Kansas Oil Boom Exposing the Lies Our President and the Enviro Wackos

[nanook 1]

Would you be able to patent this idea? I thought you could only patent a product. Anyways, it will probably "piss" people off if you try to violate the Conservation of Energy.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,394]

>Uh, that is called economics.

Yep. And all the wishful thinking of all the conservatives on the planet won't change how it works.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Yep. And all the wishful thinking of all the conservatives on the planet won't change how it works.

LOL, shit this works BOTH ways and Bill you know it. Comments like that and the attitude that goes with it is OUR problem. BOTH SIDES.

We have become SO one sided, so "if they win I lose" that we can't get anything done.

Rep won't help Obama for fear of "helping" the Dem's and the Dem's do the same thing...both sides blame the other.

Whats so damn sad is that "we the people" are getting screwed not for the politicians by by OUR SELFS.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

>Uh, that is called economics.

Yep. And all the wishful thinking of all the conservatives on the planet won't change how it works.

Oh, like it worked for natural gas?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-01-16/low-natural-gas-prices/52592508/1

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

>looks like 33-35% would buy another hybrid. gee that must mean 65-67%
>are going back to those gasoline burners!

Within 20 years most cars will be hybrids - and the green haters won't even know that the technology is in their car. It will be as ubiquitous as fuel injection is now. (When's the last time a car salesman said "and this car has FUEL INJECTION!")

Good point and we would not have fuel injection today if it were not for the billions of government subsidies. I don’t think anybody hates green they just hate the crony capitalism paid for by the taxpayer.

[DougH 270]

Quote

Within 20 years most cars will be hybrids - and the green haters won't even know that the technology is in their car. It will be as ubiquitous as fuel injection is now. (When's the last time a car salesman said "and this car has FUEL INJECTION!")

Fuel injection is the norm because the technology hit a point where it worked very well and it was priced well.

And that is the point. When a technology is perfected and the price point is hit demand will rise and it will be adopted.

Currently hybrids add to much cost to the price of a similarly equipped car. The savings from hybrids doesn't justify the cost, and there are still some issues for them to work out.

A market minded person would work towards improving the technology and lowering the price.

A socialist environmentalist would push to raise the price of gas to make the technology cost versus benefit ratio change, or they would mandate the technology outright. The technology would get better over time, but it would be at the expense of the earlier users who were forced into using it.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[billvon 2,394]

>Fuel injection is the norm because the technology hit a point where it
>worked very well and it was priced well.

No, fuel injection is the norm because it was required for closed-loop mixture control; that in turn was required to support catalytic converters, which were necessary to meet clean air standards. Several automakers claimed that meeting the EPA requirements would bankrupt their companies - so it certainly wasn't "priced well" when it became the standard.

However, over time costs came down.

So to use your reasoning, the reason we have cheap and reliable fuel injection today is that "socialist environmentalists" required it. The market minded person" (i.e. Lee Iacocca and company) fought it as hard as they could.

[DougH 270]

I stand corrected Bill.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>Fuel injection is the norm because the technology hit a point where it
>worked very well and it was priced well.

No, fuel injection is the norm because it was required for closed-loop mixture control; that in turn was required to support catalytic converters, which were necessary to meet clean air standards. Several automakers claimed that meeting the EPA requirements would bankrupt their companies - so it certainly wasn't "priced well" when it became the standard.

However, over time costs came down.

So to use your reasoning, the reason we have cheap and reliable fuel injection today is that "socialist environmentalists" required it. The market minded person" (i.e. Lee Iacocca and company) fought it as hard as they could.

fuel injection did not become profitable and reliable until computers advanced to be able to handle it. variable cam timing and GDI have been under developement for 40 years but it has only been recently that the computer capabilities have been able to reliably put these into cars. You can mandate all you want, but until the product can be used cheap, efficient and reliable we will not see it in mass produced and mass purchased cars and trucks. pushing beyond our currant capabilities is only producing large stresses on our economy.

[billvon 2,394]

>fuel injection did not become profitable and reliable until computers
>advanced to be able to handle it.

Fuel injection has been around since the 1950's and does not require computers. In the 1970's computers (specifically microcontrollers like the 8008) became cheap enough to incorporate into things like toys and cars.

