Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Nov 6, 2003, 11:39 am

why are we still using gas engine's. i heard of a man somewhere who mad a car run on hemp oil. no polution at all. rather than advance what the car looks like change the engine to a less poluting one. why has it not happend. i think oil company's have something to do with i bet but who knows.

Impenitent · Nov 6, 2003, 11:52 am

yes it is the world wide oil manufacturing conspiracy...

together with the internal combustion engine conspirators...

pogo stickers of the world unite!

(and by the way, the shadow knows)

**Sean** · Nov 6, 2003, 02:43 pm

rationalist-

Fossil fuel is scarce and hard to obtain (so it's profitable). That's all that matters. If everyone could go in their backyards and grow fuel there wouldn't be any people profiting. (I'm not saying I want people to profit from it).

It's like everything, I'm sure we could make cars last way longer, but then nobody would buy new cars.

Black Fox · Nov 6, 2003, 04:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
why are we still using gas engine's<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, for one thing, it's still cheaper to use petrol than the other alternatives right now. For another, there's already a huge investment in systems to extract, refine and distribute petroleum products, so these costs are already accounted for. On the other hand, any alternative to petrol in cars would have to build these systems from scratch or modify existing systems a great deal.

Of course, this is not necessarily always going to be the case - if it becomes more difficult to extract petroleum for technical/political reasons, then other alternatives will begin to look more attractive and more research/production money will flow that way.

manik · Nov 6, 2003, 04:24 pm

First of all, all oils pollute - from vegitable to crude. (Not neccisarily as much as crude, but that goes without saying)

Secondly, it's this year (if not next) that we'll be seeing fuel cell techonology cars popping up...

my personal opinion is that gas cars will be illegal in the next ten to 15 years.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Nov 6, 2003, 08:07 pm

Coperate mentality only spans 5 years maximum. They have been trained that way. The industrial world is putting so much attention on attention to detail that long term thought is being bred out of the species.

Of course the government fiddling around with giving tax breaks for short term interests and making the profit margin unstable only accelerates this trend...

Sodfather · Nov 6, 2003, 11:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,)
Coperate mentality only spans 5 years maximum. They have been trained that way. The industrial world is putting so much attention on attention to detail that long term thought is being bred out of the species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Exactly. What's in it for big business? GM? Ford? How will they benefit from throwing out all of their expensive manufacturing equipment and buying all new equipment that can handle building new, fuel-cell, hemp oil, or what have you type cars?

Exactly, they won't - actually, they'll lose a hell of a lot. That's the main reason that we have not switched yet: it's not in these huge companies' best interests to forget what they know and throw away all that they already have to go after something new. I think government action will be required to get the non-gasoline automotive ball rolling, because, unless the president of the EPA becomes the owner of Ford, a car company CEO could care less about the environment as long as he's not losing money.

castille · Nov 7, 2003, 06:46 am

Actually....if ONE car company throws out all their old equipment, and sells hemp oil cars (or beef oil or whatever the hell they've made), then they'll make a killing.

The rest of the companies can follow or die out.

However....I'm still not sure this "hemp oil" is cheap, effective, or even works.

Can someone explain, using technical terms, how hemp oil is manufactured? What are the chemical components? Use detail.

G. Adams · Nov 7, 2003, 07:18 am

ah man how cool would it be to be in a traffic jam with all that hemp oil burning around you? You'd never make it to work, just sat there revving your engine instead

castille · Nov 7, 2003, 07:21 am

But we'll be able to forget about the traffic jam.

Road rage wuoldnt exist.

**Sean** · Nov 7, 2003, 07:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)

Exactly, they won't - actually, they'll lose a hell of a lot. That's the main reason that we have not switched yet: it's not in these huge companies' best interests to forget what they know and throw away all that they already have to go after something new. I think government action will be required to get the non-gasoline automotive ball rolling, because, unless the president of the EPA becomes the owner of Ford, a car company CEO could care less about the environment as long as he's not losing money.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, I agree, government action will be required. It's like this whole HDTV craze. In America high definition will be the standard in 2 years, and all manufacturers (Sony, Hitachi, etc) must make TVs adequate for the signal. This will cost the companies a ton of cash, but due to government mandate they have to do it.

Why the government would be more concerned with how many lines of resolution Oprah has vs. the livelihood of our ecosystem is beyond me.

Black Fox · Nov 7, 2003, 10:07 am

I don't know where this idea that all companies are shortsighted has originated from. Most car companies have some form of fuel cell research going on - why would they bother if they don't see a future for it?

The fact is that nobody knows for sure what direction future energy usage is going, and no company would be foolish enough to spend a huge amount of money on full scale development of fuel cell powered cars when there's no guarantee that consumers will be willing to pay for them. Perhaps government legislation would help - but I favour a gradual introduction rather than a wholesale imposition.

indierockboy · Nov 10, 2003, 04:16 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,)
Coperate mentality only spans 5 years maximum. They have been trained that way. The industrial world is putting so much attention on attention to detail that long term thought is being bred out of the species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Exactly. What's in it for big business? GM? Ford? How will they benefit from throwing out all of their expensive manufacturing equipment and buying all new equipment that can handle building new, fuel-cell, hemp oil, or what have you type cars?

