patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,193,311 comments by 13,877 users - charlie303 online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 31 - 70 of 84 Next » Last » Search these comments
31
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 6:30pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 6:30pm
richwicks says
Large boilers for power plants are purpose built for coal OR oil OR natural gas OR biomass. Existing plants can be converted, but it's not a matter of throwing a few logs in the natural gas combustion chamber one day, more like a 4-18 month and 6 figure process. I remember an apocryphal story 30 or so years ago where a huge haul of confiscated pot was sent to get burned in some biomass-fed generating plant, and it burned so hot it damaged the equipment.
richwicks says
It's been 10 years since I read about it in detail so I may be mixing locations. My understanding is a huge volume of lighter fractions are burned at the site in order to support the extraction and processing operations to get the profitable dilbit moving down the pipeline toward the port. This is apparently more profitable than extracting and exporting just these light fractions over the distance involved, over the working life of the deposit and the whole extraction enterprise. Like flaring off the gas fractions at the well in the olden days cause the profit from transporting and selling it is mousemilking compared to the economically desirable liquid fractions.
The perverse raw cost of oil fuckpile goes something like (plentiful middle eastern oil + cheap labor + shipping costs across the globe) < (less plentiful + more energy and costly labor intensive to produce + already in America oil) <<< (plentiful + extremely energy + very labor intensive to produce + very far from any market + more challenging and risky than regular crude to ship by pipeline tar sands petroleum).
Reality says
As opposed to a presupposition the likes of which you made numerous times in your argumentation? Yes.
You can just as easily burn coal to run a power plant, as you can burn methane, or gasoline, or anything.
Large boilers for power plants are purpose built for coal OR oil OR natural gas OR biomass. Existing plants can be converted, but it's not a matter of throwing a few logs in the natural gas combustion chamber one day, more like a 4-18 month and 6 figure process. I remember an apocryphal story 30 or so years ago where a huge haul of confiscated pot was sent to get burned in some biomass-fed generating plant, and it burned so hot it damaged the equipment.
richwicks says
If this is the case, it's really stupid, because it's easy to convert a vehicle to burn methane.
It's been 10 years since I read about it in detail so I may be mixing locations. My understanding is a huge volume of lighter fractions are burned at the site in order to support the extraction and processing operations to get the profitable dilbit moving down the pipeline toward the port. This is apparently more profitable than extracting and exporting just these light fractions over the distance involved, over the working life of the deposit and the whole extraction enterprise. Like flaring off the gas fractions at the well in the olden days cause the profit from transporting and selling it is mousemilking compared to the economically desirable liquid fractions.
The perverse raw cost of oil fuckpile goes something like (plentiful middle eastern oil + cheap labor + shipping costs across the globe) < (less plentiful + more energy and costly labor intensive to produce + already in America oil) <<< (plentiful + extremely energy + very labor intensive to produce + very far from any market + more challenging and risky than regular crude to ship by pipeline tar sands petroleum).
Reality says
Ever heard of a thing called the Truth?
As opposed to a presupposition the likes of which you made numerous times in your argumentation? Yes.
32
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 9, 6:31pm
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 9, 6:31pm
Automan Empire says
Another breakout discussion from a long thread. What are the origins of terrestrial petroleum deposits, biotic or abiotic?
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?
There is significant evidence that it happened as a result of geological processes consistent with catastrophic flood, huge breaks in the earth’s crust, perhaps even the breaking up of Pangea all at about the same time.
https://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form
https://bible.org/seriespage/18-fossil-fuel
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/
https://www.icr.org/article/chemistry-oil-explained-by-flood-geology/
33
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 6:36pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 6:36pm
PeopleUnited says
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
Let me be crystal clear on this: I am NOT asking from or for a BIBLICAL perspective. Good day.
34
Reality
2021 Nov 9, 6:38pm
Automan Empire says
Care to point out where? OTOH, you accused Professor Tommy Gold of having ulterior motives promoting oil usage/waste in advocating Abiogenic Theory . . . whereas in reality one of his top concerns was that having so much hydrocarbon on the planet would indeed pose a risk of run-away CO2 level and advocated CO2 regulation for that reason (before the discovery of CO2 recapture by ocean water and subduction of carbonates).
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.
Care to point out where? OTOH, you accused Professor Tommy Gold of having ulterior motives promoting oil usage/waste in advocating Abiogenic Theory . . . whereas in reality one of his top concerns was that having so much hydrocarbon on the planet would indeed pose a risk of run-away CO2 level and advocated CO2 regulation for that reason (before the discovery of CO2 recapture by ocean water and subduction of carbonates).
35
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 6:54pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 6:54pm
richwicks says
By the early 90s, the automotive press was already lamenting style being constrained and driven by the demands of the wind tunnel.
richwicks says
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.
richwicks says
A thought experiment that kinda takes the whole discussion full circle. This evolution from heavy cars to bicycle-like vehicles with aerodynamic control surfaces is analagous to the evolution from heavy ground reptiles, to light ones that developed feathers because those which did by chance were able to escape predators by flap-running over tangles that would stop a heavier animal. Anyone who's owned/watched chickens, which are effectively flightless, knows exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe by this path we'll finally get our flying cars.
They will all look basically the same with varying paint jobs.
By the early 90s, the automotive press was already lamenting style being constrained and driven by the demands of the wind tunnel.
richwicks says
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
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.
richwicks says
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.
A thought experiment that kinda takes the whole discussion full circle. This evolution from heavy cars to bicycle-like vehicles with aerodynamic control surfaces is analagous to the evolution from heavy ground reptiles, to light ones that developed feathers because those which did by chance were able to escape predators by flap-running over tangles that would stop a heavier animal. Anyone who's owned/watched chickens, which are effectively flightless, knows exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe by this path we'll finally get our flying cars.
36
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 9, 6:55pm
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 9, 6:55pm
Automan Empire says
It was a good day. But burying your head in the sand and ignoring the evidence of the geological AND biological origins of petroleum is willful ignorance.
And let me be crystal clear on this: Germans love David Hasselhoff.
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.
It was a good day. But burying your head in the sand and ignoring the evidence of the geological AND biological origins of petroleum is willful ignorance.
And let me be crystal clear on this: Germans love David Hasselhoff.
37
richwicks
2021 Nov 9, 6:58pm
richwicks
2021 Nov 9, 6:58pm
PeopleUnited says
@PeopleUnited - 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.
Trust me. 20 years ago, I would have been denigrating you and chopping away at your basis of faith. I would be explaining in gory detail all the contradictions I find in your faith and it would be a religious debate then because you're telling me "until you show this axiom is wrong, I won't change my mind", and I'd go right to work on that.
Faith trumps reason. By that I mean no amount of reasoning will be able to shake you out of your faith - that's fine and I'm certain you think that's a great thing. Well, how would you feel about a Muslim with the same attitude? How about a Hindu? What about a member of Heaven's Gate or the Church of Scientology?
Frankly, if God exists, nothing really matters. You neither need to worry about the future or the past. God takes care of it all, but what if God is like the Wizard of Oz and it's just a bunch of men behind the curtain? What if what seems kind and benevolent, is anything but? People can do really awful things when they think their life isn't as important as "the cause" is - but they can go good things as well. We can only know in hindsight.
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?
@PeopleUnited - 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.
Trust me. 20 years ago, I would have been denigrating you and chopping away at your basis of faith. I would be explaining in gory detail all the contradictions I find in your faith and it would be a religious debate then because you're telling me "until you show this axiom is wrong, I won't change my mind", and I'd go right to work on that.
Faith trumps reason. By that I mean no amount of reasoning will be able to shake you out of your faith - that's fine and I'm certain you think that's a great thing. Well, how would you feel about a Muslim with the same attitude? How about a Hindu? What about a member of Heaven's Gate or the Church of Scientology?
Frankly, if God exists, nothing really matters. You neither need to worry about the future or the past. God takes care of it all, but what if God is like the Wizard of Oz and it's just a bunch of men behind the curtain? What if what seems kind and benevolent, is anything but? People can do really awful things when they think their life isn't as important as "the cause" is - but they can go good things as well. We can only know in hindsight.
38
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 7:15pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 7:15pm
Reality says
Fair question. 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.
Care to point out where?
Fair question. 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.
39
Reality
2021 Nov 9, 7:18pm
Automan Empire says
But is that because of government regulation or despite government regulation getting in the way of making cars that people want? Alternatively, is the result that you praised due to the carmakers making cars that people want or despite greedy carmakers trying to sell the cheapest crap to consumers and make a killing? LOL.
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?
What's quite amazing is that ICE cars actually have improved gas mileage significantly in the last 20 years. I had a 4-cyl turbo wagon that made 185hp in 2001 burning 17-24mpg, whereas now a 6-cyl turbo GT (like a fancy wagon but more stylish) weighing 400lb more making nearly 350hp while burning only 20-30mpg (the 260hp 4-cyl turbo version would burn 22-33mpg). With compression ignition of gasoline down the road (or something nearly as lean-burning as that), gas mileage will only improve.
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.
But is that because of government regulation or despite government regulation getting in the way of making cars that people want? Alternatively, is the result that you praised due to the carmakers making cars that people want or despite greedy carmakers trying to sell the cheapest crap to consumers and make a killing? LOL.
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.
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?
What's quite amazing is that ICE cars actually have improved gas mileage significantly in the last 20 years. I had a 4-cyl turbo wagon that made 185hp in 2001 burning 17-24mpg, whereas now a 6-cyl turbo GT (like a fancy wagon but more stylish) weighing 400lb more making nearly 350hp while burning only 20-30mpg (the 260hp 4-cyl turbo version would burn 22-33mpg). With compression ignition of gasoline down the road (or something nearly as lean-burning as that), gas mileage will only improve.
40
Reality
2021 Nov 9, 7:35pm
Automan Empire says
That was indeed the truth. I don't think historical facts need the approval/validation from someone who isn't familiar with the history. The petroleum industry invented the biogenic theory, and that was the basis of chronic "running out of oil" scare since the 19th century.
Automan Empire says
In case it's not obvious, hardly any credible petroleum scientist and petroleum engineer still talk about the biogenic theory anymore in recent years. The deep drilling and cracking under the old oil wells and old coal mines since nearly 20 years ago was implicit industry acceptance of the abiogenic theory. Instead of accusing amateurs outside the industry looking in without the benefit of having read what Thomas Gold wrote 20+ years ago and shook up the industry, instead of accusing them of being stupid or misinformed/brainwashed, I simply excused them as not having really thought about the issue at depth (because it's not a field of their own expertise). Regurgitating mainstreaming (or what used to be mainstream) propaganda is not really having put much thought into the issue.
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.
That was indeed the truth. I don't think historical facts need the approval/validation from someone who isn't familiar with the history. The petroleum industry invented the biogenic theory, and that was the basis of chronic "running out of oil" scare since the 19th century.
Automan Empire says
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.
In case it's not obvious, hardly any credible petroleum scientist and petroleum engineer still talk about the biogenic theory anymore in recent years. The deep drilling and cracking under the old oil wells and old coal mines since nearly 20 years ago was implicit industry acceptance of the abiogenic theory. Instead of accusing amateurs outside the industry looking in without the benefit of having read what Thomas Gold wrote 20+ years ago and shook up the industry, instead of accusing them of being stupid or misinformed/brainwashed, I simply excused them as not having really thought about the issue at depth (because it's not a field of their own expertise). Regurgitating mainstreaming (or what used to be mainstream) propaganda is not really having put much thought into the issue.
41
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 9, 7:45pm
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 9, 7:45pm
richwicks says
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.
That is what The Bible is. It is true not because people believe it, nor would it be untrue if people don’t believe it. It is true because it is not a lie. It is a first hand account of what really happened. Furthermore, there is evidence as cited in links above which include geological processes and discoveries in biology and chemistry that support the geological AND biological aspects of petroleum deposit formation.
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.
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.
That is what The Bible is. It is true not because people believe it, nor would it be untrue if people don’t believe it. It is true because it is not a lie. It is a first hand account of what really happened. Furthermore, there is evidence as cited in links above which include geological processes and discoveries in biology and chemistry that support the geological AND biological aspects of petroleum deposit formation.
42
B.A.C.A.H.
2021 Nov 9, 8:03pm
B.A.C.A.H.
2021 Nov 9, 8:03pm
richwicks says
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.
Automan - 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.
43
Bd6r
2021 Nov 9, 8:05pm
Bd6r
2021 Nov 9, 8:05pm
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.
Optical Activity of Petroleum - Harvard University
courses.seas.harvard.edu
› climate › eli › Courses › EPS281r › Sources › Origin-of-oil › Oakwood 1952 optical activity.pdf
Hence, it is derived from biological materials. Anyone who argues against that should present a mechanism by which optically active hydrocarbons are created abiotically.
Optical Activity of Petroleum - Harvard University
courses.seas.harvard.edu
› climate › eli › Courses › EPS281r › Sources › Origin-of-oil › Oakwood 1952 optical activity.pdf
44
Reality
2021 Nov 9, 8:12pm
Bd6r says
Contamination from microbes digesting/concatenating Methane and other shorter hydrocarbon chains into longer hydrocarbon chains that are the main commercially valuable components in an oil well output. Bio-contamination is much reduced as the industry digs deeper into gas well zones and fracking. Notice your citation of 1952 material. That was a long time ago at much shallower drilling depth, where oil wells are well contaminated by microbial activities on their way from Methane to room temperature/pressure liquid carbon chains.
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.
Contamination from microbes digesting/concatenating Methane and other shorter hydrocarbon chains into longer hydrocarbon chains that are the main commercially valuable components in an oil well output. Bio-contamination is much reduced as the industry digs deeper into gas well zones and fracking. Notice your citation of 1952 material. That was a long time ago at much shallower drilling depth, where oil wells are well contaminated by microbial activities on their way from Methane to room temperature/pressure liquid carbon chains.
45
Bd6r
2021 Nov 9, 8:16pm
Bd6r
2021 Nov 9, 8:16pm
So optical activity of deeper oil deposits is lower than that of more shallow deposits? Link please with values of optical rotation for both
46
Reality
2021 Nov 9, 8:21pm
Bd6r says
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.
So 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.
