Stupid World [Archive] - Page 2

mashman

7th August 2012, 20:33

America’s Retirement System Is Failing Us: Economist (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/america-retirement-system-failing-us-economist-153445894.html)...

fortunately the sky isn't falling as this lovely economist lady has the answer:

"People need to save a lot more," she says. "Social security is a base but it's not enough. I'm just advocating that people save more."

Now I'm laughing and laughing quite hard, it's an inner laugh, but it's making my sides hurt. Pensions have been a bust since the 80's and yet there are still people who think that the pension bubble can be avoided by saving more :facepalm:. It's utterly tragic that those who study the economy still believe that growth is sustainable, that saving and not spending won't hurt the economy and that the buying power of the average joe will allow them to save 8 times their salary... but hey, they're the experts... even though they can't stop the world from hitting a recession every 15 - 20 years. Outfuckinstanding.

mashman

7th August 2012, 20:35

Bank Hits Back Over Rogue Iran Deals Claim (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/bank-hits-back-over-rogue-iran-deals-claim-031422185.html)

Let's play pass the hot potato and divert the publics attention away from the fact that central banks cause recessions... in the meantime this one did throw up a bloody brilliant quite:

"It also alleges that the practice was sanctioned at the highest levels of Standard Chartered, quoting a bank director who said: "You f*****g Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians?""

mashman

10th August 2012, 21:38

Austerity's Cost: Abandoned Children in Europe (finance.yahoo.com/news/austeritys-cost-abandoned-children-europe-150243995.html)...

Fuckin wankerin fucktarded prick suckin money ignorant toss arsing fuckin CUNTS... some days I detest each and every person who holds power on this planet. Shame people vote these dickheads into power in the false belief that they are doing the best they can. This is but one shame of a weak minded pathetic race that calls itself civilised.

"Many factors contribute to children being separated from their families. Research shows that the primary factors are everyday conditions e.g., poverty, unemployed parents, low or lack of income, a lack of material resources, and poor living conditions."

So, lack of money, lack of money, lack of money, lack of money aaaaaaand lack of money. The problem couldn't be more fuckin obvious! The answer couldn't be more fuckin obvious! Gah... FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK

James Deuce

10th August 2012, 22:23

Austerity's Cost: Abandoned Children in Europe (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/austeritys-cost-abandoned-children-europe-150243995.html)...

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK

It is NO different to the '30s in Europe, or the early '20s in Germany. My grandfather was chucked out at age 14 (1933) and told to get a job because his parents couldn't go "into service" at the local manor with children in tow.

No one has the balls to call the current "crisis" a "Great Depression".

mashman

10th August 2012, 23:40

It is NO different to the '30s in Europe, or the early '20s in Germany. My grandfather was chucked out at age 14 (1933) and told to get a job because his parents couldn't go "into service" at the local manor with children in tow.

No one has the balls to call the current "crisis" a "Great Depression".

No doubt. Yet we still haven't learned that there is indeed enough for everyone :facepalm:

And erode confidence in the market :nono:

mashman

15th August 2012, 21:32

WTO deal opens doors for NZ business (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/wto-deal-opens-doors-nz-014753115.html)

Here it comes... "We already follow the rules, but just don't get the benefit for our New Zealand exporters," Mr Joyce said."... Have the WTO been stopping NZ exporters from being allowed to play in their pool? Almost sounds like a monopoly to me... and now we can be sued according to the rules. I didn't vote for this and wouldn't if I did.

mashman

2nd September 2012, 14:01

BoristheBiter

3rd September 2012, 08:30

Bankers keen to make Kiwis more money smart (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/bankers-keen-kiwis-more-money-183441500.html)... waaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... and oh how I wish I had spare money to let the oh so solid banks to invest... it's not like they'll ever need bailing out :blink:. Line up idiots, they're going to tell you all of their secrets so that you too can make pots of money like they do.

See now if you take them up on this offer you would have some spare money to use to go and see how to have more money..........but if you have spare money to use to go along to this you wouldn't need to go as you already know how to make money....

My's head hurt now.:wacko:

mashman

9th September 2012, 00:04

James Deuce

9th September 2012, 01:31

Greece told to produce results for support (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/greece-told-produce-results-support-201204122.html)

I dunno. Ya pay your taxes over your lifetime and some slimey bastards somewhere siphon it off and do back room details... and the outcome is that joe tax payer gets the kick in the bollocks. I feel for the Greeks in a big way, especially having to deal with a bunch of white mother fuckers demanding that they get their house in order by saving a fuckload of money in order to be allowed to borrow some more. Words can't express what an epic fail this financial system is... such a shame that so many accept it as the only solution without question.

Umm, the problem is that the Greeks DIDN'T pay taxes, not enough to sustain the country without borrowing money to buy groceries. They are the architects of their own demise.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/07/11/110711ta_talk_surowiecki

And yes I do understand the provenance of the New Yorker, but it is simply one of many analyses from many parts of the socio-political spectrum. The Economist calculated that no one (individuals, corporations, limited business, sole traders) with the equivalent of $US1,000,000 in personal or business capital paid any tax at all. A huge percentage, more than a quarter of the Greek economy is "black" in that it escapes the tax man's withering eye entirely.

I have little sympathy for their plight. The cornerstone of their national finances had been nicked and sold to Croatians while no one was looking. Not looking, because they'd been paid to look the other way. The Croatians used it to train Tennis players. Or something. They may have been Macedonians. The point is, if you're not willing to pay your share then don't bitch when your economy collapses and your safeguards turn out to have been built with playing cards and maintained by straw men.

mashman

9th September 2012, 09:30

Umm, the problem is that the Greeks DIDN'T pay taxes, not enough to sustain the country without borrowing money to buy groceries. They are the architects of their own demise.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/07/11/110711ta_talk_surowiecki

And yes I do understand the provenance of the New Yorker, but it is simply one of many analyses from many parts of the socio-political spectrum. The Economist calculated that no one (individuals, corporations, limited business, sole traders) with the equivalent of $US1,000,000 in personal or business capital paid any tax at all. A huge percentage, more than a quarter of the Greek economy is "black" in that it escapes the tax man's withering eye entirely.

I have little sympathy for their plight. The cornerstone of their national finances had been nicked and sold to Croatians while no one was looking. Not looking, because they'd been paid to look the other way. The Croatians used it to train Tennis players. Or something. They may have been Macedonians. The point is, if you're not willing to pay your share then don't bitch when your economy collapses and your safeguards turn out to have been built with playing cards and maintained by straw men.

I agree to a degree... but taxation policy, associated loopholes and the management of the govt is not down to the people as they do not see the books. If they were that worried surely the govt should have put up it's hand, or even closed the loopholes that were obviously there. To that end I don't blame the Greek people at all... especially if they're paying what they think is needed to keep them from being raped by world class organisations. So this, you've only got yourselves to blame, is more, those who should have known better sold the rest of the people down the river.

On the flip side, it would also have me a little concerned in regards to the ideology of give the people as much of their taxes as possible because the market will see everyone right. A country isn't its people any more eh.

James Deuce

9th September 2012, 09:40

mashman

9th September 2012, 10:03

It is down to the people in this instance and the reason the Greeks rioted was because the so called "austerity measures" are simply the Government exercising its right to collect the correct amount of tax from people. Greek Governments are voted in on the basis that they won't feck with the tax collection, or lack of it, hence the rapid turn over in party leaders, Prime Ministers, and Governments of late.

The financial collapse of Greece is entirely down to the unwillingness of the voting population to pay tax and their inability to stop borrowing more than they earned.

Angela Merkel said something quite fruity when she was told, just after Germany save Greek Arse the first time, that the highest per capita population of Porsche Cayennes (No one said the Greeks have taste) in the world was to be found in Athens. Not a single one was owned by the "owner", they were all leased or on tick and mostly financed on deals Porsche had sourced from Germany. So Germany paid to produce the Greek Porsche Cayennes, then funded their purchase - twice, without seeing anything go into the German economy because as soon as their economy collapsed the poor wee Greek darlings simply stopped paying loans back. The Greek people are not victims. They tacitly supported the tax regime and over-borrowing that went on for decades.

So because taxation was low the people should have known that they weren't paying enough for the govt to provide the services that it was? Bit harsh. I thought the riots started because some youngster got shot and the riots after that, as you say, were in regards to taxation. Although from what I've read, granted not a huge amount, but it seemed to be how they went about collecting that tax (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/02/greece-in-revolt-over-property-tax) that annoyed the Greek people. I'd love to know where that wee brutal gem of an idea came from? Reckon it was the Greek govt? or perhaps the Impossible Mission Force, Enterprising Umpires and the Evangelical Cash Believers? Hardly surprising they reacted given the way they did.

Surely the wise idea would have been to close the tax loopholes and to progressively raise tax thresholds so that people could adjust? perhaps the entire population of Athens would have returned they expensive cars? People borrow, tis the name of the game and it is avoidable, and no doubt a lot of people borrowed where they had the assets and cash flow to cover the bills at that point in time. Suddenly telling people no, fuck off, pay everything back now is a bit cheeky wouldn't you say? So I still don't fully blame the Greek people, as a country full of individuals.

James Deuce

9th September 2012, 10:29

Nooooo! Taxation ISN'T low in Greece! People just don't pay it. There are no more loopholes in their system than any other comparable Western tax system, they have simply been allowed to operate more than a quarter of their economy out from under big brother's eye. Couple that with the business approach to paying tax, you know, NOT paying it, just like every other business, then add in that more than a quarter of your employees don't show up on the books and are paid under the table, you have an economy that isn't big enough to sustain the level of Government and private borrowing that was going on. No sympathy at all, particularly when I live in a country that fronted up to unsustainable Government borrowing and instantly removed 100,000 jobs from the market in a the space of a few months, simply to get back to the point where they could afford interest-only payments on the previous Government's decade and half of excessive borrowing.

It was horrible, it was hard, it destroyed the feeling that NZ was a place where you went to school, left, got a job, did all those normal life things and it was pretty easy. The concept of Job security died instantly, and the Greeks are simply throwing a massive tanty because they're being made to face up to their National and personal money mismanagement.

mashman

9th September 2012, 11:37

James Deuce

9th September 2012, 11:46

So it's the fault of those who don't pay it, even though they are allowed not to pay it? Who allowed them to operate in such a way? The people did by voting for tax breaks? and they did so knowing that it was to the detriment of the country? Or did they trust those in power to collect enough to cover the bills, as they are paid to do? I find it hard to justify that it is the "fault" with the people where the "system" has gone unchecked. I have sympathy for those who trusted their system and the guardians of it.

What a way to live :facepalm:... making the masses pay for the excess of the few.

The people are the system. This is the core value that has been lost from Western Democracy. When the system no longer fears the people, that is when these types of things happen. They happen because the people let it happen. There is no one else to blame for perpetuating a system that doesn't work, and your ignore its faults by sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "la la la la la la la la la!" for 50 years.

mashman

9th September 2012, 12:21

The people are the system. This is the core value that has been lost from Western Democracy. When the system no longer fears the people, that is when these types of things happen. They happen because the people let it happen. There is no one else to blame for perpetuating a system that doesn't work, and your ignore its faults by sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "la la la la la la la la la!" for 50 years.

Whole heartedly agree... and we can't say we haven't been warned over the last 200 - 300 years (at least). Wonder why little has ever been done about it? Must be a bitch living with Stockholm Syndrome.

mashman

21st November 2012, 22:33

All your mail belong to US (http://news.yahoo.com/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants-191930756.html). Flip flop flip flop... wonder why he changed his mind?

madandy

22nd November 2012, 05:07

Well thats not very democratic!
A few hundred million emails every day in the US alone so they'll be reading those that feature certain choice words and phrases.

' I got my guns loaded, the money is in the bag and we got the stash prepared to exchange'

Edbear

22nd November 2012, 05:48

avgas

22nd November 2012, 06:29

Interesting to note that the vast majority of NZ's debt is private, not Governmental. People are dumb enough to get themselves into debt without thinking about the consequences, regardless of the rules.

It is, as usual, a combination of fiscal irresponsibility by the powers in an attempt to remain in power and popular, plus consumer irresponsibility in a drive to have a lifestyle they can't afford.
This is true. But unfortunately its no longer a case of "keeping up with the Joneses" to a case of "Mr Joneses dad won't sell me his house for anything less than a million dollars"
To make matters worse, many people are moving to NZ not to have the great lifestyle - but to make a quick buck at the same time.
I don't see NZ's private debt decreasing without:
- Changes in Government Policies (i.e. get rid of all the 'easy' credit companies)
- RBNZ doubling is rates (don't believe me look at what happened in Japan when they kept the rates the same)
- Unemployment exceeding 10%

e.g. take away the credit, punching you in the face then breaking your legs.
If you take away the custom, the prices will drop.

Otherwise we are simply drip feeding more debt into the nation.

007XX

22nd November 2012, 06:31

I do mourn the days gone by of good old pen and paper communications.

Those are still considered private by law to sime degree surely?

blue rider

22nd November 2012, 18:29

Interesting to note that the vast majority of NZ's debt is private, not Governmental. People are dumb enough to get themselves into debt without thinking about the consequences, regardless of the rules.

It is, as usual, a combination of fiscal irresponsibility by the powers in an attempt to remain in power and popular, plus consumer irresponsibility in a drive to have a lifestyle they can't afford.

I really would like to see one table that shows accuratly how that private debt is composed of.

i.e. percentage of student loands
percentage of mortgage
percentage of loans for renovations on mortgage free houses
medical debt
credit card debt etc.

this I really would like to see. Or else i might believe that every kiwi is a person with a loose wallet that has an aversion to saving. Well considering the interest rate on savings, it might be better keeping in under the mattrace - at least there it is available when need kicks in.

But before we demonise again our fellow citizens as dumb etc, maybe just present one table that shows where debt is incurred.

As for fiscal irresponsability i only mention Payroll at the Ministry of Education. How much government largesse has been given away to a company that is not able to produce the service it is paid for. Maybe the Min. of. Ed should re-employ the old payroll system and staff, and get people paid on time all the time.

Edbear

22nd November 2012, 18:34

I really would like to see one table that shows accuratly how that private debt is composed of.

i.e. percentage of student loands
percentage of mortgage
percentage of loans for renovations on mortgage free houses
medical debt
credit card debt etc.

this I really would like to see. Or else i might believe that every kiwi is a person with a loose wallet that has an aversion to saving. Well considering the interest rate on savings, it might be better keeping in under the mattrace - at least there it is available when need kicks in.

But before we demonise again our fellow citizens as dumb etc, maybe just present one table that shows where debt is incurred.

As for fiscal irresponsability i only mention Payroll at the Ministry of Education. How much government largesse has been given away to a company that is not able to produce the service it is paid for. Maybe the Min. of. Ed should re-employ the old payroll system and staff, and get people paid on time all the time.

I haven't seen the breakdown, and yes, some debt is as you say.

mashman

22nd November 2012, 18:35

As for fiscal irresponsability i only mention Payroll at the Ministry of Education. How much government largesse has been given away to a company that is not able to produce the service it is paid for. Maybe the Min. of. Ed should re-employ the old payroll system and staff, and get people paid on time all the time.

I did an app or two for Min Ed a while ago and often got to chatting, over smoko, with a funny bugga from payroll. He was non too happy with what was in the pipeline or indeed the processes in place for dealing with "issues". His contract wasn't extended. Shame really, as we was a right smart cnut.

James Deuce

22nd November 2012, 18:56

As for fiscal irresponsability i only mention Payroll at the Ministry of Education. How much government largesse has been given away to a company that is not able to produce the service it is paid for. Maybe the Min. of. Ed should re-employ the old payroll system and staff, and get people paid on time all the time.

Or the admin staff who are refusing to use the new payroll system properly could start entering data in the way they've been trained to instead of trying to phone and fax it in. There's always two sides to a story and most often the ignorati get most of the press.

Because they shout a lot. And wail. And gnash their teeth.

Mostly because things have "changed" and admin people won't be having none of that change.

blue rider

22nd November 2012, 19:09

Or the admin staff who are refusing to use the new payroll system properly could start entering data in the way they've been trained to instead of trying to phone and fax it in. There's always two sides to a story and most often the ignorati get most of the press.

Because they shout a lot. And wail. And gnash their teeth.

Mostly because things have "changed" and admin people won't be having none of that change.

yes again another case of the stupid Kiwi's fucking up for business....because the can't get stuff right that they have been getting right for years.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/234339/call-inquiry-payroll-fiasco

quote: "Clearly the $30 million pay system was not ready and properly tested before it was introduced and the Ministry of Education can no longer continue to downplay these problems."

Prime Minister John Key today said it was essential to bring in the Novopay system because the previous system was "effectively falling over".

"Novopay was late, so that made the situation even worse and then there are about three different layers that teachers can be paid at.

