Indigenous peoples will demand the deportation of all illegal aliens!
Don't know where Trump and the rest of us will go.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Indigenous peoples will demand the deportation of all illegal aliens! Don't know where Trump and the rest of us will go.
Laugh today, roast and starve tomorrow.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmLaugh today, roast and starve tomorrow.
I know this is humorous -- but get real: 4/100 of a degree average rise over 40 years? Not exactly 'roasting'. And even the highest estimates by the European 'climate scientasters' are more than an order of magnitude less than typical daily climate variation, let alone 'baseline' elevation of significantly higher temperatures. (I'm willing to accept much higher maxima; that being what I was told would be the "result by around 2050" calculated as of the early '70s at then-forecast rates of increase in fossil-fuel consumption and deforestation. Then it was a given that peak temperatures in Kansas and Nebraska would be over 140F, and the 'wheat belt' would move to the Canadian shield region. That's getting well into roasting territory! But none of the current actual science points to anything like that severity of effect except through synergistic or chaotic effects that none of the Europeans comprehend.)
And why would 'starvation' come in when enhanced CO2 is well understood, physically, chemically, and historically, to contribute to enhanced plant growth?
A far better claim would be about storm damage, and having to swim with the added water going into the oceans and the 'water cycle' over land masses. Those are bad enough already, but not as popular as much of the BS that seems to be passing for academic consensus on this topic.
The Earth has vacilated between Snowball Earth and Tropical Earth, many times without humans.
My money is on forces being involved within 'space' that we know very little if anything about. While nature abhors a vacuum, it also abhors consistency. With the Earth moving through space around the Sun. The Sun moving through space around the center of the Milkey Way. The Milkey Way moving through space around the center of the Universe. We are in 'new' space every second of our existence, each segment of 'new' space is in reality unknown.
CandOforprogress2 A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart.Neocon Republicans may see this as a excuse to reduce funding for Urban Transit and Passenger Rail. I dont see transit use going down in traditional old core cities of the East Coast as most people I have talked to is the reason they use the train is because of lack of cheap parking downtown. But however cheap oil may mean more suberban sprawl in newer cities like Dallas and cities that are about to tip in favor of rail like Indynapolis and Kansas City may opt out. More suberban sprawl means strip malls and cookie cutter housing developments and less green space to absorb greenhouse gases like CO2 and displacememnt of animals from there habitat. The discovery of the Permian (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/) basin oil reserve is nothing short of a ecological disaster. The oil is not just drill and pump but will take billions of tons of frak sand and frak fluides to extract. The cheap oil will lead to exessive highway building and more cars that put us on the path to a runaway greenhouse effect on this planet on top of the lifting of restrictions of coal power plants. The only way to stop this is for a our presidenrt Obama at the last minute declare the whole Permian Basin a National Park or National Wild Life Refuge. Yes I am seriuse the lives of everyone depends on this.
A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart.Neocon Republicans may see this as a excuse to reduce funding for Urban Transit and Passenger Rail. I dont see transit use going down in traditional old core cities of the East Coast as most people I have talked to is the reason they use the train is because of lack of cheap parking downtown. But however cheap oil may mean more suberban sprawl in newer cities like Dallas and cities that are about to tip in favor of rail like Indynapolis and Kansas City may opt out. More suberban sprawl means strip malls and cookie cutter housing developments and less green space to absorb greenhouse gases like CO2 and displacememnt of animals from there habitat. The discovery of the Permian (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/) basin oil reserve is nothing short of a ecological disaster. The oil is not just drill and pump but will take billions of tons of frak sand and frak fluides to extract. The cheap oil will lead to exessive highway building and more cars that put us on the path to a runaway greenhouse effect on this planet on top of the lifting of restrictions of coal power plants. The only way to stop this is for a our presidenrt Obama at the last minute declare the whole Permian Basin a National Park or National Wild Life Refuge. Yes I am seriuse the lives of everyone depends on this.
23 17 46 11
We need to remember a few things:
1. Fracking technology costs more than conventional drilling. To make this worthwhile, the price per barrel needs to be higher. OPEC is meeting to make this happen.
2.Regarding urban sprawl, this has been going on since after WWII.
3. In spite of lower gas prices, Amtrak posted recently that ridership has risen to a new record. With more driving comes more traffic jams.
4. There will likely be more such discoveries due to the Trump Administration opening up more areas to exploration.
5. The freight railroads will benefit with more frac sand unit trains helping out their bottom line, as well as perhaps more CBR traffic.
"With more driving comes more traffic jams."
Carry a loaf of bread with so you can eat jam sandwiches while waiting for the traffic to begin moving.
Johnny
RME I know this is humorous -- but get real: 4/100 of a degree average rise over 40 years? Not exactly 'roasting'. And even the highest estimates by the European 'climate scientasters' are more than an order of magnitude less than typical daily climate variation, let alone 'baseline' elevation of significantly higher temperatures. (I'm willing to accept much higher maxima; that being what I was told would be the "result by around 2050" calculated as of the early '70s at then-forecast rates of increase in fossil-fuel consumption and deforestation. Then it was a given that peak temperatures in Kansas and Nebraska would be over 140F, and the 'wheat belt' would move to the Canadian shield region. That's getting well into roasting territory! But none of the current actual science points to anything like that severity of effect except through synergistic or chaotic effects that none of the Europeans comprehend.) And why would 'starvation' come in when enhanced CO2 is well understood, physically, chemically, and historically, to contribute to enhanced plant growth? A far better claim would be about storm damage, and having to swim with the added water going into the oceans and the 'water cycle' over land masses. Those are bad enough already, but not as popular as much of the BS that seems to be passing for academic consensus on this topic.
