All's well that ends as oil

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:26 pm

Toon linked us in IRC to this article on Discover.com that describes a process by which any carbon-based waste can be efficiently transformed into oil and other useful mineral products. It looks pretty damn cool, and could really help to solve the looming energy crisis as the world's oil reserves are depleted, along with helping to manage the mounting waste problems facing many urban regions. As I said there, if I had the cash, I'd be funding this project as it looks to be exceptionally useful for several markets and helps to deal with some of the more pressing environmental problems at the same time.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 12:57 am

Okay, now, see, this is where you spend the US$200 billion, not on a war. Tell me why the US government isn't pumping billions of dollars into this? Completely eliminate the need to import oil, forever, using your /garbage?/

No more landfills, no more oil refineries, no more shipping oil around on freighters that crash and kill millions of animals. Pour your shit in one end, and pour your gasoline out the other. I mean, really.

Then how long before you can make this thing small? From the description of the process, nearly all of it could be miniaturized. I don't think I'd want 900 degree furnaces in my car, but in the basement? Every city could have one, and all the waste in the city would get shoveled into it. Cities would automatically ship each other surpluses, on a completely open system - meaning, no one ever charges for the waste, and they're never charged in return.

With enough money, we could be doing a lot of this in a year. So please, lord, tell me why we have to wait so long for the future?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:40 am

Because the big oil companies would go bankrupt if it happened.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:21 am

Y'know, this reminds me of Back to the Future 2. When can we get some food hydrators?

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:31 am

Because the big oil companies would go bankrupt if it happened.

I think CE pretty much summed it up.

The oil companies have been, hmmmm, let's find a politically correct term -- "Actively discouraging" alternative means of fuel for a long long time. I would suppose that any means that would take control of fossil fuels, such as this one, out of their hands would be equally 'discouraged'.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:41 pm

*Hopes that nanotech Makers are not far behind this process*

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:09 pm

Jesus, then Oil empires will fall down...HARD.

I mean, hard. If they refuse to accept that oil dependency is deadly, then they're going down. If Oil companies actually make an effort into alternative energy, then that company has potential to go farther than other oil companies.

Geez.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:49 pm

But this isn't an alternative energy source... It is Oil, just a different source. It kills OPEC, but the oil companies and their infrastructure are still necessary. It even mentions in the article that the new tech *improves* existing oil refinment to increase usable yield. Ok, yeah, they no longer have the same lock on sources... but that oil still needs to get from point A to point B, and it needs to be in the proper form before it gets moved, and we'll need to have pump stations for the end users... That's where the Oil companies make most of their money. I don't see this as being anywhere near so threatening to them as, say, Wind or Solar power which obviates any use of Oil at the end, and doesn't use their form of a distribution network at all.

If anything, this increases oil dependancy because it removes the one line that fueled the majority of alternative sources: it eliminates the idea that our sources of oil are finite and dwindling.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:35 pm

You don't think that oil companies have every bit on an interest vested in limiting the flow of oil that OPEC does? This would smash that, the oil companies LIKE OPEC, OPEC is a wonderful scapegoat, any time the oil companies raise prices they just blame it on changes in output from the OPEC nations.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:48 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:Because the big oil companies would go bankrupt if it happened.

You big dummy. Just like AT&T went bankrupt when the internet "replaced" the telephone? As Ang says, the infrastructure the oil companies built is every bit as necessary for one as for the other.

And let's stop for a second and think about this. The oil refinery is still every bit as necessary as before, correct? This is, effectively, an /addition/ to an oil refinery. So basically, all the oil companies have to do is add this new chunk onto their existing refineries, and instead of having to expensively and dangerously drill for oil in places like West Texas and the Gulf of Mexico, they can get other people to pay /them/ to take their garbage away and turn it into fuel.

The oil company, for the modest price of the device and its related requirements, eliminates its greatest danger and expense, and instead makes twice the profit of before, because they can charge for garbage disposal /and/ the refined fuel oil. Once devices like this become more powerful, the oil companies become the ultimate good guys, taking in all our organic wastes - wood, plastic, slaughterhouse offal, organic and chemical wastes - and putting out clean new plastics and fuels and foods. Reduce, recycle, reuse, baby.

This wouldn't hurt the oil companies, not one bit. Take away the guilt of destroying the environment by driving our cars and filling landfills with horrific wastes, and demand for oil - and everything that comes from it - skyrockets.

