Electric cars are a pipe dream
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Then maybe you should refrain from writing things like:
"As people flee the suburbs because they can't afford it, who's going to buy those homes ? What's going to happen to the value of those homes ? What's going to happen to the Home Depots and suburban malls, restaurants and grocery stores ? ”
Because that's exactly what that sounds like.
And as the EIA report shows we are NOT keeping the costs to the consumer low as the Federal Subsidy to all fuels is trivial.
Untrue,
It is changing, the population of the world is growing and China is rapidly industrializing and their population's demand for gasoline will drive the price of gasoline up over this decade to roughly twice what is is today.
Arthur
If gas rose to 6 dollars a gallon even those than can afford it would be giving up something,no matter how small.When you figure a bunch of those small givings up add up to something much bigger this would then affect others.I can only conclude jobs would be lost due to a doubling of gas prices.How many is anyone's guess,I don't think we can know this.Since increased gas prices directly affect enormous amounts of material & food goods,I cannot see how it wouldn't be bad for millions of people.
adoucette,
Or you could have just answered the questions.
But then you would realize the impact eh ?
I do see how the questions would lead you to believe that I was doom and gloom. So fair enough, point taken.
However, I was speaking from a realistic standpoint that there will be negative effects, it's not the end of the world but as we agree, the transitional pain will be determined by the increase and the rate of the increase. The longer time between say 3 and 5 a gallon and so on the better.
We just won't agree on this. You have yet to explain to me how all of the other expenditures to secure the flow of oil and gas to the US is not a cost passed on to the consumer. IOW everything that is not generated solely by the oil industry needs to be in the equation.
It's the same reason many of our foods are so cheap. The real cost is not in the equation.
Good point. External issue's that they can not control will effect things. However, I expect them to do everything in their power to make us pay more directly and indirectly to keep the cost at the pump down in the US.
Both from who will profit to those who want to get elected.
Which means more debt.
In the end even that may not be enough and higher prices will drive the change.
We are simply at this point disagreeing over terms. I am using subsidy to desribe both direct and indirect cost to the consumer to secure the flow, costs that are not soley being covered by the industry. This is the true cost to the consumer.
Otherwise it's just a shell game.
Or you could have just answered the questions.
But then you would realize the impact eh ?
I do see how the questions would lead you to believe that I was doom and gloom. So fair enough, point taken.
However, I was speaking from a realistic standpoint that there will be negative effects, it's not the end of the world but as we agree, the transitional pain will be determined by the increase and the rate of the increase. The longer time between say 3 and 5 a gallon and so on the better.
We just won't agree on this. You have yet to explain to me how all of the other expenditures to secure the flow of oil and gas to the US is not a cost passed on to the consumer. IOW everything that is not generated solely by the oil industry needs to be in the equation.
It's the same reason many of our foods are so cheap. The real cost is not in the equation.
Good point. External issue's that they can not control will effect things. However, I expect them to do everything in their power to make us pay more directly and indirectly to keep the cost at the pump down in the US.
Both from who will profit to those who want to get elected.
Which means more debt.
In the end even that may not be enough and higher prices will drive the change.
We are simply at this point disagreeing over terms. I am using subsidy to desribe both direct and indirect cost to the consumer to secure the flow, costs that are not soley being covered by the industry. This is the true cost to the consumer.
Otherwise it's just a shell game.
Here is a link from the Heritage Foundation that explains in some detail.
http://pdfcast.org/pdf/how-rising-gas-prices-hurt-american-households
If the words are blurry, click on the page and then you can zoom in at the top.
Because you are wrong.
Our oil comes mainly from our own production followed by Canada, Mexico and then Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, so NO, we don't rely on Iraq (and never have) for that much of our oil, so while we have reasons for having a large military presence in the world and preventing assholes like Saddam from screwing it up, the Iraq war wasn't about oil.
Oh, and our food subidies aren't that big either, our food costs pretty much what it costs. The TOTAL agricultural subsidy amounts to about $5 per person per month in the US (but a lot of that goes to corn used for Biofuel, and for cotton, wool and tobacco), so the actual impact on a family of four's monthly food budget is at most about $12 or so dollars, in other words, insignificant.
Arthur
You know, the problem with the Wright brothers trying to build a powered aeroplane was not that engines weren't available. It was that the engines available at the time were too heavy.
Then they built one that wasn't.
Then they built one that wasn't.
Not true. The reason they could not fly (nor could the replica on the 100 year anniversary even with modern fuel in their engine) was that the HP to weight ratio of that engine was too small. I think they modified a purchased engine and did not built it, but may be wrong about that. The first US engine that had a HP to weight ratio that permitted flight* was made by Curtis, who was a motorcycle nut / enthusiast.
Only three people claim to have seen the Wright brother’s plane leave the downhill rails when a gust of wind lifted it off.
The Wright brothers and Curtis formed a company and using Curtis's motor and then did win some contracts from US government, but Curtis and the Brothers did not get along well together so soon the company was dissolved.
------
* “Flight" being defined as taking off under plane's own power (without tow rope or catapult) from level field and climbing into the air with controlled forward motion. The Wright brothers used both downhill rails and a catapult to get started.
A man from New Zeeland first did this, flying more than a km and over some small hills, until his fuel was exhausted (or motor over heated, I forget which) but he is very little known. (I forget his name.) Most of the world, other than the US, recognizes Santos Dumont, a Brazilian, as the first to fly because he did take off from a level field near Paris with many hundreds of people watching. The New Zeeland guy was very shy, avoided people, etc. and few even in NZ knew at the time what he had done!
Last edited by a moderator:
In other words, it is true, you're just nitpicking with semantics.
And his name was Richard Pearce. Of course we know about it here, but this is an american board and sometimes we must spoeak to the wider "knowledge".
The point stands no matter how much you try to tear it down. It couldn't be done... and then they did it. Get it?
And his name was Richard Pearce. Of course we know about it here, but this is an american board and sometimes we must spoeak to the wider "knowledge".
The point stands no matter how much you try to tear it down. It couldn't be done... and then they did it. Get it?
Call it "nitpicking" if you like but many had flown before the Wrights if using catapults, as the Wrights initially did, and /or towed kite-like "airplanes" can be included. For example in 1900:
Also note that they needed sand to land in as they left their rail skids behind and had no weight margin for wheels.
BTW, I am not sure but think sciforums is owned and based in Australia.
Thanks for the name. Yes, New Zeeland's Richard Pearce was clearly the first man to fly.
I am not tearing it down - only stating that as flight is defined in prior post, the Wright brothers were the third to fly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nonsense. The Wright Brothers not only machined and totally made their own engine, they were the first to make one out of aluminum.
For the record, the Wright Brothers are credited with the first controlled flight. Many people flew before them. Especially in balloons.
As for the heavier than air flights, most of them died or were injured. But this is pretty far off topic, wouldn't you say? Start a Wright Brothers topic, that should be good for some lulz
For the record, the Wright Brothers are credited with the first controlled flight. Many people flew before them. Especially in balloons.
As for the heavier than air flights, most of them died or were injured. But this is pretty far off topic, wouldn't you say? Start a Wright Brothers topic, that should be good for some lulz
Not according to Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse
Go ahead and edit it if you want but better show up with some evidence, or try editing this and see what happens:
The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871 – January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867 – May 30, 1912), were two Americans who are generally credited[1][2][3] with inventing and building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight, on December 17, 1903.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
Arthur
I am going to have to chalk that up to "uniformed" then. It is good to know that at least someone believed the propaganda.
As I predicted, you could not provide anything to substantiate your BS claim.
Arthur
No need to edit because this is what Wiki states:
“…According to witness statements given many years afterward, Pearse flew and landed a powered heavier-than-air machine on 31 March 1903,[1]
some nine months before the Wright brothers flew their aircraft. …
List of witnessed flights:
31 March 1903 - First powered flight. Estimated distance around 350 yards in a straight line, barely controlled.
March ? 1903 - A distance of only about 150 yards.
2 May 1903 - Distance unknown: the aircraft ended up in a gorse hedge 15 ft (4.6 m) off the ground.
11 May 1903 - Pearse took off along the side of the Opihi River, turned left to fly over the 30' tall river-bank, then turned right to fly parallel to the middle of the river. After flying nearly 1,000 yards, his engine began to overheat and lost power, thus forcing a landing in the almost dry riverbed. …”
Santo Dumont was an exceptionally skilled pilot having flown lighter-than-air, motor-powered, aircraft for years, including flying around the Eiffel tower and giving the king of Morocco a "joyride" after he paid for large hanger for powered, cigar-shaped, blimps in France. His canard design /steering is inherently unstable and it took skill to fly it. At least one, I think two, of the three replicas build and flown for the 100 year celebration in Brazil went unstable and crashed. Pearse was not as skilled and often crashed until he learned how to fly, the hard way.
F-X What does this have to do with electric cars? Answer: Only example of earlier efforts to introduce new transportation systems.
Last edited by a moderator:
Except Pearse's work remained poorly documented at the time and no contemporary newspaper record exists of his feats.
So, long AFTER the fact, THEN people made this claim, but there is no actual proof that any of this ocurred.
Not to mention that there is no way this primitive contraption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pearse_aeroplane_replica,_South_Canterbury_Museum-2.jpg
accomplished what was credited to it.
Compare that piece of garbage (no airfoil, TINY wings (huge drag with those big exposed spars), Barely functional propeller, no lateral stability, trike gear)
To this fairly remarkable aircraft
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/FlightGear_-_1903_Wright_Flyer.jpg
with two large airfoiled propellors, lots of wing area, and a sophisticated three axis control system and a design which provides stable flight on all three axis.
The Wrights get the credit because their claim is credible, they took pictures and got them published and then later demonstrated the plane far in advance to what anyone else could do (hop and crash)
Arthur
So, long AFTER the fact, THEN people made this claim, but there is no actual proof that any of this ocurred.
Not to mention that there is no way this primitive contraption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pearse_aeroplane_replica,_South_Canterbury_Museum-2.jpg
accomplished what was credited to it.
Compare that piece of garbage (no airfoil, TINY wings (huge drag with those big exposed spars), Barely functional propeller, no lateral stability, trike gear)
To this fairly remarkable aircraft
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/FlightGear_-_1903_Wright_Flyer.jpg
with two large airfoiled propellors, lots of wing area, and a sophisticated three axis control system and a design which provides stable flight on all three axis.
The Wrights get the credit because their claim is credible, they took pictures and got them published and then later demonstrated the plane far in advance to what anyone else could do (hop and crash)
Arthur
Last edited: