1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The longest Post

Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by Celerity, May 28, 2004.

To solve the fuel Crisis, would you....

  1. ... Make it easy and slow, so we can maintain our lifestyle

    100.0%
  2. ... Make it tough to live with, but make it fast so we can go on

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. ... Go with the flow of things. And where does Cel get his M

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    First off, let me begin by saying that is another of those political posts. But, there is a difference here. I'm not going to even attempt to warrant who is right or wrong, But I'm going to bring to you a few of the things I've come to realise, and let you make your minds from there.

    Secondly, There is a Vote. Read this, and decide how you would handle it.


    Knowledge is power. And lots of you have done your own research into what is happening in the world today - as I have. Only, because I'm a bit of a cynic, my research has led me down dark corridors of despair and anxiety.

    Somethings in today's world worry me to my core. I love cars. Always have. Now, I find that owning cars is too financially strenuous, and even if I could afford it by making lots of money, it certainly costs more than it should.

    Two thoughts have occured to me during these times of doubt. One, is the cost of Fuel. I know that US has paid the least for fuel in all of the world, but that should not negate my opinions, nor the opinions of others to keep the cost of driving down. By saying that the US "Should get a grip, maybe now you'll feel the pain that the world has" is to state something that goes against the flow of the US.

    The United States is NOT based on the things that you were raised thinking. The US is based on "Don't tread on me" now more than ever. Freedom and Equality have eluded us for 227 years - ask the Blacks or Native Americans.

    The US is based on this: "Yeah, I see that you're suffering. Deal with it. If the suffering comes to us, we WILL squash it forever."

    Gas prices, Terrorist factions, and humanitarian blight (Starvation and disease) fall into these categories. The US KNOWS that OPEC is a terrorist organization. They KNOW that food and health codes are hard to come by in every other country. and they KNOW that terrorism exists everywhere. They don't care.

    Until it hits the US shores. Then we care. And we care enough to cast aside EVERYONE'S thoughts and inputs. The way we look at it, These other people have been dealing with the problem unsuccessfully for decades without a solution. The Evil Forces win all the time. And the US will NOT stand amongst that group.

    The US Military salutes with it's right hand because we have never lost a battle. And our culture reflects this stout attitude in everything that we do. We struggle to be the best, and for the most part - we succeed in it every time. And the financial crisis and power crisis is something that other countries like Britain and Japan have succumbed to, but rest assured the US will not play the game by these rules.

    Onto my point. Here are some of the issues that are pressing to me, and I'm going to give you all an insight that I have found works to squelch my fears for the future. IF you can't read all of this post, please READ THIS PART.

    Gasoline. Gasoline is a chemical that is refined from large amounts that bubble up from the ground. In the 50's, oil flow was as natural as a waterfall, or the wind. IT was believed that it would never stop bubbling from the ground. It takes crude oil, and refines the impurities from it to make a chemical that reacts in a thermal action. Holding a vial of Gasoline, you must remember that it took 4 vials of crude to get that one usable vial. The rest went into making plastics, lubricants, cloth (Even natural cloth, don't fool yourself) and other things. In the late 60s engineers found a way to meter the amount of oil in the ground at a particular site. At this point, they knew it would not be as natural as a waterfall, or the wind. They knew that it would be finite. Now, pricing for the fuel is traded as a commodity, and not as a service. Because of this, the material's price would fluctuate for spillage, labor and extraction equipment.

    That is, in a nutshell, what Gasoline is. And for all of that, Gasoline isn't even that all too reactive. It's been the fuel of choice because for the most part people still view it as "just bubbling out of the ground". But I do not, and I firmly believe that true car enthusiasts regard it as what it is as well. And since we are not wasteful of gasoline, I feel a bit of contempt for those that do. (Soccer moms and the ignorati that continue to waste resources). I mean, Fuel has been my Mana of sorts. But there HAS to be something better than it. In the future we will be travelling through space aboard fantastic vessels, and they simply CAN'T have to run on 105 octane. There has to be something better to power devices.

    And there is. Remember how Gasoline is reactive, but it's not the most reactive substance out there. IT's not even close. But what is ?

    Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most reactive substance not in the US. Not in the Industry. Not in the world. It is the most reactive substance in the known universe ! We are now only scratching the surface at how to harness the power in Hydrogen reactions, and our development has no where to go but up !

    But I got to worring AGAIN. I thought "I miss my power now! I miss having a grumbling monster under the hood, coupled to a spark-throwing evile 6 speed transmission throwing flames and rocketting down the road!" I thought that these days might be over - forever. And I'm talking more than a 1973 "The days of performance are over" kind of thing. I'm talking permanent. Like there is no way of getting it back.

    Future alternative power cars lack power. They lack bravado. They lack character. Quiet, smooth and easy to drive. That's what the trend is moving towards. The days of taking my 300+hp monster across country are over. Soon, it will be just enough that my CRX or Celica is the monster of the roads while people glide miserably along the surfaces in driving appliances.

    But you know, That makes no sense. Hydrogen is better than Gasoline. Any day. Gasoline is now atomized, whereas hydrogen is always atomized. Gasoline is refined over weeks of treating by people who are dying of cancerous fumes and treatments everyday. Hydrogen literally is all around us. Gasoline engines lose so much of their power in Emissions controls, while Hydrogen will NEVER need emission controls. Why too, shouldn't a Hydrogen powered car be a bad-ass, road ripping, police-terrorizing muscle magic carpet ride? Hell, A Hydrogen car should have enough bang under the low-slung hood that we should be LAUGHING at the fact that we EVER drove cars on that watered-down dino juice. Leave the oil for the plastics and textile industry - I want Hydrogen!

    In 1972, when Japanese cars started making their way to shore, and 1978 when they were in full blast - People never imagined getting power out of a 4 banger. Now look at us, we are commonly driving 240+ hp 4 cylinders that are getting 3 times the amount of mileage than other cars back then... And that, even after we sat on our hands for 25 years ! (In other words, performance 4 cylinders didn't even get CONSIDERED until 25 years after we started getting them)

    Now, with a gas crisis on our door step, and middle-east Oil cartels pulling that evil I'll-get-you-Powers shit on us, we WON'T sit on our hands for 25 years. We will get to work on better and more simply AWESOME cars than ever before. And within a few years, we will be free of the oil tycoons and a new world of speed, power, and cheap motoring will be at our fingertips. And it's not the Brits that are leading the way. It's not the French, the Japanese or even the Germans.

    It's our American sense of "Fuck you, you will NEVER get us by the nuts again" that will see our way to a bright future in an automotive culture. Hydrogen in both cells and direct burn (Watch Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda for his special on this), as well as Natural gas, electric and solar / nuclear central stations will take our cars from 5, or in the case of the Formula, 22 cents per mile to .. well.. almost free !

    Presidents. Soon it's election time, and I'm not going to even ATTEMPT to tell who is right or wrong. And I suggest that after this post, no one should go about on their "bush sucks" or "Kerry sucks" routines. Because even I'm over it. And I'll tell you how I became FREE of political association.

    It's simple. All of these people are assholes. Now, here is my evidence:

    Not even mentioning names. I'm not going to pick out the nuances of Bush nor the shortcomings of Kerry. Lets say the nominees are "Frank" and "Harry". I'm not about to attack the People, I'm about to attack the Parties. Here goes.

    To show no favoritism, I'm going to start with Independent Candidates. These are the most dangerous people in the Presidential running. These are people who are under no constraints to fight for anything. For instance, if "Tom" wants to be president on a no-abortion, pro-gun and pro war platform - And he wins - Tom can simply change his mind when he becomes president. Because you see, he isn't fighting for anyone. He's fighting for his own ideals, and he holds the US economical, military, and technological might at his disposal. An independent candidate is dangerous because he really has no boss. When the house power shifts from Right to Left, he will change his policies and votes to favor whichever party will work. He will have the support of each party depending ONLY upon which bill is in the house, and the opposing team has NO chance of winning a counter-argument. You will find that an independent candidate will switch back and forth between Gay marriages, Gun Control, Family issues, Healthcare - Whatever ballot takes him in the direction of power and success. And independent candidate paves the way for extremist party rule, the likes of which we have seen from NAZI party, Stalinism, and Pol Pot. We are currently seeing this happen in France, where independent leaders have suggested, flat out suggested, kicking races out of the country. They have suggested and pushed for the banning of Religious principles. They have done more to tear down the information and liberty paths of French civilians than anyone could have imagined. And the US is simply too powerful of a machine to be placed into the hands of someone with no accountability.

