patrick.net

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Personal maglift vehicles solve all the problems of dependency on oil.

Bull Shit

Sorry Dan but yeah, this is crazytalk.

Feel free to show me why the technology is impossible or would not have the advantages I've shown in other threads.

If we can have supercomputers with GPS, high-res 3D cameras, broad-band wireless communications, and endless extensibility that fit in the palm of our hands, we can get technology proved back in the 1950s to work on an industrial scale.

Dan8267 says

Feel free to show me why the technology is impossible or would not have the advantages I've shown in other threads

Nope you posited, it you do the linking.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Feel free to show me why the technology is impossible or would not have the advantages I've shown in other threads

Nope you posited, it you do the linking.

OK, I've research this extensively and have found no evidence to support the implausibility of maglifts. Therefore, I concede the argument on your behalf and admit that my idea is a great one.

Dan8267 says

OK, I've research this extensively and have found no evidence to support the implausibility of maglifts. Therefore, I concede the argument on your behalf and admit that my idea is a great one.

That is funny and complete bullshit. Unless they find the illusive room temperature fusion, it ain't gunna happen.

YesYNot says

The only people who find humor and schaudenfraude at this

Yes, I see the pattern here too. The same kind of people who try to get liberals twisted into a logical pretzel over bird deaths, also love to attack Priuses, overall costs of solar panels, compassion, tolerance; it is a kalidescope of what the angry, paranoid type of "conservative" THINKS liberals hold as sacred cows.

Upon examination, you find this type of person almost never has BETTER ideas, in fact they don't even have GOOD ideas making up their worldview a lot of the time.

Dan8267 says

no evidence to support the implausibility of maglifts

Oh, here's one: Relative cost per passenger mile.

indigenous says

Unless they find the illusive room temperature fusion, it ain't gunna happen.

They are electric, not nuclear. They run off the electric grid.

Automan Empire says

Oh, here's one: Relative cost per passenger mile.

Would be far less. Less energy costs, less maintenance (no moving parts), no need for auto insurance, no need for multiple vehicles per household. The same vehicle can be used by the entire family since it can drive dad/mom to work then pick up the kids. Maglifts would be way the hell cheaper in the long run.

Dan8267 says

They are electric, not nuclear. They run off the electric grid.

Fine than let the free market prove it out.

HydroCabron says

Homeboy says

thomaswong.1986 says

Hmmm... 232 versus 20. I'll take 20, thank you. Or maybe you would just like to go without electricity?

Bullshit!

Numbers, and relative costs mean nothing.

Buh? How is that "bullshit"? Careful, don't kick yourself with your knee jerking so hard.

New Renter says

The Germans are finding out wind power is kind of a PITA after all.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21580484-huge-offshore-energy-project-may-prove-expensive-disaster-white-elephants-seen-north-sea

Who gives a shit about the Germans?

Automan Empire says

Yes, I see the pattern here too. The same kind of people who try to get liberals twisted into a logical pretzel over bird deaths, also love to attack Priuses, overall costs of solar panels, compassion, tolerance; it is a kalidescope of what the angry, paranoid type of "conservative" THINKS liberals hold as sacred cows.

Ironic isn't it? Its as if anything that doesn't run on crude oil must surely be some sort of liberal conspiracy:

" Oh no! Those Liberals are tryin' to take away ma' full-sized truck that gets 12MPG because they buy priuses!!"

Stupid...

edvard2 says

Ironic isn't it? Its as if anything that doesn't run on crude oil must surely be some sort of liberal conspiracy:

" Oh no! Those Liberals are tryin' to take away ma' full-sized truck that gets 12MPG because they buy priuses!!"

Stupid...

The numbers I have read say it is not a viable source of energy.

Any of you bird brains have any liberal "facts"?

I don't know about the opinions of bird brains as they are not of the same species, but as an intelligent liberal I can tell you that California has been generating an enormous amount of electrical power with turbines.... for decades. Besides the article posted was about birds being hit by turbines anyway.

edvard2 says

intelligent liberal

Now that is an oxymoron, followed by conjecture...

indigenous says

Now that is an oxymoron, followed by conjecture...

Ahh... I see, now that you can't really find a tangible argument to counter my statements you'll now result to insults to diffuse the situation. Too bad. I already disproved your theory so deal with it in a mature manner. I too could resort to dumb insults but that would be counterproductive.

edvard2 says

Ahh... I see, now that you can't really find a tangible argument to counter my statements you'll now result to insults to diffuse the situation. Too bad. I already disproved your theory so deal with it in a mature manner. I too could resort to dumb insults but that would be counterproductive.

Ad Hominem is part of my MO

You have not disproved anything. The numbers I read say that wind power is not viable. You say otherwise yet won't produce numbers that indicate I should reconsider my thinking.

Now we know why that stupid bird is rare.

Dan8267 says

Would be far less. Less energy costs, less maintenance (no moving parts), no
need for auto insurance, no need for multiple vehicles per household. The same
vehicle can be used by the entire family since it can drive dad/mom to work then
pick up the kids. Maglifts would be way the hell cheaper in the long run.

For real? Build more trains?

Do you really think with our current environmental regulations (let alone lack of money) we could build new tracks in our lifetimes?

We are not Europe. Our country is far too big and spreadout to rely on trains for mass transit. Does your plan require Chinese style relocations to move the icky country and suburb folks into the rotten cities run by unions and liberals?

Better to invest all that money into a fleet of electric or natural gas burning buses and taxis.

indigenous says

You have not disproved anything. The numbers I read say that wind power is not viable. You say otherwise yet won't produce numbers that indicate I should reconsider my thinking.

Of course its viable. Take a trip out to Norcal and I'll drive you around the huge wind farms out here. Last time I looked those blades were still turning and still making electricity. So what do you think they're doing? Were they stuck in the ground as pretty decorations?

edvard2 says

Of course its viable.

What do you base that opinion on?

indigenous says

What do you base that opinion on?

The FACT that there are wind turbines at this very moment as I am writing this spinning and producing electricity. If they were not "viable", then they wouldn't be doing that.... would they? Yes. Or no.

edvard2 says

The FACT that there are wind turbines at this very moment as I am writing this spinning and producing electricity. If they were not "viable", then they wouldn't be doing that.... would they? Yes. Or no.

Not necessarily, investment might come from individuals who would not invest more as the return was not there. Government investment or subsidies make things possible that are not viable. Once the investment is made of course they are going to continue to operate but what is the time frame for payback? Spain for instance has gotten into huge trouble subsidizing alternative energy. Because it does not have genuine value.

indigenous says

Not necessarily, investment might come from individuals who would not invest more as the return was not there. Government investment or subsidies make things possible that are not viable. Once the investment is made of course they are going to continue to operate but what is the time frame for payback? Spain for instance has gotten into huge trouble subsidizing alternative energy. Because it does not have genuine value.

The government has invested in just about every single energy-generating system in this country. Hydroelectric Dams, nuclear power plants, Natural gas plants, solar and wind farms... you name it. Not all of those have been totally successful, and that goes for all of those forms I previously mentioned. If we're going to talk about government subsidies then what about the billions of dollars worth of tax breaks the Government gives to oil producers every year? So I fail to see your argument here: Take your pick. Every single energy form has its own level of failure and risk built in.

edvard2 says

The government has invested in just about every single energy-generating system in this country.

True, but the sucess rate is infinitely lower with government because the people making the decisions are politicians who only care about votes.

edvard2 says

If we're going to talk about government subsidies then what about the billions of dollars worth of tax breaks the Government gives to oil producers every year?

Yup cronyism especially with ADM and ethanol.

indigenous says

True, but the sucess rate is infinitely lower with government because the people making the decisions are politicians who only care about votes.

Actually... that wouldn't be correct. During the 2012 elections, there was much ballyhooying over Solyndra and so forth, and thus came the assertion that government shouldn't be in the business of investing in companies on part of the Romney campaign. There was a study done during that period that showed that no- as a matter of fact when the investments of those made by the government were compared to investments made by private investors, in the long run government investments have a higher success rate. I'm not trying to say that I necessarily love the idea of the government investing in companies, but its not really a valid point to claim their success rates are lower because they aren't.

But to think about this further, the government has always been an investor in some sort of business. Think about the military. From day one we've been providing business and investment dollars to various defense contractors. Most any new program, whether it be for the development of new aircraft, ships, or missiles requires an enormous amount of up-front initial funding for research and development. Not all of those projects are successful. For example there was a program in the late 50's to develop a jet-powered hovering saucer. The project was immensely expensive and ultimately a failure.

edvard2 says

There was a study done during that period that showed that no- as a matter of fact when the investments of those made by the government were compared to investments made by private investors, in the long run government investments have a higher success rate.

Show me the study, I don't believe it.

edvard2 says

But to think about this further, the government has always been an investor in some sort of business. Think about the military.

That is not a business. Of course it is crony capitalism, but the truth is these guys have a huge incentive to start wars.

indigenous says

Show me the study, I don't believe it.

Sure. Here's an interesting link that more or less says the same things I just repeated:
http://thefutureforum.org/economics/doe-green-investment-portfolio-is-this-government-qua-private-equity-investor-receiving-fair-criticism/

indigenous says

That is not a business. Of course it is crony capitalism, but the truth is these guys have a huge incentive to start wars.

Of course its a "business" ( plural) Don't believe it? Take a stroll through any historical navy ship, like maybe a WW2 aircraft carrier. Take a look around guess what? You'll find name brands that would be familiar to any household. Pretty much all military equipment is made from parts, components, and then of course the builder themselves whom represent an unfathomable amount of private companies. And why is spending money on defense automatically deemed "Cronyism"? Would you rather we have no military at all? That doesn't go for the military either, but also the freeways you drive to work on, the schools kids go to, and so on. All of those things took money and investments from the state or national government.

Dan8267 says

Feel free to show me why the technology is impossible or would not have the advantages I've shown in other threads.

If we can have supercomputers with GPS, high-res 3D cameras, broad-band wireless communications, and endless extensibility that fit in the palm of our hands, we can get technology proved back in the 1950s to work on an industrial scale.

Maybe I'm not seeing your vision here. It sounds like you are proposing an elevated set of tracks upon which car and bus sized pods transport freight and passengers:

OK:

#1 - Technology: As of yet there are no superconducting magnets which can operate at summer in Phoenix temperatures or even winter in Minneapolis temperatures. Last I heard superconducting magnets STILL needed liquid nitrogen temperatures to operate. Maintaining such a nationwide network of superconducting magnets at such temperatures alone is crazytalk.

#2 Energy: Assuming regular electromagnets would be needed to perform the levitation, can you show that the energy needed to levitate such a vehicle would be less than at least the friction generated by our current rail system?

#3 Materials: Can you also show we have enough metal to even build such a national network? Keep in mind the loads needed to simultaneously levitate AND propel thousands of vehicles even on minor through fares. You will need to include multiple lanes, and roads to every location currently served by conventional roads.

#4 Maintenance: You claim an advantage here and overall I can see it - to a point. How would you propose to divert traffic during maintenance or in an emergency? Currently a car can switch lanes ad infinitum but tracked vehicles are very limited in this regard.

#5 NIMBYism. Elevated platforms block views and would be considered eyesores by people with money. How do you propose to convince rich people to go along with this idea when there is no clear benefit to them but significant drawbacks?

#6 Space. Where would such a network go? In cities there is no space for such a proposal without destroying the current road system. What is your solution here?

#2 -

edvard2 says

Sure. Here's an interesting link that more or less says the same things I just repeated:

http://thefutureforum.org/economics/doe-green-investment-portfolio-is-this-government-qua-private-equity-investor-receiving-fair-criticism/

I only have time to scan it. Basically iI disagree with the premise. As by definition government changes the market by making money available that would not be made available by free market investment.

Of course the same companies built war machines duh

But as Eisenhower warned we now have the Military–industrial complex that did not exist before WWll. It has economic ramifications.

New Renter says

#5 NIMBYism. Elevated platforms block views and would be considered eyesores by
people with money. How do you propose to convince rich people to go along with
this idea when there is no clear benefit to them but significant drawbacks?

This issue alone is why building new train lines is madness.

Unless we are going to conduct mass relocations of the people and businesses closer to the cities and train stations, how are these people going to get where they are going?

We would have to completely change our society to make this work. But Obama seems up to the challenge - at least with his rhetoric of "fundamentally changing America".

Just more stupid central planning by utopian libs stuck in 18th century thinking.

indigenous says

Basically iI disagree with the premise. As by definition government changes the market by making money available that would not be made available by free market investment.

Of course the same companies built war machines duh

But as Eisenhower warned we now have the Military–industrial complex that did not exist before WWll. It has economic ramifications.

Ok, then we will have to agree to disagree, which is fine. As far as the government making money available at their whim, well perhaps show me a government that hasn't in some way manipulated either their currency, or their economic affairs. Many of the Asian economic powers over the past 50+ years basically got their way embedded heavily into our economy by grossly manipulating their currency among other practices. For example, in the not so distant past the US made the lion's share of the personal electronics on the market. Everything from radios, TV's, stereos, you name it. At one point some of those electronics manufactures where the largest companies on earth. As of now they are just about all gone or former shadows of themselves because cheap competition and a manipulated Japanese Yen that kept their currency valued drastically lower than the dollar made it impossible for American firms to compete and so they either shipped off all their labor or simply went out of business. So in that regard currency manipulation worked very well for the Japanese economy.

In regards to Eisenhower's comments, well I do not disagree with his sentiment. But I believe I am going to guess that you would at least agree that we do need an active military. As such that requires government investment. As such therein lies the question of the efficacy of that investment but it is an investment just the same.

socal2 says

Unless we are going to conduct mass relocations of the people and businesses closer to the cities and train stations, how are these people going to get where they are going?

In certain areas I think high-speed rail would make a lot of sense. Particularly on the highly populated coasts.

