he had too many zeroes in his phone number, you're like "oh screw this guy, he has TWO zeroes in his number." And you called someone, and if they weren't home, the phone just rang, it was all lonely and would just ring.

We've done some amazing things, yet ... some stuff has just not advanced at all. We should be the Jetsons by now!

James81
01-06-2009, 12:55 AM
We've done some amazing things, yet ... some stuff has just not advanced at all. We should be the Jetsons by now!

It's all good. I've been to the year 3000. Not much has changed but we live underwater.

Bubastes
01-06-2009, 01:04 AM
Several years back I read a book by Paul Harvey, famous radio commentator. In it he had a story about a guy who invented an engine that ran on water. Makes sense, you pass an electric current through water and hydrogen and oxygen are produced - both environmentally friendly and water is a cheap source as a fuel. The 'rest of the story' as Paul Harvey always said, someone bought the idea and the patent and it hasn't been heard of since. Makes me wonder which oil company is sitting on that technology but knows keeping us oil dependent means higher revenues.

If the engine is patented, that information is easily accessible to the public, so I don't buy the "haven't heard of since" bit at all. If you have some time to kill, you could find the patent on http://www.google.com/patents if it's indeed out there. Patents describe the technology in excruciating detail, allowing other people to improve the base technology. Also, patents eventually expire. Just because it's patented doesn't mean it's bulletproof. Far far FAR from it.

waylander
01-06-2009, 01:10 AM
Hydrogen powered cars have been demonstrated but 1) you still have to generate the hydrogen from somewhere and that uses energy of one form or another 2) hydrogen is more difficult to store than liquid fuels and its energy density isn't great.
There's far more scope in electric cars powered by fuel cells than run on methanol/ethanol

regdog
01-06-2009, 01:16 AM
Kinda like Rockhound saying: You know we're sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?

:D

Rockhound: It must be comforting to know that if the space program ever goes belly up, you could always get a job at Helga's House of Pain

Captshady
01-06-2009, 01:17 AM
The cost of going into outer space is crazy to me. There are high school rocketry kids that can send a rocket into space on a small budget. Put people in a rocket, suddenly the price tag goes into the millions.

Mela
01-06-2009, 01:19 AM
Hydrogen powered cars have been demonstrated but 1) you still have to generate the hydrogen from somewhere and that uses energy of one form or another 2) hydrogen is more difficult to store than liquid fuels and its energy density isn't great.
There's far more scope in electric cars powered by fuel cells than run on methanol/ethanol

You also have to develop the infrastructure for hydrogen - very difficult.
Hydrogen and alternative fuels are used a lot in fleet vehicles but these fuels haven't cracked the mainstream auto market (except for out of the US - Brazil especially).

On a different subject, we have an article from NOAA in this month's magazine on the research being conducted under the ocean to find new environments, species, etc. There's a lot of thought that we might be able to tap various marine organisms to find ways ways to cure certain cancers as well as other health problems.

Makes me think: We should have been in a race with the Russians 40 years ago to explore the oceans - maybe we already would have found a cancer cure.

How many health benefits have been returned to us in moon rocks? Not that I'm against space exploration, but it doesn't make sense that here we have developed the technology to land a Rover on Mars but only recently adapted it to explore under the seas.

regdog
01-06-2009, 01:20 AM
The cost of going into outer space is crazy to me. There are high school rocketry kids that can send a rocket into space on a small budget. Put people in a rocket, suddenly the price tag goes into the millions.

But they won't spend $2 on new 'O' rings

Mr Flibble
01-06-2009, 01:48 AM
I have a team of men

I ain't gonna say what they are thinking up though. Except for the possibility of the inclusion of baby oil


YES! They are thinking of ways to run cars on baby oil. Maybe...

Cassiopeia
01-06-2009, 01:58 AM
I loved that movie. I may be one of five people who did.:hi: I loved it too. :)

Jcomp
01-06-2009, 02:07 AM
If the engine is patented, that information is easily accessible to the public, so I don't buy the "haven't heard of since" bit at all. If you have some time to kill, you could find the patent on http://www.google.com/patents if it's indeed out there. Patents describe the technology in excruciating detail, allowing other people to improve the base technology. Also, patents eventually expire. Just because it's patented doesn't mean it's bulletproof. Far far FAR from it.