Why isn't this the front page of every newspaper in America?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:36 am

No more landfills

Hey... I build those things for a living!! (Well not really, but is one of my areas of "expertise")

*MooCow wonders what the unemployment line looks like....*

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:57 am

MooCow wrote:*MooCow wonders what the unemployment line looks like....*

Dude! Unlimited oil! That'd mean even more cars on the road, necessitating even more roads and repairs to the existing ones. More like job security.

That and taking away the only real thing that brings in serious money to the Middle East. Bye-bye 20th century, hello Africa.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:07 am

Flak wrote:Dude! Unlimited oil! That'd mean even more cars on the road, necessitating even more roads and repairs to the existing ones.

Not to mention what it'd do to the sports car industry. And, for that matter, the SUV industry.

Flak wrote:That and taking away the only real thing that brings in serious money to the Middle East. Bye-bye 20th century, hello Africa.

Yeah, but it occurs to me that this technology would be even more beneficial for developing nations than developed ones. Think about Mexico, for instance; they have a /horrific/ waste problem there, but quite a lot of oil refineries. A simple addition to an oil refinery, and you can pour 1.5 million people's shit in that /used/ to just go in a ditch outside, and get oil out of it. I mean, really. [edit]Like this, for instance.[/edit]

I /really/ don't understand why a bigger deal isn't being made out of this. Is there something we /don't/ know about it?

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 2:07 am

Sorry 32, in this instance you are wrong. It is most definitely in the best interests of the oil giants to limit the flow of oil, if you want some extremely dry but informative reading that alludes to this, you may get the ExxonMobil 2002 Shareholder's statement. This statement expresses that the corporation's strategy is depending on an increased demand in crude oil, a demand that will quickly evaporate if this technology becomes widespread.
Add to this the fact that this process will obviously be patented, a patent that unless the US government suspends because the unstable oil market is a threat to national security (this is one helluva stretch, but not impossible), the big time oil companies are going to be at the mercy of whomever holds this patent. If they sell rights to a third party, this could be damaging to the oil giants. We aren't talking bankruptcy here, but it would definitely be 'financially inconvenient'.

The bottom line is that with profits already at record setting levels, companies like ExxonMobil potentially have a lot to lose and nowhere near as much to gain in the short term. Now in the coming years that might change, but for now why would they take a chance? For the good of mankind? that's funny....

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 2:28 am

Exactly. They go from pulling in hundreds of billions of dollars a year in hard cash to basically haveing... well lots of sand and camels. But yeah, this'd be real good for developing nations. Probably not so for the environment, but what the hell. I'll be dead and gone before any of the real serious repercussions hit so I don't care.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:47 am

Better for the environment than what we're doing now... At least these carbon chains are being taken straight from stuff that'd be releasing most of their gases into the environment anyways.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:10 am

Add to this the fact that this process will obviously be patented, a patent that unless the US government suspends because the unstable oil market is a threat to national security (this is one helluva stretch, but not impossible), the big time oil companies are going to be at the mercy of whomever holds this patent.

Unless the oil companies send a Shadowrun team in to kidnap the lead researchers, and all relevant data......

What?!?!?

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:30 am

32's more correct than some of you are giving him credit for. Firstly, you're ignoring all of the costs that are associated with finding and exploiting new oil resources in the ground. All of which are non-recoverable, meaning if you go looking and it ain't there you're screwed. Secondly, very little of the oil industry's machinary needs to be replaced. As I understand things, the oil produced by the polymerization process still needs to be refined into the various petrochems we use so there's no need for companies to divest themselves of refinary capacity. In fact, the only aspect of the modern oil industry that this process competes with is the oil well end, and that's hardly a money maker for anyone but OPEC and the drill workers. Even so I doubt this process will completely replace oil wells entirely. There's very little here that threatens ExxonMobil or British Petroleum. Even the patent issue doesn't really matter, since they have to negotiate with the OPEC governments for drilling and exploitation rights anyway. Instead of dealing with a nation state, they have to deal with a patent holder.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:09 am

ratlaw, okay, let's assume that everything you said is true (it's not, but let's pretend.), you still fail to note the most important aspect that allows the oil companies to maintain the stranglehold they do on the world economy; restriction of supply.
These companies LOVE having to do business with the OPEC nations, their combined greed creates this interesting little synergy that helps them to rake in far more money than either could on their own. Do you think that ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco bumped themselves up to the 2nd and 7th slots of the Fortune 500 list based on shitty business or losing huge amounts of money from "costs that are associated with finding and exploiting new oil resources in the ground?"
Just for the record, big business hates change, they are very happy with the setup they have right now, they buy money from OPEC, they follow OPEC's lead about 'reducing output to bolster oil prices', and then they sell gasoline to the consumers as vastly inflated rates. And when people complain; Blame OPEC.
Things might work out okay for the oil companies with this new technology, but then again, they might not work out so great, so why would they take a chance? Is it going to increase their profit margins? nope, cheaper oil, especially AMERICAN MADE cheaper oil doesn't benefit the oil industry one bit.

