Ecofascist Disasters

[Andy]

Hemp. Better yield than corn, grows anywhere in just about any soil, 2 crops/year in many areas. Also, there are always sugar beets (will grow ANYWHERE).

Brings a new meaning to 'high'way. My observation is, miss-use of hemp will prevent it from ever being used in good applications. Despite that, I have my doubts because the research I was privy to covered dozens of applications, and none came close to being economically sound. Sugar beets are third. The top two were Corn and Sugar Cane.

However, I fully admit this disclaimer, I do not know enough specifically about hemp used for ethanol to make a conclusive statement.

But, none of these comes close to dealing with the issues sited. Farm land for food would still be used for fuel. Still not enough land to make enough fuel. Still not self sufficient, in that without oil driven cultivators, you would burn all the fuel in the process. Economically a nightmare. So on and so forth. Ideas are nice.. but Ethanol is just a scam.

There has been some potential in Bio-Diesel. It's still has some major hang-ups, but there are some possibilities. Also there are some working methods for artificially generated oil. Many are self supporting and economically sound. Problem being that it would not hurt the oil companies (they would still purchase the oil created, and refine it into gasoline) and thus doesn't peek the interest of anti-oil company bigots. So they are not gaining traction like they should if we really wanted renewable sources of energy.

 

[top gun]

Andy;36820]First, let me tackle the tax write off. I completely disagree with tax breaks for rich people. That's what this is. If we are equal under the law, then there should be no exception where one person pays a tax and another does not. If I get a tax break, you should. If you do, I should. If I do not, you should not. It's amazing to me how we talk about equality, and how rich don't pay enough taxes, and yet here you are advocating exactly that. Just because someone else has more money than me, and can afford to buy an expensive car, then he should get a tax break? If you believe that, don't ever complain about rich not paying taxes again. You are the cause of it.

Rich people don't even have to care about gas mileage silly. The top end market will always be fine buying Escalades or anything else. The tax break is to encourage conservation. It's amazing... you are actually arguing against conservation with gas @ about 4 bucks a gallon... that's hilarious!:D


Sorry, but 10.9% drop in sales of the Prius hybrid over last year.

Green Car Congress

Toyota, as the hybrid market leader, showed the largest absolute drop in hybrid sales, down 3% to 18,130 units, with the losses coming mainly from the SUVs. The Prius, by contrast, had its best September yet, with 12,494 units, up 19.1% year-on-year. The Camry hybrid came in with 4,196 units, up 3.8% year-on-year.

I never said small cars can't be great. That's all nice and peachy. I may buy a Jetta if they come out with the Diesel. 50 MPG and it's no more expensive than a regular car, I may go for.

They make a diesel. Great cars.

GM loses money on every Cobalt last I read. If you can find otherwise, please post. I wager the Focus is the same.

It's your contention... show me!

CVT does not save gas. I went to college for automotive technology, I worked through a GM training course, I worked for 2 years at a Cadillac dealership. The information I got straight from GM was CVTs do not save gas. Nor does VVT which is old tech as well. You bought into a marketing gimmick.

Again professor it's your contention... show us!

You seem off base. Look at history. When the CAFE standards were imposed, there were huge safety issues all across the board. After years and years, we finely got it manageable where cars are not 'complete' death traps. Now we are increasing the CAFE standard. I would wager, those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

You have to stop living in the 70's. We've come a long way since the Vega and the Pinto my friend. That was a time when it was just do anything to make it not suck gas like a Hemi Cuda. Good, comfortable, safe, fuel efficient cars are everywhere now... you know this.

The only other possibility I see is for GM and Ford to almost abandon North American plants, and move operations for all of these type of autos overseas.

The truth is if American car companies want to compete... they can build cars like the Jetta and Camry here. As a matter of fact I here the new Malibu is pretty good.

Ok... good point. A over priced, under performing, fiscally inept technology, can be adapted to larger vehicles where it will exemplify the same negative qualities. Oh please please sign me up. With all due respect, if living in the past, means making wise money saving choices, I'll live there for a long time

Dude... I'm not hocking the Yukon. I think the tipping point has come with gas prices where we are going to see a major move away from big SUV's and trucks being used as family cars and more fuel efficient vehicles taking their place. Look at Honda Accord and Toyota Camry sales compared to Yukon & Suburban sales now. It's just an adjustment in the market. We will see a much greater percentage of SUV's & trucks used in business only applications & less for private use. Makes sense.

