Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_TopicIcon
Non-Polluting, Infinite Energy?
May 15, 2001
1:17 pm
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hey Folks.

I found this to be a GOOD READ. Interesting stuff.

Click Here to see article in original form

Article Reads:

FREE ENERGY Technology ! by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist

At the beginning of the twentieth century, everybody "knew" that a heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly. It would violate the "laws" of physics. All of the "experts" and "authorities" said so. For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901: "The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be." Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final word. Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they crash). Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy' Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science" and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics"). The physicists do not know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare that those things cannot be done. Such PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern physics and help to cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox modern theories. The "laws" of "thermodynamics" and "conservation of energy" ASSUME that the physical universe that we see around us is a "CLOSED SYSTEM". It is NOT.

Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, or from hyper-dimensional sources, with-OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment. Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy, but rather tap into EXISTING natural or hyper-dimensional energy sources by various forms of induction. UNLIKE solar or wind devices, they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed. Solar energy has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and high latitudes. Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and often non-existent. Neither solar nor wind power are suitable to directly power cars and airplanes. Properly designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations. For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058, #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic field, or from some hyper-dimensional source. The first two require a feedback network in order to be self-running. The third one, as described in detail in "Science & Mechanics" Magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117, and front cover), requires critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings of magnets, but NO feedback. Such a motor could drive an electric generator or reversible heatpump in one's home, YEAR ROUND, FOR FREE. [Complete descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each from the U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202; correct 7-digit patent numbers required. Or try getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your local public or university library's inter- library loan dept..] See also http://www.hsv.com/writers/bearden/mageng .

A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the motor of inventor Joseph Newman [see SCIENCE, 2-10-84, pages 571-2.], taps ELECTRO-MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12 cycles per second and harmonics). They typically have a 'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the energy in the coils with the energy being tapped. It is important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as 'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output. This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent magnet. In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID CHOKE COIL' around and about halfway down the secondary coil will enhance output power. ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems", by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70, Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245.] During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an 'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical equations to explain it. As described in the book "A Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson, 1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a CRITICAL VELOCITY. The water then IMPLODES, no longer touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump, which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC GENERATOR. The device seems to be tapping energy from that of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A TORNADO; or perhaps the energy source is again HYPER- DIMENSIONAL. [ It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY! ] A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and planetary gears). It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running by driving its own air compressor. This engine also generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills. Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between metal capacitor plates, bombarding it with a beam of particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a common household smoke detector, and repeatedly drawing off the charge on the plates after very short time intervals; and/or by surrounding the crystal with one or more coils of wire of particular sacred-geometric shapes. One other energy source should be mentioned here, despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free Energy. A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UN-LIMITED quantities from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power a house or large enough to power a city. And UNLIKE the "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about, Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power for every watt put in. ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78, pages 32-40.] And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that were in the news a few years ago, originally conducted by University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Some U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of chemist Melvin Miles, finally took the trouble to collect the bubbles coming from such an apparatus, had them analyzed with mass-spectrometry techniques, and found HELIUM 4, which PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed take place, and enough of it to explain the excess heat generated. There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the so-called "laws" of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute". For example, the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the Physical Universe, which he called the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The Universe of Motion" (1984)), [see also http://www.randomc.com/~rs ], in which the Physical Universe has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by thermodynamic "laws". His Theory explains the Physical Universe MUCH BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way. Some Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow, seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality energy". [See also http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus .]

Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Eckankar' [1-800-568-3463, http://www.eckankar.org ] and 'Sant Mat' teach their Initiates that the physical universe is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV channels, as described in books like "The Path of the Masters", by Dr. Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key to Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969. For example, the next level up from the physical universe is commonly called the 'Astral Plane'. Also, each major level or 'plane', possibly even the physical plane, is SUB-DIVIDED into NUMEROUS SUB-planes. Long-time Initiates of these groups have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and report on conditions there. It seems plausible that energy could flow down from these higher levels into our physical universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given the right configurations and motions of matter to channel it. This is supported by many successful laboratory-controlled experiments in PSYCHO- KINESIS throughout the world, such as those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain". In terms of economics, the market has FAILED. Inventors do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their VE$TED INTERE$T$. The government is needed to intervene. If the government does not intervene, then the total supply of energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue to increase. The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize private production (until the producers can make it on their own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of Free Energy Hardware. For more information, answers to your questions, etc., please consult my CITED SOURCES. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

P.S.1: FARADAY'S DISC and DePALMA'S N-MACHINE

"The 'N-machine.'

"This device is an offshoot of a 150-year-old mystery in physics initially discovered by Michael Faraday in England in 1831, that has remained unexplained for well over a century and a half. The mystery is this: that a ROTATING MAGNETIC FIELD, relative to A CONDUCTOR ROTATING AT THE SAME SPEED (which means the field is STATIONARY relative to the rotating conducting elements), can ALSO create an electric current!

"About twenty years ago, another physicist, Dr. Bruce DePalma, formerly of MIT, began a series of basic mechanical experiments with 'rotating frames'--culminating in a device he termed the 'N-Machine', which above a critical RPM [27,000?] (revolutions per minute), APPEARS TO GENERATE MORE ELECTRICAL CURRENT OUT OF A SPINNING 'FARADAY DISC' THAN THE INPUT ENERGY REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN ITS MECHANICAL ROTATION!

"It is our growing belief that Dr. DePalma's 'N- machine'--if it IS successfully producing more energy than required for its input--MUST be operating according to the Cydonia 'hyperdimensional physics' we have been so graciously 'bequeathed'...by someone."

The paragraphs above are quoted from pages 371-2 of the 1992 EDITION of "THE MONUMENTS OF MARS: A CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER", by Richard C. Hoagland.

Richard C. Hoagland's web site is http://www.enterprisemission.com .

See also http://www.depalma.pair.com .

P.S.2: PASS IT ON!

May 19, 2001
6:42 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Site Coordinator.

Interesting reading. But... physicists and scientists operate from a scientific paradigm as defined by our present day knowledge. I have no doubt that in two hundred years, scientists will look back to this era and say "hmmmm! There was so much ignorance in the year 2001".

Given our above stated ignorance, who amongst us would invest our life's savings on any one of the above touted 'fanciful'ideas?

No investment, no research. No research, no discovery. No discovery, no solution. No solution, then dig up more coal! It's cheaper and sure fired. Let's just put off the evil moment when we have to face the fact that we will soon no longer be able to breathe the air. Oh well! It's another case of FYJIAR. (F...k You Jack...I'm All Right!)

May 21, 2001
9:47 am
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tez,

I'm gonna assume you're taking the Devil's Advocate Approach?

I have a good intuition that if enough people knew about such technology and how they were being duped that changes could occur.

There are millions of people who realize that the planet is our home, and feel a connection with it. Enough too who would be willing to put forth effort and money toward a solution to bring man and environment more into balance. Energy solutions have not been approached because the world's "NETWORKS" won't support anything non-capitolistic.

Example: "Buy Nothing Day" is the day after Thanksgiving, which is the USA's largest shopping day for Christmas. NETWORKS, won't display any advertisement for this Day, even highly paid spots, because it is anti-capitolistic. It rejects the very thing that the networks revere as holy.

Though the internet is a network of it's own, and can bridge some gaps, it's not nearly as widespread, or FORCED, as direct Network Advertising (TV, Radio). You get what you get when you tune into tv or radio.

Therefore, I think the first step in a new revolution begins with the funding of a large network, where the road is wide-open to shaving off the wool that has been over the herds eyes.

- SC

May 21, 2001
6:05 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

SC.

Your right. I am taking the position of the devil's advocate, yet...

At the same time, my cynicism is reinforced by seeing our local conservationists and 'greenies' still driving their cars and using plastic tiolet seats. Mind you so am I.

The problem for me seems to stem from my wanting others, such as manufacturers to clean up their act so I can still have my comforts and a clear conscience at the same time.

Unfortunately, unless economic rationalism is brought to to heel, nothing will change. The US and Australian Governments have demonstrated recently their priorities in this regard. Economics first, the environment second! How different am I?

What am I personally prepared to give up? Not very much, I'm afraid. I suspect that others, if they are honest, are in the same boat. We all want it to start with some one else. Will I invest my 'precious' ever inflating dollars in potentially beneficial yet scientifically 'hair brained' propositions that appear to be long shots? Methinketh not. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

Yet a little voice deep within side of me tells me that I am part of the problem not part of the solution. 🙂

What do others honestly think about their own attitudes to this madness we call economic rationalism?

May 21, 2001
8:57 pm
Avatar
Molly
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Its all BS that is going to catch up with us. I too, am leary, yet receptive, how can I afford to cut loose when others do not due to the lack of immediate gratification, or profit, damn sure I don't want to pay any more but I do become enraged, as I see the developments that due to government and builder profits see the lot size go from acre to half acre to 7000ft, to zero lot lines and 4000sqft, duh no wonder we have no power in California, and wait till the water crisis happens which is just around the corner, think the Israiles and such have problems wait until Nevada and California go to war over the Colorado River, its a comming. I don't believe that half the population has the intelligence to comprehend the proposal, nor do they care, its all about personal finanical gain, or immediate gratification. So, I hear you,and I hear Tez, like the same stuff different day, we see it we feel it, but who the hell will back us??????????

May 22, 2001
10:26 am
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I hear you both, and I have been pessimistic in the past, but I am becoming more hopeful for the future. Mostly because of alternative energy sources. They are here. They are FREE, and NON-POLLUTING. A little Star-Trek-like, but not too far off if effort is put forth.

Alternative energies was one of my many big "beefs" with US President Bush. He blatantly said we can't prove that fossil fuels have caused harmful effects to the environment, and he would not support alternative energies. He would however support and fight for additional mining and oil drilling in Alaska. Al Gore was (at least verbally) planning to financially support and reward companies who opted to use alternative energies. I was so stung by the American people that didn't understand this. That does fuel my pessimism...the pessimism that says, "Humans have populated the earth, eventually will pollute themselves, kill each other, and die away like all other species." While this is probably true either way, I had hoped humans could achieve something more noteworthy than "Earth Rape".

The universe, earth included, has its own infinite energy, physically, that goes un-noticed, escaped, every second we live. It requires no mining, burning, gases, radioactive decay. It can fuel our cars, our factories, our homes, our offices…Paris now has some cars that run completely on compressed air. They are noisy, but can go up to 70mph and get ?miles, I think it's like 100miles or so on a tank of compressed air. While alternative energy doesn't solve the consumption of goods, it is a start in dramatically slowing the water and air pollution problems. Without clean air, water, and soil, we've lost the battle completely. We can sit on a mound of coal and oil, and still kill ourselves.

I think these new energy technologies are a window of opportunity to open the minds of people, and enter a new era. It also takes away a lot of the power/control from our awakening "super-powers", the "energy providers." Power=energy. We desire and need energy, and we depend on them for it. We don't have to. Everything around us is energy, including gravity and magnetism. It's all in harnessing it.

- SC

May 22, 2001
6:02 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

SC.

You said, "The universe, earth included, has its own infinite energy, physically, that goes un-noticed, escaped, every second we live." True... but the economic rationalist, capitalist system, under which we live, dictates that there be big bucks returned from anything into which we pour big money. So...

Free energy is not 'free'. Tesla coils require big bucks to research and bring to the point of commercial viability. Same with solar energy. The sun shines free of charge. But solar cells capable of powering a 2000 watt stove element cost big, big bucks. Solar hot water systems cost many times more to install than the electric hot water system - and so on for the rest of the known technologies.

In principle I totally agree with you. However the economic rationalistic system offers little incentive to invest billions on punts on what might or might not prove economically viable. The real problem is our focus on economic viability to the disregard of long term environmental viability. No one wants to pay the price. We, the voting public, need a general paradigm shift away from economic rationalism in all areas before the political climate will provide politicians with the motivation to shift the big defence dollars over to the research and commercial development necessary to implement on a grand scale the more viable of the schemes presented in your opening posting.

May 29, 2001
11:30 am
Avatar
Sal
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hmmmm. I'm not a very good steward of the energy I use. It's SO easy to take the supply for granted (not being from CA, and all). I'd like to care more. I think I feel pretty pessimistic, also, that everyone else feels the same way. "It would be nice, good, responsible, the right thing, to be truly 'greener'; truly seeking workable alternatives, being up in arms over the rape of our natural resources. But... what's the use? I'm only mildly inconvenienced right now by the pollution and prices, so let's not overreact." I believe until people are paying a price in their every day life, they will NOT do anything to plan for the future. For example, people bought SUVs like crazy, willing to pay for the fuel, blissfully unaware (or unconcerned) about the impact on the environment. Yet now, when gasoline prices are so incredible, people are trading them in, more people are buying alternative energy autos, walking more, driving less.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it, and we ain't convinced it's broke, so don't mess with it!"

I wish people weren't so short sighted. Me, most of all.

July 27, 2001
1:33 pm
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Here's another article on the subject:

Click Here to Read Article

- SC

November 10, 2004
10:50 am
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hey cici

🙂

Regarding your post on 11/10 on the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Thread.

You were writing about American oil needs, American gluttony, and how we need to change American attitudes, consumerism, etc.

I'm in complete agreement. It's 3 years later (click view all posts), and we're in the same sinking boat.

One thing we can do is, BUY NOTHING, ON NATIONAL "BUY NOTHING DAY" which is the day after Thanksgiving. Make a statement that some of us don't want to be gluttonous pigs with SUV's, materialistic goods, etc.

November 10, 2004
12:04 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Why are we not doing more about harnessing the power of the Sun? There is so much potential there, but we are so resistant to change.

I have to admit, I'm not one to walk or bike around. My partner, however, will walk or ride her bike for MILES on end as her contribution to the environment. She and I were talking about the election and I said I was most concerned about the violence that I believe will erupt on our own soil. She, in her beauty and wisdom, said she is most concerned for the impact the Bush administration will have on the environment.

SC, any links to info. about Solar Energy and why we aren't chosing that particular path? I've found the articles you've provided links to thus far to be very informative. To return the favor, if you've never heard of it or checked it out, have a look at http://www.thesunmagazine.org. Check out the "Readers on 'Coming Clean'".

Ren'ai

November 10, 2004
4:37 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

With all due respect, believe me there is nothing that could get me out spending money the day after Thanksgiving. However, I do drive an SUV. For two reasons. The first is because I am on a fixed income and have good credit with Chrystler and the second is because I have an anxiety disorder and I absolutely cannot afford/allow myself to be stranded somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. So, does that make me a gluttonous pig?

Sunny

November 10, 2004
9:12 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

awww sunny-

if your suv makes you a gluttonous pig, i must be one too. all cars before about 1983? are big pollution offenders (I know this because I saw it on King of the Hill last night...great source to cite...LOL). My first and only car was a 1973 Chevy Caprice Classic, a gas-guzzling road-hogging, 8 cyllindar, dragon-lady luxury car that was in my family (granparents) since it was new. I could have bought a cheap compact car to reflect my "tree hugging wacko" values, but didn't. I loved that car! Kept it thru college. Oh well. When you can make sacrifices you do sometimes, and sometimes you choose not to. We aren't saints.

Anyway, I see SUVs in Manhattan and I don't get it. I understand why people in some parts of the country would want/need them but here it's just status. But who knows? Maybe these are tourists from upstate, so I shouldn't judge, right? I'm more concerned with HOW they are driving, that WHAT they are driving.

-ella

November 10, 2004
9:17 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

oops typo...

I'm more concerned with HOW they are driving, than WHAT they are driving.

November 10, 2004
9:47 pm
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi ella,

LOL! I hear you! Well, actually mine is brand new and the only way I could get it (because my lease was up and it was 4 yrs old) was to again go through Chrystler, turn the old vehicle in and they gave me a new one. Well, not gave! I'm paying for that V-8 hemi, ha! It actually gets great gas mileage and here in the south, esp when I am in Dallas, well you just need a reliable vehicle. I was and am very fortunate that they deal with me like they do, my other credit really is not up to par. I well remember my first car. It was an ugly gold chevelle, no power steering, no carpet, shit it didn't have anything! But I drove it all through my college years, referring to it as *the gold bomb* At any rate, I agree with you concerning living in the big city and ppl owning high status vehicles. That is being vain... When I was in SFO, we used BART. DART in Dallas is sometimes just too unreliable. I just have to have a reliable vehicle, it goes with the disorder!! One of the main things I have yet to conquer regarding panic disorder. Thank you ella! I appreciate you posting and understanding!

