The "8th" something else.

Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The "8th" something else.

A friends car stopped motivating about 2 months ago. I got the call---hooked up the heavy hauler flat bed, went and loaded it up, took it to the repair floks--and ---and--- then today it's the 8th time it's "something else" with the computor codes. What da hell???????  I was a teeener back in the 50s---lets get back to the god damn 50s---how about a ford model A and have done with it. jeeziz H krist. All we have today is high class junk. Now it just may be ---the inertia sensor---maybe-----it's try one or junk the friggin vehicle.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 All that "junk" in new

 All that "junk" in new cars is designed to make them more efficient. I will only agree that the complexity of new cars makes it harder for laypeople to fix them.

Most cars within the past 10 or 15 years depending, have diognostic plugs under the dash that you can plug a hand held computer to that will tell you what the problem is. It cant fix a transmision, but it can tell you if you have a filter you need to replace and or low battery or loose belt. It is good for knowing the problem before hand so you can do a price check on the part so you don't get ripped off. Some Auto places will allow you to use it in the parking lot if you give them your ID, or you can buy one.

But I get it, you have to be a neurosurgeon to work on new cars. My van has the damned fuse box sitting above the battery, takes forever to undo it to remove the battery. I don't fuck with it, but I have watched the guy take it apart to get to the batttery. 

I had a 1970 Dodge dart when I was in my early 20s. All you had back then was the air filter, break clynder and a boat load of room to get to the other parts.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
When I was a younger our

When I was a younger our neighbor was an old timer car mechanic. He would fix any thing from A-Z and knew pretty much every thing about cars. He was amazing. When they started to put electronics in the cars he realized the issues coming around the bend. He kept up with the car repairs, helpig neighbors and so forth, but once in a while he would tell the person "I can't help you. You'll need to take it to the dealer" because he never purchased a device to read codes.

The one thing I remember him doing was using this solid rod to place on the block while it was running. He'd place it on his ear and listen. He could tell pretty much any thing from just listening.

Which reminds me of the old timer vet we used to take our dogs and cats to many years ago. He never used xrays unless he needed to and would often just use his fingers to feel the insides.

Those days are gone. Today taking your pet to the vet requires a bunch of specialists and tests costing more than it does to buy a new dog.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
RE: 2 previous posts.

No intent to be negative Brian--- I understand the quest for efficiency--but as it sits (in my opinion) we've squeezed about all we're going to get out of a drop of gasoline, and to try to go any further it would take going against the laws of thermodynamics. And that was 15 to 20 years ago already.

Whilst camped at Quartzsite Az this last winter a couple traded their 3/4 ton truck for a newer one, and it has ---------steer by wire---no steering column. OK, fine- but not knowing the saftey measues built in I wonder what happens when the electric power quits. All this fan-danglery isn't all baout efficency. I think we've become overly facinated with what we can do with bits-n-bites. I say it's gone beyond reasonable reasonability. I cannot find anything wrong or adverse about a regular steering mechanisim that we've always had. If the power steering went out---we could stillstop the vehicle because the systems were redundant.

Case in  point. Hummin and bummin, wheeelin and mobilin down Interstate 40 2 years ago--whaaaa, what da. Fizzz whirrr bang thump. The bearing on an idler jammed up and turned the idler off the block braket and I lost belt power to the works---NO BRAKES. The truck I have now has brake assist ---but it runs off the power steering pump. Bad deal. I got no brakes because the belt also runs the power steering,. and the system was not redundant because I could not stop the truck with 5 motor cycles in the trailer at 2 tons total--and the trailer itself is 3600 LBs. OK. Previously brake assist was done by a vacuum system and one could still use the brakes without. I can see no feasble reason to opt out of the old system for the new as the old always worked. The same with the power steering, and it took all I had to get it steered to the side of the road. Now then--- Had it not happened I would have turnt off I 40 at Elbowturkey NM onto I-25 N going through Denver. What would the result have been if this would have happened on I-25 through Denver. I and others would not be here today. What worked was replaced with what worked untill it broke, and then what would still work after it broke was replaced with what wouldn't work after it broke.

Conclusion--I can't see anything wrong with my 49 Chebby, 49 Ford, my 57 Ford, my 61 Thunderbird, my 60 Chebby w/ full race engine 348, 4 on the floor w/ three deuce carburators (which means there was something wrong with me) I say it's better to keep what worked. I always had confidence the vehicles I had would get me from here to there---and with todays---I don't.