The wind mills I'm talking about are the government subsidized connected to the grid, not really helping much, but costing tons of money, useless mills. Not farmer bob with a wind mill charging up his old tractor battery. That's fine. I'm not paying for farmer bobs mill. I am paying for the useless mills.

A comprehensive energy approach uses multiple technologies to spread the load. Necessity is the mother of invention... and we're inventing right now. Hey, I have no problem with a nuclear plant coming on line to help also. It's all about multiple sourcing.

Nor will factually ignorant posts, devoid of logic or reason, work on convincing me. Auto technology will continue to evolve. But until something that actually works comes about, I'll keep the 82 Buick

There ya go 82 Buick...
There are only hundreds of car models being built today better than that. Unless you happen to have a Grand National to collect... an 82 Buick is about as embarrassing as it gets. Stick with it though if that's your cup of tea.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Brings a new meaning to 'high'way. My observation is, miss-use of hemp will prevent it from ever being used in good applications. Despite that, I have my doubts because the research I was privy to covered dozens of applications, and none came close to being economically sound. Sugar beets are third. The top two were Corn and Sugar Cane.

However, I fully admit this disclaimer, I do not know enough specifically about hemp used for ethanol to make a conclusive statement.

But, none of these comes close to dealing with the issues sited. Farm land for food would still be used for fuel. Still not enough land to make enough fuel. Still not self sufficient, in that without oil driven cultivators, you would burn all the fuel in the process. Economically a nightmare. So on and so forth. Ideas are nice.. but Ethanol is just a scam.

That's the beauty of hemp...it will grow and thrive ANYWHERE, in the worst soil. (It's called "weed" for a reason.) It grows fast (enough for 2 crops/year south of the Mason-Dixon Line), it will grow with minimal fertilizers. It can be made into diesel fuel (biodiesel from hempseed oil), cloth (tougher & warmer than cotton), rope, paper, even wallboard. In colonial times, one could pay taxes with hemp, and for several years, it was criminal to NOT grow it. As recently as WW2, hemp farmers were exempted from the draft.

Thank you, DuPont.

There has been some potential in Bio-Diesel. It's still has some major hang-ups, but there are some possibilities. Also there are some working methods for artificially generated oil. Many are self supporting and economically sound. Problem being that it would not hurt the oil companies (they would still purchase the oil created, and refine it into gasoline) and thus doesn't peek the interest of anti-oil company bigots. So they are not gaining traction like they should if we really wanted renewable sources of energy.

True enough.

 

[Andy]

Rich people don't even have to care about gas mileage silly. The top end market will always be fine buying Escalades or anything else. The tax break is to encourage conservation. It's amazing... you are actually arguing against conservation with gas @ about 4 bucks a gallon... that's hilarious!:

What you just said was stupid. Rich people do care about gas milage. In fact, that's part of the reason they are rich, is because they make wise economic choices. Why do you think Caddys get 25 MPG highway? The Corvette gets 25 Highway!! And that's the Z06 500HP package. All the Luxo-autos are very fuel thrifty given the economic-class they are geared toward.

I can't tell you the number of times people brought their Caddys into the shop complaining about bad gas milage.

The given reason for the tax break is completely and totally irrelevant. Every single tax break that goes to the rich is justified by some lame reason. So make a choice, you want the rich getting tax cuts that you can't get? Or not? My uncle is an Engineer for a major corporation. He just spent a week in China at a hotel that was $350 per day. He has earned over $150K a year for most of his life. He bought a Prius... why? Tax break. You end up paying a lot in taxes when you earn one million every 7 years... so he wants every tax break he can get. Expensive upper-class hybrid... huge tax break... perfect. Either chose to support the Constitution which holds that men are equal and should therefore pay equal tax, no breaks subsidies or credits... or support the elitist system we have and stop complaining about rich people not paying taxes. It's your own fault.

If you think I do not support conservation because I don't support unfair elitist tax system that penalizes the poor... that's just foolish.