    Conservatives. Frank wants to run on a conservative ballot. Which is funny, because the "Republican party" was originally formed as a party of people who believed that the US should return to English rule, or at least a system that copied English Rule. Wigs in courts, Heavy Taxation, and a wealth-dominated culture that divided people by class. A Republic.

    But the game has changed, even though the name has not. Now Republicans are Conservatives. They want not change, but a steady moving forth with policy and enforcement. They want, very basically, life to return as it was in the 50s. And This kinda includes McCarthyism. No one "admits" that they want McCarthy back, but they are making it come back in the form of the PATRIOT act. Now, it's beneficial for you turn in neighbors, invoke citizen's arrest and basically follow your "Good Citizen's Handbook" to be a productive member in society. They want the US to remain in Christian values, even though the majority of the population isn't even Christian (Which is exactly what England did to Iraq when they instituted a Sunni Muslim regime over a predominantly Shiite culture, then set them free). They want fuel to be cheap and plentiful. They want people to be open and friendly to their neighbors. They want a peaceful and unified America. Black, White, or otherwise - Frank is pushing for us to be prosperous and safe.

    Democrats, 227ish years ago were formed to create and ensure the survival of a Democracy. A place where everyone could have a chance to prosper. They wanted us to seperate from England, and rule our land with a fair and friendly hand. They wanted Government to be the friend of the people. These were very "Liberal" concepts.

    Today, The name is the same but the mission has also changed. Democrats love pushing new policy. They make new laws that make no sense. They push to ban ban ban until everyone is on equal ground. The more a law resembles religious right, the more it must be changed. They have been struggling to get us away from a world where Religion and Law weren't in the same bed, and in the process have lost touch with what is important. Unifying the people. It's unfortunate that the past Democratic presidents have done nothing but embarass the US in terms of their personal lifestyles, and their foreign policy. But damn, when a Democrat is president - The Economy puts more money in the pockets of the people. And isn't that truly what American lifestyle is based upon ? When Harry becomes president, you can be pretty sure that the US will be completely unarmed, and at the mercy of Enforcement (The same people that pull you over for Tint) and that criminals and psychopaths will continue to roam the streets, waiting for the boys in blue to leave so they can burn your neighborhood down. Until the Boys in Blue go undercover, and arrest you and seize your posessions for lighting up a cigarette. Because the Democrats acheive change in passing laws - Laws that will make Smoking, Driving, and who knows what else - Illegal. And it's only a matter of time before you are not a Citizen, but a criminal.

    A few points that I only pointing out because they are important to me. They may be important to you, but chances are you don't give a shit. Anyway, Here they are.

    Gun Control: This will NEVER be settled. I thought I would vote republican because I happen to love guns, and what Guns have done for societies throughout history. Yet, Conservative or Democrat - Both parties have been COMPLETELY INERT in making the laws sway one way or the other. I've given up. No candidate, Frank nor Harry, will be able to make guns stay, or go away. Gun laws will come in and out like the tides. Presidents since Taft and even Lincoln have attempted to get rid of, or solidify their place. Everyone has failed. Gun Control will never be settled.

    Abortion: Same as gun control. This will never be legalised nor illegalised. Regulation will come and go like the tides.

    Military Policy. One party will dominate the world in an effort to protect US lives. And it has worked. Notice how we haven't been attacked since 9/11? Notice how everyone else has? That's no coincidence. The cost for this is that we are losing rights in our own towns and soil. The Other party will bring back those rights, but the expense will be the risk of terror attacks on US soil. Like a Israeli student touring Pakistan, the US tourist will be a prime cut of red meat to anyone willing to kidnap them. Pick your poison.

    Economy: One will push through healthcare at the cost of taxes. They believe that the fruits of the United States should be enjoyed by all americans. Everyone will share the burden of the few people that choose to not work. Medical care will be cheap and easy to attain - But the hospitals will lose their edge in the scientific frontier due to lack of funding. You never hear of Americans leaving the US to get better healthcare. Soon you will. The other party believes that only through development and research will we continue to make new products and leaps forward in science and markets. This economic reform is slow and painful, and you will see less and less family help (And more homeless and suffering familes) in favor of creating more companies to employ more people. More Skilled people. Like us.

    in Conclusion, to bring this back to the Topic of a Car forum - Here is some sound advice I suggest.

    Weigh out the options for who is going to do what for Car lovers. See who is going to either stave off the OPEC assholes while we make better systems, or who is going to violently end the OPEC testicle-hold on the US while we scramble to a quicker method. One choice leaves the change slow and relatively painless, the other leads to a painful blow to American life, with a quicker resolution.

    I'm interested to see how you folks vote, and I'll clue you in as to who represents what.


    -> Steve
     
  2. GSRCRXsi

    GSRCRXsi Super Moderator Moderator VIP

    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    345
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    MD
    i said slow and easy. because thats how i feel. i think it would be a bad idea to try to change things so drastically and so quickly. i can see chaos comming from that kind of thing. thats my opinion.

    btw, great post steve. long read but not even close to boring.
     
  3. DarkHand

    DarkHand Senior Member VIP

    Messages:
    5,117
    Likes Received:
    241
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL

    "They that would trade essential liberty for a bit of extra security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

    I'll take the risk of danger for liberty any day.
     
  4. Frankie P.

    Frankie P. Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, TX.
    Great post first of all very informative, but now onto my points. Fist of all, I am of a "neutral" party I guess you can say, but I lean more toward Republican points of view. Gas prices right now are out of hand, and one of the ways I can see them coming down in the future are drilling in Alaska, where there is an abundance of oil and would surely cut gas prices by %25. However, Democrats for the most part want the enviorment to be left the way it is, yet they blame Republicans for gas prices being so high. Keep in mind this is for the most part, some Democrats encourage drilling in Alaska.

    As for my view on Gun Control, I have to agree with Steve, because no matter how strict or leaniant your laws are someone will always end up with a gun if they want it bad enough. What I say, is like Chris Rock said during one of his specials on HBO, is we should just make bullets cost like $5000 a piece and there would be less accidently shootings, because at that price people won't miss, it really isn't a bad idea.

    My view on abortion is somewhat different than most persons opinions. I believe that abortion is wrong, it is killing a person no matter how young, I would never agree to it, however, if a woman has gotten pregnant is indecisive on whether to keep it, I won't tell her it is wrong to get an abortion, I will just disagree with it, that is ultimately up to the person, I have no right to say what they do with their lives. There does come a point where I would step in, and that is partial birth abortion. Why carry the baby for that long, and then let it be born then crush the head, that is barbaric. I knew someone that had an abortion and they got it done early, the baby was the size of her finger, if at all do it then.

    The economy fluctuates plain and simple, I believe if it wasn't for 9/11 it wouldn't be as bad as it is now. However, the economy isn't all bad. My parents bought a house about 5 years ago for $200,000 they sold it a year ago for $350,000. They bought their new house a year ago for $450,000. Their neighbors are now selling their house for $750,000 and bought it for the same price my parents did. Granted that they are brand new homes, and near a lake, but still that much profit is crazy. Also, the economy being the way it is might be a good thing, because now is the time to buy stock, when it is at all time lows, and sell when it is at an all time high. It could be better though.

    On a side note, I hate extremist on either end of the spectrum, right or left. But the ACLU is a disgrace, isn't there a point where there can be too much seperation between religion and state? Granted the US believes in Freedom of religion, however if you detract too much from it, don't morals come into play. A great example: A few years ago, I remember so guy put a Cross into a jar filled with Urine, wrong anyway you put it, whether you are religious or not, but the ACLU considered it art and allowed it to be shown in a museum.

    Another example is very recent, where the ACLU is trying to take off some crosses from a Los Angeles city logo. What is wrong with having a cross on city logo, especially when the city means "City of Angels" One other thing is when they tried to change the name of Las Cruces, New Mexico, because it means "The Crosses." You can have your view, but their comes a point when it is just ludacris and you have to find a limit.
     
  5. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    I'm not going to comment on your other political points, but I will say this about Alaska oil-drilling.