Best analysis of climate change I've heard in a long time.
Norm
RME schlimm Laugh today, roast and starve tomorrow. I know this is humorous -- but get real: 4/100 of a degree average rise over 40 years? Not exactly 'roasting'. And even the highest estimates by the European 'climate scientasters' are more than an order of magnitude less than typical daily climate variation, let alone 'baseline' elevation of significantly higher temperatures. (I'm willing to accept much higher maxima; that being what I was told would be the "result by around 2050" calculated as of the early '70s at then-forecast rates of increase in fossil-fuel consumption and deforestation. Then it was a given that peak temperatures in Kansas and Nebraska would be over 140F, and the 'wheat belt' would move to the Canadian shield region. That's getting well into roasting territory! But none of the current actual science points to anything like that severity of effect except through synergistic or chaotic effects that none of the Europeans comprehend.) And why would 'starvation' come in when enhanced CO2 is well understood, physically, chemically, and historically, to contribute to enhanced plant growth? A far better claim would be about storm damage, and having to swim with the added water going into the oceans and the 'water cycle' over land masses. Those are bad enough already, but not as popular as much of the BS that seems to be passing for academic consensus on this topic.
schlimm Laugh today, roast and starve tomorrow.
Metaphor. And try reading some actual science instead of sounding like Reagan-lite.
The cost of fuel has defined rail ridership for ages. Gas goes up, ridership goes up. And vice versa.
It's been documented that the climate is changing. It has for eons. Sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes it gets colder.
To solely blame climate change on humans is a human conceit. That's not to say that the actions of mankind haven't had an effect - it is to say that there are myriad reasons for climate change to occur, and only a few of them can be pinned on humans...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Excerpt from NASA
https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/science-green/s3fs-public/atoms/files/2014_Science_Plan_PDF_Update_508_TAGGED.pdf
Understanding the causes and consequences of climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. NASA’s advanced space missions within its Earth science research, applications, and technology program make essential contributions to national and international scientific assessments of climate change that governments, businesses, and citizens all over the world rely on in making many of their most significant investments and decisions. Through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), NASA works in partnership with thirteen other federal agencies to determine the relative impact of human-induced and naturally occurring climate change, addressing an important scientific challenge and providing significant societal benefit.
Excerpt from The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by NASA as part of a crackdown on “politicized science,” his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.
NASA’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.
This would mean the elimination of NASA’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. NASA’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.
wanswheel Excerpt from NASA https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/science-green/s3fs-public/atoms/files/2014_Science_Plan_PDF_Update_508_TAGGED.pdf Understanding the causes and consequences of climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. NASA’s advanced space missions within its Earth science research, applications, and technology program make essential contributions to national and international scientific assessments of climate change that governments, businesses, and citizens all over the world rely on in making many of their most significant investments and decisions. Through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), NASA works in partnership with thirteen other federal agencies to determine the relative impact of human-induced and naturally occurring climate change, addressing an important scientific challenge and providing significant societal benefit. Excerpt from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by NASA as part of a crackdown on “politicized science,” his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said. NASA’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century. This would mean the elimination of NASA’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. NASA’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.
And this is related to rail and passenger trains, HOW?
schlimm Metaphor. And try reading some actual science instead of sounding like Reagan-lite.
A McIntoshWe need to remember a few things: 2.Regarding urban sprawl, this has been going on since after WWII.
Urban sprawl has been going on since the Pilgrams landed at Plymouth Rock. Just ask the Native populations. It was kicked into high gear with the building of the railroads and completition of the transcontinental rail routes.
schlimmAnd try reading some actual science instead of sounding like Reagan-lite.
Trust me when I say I have read and studied far more on the 'actual science' than you ever will, or likely will ever comprehend.
Norm48327 wanswheel U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) And this is related to rail and passenger trains, HOW?
wanswheel U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)
Railroads can outlive humans by many decades. They need to plan for climate change as though it were likely to affect them directly.
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/transportation
Spare me the BS!
You asked me "HOW?" Please commence to refrain from asking me for anything.
Meanwhile, back at the original question....
Yes, transit use will grow even with cheap oil.
In the sprawliest of all American cities, Altanta, the trend is to move back into the city. This is being driven by millenials and empty nesters. I know several of each that have done exactly that. The recent election referendum on more money for MARTA passed in a landslide. The price of oil isn't a factor in the equation...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
wanswheel You asked me "HOW?" Please commence to refrain from asking me for anything.
Well, 'scuse me.
For those who like urban life, mass transit will continue to be their transport of choice, oil prices having no effect either way.
For those who need to "carry" stuff to work, for those who do not work in the same place every day, for those who choose a rural lifestyle, the price of oil either direction will also not really effect them buying F250 pickups, etc.
It is about freedom and life style. Personally, as long as I can afford otherwise, I have no interest in urban living or riding a commuter train every day.
Now when the wife and I wanted to tour Washington DC, we parked the car at Grand Central and rode the Metro all aroud the city, it wasa great way to see the city - then we went home to our 1 acre and 4,000 sq ft 1901 Queen Anne in rural northeastern Maryland.
Please, go, move back to the city, we liked it here much better when there were fewer people here.
Sheldon
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-approves-trans-mountain-pipeline-line-3/article33094301/
Trudeau: “The fact is oil sands production is going to increase in the coming years. Because we are at capacity in terms of existing pipelines, that means more oil is going to be transported by rail in the coming years if we don’t build new pipelines."
