[Info-vax] Anyone interested in another public access system

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <49DF8C2B.5A3273A9 at spam.comcast.net>,
	David J Dachtera <djesys.no at spam.comcast.net> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> 
>> In article <49DD4499.9E268AE0 at spam.comcast.net>,
>>         David J Dachtera <djesys.no at spam.comcast.net> writes:
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > Did you know that:
>> > - you need a vehicle that does not rely on either batteries or petroleum
>> 
>> No, I am perfectly happy with my MGB.
>> 
>> > - it was invented in the late 1970s
>> 
>> Oh, much earlier than that.  1906, I think.
> 
> The concepts behind the Johnson magnatron motor did not yet exist at
> that date. Turbines and "Stanley Steamers" still consumed fossil fuels
> or other sources of combustion.

You said "batteries or petroleum".  The Stanley Steamer used neither.
It didn;t use fossil fuels either if I remember my history correctly.
It burned wood.

> 
>> > - it was quashed by the DoE in the early 1980s at the behest of the
>> >   petroleum lobby (and the successors to "the plumbers union")
>> 
>> Here come them black helicopters again.
> 
> The evidence is documented in the DoE. It may even have been recently
> declassified. Not sure.

If it is classified, how would you know it was documented and waht it
says?

> 
>> >
>> > ...? Probably not.
>> >
>> > Why?
>> 
>> Why what?  Why did I not know all the bogus info above?  Want another
>> one to feed your conspiracy theories.  Did you know that GM had a Turbine
>> Powered vehicle 
> 
> Invalid comparison.

Why?  Conspiracy theorists say this was suppresed for the same reasons.
Reality is somewhat different.  I actually saw this vehicle.

> 
>> in the early-to-mid 60's?  Local guy was one of the
>> beta-testers. 
> 
> Turbine vehicles consume petroleum or other fuels, and pose diferent set
> of challenges than piston engines.
> 
>> That never came to market either.  Do I believe the oil
>> companies or government killed it?  Of course not. 
> 
> Why would they? Turbines consume petroleum fuels, among other stuff.
> 
>> It died because it
>> was not marketable (there's that word again!!)  One of the reasons it
>> was not marketable was why the Rotary Engine never went beyond the niche
>> market. (Do you even know what company invented and put it in a car first?
>> Hint: Not a jap!)
> 
> Well, beyond the Wankel rotary there was also, I believe, a Canadian
> fellow whose rotary engine had rather a unique shape ("bent" at an
> obtuse angle). Can't recall his name just now. Legend has it he was
> working with DeLorean to put his engines in stainless-body cars for sale
> in North America.

The Wankel was a BMW product.  It was tested in BMW cars.  It was first
commercially available in an Audi, the RO80.  It never sold  And BMW 
never tried to sell it in one of their cars.  Datsun took it on but
never got much market penetration, especially in the US.  One of the
primary reasons it never sold well in America was because unlike American
Muscle Cars (real muscle cars, not the poor imitations we have today) it
didn't go "vroommm" when you stepped on the gas.  (No lie, that was a
major negative point.  Why do you think Harley's are so obnoxiously noisy
when neither of my motorcycles are even as loud as a lawn mower?)

> 
> Wikipedia has this entry:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine
> 
> ...and a disambiguation page that does not mention the invention I am
> trying to recall.
> 
>> >
>> > It was either intentionally not publicized or it never "rose above the
>> > noise floor" of the media din.
>> 
>> Or, it was deemed not practical.  Mercedes introduced a car in a Japanese
>> Auto Show last year that meets your criteria.  It will likely never see
>> actual production.  Why?  Are the oil companies going to kill it?  Hardly.
>> It is nuclear powered. (Strike 1)
> 
> Doe or NRC.

Lack of acceptance by the general public who, due to ignorance, are still
too distrustful of atomic energy.

> 
>> and it cost over a million dollars.
> 
> The local mass transit authority (http://www.metrarail.com/) recently
> paid $3million a piece for new commuter train locomotives, five of which
> were wrecked in the first year by distracted operators.

They are trains, and not cars.  They are not being bought by individuals
in order to transport single individuals.  An equivalent vehicle using
nuclear power would probably cost over $100,000,000,  And be equally
unacceptable by the public.

> 
> Rolls, Maserati, Ferrari and others have been building over-priced
> vehicles for decades. Seem to be selling just fine, at least until
> recently.

There is overpriced, and then there is ridiculous.

> 
>> (Strike
>> 2.  No need for Strike 3!)
>> 
>> >
>> > I first read about it in two of the local papers in 1981.
>> >
>> > D.J.D.
>> >
>> > P.S. "Google" for "Johnson magnatron motor"
>> 
>> Is it a perpetual motion machine? 
> 
> No. 

Let's see, consumes no resources delivers unlimited power. Hmmmm....

> 
>> What would it cost to manufacture?
> 
> One man financed his prototypes out of his own resources in near total
> secrecy.
> 
>> Is the onboard computer running Winbdows or VMS? 
> 
> Oops! Gotta think 1970's, not 21st Century. The invention predates
> "on-board computers" (other than the Apollo space vehicles or the LM) as
> we know them, and DOS, Windows and VMS.

Forgot the :-)

> 
>> If it is so good, why
>> not manufacture and market it himself? 
> 
> He did.
> 
>> Oh yeah.  the black helicopters
>> will carry him away to the secret base at the earth's core that you get
>> to thru opening in the Arctic.
> 
> How did you know? Did you look it up and read?
> 
> That's probably not so far from what actually did happen. As I recall,
> the story...
> 
> After Mr. Johnson was interviewed by the media, Greyhound got wind of
> his invention and tried to contract with him for motors to power their
> cross-country buses. His existing shop was too small; so, he set out to
> move his shop from the far-northwest suburbs of Chicago to somewhere in
> California. 
> 
> His vehicle was found with several samples of his invention on board,
> but his body was never recovered. The units had been destroyed
> internally such that very likely only he could have restored them to a
> functioning state.
> 
> Go ahead and double check me, because that's likely to have more than a
> few flubs in it, but that's my recollection from the last time I read up
> on it on the web.

Or maybe he just disappeared on his own when he realized someone was going
to call his bluff.  At least the story of Tucker is believable.  :-)

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>