HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:55:32 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Technology WILL come through when the motivation reaches the necessary
level.

Oh, that's all right then :-)

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:09:17 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

No, but their needs require the use of a car at all hours of the day and
night......Lets put it this way.....If I had to do without a car, I wouldn't
have four cats, I wouldn't have either photography or trumpet playing as a
hobby, and my life style would have developed in a totally different
direction from the way it has developed......I am now locked into an
individual transportation system, whether gasoline oriented or not.......

OK. We'll let you have one then.

All these people who argue as if their personal needs and preferences
are in the slightest relevant..... you've gotta laugh!

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:17:20 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

Right now, both me and
millions of other Americans are virtually locked into personalized
transportation vehicles of one type or another....This isn't going to change
overnight. Their character may change. Their fuel source may change. But
millions of people can't just suddenly step into electric busses overnight
because of some law or other....To believe such a thing shows lack of basic
reasoning ability........


"I REALLY want personal transport. Therefore something will turn up
that enables me to continue having it".

Now, THAT'S lack of reasoning ability.

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:36:18 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

I live in, and believe in, a free market economy. Whatever I have is for
sale at any time to the highest bidder, and I hold no manufactured item that
I possess too holy to be replaced by a new one, or a more updated version.
If people have been selling me gasoline at 1/2 the European price for the
last 40 years, whose fault is that? - Certainly not mine. I suggest that
they offer it to me at twice the price. Perhaps then I will buy less of
it.......


You're for real, aren't you? Jesus Christ...

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:27:00 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

And by what you do for a living, and where you have to do it, and by many
other variables that usually grow along with your other choices, so changing
overnight is quite impossible, and certainly shouldn't be expected of a
whole nation of breadwinners.......

If we have to, it will be possible. It could happen tomorrow. Our
attempts to control the oil-producing countries may backfire even more
seriously than they have already. If the Saudis fall out of our
pocket and align with their kin we could be in real trouble. Doubtless
if America added its resources (though they'd doubtless dump us) we
could annihilate them. But WINNING the war without destroying the
resources would be harder.

The best approach is to spend some money up-front, say on the order of
the Manhattan Project, and find a way to power our economy without
reference to petroleum. It WILL happen, doing it now would be cheaper,
and even a small (10%) reduction in our usage would make using our own
oil resources feasible, making the Middle East not a concern. It would
probably cost a LOT less than what the US will spend in Iraq next year.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:09:17 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

No, but their needs require the use of a car at all hours of the day and
night......Lets put it this way.....If I had to do without a car, I wouldn't
have four cats, I wouldn't have either photography or trumpet playing as a
hobby, and my life style would have developed in a totally different
direction from the way it has developed......I am now locked into an
individual transportation system, whether gasoline oriented or not.......

OK. We'll let you have one then.

All these people who argue as if their personal needs and preferences
are in the slightest relevant..... you've gotta laugh!

They are, to the person involved, and, big surprise, YOURS aren't
relevant, to me.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:17:20 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

Right now, both me and
millions of other Americans are virtually locked into personalized
transportation vehicles of one type or another....This isn't going to change
overnight. Their character may change. Their fuel source may change. But
millions of people can't just suddenly step into electric busses overnight
because of some law or other....To believe such a thing shows lack of basic
reasoning ability........


"I REALLY want personal transport. Therefore something will turn up
that enables me to continue having it".

Now, THAT'S lack of reasoning ability.

You know, there is the flaw in your reasoning. What YOU want is
important, and reasonable, but if it isn't way YOU want, then it is
unimportant, and unreasonable. Frankly, I am happy you like a
regimented, schedule-driven, life. If it makes your life satisfying,
that is fine with me. Now explain how the fact that I wouldn't like
such a lifestyle threatens you to the point you consider it a lack of
reasoning ability.

Bob Hickey wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message

Using ethanol is part of a good substitution strategy, however the first
environmental tenant is "reduce".


I think the biggest problem with E-85 is not only hi
price and poor milage but the fact that it can't use the pipeline to ship
the stuff. Imagine an oil company having to buy a tractor/trailer for every
station for every day coming from say, Iowa to NY, and getting maybe 3 to 4
MPH As it is there are gas drops all over NY. They can place an order
when they close and expect to have full tanks before 6 AM. What happens
when they have to come from the midwest? Bob Hickey

We've gone through this before...

1) It doesn't appear to be a problem in Brazil. Surely Americans can
make it work.
2) Ethanol can be produced close to where it is used.
3) In 2005 the US made over 600M gallons of the stuff. It got around
somehow.
4) NY state has a lot of unproductive farmland that can be turned to
Ethanol production.

As to mileage E85 is 20 - 25% less efficient than gasoline. So if you
get 30 mpg on gasoline you should get at least 22.5 mpg on E85. As to
price, that will become more competitive as more E85 producers enter the
fray.

Side effects include a reduction in dependance on foreign oil and cash
staying in the US. (Something the US has had a hard time of lately).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne writes:

Side effects include a reduction in dependance on foreign oil and cash
staying in the US. (Something the US has had a hard time of lately).

....and a lot of drunk farmers..

Bob Hickey wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...

They do, to an extent. Crumple zones.


No one invented crumple zones,

Mercedez Benz were the first to deliberately engineer front quarter
panels to crumple in an energy/time manner to reduce impact g forces.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.