A problem with computors in vehicles today is---- My friends car lets out with a whole litany of codes and all he can do is fix the one that most likely will get it running because he can't fix it all at one time. The problem isn't the car---it's the dad-blamed computor that shuts stuff off that don't need to be fixed and didn'thave to before either. What da heck do we need with a crank shaft sensor, or a cam sensor. If the engine is running I don't need to worry about the crankshaft because it is obviously working--and the 1 millionth of 1000th of an inch wear don't mean beans when it comes to getting to work.

Overkill and get killed. The Veit Nam  F-4 phantom fighter pilots were over whelmed with info from all the junk beeping, blabbing/ buzzing nonsense put into their aircraft. Talking with a VN pilot at the VA a while back was telling me one time he got so frustrated with trying to shoot down NVA Charlie---bbbbbbeeep. pulluppullup. blink blink flash flash target aquired target in sigts beeep beeeep burrrrr burrrr waaaank blup--he told his weapons officer to shut everything off so I can shoot the SOB down.

It looks to me that this is what we're running into with vehicles too.

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 If you want an older car,

 If you want an older car, buy one. There are plenty floating around.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
My thoughts exactly.

But, how much moola to fix it up and get it running. I had a chance to haul a rebuilt 60s mustang not long ago----worth 100,000 bucks. I hauled a 1930 model A roadster last year from Weldon CA to Chippewa Falls WI. Complete and a home garage storage, (original owner)still runable and minimum rebuild--price as is 11,000.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Well--Duh

I got tolooking up online to see what all the codes were about. But that's not what I found interesting. I got to the part that espains what all the sensor do and are for. This is a classic case of bitching without looking. Being a physicist you'd a thought I would know better. But--be a physicist I can easily understdn what's going on and why. I have to admit I've never dealt with this auto stuff of today very much.

So, now that I've taken the time to find out how dumb I've been I can see that this stuff is really very simple. As amatter of fact--I think my friends car does have an inertia sensor problem. The sudden malfunction seems to happen mostly when the brakes are applied. It's a PT cruiser, and it has an inertia sensor on the passenger side that can be uncovered by lifting up the carpet and resetting by pushing the red button. Hmmmm. Or being that it happens the sensor is out of whack. Well. ya know, crow doesn't really taste that bad. Try it sometime--kinda gummy but hey, that's life. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:But, how much

Old Seer wrote:

But, how much moola to fix it up and get it running. I had a chance to haul a rebuilt 60s mustang not long ago----worth 100,000 bucks. I hauled a 1930 model A roadster last year from Weldon CA to Chippewa Falls WI. Complete and a home garage storage, (original owner)still runable and minimum rebuild--price as is 11,000.

Well yeah, if you get a "classic" that is sought by collectors, but for every classic there are a dozen models that aren't popular and can be bought for a little bit of nothing. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I got

Old Seer wrote:

I got tolooking up online to see what all the codes were about. But that's not what I found interesting. I got to the part that espains what all the sensor do and are for. This is a classic case of bitching without looking. Being a physicist you'd a thought I would know better. But--be a physicist I can easily understdn what's going on and why. I have to admit I've never dealt with this auto stuff of today very much.

So, now that I've taken the time to find out how dumb I've been I can see that this stuff is really very simple. As amatter of fact--I think my friends car does have an inertia sensor problem. The sudden malfunction seems to happen mostly when the brakes are applied. It's a PT cruiser, and it has an inertia sensor on the passenger side that can be uncovered by lifting up the carpet and resetting by pushing the red button. Hmmmm. Or being that it happens the sensor is out of whack. Well. ya know, crow doesn't really taste that bad. Try it sometime--kinda gummy but hey, that's life. Smiling

DON'T PUSH THE LITTLE RED BUTTON!!!! Don't you watch movies?!

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:No intent to

Old Seer wrote:

No intent to be negative Brian--- I understand the quest for efficiency--but as it sits (in my opinion) we've squeezed about all we're going to get out of a drop of gasoline, and to try to go any further it would take going against the laws of thermodynamics. And that was 15 to 20 years ago already.

Whilst camped at Quartzsite Az this last winter a couple traded their 3/4 ton truck for a newer one, and it has ---------steer by wire---no steering column. OK, fine- but not knowing the saftey measues built in I wonder what happens when the electric power quits. All this fan-danglery isn't all baout efficency. I think we've become overly facinated with what we can do with bits-n-bites. I say it's gone beyond reasonable reasonability. I cannot find anything wrong or adverse about a regular steering mechanisim that we've always had. If the power steering went out---we could stillstop the vehicle because the systems were redundant.