They remained fairly separate until the EPA mandated emissions cuts. If they hadn't, we'd still be driving cars with carburetors; no reason to "bankrupt the company" developing fuel injectors with computer control. Once the technology was refined, though, it became fairly cheap.

>You can mandate all you want, but until the product can be used cheap,
>efficient and reliable we will not see it in mass produced and mass
>purchased cars and trucks.

Interesting story there. When the EPA mandate came out, several people claimed exactly what you did - "it's impossible! the technology isn't there!" But the mandate remained. So most companies tried the full closed-loop control system (oxygen sensor, adjustable mixture via injector control, catalytic converter.) After a decade or so costs came down, and indeed fuel injection became the norm.

One company tried something different. They designed a car that used a "compound vortex controlled combustion" (CVCC) engine, a fairly new concept that significantly reduced emissions WITHOUT closed loop mixture control. It allowed them to use carburetors into the late 80's. This car was so successful that they named the car after the engine; you know of it today as the Civic.

That's an example of a mandate that created new technology.

>pushing beyond our currant capabilities is only producing large stresses
>on our economy.

Pushing well beyond - I agree. If we mandated that all cars get 70mpg it would have a lot of pretty negative effects. BACT (best available commercial technology) is a term used to describe what's reasonable to mandate when it comes to things like emissions reduction.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>fuel injection did not become profitable and reliable until computers
>advanced to be able to handle it.

Fuel injection has been around since the 1950's and does not require computers. In the 1970's computers (specifically microcontrollers like the 8008) became cheap enough to incorporate into things like toys and cars.

They remained fairly separate until the EPA mandated emissions cuts. If they hadn't, we'd still be driving cars with carburetors; no reason to "bankrupt the company" developing fuel injectors with computer control. Once the technology was refined, though, it became fairly cheap.

>You can mandate all you want, but until the product can be used cheap,
>efficient and reliable we will not see it in mass produced and mass
>purchased cars and trucks.

Interesting story there. When the EPA mandate came out, several people claimed exactly what you did - "it's impossible! the technology isn't there!" But the mandate remained. So most companies tried the full closed-loop control system (oxygen sensor, adjustable mixture via injector control, catalytic converter.) After a decade or so costs came down, and indeed fuel injection became the norm.

One company tried something different. They designed a car that used a "compound vortex controlled combustion" (CVCC) engine, a fairly new concept that significantly reduced emissions WITHOUT closed loop mixture control. It allowed them to use carburetors into the late 80's. This car was so successful that they named the car after the engine; you know of it today as the Civic.

That's an example of a mandate that created new technology.

>pushing beyond our currant capabilities is only producing large stresses
>on our economy.

Pushing well beyond - I agree. If we mandated that all cars get 70mpg it would have a lot of pretty negative effects. BACT (best available commercial technology) is a term used to describe what's reasonable to mandate when it comes to things like emissions reduction.

I know they had fuel injection a long time before it became the norm, but it had lots of problems, that is why it wasn't mass produced in the 60's. it wasn't until the 80's that computer control solved the problems keeping it from being a reliable product. the new technologies will probably become reliable and cheap also, lets just get it figured out before we make everyone have to buy it and take government money out of it.

[livendive 8]

Quote

You can mandate all you want, but until the product can be used cheap, efficient and reliable we will not see it in mass produced and mass purchased cars and trucks.

Sometimes the mandate is what pushes the product to become cheap, efficient, and reliable. Not always, but there certainly validity to the argument that regulations can drive innovation in a stagnant field. If current technology is easy and cheap, and better technology will require investment and risk-taking, there has to be a carrot of higher profits at the end for companies to chase (either by making the new technology more profitable or the current technology less profitable).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,394]

>I know they had fuel injection a long time before it became the norm, but
>it had lots of problems, that is why it wasn't mass produced in the 60's. it
>wasn't until the 80's that computer control solved the problems keeping it
>from being a reliable product.

Well, there were a lot more problems with fuel injection than that - and initially computer control caused a lot more problems than it solved. But yes, it was in the 1980's that the vastly increased demand (driven by EPA requirements) got attention focused on solving those problems.