47
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 8:21pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 8:21pm
Reality says
We're already at direct injection in gasoline engines, but these are still spark-ignited. Compression ignition using today's gasolines isn't very likely. We'd need to use non-backwardly-compatible high-dodecane gas instead of high-octane, if not straight diesel. You know that song "They've gone about as far as they can go" from the play Oklahoma, 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.
Reality says
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.
Reality says
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. Government imposed pollution standards put artificial constraints on the market, without which we'd have a lot less easy to extract petroleum and a lot more pollution. I live in Los Angeles, and have watched firsthand as humankind has packed 3 times the people and cars into a geologic bowl capped by an inversion layer, and had pollution go way way DOWN despite this. Despite the doom and gloom predictions, the results have been worth the cost.
With compression ignition of gasoline down the road (or something nearly as lean-burning as that), gas mileage will only improve.
We're already at direct injection in gasoline engines, but these are still spark-ignited. Compression ignition using today's gasolines isn't very likely. We'd need to use non-backwardly-compatible high-dodecane gas instead of high-octane, if not straight diesel. You know that song "They've gone about as far as they can go" from the play Oklahoma, 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.
Reality says
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?
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.
Reality says
But is that because of government regulation or despite government regulation getting in the way of making cars that people want?
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. Government imposed pollution standards put artificial constraints on the market, without which we'd have a lot less easy to extract petroleum and a lot more pollution. I live in Los Angeles, and have watched firsthand as humankind has packed 3 times the people and cars into a geologic bowl capped by an inversion layer, and had pollution go way way DOWN despite this. Despite the doom and gloom predictions, the results have been worth the cost.
48
Bd6r
2021 Nov 9, 8:35pm
Bd6r
2021 Nov 9, 8:35pm
Reality says
Do you know what compounds are present in nat gas and how many of them can be optically active?
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.
Do you know what compounds are present in nat gas and how many of them can be optically active?
49
Reality
2021 Nov 9, 8:47pm
Automan Empire says
They have been saying diminishing return on ICE cars for a long time, yet the thermo-efficiency of ICE engines keep improving. Electric cars are not really competitive with ICE cars without tax subsidy, without artificially high gasoline prices and without subsidy from "net-metering." As it is, charging the car at public chargers is already making an electric car cost more to run than a comparable sized ICE car; charging at home is perhaps saving 30% per mile at current electric rates and gasoline prices, but that's before the recently higher natural gas prices are fully reflected in electricity price. Electric might make sense for a cheap city run-about, but makes no sense to have an explosion/fire-hazard on wheels for saving $40/mo if the person is spending more than even $300/mo on car + gas + insurance. When all the hazards are factored in, the insurance cost increase of electric cars and the house where electric cars are parked may well clobber the $40/mo saving.
Sounds like a lot of word salad meaning nothing. Didn't you say the change of fastner sizes was for one last model year? Obviously Volvo had to do it in order to meet the EPA mpg standards (having missed it by 1/100th mpg, so you said, obviously quite meaningless to consumers but would be quite painful for the mfr if it were fined by the EPA). Not only the fastner size therefore strength reduction might make the vehicle less safe (at speed a few mph higher than crash-test speed) but the time and resource diversion may well interfere with the introduction of the next generation car therefore depriving potential early buyers of the next generation car of a safer car.
Clean-air act when it comes to local pollution (and it was done to immunize carmakers from lawsuits, just like TSA for airlines) made some sense in cleaning up local air pollution. However, the political left has a tendency to forget that once a bureaucracy is created, it will strive to perpetrate itself far beyond its own usefulness . . . just like the Fauci's medical bureaucracy that should have been disbanded before even AIDS became justification for their continued existence.
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.
They have been saying diminishing return on ICE cars for a long time, yet the thermo-efficiency of ICE engines keep improving. Electric cars are not really competitive with ICE cars without tax subsidy, without artificially high gasoline prices and without subsidy from "net-metering." As it is, charging the car at public chargers is already making an electric car cost more to run than a comparable sized ICE car; charging at home is perhaps saving 30% per mile at current electric rates and gasoline prices, but that's before the recently higher natural gas prices are fully reflected in electricity price. Electric might make sense for a cheap city run-about, but makes no sense to have an explosion/fire-hazard on wheels for saving $40/mo if the person is spending more than even $300/mo on car + gas + insurance. When all the hazards are factored in, the insurance cost increase of electric cars and the house where electric cars are parked may well clobber the $40/mo saving.
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.
Sounds like a lot of word salad meaning nothing. Didn't you say the change of fastner sizes was for one last model year? Obviously Volvo had to do it in order to meet the EPA mpg standards (having missed it by 1/100th mpg, so you said, obviously quite meaningless to consumers but would be quite painful for the mfr if it were fined by the EPA). Not only the fastner size therefore strength reduction might make the vehicle less safe (at speed a few mph higher than crash-test speed) but the time and resource diversion may well interfere with the introduction of the next generation car therefore depriving potential early buyers of the next generation car of a safer car.