Norm48327 wanswheel ... Through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), NASA works in partnership with thirteen other federal agencies to determine the relative impact of human-induced and naturally occurring climate change, addressing an important scientific challenge and providing significant societal benefit. ... Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by NASA as part of a crackdown on “politicized science,” his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said. NASA’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century. This would mean the elimination of NASA’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. NASA’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017. And this is related to rail and passenger trains, HOW?
wanswheel ... Through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), NASA works in partnership with thirteen other federal agencies to determine the relative impact of human-induced and naturally occurring climate change, addressing an important scientific challenge and providing significant societal benefit. ... Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by NASA as part of a crackdown on “politicized science,” his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said. NASA’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century. This would mean the elimination of NASA’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. NASA’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.
Actually, there are two things here, which in my opinion are very wrongly conflated. I'll take up the second point first.
NASA may have gotten into "Earth science" as a profit center for climate-change-related funding, but it doesn't change that NASA as an agency is still, or should still, be focused on 'aeronautics and space', for example providing a reliable orbiting data source for programs like USGCRP, not becoming associated with the actual theorization or directed 'climate' research. Trump - quite rightly and healthily from my perspective (but then, I like space exploration and think it's important when no other agency is going to be supporting it) - wants to retarget NASA on what he perceives as its core mission. I think there is nothing NASA currently does with 'research into [atmosphere-associated] temperature, ice, clouds, and other climate phenomena' that other agencies with a more appropriate remit could not take over; on the other hand, every dollar NASA spends on those things is a dollar not used on aeronautical R&D or space exploration... or associated technology development and tech transfer. (Yes, I read, and love, NASA Tech Briefs.)
(Now, if the retargeting is, in fact, a specious legalistic argument to quench climate research by retargeting NASA's research without shifting the climate aspects to other program management, there's the sort of ideological problem Mike was bringing up. But that, in all fairness, remains to be seen.)
Returning to the other point: I could think of a number of areas where railroading is relevant to USGCRP or its research and ongoing determinations (and vice versa). Furthermore, regardless of my personal opinions on global warming and the various theories that concern the idea, there is little doubt that USGCRP [url=http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports]is a valuable source of a great range of research reports, many of which touch on factors influenced either by economies (or diseconomies -- think massive construction necessary for true HSR here) or by operating possibilities for railborne transportation.
CandOforprogress2 A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart... The cheap oil will lead to exessive highway building and more cars ...
A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart... The cheap oil will lead to exessive highway building and more cars ...
As the article states, Horizontal drilling/fracking are super expensive, and the oil will stay in the ground until the price of oil comes back up above "cheap oil".
CandOforprogress2 The only way to stop this is for a our presidenrt Obama at the last minute declare the whole Permian Basin a National Park or National Wild Life Refuge. Yes I am seriuse the lives of everyone depends on this.
Oil in Texas is a new discovery?
Those damn neocons are at it again!
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
MidlandMike CandOforprogress2 A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart... The cheap oil will lead to exessive highway building and more cars ... As the article states, Horizontal drilling/fracking are super expensive, and the oil will stay in the ground until the price of oil comes back up above "cheap oil".
Have fun with your trains
Same story here in the Greater Toronto Area. Car ownership is fine, but time has value also. Some of my neighbours spend three hours a day driving to and from work.. Using the GO train instead would at least give them the opportunity to do get some work or reading done in that time instead.
I find it interesting that the OP has not responed to any of the replies........
Rarely does...
BaltACD The Earth has vacilated between Snowball Earth and Tropical Earth, many times without humans. My money is on forces being involved within 'space' that we know very little if anything about. While nature abhors a vacuum, it also abhors consistency. With the Earth moving through space around the Sun. The Sun moving through space around the center of the Milkey Way. The Milkey Way moving through space around the center of the Universe. We are in 'new' space every second of our existence, each segment of 'new' space is in reality unknown.
Here is something you and others should look at which I think is overly humorous to this whole human induced Global Warming debate.
Do some Googles and look at what is happening to World Population levels. Specifically focus in on the year 2050 when Global Population birthrates across the board are supposed to fall below the replacement rate. Then see if you can find a study anywhere that projects a Global Population North of 10 Billion people.
I believe in Global Warming but I do not think it is human induced, further all our investments in limiting Global Warming presuming that it is human induced will be eclipsed by declining Human population of the Earth at some point.
The projections of global population exclude any major conventional wars or epidemics. We are just going to see a natural population decline from 2050 onwards and there is no real indication when or at what level the population decline will stop.
Remember the Left Wing Shrill in the 1960's and 1970's that across the globe we needed to apply family planning or we would outstrip the ability of the Earth to support the human race? Looks like it might never happen.......eehhhh Oops.
edblysard IH10 in Houston is 26 lanes wide..what excessive does he mean?
IH10 in Houston is 26 lanes wide..what excessive does he mean?
Did not take long for a reaction ? OPEC just announced a production cut. As well some non OPEC countries are also cutting including Russia.
And if we accept the danger of adding carbon to the atmosphere affecting climate in an adverse way, even if only as a precautionary principle, how are passenger trains (Amtrak at .1 percent of total US passenger miles, rail transit, if I remember correctly at 1 percent) in the U.S. going to put a dent in transportation carbon emissions?
We had a talk at the U by an Electrical Engineer from Utah State who wants to electrify the Interstate Highway System. Yes, the Interstate Highways.
What this would do is to allow battery-electric cars and especially battery-electric trucks to have much smaller on-board batteries because they would be continually recharged from inductive coils in the roadway. This reduction in the required battery size is of special importance to long-haul trucks. Electrification of the Interstate Highways in this manner would be particularly cost effective in achieving carbon reduction, especially on account of the high percentage of long-distance truck traffic on the Interstates.