Exactly, they won't - actually, they'll lose a hell of a lot. That's the main reason that we have not switched yet: it's not in these huge companies' best interests to forget what they know and throw away all that they already have to go after something new. I think government action will be required to get the non-gasoline automotive ball rolling, because, unless the president of the EPA becomes the owner of Ford, a car company CEO could care less about the environment as long as he's not losing money.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

automotive companies also have a gentleman's agreement not to raise fuel efficiency. ford was preparing to break said agreement (under the management of bill ford and nasser) and drastically increase the fuel economy of it's vehicles, much to the chagrin of the other big auto companies. but then the firestone/explorer debacle cost ford an incredible amount of money and time.

**Pooeypants** · Nov 16, 2003, 06:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sean,)

Yes, I agree, government action will be required. It's like this whole HDTV craze. In America high definition will be the standard in 2 years, and all manufacturers (Sony, Hitachi, etc) must make TVs adequate for the signal. This will cost the companies a ton of cash, but due to government mandate they have to do it.

Why the government would be more concerned with how many lines of resolution Oprah has vs. the livelihood of our ecosystem is beyond me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Ok, perhaps I've been living under a rock or this is US only but what is HDTV?

G. Adams · Nov 16, 2003, 11:02 am

High definition TV. In UK we just talk about the technology, its 100hz resolution rather than the traditonal 50hz. (I think this is what we are talking about). In UK we don't need to be baby talked about a product, if this is in fact what HDTV is.

white rice · Nov 17, 2003, 04:40 am

The world is run on oil. When oil prices become unstable, the world economy fluctuates. Energy, manufacturing, and transportation all rely on black gold. More reason to shift towards alternate energies, correct?

Right now, oil is priced by the American dollar. It's why it's so cheap in the states. http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20030609_...il_equation.htm

A shift towards alternate sources would undoubtedly knock out the dollar as the de facto global reserve currency which has, since the 80s, propped up the US economy to the way it is right now. Foreign investment is the reason why Americans can enjoy being Americans while living with a 6 trillion dollar debt and a growing trade deficit. It's not only about the oil industry but also the American way of life, aka national security.

**Pooeypants** · Nov 18, 2003, 02:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
High definition TV. In UK we just talk about the technology, its 100hz resolution rather than the traditonal 50hz. (I think this is what we are talking about). In UK we don't need to be baby talked about a product, if this is in fact what HDTV is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Well scanning at 100Hz would bring about a clearer picture so it probably is.

Nov 6, 2003, 11:52 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	yes it is the world wide oil manufacturing conspiracy... together with the internal combustion engine conspirators... pogo stickers of the world unite! (and by the way, the shadow knows) "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 6, 2003, 02:43 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	rationalist- Fossil fuel is scarce and hard to obtain (so it's profitable). That's all that matters. If everyone could go in their backyards and grow fuel there wouldn't be any people profiting. (I'm not saying I want people to profit from it). It's like everything, I'm sure we could make cars last way longer, but then nobody would buy new cars. So it goes

Nov 6, 2003, 04:06 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by why are we still using gas engine's<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, for one thing, it's still cheaper to use petrol than the other alternatives right now. For another, there's already a huge investment in systems to extract, refine and distribute petroleum products, so these costs are already accounted for. On the other hand, any alternative to petrol in cars would have to build these systems from scratch or modify existing systems a great deal. Of course, this is not necessarily always going to be the case - if it becomes more difficult to extract petroleum for technical/political reasons, then other alternatives will begin to look more attractive and more research/production money will flow that way.

Nov 6, 2003, 08:07 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Coperate mentality only spans 5 years maximum. They have been trained that way. The industrial world is putting so much attention on attention to detail that long term thought is being bred out of the species. Of course the government fiddling around with giving tax breaks for short term interests and making the profit margin unstable only accelerates this trend... Logical Fallicies Link

Nov 6, 2003, 11:46 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,) Coperate mentality only spans 5 years maximum. They have been trained that way. The industrial world is putting so much attention on attention to detail that long term thought is being bred out of the species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Exactly. What's in it for big business? GM? Ford? How will they benefit from throwing out all of their expensive manufacturing equipment and buying all new equipment that can handle building new, fuel-cell, hemp oil, or what have you type cars? Exactly, they won't - actually, they'll lose a hell of a lot. That's the main reason that we have not switched yet: it's not in these huge companies' best interests to forget what they know and throw away all that they already have to go after something new. I think government action will be required to get the non-gasoline automotive ball rolling, because, unless the president of the EPA becomes the owner of Ford, a car company CEO could care less about the environment as long as he's not losing money.

Nov 6, 2003, 11:39 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
rationalist Guest Posts: n/a	why are we still using gas engine's. i heard of a man somewhere who mad a car run on hemp oil. no polution at all. rather than advance what the car looks like change the engine to a less poluting one. why has it not happend. i think oil company's have something to do with i bet but who knows.

Nov 6, 2003, 04:24 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
manik Molten Ash Location: vancouver, b.c. Posts: 31	First of all, all oils pollute - from vegitable to crude. (Not neccisarily as much as crude, but that goes without saying) Secondly, it's this year (if not next) that we'll be seeing fuel cell techonology cars popping up... my personal opinion is that gas cars will be illegal in the next ten to 15 years.

Nov 7, 2003, 06:46 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Actually....if ONE car company throws out all their old equipment, and sells hemp oil cars (or beef oil or whatever the hell they've made), then they'll make a killing. The rest of the companies can follow or die out. However....I'm still not sure this "hemp oil" is cheap, effective, or even works. Can someone explain, using technical terms, how hemp oil is manufactured? What are the chemical components? Use detail. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 7, 2003, 07:18 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	ah man how cool would it be to be in a traffic jam with all that hemp oil burning around you? You'd never make it to work, just sat there revving your engine instead Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 7, 2003, 07:21 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	But we'll be able to forget about the traffic jam. Road rage wuoldnt exist. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 7, 2003, 07:30 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,) Exactly, they won't - actually, they'll lose a hell of a lot. That's the main reason that we have not switched yet: it's not in these huge companies' best interests to forget what they know and throw away all that they already have to go after something new. I think government action will be required to get the non-gasoline automotive ball rolling, because, unless the president of the EPA becomes the owner of Ford, a car company CEO could care less about the environment as long as he's not losing money.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, I agree, government action will be required. It's like this whole HDTV craze. In America high definition will be the standard in 2 years, and all manufacturers (Sony, Hitachi, etc) must make TVs adequate for the signal. This will cost the companies a ton of cash, but due to government mandate they have to do it. Why the government would be more concerned with how many lines of resolution Oprah has vs. the livelihood of our ecosystem is beyond me. So it goes

Nov 7, 2003, 10:07 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	I don't know where this idea that all companies are shortsighted has originated from. Most car companies have some form of fuel cell research going on - why would they bother if they don't see a future for it? The fact is that nobody knows for sure what direction future energy usage is going, and no company would be foolish enough to spend a huge amount of money on full scale development of fuel cell powered cars when there's no guarantee that consumers will be willing to pay for them. Perhaps government legislation would help - but I favour a gradual introduction rather than a wholesale imposition.

Nov 10, 2003, 04:16 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,) Coperate mentality only spans 5 years maximum. They have been trained that way. The industrial world is putting so much attention on attention to detail that long term thought is being bred out of the species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Exactly. What's in it for big business? GM? Ford? How will they benefit from throwing out all of their expensive manufacturing equipment and buying all new equipment that can handle building new, fuel-cell, hemp oil, or what have you type cars? Exactly, they won't - actually, they'll lose a hell of a lot. That's the main reason that we have not switched yet: it's not in these huge companies' best interests to forget what they know and throw away all that they already have to go after something new. I think government action will be required to get the non-gasoline automotive ball rolling, because, unless the president of the EPA becomes the owner of Ford, a car company CEO could care less about the environment as long as he's not losing money.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> automotive companies also have a gentleman's agreement not to raise fuel efficiency. ford was preparing to break said agreement (under the management of bill ford and nasser) and drastically increase the fuel economy of it's vehicles, much to the chagrin of the other big auto companies. but then the firestone/explorer debacle cost ford an incredible amount of money and time. http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 16, 2003, 06:09 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,471	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sean,) Yes, I agree, government action will be required. It's like this whole HDTV craze. In America high definition will be the standard in 2 years, and all manufacturers (Sony, Hitachi, etc) must make TVs adequate for the signal. This will cost the companies a ton of cash, but due to government mandate they have to do it. Why the government would be more concerned with how many lines of resolution Oprah has vs. the livelihood of our ecosystem is beyond me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ok, perhaps I've been living under a rock or this is US only but what is HDTV? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Nov 16, 2003, 11:02 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	High definition TV. In UK we just talk about the technology, its 100hz resolution rather than the traditonal 50hz. (I think this is what we are talking about). In UK we don't need to be baby talked about a product, if this is in fact what HDTV is. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 17, 2003, 04:40 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	The world is run on oil. When oil prices become unstable, the world economy fluctuates. Energy, manufacturing, and transportation all rely on black gold. More reason to shift towards alternate energies, correct? Right now, oil is priced by the American dollar. It's why it's so cheap in the states. http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20030609_...il_equation.htm A shift towards alternate sources would undoubtedly knock out the dollar as the de facto global reserve currency which has, since the 80s, propped up the US economy to the way it is right now. Foreign investment is the reason why Americans can enjoy being Americans while living with a 6 trillion dollar debt and a growing trade deficit. It's not only about the oil industry but also the American way of life, aka national security. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Nov 18, 2003, 02:12 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,471	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) High definition TV. In UK we just talk about the technology, its 100hz resolution rather than the traditonal 50hz. (I think this is what we are talking about). In UK we don't need to be baby talked about a product, if this is in fact what HDTV is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well scanning at 100Hz would bring about a clearer picture so it probably is. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before