Sorry, but 10.9% drop in sales of the Prius hybrid over last year.

This article is from last year. Mine was from last month. Which one of us is living in the past now?

They make a diesel. Great cars.

Yeah, that doesn't really support your argument. That's a massive SUV with a V10 Diesel. I was speaking of their original TDI Sedan that got 50 miles per gallon without any lame expensive waste of money hybrid setup. In other words, a car that actually saved you money while getting good gas milage.

Again professor it's your contention... show us!

InsightCentral
CVT - 56 MPG
5-speed - 68 MPG

CVT vs. 6-speed

Initial tests show that while the performance and had efficiency of both CVT and 6-speed automatic are about the same, economics may be the differentiator, moving forward. CVTs are more complicated and more expensive to build. And several manufacturers are working together on cost-effective 6-speed transmissions. GM was the first to cancel its CVT program and others may soon follow

I don't have the information from GM anymore, I don't work there like I used to. The information I had was that during testing with their CVT in a Saturn, the 6-speed automatic got 0.8 MPG better than the CVT. As for the VVT, I worked at a Caddy dealer, and the new Northstar Caddy motor was getting VVT. We had a presentation on how to deal/repair/sell it, and the reason for the VVT wasn't gas milage, it was performance. So I'm not bothering anymore with it. If you want to believe whatever about VVT, feel free. I know the truth. By all means run out and buy a car with VVT.

You have to stop living in the 70's. We've come a long way since the Vega and the Pinto my friend. That was a time when it was just do anything to make it not suck gas like a Hemi Cuda. Good, comfortable, safe, fuel efficient cars are everywhere now... you know this.

oh looky, you made a point I wasn't even contending. Where did I say there are not "Good, comfortable, safe, fuel efficient cars are everywhere now"? Hmmm.. why no where. So you came up with a non-existent argument, and soundly defeated it. (pats you on the back) Good job. Would you care to make an argument related to the points I made?

The truth is if American car companies want to compete... they can build cars like the Jetta and Camry here. As a matter of fact I here the new Malibu is pretty good.

Why U.S. Autos can't compete

Dude... I'm not hocking the Yukon. I think the tipping point has come with gas prices where we are going to see a major move away from big SUV's and trucks being used as family cars and more fuel efficient vehicles taking their place. Look at Honda Accord and Toyota Camry sales compared to Yukon & Suburban sales now. It's just an adjustment in the market. We will see a much greater percentage of SUV's & trucks used in business only applications & less for private use. Makes sense.

Entirely possible. Especially if we continue to allow our government to keep causing the prices to jack up, and artificially inflate the cost of larger autos, then sure. We'll all be driving Yugo style before too long. It'll be like Europe... where people climb 6 at a time into 'clown cars' with hands and feet sticking out the windows. (I went to Europe back in 97)

A comprehensive energy approach uses multiple technologies to spread the load. Necessity is the mother of invention... and we're inventing right now. Hey, I have no problem with a nuclear plant coming on line to help also. It's all about multiple sourcing.

Sure. Of course the CVT was created in 1886. The Ford Fiesta had one in 1987. VVT was created in the 1960s, and was used in an Alfa Romeo in 1980. Hybrid have existed since 1921. Nothing new here really.

There ya go 82 Buick...
There are only hundreds of car models being built today better than that. Unless you happen to have a Grand National to collect... an 82 Buick is about as embarrassing as it gets. Stick with it though if that's your cup of tea.

I'm not embarrassed at all. I don't live my life so that others like, or are impressed by what I have. What you, or anyone else thinks, is of no concern to me at all. Just like if you don't believe what I know about VVTs, and Hybrids and CVT... that's no skin off my back. Oh no... someone doesn't like my 82 Buick lol... oh the shame! Oh no "Top Gun" on the internet doesn't believe me! Oh the horrors!

Little tip... if your value, or worth in life, is what you drive or what stuff you have... you are worthless. Just being honest, not trying to be insulting. Stuff doesn't make you a somebody, so if that's 'who you are' and stuff is 'your value'... then you are no one, with no value. If the only reason people are friends with you is because you have object X, or drive car Z... then you have no friends. The moment you don't have those things, your friends are gone, because they were never friends with you, but rather your car.

 

[Bunz]

However, I fully admit this disclaimer, I do not know enough specifically about hemp used for ethanol to make a conclusive statement.

I dont know enough about its ethanol potential to make a judgement on that issue. But will point out that hemp is not the same as marijuana. You can smoke hemp plants all day long and get nothing but a bad case of coughs, just ask 9sublime

Hemp is easily the most useful plant that is not used to its full potential because of a poor association with drugs.

 

[top gun]

Thought I'd just go ahead and post this for Andy...

Efficient Transmission Designs

Table of contents

1 About

2 Companies


About Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)
(http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech_transmission.shtml) - CVTs in currently available vehicles utilize a pair of variable-diameter pulleys connected by a belt or chain that can produce an infinite number of engine/wheel speed ratios. This system has several advantages over conventional transmission designs: Seamless acceleration without the jerk or jolt from changing gears; No frequent downshifting or "gear hunting" on hills; Fuel efficiency Improvement: 6% ; Savings Over Vehicle Lifetime: $1,600.
Companies
Antonov (http://www.antonov-transmission.com/technologies.htm) - This company has existed for ages, with a ready to implement, hyperefficient atomatic transmission. Though not a CVT, very efficient and pleasant in driving (good old excelerating feeling). Beats me why never implemented. See nice animated explanations.

Torotrak (http://www.torotrak.com/) - Full toroidal Infinitely Variable Transmission (IVT) optimises engine efficiency without the torque limitation of a continuously variable transmission (CVT). Tests show a fuel economy improvement of 20% compared to a 4-speed automatic and 10% compared to a 6-speed automatic, with significant emission reductions. When applied to a hybrid the IVT improves efficiency in steady state cruise conditions.

Hydristor to convert vehicles into green hybrids - This infinitely variable vane hydraulic pump/motor is basically a simplified automatic transmission with no gears, with regenerative storage capability. Aiming to retrofit existing vehicles, it is projected to double or even triple mileage, while drastically cutting emissions (to 1/4) and boosting performance.

Van Cor Transmission (http://www.vancortransmission.com/) - Symbiotic Drive (http://www.vancortransmission.com/web011_051130.html) runs both the gas engine and an electric motor at the same time in varied proportions to produce continuously variable output, an energy efficient process called “torque amplification”. The two power sources are combined through a planetary system in which the electric motor can become an output generator when the gas engine is idling or when the vehicle is decelerating.

Torvec (http://www.torvec.com/products_ivt.html) - Infinitely Variable Transmission (IVT™) combines hydraulic pump technology with gearing and valving resulting in fuel economy improvement of 38% in city driving conditions and reduced emissions. The transmission can bolt into existing drive trains with no redesign of the automobile. There are over 70% fewer parts to fail and all key wear parts operate in hydraulic fluid containment.

SuperDrive (http://www.superdriveinc.com/) - Continuously variable transmission (CVT) capable of heavy torque loads and high speeds with improved fuel economy and reduced emissions. A CVT is a totally automatic transmission that does not shift from one gear to another as the vehicle accelerates, but provides constant, smooth acceleration. See also Department of Energy (http://www.eere.energy.gov/inventions/pdfs/superdrive.pdf) (pdf file) - Hydraulic transmission system improves fuel efficiency 20-25% in heavy duty diesel trucks and 50-55% in light duty trucks.


I'll follow up with VVT and other modern gas savings improvements Andy doesn't believe in...

 

[top gun]

And here it is...

Variable Valve Timing & Lift (VVT&L)
Cylinder Deactivation
Turbocharging & Supercharging
Direct Fuel Injection (w/ turbocharging or supercharging)
Integrated Starter/Generator (ISG)


Variable Valve Timing & Lift (VVT&L)
Also called variable valve actuation (VVT), variable-cam timing and variable valve timing and lift electronic control (VTEC®)

Valves control the flow of air and fuel, into the cylinders and exhaust out of them. When and how long the valves open (timing) and how much the valves move (lift) both affect engine efficiency.

Optimum timing and lift settings are different for high and low engine speeds. Traditional designs, however, use fixed timing and lift settings, which are a compromise between the optimum for high and low speeds. VVT&L systems automatically alter timing and lift to the optimum settings for the engine speed.

Potential Efficiency Improvement: 5%
Savings Over Vehicle Lifetime: $1,400*

Cylinder Deactivation
Also called multiple displacement, displacement on demand (DOD), and variable cylinder management

This technology merely deactives some of the engine's cylinders when they are not needed. This temporarily turns a 8- or 6-cylinder engine into a 4- or 3-cylinder engine. This technology is not used on 4-cylinder engines since it would cause a noticeable decrease in engine smoothness.

Potential Efficiency Improvement: 7.5%
Savings Over Vehicle Lifetime: $2,000*

Turbocharging & Supercharging

Turbochargers and superchargers are fans that force compressed air into an engine’s cylinders. A turbocharger fan is powered by exhaust from the engine, while a supercharger fan is powered by the engine itself.

Both technologies allow more compressed air and fuel to be injected into the cylinders, generating extra power from each explosion. A turbocharged or supercharged engine produces more power than the same engine without the charging, allowing manufacturers to user smaller engines without sacrificing performance.

Potential Efficiency Improvement: 7.5%
Savings Over Vehicle Lifetime: $2,000*

Direct Fuel Injection (with Turbocharging/Supercharging)
Also called fuel stratified injection or direct injection stratified charge

In conventional multi-port fuel injection systems, fuel is injected into the port and mixed with air before the air-fuel mixture is pumped into the cylinder. In direct injection systems, fuel is injected directly into the cylinder so that the timing and shape of the fuel mist can be precisely controlled. This allows higher compression ratios and more efficient fuel intake, which deliver higher performance with lower fuel consumption.

Potential Efficiency Improvement: 12%
Savings Over Vehicle Lifetime: $3,200*

Integrated Starter/Generator (ISG)

These systems automatically turn the engine off when the vehicle comes to a stop and restart it instantaneously when the accelerator is pressed so that fuel isn't wasted for idling. In addition, regenerative braking is often used to convert mechanical energy lost in braking into electricity, which is stored in a battery and used to power the automatic starter.

Potential Efficiency Improvement: 8%
Savings Over Vehicle Lifetime: $2,200*

 

[top gun]

Andy;36924]What you just said was stupid. Rich people do care about gas milage.

The rich people you speak of that buy the Prius are doing so as a matter on conscience not the fear of filling their tank. Come on buddy...

The given reason for the tax break is completely and totally irrelevant. Every single tax break that goes to the rich is justified by some lame reason.

And yet again with a faulty premise. By big numbers by and large the average Prius owner is not some rich tycoon. If I'm wrong show me. You won't be able to.

If you think I do not support conservation because I don't support unfair elitist tax system that penalizes the poor... that's just foolish.

You've made it absolutely clear what you support. Gas guzzling antique technology... and 82 Buicks.

This article is from last year. Mine was from last month. Which one of us is living in the past now?

I'm just tellin' it like it is my friend.

Yeah, that doesn't really support your argument. That's a massive SUV with a V10 Diesel. I was speaking of their original TDI Sedan that got 50 miles per gallon without any lame expensive waste of money hybrid setup. In other words, a car that actually saved you money while getting good gas milage.

What are you drinking??? TDI is exactly what I'm talking about. There's a diesel Jetta for Christ sake.

oh looky, you made a point I wasn't even contending. Where did I say there are not "Good, comfortable, safe, fuel efficient cars are everywhere now"? Hmmm.. why no where. So you came up with a non-existent argument, and soundly defeated it. (pats you on the back) Good job. Would you care to make an argument related to the points I made?

My friend you've done nothing but condemn new technology & smaller cars and sing the praises of 82 Buicks and you know it. Embrace it... it's yours.

Entirely possible. Especially if we continue to allow our government to keep causing the prices to jack up, and artificially inflate the cost of larger autos, then sure. We'll all be driving Yugo style before too long. It'll be like Europe... where people climb 6 at a time into 'clown cars' with hands and feet sticking out the windows. (I went to Europe back in 97)

Maybe go back... I don't think you're happy here with modern technology. A Yugo is not a modern economical car like say a Toyota Corolla... and the Toyota get's much better gas mileage. 1989 Yugo 23/28 Yugo... 2008 Corolla 26/36.

Sure. Of course the CVT was created in 1886. The Ford Fiesta had one in 1987. VVT was created in the 1960s, and was used in an Alfa Romeo in 1980 Hybrid have existed since 1921. Nothing new here really.

Washing machines have been around a long time to. I've noticed my water saving front load steam washer is somewhat different than my great grandmothers hand wringer washer... what's your point?

I'm not embarrassed at all. I don't live my life so that others like, or are impressed by what I have. What you, or anyone else thinks, is of no concern to me at all.

Then you're in good shape.

 

[Andy]

The rich people you speak of that buy the Prius are doing so as a matter on conscience not the fear of filling their tank. Come on buddy...

No, their doing it for a tax break. It's called wise fiscal choices, not 'fear' of anything. Like I said, I worked at a Caddy dealership.

And yet again with a faulty premise. By big numbers by and large the average Prius owner is not some rich tycoon. If I'm wrong show me. You won't be able to.

Now your making the statement. Prove your own half baked theory.

You've made it absolutely clear what you support. Gas guzzling antique technology... and 82 Buicks.

Ok then you are incapable of rational thought. Never said any of that.

I'm just tellin' it like it is my friend.

No, I am telling like it is... you are tellin' like it was.

What are you drinking??? TDI is exactly what I'm talking about. There's a diesel Jetta for Christ sake.

Ok, well it's not listed on the VW corporate web site, and it not listed on AutoTrader. So... How about you start backing up your quasi-theories.

My friend you've done nothing but condemn new technology & smaller cars and sing the praises of 82 Buicks and you know it. Embrace it... it's yours

Stupidity is limitless huh? Well I can't fight your tide of ignorance either. Feel free to erect more false arguments and defeat them. This is almost like Al Gore and his flights of fantasy.

Maybe go back... I don't think you're happy here with modern technology. A Yugo is not a modern economical car like say a Toyota Corolla... and the Toyota get's much better gas mileage. 1989 Yugo 23/28 Yugo... 2008 Corolla 26/36.

Honestly... if you can't figure out the point of what I said there, then I have nothing more to talk to you about. (hint: had nothing at all to do with how the yugo compares to modern cars)

Washing machines have been around a long time to. I've noticed my water saving front load steam washer is somewhat different than my great grandmothers hand wringer washer... what's your point?

I am starting to see a trend. You don't get any of arguments I make. Apparently they are beyond you. Thus you come up with your own points from what I say and attack them. The point I was making sparky, was that you claimed "we are inventing now"... as if it was all starting now, yet this is not true. All three of the technologies you show as proof, were invented long ago.

Then you're in good shape.

Absolutely. Are you? Do you live your life so that others think how great your junk is? Are you insecure, and what you have makes you a man, or some such nonsense? Time to grow up for a lot of Americans.

 

[Andy]

And here it is...

Variable Valve Timing & Lift (VVT&L)

Optimum timing and lift settings are different for high and low engine speeds. Traditional designs, however, use fixed timing and lift settings, which are a compromise between the optimum for high and low speeds. VVT&L systems automatically alter timing and lift to the optimum settings for the engine speed.

The key is optimum for high and low speeds. Normal engines are optimized for low speed (maximum fuel economy). The exception would be sports or performance oriented cars.

The VVT allows for the car to also be optimal for high speed (more performance) without sacrificing fuel economy at lower regular speeds.

As such, it will not increase fuel economy at low speeds over a traditional engine. As I stated before... it is primarily about performance. Nothing here is new, I learned it all in school and in GM training. Give it up.

Cylinder Deactivation
Turbocharging & Supercharging
Direct Fuel Injection (w/ turbocharging or supercharging)
Integrated Starter/Generator (ISG)

Very nice. Did you have a point? Why are you wasting time and forum space with completely empty pointless posts?

Cylinder deactivation is a good technology that has been around for a long time. Turbos and chargers are also good technology that's been around for a long time, it's just expensive (from a OEM perspective) and sometimes maintenance prone. Direct Injection is a good technology that has been around for a long time. ISG it currently still cost prohibitive, but I work at a company currently developing exactly that with hopes of being an OEM supplier. We're close.

Now... do you have a point? Or you just like spamming junk on the net that I never said anything about as proof... of .... nothing...?