This is a series proposal backed up by DOE and major corporate funding.
http://power.usu.edu/
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
[quote user="blue streak 1"]
Did not take long for a reaction ? OPEC just announced a production cut. As well some non OPEC countries are also cutting including Russia. [/quote]
And we all know how well Saudi Arabia and Russia adhere to limits! (not when they can make more money by exceeding them).
Neither can be trusted for anything, especially when money is inolved.
Excerpt from Yale News, Nov. 30
For decades scientists have speculated that rising global temperatures might alter the ability of soils to store carbon, potentially releasing huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and triggering runaway climate change. Yet thousands of studies worldwide have produced mixed signals on whether this storage capacity will actually decrease — or even increase — as the planet warms.
It turns out scientists might have been looking in the wrong places.
A new Yale-led study in the journal Nature finds that warming will drive the loss of at least 55 trillion kilograms of carbon from the soil by mid-century, or about 17% more than the projected emissions due to human-related activities during that period. That would be roughly the equivalent of adding to the planet another industrialized country the size of the United States.
Critically, the researchers found that carbon losses will be greatest in the world’s colder places, at high latitudes, locations that had largely been missing from previous research. In those regions, massive stocks of carbon have built up over thousands of years and slow microbial activity has kept them relatively secure.
Most of the previous research had been conducted in the world’s temperate regions, where there were smaller carbon stocks. Studies that focused only on these regions would have missed the vast proportion of potential carbon losses, said lead author Thomas Crowther, who conducted his research while a postdoctoral fellow at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology.
“Carbon stores are greatest in places like the Arctic and the sub-Arctic, where the soil is cold and often frozen,” Crowther said. “In those conditions microbes are less active and so carbon has been allowed to build up over many centuries.
“But as you start to warm, the activities of those microbes increase, and that’s when the losses start to happen,” Crowther said. “The scary thing is, these cold regions are the places that are expected to warm the most under climate change.”
edblysard IH10 in Houston is 26 lanes wide..
IH10 in Houston is 26 lanes wide..
Is that the one also known as the Katy Freeway?
Well...I just took Amtrak from Buffalo NY to Syracuse NYfor 30.00 I dont think I could drive for less. and I got a nap. This is about behavoir modfication or social engineering. At what point do we make people move in closer to downtown and walk/bike/take the bus or train. Cheaper Oil makes that harder. Europe with its socialist model saw driving as a luxury to be taxed and Americans saw driving and the freedom of travel as there birthright.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm Metaphor. And try reading some actual science instead of sounding like Reagan-lite. And if we accept the danger of adding carbon to the atmosphere affecting climate in an adverse way, even if only as a precautionary principle, how are passenger trains (Amtrak at .1 percent of total US passenger miles, rail transit, if I remember correctly at 1 percent) in the U.S. going to put a dent in transportation carbon emissions? We had a talk at the U by an Electrical Engineer from Utah State who wants to electrify the Interstate Highway System. Yes, the Interstate Highways. What this would do is to allow battery-electric cars and especially battery-electric trucks to have much smaller on-board batteries because they would be continually recharged from inductive coils in the roadway. This reduction in the required battery size is of special importance to long-haul trucks. Electrification of the Interstate Highways in this manner would be particularly cost effective in achieving carbon reduction, especially on account of the high percentage of long-distance truck traffic on the Interstates. This is a series proposal backed up by DOE and major corporate funding. http://power.usu.edu/
It would be much cheaper, and likely more effective to simply create the necessary incentives to get most/all long distance truck traffic on to intermodal rail, using trucks only for local/regional delivery.
The other benifit of this would be dramatic safety improvements on the highways since most of the people in the little cars have no idea how to drive among the big trucks (side bar - trucks are in a disproportionally high number of crashes, but truck drivers are seldom found at fault). And just like "The Pushcart War", there seems to be no limit to the trucks getting larger, heavier and harder to maneuver.
They should have deregulated rates/territories for trains and trucks in 1953, limited the truck trailers to 35' or 40', kept them at 50,000 lbs, and the railroads and the trucking companies would have put all the long distance traffic on flat cars six decades ago - like they tried to then.......
The train is more ton/mile efficient by what factor? 6x?, 10x? Look at all that oil saved.......
Get the trucks off the roads, then maybe the people in the cars that you all think should ride trains would not be as big of a deal........
There are no trains that will take me and my construction tools to a job side - only my F250 can do that........
Rather than sitting in an office and manipulating wealth, I actually create it by building stuff........
Yes the climate is changing, it has changed many times before, but there is no hard proof we are the primary cause.....and even less proof that we can effectively change its course.....it is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose.
Suburban sprawl - I could stop suburban sprawl with a simple tax law change. Rather than taxing property based on market value, tax it on a flat rate regionally by the acre of land and the sq footage of buildings. So the one acre lot with the 4000 sq ft house would be taxed the same anywhere in the region, city or suburb.
No more incentive to run away from high urban taxes for low suburban taxes, less incentive for "demolition by neglect" in the cities if taxes are not lowered by poor maintenance, more incentive to maintain and revitalize or loose it to a tax sale to someone who will reinvest.
Why should slum lords only pay taxes on a $50,000 value while collecting high rents, while hard working people in the suburbs pay taxes on a $250,000 value for the same size property? Then you could give low income homeowners and retired people a homestead credit.........
You want to stop urban decay?, create jobs?, stop crime?, rebuild the cities?, get people to stop commuting long distances?, read Adam Smith's book, get the government out of the way and make the tax system fair - the ship will right itself.
Rant over,
Still happy to live in "rural" America.......
BaltACD IH10 in Houston is 26 lanes wide..what excessive does he mean? Guess that beats I-75 north of Atlanta only 24 lanes And we all know how well Saudi Arabia and Russia adhere to limits! (not when they can make more money by exceeding them). Neither can be trusted for anything, especially when money is inolved.