Case in  point. Hummin and bummin, wheeelin and mobilin down Interstate 40 2 years ago--whaaaa, what da. Fizzz whirrr bang thump. The bearing on an idler jammed up and turned the idler off the block braket and I lost belt power to the works---NO BRAKES. The truck I have now has brake assist ---but it runs off the power steering pump. Bad deal. I got no brakes because the belt also runs the power steering,. and the system was not redundant because I could not stop the truck with 5 motor cycles in the trailer at 2 tons total--and the trailer itself is 3600 LBs. OK. Previously brake assist was done by a vacuum system and one could still use the brakes without. I can see no feasble reason to opt out of the old system for the new as the old always worked. The same with the power steering, and it took all I had to get it steered to the side of the road. Now then--- Had it not happened I would have turnt off I 40 at Elbowturkey NM onto I-25 N going through Denver. What would the result have been if this would have happened on I-25 through Denver. I and others would not be here today. What worked was replaced with what worked untill it broke, and then what would still work after it broke was replaced with what wouldn't work after it broke.

Conclusion--I can't see anything wrong with my 49 Chebby, 49 Ford, my 57 Ford, my 61 Thunderbird, my 60 Chebby w/ full race engine 348, 4 on the floor w/ three deuce carburators (which means there was something wrong with me) I say it's better to keep what worked. I always had confidence the vehicles I had would get me from here to there---and with todays---I don't.

A problem with computors in vehicles today is---- My friends car lets out with a whole litany of codes and all he can do is fix the one that most likely will get it running because he can't fix it all at one time. The problem isn't the car---it's the dad-blamed computor that shuts stuff off that don't need to be fixed and didn'thave to before either. What da heck do we need with a crank shaft sensor, or a cam sensor. If the engine is running I don't need to worry about the crankshaft because it is obviously working--and the 1 millionth of 1000th of an inch wear don't mean beans when it comes to getting to work.

Overkill and get killed. The Veit Nam  F-4 phantom fighter pilots were over whelmed with info from all the junk beeping, blabbing/ buzzing nonsense put into their aircraft. Talking with a VN pilot at the VA a while back was telling me one time he got so frustrated with trying to shoot down NVA Charlie---bbbbbbeeep. pulluppullup. blink blink flash flash target aquired target in sigts beeep beeeep burrrrr burrrr waaaank blup--he told his weapons officer to shut everything off so I can shoot the SOB down.

It looks to me that this is what we're running into with vehicles too.

 

 

None taken. We need to get off burning fossil fuels anyway. Burning gas is like using a rotary phone in an age of cell phones. I do also think part of design is also to get you hooked on going to the dealer, much like softwear competetors conflict if you install them on the same computer. 

I also dont like distractive technology like computer screens instead of your dash controls for your ac or music or phone. GPS CRAP on your dash.  Studies show that anything that takes your eyes off the road, even mere talking on a hands free phone can be a distraction.

The best thing anyone can do while driving is pay attention to what is in front of you and keep your hands on the wheel.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Brian is a chronic speeder

^ Brian is a chronic speeder who often runs out of gas.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I see that

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

No intent to be negative Brian--- I understand the quest for efficiency--but as it sits (in my opinion) we've squeezed about all we're going to get out of a drop of gasoline, and to try to go any further it would take going against the laws of thermodynamics. And that was 15 to 20 years ago already.

Whilst camped at Quartzsite Az this last winter a couple traded their 3/4 ton truck for a newer one, and it has ---------steer by wire---no steering column. OK, fine- but not knowing the saftey measues built in I wonder what happens when the electric power quits. All this fan-danglery isn't all baout efficency. I think we've become overly facinated with what we can do with bits-n-bites. I say it's gone beyond reasonable reasonability. I cannot find anything wrong or adverse about a regular steering mechanisim that we've always had. If the power steering went out---we could stillstop the vehicle because the systems were redundant.

Case in  point. Hummin and bummin, wheeelin and mobilin down Interstate 40 2 years ago--whaaaa, what da. Fizzz whirrr bang thump. The bearing on an idler jammed up and turned the idler off the block braket and I lost belt power to the works---NO BRAKES. The truck I have now has brake assist ---but it runs off the power steering pump. Bad deal. I got no brakes because the belt also runs the power steering,. and the system was not redundant because I could not stop the truck with 5 motor cycles in the trailer at 2 tons total--and the trailer itself is 3600 LBs. OK. Previously brake assist was done by a vacuum system and one could still use the brakes without. I can see no feasble reason to opt out of the old system for the new as the old always worked. The same with the power steering, and it took all I had to get it steered to the side of the road. Now then--- Had it not happened I would have turnt off I 40 at Elbowturkey NM onto I-25 N going through Denver. What would the result have been if this would have happened on I-25 through Denver. I and others would not be here today. What worked was replaced with what worked untill it broke, and then what would still work after it broke was replaced with what wouldn't work after it broke.

Conclusion--I can't see anything wrong with my 49 Chebby, 49 Ford, my 57 Ford, my 61 Thunderbird, my 60 Chebby w/ full race engine 348, 4 on the floor w/ three deuce carburators (which means there was something wrong with me) I say it's better to keep what worked. I always had confidence the vehicles I had would get me from here to there---and with todays---I don't.

A problem with computors in vehicles today is---- My friends car lets out with a whole litany of codes and all he can do is fix the one that most likely will get it running because he can't fix it all at one time. The problem isn't the car---it's the dad-blamed computor that shuts stuff off that don't need to be fixed and didn'thave to before either. What da heck do we need with a crank shaft sensor, or a cam sensor. If the engine is running I don't need to worry about the crankshaft because it is obviously working--and the 1 millionth of 1000th of an inch wear don't mean beans when it comes to getting to work.

Overkill and get killed. The Veit Nam  F-4 phantom fighter pilots were over whelmed with info from all the junk beeping, blabbing/ buzzing nonsense put into their aircraft. Talking with a VN pilot at the VA a while back was telling me one time he got so frustrated with trying to shoot down NVA Charlie---bbbbbbeeep. pulluppullup. blink blink flash flash target aquired target in sigts beeep beeeep burrrrr burrrr waaaank blup--he told his weapons officer to shut everything off so I can shoot the SOB down.

It looks to me that this is what we're running into with vehicles too.

 

 

None taken. We need to get off burning fossil fuels anyway. Burning gas is like using a rotary phone in an age of cell phones. I do also think part of design is also to get you hooked on going to the dealer, much like softwear competetors conflict if you install them on the same computer. 

I also dont like distractive technology like computer screens instead of your dash controls for your ac or music or phone. GPS CRAP on your dash.  Studies show that anything that takes your eyes off the road, even mere talking on a hands free phone can be a distraction.

The best thing anyone can do while driving is pay attention to what is in front of you and keep your hands on the wheel.

Getting off petroleum is going to be quite a feat. I think to get off gasolene is going to take some (or quite a bit) of doing. I really don't want to say this but---it looks like we'll all have to give up private/personal transportation. I can't see where electric is going to make it. As I see it--the world is expecting to develop some type of magic battery, which is impossible. The simple 1955 physics formula---what's weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold comes into effect. Batteries depend uopn the amount of electrolyte used. Electric will be OK for the commute to work but not for a semi and trailer for long haul. Hydrogen fuel cells will need electricity to make the hydrogen---so that's out. It looks to me like the "slot car" idea, which of course is public transportation in ones own buggy. It's going to be a tuffy.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:   Getting

Old Seer wrote:

 

Getting off petroleum is going to be quite a feat. I think to get off gasolene is going to take some (or quite a bit) of doing. I really don't want to say this but---it looks like we'll all have to give up private/personal transportation. I can't see where electric is going to make it. As I see it--the world is expecting to develop some type of magic battery, which is impossible. The simple 1955 physics formula---what's weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold comes into effect. Batteries depend uopn the amount of electrolyte used. Electric will be OK for the commute to work but not for a semi and trailer for long haul. Hydrogen fuel cells will need electricity to make the hydrogen---so that's out. It looks to me like the "slot car" idea, which of course is public transportation in ones own buggy. It's going to be a tuffy.

Can't think outside the box? New battery production technology is already being worked on which will make batteries cheaper than gas. The problem isn't with out much charge they hold or the size, it is can the industry make batteries faster, cheaper and more efficiently. At one time gasoline was only for the rich. All the poor people had horses and carts. They burned coal. They didn't have phones or electricity. When those industries made things cheaper, more efficiently, more common people had the same products which previously only the wealthy owned.

Along with this, new batteries are becoming more efficient with their charge and new technology is coming where cars act more like a generator. Every aspect of a car from the body, to the tires will be used to make energy. I have no doubt in the next 40 years there will be an electric car which can travel from coast to coast with out having to stop for a charge.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I understand-

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

 

Getting off petroleum is going to be quite a feat. I think to get off gasolene is going to take some (or quite a bit) of doing. I really don't want to say this but---it looks like we'll all have to give up private/personal transportation. I can't see where electric is going to make it. As I see it--the world is expecting to develop some type of magic battery, which is impossible. The simple 1955 physics formula---what's weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold comes into effect. Batteries depend uopn the amount of electrolyte used. Electric will be OK for the commute to work but not for a semi and trailer for long haul. Hydrogen fuel cells will need electricity to make the hydrogen---so that's out. It looks to me like the "slot car" idea, which of course is public transportation in ones own buggy. It's going to be a tuffy.

Can't think outside the box? New battery production technology is already being worked on which will make batteries cheaper than gas. The problem isn't with out much charge they hold or the size, it is can the industry make batteries faster, cheaper and more efficiently. At one time gasoline was only for the rich. All the poor people had horses and carts. They burned coal. They didn't have phones or electricity. When those industries made things cheaper, more efficiently, more common people had the same products which previously only the wealthy owned.

Along with this, new batteries are becoming more efficient with their charge and new technology is coming where cars act more like a generator. Every aspect of a car from the body, to the tires will be used to make energy. I have no doubt in the next 40 years there will be an electric car which can travel from coast to coast with out having to stop for a charge.

I can think outside the box. I've been dealing with this for years and have encountered these problems years ago already. (No, not to brag) From 1989 to 2003 I produced my own electric power from boilers and steam engines that I built, so, I am familiar with the problems. But as stated, there is only so much energy in a drop of fuel and that's as far as it can go. The same with electricity from batteries---there is only so much power that can be extracted from each cubic foot of battery. There are battery types that do better then others, and at some point battery type becomes limited. 

For a semi to travel from coast to coast takes about 330 gallons. A battery would have to contain that same amount of energyto make the same trip. I predict it can't be done. As I see it--all materials to make different batterires are known, and so far non will do--unless a new element is found or produced. There is a point that something (anything) can not be bested. The periiodic table shows us what we have to work with---and we've worked with everything known so far. We'll have to create something. What would that be?

The only workable proposition would be atomic power. And when travelling one would exchange batteries enroute rather then wait and charge batteries. When you get to what is now a gas stationwhich would become a battery station, it isn't feasible to wait  hours for the batteries to charge, they would merely be exchanged. Or hydrogen--- making hydrogen from coal fired plants is a looser and goes nowhere eventually---so it will take dams or neuclear. The more atomic plants there become the more likely a meltdowns will occur. 4 more melt downs and it's over.. I see hydrogen as the winner if we can consruct nuclear plants that won't eventually fry our buns. Wind power is a loser. Alredy the wind units are breaking down faster then they can be fixed or replaced. Then there's the money concept. The rate of expense increases with the rate of improvement. Eventually electric power won't be affordable for the average bloke.

Regardless--the rate of population growth, along with the expense growth, and being at the end of the periodic table equals failure. No matter how the problem is solved the population rate alone will outdo the solution. Unless---a new direction of living is found.

 

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I can think

Old Seer wrote:

I can think outside the box. I've been dealing with this for years and have encountered these problems years ago already. (No, not to brag) From 1989 to 2003 I produced my own electric power from boilers and steam engines that I built, so, I am familiar with the problems. But as stated, there is only so much energy in a drop of fuel and that's as far as it can go. The same with electricity from batteries---there is only so much power that can be extracted from each cubic foot of battery. There are battery types that do better then others, and at some point battery type becomes limited. 

For a semi to travel from coast to coast takes about 330 gallons. A battery would have to contain that same amount of energyto make the same trip. I predict it can't be done. As I see it--all materials to make different batterires are known, and so far non will do--unless a new element is found or produced. There is a point that something (anything) can not be bested. The periiodic table shows us what we have to work with---and we've worked with everything known so far. We'll have to create something. What would that be?

The only workable proposition would be atomic power. And when travelling one would exchange batteries enroute rather then wait and charge batteries. When you get to what is now a gas stationwhich would become a battery station, it isn't feasible to wait  hours for the batteries to charge, they would merely be exchanged. Or hydrogen--- making hydrogen from coal fired plants is a looser and goes nowhere eventually---so it will take dams or neuclear. The more atomic plants there become the more likely a meltdowns will occur. 4 more melt downs and it's over.. I see hydrogen as the winner if we can consruct nuclear plants that won't eventually fry our buns. Wind power is a loser. Alredy the wind units are breaking down faster then they can be fixed or replaced. Then there's the money concept. The rate of expense increases with the rate of improvement. Eventually electric power won't be affordable for the average bloke.

Regardless--the rate of population growth, along with the expense growth, and being at the end of the periodic table equals failure. No matter how the problem is solved the population rate alone will outdo the solution. Unless---a new direction of living is found.

Battery technology has barely been tapped so there is another 100 years of technology before we reach the end.

While semi trucks won't go electric under the current settings, like hydrogen, there are other options.

There will be new ways to collect electricity. Solar will play a huge part and yes, it too will reach a point where they can go no further with the technology.

I don't find rivers or nuclear as being an answer. America has been ripping down damns because of the problems they cause. Nuclear isn't as clean as they said.

In another 100 years oil will have reached a point where production goes down and the price goes up. Say good bye to the 3 hour trips from coast to coast. Say good by to the luxury cruises. The industries will be forced to find a different answer or die.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
very much agree.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

I can think outside the box. I've been dealing with this for years and have encountered these problems years ago already. (No, not to brag) From 1989 to 2003 I produced my own electric power from boilers and steam engines that I built, so, I am familiar with the problems. But as stated, there is only so much energy in a drop of fuel and that's as far as it can go. The same with electricity from batteries---there is only so much power that can be extracted from each cubic foot of battery. There are battery types that do better then others, and at some point battery type becomes limited. 

For a semi to travel from coast to coast takes about 330 gallons. A battery would have to contain that same amount of energyto make the same trip. I predict it can't be done. As I see it--all materials to make different batterires are known, and so far non will do--unless a new element is found or produced. There is a point that something (anything) can not be bested. The periiodic table shows us what we have to work with---and we've worked with everything known so far. We'll have to create something. What would that be?

The only workable proposition would be atomic power. And when travelling one would exchange batteries enroute rather then wait and charge batteries. When you get to what is now a gas stationwhich would become a battery station, it isn't feasible to wait  hours for the batteries to charge, they would merely be exchanged. Or hydrogen--- making hydrogen from coal fired plants is a looser and goes nowhere eventually---so it will take dams or neuclear. The more atomic plants there become the more likely a meltdowns will occur. 4 more melt downs and it's over.. I see hydrogen as the winner if we can consruct nuclear plants that won't eventually fry our buns. Wind power is a loser. Alredy the wind units are breaking down faster then they can be fixed or replaced. Then there's the money concept. The rate of expense increases with the rate of improvement. Eventually electric power won't be affordable for the average bloke.

Regardless--the rate of population growth, along with the expense growth, and being at the end of the periodic table equals failure. No matter how the problem is solved the population rate alone will outdo the solution. Unless---a new direction of living is found.

Battery technology has barely been tapped so there is another 100 years of technology before we reach the end.

While semi trucks won't go electric under the current settings, like hydrogen, there are other options.

There will be new ways to collect electricity. Solar will play a huge part and yes, it too will reach a point where they can go no further with the technology.

I don't find rivers or nuclear as being an answer. America has been ripping down damns because of the problems they cause. Nuclear isn't as clean as they said.

In another 100 years oil will have reached a point where production goes down and the price goes up. Say good bye to the 3 hour trips from coast to coast. Say good by to the luxury cruises. The industries will be forced to find a different answer or die.

 

Except for battery tech. Some new material has to be found/developed before the battery idea gets sound IMO. When looking at the common flashlight battery I would think they would have gone alot futher by now if there is something more to be found. Of course there is the thing of holding certain things off the market to maintain profits.

I have the sun powered perimeter lights that I experimented with useing dead regular batteries. The charge rate is low enough to charge rhwen for quite a while even tho they aren't rechargables. Rechargables are merely rechargable because they can take a reasonable charge without exploding. but--if the charge rate is low enough regulars can be charged, but not to the degree of rechargables.

But, what you are saying is---we're going to have to change some life styles in order to make a go of things. Public transportation will be the thing I think. I don't like the idea of not having my own personal vehicle. Thats where the slot car idea comes in. My battery power gets me to the rails and I hook on from there and pay a tow to where I want to go. To what degree I would be in charge of getting on and off the slot--I don't know. Once I take a side track I can get off by going back to the battery and scoot around from there. With this idea we probably won't need high battery tech.  One could actually go from coast to coast with very little battery power needed. The vehicle could also be quite a bit smaller and lighter because of no motor compartment, smaller cars on the freeway means narrower lanes snd more cars would fit on the freeways. The slot would control how close vehicles would be. But then again-we'd very likely end up with nothing but crash city.

