Shut the hell UP!!!

[shonky]

Yeah, Mr Hyde, good of you to point this out. I'd rather be proved wrong if it comes to a better level of understanding. No point fighting without ammunition

[kidlogic]

Suprised you would give up with one search Shonx. Granted, I wouldnt expect you to come up with anything searching for what you did.

http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp ... ngland.htm

This was the second hit in a search for 200 mpg carburetor, one of the first technological advances that I had heard of the oil companies supressing. The auto makers in the US used to put this carburetor on their test vehicles to save gas while they were out in the field. A friend of mine actually got a vehicle from a dealership with it on his car, and when the dealership realized what they had done, called him and said his car needed 'service'. They removed it and replaced it with a traditional one.

More to come...

EDIT: more links

http://www.allpar.com/old/200-mpg-carburetor.html

http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm

[shonky]

Suprised you would give up with one search Shonx. Granted, I wouldnt expect you to come up with anything searching for what you did.

2 hours well and truly wasted. Bring the links on

[kidlogic]

Suprised you would give up with one search Shonx. Granted, I wouldnt expect you to come up with anything searching for what you did.

http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp ... ngland.htm

This was the second hit in a search for 200 mpg carburetor, one of the first technological advances that I had heard of the oil companies supressing. The auto makers in the US used to put this carburetor on their test vehicles to save gas while they were out in the field. A friend of mine actually got a vehicle from a dealership with it on his car, and when the dealership realized what they had done, called him and said his car needed 'service'. They removed it and replaced it with a traditional one.

More to come...

EDIT: more links

http://www.allpar.com/old/200-mpg-carburetor.html

http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm

1930's technology?- huge car manufacturers from all over the world in competition with each other spend millions on developing more efficient cars, its a huge selling point- i'd be sure someone else would figure it out in 70 years of development....but even if you take everything in the un-substantiated article for truth:

Engineers who have tried in the past to build a carburetor using Pogue’s theories have found the results less than satisfactory. Charles Friend, of Canada’s National Research Council, told Marketplace, a consumer affairs programme: “You can get fantastic mileage if you’re prepared to de-rate the vehicle to a point where, for example, it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 30 miles an hour.”

Well, when Ive seen it in person, its a different thing than 'unsubstantiated'...

Im looking for more current examples right now.

[kidlogic]

And while we're on the subject of cars and mpg, why is it that when there is viable electronic car tech out there, its being used more?

Why is it that people think they wont work, or that they still have such short ranges?

http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/13/diy-e ... nversions/

Its very easy to find info that says otherwise, why are we all still so dependant on gas powered vehicles, and taking hybrids as a good option?

Unless you are traveling cross country or have a 4 hour commute everyday, an electric is just as doable as a gas powered car now-a-days.

[kidlogic]

First off, you dont know me, so dont call me a liar in so many words. I have seen it. I have been in a car that got far better fuel efficiency than any other car I have ever been in, by 100s of mpgs. Maybe it was a different design than the one I posted links to, but it was not a typical car engine. He brought it in, and it got normal mpg again. This was also close to 10 years ago.

Now, seeing how almost all cars are fuel injected and no longer use a carbureator they would see it as a step backwards and would have to re-engineer their whole engine design to retro-fit it.

[kidlogic]

First off, you dont know me, so dont call me a liar in so many words. I have seen it. I have been in a car that got far better fuel efficiency than any other car I have ever been in, by 100s of mpgs. Maybe it was a different design than the one I posted links to, but it was not a typical car engine. He brought it in, and it got normal mpg again. This was also close to 10 years ago.

Now, seeing how almost all cars are fuel injected and no longer use a carbureator they would see it as a step backwards and would have to re-engineer their whole engine design to retro-fit it.

For a start its obviously nothing personnal, this is something I am interested in and would like to one day see conclusive evidence of any of these conspiracy type theories but it is yet to be prooved to me. The whole point of putting across these arguments is to prove the facts with substantiated evidence rather than heresay....there is no way you can use 'my friend had one' as a proper case, or un-substantuated internet sites that anyone could make anything up on.

And the second point doesn't hold any weight- brand new engines are designed all the time.

Well, when Ive sat in it, and you tell me it doesnt exist, kinda comes across as you dont belive me, therefore that I am a liar, to which I take offense. Granted, with my same logic of 'you dont know me' you are correct in saying that it can be heresay, so my apologies. Ive witnessed it with my own self though, so...

on the second point, lets go back to the marketing aspect of earlier in this thread. Knowing that carburetor technology has been all but obsolete in auto tech for at least 7 or 8 years, what large automaker is going to say 'Oh, right, sorry we were wrong about the carb, forget everything we've been telling you is better, were going back to tech from the '30s'...