    So then it's not Thread Jacking.

    We have been drilling for oil in Alaska since 1969. On Prudhoe bay. Bush's idea to build an expansive, state-of-the-art facility is not in an effort to tap a beautiful scenery filled with exotic animals - Its in an effort to change the dillapidated buildings that are currently in place.

    The Old facility was state of the art at it's time too. The building has no foundation, and every 4 months it's literally moved. They hire kids to work in Prudhoe during the summer, paying $18 an hour to walk around and pick up trash and replant in areas that the buildings were in. It's always been a clean spot, and has 0 history of accidents, spills or deaths.

    The new Facility would automate much of the process, as well it would provide a better place for the seasonal and year-round workers that are quaraned off from the world.

    The legislature from Alaska and Alaska's governor pushed for the bill to be passed. The new facilities will allow use of MORE oil there than before, thus making it compete with world and OPEC sources.

    Right now, Prudhoe is the size of an aircraft hangar. In fact, it IS an aircraft hangar. Steel building. The new facility will be the size of a shopping mall.

    Alaska's oil outputs are performed by about 500 men, scattered along the northern coasts. One oil field in the rest of the world is staffed by around that many people.

    So it may seem that drilling in Alaska is a new idea, but it's not. What is being proposed simply puts it "On the map".

    -> Steve
     
  6. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Also, I didn't wanna start this thread as a forum to air-out your thoughts, or mine, on the political status of the world. I hope I was able to post a few things in an objective way, so to start the wheels of thought going BEFORE November.

    Because this may be the most important election of OUR lives, as car lovers and hobbyists.

    -> Steve

    UPDATE: I have contacted both the Kerry and Bush official websites and requested a white-paper on their official stances.
     
  7. jamesA

    jamesA Well known pissed off telephone guy VIP

    Messages:
    16,117
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Christ... I'll fall asleep if I read all that. Looks like a great post but thats just too much reading all at once.
     
  8. Guy

    Guy Senior Member

    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Location:
    Yuba County


    Artists use art for a number of reasons, whether it be self expression, a political/religious statement, or pure randomness. Just because you (and many others) find something offensive is not justifiable grounds to have it censored. Personally i find the loss of human life celebrated by christians (jesus' death) to be offensive, but that is not grounds for censorship either, nor would i want it to be. The ACLU is really the only organization that sticks up for the rights of the minority. They try to make the government stick by what it says it is going to do, and when they see injustice they do what they can to correct it.
    Also, saying that the seperation of religion will effect the morality of the nation in a negative way is absurd. seperating religion from the state may free more people from christian moral doctrine, but that in no way means that we as a nation will be morally deficient.

    Now to the post

    Hydrogen is a great idea for fuel whether it be through cells or combustion (in japan they are testing a dual fuel /hydrogen/gasoline renesis rotary engine in the rx8). The problem becomes how long it will take to implement it to where it will effect pollution in the united states. We are still a few years away from hydrogen vehicles hitting the mainstream, and having to set up a hydrogen refueling infrastructure is further from our grasp yet. It will take decades for hydrogen cars to filter down to where they be the prodominant vehicles on the road. The only real way for a mass replacement of gasoline interner combustion poweredvehicles would be some sort of program where the government subsidises the costs (the only republicans that would support that measure would be the ones with the auto indutry supporting them, and further only the ones with the support of those who would win the contract). Of course this doesnt even begin to address the biggest automotive polution issues that are going to become more apperant. In countries like china and mexico where the population is expanding at an incredible rate, and standard of living is going up, so too is the desire for cars. Unfortunatly the cars they will be driving are not ever going to be hydrogen (issues of cost, as well as refueling infrastructure prevent it). Pollution that effects the rest of the world will be centered in these areas as there are little to no rules regulating pollution.
    Honestly we have dug oursleves into a hole we are not feesably able to get ourselves out of. We cannot tell these developing to not use gasoline engines, when we have been for so long.
    Im America a feesable solution to work on (while the hydrogen infrastructure is being developed) are hybrid cars. The addition of an electric motor allows for a smaller IC motor, which in turn lessens demand for gasoline as well as decreasing emissions. To address the issue of going fast there have been a number of hybrid concepts that are high horsepowered (the ugly eclipse, i also recall seeing a 400 hp one from honda/acura).
    As to your political arguements, most are based on generalizations and slippery slope arguements, both of which are logical fallacies. All major parties (some moreso than others) have been tainted by business, whose interests are not with the american people, but their short term (relativly) fiscal interests. And of course your arguments about an independant president forget the ability to recall, which is feesable as evidenced by the recent recall of Gov. davis
     
  9. GSRCRXsi

    GSRCRXsi Super Moderator Moderator VIP

    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    345
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    MD
    on hydrogen powered cars....

    while hydrogen power is not new (been used on the space shuttle for a long time) theres key reasons why its just not practical now.

    lack of infrastructure (like guy pointed out). we are missing things like hydrogen refueling stations and all the other things that make driving and maintaining a gasoline engine easy.

    hydrogen is a "dry" fuel. it would dry up any lubricant such as oil. so we would have to come up with a new kind of lubricant.

    also we cannot safely store the hydrogen in a vehicle. get in an accident? boom. we would have to either be able to store it in some sort or matrix (which some have already started toi look at) but then theres the question of efficiency.

    and this is probably one of the only things i disagree with in your post. hydrogen powered cars would in fact still have emissions. granted not much, but there still would be some emissions controls. you have to remember that aprox. 80% of our atmosphere is N2 (nitrogen). so if drawing the air into the engine were the same as how we do it now (just sucking in air from the atmosphere) you would still give off some NOx's and such as a part of the exhaust. the only way they could do it would be to inject pure O2 into the engine and use no outside air. but then that goes back into safety and storage problem too.

    thats all i could thing of for now...
     
  10. Frankie P.

    Frankie P. Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, TX.
    I don't understand how that is art? If I shit on a statue of Buddah and put it in a jar, is that also art? I understand that artist express themselves in different ways, but completely degrading a religion in the name of art is dispicable. It doesn't matter what relgion it is, what if I did the same thing, but put a picture of Richard Simmons in there to show how I feel about Gay rights? It is ok because it is art, as John Stossel would say "GIVE ME A BREAK."

    As for the Hydrogen cars, I honestly don't care what they use, to a certain extent, on how the will find fuel for our cars to run, as long as it doesn't downgrade performance. I couldn't handle going back to the speed of cars in the 1910's, from the speed we are at now. I think that the best idea would be water, could we ever run out of water?
     
  11. GSRCRXsi

    GSRCRXsi Super Moderator Moderator VIP

    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    345
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    MD

    steam engine runs off water.
     
  12. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    What makes the steam ?

    Steam cars are a great solution to get heat energy into kinetic motion. Simply transduce a burner (say, Propane) running at 250 degrees F, flash boil water to feed to pistons. OF course rust is an issue, yadda yadda..

    Not efficient. Not an answer.

    same with Electric cars. Great idea, but the electricity comes from mostly oil or coal. If the world were nuclear, it would be fantastic. But you know that if you double the amount of reactors in the US, you double the chance of major Chernobyl-sized failure. Again, infrastructure issues.

    We HAVE done a fuel change in our lifetime. Fuel went from Leaded to Unleaded, and cars that were setup for Leaded needed modifications to use Unleaded. Leaded motors not only ran ultra-high compressions, but used the lead to fill up poor tolerances in the motor. My firebird, for instance, had to be converted. It's got different heads and sleeves in it. First year "California Package'.

    We can do the "At the pumps" infrastructure change relatively painless. It's the retrofitting of cars, and the cost issue (Not everyone can go out and instantly buy a new car, regardless of the government subsidizing). Retro fit kits are a good way to go. Even to split the fuel use H / Gas.

    Dodge showed off their running-concept of the Charger. It had a RWD V8 powered solely on CNG / Propane. It even had an impressive hp rating. I wonder what happened to that. (?)

    If Dodge, GM or Ford offered new engine kits to convert to alternative fuel, for say, $4000 it would be worth that in the first 2 years of gas prices at an ultra-$2.50 range. At least for us V8 lovers.

    Trucks all over the world are using a propane injection system on their Deisels. It works. Two fuels aren't better than one, but it cuts down on the costly fuel in favor of a less costly one, and improves performance.

    Anyway, I'll pick this up tomorrow. I should have concrete facts by then

    -> STeve
     
  13. TurboMirage

    TurboMirage YEEAAAHHH VIP

    Messages:
    24,577
    Likes Received:
    696
    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Central, MA
    good post steve. i clicked on the middle bullet.
     
  14. Guy

    Guy Senior Member

    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Location:
    Yuba County

    Well, i think you need to ask yourself what art is. Really there is no solid applicable definition. Art is art, and that is really all that can be said. Art to one person may simply be trash to the next, but that is of little consequence to the person who views it as art. What art is about (usually) is self expression, regardless of the medium. If you take a look at the dada movement (meant in part to question art) marcel duchamp (sp) signed a bedpan, hung it up, and it was art. Meret Oppenheim glued animal fur to a tea cup and voila, its art. I cant tell you for sure what the artist intended, but that is the interesting thing about a lot of art, while the artist may have intended a meaning behind piece, that doesnt mean that you have to associate the same things with it. If i were to see a cross submerged in piss perhaps i would think on christianity as a whole and how it is embroiled in money and corruption (represented by urine). If you were to put a picture of whoever you want in a jar of piss, i may think that you have too much time on your hands, or are batshit insane, but i would still defend your right to do that and call it art. Of course that artist could probably justify his position regarding christianity with sound logic, whereas you would have trouble justifying your homophobic position (reasonably).
    Also, to not be willing to submit performance for the health of your envioronment is absolutly absurd. There are things that are more important than going 0-60 in 5.4 in your car. Plus There are plenty of options for zero emissions vehicles (mass transportation) that exceed the speed of conventional performance cars (magnetically powered trains for instance). The all or nothing attitude you are putting off is absolutly detremental to the environment and the health of our progeny.
     
  15. tab

    tab Super Moderator

    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    46
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Location:
    Aberdeen, Washington State
    Great post Steve.

    My thoughts on ANY alternative fuel source. OPEC stands the most to gain from any oil sales. They will do their best to stifle any other source, technology, or related items to fuel which are not initiated by them. They will do what it takes to protect their money, and power over our society. Whichever President you choose, he'll probably get some money from OPEC, and hence not fight OPEC.

    My thoughts on Hydrogen fuel. Nothing is ever gained or lost. This is a basic principle of physics. 2/3 of Earth is water. Hydrogen is a perfect fuel source in that regard. Emissions are another issue. NOX may be an issue, but would probably be solved easier than the emissions of a dinosaur fuel. As for storage and safety. There are many fleet trucks using propane right now on the road. I'm sure there is a way to store Hydrogen safely. If not, then electrolysis on the move could be accomplished to seperate Hydrogen from oxygen. I'll leave that to a real genius.

    Fuel will go where the money goes. Money can make people evil. If I handed Steve the perfect formula to create a patented no problem Hydrogen system, someone would kill Steve. It's that simple. It's not right, and none of us would do it(of course), but like Steve stated in the beginning, KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. You can and will be killed for the right information.

    I'd rather be doopid than dead. Ignorance is bliss. I don't know which way to vote. I say dump millions in the Hydrogen idea, and fuck OPEC. They can just be happy producing the lubricants for our new engines, and their asses.
     
  16. Frankie P.

    Frankie P. Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, TX.
    Guy you are too liberal for me plain and simple, morals will always come into play, and it seems to me that the left side doesn't have very high morals, but what can I do. Speaking of morals do you agree that Gay's should have the right to marry? I know I feel the same way I do about abortion, they can if they want but I don't condone it. However, when they start adopting children with two mothers/fathers is that nature's way? Don't bring up Seahorse either, because the male gives birth, he still fucked the bitch to get her pregnant. They should not allow a gay couple to adopt/have children by articficial issemination.(SP?) It is against nature itself also the trauma for that kid alone when she/he gets older will be a true test. Also the ACLU/NAACP defending minorities is just dumb. Maybe the reason minorities can't get wealthier or better jobs is the person themselves. There are plenty of white people with the same problem, and they don't have anybody defending them. Minorities may have harder surrondings, but it comes down to the person more than the enviornment of someone having a successful life, they have been more than enough minorities to do it.

    Anyway, sorry to get off track, but any solution they find to have my car be just as fast they can use whatever fuel they want really.
     
  17. tab

    tab Super Moderator

    Messages:
    3,839
    Likes Received:
    46
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Location:
    Aberdeen, Washington State

    I'm liberal, totally, but negotiable. My morals are high, and strong, but not relevant to my fellow humankind. Gays should have every right that we have. A faggot(ooh that's bad) may be a shitty father figure, but damn, how many priests have fucked young boys. "Oh, did I say that out loud?"
    Abortion, yet again, I am liberal. I do not believe that I would chose for my spawn to be terminated, and yet, I am glad that it is a right to kill a two celled organism. Third trimester bullshit aside, duh. I know what a baby is, and what a blob is. Early is KEY with me. Adoption, mint. I can't think of a great view on this. There are so many needy children, that go without. I had, at least something, to speak of. If I were a child without a parent, what would I want. Would I want no father at all, or two fathers that cared very much for me, with liberal gay views? If I were needy, I'd chose the gay's. I do not condone gay views, but I do condone life with the liberty of happiness. Seahorse, blah. Artificial insemination? OK. I agree with you on this. There are so many needy children. Two men CANNOT make a child. Making an artificially inseminated child is useless.

    I agree to disagree. This is less an argument, than a limited point of view from another's shoes. I will not try to relive your life, in order to learn your views. I do respect everyone else's views in their entirety. :nod:
     
  18. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    John Kerry's Direct environmental speech at the Univeristy of New Hampshire

    John's somewhat vague speech on energy
    A speech that his party sent me


    At this time, I have yet to recieve anything from the Bush party.

    Also, I know from the Jay Leno appearance that Kerry rides a bike. And it's good to have someone in power that knows how evil motorists can be, and the benefits from riding a motorcycle. Yet, I haven't found any specifics about his plans for motorcycling. I suppose he isn't obligated.

    Thanks for the poll guys, And to the intelligent rhetoric that everyone has come forth with . Thanks to Guy for an input that we rarely hear from him, Tab, FrankieP, and GSRCRXsi.

    My final thoughts on this, and of course not the last you'll hear from me, is that alternative fuels should be embraced for the potential of not only making a cleaner car, and not only one free from Muslim and Middle-East run OPEC members, but the possibility and certain future that Alternative fuels will actually produce faster, more exciting cars than we have today. To the thought that I may be able to develop and use a Hydrogen retro-fit on my 1973 Firebird that will still produce eye-popping power and the looks that I've come to love.

    And not just in November, but NOW. Write to these guys. Their websites are fast and they do write back. Ask them everything. Ask Kerry about his entwinement with the Heinz family. Ask Bush about his roles in WorldCom, Enron etc. Ask them questions and demand results because this time is not just a matter of who will look best in the Oval Office.

    This upcoming election will change our lives forever. We are on the precipice of change, and to make your decision without fully recognizing who you are voting for is going to affect you greatly. More than ever before.

    -> Steve
     
  19. Celerity

    Celerity Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,969
    Likes Received:
    146
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Oh yeah, Also.. What I promised. Since I suppose everyone has had a chance to peruse this topic, Here are the results:

    Taking it slow and making change happen in a painless way: Conservative. This is what Bush wants to do.

    Taking it quickly, and making it hurt, to get it done quicker is the Democratic and Liberal take on things.

    And if you voted otherwise, I don't do meth. This original post took me about 30 minutes to compose, and I'm a bit hyper anyway.

    -> Steve
     
  20. Frankie P.

    Frankie P. Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, TX.


    I saw an immmediate problem with this quote from Kerry. Why does he vote for better cleansing of the enviorment, yet still would like to drill in Alaska for oil so we can be less dependent on middle eastern oil? I like his point of view on his being more independent with our oil supply from other countries, but he still flip flops on views. I just don't see myself voting for someone who can't make up his mind, I will always vote for the one that may make bad decisions sometimes, but at least he sticks with what he believes in, and I respect George W. Bush because of it. Another reason that I have very little respect for John Kerry, is IMO, he is hoping to win this election strictly bashing Bush.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page