 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Brian37

Old Seer wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

No intent to be negative Brian--- I understand the quest for efficiency--but as it sits (in my opinion) we've squeezed about all we're going to get out of a drop of gasoline, and to try to go any further it would take going against the laws of thermodynamics. And that was 15 to 20 years ago already.

Whilst camped at Quartzsite Az this last winter a couple traded their 3/4 ton truck for a newer one, and it has ---------steer by wire---no steering column. OK, fine- but not knowing the saftey measues built in I wonder what happens when the electric power quits. All this fan-danglery isn't all baout efficency. I think we've become overly facinated with what we can do with bits-n-bites. I say it's gone beyond reasonable reasonability. I cannot find anything wrong or adverse about a regular steering mechanisim that we've always had. If the power steering went out---we could stillstop the vehicle because the systems were redundant.

Case in  point. Hummin and bummin, wheeelin and mobilin down Interstate 40 2 years ago--whaaaa, what da. Fizzz whirrr bang thump. The bearing on an idler jammed up and turned the idler off the block braket and I lost belt power to the works---NO BRAKES. The truck I have now has brake assist ---but it runs off the power steering pump. Bad deal. I got no brakes because the belt also runs the power steering,. and the system was not redundant because I could not stop the truck with 5 motor cycles in the trailer at 2 tons total--and the trailer itself is 3600 LBs. OK. Previously brake assist was done by a vacuum system and one could still use the brakes without. I can see no feasble reason to opt out of the old system for the new as the old always worked. The same with the power steering, and it took all I had to get it steered to the side of the road. Now then--- Had it not happened I would have turnt off I 40 at Elbowturkey NM onto I-25 N going through Denver. What would the result have been if this would have happened on I-25 through Denver. I and others would not be here today. What worked was replaced with what worked untill it broke, and then what would still work after it broke was replaced with what wouldn't work after it broke.

Conclusion--I can't see anything wrong with my 49 Chebby, 49 Ford, my 57 Ford, my 61 Thunderbird, my 60 Chebby w/ full race engine 348, 4 on the floor w/ three deuce carburators (which means there was something wrong with me) I say it's better to keep what worked. I always had confidence the vehicles I had would get me from here to there---and with todays---I don't.

A problem with computors in vehicles today is---- My friends car lets out with a whole litany of codes and all he can do is fix the one that most likely will get it running because he can't fix it all at one time. The problem isn't the car---it's the dad-blamed computor that shuts stuff off that don't need to be fixed and didn'thave to before either. What da heck do we need with a crank shaft sensor, or a cam sensor. If the engine is running I don't need to worry about the crankshaft because it is obviously working--and the 1 millionth of 1000th of an inch wear don't mean beans when it comes to getting to work.

Overkill and get killed. The Veit Nam  F-4 phantom fighter pilots were over whelmed with info from all the junk beeping, blabbing/ buzzing nonsense put into their aircraft. Talking with a VN pilot at the VA a while back was telling me one time he got so frustrated with trying to shoot down NVA Charlie---bbbbbbeeep. pulluppullup. blink blink flash flash target aquired target in sigts beeep beeeep burrrrr burrrr waaaank blup--he told his weapons officer to shut everything off so I can shoot the SOB down.

It looks to me that this is what we're running into with vehicles too.

 

 

None taken. We need to get off burning fossil fuels anyway. Burning gas is like using a rotary phone in an age of cell phones. I do also think part of design is also to get you hooked on going to the dealer, much like softwear competetors conflict if you install them on the same computer. 

I also dont like distractive technology like computer screens instead of your dash controls for your ac or music or phone. GPS CRAP on your dash.  Studies show that anything that takes your eyes off the road, even mere talking on a hands free phone can be a distraction.

The best thing anyone can do while driving is pay attention to what is in front of you and keep your hands on the wheel.

Getting off petroleum is going to be quite a feat. I think to get off gasolene is going to take some (or quite a bit) of doing. I really don't want to say this but---it looks like we'll all have to give up private/personal transportation. I can't see where electric is going to make it. As I see it--the world is expecting to develop some type of magic battery, which is impossible. The simple 1955 physics formula---what's weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold comes into effect. Batteries depend uopn the amount of electrolyte used. Electric will be OK for the commute to work but not for a semi and trailer for long haul. Hydrogen fuel cells will need electricity to make the hydrogen---so that's out. It looks to me like the "slot car" idea, which of course is public transportation in ones own buggy. It's going to be a tuffy.

 

I agree it will take some doing. Humans don't like change on any issue. Took forever to get oil to take lead out of gas. Took car companies forever to add seat belts. Sad part with oil is that we have had solar technology since the 1920s. But climate change is is going to force us at some point. I don't see how we would have to give up personal transportation though. If it takes longer or never gets done at all, it won't be because humans cant do it, it will be because humans get used to profit and don't like change. Scientists even knew back in the late 1800s that pumping out too much CO2  would hurt the planet long term. 

I hate to say this but it might eventually come down to a global conflict and either wipe us out or thin us out and knock us back to the stone age. I certainly hope not, but you see how humans fight, even here verbaly. 

But, that isn't all doom and gloom though. We got this far. I guess I am holding out hope that my species wont do anything stupid and we do improve before it is too late.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian again proves his

Brian again proves his ignorance.

It took a mere 10 years to completely remove lead from gasoline.

Car manufactures were adding seatbelts even before governments required them to.

Solar technology was actually created in the 1830's, not the 1920's. It however wasn't until 1960 that the technology even hit 14% efficiency, which isn't enough to do shit. It was therefore an impractical technology. Literally USELESS.

Everything Brian says is a lie.

Pro tip: It took me a whole 5 minutes to look all this up AND type this post with a PS3 controller, proving Brian prefers making shit up instead of actually learning something.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian again

Vastet wrote:
Brian again proves his ignorance.

It took a mere 10 years to completely remove lead from gasoline.

Car manufactures were adding seatbelts even before governments required them to.

Solar technology was actually created in the 1830's, not the 1920's. It however wasn't until 1960 that the technology even hit 14% efficiency, which isn't enough to do shit. It was therefore an impractical technology. Literally USELESS.

Everything Brian says is a lie.

Pro tip: It took me a whole 5 minutes to look all this up AND type this post with a PS3 controller, proving Brian prefers making shit up instead of actually learning something.




oh, stop being so fucking tribal already. excuse me, stop stupidly being so fucking tribal.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian again

Vastet wrote:
Brian again proves his ignorance. It took a mere 10 years to completely remove lead from gasoline. Car manufactures were adding seatbelts even before governments required them to. Solar technology was actually created in the 1830's, not the 1920's. It however wasn't until 1960 that the technology even hit 14% efficiency, which isn't enough to do shit. It was therefore an impractical technology. Literally USELESS. Everything Brian says is a lie. Pro tip: It took me a whole 5 minutes to look all this up AND type this post with a PS3 controller, proving Brian prefers making shit up instead of actually learning something.

That was only when media made it an issue. Scientists knew long before it was a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman on the issue of the earliest solar technology.

And output of CO2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:That was only

Brian37 wrote:
That was only when media made it an issue. Scientists knew long before it was a problem.

No, that's when the government made a law requiring lead be removed. You know nothing.

Brian37 wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman on the issue of the earliest solar technology.

1839 - Alexandre Edmond Becquerel observes the photovoltaic effect via an electrode in a conductive solution exposed to light.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_solar_cells

You know nothing.

Brian37 wrote:
And output of CO2

Strawman. You're the only one in the topic who's even mentioned carbon. Retard.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ah, wikipedia. the same

ah, wikipedia. the same reliable website that said marx called capitalism "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Oh and you call early

 Oh and you call early technology "useless" ok, glad we stuck to rotary phones. Really sucks that we have cell phones now.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Oh and you

Brian37 wrote:

 Oh and you call early technology "useless" ok, glad we stuck to rotary phones. Really sucks that we have cell phones now.

If rotary phones are so great why are they effectively extinct? There really is no limit to your stupidity is there?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:ah, wikipedia.

iwbiek wrote:
ah, wikipedia. the same reliable website that said marx called capitalism "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

If I was discussing the subject with anyone who had more than one functional brain cell I'd reference much more thoroughly. But in this case it would be a complete waste of effort.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
it seems to me that he's

it seems to me that he's simultaneously calling you out for calling early technology useless...while also implying you'd like to see outmoded technology still in use??? that comment made no cognitive sense...

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:iwbiek

Vastet wrote:
iwbiek wrote:
ah, wikipedia. the same reliable website that said marx called capitalism "the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

If I was discussing the subject with anyone who had more than one functional brain cell I'd reference much more thoroughly. But in this case it would be a complete waste of effort.


well, i wrote it before your reply anyway.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson