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

[David J Dachtera]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
> In article <49DF8C2B.5A3273A9 at spam.comcast.net>,
>         David J Dachtera <djesys.no at spam.comcast.net> writes:
> > [snip]
> > 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.

If you would be willing to open up your paradigm a bit, perhaps the
analogies might be less pedantic and more analogous.

> It didn;t use fossil fuels either if I remember my history correctly.
> It burned wood.

...which, I believe, qualifies as "other sources of combustion".

> >
> >> > - 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?

There are LOTS of examples of classified documents which are known to
exist and their general content is generally known, but their EXACT
content remains concealed (hence, "conspiracy 'theories'", vs.
conspiracies proven; think: Zapruder film).

> >
> >> >
> >> > ...? 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.

So did I, though perhaps not the same example because I thought the one
I saw was from Ford, and supposedly provided the idea for the
turbine-powered "Batmobile" (which was really a big Lincoln when it
started out).

> > [snip]
> > 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. 

Obnoxious power was not supposed to be the main selling point of Wankel
rotaries, any more than it would have been for 12+ cylinder recip. The
idea was supposed to be smooth power and simplicty of operation leading
to lower maintenance, a lighter weight power plant with proportionally
greater weight-to-power ratio and resultant better fuel economy.

> (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?)

Bikers give two reasons:

1. Pride in the power suggested by the noise.

2. Other vehicles are more likely to be aware of a bike which makes its
presence unavoidably known, even when riding in a four-wheeler's blind
spot, as bikers are prone to do.

> >
> > 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.
> > [snip]

> >> 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.

Still, the point remains. If cost is deemed justified, it becomes less
relevant. These units are supposed to more fuel efficient. Hence, the
extraordinary cost is considered justifiable.

> >
> > 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.

It depends.

A six-seat pressurized aircraft with twin recip. engines could be had
for circa. $300K, last time I was in touch with that market. Put twin
turbines on "the same" airframe and the cost increases by an order of
magnitude, then multiply x2 for a turbo-prop ($6 million), x3 ($9
million)or x4 ($12 million) for a pure jet.

"ridiculous" tends to be s subjective measure.

> >> > [snip]
> >> > 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....

Show me where I said it "consumes no resources". You even quoted me:

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
> You said "batteries or petroleum".  The Stanley Steamer used neither.

> > [snip]
> >> 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?
> > [snip]
> 
> 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.  :-)

He would have had to fake the media coverage of his protoypes installed
in full-size vehicles of the day (think Olds '98 or Buick LeSabre - that
scale).

Independent agencies found, as you know from your reading, that Mr.
Johnson was on to something of which the petroleum lobby had a perfect
right to "be afraid, be VERY afraid".

Think about it: what would happen to the petroleum market - and the
world economy at large - if the demand for petroleum products could,
over time, be reduced by all the motor fuel consumed by everything
except jet aircraft, and possibly the railroads.

Those in "the audience" old enough to remember the Great Depression of
the 20th Century would think the current market woes barely a "blip" on
the financial radar by comparison.

D.J.D.