Guess that beats I-75 north of Atlanta only 24 lanes
MidlandMike edblysard IH10 in Houston is 26 lanes wide.. Is that the one also known as the Katy Freeway?
Wanswheel et all- High CO2 levels in the atmosphere react chemically with peridotite, the original rock composed of the earths crust, and forms limestone, CaCO3. It is the earths self regulating mechanism but takes time. It is why there are huge thick limestone deposits all over the earth. There is now a process where we can duplicate this capture converting CO2 to CaCO3 limestone, which entombs and changes the CO2 into solid rock, in vast quantities, in 3 years! You can find scientific articles on this, the latest reporting one is from the National Post but you have to pay to get that one.
2008 article, "In situ carbonation of peridotite for CO2 storage"
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17295.full.pdf
edblysard MidlandMike edblysard IH10 in Houston is 26 lanes wide.. Is that the one also known as the Katy Freeway? yup
yup
With 26 lanes, that is probably more tracks than the Katy had in their yard in the area.
Wanswheel- Thanks for that...of course few teach this natural process and geological process and the man made capture process is always 'buried" somewhere...when science does not fit the narrative it gets swept off the table quite deliberately. It is a very promising technology that works.
ATLANTIC CENTRALYes the climate is changing, it has changed many times before, but there is no hard proof we are the primary cause.....and even less proof that we can effectively change its course.....it is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose.
"Paranoia runs deep; into your life it will creep." Meanwhile you worship at the altar of what you claim Adam Smith wrote. Obviously you've never read Wealth of Nations or anything else he wrote.
A nation on the downslope is one that demonizes or devalues scientists and their research.
Well the Mo-Pac freeway in Austin gets pretty complicated in areas but never 26 lanes that is pretty wide.
schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL Yes the climate is changing, it has changed many times before, but there is no hard proof we are the primary cause.....and even less proof that we can effectively change its course.....it is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose. "Paranoia runs deep; into your life it will creep." Meanwhile you worship at the altar of what you claim Adam Smith wrote. Obviously you've never read Wealth of Nations or anything else he wrote.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Yes the climate is changing, it has changed many times before, but there is no hard proof we are the primary cause.....and even less proof that we can effectively change its course.....it is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose.
And therein lies the problem with these kinds of topics on these sound bite forums. My post was already too long, and I failed to cover all my points effectively, allowing you to make assumptions about facts not in evidence.
I full well know that what Adam Smith had to say was far more complex than the topics I covered, fact remains what he talked about is not where we are today or where we are headed.
On that note I will end my comments.............
ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL Yes the climate is changing, it has changed many times before, but there is no hard proof we are the primary cause.....and even less proof that we can effectively change its course.....it is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose. "Paranoia runs deep; into your life it will creep." Meanwhile you worship at the altar of what you claim Adam Smith wrote. Obviously you've never read Wealth of Nations or anything else he wrote. And therein lies the problem with these kinds of topics on these sound bite forums. My post was already too long, and I failed to cover all my points effectively, allowing you to make assumptions about facts not in evidence. I full well know that what Adam Smith had to say was far more complex than the topics I covered, fact remains what he talked about is not where we are today or where we are headed. On that note I will end my comments............. Sheldon
Your conspiracy theories are self-evident. Q.E.D.
Well, this if fun!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/pratt-s-purepower-gtf-jet-engine-innovation-took-almost-30-years
What Pratt and Whitney engineer Michael McCune did was invent a practical form of the quill drive from a GG-1 to be light enough and small enough to fit in a jet engine. This innovation will probably save fuel and reduce carbon emissions by more than anything that will be done with passenger rail in the US in our lifetimes.
schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL Yes the climate is changing, it has changed many times before, but there is no hard proof we are the primary cause.....and even less proof that we can effectively change its course.....it is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose. "Paranoia runs deep; into your life it will creep." Meanwhile you worship at the altar of what you claim Adam Smith wrote. Obviously you've never read Wealth of Nations or anything else he wrote. And therein lies the problem with these kinds of topics on these sound bite forums. My post was already too long, and I failed to cover all my points effectively, allowing you to make assumptions about facts not in evidence. I full well know that what Adam Smith had to say was far more complex than the topics I covered, fact remains what he talked about is not where we are today or where we are headed. On that note I will end my comments............. Sheldon Your conspiracy theories are self-evident. Q.E.D.
The dude wants to do two things. One, place greater emphasis on getting the heavy long-haul truck traffic diverted to intermodal. Is this something you disagree with?
The other is that he is advocating for the "tax land not property improvement" ideas of Henry George. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
Among his intellectual legacy is advocacy for:
I suppose you would label all of that "self-evident conspiracy theories"? Before criticizing people for not being well-read, a person could freshen up their own reading.
SACRAMENTO (AP) — California’s Legislature has approved regulations on cow flatulence and manure – both blamed for releasing greenhouse gases.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/09/01/cow-fart-regulations-approved-by-californias-legislature/
So much for the ox cart option.
selector Well, this if fun!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Paul MilenkovicWhat Pratt and Whitney engineer Michael McCune did was invent a practical form of the quill drive from a GG-1 to be light enough and small enough to fit in a jet engine.
I assume you mean the ability of the GG1 quill arrangement to absorb wheel shock and movement while maintaining gear alignment ... but the gears in that arrangement are all encased in rigid alignment, so much of the value of the PurePower arrangement is really novel. There are other significant problems that contributed to the "30 year development time". A quick perusal of the discussion section of the patent is quite instructive.
Note that, while there's an extensive literature on superfinishing lightweight gears to take the required power loads, there's comparatively little on structures that keep the gears in proper mesh under loads when the engine case itself deforms, or that restore the gears to correct geometry after transient, possibly severe, distortion.