For example, in the Bay Area we are about an hour to an hour and a half from Sacramento by freeway. On bad traffic days that can be even worse. Thus its way too far for the average commuter to drive to and from every day for work. But... what if you could take a train from SF to Sac? Or vice-versa? That would have some clear benefits. For starters, you can buy a pretty nice house in Sacramento for around $250k or so, or about 50%-60% less than the same home in the Bay Area. Imagine if this train could get you to your job in SF or somewhere in the Bay Area in say- 30-40 minutes? Then it would suddenly become much more viable to work in the Bay Area, and live in Sacramento and not have to pay out the nose either.

Another area: The entire eastern seaboard in the Northeast. It too suffers the same problems where the large job areas are extremely costly places to live in buy a house in. But what if a high speed train could get you to suburbs located far out where the prices could be lower?

Of course I realize that the unforeseen could happen and that instant availability of shorter commutes to further away places could then mean instant ballooning of those home prices within the train's reach. But to me its simply stupid that we as a country have managed to squish like 75% of the professional jobs to large and very costly metro areas on the coasts when a drive across the country shows you most of it is totally vacant. All that room for people to live and not done so because we all "Have" to live close to work only because our cars can't get us far away fast enough to make things less competitive.

socal2 says

New Renter says

#5 NIMBYism. Elevated platforms block views and would be considered eyesores by

people with money. How do you propose to convince rich people to go along with

this idea when there is no clear benefit to them but significant drawbacks?

This issue alone is why building new train lines is madness.

Unless we are going to conduct mass relocations of the people and businesses closer to the cities and train stations, how are these people going to get where they are going?

We would have to completely change our society to make this work. But Obama seems up to the challenge - at least with his rhetoric of "fundamentally changing America".

Just more stupid central planning by utopian libs stuck in 18th century thinking.

I like the idea of high speed trains as an alternative to airlines France and Japan have done well with theirs. But tracked vehicles as personal transportation? I REALLY don't see that working.

Self driving plug-in biodiesel and/or natural gas electric hybrids IMO are a lot more doable.

edvard2 says

But... what if you could take a train from SF to Sac? Or vice-versa?

You can but its not high speed:

http://www.capitolcorridor.org/

indigenous says

Except that that invesment is not real value and does not create anything valuable to the society.

That point can be debated. Semiconductors. Computers. Nuclear power, Nuclear medicine, and other related to it. The un-told thousands of new materials developed for NASA. These are some of the many things that were developed mostly for military purposes. Entire industries got their start this way. You think about the fact that we got a man on the moon starting with hardly any of the materials we needed to start with in the space of about nine years and that possibly represents the fastest and single largest growth in technology in human history.

I am not by any means a cheerleader for war. But the emphasis on various military expenditures have led to an enormous amount of the everyday things we use on a daily basis. Including the computer I type this on, and the cell phone sitting on my desk.

edvard2 says

For example, in the Bay Area we are about an hour to an hour and a half from
Sacramento by freeway. On bad traffic days that can be even worse. Thus its way
too far for the average commuter to drive to and from every day for work. But...
what if you could take a train from SF to Sac? Or vice-versa? That would have
some clear benefits.

I just don't think we could ever build new tracks in California with all of the competing environmental and NIMBY constituents. Jerry Brown can't even convince the luddites to build the water tunnel at the delta to keep life needed water resources flowing to our massive population. That project alone has been held up for decades.

Just imagine when a stretch of new tracks comes up against the white tailed rat or some other endangered species? The whole project would be a trainwreck - pun intended.

It would be much smarter and much cheaper to invest in a fleet of clean powered buses and build more carpool lanes on the existing freeways to shuttle people between cities.

socal2 says

It would be much smarter and much cheaper to invest in a fleet of clean powered buses and build more carpool lanes on the existing freeways to shuttle people between cities.

what is wrong with the free market approach of computer driven cars in effect making the freeway into a train?

indigenous says

socal2
says

It would be much smarter and much cheaper to invest in a fleet of clean
powered buses and build more carpool lanes on the existing freeways to shuttle
people between cities.

what is wrong with the free market approach of computer driven cars in effect
making the freeway into a train?

I'm cool with that.

We already have thousands and thousands of miles of existing roads and freeways that we can upgrade at a fraction of the cost of building a new high-speed train line to support rich folks who want to play on their iPads while they commute between the City and their big homes out in the suburbs.

Our population size is stabilizing and more and more people will be able to telecommute which will reduce the stress on our existing freeways. No need to spend what precious little money we have to pander to a small segment of people living in Blue States like California or the New York/DC corridor.

indigenous says

Fine than let the free market prove it out.

The free market would have never created the Highway Transportation System even though that is critical to our economy.

The free market gives you creations that take little effort like crappy smart phone apps. The free market does not do large infrastructure projects, however necessary or important.

Furthermore, the free market only advances projects that profit a few people, not everyone. Whenever everyone profits from a project, no one in the free markets wants to fund the project. It's a dilemma.

The free market is good for some things, not every thing.