"So a lot of the basic stuff, as I understand it - I could be wrong - but as I understand it, is happening just fine," he said on TVNZ's Breakfast show

But he said it was not acceptable that there had been so many errors with the system.

"I think the vendor here, Talent 2, they are responsible for the system and we contract them like any other company and the pressure has to come on them."

Mr Key said if the problems were not fixed, it would probably face a financial penalty. "

why on earth are peeps so happy to blame their contemporary when really it is big buisness that has fucked up.

Personally i don't have to give a fuck, i am not a teacher, and i don't have children that are of school going age. But this blame thy neighbourgh thing eventually must stopp. Sometimes it is not Joe and Jane Sixpack that are to be blamed.
In fact, those that are not getting paid at the moment, are the ones racking up interest incurring debt to keep afloat.
But yeah it must be them dumb teachers/secretary/payroll staff that is not getting it right.

James Deuce

22nd November 2012, 19:34

No it isn't actually "big business stuffing it up" and I do have a different perspective on the situation and probably understand it a bit better than some.

The previous company, whom I work for, who handled the payroll, including covering the extra 5 years that Novopay was late, was staffed to cope with a semi-manual data entry system. The new vendor is not and a great deal of the errors that have been reported have been caused by admin staff in schools refusing to utilise the new technology correctly, forcing Talent 2 to hire temporary staff to cope with the increased load.

There's no conspiracy and a competitor of the firm that I work for, is being unfairly hammered in the press and is taking it pretty much on the chin, and not bad mouthing their client. I'm quite impressed with Talent 2's CEO. No prevarication, just acceptance that they've screwed up and it will cost them money. Which ISN'T actually the case in terms of "screwing up".

Bald Eagle

22nd November 2012, 20:01

I was employed in that sector a few years ago and the previous organisation had a rep of being lousy , my ex is still in the sector and I recall payrol was never that accurate under the old system, not surprised the new one is just as bad cos the decision to change was almost certainly made based on lowest cost regardless of what the smoke and mirrors sales people from the vendors promised....
how hard can it be to pay people their accurate wages on time, thousands of other large and small companie do it all the time with oof-the-shelf systems not some fancy bespoke bullshit.

mashman

28th November 2012, 19:12

"In short, if the government confiscated the entire adjusted gross income of these American taxpayers, plus all of the corporate taxable income in the year before the recession, it wouldn't be nearly enough to fund the over $8 trillion per year in the growth of U.S. liabilities. Some public officials and pundits claim we can dig our way out through tax increases on upper-income earners, or even all taxpayers. In reality, that would amount to bailing out the Pacific Ocean with a teaspoon. Only by addressing these unsustainable spending commitments can the nation's debt and deficit problems be solved." (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/why-16-trillion-only-hints-040600503.html)

Ahhhhhhh finally, a whiff of reality.

blue rider

28th November 2012, 20:04

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

BY Bruce Bartlett

Annoyingly, however, I found myself joined at the hip to Paul Krugman, whose analysis was identical to my own. I had previously viewed Krugman as an intellectual enemy and attacked him rather colorfully in an old column that he still remembers.

For the record, no one has been more correct in his analysis and prescriptions for the economy’s problems than Paul Krugman. The blind hatred for him on the right simply pushed me further away from my old allies and comrades.

The final line for me to cross in complete alienation from the right was my recognition that Obama is not a leftist. In fact, he’s barely a liberal—and only because the political spectrum has moved so far to the right that moderate Republicans from the past are now considered hardcore leftists by right-wing standards today. Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as actually being on the center-right.

about the writer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett

about Paul Krugman

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
todays story, a tale about the twenties.....

mashman

30th November 2012, 07:46

Mayor's fears over new local govt laws (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/15517916/mayors-fears-over-new-local-govt-laws/)... So it's the fault of the councils that we're borrowing an extra $40 billion from overseas. Good or bad, isn't it up to the people who live in those areas to remove the council if they aren't performing? Sounds like jobs for the boys to me.

mashman

4th December 2012, 09:55

Boehner Makes Fiscal Cliff Counter-Offer (http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-makes-fiscal-cliff-counter-offer-201946665--abc-news-politics.html)

"The GOP deal offers $800 billion in new revenue through tax reform, but Boehner insist that tax rates should not go up on the top 2 percent of taxpayers."

Why not? They've got the money.

"Going over the cliff will hurt our economy and hurt job creation in our country. It's one of the reasons why the day after the election, I offered a concession to try to speed this process up by putting revenue on the table," Boehner said.

"Unfortunately the White House responded with the La-la-land offer that couldn't pass the House, couldn't pass the Senate."

So the people voted in the president, quite possibly on the basis that he was going to raise the cash through taxes and not borrowing. Yet the opposition won't let him. So who's in charge again?

puddytat

4th December 2012, 11:01

mashman

5th December 2012, 17:40

Obama Co. is in the drivers seat ultimately......think he's wanting 1.6 trillion & the Republicans are offering 800 billion. All he has to do is wait until they fall off the cliff & automatically the Tax breaks for the rich will be overturned. So what if they default. Broke is broke innit? Things'll carry on as usual, maybe a slight dip on stock markets,a fall in the US$....then back to business .

Aye, but don't up tax for the top 2% (wonder what that equates to as a percentage of US GDP) ok, they "earn" too much and it would be disastrous for the economy if they have to pay more in tax, even though they're the ones with the lions share of the money. I can't wait to see what happens as the US is still my top tip for falling apart and I do so hate being disappointed.

blue rider

5th January 2013, 19:36

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/12/imf-austerity-is-much-worse-for-the-economy-than-we-thought/

shorter IMF, OOOOOPS Austerity is having a negative impact....!

well because when you starve the economy the economy is going to grow....and these dumb arses rule the world.

we are so fucked!

blue rider

5th January 2013, 19:48

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/01/03/imf-details-errors-in-calling-for-austerity/

we are fucked.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf

mashman

7th January 2013, 18:00

shorter IMF, OOOOOPS Austerity is having a negative impact....!

well because when you starve the economy the economy is going to grow....and these dumb arses rule the world.

we are so fucked!

Nothing like a little bit of money fear to send economists and markets into a spin. No doubt an admission to spur the market on. Now that the IMF (useless fuckwits) have publicly declared that know what the issue was (funny that austerity etc... would kick the economy in the guts, who woulda thunk it), they can produce their all knowing all seeing solution and we'll march swiftly forwards to, erm, nowhere. You're right though, we're fucked whilst these dickheads run the economy as if they know what they're doing.

On the plus side though, it is fuckin hilarious that the IMF etc... believe that they know what they're doing.

flyingcrocodile46

8th January 2013, 17:09

mashman

8th January 2013, 17:24

The figures tossed around about the size of the US deficit are too big to comprehend and it is likely that the significant majority of the worlds population (especially the yanks) don't really understand how big the problem is. A bit like the way that the holocaust head count was lost on the world until they started to see pictures of piled up bodies and mountains made of broken spectacles etc.

Check this out.

It's pretty stunning eh and that was a great example (8 zero's :killingme). The fed shut down for 4 days a few years ago to total the amount of debt and find out who owned what... 4 days :killingme... It's nice to see that they found it all and got it all sorted.

blue rider

8th January 2013, 20:43

talk about chutzpah

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/rescued-by-a-bailout-a-i-g-may-sue-its-savior/?hpw
Headline: Rescued by a Bailout, A.I.G. May Sue Its Savior

i can only repeat myself, we are so fucked....! lol

mashman

14th January 2013, 14:10

I bet plenty of this sounds familiar irrespective of which country you live in...

"In a way, it is precisely to avoid those questions that this false war has been created. Every minute spent discussing the factual inaccuracies, dishonesty and sleight of hand in the skivers/strivers debate is time wasted, time that could be spent addressing the bone-rattling mismanagement of an economy that only doesn't look more dangerous because it is going so slowly. And yet, we have to discuss it; to leave it unaddressed is to accept that public life has been polluted, that we now live in a system where it doesn't matter what's true, it only matters what's been said most often. To borrow, for solace, from Churchill: statistically speaking, the unemployed won't always be unemployed. A Tory will always be a Tory." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/09/skivers-v-strivers-argument-pollutes?CMP=twt_gu)

mashman

14th January 2013, 14:18

Coming to a suburb near you? (I do like her writing)

"Nobody would let me use their surname, and one person wanted her first name changed, because "you don't tell anybody because it would be admitting that something's wrong. Not that anything is wrong. It's just sensible to save money." The shame, totally illogical, totally understandable, gets into your bones like the cold." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/11/fuel-poverty-dread-winter-families)

mashman

29th January 2013, 16:52

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sDgkFalIqo&feature=youtu.be

I agree, right up to 1:56. What innovation?

mashman

1st February 2013, 07:49

Naughty naughty bankers (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/fsa-reveals-scale-interest-rate-083016499.html)... "The FSA has revealed that more than 90% of interest rate swaps were possibly mis-sold to small businesses."

mashman

16th March 2013, 21:01

Cyprus bailout hits bank depositors (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/cyprus-bailout-hits-bank-depositors-063402620.html)

"Deposits of less than 100,000 euros will be taxed at 6.75 per cent and higher deposits at 9.9 per cent.

The tax, described as a once-off "stability levy", will be applied immediately, with Cypriot authorities freezing a portion of all deposits."

Does that mean those who hold accounts will not be able to withdraw "a portion" of their money? T'would seem a little unfair given that you should be allowed to change banks anytime you like. Isn't it the account holders money after all?

""This has been a very difficult process, but the result reaches the essential goals of both maintaining financial stability (in the eurozone) and ensuring debt sustainability in Cyprus," EU Economy Commissioner Olli Rehn said."

Well if it's to ensure debt sustainability then it's alright then. Coz until now debt just hasn't been sustainable :weird:

Well fuck-a-doodle-do. They went ahead with the ESM. I guess it could be a good thing if non of the propaganda is true. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RUiFKMw92yA)

Stupid world indeed... although a stupid world requires stupid inhabitants to allow this sort of thing to flourish. hmmmmmm

mashman

17th March 2013, 09:39

davereid

17th March 2013, 17:00

Gotta feel for the Cypriot's (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/cypriots-president-defends-bailout-deal-162705571.html).

The banks fuck up and the people pay for it.

Cyprus of course is only the first of a long line of EU states needing a bail out.

Its lucky that the clever people who have done this know that it won't cause a run on the banks in the countries where it still has to happen. Cos that would be a disaster.

mashman

17th March 2013, 17:22

Cyprus of course is only the first of a long line of EU states needing a bail out.

Its lucky that the clever people who have done this know that it won't cause a run on the banks in the countries where it still has to happen. Cos that would be a disaster.

Well the economy is supposed to be turning around so I guess those who have held out this long may be able to continue holding out for a bit longer? Maybe not even seeking a bailout.

Fuck I'd lol HARD if that happens.

jonbuoy

17th March 2013, 20:04

mashman

17th March 2013, 20:54

The general populous has to take its share of the blame. Living beyond your own means, debt consolidation,no savings in the bank (however small they may be). Pay check to pay check lifestyle spending more than you earn lifestyle all adds up. It's been a ridiculous scenario for decades that everyone has tried to ignore.

True to a degree. I certainly agree on the we've ignored it bit, however without those who "overstretch", there is no growth. What is affordable one day quite easily becomes unaffordable the next because of the actions of a relative few. It's always been pay cheque to pay cheque for many people, quite possibly the majority and whilst I agree that some take on too much, I'd say that they generally do so because they project that they can afford that debt. The rising cost of living is what tips that balance, but as you say, people have ignored it and it has always been that way.

jonbuoy

18th March 2013, 06:14

avgas

18th March 2013, 08:31

Gotta feel for the Cypriot's (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/cypriots-president-defends-bailout-deal-162705571.html).

The banks fuck up and the people pay for it. Funny how no one actually comes out and says it that way. People being taxed on money that they've already been taxed on to bailout the useless. If the video, linked above, is anything to go by, then legal challenges are going to be more money down the drain as it states that the ESM are immune from prosecution.
Last time I checked, Kiwibank and KiwiRail not only required heavy investment to get restarted - are yet to make profit.
Solid Energy - lets just say I won't get into, as my dad was at Pike River 2 weeks prior to the end of it.
NZ Police shutting offices.
Army can't afford tanks.
Airforce can't afford planes.
Navy can't afford boats that float in areas that surround our land (Antarctica).
OCR held at 2.5% for 3 years now - smells like 90's Japan.

We may not be getting a 10% chop of our savings to rescue the economy - but we have vampire fangs sucking us of 30% p/a to get 3/8th of fuck all in return.
Who needs dodgy banks when you have a government who couldn't run an ice-cream cart? And have the ambition of a half-dead rodent.

mashman

18th March 2013, 10:30

We make a rod for our own backs, our grandparents had a make do and mend attitude. Repaired/made their own clothes, could make a whole chicken last for three or fours meals entertained themselves on a weekend for very little money and lived on one income. We can all go back to this lifestyle, only reason we don't is because we don't want to.

I agree. Although it's gonna be kind of tricky given that the economy rely's on our consumption.

mashman

18th March 2013, 10:33

Last time I checked, Kiwibank and KiwiRail not only required heavy investment to get restarted - are yet to make profit.
Solid Energy - lets just say I won't get into, as my dad was at Pike River 2 weeks prior to the end of it.
NZ Police shutting offices.
Army can't afford tanks.
Airforce can't afford planes.
Navy can't afford boats that float in areas that surround our land (Antarctica).
OCR held at 2.5% for 3 years now - smells like 90's Japan.

We may not be getting a 10% chop of our savings to rescue the economy - but we have vampire fangs sucking us of 30% p/a to get 3/8th of fuck all in return.
Who needs dodgy banks when you have a government who couldn't run an ice-cream cart? And have the ambition of a half-dead rodent.

:rofl: Great description. Are you saying that DB is a prime candidate for PM?

avgas

18th March 2013, 14:28

:rofl: Great description. Are you saying that DB is a prime candidate for PM?
6 vs half a dozen. Get one moron out to put another in.

While I strongly disapprove of Hitlers disgusting side. I do often wonder how NZ would managed if someone gassed the Beehive.

I suspect we would thrive.
Power is like cocaine. Only selected few search it out. Usually the type of people who you don't want to live with.

mashman

18th March 2013, 16:35

6 vs half a dozen. Get one moron out to put another in.

While I strongly disapprove of Hitlers disgusting side. I do often wonder how NZ would managed if someone gassed the Beehive.

I suspect we would thrive.
Power is like cocaine. Only selected few search it out. Usually the type of people who you don't want to live with.

Aye, that seems to be very twue indeed.

No problem. If they're doing tours I'll fill the missus full of beans and search out a spark.

Only suspect :shifty:... thing is they seem to get bored very quickly and dream up new ways of showing people just how stupid they are. Whilst entertaining and harbouring a certain want to be a part of that crowd to apply the final touches in your subjugation, I'd still prefer a little bit of happy happy joy joy without the guilts. Perhaps they could cut that bit out for me :innocent:

mashman

7th April 2013, 10:10

Can't see the woods for the oil.

Peru declares Amazon oil contamination emergency (http://news.yahoo.com/peru-declares-amazon-oil-contamination-emergency-013353099--finance.html)

Amazon Rainforest Up for Auction (http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/oil-companies-eye-amazon-rainforest-in-auction-130401.htm)

mashman

7th April 2013, 23:16

A lone child walks among debris and rubble strewn across a street as a result of intense fighting in Deir al-Zor, Syria. The United Nations has warned it will soon run out of money to cope with the exodus of Syrian refugees fleeing across the borders to safety (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/photos/pictures-of-the-week-from-kate-middleton-playing-basketball-to-war-with-north-korea-1365171455-slideshow/a-lone-child-walks-amongst-debris-and-rubble-due-to-intense-fighting-in-deir-al-zor-syria-the-photo--632180645.html)

How the fuck can you run out of money? It's just about the only infinite resource on the planet!

SMOKEU

8th April 2013, 08:14

We make a rod for our own backs, our grandparents had a make do and mend attitude. Repaired/made their own clothes, could make a whole chicken last for three or fours meals entertained themselves on a weekend for very little money and lived on one income. We can all go back to this lifestyle, only reason we don't is because we don't want to.

It's not that easy with the economy today and an "average" job. Housing is fucking expensive (unless you want to live in a ghetto), as is food, vehicles, fuel, electricity.....

It doesn't leave much, if anything extra.

mashman

12th April 2013, 18:39

Euro ministers in bid to finalise Cyprus bailout (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/euro-ministers-bid-finalise-cyprus-bailout-042639094.html#XO31tDx)...

"Their meeting comes a day after Cyprus made the shock announcement that the cost of its EU-IMF bailout had surged to 23 billion euros ($30 billion), putting the teetering economy in danger of collapse and further endangering big bank deposits."

The greatest heist in history... and it's legal.

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 19:45

The greatest heist in history... and it's legal.

Borrowing money and not repaying it isn't legal.

More sordid than great, too.

mashman

12th April 2013, 19:49

Borrowing money and not repaying it isn't legal.

More sordid than great, too.

True... unless they write it off I guess.

Ohhhhh yeah. Although I would imagine those patting themselves on the back would be seeing it as the greatest. Are they really trying to kill the Euro?

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 20:04

True... unless they write it off I guess.

Won't make it legal. Just impossible for Cyprus to borrow money again.

Ohhhhh yeah. Although I would imagine those patting themselves on the back would be seeing it as the greatest. Are they really trying to kill the Euro?

The defaulters? More likely to be patting themselves on the front.

Are they really trying to kill the Euro?

Cyprus? Nah, they're just trying to get something for nothing, old game, never works.

mashman

12th April 2013, 20:09

Won't make it legal. Just impossible for Cyprus to borrow money again.

The defaulters? More likely to be patting themselves on the front.

Cyprus? Nah, they're just trying to get something for nothing, old game, never works.

Not impossible, just more expensive... and it is legal to write that debt off should the creditors (:rofl:) feel like it.

Not the defaulters, the creditors. Mind you, they'd likely patting each other on the front/stroking each other's ego.

Noooooo, the Troika.

Zedder

12th April 2013, 20:16

It's not that easy with the economy today and an "average" job. Housing is fucking expensive (unless you want to live in a ghetto), as is food, vehicles, fuel, electricity.....

It doesn't leave much, if anything extra.

Ever done a proper budget? How much booze and dope do you buy? Trying to keep up with the Joneses a bit much?

SMOKEU

13th April 2013, 10:12

Ever done a proper budget? How much booze and dope do you buy? Trying to keep up with the Joneses a bit much?

I don't really do budgets, I just buy what I need if I can afford it. Buds and booze don't cost me anything, you just have to play the game.

blue rider

25th April 2013, 18:25

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425748/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-error?xrs=share_copy

t'was fun to watch

mashman

25th April 2013, 20:02

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425748/april-23-2013/austerity-s-spreadsheet-error?xrs=share_copy

t'was fun to watch

He's always good to watch. Looks like Oz enjoyed it too (http://au.businessinsider.com/stephen-colbert-on-thomas-herndon-and-reinhart-and-rogoff-2013-4)

jonbuoy

25th April 2013, 21:48

So you think they should carry on borrowing and spending to get out of debt?

mashman

25th April 2013, 21:54

So you think they should carry on borrowing and spending to get out of debt?

Nope. I think they should look into a different way of living entirely, otherwise they're going to have to keep borrowing and spending to get out of debt as that is the new black.

jonbuoy

25th April 2013, 22:18

Nope. I think they should look into a different way of living entirely, otherwise they're going to have to keep borrowing and spending to get out of debt as that is the new black.

Thats not going to happen in the immediate future - so what alternatives to austerity are there? If your household credit card repayments are more than you earn what else can you do but try and cut back. I´m not seeing any alternatives offered?

mashman

25th April 2013, 22:27

Thats not going to happen in the immediate future - so what alternatives to austerity are there? If your household credit card repayments are more than you earn what else can you do but try and cut back. I´m not seeing any alternatives offered?

Probably because there are no alternatives. If you've lost your income and can't pay the CC bill and the bank come calling then you're fucked. It's shit, in fact it's seriously fuckin shit that people are in that position. Yup they may well have themselves to blame, but losing their job is all it takes to end up on that position and more often than not that isn't in their power to control.

The alternative that isn't going to happen in the immediate future is just about the only way you're going to address the recurring issue of recession. All money is debt which means that a country and people in that country that gets landed with the debt are going to suffer. Tis bulloftheshits that people are treated like lepers for trying to enjoy themselves.

blue rider

27th April 2013, 08:37

So you think they should carry on borrowing and spending to get out of debt?

of course not.......we will continue going straight ahead until the titanic sinks. Really what were you thinking.

blue rider

27th April 2013, 08:38

mashman

27th April 2013, 10:47

and in other news......we are still being badly fucked!

Matt Tabibi, price fixing on a worldwide level.......believe me these guys are not lazy bludgers.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425

Cannot spread for you again... the central banks rig, I mean set, interest rates and inflation, so why shouldn't anyone else? Because it buries hundreds of thousands if not millions under a pile of shit and destroys innovation and cooperation in the name of money.

"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it's laws." springs to mind. Yet the mindless plebs and sheeple who value themselves above others will defend an obviously rigged world because they believe that they're doing ok and that it doesn't affect them. They know who they are and they don't lose any sleep over it because they justify their "earnings" on the basis that they're worth it. Where clearly having such an attitude shows quite the opposite. The same brainless cunts who revere and adore the economic system whilst ignoring that very same economic system whilst justifying their bene bashing. Fuckin pathetic breed of the human species that fail to realise just how ignorant and naive they are and all because they believe that they are living in the real world. Useless fuckin morons!

blue rider

27th April 2013, 19:00

highly productive they were

how much unemployment was caused by reinhart and rogoffs arithmetic mistake.....

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/how-much-unemployment-was-caused-by-reinhart-and-rogoffs-arithmetic-mistake

blue rider

27th April 2013, 19:10

and this to praise unfettered and un-regulated capitalism where rules and law are bent over regularly in the name of profit

explosions in texas

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/exploding-fertilizer-plant-texas-hadnt-had-full-inspection-nearly-three-decades/64469/

collapsing buildings in bangladesh

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/26/1204972/-How-will-American-companies-respond-to-fatal-Bangladesh-factory-collapse

and oil spill that are worse than previously admitted

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204349/-BP-s-Gulf-Oil-Spill-Was-Worse-Than-You-Thought

oh well capitalism at its finest, and we should just be happy to be part of it.
And if these people that died would have more foresight when choosing their professions they would still be alive....right?

blue rider

27th April 2013, 23:40

no comment

schrodingers cat

28th April 2013, 06:44

Same old boring shit from a bitter loser I see.

I hope being right makes you happy.:sleep:

mashman

28th April 2013, 10:16

Same old boring shit from a better loser I see.

I hope being right makes you happy.:sleep:

Fixed for ya.

Not even close. Til then I'll just be a better loser.

blue rider

28th April 2013, 10:46

Same old boring shit from a bitter loser I see.

I hope being right makes you happy.:sleep:

being right about what?

two sides of a coin,

Heads up

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/24/international_factory_safety.html

by Glen Greenwald, . Its ok if people die because choices, different countries yadda yadda yadda

Tails up

http://digbysblog.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/we-can-choose-that-workers-not-die-in.html

by David Atkins, how we can choose for people not to die on their workplaces yadda yadda yadda

I advocate neither party as i consider both labour and national criminally incompetent with a penchant to do only the things that will assure the future employment for themselves once they leave parliament. Everything else is in the too hard basket or the New Zealand is so small basket. Which ever is convenient at the time.

But as a worker, a taxpayer and generally a human being, i would like to know that no people were injured, burned or crushed under a crumbeling building whilst they make the cheap garment on offer in our Malls.

oh, hang on, yes, that is why "most" of my shopping is based around "Made in New Zealand", not because I want to be right, but because I know it is the right thing to do.
"Most".... where ever possible and in many cases it is.

blue rider

1st May 2013, 09:47

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/30/1205290/-Stock-market-completely-loses-touch-with-reality

unemployment, followed by falling into poverty followed by famine and than what......

it is worth following the links. Sad read.

mashman

1st May 2013, 22:15

mashman

3rd May 2013, 18:22

For those days when you just want stuff. Take it as there's noone to stop you (http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/21996)

"Contract farming will not improve the lives of small farmers in the area. It will instead make them dependent on a single corporation for everything from their seeds to the sale of their crops. One of the proposed contract farming projects in the plan envisions a return on investment of 30% per year for the company while farmers in the project will be forced to devote 5 out of the 5.5 ha they will be allocated to the production of cassava under contract production with the investor."

"Corporations will also benefit from several Special Economic Zones (SEZs) that are proposed in the plan. In these zones, companies will be free from paying taxes and customs duties and will be able to benefit from offshore financial arrangements. These SEZs will be located at the main sites that the project is planning for processing and trading facilities, which will cut deeply into any revenues that could accrue to the government through the planned development of agro-export industries."

Aye... money is just a mechanism of exchange. Pass my glasses Mr Magoo.

jonbuoy

3rd May 2013, 22:58

But we all want the best deal on commodities and luxuries - how are we westerners going to get rock bottom prices without exploiting thirdworlders?

mashman

3rd May 2013, 23:31

But we all want the best deal on commodities and luxuries - how are we westerners going to get rock bottom prices without exploiting thirdworlders?

heh... very true. Although if they start shifting production to the third world, how are the westerners going to afford to buy the commodities?

Ocean1

4th May 2013, 09:50

heh... very true. Although if they start shifting production to the third world, how are the westerners going to afford to buy the commodities?

Where have you been living? The west has been exporting jobs to the 3rd world for decades. Most of them are now firmly 2nd world nations as a result.

I was interested in a recent bout of angst and woe from a committee established to investigate NZ's apparently poor performance in workplace health and safety. Apparently we're twice as likely to get hurt at work as Aussies and four times as likely as Poms.

Teh committee was of the opinion that in fact ACC was the main reason for the difference, NZ employers being somewhat protected from the more usual wholesale private litigation and subsequently less motivated to protect their employees.

I thought the difference was more likely to be the fact that we don't all work behind a counter for Sainsburys, or some insurance company call centre, or stocking shelves for Coles. Y'see the west has been exporting workplace accidents along with the work, a fact I'd have thought any committee qualified to manage that roll would have considered in their report.

Fuckwits. Wonder how much that little gem cost us.

mashman

4th May 2013, 12:50

Where have you been living? The west has been exporting jobs to the 3rd world for decades. Most of them are now firmly 2nd world nations as a result.

I've been living on the fence with several billion others. No need to know the reasons or ramifications of business being moved overseas. No need to give a shit. But it turns out that I've been living in a Stupid World. Just took a while for me to notice/give a shit... and I'm slowly catching up in regards to the reasons and ramifications.

I was interested in a recent bout of angst and woe from a committee established to investigate NZ's apparently poor performance in workplace health and safety. Apparently we're twice as likely to get hurt at work as Aussies and four times as likely as Poms.

Teh committee was of the opinion that in fact ACC was the main reason for the difference, NZ employers being somewhat protected from the more usual wholesale private litigation and subsequently less motivated to protect their employees.

I thought the difference was more likely to be the fact that we don't all work behind a counter for Sainsburys, or some insurance company call centre, or stocking shelves for Coles. Y'see the west has been exporting workplace accidents along with the work, a fact I'd have thought any committee qualified to manage that roll would have considered in their report.

Fuckwits. Wonder how much that little gem cost us.

:rofl:... as I started reading that I was wondering if they had compared industry to industry or whether it was a per capita measurement. Supermarkets are dangerous places ya know. I wonder if they have assigned a risk weighting to ACC given that they seem to have classed ACC as a risk factor. No doubt that sort of thing isn't cheap, as we'd have to have the best and brightest in their fields being consulted on such a vital piece of research. Risk management must pay well.[/IMG]

Ocean1

4th May 2013, 17:31

Risk management must pay well.

Looking at the ACC account summary currently on my desk I can tell you that it pays stunningly well.

Wherever you get anyone paying for someone else's lunch you get huge distortions in the local reality field. Nevermind, won't last much longer, teh piggybank is almost empty.

mashman

4th May 2013, 18:20

Looking at the ACC account summary currently on my desk I can tell you that it pays stunningly well.

Wherever you get anyone paying for someone else's lunch you get huge distortions in the local reality field. Nevermind, won't last much longer, teh piggybank is almost empty.

In comparison to?

Which piggy bank?

Ocean1

4th May 2013, 18:40

In comparison to?

Which piggy bank?

Working for someone else.

The one from which they take the lunch money.

mashman

4th May 2013, 20:24

Working for someone else.

The one from which they take the lunch money.

Work is work.

Well there are those who are betting that that is the case in various parts of the world. (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/another-hedge-fund-manager-bets-against-canadas-big-banks/article11643282/?service=mobile)... hopefully the straw that breaks the camels back.

Ocean1

4th May 2013, 20:52

Work is work.

Yeah. But working for someone else tends to foster the misconception that someone else is responsible for your work. A piece of bullshit ACC likes to take their cut from occasionally.

blue rider

5th May 2013, 11:18

mashman

5th May 2013, 12:49

Yeah. But working for someone else tends to foster the misconception that someone else is responsible for your work. A piece of bullshit ACC likes to take their cut from occasionally.

Tis the way of the world innit. You're a dying breed, at least try to go with some grace.

mashman

5th May 2013, 12:57

lets cut some services, demonise some people, call for austerity and fiscal responsability.......boot straps for everyone .....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/8633747/Extra-costs-add-1-7m-to-Novopay-bill

Hasn't the decision already been made? (http://www.datacom.co.nz/About-Datacom/News/Datacom-Group-Ltd-Welcomes-New-Zealand-Superannuat)

In other news. Developing a service that reads salary information from a database and passing it to a bank in the format they expect isn't technically tricky. They coulda paid me 1 mill and I'd have had it ready for testing within 2 weeks. T'would allow people to be paid properly whilst holding a record of that payment, meaning that they could fix the functional and reporting bugs in Nomopay without the associated Novopain. Some fuckers just make things way more tricky than they need to be. Just as well joe public doesn't understand how easy it would have been to put in a temporary fix to pay the teachers.

mashman

8th May 2013, 20:37

We can’t afford such generosity to the elderly (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/t-afford-generosity-elderly-073640678.html)

"And if ministers grasp the nettle now, Britain will be in a much better place with families able to prepare for their own future, higher levels of saving, and, eventually, lower burdens on the taxpayer. If that was the message of the Queen’s Speech tomorrow, we would all be better off."

I remember hearing this back in the 80's. Where the fuck do naive cunts like the writer of this article come from?

mashman

9th May 2013, 09:09

For the woman who wants hubby's hidden trillions (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/super-richs-offshore-tax-avoidance-213052491.html)... praps the tax man might want to have a wee look at what has been hidden too. Hell, it might even go some way to offsetting the billions of people who suffer for the 0.1%. Maybe they'll share voluntarily?

mashman

16th May 2013, 19:54

Amazon received more money from UK grants than it paid in corporation tax (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10060229/Amazon-received-more-money-from-UK-grants-than-it-paid-in-corporation-tax.html)

"Amazon’s UK operation generated £4.2bn of sales last year, but it used a subsidiary in Luxembourg to help it reduce its corporation tax bill in the country to just £2.4m in 2012. According to documents filed at Companies House, the company received £2.5m in government handouts over the same period."

:killingme... ya getz what ya vote for.

mashman

17th May 2013, 07:55

Website launched to raise funds for sued couple (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/17201966/website-launched-to-raise-funds-for-sued-couple/)

"
A website's been set up to help raise funds for a Nelson couple, who have been successfully sued for more than $1 million for causing a fire.

A High Court judgement has ruled Steve Garnett and Tracey Lynch caused a large forest fire at the Tadmore Valley, southwest of Nelson in 2009 after dumping ashes.

The ashes sparked a blaze that destroyed a large forest area and a home.

Tracey Lynch says the website set up by a friend to help raise funds is a kind gesture in challenging times.

"I can't believe that people would do this. I've read a lot of things, there's a lot of negative going out with the positive but we're grateful for whatever people contribute."
The couple's appealing, but face their assets being seized should they not be able to pay the $1 million.
"
:facepalm: $1 million because of an accident? Sounds like a money grab by a reluctant to pay out insurer. Fuckin money.

blue rider

19th May 2013, 03:36

bwhahahahahahahah

http://pundit.co.nz/content/i-think-national-just-broke-our-constitution

Our constitutional arrangements work on an implicit bargain - the principle of comity - that the Courts and Parliament don't mess with each other's turf. I think that bargain just got broken.

and a new policy is worked out to pay family members who care for their disabled relatives.....or not.....

As announced in the budget, that policy takes two forms. First, the Government passed legislation that gives a statutory underpinning to the "family care policy" setting out who will (and who won't) be paid. This statutory underpinning is in section 70C, and will say:

[When the law kicks in], neither the Crown nor a DHB may pay a person for any support services that are, whether before, on, or after that commencement, provided to a family member of the person unless the payment is permitted by an applicable family care policy ...

With this statutory provision in place, the Government will work out with DHBs over time just who will be eligible to be paid (and how much) under the family care policy. At the moment, it looks like only those relatives caring for persons aged 18 or more will be ... and spouses looking after each other won't be. Furthermore, the payment rate looks to be at the level of the minimum wage, which is less than externally contracted carers would get.

"We took a case for all disabled people," Cliff Robinson of Thames said. "It seems like, after all our years and years of fighting to get a decent scheme, we've got a half- baked one. There will be challenges to this."

Well, what form might such challenges take? Remember section 70C above - it specifically prohibits any caregiver being paid anything unless the family care policy allows it. If the policy says you don't get paid, then Parliament says you can't be paid. But getting around that problem is easy enough ... the family caregivers can just challenge the family care policy itself, on the grounds that it discriminates on the basis of family status.

That's just what the Government is seeking to get Parliament to do under section 70E(2):

[When this law kicks in], no complaint based in whole or in part on a specified allegation [that the policy unlawfully discriminates] may be made to the Human Rights Commission, and no proceedings based in whole or in part on a specified allegation [that the policy unlawfully discriminates] may be commenced or continued in any court or tribunal.

You might need a moment to let the implications of this sink in. By passing this law, Parliament is telling the judicial branch that it is not allowed to look at a Government policy (not, note, an Act of Parliament) in order to decide whether it is in breach of another piece of legislation enacted by Parliament (the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). In other words, the judiciary's primary function - to declare the meaning of law and its application in particular cases - has been nullified.

The Judiciary.....such a quaint institution....who needs it.

mashman

29th May 2013, 09:51

Only one of these articles highlights stupidity:

I read "A mosque has been praised for serving tea and biscuits to English Defence League supporters after the far-right group arranged a demonstration there." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-22689552)

then

"Chinese hackers have accessed designs for more than two dozen US weapons systems, a US newspaper has reported." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22692778)

Leadership is a state of mind.

blue rider

29th May 2013, 13:52

http://www.3news.co.nz/Behind-Sanitariums-charitable-operations/tabid/367/articleID/299461/Default.aspx

Sanitarium......a religious charity ....bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha........

Banditbandit

29th May 2013, 16:14

http://www.3news.co.nz/Behind-Sanitariums-charitable-operations/tabid/367/articleID/299461/Default.aspx

Sanitarium......a religious charity ....bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha........

Like that's news ....

blue rider

30th May 2013, 11:06

Like that's news ....

well considering that some of the funds to feed hungry children in school will go to Sanitarium, a company that thanks to its "religious charitable status" does not pay tax, it might be news.
but hey, some government leeches are better than others.

Scuba_Steve

30th May 2013, 11:15

"Justice" brought to you by Time Warner, 20th Century Fox, or maybee Monsanto? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10083214/Courts-may-be-privatised-to-save-Ministry-of-Justice-1bn.html)

"The courts may be privatised in a justice shake-up that could save the Ministry of Justice £1 billion a year."

mashman

1st June 2013, 11:37

Running out of cash, Australian miners get creative to survive (http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/1250455/running-out-cash-australian-miners-get-creative-survive)... and it's the kids that needs the Financial Literacy classes in order to learn to be thrifty when the good times roll :killingme... some people just don't have a fuckin clue.

Blockupy hold anti-austerity protests in Frankfurt; surround the ECB; against austerity and food price speculation; German tanks protect Deutsche Bank (http://www.maxkeiser.com/2013/05/blockupy-hold-anti-austerity-protests-in-frankfurt/)... EH? People from one country giving a shit about people outside of their country and the hard time they're having at the expense of the world financiers? What next?

British taxpayers to pay 'millions' towards secretive Bilderberg meeting security (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10089131/British-taxpayers-to-pay-millions-towards-secretive-Bilderberg-meeting-security.html)... the good old taxpayer. Always good for a buck or two towards a swanky meeting for overly self-important people. They should invite me along.

Actual US Poverty Twice Official Figure (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=74&jumival=10244#.Uaigyuc1SYo.twitter)... statistics statistics... always enough to pour doubt on the official figure or indeed pour doubt on the figure that's "debunking" the official figure. Best they ignore the issue of poverty entirely and focus all of their time and energy of finding a solution to be able to measure it.

blue rider

7th June 2013, 19:08

interesting read
Managed Democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9175.html

http://carnegieendowment.org/2005/10/18/essence-of-putin-s-managed-democracy/1ul9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nelGtSOimwQ

blue rider

8th June 2013, 10:46

mashman

8th June 2013, 10:59

from daily kos

a nice compilation of links in regards to government spying on citizens....thought crimes you know!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/07/1214384/-The-OPOL-Report-Say-What

i think i might get some carrier pigeons.......lol

What a mess eh... just as well we have all of those normal joe dickheads walking the streets and classing it all as a great conspiracy. Did I say we, I meant they. "Living in a plastic land" was an interesting read.

unstuck

9th June 2013, 07:04

Stupid world.:headbang::headbang:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lSiShiu9Sgs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>:facepalm:

mashman

9th June 2013, 09:34

Stupid world.:headbang::headbang:

"Paul was approached by members of the oil cartel that made him offers for his patent, each time he demanded a contractual provision that the invention would actually be used to help man and the planet - The potential buyers always refused -

One group took Paul to court and argued that Paul was insane, for anyone that would turn down the amount of money that he was offered was surely crazy -"

Coz we're all greedy according to the human nature believing morons wrapped in stupid. Poor guy man :facepalm:. Wish I were an engineery type.

unstuck

9th June 2013, 09:51

mashman

9th June 2013, 10:35

A mate of mine from west Auckland was working on some type of water injection system for combustion engines, and some "people" gave him shitloads of cash to stop it. All he will tell me is that it has been destroyed.:devil2:

WTF... sellout. However, he can redeem his soul if he'll fund my assault on the financial system :whistle:

unstuck

9th June 2013, 10:56

WTF... sellout. However, he can redeem his soul if he'll fund my assault on the financial system :whistle:

Nah, money does change some people. He has turned into a bit of a wanker since all this took place, was about 25yrs ago. I suppose he knows he sold out and it,s not sitting right with him, who knows, he,s not allowed to talk about it.:oi-grr:

gwigs

9th June 2013, 11:28

Ocean1

9th June 2013, 11:33

Wish I were an engineery type.

You could make a start by taking the 10 minutes of research required to discover that the chances that any of the hundreds of "water as a fuel" inventions and patents either working on this planet or being effectively hushed up by your favourite corporate bogyman are, very approximately... zero.

Or you could just, y'know, continue to spout complete shite from the unassailable position of complete ignorance.

mashman

9th June 2013, 12:57

Nah, money does change some people. He has turned into a bit of a wanker since all this took place, was about 25yrs ago. I suppose he knows he sold out and it,s not sitting right with him, who knows, he,s not allowed to talk about it.:oi-grr:

Aye, money only turns them into the wanker they were destined to begin with... albeit a little sooner than intended. Talking of which........

You could make a start by taking the 10 minutes of research required to discover that the chances that any of the hundreds of "water as a fuel" inventions and patents either working on this planet or being effectively hushed up by your favourite corporate bogyman are, very approximately... zero.

Or you could just, y'know, continue to spout complete shite from the unassailable position of complete ignorance.

Lemme see now, hmmm, oxygen is highly combustible, hydrogen is highly combustible........ aye, it'll never work.

It never stops you, and what's good for the goose etc...

Ocean1

9th June 2013, 13:35

Lemme see now, hmmm, oxygen is highly combustible, hydrogen is highly combustible........ aye, it'll never work.

Yes. In fact if the result of combining oxygen and hydrogen is a fuckload of energy. And water.

And if you want to split water into oxygen and hydrogen you add need to add that same fuckload of energy into the equation.

So yes, you can design engines that process water. But you can't claim that they're burning it, and they'll be using a fuckload more energy than they produce.

Not the very best feature for any sort of useful engine.

mashman

9th June 2013, 13:50

Yes. In fact if the result of combining oxygen and hydrogen and a fuckload of energy is... water.

And if you want to split water into oxygen and hydrogen you add need to add that fuckload of energy.

So yes, you can design engines that process water. But you can't claim that they're burning it, and they'll be using a fuckload more energy than they produce.

Not the very best feature for any sort of useful engine.

Good job we have a powerful engine packed with a fuckload of energy called the sky then eh.

A fuckload of energy? I did it using an exceptionally crude devices and a PC power supply, and then all it takes is a spark to release that energy. That's a fuckload less energy than goes into creating all of the components that go together to get oil out of the ground before processing it into petrol.

In which case you can't say that a car runs on petrol given that it is refined before putting it into to tank... kinda.

That I agree with. I see the uses for engines such as these for "processing" dirty water into clean water, especially for places like Haiti who are still having huge issues with cholera and the price of clean water etc... but if the technology is being "buried" because it's more efficient than getting shit out of the ground thousands of metres below the surface, then there's an ulterior motive at work. This much is true. To be honest though, I'd rather not be running vehicles on "water".

mashman

9th June 2013, 13:53

And John Key has taken away our rights to protest ar sea....:angry2:

Fuckin disgraceful man. It's a shame, as they guy says in the vid, that we're reactive instead of pro-active... and all because being pro-active costs precious money (that infinite resource). The white man is a savage wanker.

blue rider

9th June 2013, 14:12

another interesting read....lol

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-reward-job-creators-commentary-by-nick-hanauer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hanauer

Ocean1

9th June 2013, 16:25

Good job we have a powerful engine packed with a fuckload of energy called the sky then eh.

You got that straight from the pixie that lives up there, eh?

mashman

9th June 2013, 16:48

You got that straight from the pixie that lives up there, eh?

That or I read it in a book/saw it on TV... but let's go with the pixies as they make more sense.

Scuba_Steve

10th June 2013, 08:23

One of America's greatest Hero's... Edward Snowden

29yrs old, ex-CIA & now fugitive for doing right (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance)

Fergus

10th June 2013, 13:19

Good job we have a powerful engine packed with a fuckload of energy called the sky then eh.

A fuckload of energy? I did it using an exceptionally crude devices and a PC power supply, and then all it takes is a spark to release that energy. That's a fuckload less energy than goes into creating all of the components that go together to get oil out of the ground before processing it into petrol.

In which case you can't say that a car runs on petrol given that it is refined before putting it into to tank... kinda.

:facepalm:

Do you seriously think that the energy required to create a fuel is less than extracting a fuel out of the ground?

the energy input required to split hydrogen from water (an endothermic reaction) is EXACTLY equal to the energy released when the reaction is reversed (ie the hydrogen is burnt). it is 241.82kJ/mol, and can be found in enthalpy (energy) of formation tables in any elementary chemisty text.

Any other result would conflict with the Law of Conservation of Energy and would require a total rewrite of our understanding of the universe.

This is why most scientist don't engage with water powered engine crazies/Intelligent designers/climate change deniers ect; their are at best, bad science and often not science at all (falsifiable, observable, repeatable ect), debating would give unwarranted credibility to pseudoscience which is harmful to true science. (Or maybe "the scientist's have all been bought out by big corporations, man, open your eyes sheeple ect ect")

The most efficient water -> hydrogen method/s are around 50% efficient, so half of the energy input is lost, resulting in a net energy loss of 50%.
Refining oil (including energy consumed during extraction) uses 20% of the energy extracted so a net energy gain of 80%.

Hydrogen is a good contender as a energy carrier, but it will never be an energy source, as there is no great stockpile of hydrogen laying around for us. It must be created at a cost of 241.83kJ/mol and As with all energy conversions, it is a process with a net energy loss.

FYI most hydrogen is created from fossil fuels (80% efficient) and most is used to produce fertilizer.

MisterD

10th June 2013, 13:25

And John Key has taken away our rights to protest at sea....:angry2:

:facepalm: No, he hasn't, he's just made it an offence to interfere with someone going about their legal business and said you have to keep 500m away.

gwigs

10th June 2013, 13:41

:facepalm: No, he hasn't, he's just made it an offence to interfere with someone going about their legal business and said you have to keep 500m away.

Equates to the same thing as far as I,m concerned...
And I,d volunteer to protest at sea and be arrested for it....
John Key is just looking out for his corporate buddies....
Its all about greed and profit...with no consideration to the environment..

unstuck

10th June 2013, 13:44

Yeah, and the earth was flat for millions of fucking years, until someone said" I wonder". Damn science boffins are getting shit wrong all the time.:facepalm:

mashman

10th June 2013, 13:52

ancient science wankery

Check out my big brain, check out my big brain... yes I missed the point entirely and read selectively from the post I quoted, but check out my big brain :tugger:.

mashman

10th June 2013, 13:53

One of America's greatest Hero's... Edward Snowden

29yrs old, ex-CIA & now fugitive for doing right (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance)

Have you read any of the releases?

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 14:05

:facepalm: No, he hasn't, he's just made it an offence to interfere with someone going about their legal business and said you have to keep 500m away.

Which simply seeks to reinforce IMO shipping regulations. And probably allows action against transgressors in NZ law.

And now that I think about it may also seek to relieve the crown of responsibility for NZ registered vessels faced with litigation from other vessels going about their lawful business. Particularly fishing boats which have right-of-way over pretty much everything else out there.

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 14:07

Check out my big brain, check out my big brain... yes I missed the point entirely and read selectively from the post I quoted, but check out my big brain :tugger:.

Admit it, you were wrong.

Again.

Fergus

10th June 2013, 14:20

Yeah, and the earth was flat for millions of fucking years, until someone said" I wonder". Damn science boffins are getting shit wrong all the time.:facepalm:

Congratulations, you (somewhat suprisingly..) understand how science works.:niceone:

Here's some others examples for you:

People used to believe heavy objects fell faster, and then Galileo came along and showed that they were wrong.

People used to believe everything moved around the Earth, and then Copernicus came along and showed that they were wrong.

People used to believe all living things have always existed in their present form, and then Darwin came along and demonstrated that they were wrong.

Amazing innit? :shit:

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/HowScienceWorks.png

Fergus

10th June 2013, 14:22

Check out my big brain, check out my big brain... yes I missed the point entirely and read selectively from the post I quoted, but check out my big brain :tugger:.

Maybe you make your point more clear for me?

avgas

10th June 2013, 14:24

:facepalm:

Do you seriously think that the energy required to create a fuel is less than extracting a fuel out of the ground?

the energy input required to split hydrogen from water (an endothermic reaction) is EXACTLY equal to the energy released when the reaction is reversed (ie the hydrogen is burnt). it is 241.82kJ/mol, and can be found in enthalpy (energy) of formation tables in any elementary chemisty text.

Any other result would conflict with the Law of Conservation of Energy and would require a total rewrite of our understanding of the universe.

This is why most scientist don't engage with water powered engine crazies/Intelligent designers/climate change deniers ect; their are at best, bad science and often not science at all (falsifiable, observable, repeatable ect), debating would give unwarranted credibility to pseudoscience which is harmful to true science. (Or maybe "the scientist's have all been bought out by big corporations, man, open your eyes sheeple ect ect")

The most efficient water -> hydrogen method/s are around 50% efficient, so half of the energy input is lost, resulting in a net energy loss of 50%.
Refining oil (including energy consumed during extraction) uses 20% of the energy extracted so a net energy gain of 80%.

Hydrogen is a good contender as a energy carrier, but it will never be an energy source, as there is no great stockpile of hydrogen laying around for us. It must be created at a cost of 241.83kJ/mol and As with all energy conversions, it is a process with a net energy loss.

FYI most hydrogen is created from fossil fuels (80% efficient) and most is used to produce fertilizer.
excuse me for my ignorance. How do these things work?
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/hydrogen-fueled-toy-car-a-cool-gift-idea-for-tech-obsessed-kids-of-all-ages.html

Not saying your wrong - just amazed that we can build cool kids toys like this, weld under water, land stuff on another planet..........but can't make a bigger version of this toy.
I suspect this toy is not as the label implies. Hydro-cell powered.

mashman

10th June 2013, 14:28

Admit it, you were wrong.

Again.

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... so it takes less total energy to get oil from the ground, processed into petrol and into my tank than it would to get water into my tank.

Fergoos mentioned that the best one could hope for is 50% efficiency, what does the average fuel burning engine recoup efficiency wise?

Try again pops.

oneofsix

10th June 2013, 14:29

Congratulations, you (somewhat suprisingly..) understand how science works.:niceone:

Here's some others examples for you:

People used to believe heavy objects fell faster, and then Galileo came along and showed that they were wrong.

People used to believe everything moved around the Earth, and then Copernicus came along and showed that they were wrong.

People used to believe all living things have always existed in their present form, and then Darwin came along and demonstrated that they were wrong.

Amazing innit? :shit:

Your example leaves out the input of real world "politics". In all the cases you quote people had "proven" long before that the prevailing theory was wrong, however due to current politics of the time the incorrect assumptions still prevailed.
Ancient Greeks/Chinese had proven the earth was round using sticks and shadows, got it to within a few k of the real circumference all before the Roman Empire had climbed off its 7 hills. However because the peeps and their masters wanted to believe it was flat that is what they believed, it was only when it became politically advantageous for it to be round did they look into that theory.

Banditbandit

10th June 2013, 14:30

excuse me for my ignorance. How do these things work?
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/hydrogen-fueled-toy-car-a-cool-gift-idea-for-tech-obsessed-kids-of-all-ages.html

Not saying your wrong - just amazed that we can build cool kids toys like this, weld under water, land stuff on another planet..........but can't make a bigger version of this toy.
I suspect this toy is not as the label implies. Hydro-cell powered.

Yeah .. but that is not the same as splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen .. and then burning the hydrogen

It takes a lot of energy to split water .... so much that it doesn't actually produce any extra energy -as Mashie points out above ... so the energy you use to split the water might as well be used as it comes (as it were) instead of wasting it to split water

Burning pre-existing monatomic is different ( or is it not monatomic hydrogen it burns?)

mashman

10th June 2013, 14:30

Maybe you make your point more clear for me?

see the answer I gave to Ocean above in conjunction with part of the quote you quoted

That's a fuckload less energy than goes into creating all of the components that go together to get oil out of the ground before processing it into petrol.

Fergus

10th June 2013, 14:45

excuse me for my ignorance. How do these things work?
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/hydrogen-fueled-toy-car-a-cool-gift-idea-for-tech-obsessed-kids-of-all-ages.html

Not saying your wrong - just amazed that we can build cool kids toys like this, weld under water, land stuff on another planet..........but can't make a bigger version of this toy.
I suspect this toy is not as the label implies. Hydro-cell powered.

W can and do make bigger versions of that toy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

The second paragraph answers restates what I was said and, I think, answers your question:

Hydrogen fuel does not occur naturally on Earth and thus is not an energy source; rather it is an energy carrier. It is most frequently made from methane or other fossil fuels, but it can be produced using sources (such as wind, solar, or nuclear) that are intermittent, too diffuse or too cumbersome to directly propel vehicles.

unstuck

10th June 2013, 15:07

So why would we have to burn water to get it to propel a machine. There has got to be other ways, we just have not thought of them yet I am sure. Electricity does not seem to be a cheaper or more reliable way to propel stuff, not yet anyway.:Punk:

The idea of floatation was not concieved by the contemplation of the sinking of things . A few hundred years ago if you said you could get steel to float, they would of dunked you then burnt you.:devil2:

Fergus

10th June 2013, 15:22

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... so it takes less total energy to get oil from the ground, processed into petrol and into my tank than it would to get water into my tank.

There's really nothing I can say if you think water can provide energy...

Fergoos mentioned that the best one could hope for is 50% efficiency, what does the average fuel burning engine recoup efficiency wise?

Try again pops.

That is a 50% conversion (electrical ->chemical; H2) efficiency ie you've poured half your energy down the sink before you have even thought of gettting work done!

This has nothing to do with any engine efficiency (work out/energy in).

mashman

10th June 2013, 15:29

There's really nothing I can say if you think water can provide energy...

Is that what I said? All I said was getting water into the tank, I never said anything about how it would be combustabelised.

Fergus

10th June 2013, 16:06

Your example leaves out the input of real world "politics". In all the cases you quote people had "proven" long before that the prevailing theory was wrong, however due to current politics of the time the incorrect assumptions still prevailed.

Mankind is a bit more rational now, as far as I'm aware we no longer burn heathen scientists at the stake.

You can't stop people believing in non-scientific things: Astrology, creation theory, 2012 apocalypse, climate change denial, dowsing, tarot cards, crop circles, hypnosis, homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture ect ect

There are many politicians the world over who believe that^ sort of stuff, who cares? Science progresses regardless.

Ancient Greeks/Chinese had proven the earth was round using sticks and shadows, got it to within a few k of the real circumference all before the Roman Empire had climbed off its 7 hills. However because the peeps and their masters wanted to believe it was flat that is what they believed, it was only when it became politically advantageous for it to be round did they look into that theory.

A falsifiable and empirical (ie scientific) method, it's true whether anyone believes it or not :woohoo:

Fergus

10th June 2013, 16:12

Is that what I said? All I said was getting water into the tank, I never said anything about how it would be combustabelised.

Once again, you imply water is combustible....:facepalm:

Though, I guess I've missed your point again. :innocent:

Fergus

10th June 2013, 16:39

So why would we have to burn water to get it to propel a machine. There has got to be other ways, we just have not thought of them yet I am sure. Electricity does not seem to be a cheaper or more reliable way to propel stuff, not yet anyway.:Punk:

Water doesn't burn :violin:

H2 has almost 3 times the energy per kg than petrol...and over 100 times the energy per kg than batteries...
So you can see why h2 is attractive for transport.

Whatever happens, when fossil fuels run out, NZ will need three times as many power plants to replace keep our energy demand met :corn:

Oscar

10th June 2013, 16:44

Water doesn't burn :violin:

H2 has almost 3 times the energy per kg than petrol...and over 100 times the energy per kg than batteries...
So you can see why h2 is attractive for transport.

Whatever happens, when fossil fuels run out, NZ will need three times as many power plants to replace keep our energy demand met :corn:

Or a couple of small atomic power plants...

unstuck

10th June 2013, 17:12

I am well aware that water does not burn, I was just confused perhaps because it sounded like some people were making it sound like it could.(Drugs perhaps) Any way I still think we will be able to use water to propel vehicles one day. Maybe some sort of hydraulic system where the water is compressed to give power and then sent back to a tank to be used again. Or maybe the weed has finally got the best of me.:eek:

Fergus

10th June 2013, 17:33

Any way I still think we will be able to use water to propel vehicles one day. Maybe some sort of hydraulic system where the water is compressed to give power and then sent back to a tank to be used again.

Water, being heavy and (relatively) in-compressible, is a bad choice. Air is a much better choice, but it still has downsides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car

Fergus

10th June 2013, 17:36

Or a couple of small atomic power plants...

The 4 biggest power plants on earth, by energy output, are all hydro dams...The only logical solution is to dam the Waikato and submerge Hamilton, it's win win all round :Punk:

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 17:40

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... so it takes less total energy to get oil from the ground, processed into petrol and into my tank than it would to get water into my tank.

Fergoos mentioned that the best one could hope for is 50% efficiency, what does the average fuel burning engine recoup efficiency wise?

Try again pops.

I cannot believe the depth of your ignorance. Simply stunning.

I am well aware that water does not burn, I was just confused perhaps because it sounded like some people were making it sound like it could.

Yes. Mashmind made it sound like it could, because he's convinced the true freedom fighters have it sussed and the evel corporate baddies have covered it all up.

I believe Fergus replied to your post thinking you were the mashdude. You should feel bad about that.

unstuck

10th June 2013, 17:42

Compressed air would be fine if it did not require so much energy to compress it. Maybe compression was not the right word to use for water, (force perhaps?). I suppose it comes down to making something that requires very little energy to utelise. I like to keep an open mind on it though, impossible is nothing after all.:Punk::Punk:

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 17:43

unstuck

10th June 2013, 17:46

You should feel bad about that.

I prefer feeling good, so much more powerful a feeling.:2thumbsup

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 17:58

I prefer feeling good, so much more powerful a feeling.:2thumbsup

That's profoundly true.

It's also the very best reason to de-bunk the endless tirade of negativity and fact-free bullshit emanating from mashland over there. We get enough of it from the professional fact ignorers: the press.

unstuck

10th June 2013, 18:33

Rather than waste my energy on de-bunking anything, I would rather put my energies into finding ways of doing things that are a little more out there. I know what I mean anyway, just cannot seem to get it into words.:crazy:

I have always loved people telling me I could not do something, I will find a way to do it, somehow.:Punk:

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 18:58

Scuba_Steve

10th June 2013, 19:02

Have you read any of the releases?

No, I'm too lazy for that sorta carry-on

I have always loved people telling me I could not do something, I will find a way to do it, somehow.:Punk:

You can't give me the ability to turn anything I want into pure gold when I want :whistle:

unstuck

10th June 2013, 19:12

No, I'm too lazy for that sorta carry-on

You can't give me the ability to turn anything I want into pure gold when I want :whistle:

No sorry, thats Merlin. But you never know, apparently there is an alchemist living in the sudanese desert who can though.:Punk:

unstuck

10th June 2013, 19:14

I know exactly what you mean, I do it for a living.

More solution based thinking than problem based thinking. Like riding a bike, look where you want to go, not where you dont.:Punk:

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 19:21

More solution based thinking than problem based thinking. Like riding a bike, look where you want to go, not where you dont.:Punk:

Yeah, it's a recognised planning methodology.

But you've got to be wary of the an affect evolutionary anthropologists warn of, the arrogance that assumes your predecessors were less smart or less committed than you. They might have been less well resourced than you, but you'll still need to be very, very fucking good to build a genuinely better mousetrap.

unstuck

10th June 2013, 19:24

Yeah, it's a recognised planning methodology.

But you've got to be wary of the an affect evolutionary anthropologists warn of, the arrogance that assumes your predecessors were less smart or less committed than you. They might have been less well resourced than you, but you'll still need to be very, very fucking good to build a genuinely better mousetrap.

Yeah, that Da vinci was a smart cookie, wonder what he was smoking.:innocent:

mashman

10th June 2013, 20:23

Once again, you imply water is combustible....:facepalm:

Though, I guess I've missed your point again. :innocent:

You're more than free to assume what I am implying... in fact you'll be a darn fine company.

mashman

10th June 2013, 20:27

I cannot believe the depth of your ignorance. Simply stunning.

Try harder.

Yes. Mashmind made it sound like it could, because he's convinced the true freedom fighters have it sussed and the evel corporate baddies have covered it all up.

No. You made it sound like that even though we had previously discussed the elements that comprise water, as well as you saying that there are engines that will work using those elements. But as it's a free world, you carry on making the facts fit your own agenda.

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 20:42

No. You made it sound like that even though we had previously discussed the elements that comprise water, as well as you saying that there are engines that will work using those elements.

If you're going to discuss even very basic chemistry you need to understand enough to at least argue the correct statement.

You compared the energy required to refine petrol with that required to fill your car with water. You intended to infer that burning water was a valid energy comparison to burning petrol. Don't pretend that it simply slipped your mind to include the energy required to make hydrogen from water, you're not that sophisticated.

Imbecile.

Fergus

10th June 2013, 21:01

You're more than free to assume what I am implying... in fact you'll be a darn fine company.

Feel free to set me straight so we can have a rational debate.....If that is what you want?

mashman

10th June 2013, 21:38

If you're going to discuss even very basic chemistry you need to understand enough to at least argue the correct statement.

You compared the energy required to refine petrol with that required to fill your car with water. You intended to infer that burning water was a valid energy comparison to burning petrol. Don't pretend that it simply slipped your mind to include the energy required to make hydrogen from water, you're not that sophisticated.

Imbecile.

As I said in an earlier post, I made my own crude device that ran using a computer power supply connected to the 12v output and generated hydrogen. Given that a car uses a 12v battery and has a charging system the power required for splitting hydrogen from the water is already there. So no, if you had have read the post where I highlighted the device I had made, you would realise that I wasn't that it hadn't slipped my mind at all. Carry on making up your own story's though, tis very funny.

Feel free to set me straight so we can have a rational debate.....If that is what you want?

The implication that I was expecting to burn water given that I have tried this myself, no not burning water, but splitting hydrogen out to make it go bang (which I never tried), allowed me to sit back and watch the pack chasing their tails saying that that's what I was talking about... the fervor with which they go about their task is always amusing. But yes, I will refer to it as running on water because water is poured into the tank, similarly to petrol being poured into the tank still requires oxygen and a spark to make it go bang. Fun fun fun

bogan

10th June 2013, 21:46

mashman

10th June 2013, 21:49

So what comes out the exhaust then?

Oxygen... and if you have some form of condenser, clean water.

bogan

10th June 2013, 21:50

Oxygen... and if you have some form of condenser, clean water.

So, run a condenser, and put the water the comes out of it back into the tank and you'll never need to fill up again!

Sounds too good to be true right?

mashman

10th June 2013, 21:54

So, run a condenser, and put the water the comes out of it back into the tank and you'll never need to fill up again!

Sounds too good to be true right?

According to Fergus there's a 50% loss of energy somewhere along the lines, so I'm guessing that that isn't the case. I assume most of that is lost through heat exchange?

bogan

10th June 2013, 21:59

According to Fergus there's a 50% loss of energy somewhere along the lines, so I'm guessing that that isn't the case. I assume most of that is lost through heat exchange?

That is 50% loss of energy to convert water to hydrogen. As in a car engine requiring 100hp input (for about 40hp output at current best efficiency) would need to produce 200hp of electrical energy. Now if that 40hp number was larger than the 200hp you would have something that was viable.

mashman

10th June 2013, 22:06

That is 50% loss of energy to convert water to hydrogen. As in a car engine requiring 100hp input (for about 40hp output at current best efficiency) would need to produce 200hp of electrical energy. Now if that 40hp number was larger than the 200hp you would have something that was viable.

That whistled over me heed. I believe that you can apply certain electric frequency's to make the splitting more efficient (going on Stan Meyers research).

I wasn't really thinking about it from a car point of view. I was thinking more along the lines of disaster areas and dirty water.

Ocean1

10th June 2013, 22:19

As I said in an earlier post, I made my own crude device that ran using a computer power supply connected to the 12v output and generated hydrogen. Given that a car uses a 12v battery and has a charging system the power required for splitting hydrogen from the water is already there. So no, if you had have read the post where I highlighted the device I had made, you would realise that I wasn't that it hadn't slipped my mind at all. Carry on making up your own story's though, tis very funny.

The implication that I was expecting to burn water given that I have tried this myself, no not burning water, but splitting hydrogen out to make it go bang (which I never tried), allowed me to sit back and watch the pack chasing their tails saying that that's what I was talking about... the fervor with which they go about their task is always amusing. But yes, I will refer to it as running on water because water is poured into the tank, similarly to petrol being poured into the tank still requires oxygen and a spark to make it go bang. Fun fun fun

Mushmate, you bring a whole new meaning to Wrong.

If you started with, say 100kwh of energy and used that to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen you lose at least half of that in process inefficiencies. So you've got at best 50kwh worth of hydrogen and oxygen. Now you burn them with an excellent internal combustion engine efficiency of 50%, and you get: 25kwh. So as the more patient here have been telling you any such engine doesn't produce any energy at all, it consumes 75kwh. That's a net loss of 75%.

Compared to petrol, which is effectively free, takes about 10% of it's intrinsic energy to process and once run through that same engine at 50% efficiency still produces a positive energy output of 40%.

Are you beginning to see some tiny hint of the almost unbelievable ignorance your opinion displays?

unstuck

10th June 2013, 22:29

I have just made my own simple ram pump for moving water, out of bits of pvc pipe and other stuff. At the moment it needs a 12 volt battery to start it moving, but I want to get it to the stage where it will run itself with just a little water flow. I know I could probably find out how to do all this online, but I am trying to resist that because it is much more stimulating for my brain to nut it out for myself. What positive things have you challenged yourselves with today?:Punk::Punk:

mashman

10th June 2013, 22:30

Mushmate, you bring a whole new meaning to Wrong.

If you started with, say 100kwh of energy and used that to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen you lose at least half of that in process inefficiencies. So you've got at best 50kwh worth of hydrogen and oxygen. Now you burn them with an excellent internal combustion engine efficiency of 50%, and you get: 25kwh. So as the more patient here have been telling you any such engine doesn't produce any energy at all, it consumes 75kwh. That's a net loss of 75%.

Compared to petrol, which is effectively free, takes about 10% of it's intrinsic energy to process and once run through that same engine at 50% efficiency still produces a positive energy output of 40%.

Are you beginning to see some tiny hint of the almost unbelievable ignorance your opinion displays?

So you're saying that getting oil out of the ground and into the petrol tank is more efficient than splitting hydrogen and using it?

gwigs

10th June 2013, 22:31

[QUOTE=Ocean1;1130561273]Mushmate, you bring a whole new meaning to Wrong.

Compared to petrol, which is effectively free,

If you can steal it from someone else ..like say Iraq....
Oh yeah its free almost.. but someone paid for it eh..
maybe poor Iraqis ...Oh and lets not forget the profits for Warburton for a start..
G.W.Bush looked after his mates eh..?

gwigs

10th June 2013, 22:33

Compared to petrol, which is effectively free,

If you can steal it from someone else ..like say Iraq....
Oh yeah its free almost.. but someone paid for it eh..
maybe poor Iraqis ...Oh and lets not forget the profits for Warburton for a start..
G.W.Bush looked after his mates eh..?

Fergus

10th June 2013, 22:35

That whistled over me heed. I believe that you can apply certain electric frequency's to make the splitting more efficient (going on Stan Meyers research).

This guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell

Looks like he created a free energy machine then got ruined by the energy industry shadowmen? :innocent:

I wasn't really thinking about it from a car point of view. I was thinking more along the lines of disaster areas and dirty water.

Where does the energy required to produce the H2 will come from? (I'd assume energy is in short supply in disaster areas...)

what use does a disaster zone have for H2?

What advantage does this have over traditional water purification methods that require far less energy like boiling, distillation etc?

Why do you want to create an explosive gas when the goal is to purify water?

bogan

10th June 2013, 22:40

So you're saying that getting oil out of the ground and into the petrol tank is more efficient than splitting hydrogen and using it?

Its extraction vs creation. Hydrogen is essentially a chem neutral reaction, you finish off with the same compound you have at the start. Which is the same as a battery, in that the maximum energy you can get out of it, is what you put into it. But in practice putting energy into it is inefficient (50%), and using it in an engine to get the work out of it is less efficient (30-40%), resulting a net loss across the process. Not only is it not a viable fuel source, it is not a viable energy storage or transportation system either. It's like charging a battery in line with a lightbulb, no matter how much energy you put throw at it, you can never put all of it into the battery as the light glows and wastes it whenever you try.

Extracting and burning petrol is not chem neutral, you end up with compounds different from what you started. This reaction is exothermic, so energy is released during the transformation. This is a fuel, there's no way to reuse the final products like with hydrogen. The energy involved in getting the petrol out is not tied to how much energy the petrol has in it, which is far greater than that required to get it, making it a viable energy source.

Scuba_Steve

10th June 2013, 22:42

Fergus

10th June 2013, 22:55

The lightbulb an impossible fantasy, "TV will never be possible", "Everything that can be invented has been invented.", "Document transmission through telephone wires will never be practical", the microchip "utterly useless", "Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time; Nobody will use it, ever.", "you'll fall off the edge of the world" - Ah Science always with the answers

Lest we forget Science is but an organised system of ignorance, noting more.

Yep, systematically ignoring unempirical, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable rubbish since way back..

And look where that has got us...lightbulbs, TV, faxes, computers, space travel etc

Ah Science always with the answers

Dead right :woohoo:

(BTW most of your examples are engineering problems, not science..)

mashman

10th June 2013, 23:01

This guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell

Looks like he created a free energy machine then got ruined by the energy industry shadowmen? :innocent:

Aye, that fulla. As bats as he was he was pretty good when it came to ze spliting of his elements from what I've seen. Dunno about his buggy, did he do it, was it a hoax, dunno.

Where does the energy required to produce the H2 will come from? (I'd assume energy is in short supply in disaster areas...)

what use does a disaster zone have for H2?

What advantage does this have over traditional water purification methods that require far less energy like boiling, distillation etc?

Why do you want to create an explosive gas when the goal is to purify water?

Dynamo, battery, solar cell, home made wind turbine, combination of all of those and anything else people decide to use. I remember hearing somewhere that they generated power using washing machines in rivers in Sarajevo?

To clean the water. It's already in the water and it should be nice and clean coming out of the other side.

When you run out of things to burn, you run out. Maybe the dynamo, battery cell etc... would be able to boil the water for long enough to produce the water required, would love to do the experiment.

To run a wee mower engine or similar to purify the water.

mashman

10th June 2013, 23:06

Its extraction vs creation. Hydrogen is essentially a chem neutral reaction, you finish off with the same compound you have at the start. Which is the same as a battery, in that the maximum energy you can get out of it, is what you put into it. But in practice putting energy into it is inefficient (50%), and using it in an engine to get the work out of it is less efficient (30-40%), resulting a net loss across the process. Not only is it not a viable fuel source, it is not a viable energy storage or transportation system either. It's like charging a battery in line with a lightbulb, no matter how much energy you put throw at it, you can never put all of it into the battery as the light glows and wastes it whenever you try.

Extracting and burning petrol is not chem neutral, you end up with compounds different from what you started. This reaction is exothermic, so energy is released during the transformation. This is a fuel, there's no way to reuse the final products like with hydrogen. The energy involved in getting the petrol out is not tied to how much energy the petrol has in it, which is far greater than that required to get it, making it a viable energy source.

Fair enough... I'm looking at it from the point of view of, how much energy does the drill and donkey use to suck the oil out of the ground? How much fuel does it take to transport the oil? i.e. the total power requirement (including building "rigs", man power etc...) that goes into producing the petrol.

mashman

10th June 2013, 23:08

And look where that has got us...lightbulbs, TV, faxes, computers, space travel etc

All of which would have happened without a financial system :blip:

mashman

10th June 2013, 23:12

No, I'm too lazy for that sorta carry-on

heh, furry muff. Looks like the Republicans want him back (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/10/the-nsa-files-edward-snowden?CMP=twt_gu)... so many secrets and as a one guy put it "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. OK, declassify everything."

Fergus

11th June 2013, 00:23

Where does the energy required to produce the H2 will come from? (I'd assume energy is in short supply in disaster areas...)

what use does a disaster zone have for H2?

What advantage does this have over traditional water purification methods that require far less energy like boiling, distillation etc?

Why do you want to create an explosive gas when the goal is to purify water?

1)Dynamo, battery, solar cell, home made wind turbine, combination of all of those and anything else people decide to use. I remember hearing somewhere that they generated power using washing machines in rivers in Sarajevo?

2)To clean the water. It's already in the water and it should be nice and clean coming out of the other side.

3)When you run out of things to burn, you run out. Maybe the dynamo, battery cell etc... would be able to boil the water for long enough to produce the water required, would love to do the experiment.

4)To run a wee mower engine or similar to purify the water.

1) You don't think people aren't using that energy already? for lighting? refrigeration? cooking? Hospitals? In any disaster, I think it's safe to assume energy will be in short supply..

2)Hydrogen doesn't 'clean water', It's an explosive gas FFS :facepalm:. Maybe you're getting at is this: Creating h2 from dirty water then burning the h2 and condensing the water vapour from the combustion products? Which would effectively be distillation and result in pure, clean water..... The most complicated, dangerous, energy intensive distillation process ever. This would literately be making rocket fuel in a disaster area. :laugh:

3) Who mentioned burning anything? If the electrical energy sources are capable of producing a useful amount of hydrogen they would obviously be capable of heating water..

4) wait.. so now a hydrogen powered mower is what will purify the water? how does one purify via mechanical means?

So this is the energy flow:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen) -> heat nrg (combustion) -> mechanical nrg (mower shaft) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

Why so many redundant steps? Why not simply?
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> mechanical nrg (electric motor) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

:facepalm:

Fergus

11th June 2013, 01:12

Fair enough... I'm looking at it from the point of view of, how much energy does the drill and donkey use to suck the oil out of the ground? How much fuel does it take to transport the oil? i.e. the total power requirement (including building "rigs", man power etc...) that goes into producing the petrol.

Does it not seems like common sense to assume it would only be done if there was an overall net gain?

unless of course it's all for a bit of a laugh? Maybe they were all bored that day? :innocent:

Aye, that fulla. As bats as he was he was pretty good when it came to ze spliting of his elements from what I've seen.

What Have you seen? Does the following tend to paint him in a bad light?

"Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996"

"If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine"

"To date, no peer review studies of Meyer's devices have been published in the scientific literature. An article in journal Nature described Meyer's claims as one more "water as fuel" myth"

"His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed"

Do you believe all those quotes are fabrications and he actually created a perpetual motion machine that mankind has lost forever?
Does it not strike you as odd that the single observed instance in history that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo were violated was by a man who was convicted of "gross and egregious fraud" and made to refund the investors of the project?
If the fundamental laws of science have been violated doesn't that cast doubt on the entire body of scientific knowledge? How can you sleep at night knowing that everyone on earth is living a lie? :blink:

Oscar

11th June 2013, 07:49

All of which would have happened without a financial system :blip:

You can't know that.
You certainly can't prove it.

mashman

11th June 2013, 08:56

Does it not seems like common sense to assume it would only be done if there was an overall net gain?

unless of course it's all for a bit of a laugh? Maybe they were all bored that day? :innocent:

And how would sir be measuring that today? Financially: Is it really much more expensive to split hydrogen that it is to drag barrels of black shit out of the ground? Historically: It was the first stuff we used, so why not continue using it? Logistically: If we start shifting to a fuel where any tom, dick and harry can produce themselves, what about all of the jobs in the "industry" that will be lost? Likely more ways of measuring it, but it's an old fuel and I realise that there's more to replacing a fuel than just saying, "hey, that will work". :bleh:

What Have you seen? Does the following tend to paint him in a bad light?

"Meyer's claims about his "Water Fuel Cell" and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996"

"If the device worked as specified, it would violate both the first and second laws of thermodynamics,[1][2] allowing operation as a perpetual motion machine"

"To date, no peer review studies of Meyer's devices have been published in the scientific literature. An article in journal Nature described Meyer's claims as one more "water as fuel" myth"

"His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed"

Do you believe all those quotes are fabrications and he actually created a perpetual motion machine that mankind has lost forever?
Does it not strike you as odd that the single observed instance in history that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermo were violated was by a man who was convicted of "gross and egregious fraud" and made to refund the investors of the project?
If the fundamental laws of science have been violated doesn't that cast doubt on the entire body of scientific knowledge? How can you sleep at night knowing that everyone on earth is living a lie? :blink:

:rofl:... I reckon he was able to make Hydrogen on demand to run his vehicle. Everything else is theater and window dressing to appease the great gods of finance, I mean law, I mean Science.

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... you're already living the biggest lie there is, one more isn't going to make my sleepless nights any more sleepless :D

You can't know that.
You certainly can't prove it.

Why can't I? If man had not have decided to go to the moon, they wouldn't have gone. If man had not have conceived the idea of light/electricity etc... there wouldn't have been thousands of attempts to make a lightbulb. If man had not have conceived of the TV, it may never have been built. But they all happened (apart from the moon landings :rofl:). The reason being, because they were curious to see if it could be done. So that's how I can say that they would have happened.

I highly doubt it was a case of, hmmmmm, I've got some money, let me see if I can make some more by inventing something that noone has ever invented before. Tis the same reason we made spears, built traps, run cars on an element of water etc... it ain't all for the love of money.

scumdog

11th June 2013, 09:03

[QUOTE=mashman;1130561305 How much fuel does it take to transport the oil? i.e. the total power requirement (including building "rigs", man power etc...) that goes into producing the petrol.[/QUOTE]

Who cares, when it runs out - it runs out....

Scuba_Steve

11th June 2013, 09:24

Yep, systematically ignoring unempirical, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable rubbish since way back..

And look where that has got us...lightbulbs, TV, faxes, computers, space travel etc

Dead right :woohoo:

(BTW most of your examples are engineering problems, not science..)

Yet it was the "science" saying some of these could never exist. Science is assumption, guestimation, estimation, & all round guess work. Alot of discoveries have been through fuckups & random events.

Science is NOT an absolute, so saying stuff like cars cannot run on water is closed minded, while I have seen no proof of the ability yet, I'm not willing to rule out the possibility in the future; thinking like that would have never seen the lightbulb or AC power

Oscar

11th June 2013, 09:31

Why can't I? If man had not have decided to go to the moon, they wouldn't have gone. If man had not have conceived the idea of light/electricity etc... there wouldn't have been thousands of attempts to make a lightbulb. If man had not have conceived of the TV, it may never have been built. But they all happened (apart from the moon landings :rofl:). The reason being, because they were curious to see if it could be done. So that's how I can say that they would have happened.

I highly doubt it was a case of, hmmmmm, I've got some money, let me see if I can make some more by inventing something that noone has ever invented before. Tis the same reason we made spears, built traps, run cars on an element of water etc... it ain't all for the love of money.

Who said man went to the moon for the love of money?
I certainly never said that.

However, it would be difficult to envisage it happening without the financial might and resources of the USA (or the USSR for that matter).

You said it would have happened anyway without a financial system.
It is a stupid thing to say, as you simply can't prove that.

Fergus

11th June 2013, 10:18

Yet it was the "science" saying some of these could never exist.

Wnere does science ever say lightbulbs etc could never exist? can you provide any links?

You really have no idea what science is or does :brick:

oneofsix

11th June 2013, 10:28

Wnere does science ever say lightbulbs etc could never exist? can you provide any links?

You really have no idea what science is or does :brick:

Fuck you are dumb or can't read. He didn't say science currently says they couldn't exist but that it did. Just like it said there couldn't be snow on Kilimanjaro and laughed the explorer that originally presented the fact out of the room. Science by its nature is a system of cock-ups however honoured men don't like admitting being wrong.

mashman

11th June 2013, 10:30

Who said man went to the moon for the love of money?
I certainly never said that.

However, it would be difficult to envisage it happening without the financial might and resources of the USA (or the USSR for that matter).

You said it would have happened anyway without a financial system.
It is a stupid thing to say, as you simply can't prove that.

Sorry, did I put words into your mouth. There's a switch.

I don't find it difficult to envisage at all. Oooo, look, Moon, I reckon we can get there, now what do I need... make shopping list of people and components, see if they fancy joining the project, et la.

I can prove it, in fact I just did above... however you're denying me the ability to prove it through your fear that someone as stupid as me can prove you wrong. It's in every single one of your posts and it tickles me so.

Scuba_Steve

11th June 2013, 10:31

Wnere does science ever say lightbulbs etc could never exist? can you provide any links?

You really have no idea what science is or does :brick:

The lightbulb was called by "scientists" at the time "an impossible fantasy"... I know exactly what science is do you??? (hint my sig says it perfectly)

MisterD

11th June 2013, 10:39

Any way I still think we will be able to use water to propel vehicles one day.

Yeah maybe one day

http://d240vprofozpi.cloudfront.net/locos/A/a4_silverlink.jpg

oneofsix

11th June 2013, 10:47

Yeah maybe one day

Then again, just maybe

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsTd6fQ5PQh6ZSSaPpiqGDBHanmrlGZ Ntk_Q2orvagBmRA48znRJvIGuyX

With a bit of modernisation....

mashman

11th June 2013, 10:49

1) You don't think people aren't using that energy already? for lighting? refrigeration? cooking? Hospitals? In any disaster, I think it's safe to assume energy will be in short supply..

2)Hydrogen doesn't 'clean water', It's an explosive gas FFS :facepalm:. Maybe you're getting at is this: Creating h2 from dirty water then burning the h2 and condensing the water vapour from the combustion products? Which would effectively be distillation and result in pure, clean water..... The most complicated, dangerous, energy intensive distillation process ever. This would literately be making rocket fuel in a disaster area. :laugh:

3) Who mentioned burning anything? If the electrical energy sources are capable of producing a useful amount of hydrogen they would obviously be capable of heating water..

4) wait.. so now a hydrogen powered mower is what will purify the water? how does one purify via mechanical means?

So this is the energy flow:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen) -> heat nrg (combustion) -> mechanical nrg (mower shaft) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

Why so many redundant steps? Why not simply?
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> mechanical nrg (electric motor) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

:facepalm:

Sorry, missed this post.

1) Kind of my point for looking at alternatives to power generation. Go and have a look at the state of Haiti after their earthquake 3 years ago and see all of the standing water. Why isn't it being used? Why was a distillation plant not erected slap bang in the middle of the camp? Wonder what happened to all of those vehicles that were fucked? Dumped on a pile somewhere most likely when they quite possibly could have been converted. Granted not efficiently, but given that you're using something that "can't" be used, then why not use it?

2) Aye, there is a potential for a big bang, although I'd take the chance if I needed water. That and you can mitigate that with safety measures surely?

3) They would, I agree. Does it take less power to generate a spark to explodify gas than it does to create a persistent enough supply to power something to boil water?

4) Via the exchange you outlined in point 2.

Fair points on the conversion steps, but how many electrical motors do you see just lying around in a disaster zone?

Fergus

11th June 2013, 11:01

And how would sir be measuring that today? Financially: Is it really much more expensive to split hydrogen that it is to drag barrels of black shit out of the ground?

Energy has inherent value, it can provide heat and work etc, when no money exists it would still have value. There is no need to measure energy with money.
When the energy required to extract and refine oil exceeds the energy gained (ie a net loss) it becomes a waste of energy (or money, or time or resources or any measure of value) and it will stop happening. Common sense is it not?

I know this has been said many times in different way already but 5th times a charm...

"Free hydrogen does not occur naturally in quantity, but can be generated by steam reformation of hydrocarbons, water electrolysis or by other methods.[3] Hydrogen is thus an energy carrier (like a battery), not a primary energy source (like coal)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

:rofl:... I reckon he was able to make Hydrogen on demand to run his vehicle. Everything else is theater and window dressing to appease the great gods of finance, I mean law, I mean Science.

Many people make hydrogen and run cars on it, the first one was in 1807..... No one has created a free energy/perpetual motion machine...Oh, except for Meyer, a convicted fraudster. ;)

ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... you're already living the biggest lie there is, one more isn't going to make my sleepless nights any more sleepless :D

What is the biggest 'lie' there is?
That I need proof before I believe a claim? As opposed to your 'faith' in free energy? Your 'faith' that Science is 'wrong'?

http://rohitbandaru.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/1281069478803.png

bogan

11th June 2013, 11:19

Sorry, missed this post.

1) Kind of my point for looking at alternatives to power generation. Go and have a look at the state of Haiti after their earthquake 3 years ago and see all of the standing water. Why isn't it being used? Why was a distillation plant not erected slap bang in the middle of the camp? Wonder what happened to all of those vehicles that were fucked? Dumped on a pile somewhere most likely when they quite possibly could have been converted. Granted not efficiently, but given that you're using something that "can't" be used, then why not use it?

2) Aye, there is a potential for a big bang, although I'd take the chance if I needed water. That and you can mitigate that with safety measures surely?

3) They would, I agree. Does it take less power to generate a spark to explodify gas than it does to create a persistent enough supply to power something to boil water?

4) Via the exchange you outlined in point 2.

Fair points on the conversion steps, but how many electrical motors do you see just lying around in a disaster zone?

You're still not getting it. Hydrogen is a horrendously inefficient fuel to make, and use in combustion engines. You think what meager power supplies they have left in a disaster area should be squandered to make one of the most inefficient water distillation plants around?

Fergus

11th June 2013, 11:48

Sorry, missed this post.

1) You don't think people aren't using that energy already? for lighting? refrigeration? cooking? Hospitals? In any disaster, I think it's safe to assume energy will be in short supply..

2)Hydrogen doesn't 'clean water', It's an explosive gas FFS :facepalm:. Maybe you're getting at is this: Creating h2 from dirty water then burning the h2 and condensing the water vapour from the combustion products? Which would effectively be distillation and result in pure, clean water..... The most complicated, dangerous, energy intensive distillation process ever. This would literately be making rocket fuel in a disaster area. :laugh:

3) Who mentioned burning anything? If the electrical energy sources are capable of producing a useful amount of hydrogen they would obviously be capable of heating water..

4) wait.. so now a hydrogen powered mower is what will purify the water? how does one purify via mechanical means?

So this is the energy flow:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen) -> heat nrg (combustion) -> mechanical nrg (mower shaft) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

Why so many redundant steps? Why not simply?
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> mechanical nrg (electric motor) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

:facepalm:
1) Kind of my point for looking at alternatives to power generation. Go and have a look at the state of Haiti after their earthquake 3 years ago and see all of the standing water. Why isn't it being used? Why was a distillation plant not erected slap bang in the middle of the camp? Wonder what happened to all of those vehicles that were fucked? Dumped on a pile somewhere most likely when they quite possibly could have been converted. Granted not efficiently, but given that you're using something that "can't" be used, then why not use it?

2) Aye, there is a potential for a big bang, although I'd take the chance if I needed water. That and you can mitigate that with safety measures surely?

3) They would, I agree. Does it take less power to generate a spark to explodify gas than it does to create a persistent enough supply to power something to boil water?

4) Via the exchange you outlined in point 2.

5)but how many electrical motors do you see just lying around in a disaster zone?

2) Why take the chance? Why not use traditional water purification? what advantage does your method have?

3) You don't just need a spark, you also need the energy required to convert water to hydrogen in the first place...

4) the process in 2 is:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen from dirty water) -> heat nrg (combustion).
Then the pure water in the combustion gases is condensed

compare with 4)
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen) -> heat nrg (combustion) -> mechanical nrg (mower shaft) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

The only thing they have in common is that they are both monumentally wasteful way of distilling water...

5)I have no idea, but I predict it'll be about a billion times more than there are hydrogen generation plants lying around in that disaster zone?
I know nothing about disaster relief but I'd guess water purification systems are brought into the area after the fact, rather than being found 'lying around' the disaster zone.

It takes over eleven times the energy to distill water via your 'turn it into rocket fuel then burn it and catch the water out of the exhaust gas' rather than the usual 'boil water and condense the steam' method.

From what I can tell they don't even use distillation (probably because of the high energy/litre cost). They use cool things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeStraw

mashman

11th June 2013, 12:02

Energy has inherent value, it can provide heat and work etc, when no money exists it would still have value. There is no need to measure energy with money.
When the energy required to extract and refine oil exceeds the energy gained (ie a net loss) it becomes a waste of energy (or money, or time or resources or any measure of value) and it will stop happening. Common sense is it not?

I know this has been said many times in different way already but 5th times a charm...

"Free hydrogen does not occur naturally in quantity, but can be generated by steam reformation of hydrocarbons, water electrolysis or by other methods.[3] Hydrogen is thus an energy carrier (like a battery), not a primary energy source (like coal)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

Many people make hydrogen and run cars on it, the first one was in 1807..... No one has created a free energy/perpetual motion machine...Oh, except for Meyer, a convicted fraudster. ;)

What is the biggest 'lie' there is?
That I need proof before I believe a claim? As opposed to your 'faith' in free energy? Your 'faith' that Science is 'wrong'?

http://rohitbandaru.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/1281069478803.png

There may well be no need to measure the value of money, but that doesn't stop "us" from doing it and charging for it, and for the tin foil hatted amongst us, repressing technology's that can use it more efficiently... and if/when oil does become to expensive to get it out of the ground etc... they can fuck around with the costings from groundfloor to the pump to make it still just about the most profitable enterprise in the world. So common sense has fuck all to do with it where you can just revalue energy in financial terms.

I UNDERSTAND THAT HYDROGEN HAS TO BE GENERATED. Perhaps that'll make things clear, although I doubt it coz you guys seem very hung up on it.

Now perpetual motion :facepalm:

I'm still waiting for the answer in regards to which uses more energy, the getting the oil (including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transporation etc...) out of the ground v's splitting hydrogen from water.

Did I mention free energy somewhere? coz I don't remember having said that. :facepalm:... unless we're talking financially that is :eek:

mashman

11th June 2013, 12:02

You're still not getting it. Hydrogen is a horrendously inefficient fuel to make, and use in combustion engines. You think what meager power supplies they have left in a disaster area should be squandered to make one of the most inefficient water distillation plants around?

I got it. Chill man.

unstuck

11th June 2013, 12:06

Yeah maybe one day

:2thumbsup Yep I hear what you are saying, I was not thinking of steam, because of the need to have a boiler or some other heating. Without wood or coal to heat your boiler basically you are fucked. I was meaning water on its own, without having to turn it into something else first. I know what I mean anyway, Iam not crazy, I am not crazy..........:wacko: Just a little special.

avgas

11th June 2013, 12:08

Yeah .. but that is not the same as splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen .. and then burning the hydrogen

It takes a lot of energy to split water .... so much that it doesn't actually produce any extra energy -as Mashie points out above ... so the energy you use to split the water might as well be used as it comes (as it were) instead of wasting it to split water

Burning pre-existing monatomic is different ( or is it not monatomic hydrogen it burns?)
No doubt. But how does this toy work?

W can and do make bigger versions of that toy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

The second paragraph answers restates what I was said and, I think, answers your question:
Not the same - kids can't play with flammable objects. As far as I know this takes water.

So how does the kids toy work?
(key point here is electrical charge not explosive one - which both of you seem to have missed........but would you give kids explosive toys????)

Ocean1

11th June 2013, 12:41

I'm still waiting for the answer in regards to which uses more energy, the getting the oil (including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transporation etc...) out of the ground v's splitting hydrogen from water. :

You've had it, several times. As of a few years ago the energy budget for extracting and refining petroleum based fuels was under 5% of the total energy produced. The cost of splitting hydrogen from water depends on the method but it's likely to take 10 to 40 times as much energy to produce.

Happy?

mashman

11th June 2013, 13:03

2) Why take the chance? Why not use traditional water purification? what advantage does your method have?

3) You don't just need a spark, you also need the energy required to convert water to hydrogen in the first place...

4) the process in 2 is:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen from dirty water) -> heat nrg (combustion).
Then the pure water in the combustion gases is condensed

compare with 4)
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen) -> heat nrg (combustion) -> mechanical nrg (mower shaft) -> mystical mechanical purification system.

The only thing they have in common is that they are both monumentally wasteful way of distilling water...

5)I have no idea, but I predict it'll be about a billion times more than there are hydrogen generation plants lying around in that disaster zone?
I know nothing about disaster relief but I'd guess water purification systems are brought into the area after the fact, rather than being found 'lying around' the disaster zone.

It takes over eleven times the energy to distill water via your 'turn it into rocket fuel then burn it and catch the water out of the exhaust gas' rather than the usual 'boil water and condense the steam' method.

From what I can tell they don't even use distillation (probably because of the high energy/litre cost). They use cool things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeStraw

2) It's just a method that a guy floated a few years ago online. He was demonstrating it with a lawnmower engine, although he was using pre-prepared hydrogen. I was trying to find his vid series (10 parts, he also ran his car on citrus) but can't find it. He must be another spammer :shifty:. I'm looking at it from the point of view where you can walk into a camp carrying what you need and setting the thing up without the need of electricity (from a grid/generator), or something to burn, or access to heating elements etc... a start until bigger and better things can be built, well, as long as the country can pay for bigger and beter things to be built.

3) True. Hence the dynamo, solar cell etc...

4) Fair enough, but if they do provide water and cost less to nothing to implement and people need water, then wasteful, from an energy perspective, isn't really a consideraiton as long as the resources required to fo the job are there and relatively sustainable.

5) As I said above, efficiency was never my question, other than the question I keep posing and not getting an answer to, ya know, the one that asks how efficient it is to get the black stuff out of the ground and turn it into fuel (in an engine that doesn't use most of the energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency)) v's splitting hydrogen from water.

Cool filtration system :niceone:

MisterD

11th June 2013, 13:14

the question I keep posing and not getting an answer to, ya know, the one that asks how efficient it is to get the black stuff out of the ground and turn it into fuel

The thing you're not factoring in, is that the "black stuff" we pull out of the ground doesn't just make petrol and diesel. There's heating oil, propane and butane, a bunch of different solvents, all the lubricants in your bike, the tyres on it, anything plastic...

bogan

11th June 2013, 13:17

Did I mention free energy somewhere? coz I don't remember having said that. :facepalm:... unless we're talking financially that is :eek:

Not directly, but that is what you were talking about, even if your scientific illiteracy prevented you from seeing that.

2) It's just a method that a guy floated a few years ago online. He was demonstrating it with a lawnmower engine, although he was using pre-prepared hydrogen. I was trying to find his vid series (10 parts, he also ran his car on citrus) but can't find it. He must be another spammer :shifty:. I'm looking at it from the point of view where you can walk into a camp carrying what you need and setting the thing up without the need of electricity (from a grid/generator), or something to burn, or access to heating elements etc... a start until bigger and better things can be built, well, as long as the country can pay for bigger and beter things to be built.

3) True. Hence the dynamo, solar cell etc...

4) Fair enough, but if they do provide water and cost less to nothing to implement and people need water, then wasteful, from an energy perspective, isn't really a consideraiton as long as the resources required to fo the job are there and relatively sustainable.

5) As I said above, efficiency was never my question, other than the question I keep posing and not getting an answer to, ya know, the one that asks how efficient it is to get the black stuff out of the ground and turn it into fuel (in an engine that doesn't use most of the energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency)) v's splitting hydrogen from water.

Cool filtration system :niceone:

2) How is bringing in pre-prepared hydrogen different to bringing in petrol?

3) Yes, but at about a quarter of other energy transfer mediums

4) We don't have a plentiful energy supply, therefor efficiency is of great importance

5) I has been answered numerous times, its vastly more efficient to bring out petrol, as it results in a net gain instead of a net loss.

MisterD

11th June 2013, 13:23

I was meaning water on its own, without having to turn it into something else first.

The point being that water has some very useful properties, it's an excellent solvent, has a high heat capacity, you can't compress it, it's liquid at sensible temperatures etc etc. It doesn't, however, have a store of chemical energy, which given that we're whatever% composed of the stuff, is probably a Good Thing.

Water, as you may have noticed, is generally one of the products of hydrocarbon combustion...

Fergus

11th June 2013, 14:44

No doubt. But how does this toy work?

Not the same - kids can't play with flammable objects. As far as I know this takes water.

So how does the kids toy work?
(key point here is electrical charge not explosive one - which both of you seem to have missed........but would you give kids explosive toys????)

If you bothered to read the link you would see in the first paragraph that hydrogen is often used to create electricity rather than heat in something called a 'fuel cell' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell).
Here is an article explaining how the toy works (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/sustainable/horizon-h-racer.htm).
The energy stored, enough to move a small plastic car just 100m, so not much hydrogen involved...probably not much risk of spontaneous explosion ;)
Much less energy than say, a cap gun or a couple of aa batteries..

mashman

11th June 2013, 15:01

Not directly, but that is what you were talking about, even if your scientific illiteracy prevented you from seeing that.

2) How is bringing in pre-prepared hydrogen different to bringing in petrol?

3) Yes, but at about a quarter of other energy transfer mediums

4) We don't have a plentiful energy supply, therefor efficiency is of great importance

5) I has been answered numerous times, its vastly more efficient to bring out petrol, as it results in a net gain instead of a net loss.

Phew, thanks for letting me know what I couldn't see :bleh:.

2) That was an example of what a guy was doing in a vid, not what I was talking about earlier (i.e. dynam, sola cell etc...)

3) Fair enough, but the tech is getting better whilst oil EROI is getting worse... as you and Fergus say, there are better emergency measures, I was just looking at 1.

4) psssst... banks and their super computers aren't a good use of such a precious resource. I wish it were about energy conservation, but we both know that it ain't.

5) Ok ok ok, I believe you guys. I'd like to see some proof though before I eat my humble pie.

The thing you're not factoring in, is that the "black stuff" we pull out of the ground doesn't just make petrol and diesel. There's heating oil, propane and butane, a bunch of different solvents, all the lubricants in your bike, the tyres on it, anything plastic...

Fuck me, really? Am I not taking it into account? Tis why I'd love to know what goes into calculating the EROI.

You've had it, several times. As of a few years ago the energy budget for extracting and refining petroleum based fuels was under 5% of the total energy produced. The cost of splitting hydrogen from water depends on the method but it's likely to take 10 to 40 times as much energy to produce.

Happy?

Has the EROI changed much? Can you point me to a source that lists what the EROI is measuring?

bogan

11th June 2013, 15:10

Phew, thanks for letting me know what I couldn't see :bleh:.

2) That was an example of what a guy was doing in a vid, not what I was talking about earlier (i.e. dynam, sola cell etc...)

3) Fair enough, but the tech is getting better whilst oil EROI is getting worse... as you and Fergus say, there are better emergency measures, I was just looking at 1.

4) psssst... banks and their super computers aren't a good use of such a precious resource. I wish it were about energy conservation, but we both know that it ain't.

2) So you have to bring hydrogen production gear in as well as dynamo/solar etc? Why not just bring the later and use its electricity directly

3) They're still miles apart, and as we keep saying, hydrogen will never be an energy source, its simply a transfer medium. Oil is a source.

4) bank super computers are an energy user, as in they do not transfer energy on so alway 0% transfer energy efficient. You're talking about a low efficiency energy storage/transfer system which would decrease the work efficiency of every energy user down the line.

mashman

11th June 2013, 15:58

2) So you have to bring hydrogen production gear in as well as dynamo/solar etc? Why not just bring the later and use its electricity directly

3) They're still miles apart, and as we keep saying, hydrogen will never be an energy source, its simply a transfer medium. Oil is a source.

4) bank super computers are an energy user, as in they do not transfer energy on so alway 0% transfer energy efficient. You're talking about a low efficiency energy storage/transfer system which would decrease the work efficiency of every energy user down the line.

2) Great if there is electricity to be used. As someone pointed out earlier, there may well be more pressing needs for the electricity. This things says (http://world.time.com/2013/01/12/haiti-three-years-after-the-quake-theres-good-news-too/) "leaders like Andress Appolon, a Harvard-educated Haitian-American whom Martelly recently named as the first woman director of the Electricité d’Hati utility, a key reform post given that almost 90% of the population still has no access to electricity." electricity isn't a given. So yes, you'd have to carry in whatever mechanisms you require.

3) I get that, I do, but that is changing from what I've read. Apparently they've got plankton to produce hydrogen, which I would assume is quite efficient. Likely a tech that's a long way away, but there are others working on all sorts of methods because they realise that it could well be sustainable in the future. Who knows, maybe we would have been further down the line had hydrogen generation been viewed as a worthwhile pursuit.

4) That may well be the case, but it's better than nothing in regards to cost/benefit/resource availability?

bogan

11th June 2013, 16:18

2) Great if there is electricity to be used. As someone pointed out earlier, there may well be more pressing needs for the electricity. This things says (http://world.time.com/2013/01/12/haiti-three-years-after-the-quake-theres-good-news-too/) "leaders like Andress Appolon, a Harvard-educated Haitian-American whom Martelly recently named as the first woman director of the Electricité d’Hati utility, a key reform post given that almost 90% of the population still has no access to electricity." electricity isn't a given. So yes, you'd have to carry in whatever mechanisms you require.

3) I get that, I do, but that is changing from what I've read. Apparently they've got plankton to produce hydrogen, which I would assume is quite efficient. Likely a tech that's a long way away, but there are others working on all sorts of methods because they realise that it could well be sustainable in the future. Who knows, maybe we would have been further down the line had hydrogen generation been viewed as a worthwhile pursuit.

4) That may well be the case, but it's better than nothing in regards to cost/benefit/resource availability?

2) Exactly, there are more pressing needs for it than wasting it generating hydrogen, so any solar or dynamo stuff you bring in should be applied to those same endevours

3) Nobody is saying it isn't a worthwhile pursuit, just that in its current state its completely shit

4) Well yeh its better than nothing, but it isn't better than what we have already got, which is in most countries a nationwide electrical grid, or batteries with less than a third the energy transfer losses of hydrogen for portable stuff.

avgas

11th June 2013, 16:24

Hand crank dynamos for everyone!
http://www.solar-energy-scene.com/images/dynamo-hand-crank-wind-up-led-lantern-winding.jpg

That will replace the horrible petrol.

unstuck

11th June 2013, 16:31

Wind up cars and bikes, now theres and idea. Instead of gas stations we could have wind up stations, with heaps of big mussely pricks waiting to give you a wind up.:2thumbsup

Ocean1

11th June 2013, 16:41

Has the EROI changed much? Can you point me to a source that lists what the EROI is measuring?

I haven't menttioned economic factors. On a purely energy-in, energy-out basis burning oil produces a 95% net positive gain. Producing Hydrogen fuel from water isn't even in the same ballpark.

I did know something of the breakdown on costs associated with those processes, but it's likely to be out of date: the cost of fuel oil production has dropped in the last decade or so and the most economic methods of producing hydrogen have changed.

If you want to get all excited about hydrogen as a fuel then figure out how to collect it from Saturn, it masses almost 100 times the earth and it's more or less made of hydrogen. You've just got to go get it.

gwigs

11th June 2013, 16:49

283895

:wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:

unstuck

11th June 2013, 17:08

283895

:wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:

Must spread......Your as fucken nutty as me.:yes:

Fergus

11th June 2013, 17:15

Wind up cars and bikes, now theres and idea. Instead of gas stations we could have wind up stations, with heaps of big mussely pricks waiting to give you a wind up.:2thumbsup

The technology exists, just find and provide energy(food) to the winders :niceone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

.. as you and Fergus say, there are better emergency measures, I was just looking at 1.

Looking at one?? you came up with a ridiculous idea (distillation via rocket fuel production) obviously didn't even bother to think it through let alone do any research.

It then took you many, many posts before you realised the idea was totally illogical, unnecessarily complex, and extremely wasteful of energy :brick: I feel like I lost brain cells debating such a stupid idea :facepalm: But I'm glad you got there in the end ;)

bogan

11th June 2013, 17:19

The technology exists, just find and provide energy(food) to the winders :niceone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Ages ago someone had a 'bolt on' CVT flywheel for regen braking in cars which would then provide acceleration again when needed, think it was about 30hp for a 30kg unit. Quite a neat idea I thought, but haven't heard anything else about it.

unstuck

11th June 2013, 17:22

The technology exists, just find and provide energy(food) to the winders :niceone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Cheers dude, that link led me to some cool bed time reading.:2thumbsup:2thumbsup:2thumbsup

http://sciencewriter.org/flywheels-spinning-into-control/

gwigs

11th June 2013, 17:23

Must spread......Your as fucken nutty as me.:yes:

Cheers Man I,m Honoured
Been Mad For Fucking Years....:woohoo:

unstuck

11th June 2013, 17:24

Ages ago someone had a 'bolt on' CVT flywheel for regen braking in cars which would then provide acceleration again when needed, think it was about 30hp for a 30kg unit. Quite a neat idea I thought, but haven't heard anything else about it.

Your lucky day then, have a look at the link in my last post.:2thumbsup

mashman

11th June 2013, 17:52

2) Exactly, there are more pressing needs for it than wasting it generating hydrogen, so any solar or dynamo stuff you bring in should be applied to those same endevours

3) Nobody is saying it isn't a worthwhile pursuit, just that in its current state its completely shit

4) Well yeh its better than nothing, but it isn't better than what we have already got, which is in most countries a nationwide electrical grid, or batteries with less than a third the energy transfer losses of hydrogen for portable stuff.

@) Generating hydrogen from unclean water to collect clean water at the other end via some form of condenser giving people cleaner drinking water where an electrical supply may not be readily available and not to end up burning your next door neighbours tent to boil your water is a good thing in my eyes, irrespective of its efficiency.

#) See 2.

Doho) That may well be the case, but it's another thing to add to the armory innit.

I haven't menttioned economic factors. On a purely energy-in, energy-out basis burning oil produces a 95% net positive gain. Producing Hydrogen fuel from water isn't even in the same ballpark.

I did know something of the breakdown on costs associated with those processes, but it's likely to be out of date: the cost of fuel oil production has dropped in the last decade or so and the most economic methods of producing hydrogen have changed.

If you want to get all excited about hydrogen as a fuel then figure out how to collect it from Saturn, it masses almost 100 times the earth and it's more or less made of hydrogen. You've just got to go get it.

When I asked for "I'm still waiting for the answer in regards to which uses more energy, the getting the oil (including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transporation etc...) out of the ground v's splitting hydrogen from water. :" I meant everything. EROI seems to be the term I was looking for.

Looking at one?? you came up with a ridiculous idea (distillation via rocket fuel production) obviously didn't even bother to think it through let alone do any research.

It then took you many, many posts before you realised the idea was totally illogical, unnecessarily complex, and extremely wasteful of energy :brick: I feel like I lost brain cells debating such a stupid idea :facepalm: But I'm glad you got there in the end ;)

It produces water, end of.

It's not illogical for the purpose I had in mind. You may grasp that at some point, but as you haven't so far, I'll not be holding my breath. Yes I have learned a few things about hydrogen from you, cheers, but you'd rather not waste the energy on producing water, but would rather it powered offices. You lost braincells coz you never paid attention in the first place, then went off half cocked, as others seem to like to do (again, thanks for that, it made me smile), and come back to pin it on me. I'll happily wear it, but I know what the real issue was :)

Fergus

11th June 2013, 19:33

You still don't get it :facepalm:

@) Generating hydrogen from unclean water to collect clean water at the other end via some form of condenser giving people cleaner drinking water where an electrical supply may not be readily available and not to end up burning your next door neighbours tent to boil your water is a good thing in my eyes, irrespective of its efficiency.

if there is no electrical supply Where will the energy to generate the H2 come from? :brick:

Compare:
Electrical nrg (from solar, wind etc) -> chemical nrg (hydrogen from dirty water) -> heat nrg (combustion).
Electrolysis dirty water to hydrogen, burn hydrogen, condense clean water from combustion gases.

with

Electrical nrg -> heat nrg (resistive heating) (Electric heating is 100% efficient...)
boil dirty water, condense clean steam.

one is unnecessarily complex, one is simple.
one involves explosive gas, one does not.
One makes sense, one is illogical.
For a given energy input, one will create 11 litres of clean water, the other 1 litre.

Why not use that energy more directly to clean the water via regular distillation? What advantage does your method have over distillation?

not to end up burning your next door neighbours tent to boil your water is a good thing in my eyes, irrespective of its efficiency.

Obviously there is energy available (to create the h2 you so desperately want to) so why would anyone burn tents? If anything, wasteful use of the available energy, such as making h2, would lead to shortages which could lead to......the need to burn tents.;)

but you'd rather not waste the energy on producing water, but would rather it powered offices.
WTF? I'd rather not waste energy at all, that is why I'm here arguing for a more efficient method.
You on the other hand, seem hell bent on purifying water by making hydrogen, what I would bet money is the most inefficient method ever devised :facepalm:

There are so many holes in your logic, it's amazing.

bogan

11th June 2013, 19:53

You still don't get it :facepalm:

At this point I think its either deliberate, or an impossible task.

Ocean1

11th June 2013, 20:04

When I asked for "I'm still waiting for the answer in regards to which uses more energy, the getting the oil (including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transporation etc...) out of the ground v's splitting hydrogen from water. :" I meant everything. EROI seems to be the term I was looking for.

And I answered you. Again: the recovery and refining of crude oil, including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transportation etc consumes less than 5% of the energy available from that oil. And yet again: 95% of the energy represented by crude oil is converted to commercially available fuels. As a stand-alone process it's 95% energy efficient.

The manufacture of hydrogen from water produces no energy, it consumes it. The production of hydrogen by simple electrolysis costs more than twice as much energy as is then available from that hydrogen as fuel. As a stand alone rocess it has an efficiency of -50%.

There are so many holes in your logic, it's amazing.

So many in fact that it's very difficult to believe that anyone intelligent enough to remember to breath couldn't work it out. I reckon he's taking the piss.

mashman

11th June 2013, 20:13

You still don't get it :facepalm:

And you have serious memory loss. Remember the bit about the dynamo, solar cell, wind etc...? I'm guessing you don't.

As I said before, it'll produce water, end of.

Obviously there is energy available (to create the h2 you so desperately want to) so why would anyone burn tents? If anything, wasteful use of the available energy, such as making h2, would lead to shortages which could lead to......the need to burn tents.;)

Burning the tents to heat the water because it's more efficient than generating H2.

WTF? I'd rather not waste energy at all, that is why I'm here arguing for a more efficient method.
You on the other hand, seem hell bent on purifying water by making hydrogen, what I would bet money is the most inefficient method ever devised :facepalm:

There are so many holes in your logic, it's amazing.

In general I wish we didn't waste energy too, but we do on a massive basis day in day out on useless shit... arguing that you'd prefer to save energy over human life is an interesting stand point. One i don't agree with. Yes there are other methods available, but if push came to shove given availability of resources etc... I'd happily waste the energy doing producing water in an inefficient manner. Do you know what the EROI for turning oil into petrol is?

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaa... I'm not trying to put forwards logic :facepalm: it's only you and the moron cohort who are viewing my posts from that perspective. Tis mightily entertaining though.

bogan

11th June 2013, 20:17

And you have serious memory loss. Remember the bit about the dynamo, solar cell, wind etc...? I'm guessing you don't.

As I said before, it'll produce water, end of.

So I can pedal a dyno for 1 hour and get 1 cup of clean water using the hydrogen method.
Or pedal for 1 hour and get 10 litres using a traditional method.

Do you get it yet?

mashman

11th June 2013, 20:32

At this point I think its either deliberate, or an impossible task.

Or you're fixated on something that I'm not :yes:

And I answered you. Again: the recovery and refining of crude oil, including every single component required for the operation, donkey's, rigs, drills, transportation etc consumes less than 5% of the energy available from that oil. And yet again: 95% of the energy represented by crude oil is converted to commercially available fuels. As a stand-alone process it's 95% energy efficient.

The manufacture of hydrogen from water produces no energy, it consumes it. The production of hydrogen by simple electrolysis costs more than twice as much energy as is then available from that hydrogen as fuel. As a stand alone rocess it has an efficiency of -50%.

I still get it, I haven't forgotten. It was when you said "I haven't menttioned economic factors" that I thought you maybe hadn't taken transport, steel production, plastics creation etc... energy's into account, you're saying you have, groovy, gotcha, hopefully we're singing from the same hymn sheet. It gets confusing when reading and seeing graphs that say it's much less efficient than you say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EROI_-_Ratio_of_Energy_Returned_on_Energy_Invested_-_USA.svg). Yes I realise that hydrogen would be on the other side of the Y axis.

So many in fact that it's very difficult to believe that anyone intelligent enough to remember to breath couldn't work it out. I reckon he's taking the piss.

We're talking at crossed purposes as I'm not talking about powering a car, where you guys think I am. The only reference there was to a vehicle was when I asked the question (note asked the question) in regards to EROI of splitting v's petrol. You might note, if it suits of course, that I didn't try to defend the position that you're inferring that I had taken, primarily because I didn't take that position, you guys did for me. C'est la vie.

mashman

11th June 2013, 20:35

So I can pedal a dyno for 1 hour and get 1 cup of clean water using the hydrogen method.
Or pedal for 1 hour and get 10 litres using a traditional method.

Do you get it yet?

Yes I get it. I got it the first time you said. Like I said, it's just another thing to have in the armory. I can't make it any plainer than that and you still don't get it :facepalm: get it yet?

bogan

11th June 2013, 20:39

Yes I get it. I got it the first time you said. Like I said, it's just another thing to have in the armory. I can't make it any plainer than that and you still don't get it :facepalm: get it yet?

So, in your mind, something that is extremely wasteful compared to something else that does exactly the same thing, is a good thing to have in the disaster recover armory? I'd rather they just had twice as many of the efficient ones, as would all the disaster victims too I'd be willing to bet.

Fergus

11th June 2013, 20:42

arguing that you'd prefer to save energy over human life is an interesting stand point. One i don't agree with.

That is, in effect, what you are arguing, and I am arguing against :facepalm:

To purify water by your method would produce one eleventh of the clean water that the traditional method would, For a given amount of energy.

Your method would provide clean water for a single person for every eleven people the traditional method provides for.

it appears you want to kill 10 of every 11 survivors, by wasting all available energy making hydrogen :eek5:

mashman

11th June 2013, 20:43

So, in your mind, something that is extremely wasteful compared to something else that does exactly the same thing, is a good thing to have in the disaster recover armory? I'd rather they just had twice as many of the efficient ones, as would all the disaster victims too I'd be willing to bet.

I agree, in an ideal world they'd have sorted the electricity quickly, would have rebuilt the houses, would have clean water, would have put up them giant windmilly things/installed solar arrays to generate power etc... but that hasn't happened in Haiti. So if all that was available was the inefficient one, then I'd take it.

mashman

11th June 2013, 20:46

That is, in effect, what you are arguing, and I am arguing against :facepalm:

To purify water by your method would produce one eleventh of the clean water that the traditional method would, For a given amount of energy.

Your method would provide clean water for a single person for every eleven people the traditional method provides for.

it appears you want to kill 10 of every 11 survivors, by wasting all available energy making hydrogen :eek5:

I take your point as I did earlier :facepalm:. It'll produce water, end of.

bogan

11th June 2013, 20:50

I agree, in an ideal world they'd have sorted the electricity quickly, would have rebuilt the houses, would have clean water, would have put up them giant windmilly things/installed solar arrays to generate power etc... but that hasn't happened in Haiti. So if all that was available was the inefficient one, then I'd take it.

I'm beginning to find the thread title very ironic...

mashman

11th June 2013, 21:07

I'm beginning to find the thread title very ironic...

Welcome to my world. It is possible to build the required facility's for regions hit by disaster, windymills, power stations, photovoltaics etc... are all available and the need is most definitely there, yet they don't have any money so they can't have what they need. Money being the infinite resource that it is, after all they were talking about minting a $1 trillion platinum coin to pay off some of the US debt, but they refuse to make the money available to help people who need it. It doesn't get much more stupid than that... and so we quibble over the efficiency of a mechanism for generating water and even that isn't afforded to those people.

Share your irony, it'll be amusing for the others if nothing else :yes:... I may even smile myself ;)

Ocean1

11th June 2013, 21:12

It gets confusing when reading and seeing graphs that say it's much less efficient than you say

when oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. That ratio has declined steadily over the last century to about three barrels gained for one barrel used up in the U.S.

Oil energy density hasn't changed that much. I'd say what's happened over that time is that associated parasitic costs like marketing, compliance and tax costs have been added to the cost of investment. Even so it's difficult to believe that in spite of significant improvements in cracking technology and transport costs it's now costing 30 times as much to produce than the 1% it originally did.

I'm inclined to stick with the industry advice I originally quoted of 5%.

mashman

11th June 2013, 21:17

Oil energy density hasn't changed that much. I'd say what's happened over that time is that associated parasitic costs like marketing, compliance and tax costs have been added to the cost of investment. Even so it's difficult to believe that in spite of significant improvements in cracking technology and transport costs it's now costing 30 times as much to produce than the 1% it originally did.

I'm inclined to stick with the industry advice I originally quoted of 5%.

Are you saying that the title of the graph is incorrect? as there is no mention of the associated costs having been taken into account. I would assume one of the main reasons for the drop in "efficiency" is that the oil being harder to find and get at?

Fair enough.

bogan

11th June 2013, 21:21

Welcome to my world. It is possible to build the required facility's for regions hit by disaster, windymills, power stations, photovoltaics etc... are all available and the need is most definitely there, yet they don't have any money so they can't have what they need. Money being the infinite resource that it is, after all they were talking about minting a $1 trillion platinum coin to pay off some of the US debt, but they refuse to make the money available to help people who need it. It doesn't get much more stupid than that... and so we quibble over the efficiency of a mechanism for generating water and even that isn't afforded to those people.

Share your irony, it'll be amusing for the others if nothing else :yes:... I may even smile myself ;)

What I'm saying is its ironic that you call the world stupid, then have such stupid ideas on how to 'fix' things yourself, completely ignoring reason.