As for more evidence of the oil companies supressing tech - http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Suppression
Take it for what it is, but there are quite a bit of footnotes and links to actual cases in there...

And for the people who instantly shoot down conspiracy theories just because of the word 'conspiracy' here are ten actual, proven conspiracies that seem just as far fetched as some that have been discussed in here and in other posts.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread83236/pg1
It doesnt matter that this list is on a conspiracy theorist forum, they can all be proven with outside info and off the internet by cracking a history or reference book. The Iran-Contra scandal is a particularly eye opening piece of factual world history.

[elgato]

Sorry- I would like to belive there are radical technologies that would save the planet and greedy people in power are holding them back to hold on to power, I have looked into these things quite a bit and actually work for a sustainable development NGO. Scientific, fact based evidence and I'll believe it, anyone can make a film or write an article- needs to have some weight to it.

I agree with you to the extent that I see this thing as less about the fault of the individual capitalist / company, but i do see it as about the system as a whole.

And more importantly what difference does it make to the overall problem whether its technological suppression or just neglect? Green / renewable technology is not yet efficient enough to do the business, but that’s because it hasn’t seen investment in or stimulation of R&D… this is governments’ fault, and peoples’ fault, but also, very importantly, capitalism’s fault (as a system). ‘Energy’ companies (as they have now rebranded themselves) have only now started to make even the slightest moves towards putting the appropriate money into this technology, and that is (crudely) for one or a mixture of three reasons (a) they are looking at strategy from a very advanced long-term perspective, (b) they have cottoned on that if they can write in their CSR reports and tv ads that they have done all this lovely stuff, they will sell more product to the people who have made the fact that they care vocal enough, or (c) legislation has incentivised. They do not think outside of self-interest, because they’re not meant to – the system dictates that they should not. Where individual fault comes in is another question, but for our purposes the more important point is that without the overthrow of the capitalist logic, it is down to Government and/or other forces to re-structure the markets so that industry’s (immediate, short-sighted) self-interest aligns better with the interests of everyone else.

But this is where the individual companies do come in – they do not want to restructure and refocus. The world post-oil is fucking scary for an oil company or anyone who makes energy provision or carbon emission their business, cos it is full of risk and uncertainty. Do you not know the kind of weight they carry (along with the aviation/transport sector) in lobby? The kind of influence they bring to bear on governments across the globe, very significantly in the US? Again, they are only doing what a good capitalist does, doing whatever it takes to make money, but where do you draw the line on what they should or should not do in pursuit of that?

But most importantly it is very very dangerous to say that ‘all will be fine, the markets will decide, cos the finite resources of the world will provide the appropriate point at which to switch to new technologies’ – by this point the world will be fucked. The tipping point will be long gone. There is not a magical alignment between the amount of fossil fuels in the ground (and the quantity of CO2 their combustion will emit) and the point at which we can avoid catastrophic climate change.

[seckle]

But most importantly it is very very dangerous to say that ‘all will be fine, the markets will decide, cos the finite resources of the world will provide the appropriate point at which to switch to new technologies’

spot on!! i don't care if renewable energy is run by a shady conglomerate. we're at a stage now where's it's a ticking time bomb.

i want my kids to grow up and be able to see snow and ice with their own eyes, and not in some history book in science class, when there isn't an arctic circle any more.

[shonky]

Good points Elgato. One of the things I did discover from my google search yesterday was that a lot of the renewables weren't taken up mostly for reasons of market forces, in that the new technologies were not tried and trusted and the amount of R&D money required to run them would make the initial rollout unrealistically expensive, when compared to a few basic modifications on the internal combustion engine and streamlining. Thus the short term goal of making profit took precedent over the long term effort required to make the new technology saleable.

And yeah, there's a hell of a lot of very real conspiracies and a lot of nasty corporate shenanigans supported by the military power of the west - if you've got any south american friends, they make the UK's anti-american stance look like a birthday party invitation.

[kidlogic]

Thank you elegato for putting into words in a much more sussinct way than I have been able to what Ive been trying to say.

I have been a bit all over the place trying to say it, but that is pretty much it. The lobbyists in Washington have too much power. The Oil or Energy lobbyists, the Tobacco lobbyists, the pharmacutical lobbyists, etc are all to blame for the state our country and subsequently the world is in due to their short sightedness and fear of losing market share and profit. They are of course going to ignore, or supress or not fund or however you want to say it, new technologies because it does nothing for their bottom line.

Had we been researching Solar, Wind, Tidal, ect with the kind of money the oil companies have been spending on new pipelines or refineries, or even the kind of money that these companies get in subsidies from our government since their inception we would be using them all right now in our daily lives.

Instead, we have been becoming more and more dependent on a resource that pollutes our air and is finite. Up until recently automobile's average gas millage were actually getting worse, not better, and for a 'solution' they offered us a hybrid, a half-solution. Why not spend the money that went into that research on an electric car? Or on making hydrogen viable? That concept has been around since the 70's as well, and its just now gaining momentum.

I dunno, basically if you think the governments of the world are looking out for our best intrests and not their own (or their wallet's) you need to look a little deeper.

[kidlogic]

@ Hyde - Car companies are spending millions (when they should be spending more) on making cars more economical because the market is demanding it right now. I highly doubt that if gas still cost 1.25 a gallon in the US they would be so worried about mpg. The werent that worried about it in 2000. Hell, they werent that worried about it 5 years ago when the war in Iraq started. The Chevy Suburban used to get on average 9mpg less than 10 years ago. The Hummer H3 used to get about the same and was one of the most desired cars on the road. When gas went up, and it started to cost $100 a fill up, people started to complain and the market reacted.

[kidlogic]

^^^kidlogic
I'll have a look over those articles when I get time, although from a glance seem to be a site full of un-substantiated almost comedy value things that anyone could make up on the spot and you can see through with even the slightest of critical eye, think there is a lot of wanting to believe things so just believing what is written down:

I spoke with John Bedini on the phone while I was at Gene Mallove's lab, around 2000. John told me he is only selling plans and not devices because he was assaulted by two burly men who shoved him against a wall in his shop and shoved a shotgun in his face and said, "Burn gasoline if you know what is best for you." They seem to be leaving him alone with this plan.

- not even going to comment on the ridiculousness of this

Through the Las Vegas area grapevine, he fortunately in time heard that a contract on his life was in effect and had to go into hiding for nearly a year. He claimed that his low-temperature phase-change engine was more efficient and powerful than Dennis Lee’s version. Stewart is no longer alive, but I have his drawings.

- show the world the drawings then! show legitimate news agencies, put them up on the internet etc.

Shortly after the demonstration, all copies of the patent application and other information subsequently disappeared from the Washington Patent Office. In addition, Mr. Harris’ home was broken into and his original drawings, papers, applications, and correspondence were stolen. For some unknown reason, they left behind the prototype.

- how about showing the world that prototype? put it on the news, show the milage it does and then the information will be out there.

Car companies spend a fortune on making cars more economical....there is no way they'd not go to using a new type of carbs just because a lot now use fuel injection! New engines are developed all of the time...A car company would make a fortune with more economical cars. It just doesn't make any sense unless you believe the whole planet is controled by people who make money from oil.

Well, first off, I guess I should have looked over that a bit more, some of those are pretty bad... The few I looked at first werent as bad and I was trying to post quickly...

But, lets look at your last paragraph. First off, your right, a car company would make a fortune with a more economical car. So why then did mpg slip for a good portion of the 80s and 90s? Why did they stop researching that technology? You can argue that its because thats what the market wanted, but in truth, the market just wanted bigger cars with more power and SUVs (at least here in the US), not worse mpg. So why not make a bigger car with better mpg in the 90s? Why not make a sports car that can get 30-40mpgs before the market demanded it? Companies force the market all the time to generate profits.

Now the second part. Would you agree that the president of the US is a pretty powerful position in the world and that he and the rest of the US govt has quite a bit of control over the happening of the world economy? Bush is an Oil man. Cheney is an Oil man. They influence a fair amount of what goes on in the world and they both stand to make substantial gains from Oil profits. Whether or not they are 'evil' and suppressing technologies or just plain ignoring them, they both stand to lose quite a bit of money by these emerging technologies coming into more common useage. Halliburton, Cheney's company, was the one of the very few companies given contracts to rebuild Iraq, and with no bids put in.

Look, Im not trying to keep this going ad nauseum, we disagree on some things. Im just saying that there are viable renewable energy sources that could work and should be in place, but arent. Whether you think its due to tech supression or the market is your view on it. I, along with alot of others in the US think that Big Oil and the US govt has something to do with it. From my point of view it seems overwhelmingly so.