And from your prior post:

About Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT)

I don't care what the Feds say. Toyota, the hybrid company itself, says they are not as efficient as a standard 5 speed. Do you believe some trustworthy, always truthful, politician / lawyer in Washington? Or maybe the company that actually made the car? I vote for the people who made the car.

Antonov (http://www.antonov-transmission.com/technologies.htm) - This company has existed for ages, with a ready to implement, hyperefficient atomatic transmission. Though not a CVT...

"... not a CVT..." Huh... that means I never said it was bad doesn't it.... why yes it does. Why are you wasting time?

Torotrak (http://www.torotrak.com/) - Full toroidal Infinitely Variable Transmission (IVT)

IVT... that's right isn't it. IVT isn't a CVT now is it? Your whole post is a waste of time.

Look, if you are just going to make up arguments and start attacking your own made up statements that I never said... then just go away. No one likes lame people who can't read what's there instead of making up things to attack. You are being a waste of forum text. You just make yourself look very petty, and almost childish.

The only thing which I even found interesting, not that you had a point in bringing up, was the SuperDrive HCVT. Not a conventional CVT clearly. Still skeptical because why are they bothering with busses... clearly big rigs would be the place to market it, assuming it really works. International is begging for fuel savings on long haul trucks.

 

[Andy]

I dont know enough about its ethanol potential to make a judgement on that issue. But will point out that hemp is not the same as marijuana. You can smoke hemp plants all day long and get nothing but a bad case of coughs, just ask 9sublime

Hemp is easily the most useful plant that is not used to its full potential because of a poor association with drugs.

Then why is it that druggies are the one I meet who are constantly in favor of it's legalization? I don't meet average joe on the street talking about hemp. It's the people who openly admit, or is widely know to be on drugs, that are constantly talking about the legalization of hemp. Why?

 

[Pidgey]

I was reading this article, got to near the end and it hit me: the U.S. isn't the only country doing that ethanol thing:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24334375/from/ET/

Pidgey

 

[Libsmasher]

Obfuscation. If it were limited to war time (it isn't/wasn't) and if it were limited to war protests (it isn't/wasn't) and if it were applied evenly across the spectrum of political dissidents (it isn't/wasn't)- maybe I could buy it.

From Wikipedia:

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.​

Easily, if one can read. Now lets take a critical look at what is really "incoherent" and "rant" here...

Here is what I said: Those long gone issues, as you put it - are not so long gone and entirely relevant today. They are also real, not twisted fabrications of paranoid rightwing persecution complexes.

OK, give specific examples of your dreaded "free speech zones", and how they were unreasonable in a specific instance.

What are libfascist? Again - look up fascism. How exactly does that relate here?

You look back in the posts where I dealt with it - I'm not going to re-re-answer you every three posts.

Interesting site. When it comes to sources - I like to check who they are and who funds them and I like to know if there is a hidden agenda. That includes liberal sources. So...what do we have here?

Refute their facts and arfguments or shut up.

According to their own description, Students for Academic Freedom is a clearing house and communications center for a national coalition of student organizations whose goal is to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge.. In addition, SAF is an offshoot of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Duh, yeah........and??

According to SourceWatch:

Horowitz started SAF in 2003 as a means of spreading his agenda of "intellectual diversity" on college campuses. He justified the need for such action based on two studies of college and university professors' political party affiliations which seemed to prove that university faculty were "disproportionately liberal," and thus posed a threat to balanced academic discussion. (ok, so we have here two studies that have nothing to do with how or what teaching actually occurs draws it's conclusions on political party affiliation? How Orwellian.)

SourceWatch also states:

Several "independent studies" were conducted by CSPC and other organizations in order to prove the existence of liberal bias in higher education. One of the first studies was conducted by Frank Luntz, Republican pollster and compatriot of Newt Gingrich during the 1994 election engineering. As reported by George Mason University's website, Luntz's survey came into serious question when it was found that "Luntz polled only liberal arts faculties and administrators. And even within the liberal arts, only 12 percent of the respondents were from the more conservative business and economics faculties."

According to Horowitz, similar studies "resulted in absurd majorities of leftwing professors on college faculties by ratios that range from 7-1 to 30-1."[1] However, the funding of the experiments Horowitz cites as well as the scientific methods of research used draw each into question. The latest study, published in late April 2005, was funded by the Randolph Foundation, supporter of the Independent Women's Forum, Americans for Tax Reform, and CSPC.


SourceWatch notes that:

In addition to the studies, Horowitz and SAF depend largely on first-hand student accounts of professor abuse, unfair treatment, and attempts at "indoctrination" in the classroom. SAF were quick to draw attention to the case of a University of Northern Colorado student who claimed to have received a failing grade on her response to a final exam question asking students to "explain why President Bush is a war criminal." The student received an F when she turned in a paper on Saddam Huissen’s war-criminal status instead. However, in its reporting, SAF failed to give the name of the student or any exact details of the case. As Media Matters reported in March, 2005, many of the details of the case were misconstrued by Horowitz and the case was handled internally by the University system.





So, is this a independent group of concerned students? Or an agenda?

At best - it's credibility is highly suspect.

And who is "Sourcewatch"? An offshoot of the Center for Media and Democracy - a totally leftwing organization. Credibility of their commentary on Horowitz? A big fat, perfectly round ZERO.

I read up a bit more then you and, quite frankly your entire above rant is mostly a mish-mash of perjorative nonsensical language more reflective rightwing talking points then actual or factual debate. It's almost a rightwing wetdream:

The above is the crap you spew in lieu of specific, actual rebuttal - apparently when it comes to REAL debate, you're a coward. Big text dumps from leftwing looney bins, gutless spewing instead of debate, appears to be your stock in trade.

 

[Libsmasher]

Anti-choice advocates felt they had a right to force their choices on other women by any means possible including physically and verbally assaulting them, intimmidating them, threatening their privacy, preventing them from getting into a clinic, destroying equipment, destroying property, and even committing murder - all under the supposed protection of "free speech".

Now you're in the looney rant-zone. As I already said (and that seems like what it's like dealing with you, always having "already said" something) this physically assaulting abortion clients is pure fiction - the abortionists have always been up to one thing - intimidate abortion protesters with the specter of long jail sentences for engaging in demonstrations outside abortion mills. The USSC stopped that after a 20 year effort by the feminists.

Your right to free speech ends when you enroach upon my space.

The public streets aren't "your space".

What makes you think they don't know both sides?

Un, duh, garsh, lemme think, lemme think - how about that everywhere where there is even a theoretical possiblility of getting both sides - the government schools, the universities, the media is a liberal pro-abortion bastion?

And, since when has "hearing both sides" meant assault and obstruction?

Only since you started imagining it in your fevered pro-abortion brain.

The majority of abortions occur well before 6 months for one thing.

No relevence to this thread - please don't lurch into abortion free-association.

For another - they typically refuse to take "no" for an answer.

Proof? Evidence?

Do you seriously think these women come in for abortions like a stroll in a park - that they aren't already torn up with a difficult choice? Do you seriously think that some of these abortion clinics don't offer a range of choices besides abortions including contacts for adoption should that be desired?

HAR HAR -don't make me puke - abortion mills are in business to cash in on the abortion trade - nothing else. Feminazis have fought tooth and nail against laws requiring such pre-abortion counseling - to a feminazi, the only bad abortion is the one that doesn't happen.

And what exactly are these self-described "street corner counselors" offering? Precious little beyond deception. Deception first off that they are actually being inhibited. They aren't - they just have to maintain a reasonable personal distance that any of these women can easily cross if they wish to be "counseled".

Standard fact-free feminazi defamtion with no connection to reality.

Again - your right to free speech stops short of my personal space. You have no right to assault me either physically or verbally in the guise of free speech. And that is not limited to anti-choice activists either - I feel the same way towards PETA demonstrators.

Again, the "physical assault" BS is just more abortion propaganda.

They only slammed it on using RICO. Not on other laws - for example the following:

If you could hear anything more that your own feminazi rants, you'd realize that's the only issue I brought up.

 

[Libsmasher]

If you can't even provide a valid definition of fascism how can you possibly expect to have a logical debate on "ecofascists"?

If you can't read what people have already said in a thread, why should anyone try to debate you about anything?