First, they lose their scapegoat. OPEC makes a perfect one; their greed actually EXCEEDS that of the oil companies, and they are in another country which makes them a rather inconvenient candidate for a class action lawsuit.
Second, going along with an extensive history of petroleum product sales, when they companies get a lower price, the consumers expect the lower price to be passed on to them. So why would they take all the risk to pass on low prices to the consumers? Good will? sure.

Basically, there are huge risks associated with staying where they are, and there are huge risks associated with moving into an entirely new arena. But given huge known risks, and huge unknown risks, what would you chose?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:10 am

3PO wrote:And let's stop for a second and think about this

Already have, and ran it past everything else that big oil companies have done in the past to discourage alternative oil resources, and came up with the fact that oil companies are run by complete fuckwits and arseholes... like Geroge W Bush who ran his father's company for a good long while.

In the past they have done nothing but discourage the use of alternative fuel sources and workings, regardless of how cost effective it could ultimately be. <a href=http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... _x.htm>The stock prices</a> of most alternative energy companies are down rather than up, dispite the increasing demand for them in the marketplace. Smaller companies with bright ideas are not getting marketed by the big oils, who are more than happy to just suck and spill oil until it runs out.

The oil companies are not going to follow through with this plan, it will not make major news coverage, and will just be stored away like the <a href=http://members.tripod.com/~anon99/water_engine/>water powered engine</a> was.

I would love to be wrong about this, but I'm quite sure that I'm not.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:13 am

Crazy Elf wrote:
3PO wrote:And let's stop for a second and think about this
Already have, and ran it past everything else that big oil companies have done in the past to discourage alternative oil resources, and came up with the fact that oil companies are run by complete fuckwits and arseholes... like Geroge W Bush who ran his father's company for a good long while.

Okay, ignoring your usual bullshit, let's say that oil companies are greedy. Which, of course, they should be, but whatever. Why would they want to /discourage/ something that could /decrease/ their costs and /increase/ their profits? You don't understand; this isn't /real/ alternative energy like power from the sun or power from wind, this is power from /good old gasoline!/ GM doesn't have to refit their cars, Exxon doesn't have to close down its plants, and more and more people will feel okay telling Ed Begley, Jr. to sit down and shut up.

Crazy Elf wrote:The oil companies are not going to follow through with this plan, it will not make major news coverage, and will just be stored away like the <a href=http://members.tripod.com/~anon99/water_engine/>water powered engine</a> was.

Hey, that looks reliable. I particularly like the clear documentation and the full diagram of the working model. And the fact that this inventor somehow hasn't managed to /market/ this thing /himself./ Heck, Elf, you could get rich, today. Call that guy up and offer to market his device and make him a millionaire. If there really is a working water-based engine, what do you have to lose?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:24 am

If you increase the amount of oil out there, then the price of oil goes down overall and companies can't overcharge. If oil was as easy to get as mixing garbage, then its cost would go down, and so would profits.

Why do that, when they can pay a lot for it, and charge a lot for it, when everyone's going to buy it anyway? It's not in their best interests to do so until oil is very very hard to find, in which case they will then have to.

There is too much investment in keeping things the way they are.

3PO wrote:If there really is a working water-based engine, what do you have to lose?

An oil company funded lawsuit as they own the patient on it.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:28 am

The Eclipse wrote:These companies LOVE having to do business with the OPEC nations, their combined greed creates this interesting little synergy that helps them to rake in far more money than either could on their own. Do you think that ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco bumped themselves up to the 2nd and 7th slots of the Fortune 500 list based on shitty business or losing huge amounts of money from "costs that are associated with finding and exploiting new oil resources in the ground?"

No, but they also didn't lose it by being stupid. If they want to maintain their price war with OPEC, that's fine, and they can still do that. Or they could just decide to deal in volume, of course.

Think about it. Just using US agricultural waste - which agribusiness will /pay/ them to take away, allowing them, again, to make money on both ends - they can eliminate OPEC from the market in the US. If they sell oil at US$20 - undercutting OPEC by US$5 - US$10 - they gain 4 billion barrels of business just here in America, which is US$40 billion in profit, assuming production price of US$10 per barrel. Then you charge for the process, and end up making /more/ profit on top of your US$40 billion. And that's using nothing but agricultural waste, and selling nowhere but the US. You go worldwide with this, and OPEC ceases to exist.

The Eclipse wrote:Just for the record, big business hates change...

Okay. Well, I think we've established that they're not stupid. And you know, and I know, that companies that don't change, in today's technological age, die. We watched telcom, and we're not stupid. So what makes you think the people on top of one of the biggest industries in the world are stupid? And what makes you think that if they're stupid, what makes you think ConAgra's stupid? Or the oil companies that have /already/ allied themselves with the project?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:31 pm

If there really is a working water-based engine, what do you have to lose?

It's not really a "water engine" anyway. It's the same sort of hydrogen powered engine we've seen a bunch of times with an internal source for hydrogen. These have been rejected for a number of different reasons, not all of which I remember immediately. But they have been put into cars more recently. In fact within the last year a full prototype of a similar model was tested, and looking toward production. There was a writeup in Car & Driver. I wonder if we can dig it up.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:36 pm

Google-fu master.

It's the Soap Van made by Chrysler. A fuel cell that liberates hydrogen with borax. And if you want to know why it's not in production yet, read the whole article. It's in there.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:17 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:If you increase the amount of oil out there, then the price of oil goes down overall and companies can't overcharge. If oil was as easy to get as mixing garbage, then its cost would go down, and so would profits.

You've seen the cost to produce this per barrel, you've seen the double-profit model, I don't know what else I'm supposed to say to you.

Crazy Elf wrote:Why do that, when they can pay a lot for it, and charge a lot for it, when everyone's going to buy it anyway?

Because they can pay not so much for it, charge not so much for it, and sell way more of it, and profit twic.

Crazy Elf wrote:There is too much investment in keeping things the way they are.

Well, then they've failed, since these plants - unlike the water engine, say - are up and running, and getting published in Discover, and publicized all over the internet. So the secret's out! Now they have /no choice/ but to give in!

Crazy Elf wrote:
3PO wrote:If there really is a working water-based engine, what do you have to lose?
An oil company funded lawsuit as they own the patient on it.

Really? Where are you getting that from? I didn't see anything about that.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:26 pm

3PO, you can give me as much logic as you want for why this device should be up and running, but the fact of the matter is that it's not. No oil companies are not turning garbage to oil. Yeah, they should be, but they're not.

As for the patent, it says that the thing was paitented in 1982. From what I heard, the paitent is in the hands of a company somewhere that purcahsed the rights, but I could be completely wrong. Fact is, there's a paitent out there somewhere, so I don't think I'll give a go at marketing the thing. Marketing is for complete scum.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:08 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:As for the patent, it says that the thing was paitented in 1982.

In which case the patent has expired. Present Law states that patents last the longer of 20 years from filing or 17 years from the issuing of the patent. Get hopping! Your fortune and army of samurai await!

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 7:26 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:3PO, you can give me as much logic as you want for why this device should be up and running, but the fact of the matter is that it's not.

...uh, what? Yes, it is. There are, I think, three of them now, with two more scheduled to go in soon. ConAgra plans to sell oil at US$15 a barrel by 2005.

Crazy Elf wrote:As for the patent, it says that the thing was paitented in 1982. From what I heard, the paitent is in the hands of a company somewhere that purcahsed the rights, but I could be completely wrong.

"From what I heard?" What? Where? Not a single reputable publication has any reference to a Francois P. Cornish, and only a handful of sites have any mention of him at all. Those few - six, say - are all so disreputable as to be absurd. Why doesn't theEuropean Patent Officehave his name or patent on file?

Crazy Elf wrote:Fact is, there's a paitent out there somewhere, so I don't think I'll give a go at marketing the thing. Marketing is for complete scum.

Fact is, even you don't believe this thing is for real, or you'd be out there selling them like hotcakes and saving the world. You want to put your money where your mouth is on this environmental issue? Start selling millions of water engines. Why don't you save the world, Elf?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:11 pm

Its all a plot by the man! Fight the power, fuck the noise!

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:40 am

3PO wrote:...uh, what? Yes, it is. There are, I think, three of them now, with two more scheduled to go in soon. ConAgra plans to sell oil at US$15 a barrel by 2005

Time will tell.

As for patents, I managed to dig up a little on <a href=http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/ ... .htm>water and hydrocarbon internal-combustion engines</a> in the US patent office. Can't find any names, but I have no idea how to work the search engine. In any case, a lot of patent end up going through the US patent office instead of the European one, due to a lot of reasons. Time. Coverage. Things like that.

In any case, there's stuff on the engines there. As for the European Patent Office, I'd be impressed if you can find <i>anything</i> on their search facilities.

Fact is, even you don't believe this thing is for real

I believe that the water powered engine is a reality. I'm sure that it's clunky, and in need of refinement, but I believe it's within the realms of possibility. I don't believe that I have to run around selling water powered engines due to your obviously inflamitory accusations.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:59 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:As for patents, I managed to dig up a little on <a href=http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/ ... .htm>water and hydrocarbon internal-combustion engines</a> in the US patent office.

That's not a patent, it's an explanation of types of engine, and that particular type of engine isn't a water engine at all, but an internal cumbustion engine which also injects water or steam during any part of the combustion process. This is no more a "water engine" than any car with a supercharger is an "air engine."

Crazy Elf wrote:Can't find any names, but I have no idea how to work the search engine. In any case, a lot of patent end up going through the US patent office instead of the European one, due to a lot of reasons. Time. Coverage. Things like that.

Ah, but this /is/ a European patent. While it may also have been patented in the US - althoughit wasn't- your article claims it has a European patent, and despite my facility with the search engine, I find none. Nor do you.

Crazy Elf wrote:
Fact is, even you don't believe this thing is for real
I believe that the water powered engine is a reality. I'm sure that it's clunky, and in need of refinement, but I believe it's within the realms of possibility. I don't believe that I have to run around selling water powered engines due to your obviously inflamitory accusations.

This isn't surprising behavior from an environmentalist. Lots of calls to action, lots of claims of conspiracy, but no proof, and no action.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:38 pm

3PO, I can't find a single fucking patent on that search engine, so I'm not suprised you can't find one either.

The engine seems to me to be capable of working. I'm yet to hear someone say, "No, the workings that have been presented are completely and uterly implausable" who would be in a position to say so, just your usual, "Yeah right" bullshit.

If that engine has the capacity to work, which it very well may do, then a patent means fuck all. If it hasn't been marketed, then it's been blocked for a reason of some sort. Heads back to shitty oil, and shitty people who run it.

Rest of your bullshit ignored.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:01 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:3PO, I can't find a single fucking patent on that search engine, so I'm not suprised you can't find one either.

I can find many, just not that one. Coupled with the complete lack of information /anywhere/ about the inventor in question, and the absence of any defense on your part besides an argument through inability - "I can't find anything! Therefore, this engine /must/ exist!" - I find compelling reason to believe this particular invention is not actually real.

Crazy Elf wrote:The engine seems to me to be capable of working. I'm yet to hear someone say, "No, the workings that have been presented are completely and uterly implausable" who would be in a position to say so, just your usual, "Yeah right" bullshit.

I'm sorry, but I'm incapable of authoritatively speaking on the capacity of this engine to actually work. I just don't know enough about the principles involved, which is why I have refrained from making statements such as, "Obviously, that amateurishly designed piece of garbage doesn't work."

In fact, given the information provided, /no one/ is in a position to make authoritative statements as to the capacity of the engine to work, including you, and including any expert on the subject. Not enough detail is provided in the schematics on the site for anyone to determine the efficacy of the design. It looks like the Alex Chiu teleporter.

Crazy Elf wrote:If that engine has the capacity to work, which it very well may do, then a patent means fuck all.

Well, that depends on what your talking about. If you're talking about the capacity of hydrogen-based engines to work, then yes, this patent means nothing. If you're talking about how full of shit you are, then it means a lot.

I believe hydrogen-based engines exist and work, because I have seen believable proof that they exist, including the link Marius provided to the Chrysler project. Whether this patent exists or not doesn't change that. On the other hand, I believe you used a flawed and nonexistant example to prove your extremely shaky point, and are thus full of shit.

Crazy Elf wrote:If it hasn't been marketed, then it's been blocked for a reason of some sort.

Well, that's a logical leap. There's no other reason it couldn't have been marketed? Like, for instance, technical issues that prevent it from coming into wide use? Which we know for a fact exist.

Crazy Elf wrote:Heads back to shitty oil, and shitty people who run it.

Another leap. No one else could effect the course of this situation?

If Big Oil is blocking this research, then how did their closest partner - Detroit Auto - manage to build a prototype, manage to research this at all? And how did Detroit Auto's Premier Marketing Tool get to write about it publicly?

Crazy Elf wrote:Rest of your bullshit ignored.

If I did that, I wouldn't get to make a reply at all.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sun Apr 27, 2003 6:08 am

So you admit that the engines do exist, and your entire rantings have been saying that the link I provided looked bad.

You're a fucking dickhead.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Apr 27, 2003 9:12 am

Crazy Elf wrote:So you admit that the engines do exist, and your entire rantings have been saying that the link I provided looked bad.

Yeah, I admit that not-fully-functional versions of these engines exist, and my entire rantings have been saying that the link you provided was to a version of the engine which does /not/ exist, and that, furthermore, no evidence has been provided that the oil companies have obstructed /anything/ much less that they'll obstruct the, you know, garbage car. And I would not assert that they have obstructed nothing; I merely assert that there is no evidence whatsoever that they have done so in this case.

Crazy Elf wrote:You're a fucking dickhead.

Very much so, and never more so than when I am correct. And you are a prideful, arrogant, poor loser who swears a lot. At the end of the day, I hardly think it matters.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:14 pm

The only thing I've lost is the patent, all other points stand.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sun Apr 27, 2003 5:22 pm

I accept that, except that I no longer have any idea what your other points /were./

Do you mean that Big Oil is what's keeping this down?

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:47 am

God, I hate having to be away. As far as I can tell from the reading, Elf's points are, in no particular order:

-There is world altering technology that would 'save' the planet, in this case, an engine that runs on water.

-The fact that nobody is driving cars made with this engine in no way refutes it's existance nor efficacy. It must exist, and completely enough that it could perform as well or better than gas-driven engines (I'm inferring that last bit because if the water engine performs like shit, than it won't replace the gasoline engine and hence will not 'save' the world).

-Since this engine most definitely exists, but no one that any of us here has heard of is driving one, there must be a conspiracy to suppress this world-saving device. Either it works fine, in which case Big Bogeyman doesn't want you to know about it (but, haha!, see how the internet grapevine defeats even the likes of BB, for people do know about this engine), or it still needs refinement, in which case Big Bogeyman is suppressing research into it. Conspiratorial suppression is the only answer, since technology that I like must, as a matter of course, be easily attainable and have zero conceptual defects.

-The existance or not of a patent on such a device in no way moderates my active participation in it's spread, since marketing is for complete scum even if you're marketing world-saving technology. My role is set in stone as Watcher. I know everything that's wrong with the world, and I'll bitch about it in terms of vast conspiracies mixed with the stupidity of the masses so that the problem is completely unfixable and I don't have to actively try to fix it. I'll bitch about it, maybe vote about it, but the work portion is for other people. I care till it conflicts with my lifestyle.

I know, for all that I know, you run the neighborhood recycling program and go out of your way to support eco-friendly companies by buying their stuff while you're out rescuing dolphins from tuna nets. I'm just saying that this is a chance to think globally and /act/ globally, but you're waving your hand at it. While this stuff might not be within your talents, it's not outside of possibility for you to find people suited to it. You started a death cult, why not start a movement to research this? You can actually call a human being in the patent office or write them a letter specifying what you're looking for and why. If the people that work there can't find a patent on file for this thing, then you're pretty safe moving ahead. Find some greens with engineering degrees to pick at the idea and maybe a lawyer or two to make sure on the whole patent thing. It may be that your major role in this will be cheerleading the operation and doing fundraisers, but you'll be part of it all. It's a huge committment of time and energy, but wouldn't that be better than this defeatist conspiracy theory approach?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:30 am

3PO wrote:I accept that, except that I no longer have any idea what your other points /were./

Yep, right there with you.

Gillian's Willy wrote:It's a huge committment of time and energy, but wouldn't that be better than this defeatist conspiracy theory approach?

Jesus Christ, man! I actually do have a life outside these forums, and it's not like I'm going to run about the world promoting the wonders of the water powered engine just because 3PO and yourself said that I should do in order to prove a point that I've forgotten! That would fuck with my shit.

However, I will look into this in greater detail with engineering students to see if it's plausable or not.

ThatWendigo · Post by **ThatWendigo** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 3:22 am

I'm staying out of the meat of ths, but something that was said caught my eye.

Since this engine most definitely exists, but no one that any of us here has heard of is driving one, there must be a conspiracy to suppress this world-saving device. Either it works fine, in which case Big Bogeyman doesn't want you to know about it (but, haha!, see how the internet grapevine defeats even the likes of BB, for people do know about this engine), or it still needs refinement, in which case Big Bogeyman is suppressing research into it. Conspiratorial suppression is the only answer, since technology that I like must, as a matter of course, be easily attainable and have zero conceptual defects.

While it is often true that people overestimate the possibility of their beings a conspiracy, I doubt that it's entirely wise to dismiss them out of hand. It is entirely possible that this technology exists, was bought up, and is now being discussed and circulated on the 'net. Lots of things that governments and corporations don't want you to see are out there, if you look for them.

It's common among the conspiracy circles to see how Mossad, the CIA, or some other intelligence agency had foreknowledge of 9/11 and didn't stop it. Some think the Jews were warned ahead of time. Some think that the US military and intelligence agencies carried out the attacks.

What everyone seems to forget is that conspiracies are, in tone, sinister and harmful. What if there's a conspiracy that is for out benefit, though? Picture this...

After the 1993 bombing of the WTC, the Department of Defense, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the New York/New Jersey Port Authority (then owners of the building), ink a secret deal to protect the rest of Manhatten, should another attack occur. Interesstingly, the company called in to work on the towers in 1993 is the same one that cleaned up Oklahoma City, and also did cleanup after 9/11, and they are a demolitions firm, not a construction company. Some of the physics analyses I've read point to possible inconsistencies in the offfical story, with allegations about the heat burning jet fuel puts out, and calculations of how the building would fall in a vacuum. The critics all agree, though, that the fire and structure are not such that the building should have fallen as it did, nor in the manner that it did.

My suggestion, which runs along with some of their conclusions, is that there were charges in the structure, intended to break key points and bring the towers straight down, minimizing casualties in the event of a catastrophic event. Otherwise, those buildings could level a large portion of Manhatten, killing even more than actually died. Is this likely? I think so. Is it a conspiracy? Sure. Did I read about and research it online? You bet!

Not everything you're told is going to be true, so it doesn't hurt to look around and do your own research. Please note that I an not defending Elf's conclusions or his methods, neither of which are particularly sound, in my opinion.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:08 am

/pointedly returning to the topic/

32 wrote:Or they could just decide to deal in volume, of course.

Think about it. Just using US agricultural waste - which agribusiness will /pay/ them to take away, allowing them, again, to make money on both ends - they can eliminate OPEC from the market in the US. If they sell oil at US$20 - undercutting OPEC by US$5 - US$10 - they gain 4 billion barrels of business just here in America, which is US$40 billion in profit, assuming production price of US$10 per barrel. Then you charge for the process, and end up making /more/ profit on top of your US$40 billion. And that's using nothing but agricultural waste, and selling nowhere but the US. You go worldwide with this, and OPEC ceases to exist.

Okay, I didn't think that this would need explaining but apparently I'm wrong.

The oil industry, or any other natural resource based industry does not 'deal in volume' if they can possibly help it. Specifically, what does the oil industry gain by producing a significantly larger amount of oil... not too much.
While higher prices do decrease the consumption of oil, the actual change in consumption as seen in recent oil price increases is small, approximately 1%. (here is a good resource, but you need to create an account to view it.) Oil prices are entirely dependant on demand.
If demand becomes too high, and supply is too low, you get the early 1980s effect: There is not enough oil to go around, gas pump prices increase, but not enough to make up for the lack of consumption. Oil company revenues fall.
If supply becomes too high, lower crude oil futures obligate the oil companies to drop the price at the pumps. While this will increase consumption marginally, it's not going to be enough to make up for the decrease in price. (the well know exception to this was during the late 90s, the proliferation of the SUV. It became more acceptable, with low gas prices, to mass market vehicles that show a vulgar level of fuel ineffeciency. However, with vehicles like the Ford Excursion and the Cadillac Escalade, that's not going to happen again unless it becomes in vogue to drive a semi among the over-monied and under-brained financial elite.)
The ideal equalibrium is pretty close to where it is right now, oil prices are high, but not high enough to affect the demand and there is plenty of oil available to meet expectations.

Your logic in the above quote fails in price, oil futures dictate the price at the pump, and whatever lame assed excuses the oil companies can make to run it up, but even that only can go so far as we have seen out on the west coast in recent months. Do you truly think that the oil price is going to cut in half and so will the gas prices? While that is what the public will expect, as well as a great many perpetually anal consumer advocacy groups, it's not going to happen. What would be in it for the oil companies? Nothing, the increase of supply will severely hurt the financial viability of the oil companies, oil will become valued like granite. How companies in the granite quarrying industry are at the top of the Fortune 500? zero. Because granite is an easy to find material with a easily accessed supply. Oil is a lucrative business BECAUSE of it's restricted supply and high demand. Stone quarrying on the otherhand has a open supply and high demand.

So, what's the difference? The difference is that the largest crude oil dealing company in the world is ExxonMobil, the 3rd highest revenue corporation in the world.
Quarried stone? try Vulcan Materials coming in at 502nd place on the Fortune 500. It is demand that means all the difference, demand that would dissapear if oil was able to be mass produced. So negative, no matter how you look at it, the oil companies would not see the manufacturing of crude oil as a particularly healthy event for their business.

32 wrote:So what makes you think the people on top of one of the biggest industries in the world are stupid? And what makes you think that if they're stupid, what makes you think ConAgra's stupid? Or the oil companies that have /already/ allied themselves with the project?

Hmm, did I say any of them are stupid? I look back, and it seems that no, I did not say any such thing. Oh! I see! it was one of your little redirections.
No, the oil industry is not stupid, but it is going to plan for change and at the same time resist change as best it can, the same as every other major corporation does when it is in it's heyday. Of course they know that their domination of the market will not last forever, but why in the hell would they intentionally do anything to bring it to it's end more quickly?

ratlaw · Post by **ratlaw** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 5:09 am

Eclipse, I think I see something of what you're saying and I agree with your point: demand for gasoline is fairly constant regardless of price. Cars burn X amount of fuel every week and for the most part consumers will just fill up their tank regardless of price. Lower prices aren't necessarily going to cause the amount of gas being purchased go up, at least not quickly. However, there are some long term effects that I think you're ignoring.

Firstly, oil produced from wastes does turn oil into a "renewable" resource. That means that industries that have been moving away from oil based solutions can implement them. Power plants and home heating are two that leap into my mind right now.

Secondly, the technology is already in use and is, at least in so far as people pay attention to the Discovery channel, widely known about. Unlike other alternative energies, this one does not need a substantial rebuilding of the existing infrastructure (hydrogen fuel cells), does not have significant technological hurdles to overcome (hybrid car engines, hydrogen fuel cells, solar enrgy) and is not limited by environment (solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, hydro-electric). Not to mention that none of those technologies provide a solution to other problems like land fills and sewage treatement. Even if the oil industry does want this technology quashed, there probably are too many interests groups who see enormous benefits for this technology. Local governments especially, as 32 pointed out at the beginning.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:13 am

Rat: Of course, but the question is-- is it more profitiable for them to try and maintain the status quo, and try and quash this new technology; or is it better for their profits to move ahead?

It's pretty clear that trying to maintaint he status quo is their best bet at present. What's likely to happen is that they'll resist it as long as possible, then switch over very rapidly. In both cases, they'll use the new technology as an excuse to jack up pump prices.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:08 pm

Rat: I think cain just summed it up pretty well, it's no big secret that crude oil-free energy sources are available, but they are not in widespread use, and it's pretty obvious that the oil companies would rather they don't see widespread use in the near future.

ratlaw wrote:However, there are some long term effects that I think you're ignoring.

Firstly, oil produced from wastes does turn oil into a "renewable" resource. That means that industries that have been moving away from oil based solutions can implement them. Power plants and home heating are two that leap into my mind right now.

This falls under 32's supply vs./ demand argument, and I think I have done quite the opposite of 'ignore' it. The increase in capital to keep the oil companies at the level they are now, should oil become a 'renewable' resource as you put it, would be ridiculous. More on this later, must go to work.

However, most industries have moved away from these 'oil based solutions' not because of the scarcity and price of oil, but because there are better, cleaner, and more environmentally (public image) minded ways of doing business.