People believe Paul Harvey at their own peril.

Atani
01-06-2009, 02:42 AM
On another note but in line with your thinking... I watched a documentary about hemp a while back - HEMP, not marijuana, mind. Hemp does not contain the chemical THC (or very, very little of it), which is what makes marijuana so enjoyable. Hemp far surpasses any other plant material for so many uses it's mind boggling. Not only is it great for paper, etc., but it grows super fast and takes little space or nutrients from the soil...

However, back in the 30's or something I want to say (may have been 40's or 50's even...) a slanderous campaign began to convince the nation of the evils inherent in hemp and it's close relative marijuana, so that to this day the two are thought of as the same thing, and both are illegal to grow and considered as dangerous as heroine. Interestingly this campaign was funded by Dupont, a leading chemical company who at the time was in competition with the hemp farmers for manufacturing purposes, particularly with the chemicals needed to process paper made from wood pulp. (paper made from hemp does not require those chemicals)

And to this day, we neglect to utilize an amazing plant that could revolutionize the paper industry as well as so many other products that utilize trees, wood pulp, cellulose, etc. (This could be a thread by itself.)

I'll get off my soap box now, but in summary, I completely agree that technology is there for necessary innovations for modern society, but it is hidden PURPOSEFULLY by companies who wish to make money by condemning or suppressing their competition.

Captshady
01-06-2009, 09:10 AM
Very interesting Atani. I've heard similar things. Maybe if we got rid of using trees for paper, furniture could be made out of pure wood again, and last a few decades.

Paper or plastic would go out the window too, and the supposed green bags can go too.
Although, if they made paper bags out of marijuana, you'd think the grocery stores would love it. You go in, buy some groceries, go home, smoke the sack and go back and buy all the haagen daas off the shelves.

brad_b
01-06-2009, 01:45 PM
If the engine is patented, that information is easily accessible to the public, so I don't buy the "haven't heard of since" bit at all. If you have some time to kill, you could find the patent on http://www.google.com/patents if it's indeed out there. Patents describe the technology in excruciating detail, allowing other people to improve the base technology. Also, patents eventually expire. Just because it's patented doesn't mean it's bulletproof. Far far FAR from it.

It was quite a few years ago when I read the book, so maybe it wasn't patented, but I remember the general gist of the story. HS chemistry taught about the electric charge through water seperating the elements. Especially with today's technology I can't understand why someone hasn't developed such an engine. Who knows, other than if an engine ran on water it would pretty much tank the world economically even more so than now.

Mac H.
01-06-2009, 02:34 PM
HS chemistry taught about the electric charge through water separating the elements..Yep - when you put energy into the water with an electric charge you'll separate the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.

You can then burn them them together in the electric car, and you'll get most of the energy back .. which you can use to power the car.

Can you see yet why this doesn't help the energy crisis !?

Mac
(PS: BTW - it isn't ultra-clean either. Sure, it avoids carbon output at the car, but the hydrogen burns hot enough that the Nitrogen in the air will form a tiny, tiny bit of Nitric acid .... acid rain. No a lot of it, but enough that an entire city of hydrogen burning cars aren't a great idea until that problem is solved)

ChaosTitan
01-06-2009, 07:56 PM
I loved that movie. I may be one of five people who did.

I now have confirmation that there are at least eight of us. :D

Captshady
01-06-2009, 08:21 PM
I now have confirmation that there are at least eight of us. :D

Crazy Willy put 'em up to it.

Lyra Jean
01-06-2009, 08:27 PM
I like the movie Armegeddon as well.

The Lone Gunmen had an episode with a water powered car. It was hidden because it would have led to more roads being built, higher traffic volume pretty much everywhere and more car crashes because driving would be so cheap.

I think in the end the son of the inventor put the engine in his tractor and never had to pay fuel costs to harvest his corn again.