Clean-air act when it comes to local pollution (and it was done to immunize carmakers from lawsuits, just like TSA for airlines) made some sense in cleaning up local air pollution. However, the political left has a tendency to forget that once a bureaucracy is created, it will strive to perpetrate itself far beyond its own usefulness . . . just like the Fauci's medical bureaucracy that should have been disbanded before even AIDS became justification for their continued existence.
50
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 9:18pm
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 9, 9:18pm
Reality says
Nope, they used similarly sized fasteners with not loss of performance on future models, the originals were overkill if anything. The whole point of this anecdote is this is one of a series of tiny things they did year over year between big leaps in technical generations. It's meant to highlight the accumulation of tiny changes that are part of the better fuel economy equation. It's something I bring up for perspective when people want to talk about some special magnet, air bleed, spark plug, (special carburetor invented by a guy now on the run from the government), cold air induction, or other bolt-on gimmick boasting a 2-digit increase in power and fuel economy over stock.
Nowadays, big manufacturers are looking more and more at the cost at all stages of the manufacturing process. Over a production year of over a million vehicle units, the savings in iron mined and transported, including the carbon footprint, from a "small" change like this, can add up to some rather unexpected sums in addition to the fuel savings over the vehicle and fleet lifetime from less fuel spent on acceleration (and more brake pad wear when slowing down again.)
the fastner size therefore strength reduction might make the vehicle less safe
Nope, they used similarly sized fasteners with not loss of performance on future models, the originals were overkill if anything. The whole point of this anecdote is this is one of a series of tiny things they did year over year between big leaps in technical generations. It's meant to highlight the accumulation of tiny changes that are part of the better fuel economy equation. It's something I bring up for perspective when people want to talk about some special magnet, air bleed, spark plug, (special carburetor invented by a guy now on the run from the government), cold air induction, or other bolt-on gimmick boasting a 2-digit increase in power and fuel economy over stock.
Nowadays, big manufacturers are looking more and more at the cost at all stages of the manufacturing process. Over a production year of over a million vehicle units, the savings in iron mined and transported, including the carbon footprint, from a "small" change like this, can add up to some rather unexpected sums in addition to the fuel savings over the vehicle and fleet lifetime from less fuel spent on acceleration (and more brake pad wear when slowing down again.)
51
Reality
2021 Nov 9, 9:25pm
Bd6r says
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 (magnification) test used as a medical diagnostic tool. Instead of analyzing chirality on all the isomers, which would have yielded a statistical near-symmetry (thereby blowing the biogenic theory entirely out of water, because all organic isomers of biological origin on this planet are left-handed), a little bio-contamination would have produced slightly more left-handed isomers than right-handed isomers just enough to produce "optical activity." Organic molecules of biological origin should be all left-handed (where isomers exist). By the time 1-carbon Methane rising through the rock crevices is concatenated to 15-carbon to 30-carbon molecules by microbes, there is enough bio-contamination to produce "optical activity." Granted, the author published the paper in 1952, so may not have had the equipment / technology for analyzing all the isomers in the sample.
Do 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 (magnification) test used as a medical diagnostic tool. Instead of analyzing chirality on all the isomers, which would have yielded a statistical near-symmetry (thereby blowing the biogenic theory entirely out of water, because all organic isomers of biological origin on this planet are left-handed), a little bio-contamination would have produced slightly more left-handed isomers than right-handed isomers just enough to produce "optical activity." Organic molecules of biological origin should be all left-handed (where isomers exist). By the time 1-carbon Methane rising through the rock crevices is concatenated to 15-carbon to 30-carbon molecules by microbes, there is enough bio-contamination to produce "optical activity." Granted, the author published the paper in 1952, so may not have had the equipment / technology for analyzing all the isomers in the sample.
52
Reality
2021 Nov 9, 9:27pm
Automan Empire says
Overkill is only overkill up to a certain crash test speed. Above that speed, every little increase in strength is beneficial.
Nope, they used similarly sized fasteners with not loss of performance on future models, the originals were overkill if anything.
Overkill is only overkill up to a certain crash test speed. Above that speed, every little increase in strength is beneficial.
53
Patrick
2021 Nov 9, 10:11pm
Patrick
2021 Nov 9, 10:11pm
CaptainHorsePaste says
Yes, far from running out, we have ever more supply.
Patrick says@CaptainHorsePaste That's interesting. So what's the answer?
TheFremenSpiceOil exists in Vast Quantities.
Vast, my Duke.
Yes, far from running out, we have ever more supply.
54
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 3:38am
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 3:38am
PeopleUnited says
I see I accidentally pinged the right person.
Anyhow, you didn't witness. You're just repeating a story. Remember, the Christian religion was a POWERFUL political tool for a long time. It basically was the Roman empire for 2,000 years. The Bible has gone through several revisions.
B.A.C.A.H. says
I wouldn't start a thread just to criticize somebody's reasoning. I'm just telling him FROM EXPERIENCE how a non religious person views the sort of justification he's using.
I don't find it at all useful for proselytize my own views on the matter of religion. I'm pointing out that non religious people won't bother considering religious lore as valid reasoning or a basis of belief when it comes to basically anything, even morality.
Not to get too off subject, but in days gone by if somebody were to point to the Bible and say it bans homosexuality, I'd point to the same Bible and say it condones rape - Deuteronomy 22:28. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NIV - they would argue that wasn't "rape" but two people having consensual sex before marriage - typically. The point is non religious people will dismiss the bible as evidence, for anything and people that have done this frequently (I have) are adept at it and they won't budge.
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.
I see I accidentally pinged the right person.
Anyhow, you didn't witness. You're just repeating a story. Remember, the Christian religion was a POWERFUL political tool for a long time. It basically was the Roman empire for 2,000 years. The Bible has gone through several revisions.
B.A.C.A.H. says
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.
I wouldn't start a thread just to criticize somebody's reasoning. I'm just telling him FROM EXPERIENCE how a non religious person views the sort of justification he's using.
I don't find it at all useful for proselytize my own views on the matter of religion. I'm pointing out that non religious people won't bother considering religious lore as valid reasoning or a basis of belief when it comes to basically anything, even morality.
Not to get too off subject, but in days gone by if somebody were to point to the Bible and say it bans homosexuality, I'd point to the same Bible and say it condones rape - Deuteronomy 22:28. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NIV - they would argue that wasn't "rape" but two people having consensual sex before marriage - typically. The point is non religious people will dismiss the bible as evidence, for anything and people that have done this frequently (I have) are adept at it and they won't budge.
55
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 3:48am
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 3:48am
Automan Empire says
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. Japan was able to make much more affordable cars than the American counterparts, and Americans were willing to take the risk to save money or to be able to afford to buy a car.
They weren't on a level playing field. Our government pulls this kind of crap all the time.
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.
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. Japan was able to make much more affordable cars than the American counterparts, and Americans were willing to take the risk to save money or to be able to afford to buy a car.
They weren't on a level playing field. Our government pulls this kind of crap all the time.
56
stfu
2021 Nov 10, 4:55am
All you fuckers are either really smart or the best bull shitter's I've ever run across.
57
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 5:11am
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 5:11am
stfu says
No reason to think they are mutually exclusive. Also, I've been full of shit before, while being absolutely certain I was correct.
WRT to the abiotic origin for hydrocarbons, what we've found on Titan to me strongly suggests that hydrocarbons may very well have been part of the formation of the planets. Also, since oil is less dense than general "earth" eventually, all of it will come to the surface because it basically floats on top of dirt and rock. Whether oil is actually produced in the Earth, I have no idea but I doubt it is. I think there's probably a LOT of hydrocarbons stuck underground, but most of it takes more energy to recover than you get out of what you recover.
All you fuckers are either really smart or the best bull shitter's I've ever run across.
No reason to think they are mutually exclusive. Also, I've been full of shit before, while being absolutely certain I was correct.
WRT to the abiotic origin for hydrocarbons, what we've found on Titan to me strongly suggests that hydrocarbons may very well have been part of the formation of the planets. Also, since oil is less dense than general "earth" eventually, all of it will come to the surface because it basically floats on top of dirt and rock. Whether oil is actually produced in the Earth, I have no idea but I doubt it is. I think there's probably a LOT of hydrocarbons stuck underground, but most of it takes more energy to recover than you get out of what you recover.
58
Bd6r
2021 Nov 10, 5:26am
Bd6r
2021 Nov 10, 5:26am
Reality says
There can be no optical activity in methane, ethane, propane, and two butane isomers (n-butane and 2-methylpropane) for fundamental symmetry reasons. Hence, lack of optical activity in nat gas is not due to abiotic or biotic origin.
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...
There can be no optical activity in methane, ethane, propane, and two butane isomers (n-butane and 2-methylpropane) for fundamental symmetry reasons. Hence, lack of optical activity in nat gas is not due to abiotic or biotic origin.
59
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 10, 5:38am
PeopleUnited
2021 Nov 10, 5:38am
richwicks says
That story was written by the eyewitness. It is his diary.
you didn't witness. You're just repeating a story
That story was written by the eyewitness. It is his diary.
60
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 6:00am
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 6:00am
PeopleUnited says
Again, you take this on faith.
You believe the Bible was written by god through a man, or many men. I think it was written just by men and when the writings became influential were co-opted by various governments, edited for current propaganda, which became the new authoritative sources. As governments changed, editions changed, and it changed in different regions in different ways. Remember it used to be an incredible undertaking to write a book because it had to be hand written by scribes.
When the Roman Catholic Church regained absolute dominance, they consolidated the different versions at the Council of Nicaea and I'm certain there were attempts to consolidate power before that.
I do not want to take you down this particular rabbit hole and I don't see any benefit to you doing so. Although I've gone though many sudden shifts of my own viewpoints, and I actually think I benefited from this, I don't think most people would. I have the benefit of knowing many viewpoints as a result, but it's pretty damaging in my viewpoint in that I have no firm beliefs in anything other than scientific method. My personality is unrecognizable from 20 years ago as well. I've changed drastically more than twice.
richwicks saysyou didn't witness. You're just repeating a story
That story was written by the eyewitness. It is his diary.
Again, you take this on faith.
You believe the Bible was written by god through a man, or many men. I think it was written just by men and when the writings became influential were co-opted by various governments, edited for current propaganda, which became the new authoritative sources. As governments changed, editions changed, and it changed in different regions in different ways. Remember it used to be an incredible undertaking to write a book because it had to be hand written by scribes.
When the Roman Catholic Church regained absolute dominance, they consolidated the different versions at the Council of Nicaea and I'm certain there were attempts to consolidate power before that.
I do not want to take you down this particular rabbit hole and I don't see any benefit to you doing so. Although I've gone though many sudden shifts of my own viewpoints, and I actually think I benefited from this, I don't think most people would. I have the benefit of knowing many viewpoints as a result, but it's pretty damaging in my viewpoint in that I have no firm beliefs in anything other than scientific method. My personality is unrecognizable from 20 years ago as well. I've changed drastically more than twice.
62
Bd6r
2021 Nov 10, 6:41am
Bd6r
2021 Nov 10, 6:41am
zzyzzx says
Something almost all of us can agree with
Origins of petroleum: Biotic or abiotic? Biden's farts.
Something almost all of us can agree with
63
B.A.C.A.H.
2021 Nov 10, 8:38am
B.A.C.A.H.
2021 Nov 10, 8:38am
richwicks says
Neurotic divorcee Crazy Cat Lady women who are angry and snarkey at the whole male gender.
Won't climb onto their own soapbox because they already know they won't have an audience, so instead Snark-On picking apart what they see is wrong with others.
Carry On, Nothing (worth note) To See Here.
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,
Neurotic divorcee Crazy Cat Lady women who are angry and snarkey at the whole male gender.
Won't climb onto their own soapbox because they already know they won't have an audience, so instead Snark-On picking apart what they see is wrong with others.
Carry On, Nothing (worth note) To See Here.
64
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 9:20am
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 9:20am
B.A.C.A.H. says
I don't know what you're saying. Are you claiming I'm being hypocritical and doing exactly the opposite of what I'm saying?
People who believe the Bible is absolutely true are taking that on faith. Do you deny that? They think faith is a virtue, don't they? Atheists view faith as a weakness. If I had faith in my government, that just means I don't know what civic responsibility is, in my opinion. Do you disagree?
Are any of my statements incorrect? If they are, point out which ones are incorrect, and how you disagree with the statement. Maybe I am incorrect, but without understanding how I'm incorrect, I cannot consider I may be wrong. Just telling me that I'm wrong, doesn't help me realize I am.
Carry On, Nothing (worth note) To See Here.
I don't know what you're saying. Are you claiming I'm being hypocritical and doing exactly the opposite of what I'm saying?
People who believe the Bible is absolutely true are taking that on faith. Do you deny that? They think faith is a virtue, don't they? Atheists view faith as a weakness. If I had faith in my government, that just means I don't know what civic responsibility is, in my opinion. Do you disagree?
Are any of my statements incorrect? If they are, point out which ones are incorrect, and how you disagree with the statement. Maybe I am incorrect, but without understanding how I'm incorrect, I cannot consider I may be wrong. Just telling me that I'm wrong, doesn't help me realize I am.
65
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 10, 9:36am
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 10, 9:36am
richwicks says
There were a lot of relatively dangerous 70s Japanese cars still on the road in the 80s, but their cars went through some rapid evolution in the late 70s/early 80s wrt crashworthiness. Also, they absolutely DID have to meet minimum motor vehicle safety standards to be able to sell in the North America market. I would agree that the farther back you go from the mid 80s, the better American cars actually performed in crashes relative to same year Japanese cars. Also don't forget that going back to the early 70s, American carmakers were selling some American badged Japanese vehicles. The Dodge Colt (Mitusbishi), Chevy LUV (Izusu), and Ford Courier (Mazda) come directly to mind. The 1980 Chevy Chevelle was an ABSOLUTE JOKE of a vehicle, and absolutely miserable to own and drive compared to pretty much ANY of the comparable 4 cylinder Japanese models at the time.
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.
There were a lot of relatively dangerous 70s Japanese cars still on the road in the 80s, but their cars went through some rapid evolution in the late 70s/early 80s wrt crashworthiness. Also, they absolutely DID have to meet minimum motor vehicle safety standards to be able to sell in the North America market. I would agree that the farther back you go from the mid 80s, the better American cars actually performed in crashes relative to same year Japanese cars. Also don't forget that going back to the early 70s, American carmakers were selling some American badged Japanese vehicles. The Dodge Colt (Mitusbishi), Chevy LUV (Izusu), and Ford Courier (Mazda) come directly to mind. The 1980 Chevy Chevelle was an ABSOLUTE JOKE of a vehicle, and absolutely miserable to own and drive compared to pretty much ANY of the comparable 4 cylinder Japanese models at the time.
66
B.A.C.A.H.
2021 Nov 10, 9:41am
B.A.C.A.H.
2021 Nov 10, 9:41am
richwicks says
Of course not.
Just like the Snarkey neurotics I refer to, who know they'd be ignored if they got onto their own soapboxes, so they go about being Snarkey in other folks' business.
It's one thing to discuss the topic Automan asked, biotic or abiotic? That's a fun topic for discussion. Quite another to use his question to point out the Intellectual Inferiority in others.
Are any of my statements incorrect?
Of course not.
Just like the Snarkey neurotics I refer to, who know they'd be ignored if they got onto their own soapboxes, so they go about being Snarkey in other folks' business.
It's one thing to discuss the topic Automan asked, biotic or abiotic? That's a fun topic for discussion. Quite another to use his question to point out the Intellectual Inferiority in others.
67
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 9:44am
richwicks
2021 Nov 10, 9:44am
Automan Empire says
Well, I could be wrong about it. I do remember that they were a lot worse to get in a wreck with than any American car - except the Pinto. I'll never forget that scene in Top Secret when a tank goes out of control and after swerving and driving off the road, it LIGHTLY taps the back of a Ford Pinto, and it ends with a massive explosion destroying everything. I haven't seen that move in probably 35 years, and I still remember that scene.
Also, they absolutely DID have to meet minimum motor vehicle safety standards to be able to sell in the North America market.
Well, I could be wrong about it. I do remember that they were a lot worse to get in a wreck with than any American car - except the Pinto. I'll never forget that scene in Top Secret when a tank goes out of control and after swerving and driving off the road, it LIGHTLY taps the back of a Ford Pinto, and it ends with a massive explosion destroying everything. I haven't seen that move in probably 35 years, and I still remember that scene.
68
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 10, 10:12am
Automan Empire
2021 Nov 10, 10:12am
richwicks says
The Pinto was actually a VERY good car in many ways. The 2.3 liter 4 cylinder engine was one of the first American cars with a timing belt, and that engine was so ahead of its time it was used for a good 20 years forward. The gas tank rupturing in collisions WAS a small but real risk of these cars. Ford's RESPONSE to the issue was what gave the Pinto its current demonic reputation. They denied it was a problem for as long as they could, 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. The recall was probably pretty effective, but by then the perception was it was too little too late, and the Pinto's reputation never recovered even to this day. The 2.3 was used in American shitboxes like the oversized underpowered 1979 Capri (3rd underdrive, 4th overdrive, wouldn't get out of its own way, that was American carmakers' answer to the CAFE requirements in stark contrast to same year Japanese models) but was also popular for modification and in dune buggies and boats. A cottage industry sprang up supplying performance parts for these engines.
except the Pinto.
The Pinto was actually a VERY good car in many ways. The 2.3 liter 4 cylinder engine was one of the first American cars with a timing belt, and that engine was so ahead of its time it was used for a good 20 years forward. The gas tank rupturing in collisions WAS a small but real risk of these cars. Ford's RESPONSE to the issue was what gave the Pinto its current demonic reputation. They denied it was a problem for as long as they could, 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. The recall was probably pretty effective, but by then the perception was it was too little too late, and the Pinto's reputation never recovered even to this day. The 2.3 was used in American shitboxes like the oversized underpowered 1979 Capri (3rd underdrive, 4th overdrive, wouldn't get out of its own way, that was American carmakers' answer to the CAFE requirements in stark contrast to same year Japanese models) but was also popular for modification and in dune buggies and boats. A cottage industry sprang up supplying performance parts for these engines.
70
Patrick
2021 Nov 10, 11:07am
Patrick
2021 Nov 10, 11:07am
Automan Empire says
History is rhyming.
CDC/FDA/NIH/Pfizer/mafia all denying that the vaxx is killing people right now, for as long as they can.
They denied it was a problem for as long as they could
History is rhyming.
CDC/FDA/NIH/Pfizer/mafia all denying that the vaxx is killing people right now, for as long as they can.
« First « Previous Comments 31 - 70 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?