Hugs,

Sunny

November 10, 2004
10:47 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

As far as my car went, beauty was definitely in the eye of the beholder... my grandparents kept her in their garage so when I got it, she looked in mint condition... after a few years in the sun... the shiny maroon paint turned to matted pastel pink! It just made me love her more! All my neo-hippie friends would remark about the gas thing, but we all loved that car. My parents got rid of it when I moved out. They donated it to a friend learning to be a mechanic. I have polaroids of the engine being lifted out of the body. 🙁 Oh, well. Nothing lasts forever. If I had a kid, I'd want them to care about the environment, but I'd want them to have a car they'd be safe in as well.

-ella

November 10, 2004
10:54 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

It's kind of hard, to be the one who takes that risk- putting yourself or family member in a smaller sized vehicle when so many on the road can overpower you. It would be great if we were more like European countries, where everyone travels in more economical vehicles. But a lot of this change has to happen from the top. I guess the arguement here is- if people keep buying big, manufacturers are going to keep producing cars this way. It would be nice if there were incentives for people who did takes the risks, make the sacrifices, even trade ins. But we all know that won't happen.

Italy is wonderful... with all those people riding around on mopeds and tiny little cars that look like toys! But honestly, I'd have to be in my death-wish state to take one of those things on the Long Island Expressway or I95. Geez... it would feel like cruzing along on a ten speed at a monster truck rally.

yikes.
-ella

November 11, 2004
1:08 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'm not quite sure what you are saying ella. I'm a bit tired! I do respect your input and opinion, but I really want to hear from the person who originated this thread. No offence to you at all. I'll be waiting for that answer....Have a good night ella!

Best,

Sunny

November 11, 2004
10:20 am
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

In general, the US population is extremely gluttunous, and anyone who doesn't see this has big blinders on/are very unaware of what this planet can sustain and what the US consumes in comparison to other countries.

It's an 'attitude', and it's very hard to change. I can't change people's attitudes here, or fix the problem. It exists, and it's a big problem.

There are 260+ million people in the US. A good percent of those people, own vehicles. What are the reasons for owning an suv? I dunno. Go to Europe and see what they drive. They get to work on mopeds, bicycles, smart cars, trains.

But if I were to offer my personal opinion on suv's, I know lots of people that own them, but only about 1/2% of them are even remotely needed in my opinion.

Low gas prices (in the US, in Europe they pay 3-4x what we do), materialistic mentality, driving in style... I'm not a supporter in any this. Neither am I a supporter in the enormous homes that have been built in the last 20 years, filled with furniture, etc.

That's just where I stand of course. Many people obviously don't agree, because I can see it all around me. But as for fixing it? Well, many have been at this cross-roads before. What usually happens, is we (including myself), decide that we're not willing to give up this, or that, or whatever the giving 'up' is. So we say that it's impossible to stop, or it'll fix itself in due time, or it's someone elses problem.

I wonder when that time will be. Will I be alive? Can people change their attitudes on their own, and decide that enough is enough? I don't know. I just know it's a path of destruction embedded in the American attitude. I for one, hope for gas prices to skyrocket (reach at least those of European prices). Everything will cost more, so we can stop consuming so much. It's either that, or keep doing what we're doing, and keep our hands on the Saudi & Iraqi oil and start drilling in the Alaskan wilderness. I'll choose the higher prices and funding for alternative fuels.

November 11, 2004
11:17 am
Avatar
Anonymous
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I must confess, if I could afford an SUV, I would own one. However, (here comes my reasoning) I'm an outdoors kinda gal, so my SUV would definitely be used for rough travel!

Ren'ai

November 11, 2004
11:21 am
Avatar
Worried_Dad
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think that there are some people that SUV's seem appropriate for--just like some people need pick up trucks.

The question of whether we ought to be driving petrochemical fueled autos in the first place is still valid--it's just real hard to stop.

I myself have lived mainly without a car for fifteen years. Here in Seattle we have great mass transit and you can actually get around a lot on foot and bike.

I have, after all these years, actually bought a new car--not SUV, just a sensible family sedan with decent milelage. But I only need that for ONE reason.

November 11, 2004
2:19 pm
Avatar
Juanita
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I support learning about and utilizing alternate energy. Lets find renewable energy (like the sun and wind) that burns clean.

BUT, I do NOT agree with you SC about hoping for higher prices on fuel. I live frugally, budget conscious of every decision I make. Higher gas and home heating fuel prices are pushing us boarder line middle-class/poverty(?) line people further down the pole. I'd love to have a hybrid elec/gas car. Can I afford it? No. Can I save up for it? Not right now....

Why not make those "luxury" items cost more, and the reasonable ones or necessary ones stay within reason?

We live paycheck to paycheck, lucky to put perhaps $100 in the bank a month. Out of choice? I'd like to put more, but what little we DO save is to put into more expected bills - my home heating bill for example. I only heat my house at 62 degrees too -
Personally, this gal wouldn't mind to be ABLE to be gluttonous for a little bit. I am tired of scrimping and having to "decide" if I can afford something. I'd love to be able to buy something without worrying about how it will affect the monthly budget.

November 11, 2004
4:39 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Unfortunately, I think it is something that has to change on a very large scale... but how can that happen when profit driven powers aren't given any reason to change laws, what's manufactured, etc... like is said, safety is an issue for the individual... i'd ride a moped or compact car in europe and feel safe- but not here. i know people feel like i do- why should i risk MY life?

government should be pressured to at least change traffic laws, influence auto manufactures to make safer products etc...

right now i'm pretty pessimistic.

November 11, 2004
5:52 pm
Avatar
site coordinator
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't think any of us here want to be pinched any more than we already "are"? Especially those of us who have to do a $ balancing act every week/month. Some of us do have it rough. Some Americans are even homeless or sick hungry and suffering. I live in a little rabbit hole myself.

I'm just here to raise questions, and offer 1 more opinion. Mine is not the right one. I do agree that our leadership needs to help more, and raise awareness, but I defend them too by saying that they only give us what we want or are willing to buy. Corporations want us to buy and be dependent on them. Every dollar we spend, goes into the hand of someone else.

My hope, is that when that leader comes along to offer alternatives to us, that we are educated and thoughtful on the topic and support them in making change. It seems I play the devils advocate here at times, but not to hurt people, only to bring up conflicting feelings or problems.

I want to post 2 fun links.

Mount St. Helen's Live Picture

The weather has been changing so much there! Right now it's sunny and clear. It has been snow covered recently though.

Holt, Rinehart and Winston World Atlas

The atlas is full of interesting facts about the world.

If you click on places on the atlas, you can hone in on individual countries. Some of the facts listed when you hone in on 1 country (scroll down & read the text), are its population, religion, industry, life expectancy, and major Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP) which is the average income of people in that country.

November 15, 2004
11:01 am
Avatar
Cici
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HAH!

I always yell at my Dad about this. Hey, wasn't there a massive oil crisis in the '70s, where people were literally lined up waiting to get their gas ration? And did we have a big movement to fund research on alternative energy sources? Hell no. Americans spend way too much time justifying why they are right and why things are great just the way they are. Well, dandy, we don't have to suffer, our kids and grandkids get to, so f*** them!

And look around you on your morning and evening commute from work. Single-car drivers. One person in each car/SUV/truck/minivan.

I carpool to work every day, or take the bus. I use my car for long trips. I get great gas mileage, better than any SUV, because of course I have a 4-door sedan, with dual-side airbags, and heck, my car has been "reliable" for 7 years now (knock on wood).

I don't really get the argument, SUVs are more reliable than cars. Unless you live on property without unpaved roads. And even then, it doesn't guarantee anything. My sister has 10 acres and they haven't put the limerock driveway in yet, so after the hurricanes she and her family were trapped there until they could rent a backhoe to dig ditches on either side of their dirt road.

BTW, they own a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

IMHO, NO one can afford to get stranded anywhere! That's why I have roadside assistance!

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: UTC -8

Most Users Ever Online: 247

Currently Online:
43 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

onedaythiswillpass: 1134

zarathustra: 562

StronginHim77: 453

free: 433

2013ways: 431

curious64: 408

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 49

Members: 110819

Moderators: 5

Admins: 3

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 74

Topics: 38534

Posts: 714189

Newest Members:

stepukhaDazy, joshrad, tyzifDazy, vbhjifDazy, vbifhfDazy, DimashaDazy

Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0

Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer