« First « Previous Comments 34 - 73 of 84 Next » Last » Search these comments
Reality saysEver heard of a thing called the Truth?
As opposed to a presupposition the likes of which you made numerous times in your argumentation? Yes.
They will all look basically the same with varying paint jobs.
One thing I've learned over my life is that although technology uses energy, the same device can both get better and use less energy
A car, for example, could take advantage of airflow to control it's direction with dynamic surfaces. Such a car would be entirely FUNCTIONAL, though. You'd end up with something akin to a bicycle which has been, basically perfected.
PeopleUnited saysFrom a Biblical perspective you are asking
Let me be crystal clear on this: I am NOT asking from or for a BIBLICAL perspective. Good day.
From a Biblical perspective you are asking, did God create petroleum in the first seven days, or did it happen after that such as during the flood?
Care to point out where?
Contrary to the narrative "The left's motivation isn't to prevent pollution, it's to take humanity back to the stone age before mechanized travel" is completely off base when you look at the evolution of the automobile from the 50s till today. What we GOT were cars that are extremely collision safe while becoming quite light, and economical and clean burning while performing well and being fun to drive.
It's amazing the incremental steps made to wring each additional sometimes 1/100th of a mile per gallon out of a car, like the time Volvo retooled their assembly plants to use fasteners one wrench size smaller therefore fractionally lighter throughout the car on a model that was ending production at the end of that year anyway, to meet that year's CAFE average. ICE Cars are a VERY mature technology, for the amount they can wring from a gallon of gas today.
Right after the part I quoted, you said "The biogenic theory was actually invented with ulterior motive: to make petroleum industry products sound more precious." This is not mutually agreed upon as fact, but what you wrote presupposes it's "the truth." Unironically, too.
And this: "That has pretty much put an end to the biogenic theory of hydrocarbon for people who have really thought about the subject." is a triple-nested cluster of presuppositions- that the biogenic theory is mutually considered ended, and that any people who think otherwise (IF these even exist) are people who have NOT really thought about the subject. I'd expect this level of subterfuge from someone else's dysfunctional Mother-in-law, perhaps, but not from partners in a discussion of scientific facts, theories, and hypotheses.
Automan - you can't do this to make an argument. You're appealing to a faith that isn't shared by everybody. Even if you're entirely correct in your faith, people who don't share it will just look at it as bad reasoning and they will dismiss EVERYTHING you say after that, because you are starting from bad axioms in their viewpoint.
Automan - you can't do this to make an argument. You're appealing to a faith that isn't shared by everybody.
Petroleum is optically active. It also contains terpenes which are present in living organisms. Hence, it is derived from biological materials. Anyone who argues against that should present a mechanism by which optically active hydrocarbons are created abiotically.
So optical activity of deeper oil deposits is lower than that of more shallow deposits? Link please with values of optical rotation for both
With compression ignition of gasoline down the road (or something nearly as lean-burning as that), gas mileage will only improve.
That' actually a good example. Did Volvo's effort in that case making what car buyers really cared about? or wasting resources on an effort to cut back that meaningless 1/100th of a mile due to government regulatory red-tape, when they could have spent the time and resources on making the next generation model arrive sooner and more affordable to more buyers thereby saving more lives?
But is that because of government regulation or despite government regulation getting in the way of making cars that people want?
Bd6r saysSo optical activity of deeper oil deposits is lower than that of more shallow deposits? Link please with values of optical rotation for both
Not talking about comparing different well depth from different areas. The deep drilling / cracking in the last couple decades has been below the zones of old "depleted" oil wells and coal mine areas, and they have been coming with natural gas, with little optical activity to speak of.
well ICE engine management keeps breaking through points of diminishing returns of earlier generations, but it's hard to see much improvement from where we are now. Thanks largely to cheap MOSFETS and the energy density breakthrough of lithium, electric vehicles are very competitive now with ICE vehicles. Converting the entire fleet to electric faces constraints in the delivery grid and lithium supply.
The difference wasn't meaningless, it was "worth it" enough to purchase a years supply of different fasteners and tooling, and by 1mm steps to previously "odd" sizes, not 2 mm steps to the next "standard" tool head size. The design and development departments at this time were working with world suppliers like Bosch, Nippondenso, and Aisin-Warner 6-8 model years ahead of the one in question, so basically production matters like the fasteners don't affect the design team in a zero sum game in enterprises of this scale.
the fastner size therefore strength reduction might make the vehicle less safe
Do you know what compounds are present in nat gas and how many of them can be optically active?
Nope, they used similarly sized fasteners with not loss of performance on future models, the originals were overkill if anything.
Patrick says@CaptainHorsePaste That's interesting. So what's the answer?
TheFremenSpiceOil exists in Vast Quantities.
Vast, my Duke.
Imagine you are eyewitness to an important event. You know exactly what happened. But then someone down the line tells a different story. This fake account by someone who did not witness it becomes the prevailing theory on what happened. So you take out your diary where you have recorded what actually happened and start to share it with anyone who will listen.
richwicks saysAutoman - you can't do this to make an argument. You're appealing to a faith that isn't shared by everybody.
it's his thread.
You can proselytize your views and correct people for their reasoning and tell them why they are wrong on your own thread.
My critique of the American auto industry is that they really DID spend money on lawyers and lobbyists and PR, INSTEAD of engineers. The Japanese in particular quietly went about meeting and exceeding the requirements, and ate the American carmakers' lunch starting in the 80s as a result.
All you fuckers are either really smart or the best bull shitter's I've ever run across.
Bd6r saysDo you know what compounds are present in nat gas and how many of them can be optically active?
Likely no optical activity whatsoever, like I said "with little optical activity to speak of." IIRC, so-called "optical activity" happens/happened only to petroleum components/distillants greater than 220 molecular mass, that's equivalent to having more than 15 carbons in a chain or ring; peaking around 400 molecular mass, i.e. equivalent to nearly 30-carbon in a chain or ring. That's some heavy lubrication oil / ship bunk fuel territory before hitting wax territory around 40-50 carbon. Natural gas is mostly 1-carbon Methane, with some smaller fractions of 2-4 carbon chains, far shorter than the 15-carbon jet-fuel range, where "optical activity" started to show.
If I may speculate a little here: IMHO, that focus on "optical activity" was a little fraud like today's PCR (magnificat...
you didn't witness. You're just repeating a story
richwicks saysyou didn't witness. You're just repeating a story
That story was written by the eyewitness. It is his diary.
Origins of petroleum: Biotic or abiotic? Biden's farts.
Anyhow, you didn't witness. You're just repeating a story.richwicks says
I wouldn't start a thread just to criticize somebody's reasoning. I'm just tellingrichwicks says
I'm pointing out that non religious people won't bother considering religious lore as valid reasoningrichwicks says
Again, you take this on faith.richwicks says
You believe the Bible was written by god through a man,
Carry On, Nothing (worth note) To See Here.
I remember those times. In 1980's, a "rice burner" didn't even come close to meeting American safety standards but American car makers had to meet those standards.
Are any of my statements incorrect?
Also, they absolutely DID have to meet minimum motor vehicle safety standards to be able to sell in the North America market.
except the Pinto.
They denied it was a problem for as long as they could
History is rhyming.
richwicks saysexcept the Pinto.
The Pinto was actually a VERY good car in many ways.
then did a recall that consisted of inserting a plastic shield between the tank and its mounting straps by the differential it would puncture upon.
Yes, in these cases owing to the underlying fact that laissez-faire capitalism routinely and ruthlessly places personal, shareholder, and company profit above public and individual client health, safety, and value.
« First « Previous Comments 34 - 73 of 84 Next » Last » Search these comments
The abiotic case is that carbonate rocks and water get subducted by plate tectonics and changed by the deep heat and pressure into petroleum spectrum molecules.
This is often brought up by people holding cornucopian pro-petroleum positions, suggesting that because it's an abiotic process, oil is endlessly renewable. Proponents never take the hypothesis further and detail processes, timelines, and specific deposits showing clear evidence of abiotic origin. Furthermore, they never seem to recognize that even if petrogenesis proves 100% abiotic and as described, it's STILL too slow of a process to provide limitless energy resources to humans for limitless time.
The biotic case is that extant petroleum deposits consist of metamorphosed ancient biological deposits like algal mats in lakes. Much of the coal on earth was originally jungle land that existed before cellulose eating bacteria evolved, resulting in very long term in-situ accumulation of carbon.
Accessible oil shale deposits contain identifiable fossils and chemical signatures of biological processes. A particularly good example is the Messel Pit in Germany, an ancient lake which formed in a deep volcanic vent with chronically low oxygen below the surface waters. The pit was believed to release intermittent clouds of CO2 that caused mass die-offs of larger animals, whose bodies sank to the hypoxic depths to become preserved in remarkably excellent condition. The contents of this pit were estimated to represent over a million years of accumulation, from a time period approximately 47 million years ago. Therefore, this pit is not only proof that oil CAN form biotically, it gives a lower bound of 47 million years needed for that to become oil under those specific conditions since. The location is believed over time to have drifted 10 degrees further North in latitude in addition to gaining up to a few hundred feet of overburden above the shale deposits. https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/messel_pit.html
Proponents of abiotic petrogenesis, are you aware of any specific oil deposits that can be conclusively proven to have formed only by abiotic processes?