Might bear (no pun intended, but it's pretty funny) comparison with the arrangement for the multiple-speed prop drive on the Tu-95 (which I think had comparable inertia loading but was not internal to the turboshaft engine).
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well I have no problem with Rural America....Its the cookie cutter pink houses and the souless strip malls of souless suberban America that I cant stand. Its gets to the point of everywhere is looking like everywhere else. Why Travel? Paul Milenkovic schlimm Metaphor. And try reading some actual science instead of sounding like Reagan-lite. And if we accept the danger of adding carbon to the atmosphere affecting climate in an adverse way, even if only as a precautionary principle, how are passenger trains (Amtrak at .1 percent of total US passenger miles, rail transit, if I remember correctly at 1 percent) in the U.S. going to put a dent in transportation carbon emissions? We had a talk at the U by an Electrical Engineer from Utah State who wants to electrify the Interstate Highway System. Yes, the Interstate Highways. What this would do is to allow battery-electric cars and especially battery-electric trucks to have much smaller on-board batteries because they would be continually recharged from inductive coils in the roadway. This reduction in the required battery size is of special importance to long-haul trucks. Electrification of the Interstate Highways in this manner would be particularly cost effective in achieving carbon reduction, especially on account of the high percentage of long-distance truck traffic on the Interstates. This is a series proposal backed up by DOE and major corporate funding. http://power.usu.edu/ It would be much cheaper, and likely more effective to simply create the necessary incentives to get most/all long distance truck traffic on to intermodal rail, using trucks only for local/regional delivery. The other benifit of this would be dramatic safety improvements on the highways since most of the people in the little cars have no idea how to drive among the big trucks (side bar - trucks are in a disproportionally high number of crashes, but truck drivers are seldom found at fault). And just like "The Pushcart War", there seems to be no limit to the trucks getting larger, heavier and harder to maneuver. They should have deregulated rates/territories for trains and trucks in 1953, limited the truck trailers to 35' or 40', kept them at 50,000 lbs, and the railroads and the trucking companies would have put all the long distance traffic on flat cars six decades ago - like they tried to then....... The train is more ton/mile efficient by what factor? 6x?, 10x? Look at all that oil saved....... Get the trucks off the roads, then maybe the people in the cars that you all think should ride trains would not be as big of a deal........ There are no trains that will take me and my construction tools to a job side - only my F250 can do that........ Rather than sitting in an office and manipulating wealth, I actually create it by building stuff........ Yes the climate is changing, it has changed many times before, but there is no hard proof we are the primary cause.....and even less proof that we can effectively change its course.....it is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose. Suburban sprawl - I could stop suburban sprawl with a simple tax law change. Rather than taxing property based on market value, tax it on a flat rate regionally by the acre of land and the sq footage of buildings. So the one acre lot with the 4000 sq ft house would be taxed the same anywhere in the region, city or suburb. No more incentive to run away from high urban taxes for low suburban taxes, less incentive for "demolition by neglect" in the cities if taxes are not lowered by poor maintenance, more incentive to maintain and revitalize or loose it to a tax sale to someone who will reinvest. Why should slum lords only pay taxes on a $50,000 value while collecting high rents, while hard working people in the suburbs pay taxes on a $250,000 value for the same size property? Then you could give low income homeowners and retired people a homestead credit......... You want to stop urban decay?, create jobs?, stop crime?, rebuild the cities?, get people to stop commuting long distances?, read Adam Smith's book, get the government out of the way and make the tax system fair - the ship will right itself. Rant over, Still happy to live in "rural" America....... Sheldon
Well I have no problem with Rural America....Its the cookie cutter pink houses and the souless strip malls of souless suberban America that I cant stand. Its gets to the point of everywhere is looking like everywhere else. Why Travel?
Ulrich Same story here in the Greater Toronto Area. Car ownership is fine, but time has value also. Some of my neighbours spend three hours a day driving to and from work.. Using the GO train instead would at least give them the opportunity to do get some work or reading done in that time instead.
Oil & fuel prices have very little if any relations to the reality of the costs of production and distribution.
OPEC announced yesterday they have agreed to limit production January 1, 2017. Today my local gas price jumped from $2.13 to $2.25. Not one ounce of oil that is affected by the production limits is in the world distribution pipeline. What we end up paying is purest of a speculation market. Charge what you think the hype machine will give you cover to hide behind.
We should know all about hiding behind hype and keeping reality buried.
CandOforprogress2 Well...I just took Amtrak from Buffalo NY to Syracuse NYfor 30.00 I dont think I could drive for less. and I got a nap. This is about behavoir modfication or social engineering. At what point do we make people move in closer to downtown and walk/bike/take the bus or train. Cheaper Oil makes that harder. Europe with its socialist model saw driving as a luxury to be taxed and Americans saw driving and the freedom of travel as there birthright.
My work is not "downtown", where do you propose to "make" me live?
Such a statement is either intended to bait responses, or shows the depth of the divide in this culture today.
To even consider the idea that the government, or anyone, could tell people where to live goes against every principle this nation was founded on.
Can I buy you a ticket to the Socialist country of your choice?
"The universal misery of capitalism is the unequal distribution of the blessings..the universal blessing of socialism is the equal distribution of the misery" - Winston Churchill
Paul MilenkovicI suppose you would label all of that "self-evident conspiracy theories"? Before criticizing people for not being well-read, a person could freshen up their own reading
Paul: Diverting more long haul truck traffic to the rails is great. But where Atlantic Central derailed was in stating this socialist conspiracy gem: [Climate change mitigation] "is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose."
schlimm Paul Milenkovic I suppose you would label all of that "self-evident conspiracy theories"? Before criticizing people for not being well-read, a person could freshen up their own reading Paul: Diverting more long haul truck traffic to the rails is great. But where Atlantic Central derailed was in stating this socialist conspiracy gem: [Climate change mitigation] "is simply the "new religion" of the socialists so they can control us.........by telling us how to live and stealing our wealth to pay for "saving the planet" and to prevent us from living as we choose."
Paul Milenkovic I suppose you would label all of that "self-evident conspiracy theories"? Before criticizing people for not being well-read, a person could freshen up their own reading
Not a conspiracy, just a defacto agenda of those who believe they should be able to tell me how to live, and who think socialism will work........
ATLANTIC CENTRAL CandOforprogress2 Well...I just took Amtrak from Buffalo NY to Syracuse NYfor 30.00 I dont think I could drive for less. and I got a nap. This is about behavoir modfication or social engineering. At what point do we make people move in closer to downtown and walk/bike/take the bus or train. Cheaper Oil makes that harder. Europe with its socialist model saw driving as a luxury to be taxed and Americans saw driving and the freedom of travel as there birthright. My work is not "downtown", where do you propose to "make" me live? Such a statement is either intended to bait responses, or shows the depth of the divide in this culture today. To even consider the idea that the government, or anyone, could tell people where to live goes against every principle this nation was founded on. Can I buy you a ticket to the Socialist country of your choice? "The universal misery of capitalism is the unequal distribution of the blessings..the universal blessing of socialism is the equal distribution of the misery" - Winston Churchill Sheldon
So now, whenever someone says something you do not like or understand, you attack his character with your McCarthyite smear tactics. There is no place for ideologues here. Take it to one of the alt.right or Ayn Randian websites. CandO was not telling you where to live. You misread.
BaltACD Oil & fuel prices have very little if any relations to the reality of the costs of production and distribution. OPEC announced yesterday they have agreed to limit production January 1, 2017. Today my local gas price jumped from $2.13 to $2.25. Not one ounce of oil that is affected by the production limits is in the world distribution pipeline. What we end up paying is purest of a speculation market. Charge what you think the hype machine will give you cover to hide behind. We should know all about hiding behind hype and keeping reality buried.
The common cited idea that it is unfair for a gas station owner to raise the price of gas in his storage tank and already paid for is economic nonsense. The real value of that gasoline changes as expectations of the future supply changes. It is normal supply and demand.
So how did my response attack anyone? I simply disagreed with the idea that anyone could or should be "told" where to live.
Trust me, I'm done.
The OPEC countries and others can collude to cut supply, thereby driving up the price.. thereby causing everyone to pay more at the pump. and the media I listen to call that a win win. Let's try that in other markets, like transportation by having the large rail carriers agree to cut supply. Let's also allow food distributors to limit the supply of food.. so that a $3.49 loaf of bread becomes a $6.85 loaf of bread. Maybe allow supply and demand to set prices.. let the poor consumer win once in awhile. Colluding to control available supply is tantamount to price fixing.. I guess that's become ok now.
Ulrich The OPEC countries and others can collude to cut supply, thereby driving up the price.. thereby causing everyone to pay more at the pump. and the media I listen to call that a win win. Let's try that in other markets, like transportation by having the large rail carriers agree to cut supply. Let's also allow food distributors to limit the supply of food.. so that a $3.49 loaf of bread becomes a $6.85 loaf of bread. Maybe allow supply and demand to set prices.. let the poor consumer win once in awhile. Colluding to control available supply is tantamount to price fixing.. I guess that's become ok now.
According to OPEC, it has been OK ever since they got together to do it.
Cartels of industries can be, and have been, subject to anti-trust action. Hard to enforce that US law when the colluders are corporations owned and run by sovereign states. After all, they aren't meeting in New York or Washington when they scheme to screw the world...
My hope is that some mad scientist will collude with a sane engineer and invent a gadget that completely does away with the need to burn petroleum products for energy. The market for chemical feed stocks is a bare shadow of the energy market.
(Holdeth not thy breath. According to my unpublished History of the Confederation of Galactic Civilizations, the first practical mass converter will be used to power the first human starship. It will be about the size of a marine main diesel. Scaling it down to fit in a wheeled vehicle will take a couple of centuries of development.)
Chuck (bemused sometime SF writer)
ATLANTIC CENTRAL 1 acre and 4,000 sq ft 1901 Queen Anne in rural
1 acre and 4,000 sq ft 1901 Queen Anne in rural
Can I have it when you're done with it?
If we recall recent history, the oil countries and speculators raised the price of crude over $100 a barrel - and low and behold Bakken fields and the Canadian fields began producing and drove down the prices. If OPEC is not very, very careful, all the efforts they did to flood the markets and make Bakken & Canadian oil too expensive to produce will be done in by their own arrogance, and then Bakken, Canadian and East Perminan fields will be back on the market.
As we have observed over the years, the Saudi's and Russian's rarely abide by the restrictions they agree to.
This just another step in the game of mine is bigger than yours.
tomikawaTT Ulrich The OPEC countries and others can collude to cut supply, thereby driving up the price.. thereby causing everyone to pay more at the pump. and the media I listen to call that a win win. Let's try that in other markets, like transportation by having the large rail carriers agree to cut supply. Let's also allow food distributors to limit the supply of food.. so that a $3.49 loaf of bread becomes a $6.85 loaf of bread. Maybe allow supply and demand to set prices.. let the poor consumer win once in awhile. Colluding to control available supply is tantamount to price fixing.. I guess that's become ok now. According to OPEC, it has been OK ever since they got together to do it. Cartels of industries can be, and have been, subject to anti-trust action. Hard to enforce that US law when the colluders are corporations owned and run by sovereign states. After all, they aren't meeting in New York or Washington when they scheme to screw the world... My hope is that some mad scientist will collude with a sane engineer and invent a gadget that completely does away with the need to burn petroleum products for energy. The market for chemical feed stocks is a bare shadow of the energy market. (Holdeth not thy breath. According to my unpublished History of the Confederation of Galactic Civilizations, the first practical mass converter will be used to power the first human starship. It will be about the size of a marine main diesel. Scaling it down to fit in a wheeled vehicle will take a couple of centuries of development.) Chuck (bemused sometime SF writer)
Opec and others have agreed to curtail supllies at our urging. Alberta is happy about it.. curtailed supplies from overseas mean that our domestic industry (and yours too) becomes more competitive. Music to the ears of the people who run the oil sands and the fracking operations. Left to their own devices the OPEC members would have continued to flood the market, killing off the oil sands and the fracking once and for all.
From Wikipedia:
Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[3]
********************************************************
Is the OPEC price increase really collusion? I don’t think it is because they are just one collective producer with lots of competition. OPEC is just charging what the market will bear. If they charge too much, they will put themselves out of business. How is it any different than Folgers deciding to increase the price of their coffee?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL So how did my response attack anyone? I simply disagreed with the idea that anyone could or should be "told" where to live. Trust me, I'm done. Sheldon
Sheldon,
I don’t see your comment about wanting the freedom to live where you want as being an attack on whoever might prefer to force you to live where they want you to live. However, I do think people who do want to force us to live where they want us to live are certainly worthy of being told to go pound sand. I am not sure whether that would be an attack.
In any case, I am not really sure which side of this CandOforprogress is on with his comment that you replied to. He is correct in his observations about the European Socialist model, but it is not clear to me whether he agrees with it. You simply made it clear to him which side you are on, and I agree with you, Winston Churchill, and Americans who prefer the freedom to travel.
RME Paul Milenkovic What Pratt and Whitney engineer Michael McCune did was invent a practical form of the quill drive from a GG-1 to be light enough and small enough to fit in a jet engine. I assume you mean the ability of the GG1 quill arrangement to absorb wheel shock and movement while maintaining gear alignment ... but the gears in that arrangement are all encased in rigid alignment, so much of the value of the PurePower arrangement is really novel. There are other significant problems that contributed to the "30 year development time". A quick perusal of the discussion section of the patent is quite instructive. Note that, while there's an extensive literature on superfinishing lightweight gears to take the required power loads, there's comparatively little on structures that keep the gears in proper mesh under loads when the engine case itself deforms, or that restore the gears to correct geometry after transient, possibly severe, distortion. Might bear (no pun intended, but it's pretty funny) comparison with the arrangement for the multiple-speed prop drive on the Tu-95 (which I think had comparable inertia loading but was not internal to the turboshaft engine).
Paul Milenkovic What Pratt and Whitney engineer Michael McCune did was invent a practical form of the quill drive from a GG-1 to be light enough and small enough to fit in a jet engine.
The essence of the quill drive on the GG-1 as well as more recent electric locomotives, especially in European practice, is the means of transmitting torque between inline shafts (actually concentric shafts on the locomotive) while allowing small displacements between the shafts in response to shocks, vibrations, or other causes of such displacements.
The GG-1 had that arrangement of springs and cups to transmit forces between the "quill", the hollow, concentric outer shaft, and the axle that is rigidly attached to the two wheels. The more recent locomotives (Austrian? Swiss?) had some arrangement of articulated links to do this.
The jet-engine patent describes (column 10, second full paragraph)
The input coupling 62 may include an interface spline 64
joined, by a gear spline 66, to a sun gear 68 of the FDGS 60.
The sun gear 68 is in meshed engagement with multiple
planet gears 70,
The patent claims that this shaft coupling needs to be compliant (that is, springy), but it is remarkably coy on the mechanical arrangement of that coupling.
A patent is supposed to disclose enough detail that "a person reasonably skilled in the art" can reproduce it, and as a matter of fact, I am reasonably skilled in the art of shaft couplings and I can't figure out what they are doing.
Interesting.
schlimm There is no place for ideologues here.
There is no place for ideologues here.
Well, I am thrilled that our resident progressive professor ideologue has issued that decree. Consider yourselves chastised by THE superior being of this forum. Take that you plebes!
Mac
PNWRMNM schlimm There is no place for ideologues here. Well, I am thrilled that our resident progressive professor ideologue has issued that decree. Consider yourselves chastised by THE superior being of this forum. Take that you plebes! Mac
This type of situation arises when people start using labels that are meant to force square pegs into round holes. It isn't necessarily so that Schlimm is a socialist, and he may resent others trying to label him as such. Even so, the labels, right or wrong, lend a taint to an otherwise civil discussion that curtails any evolution other than dissolution.
I don't presume to speak for Schlimm, but I think his statement reflects that problem...he can't participate here if he's attacked and tarred, or vilified. Maybe we could drop the name-calling or questionable attributions and just deal with the topic?
selector PNWRMNM schlimm There is no place for ideologues here. Well, I am thrilled that our resident progressive professor ideologue has issued that decree. Consider yourselves chastised by THE superior being of this forum. Take that you plebes! Mac This type of situation arises when people start using labels that are meant to force square pegs into round holes. It isn't necessarily so that Schlimm is a socialist, and he may resent others trying to label him as such. Even so, the labels, right or wrong, lend a taint to an otherwise civil discussion that curtails any evolution other than dissolution. I don't presume to speak for Schlimm, but I think his statement reflects that problem...he can't participate here if he's attacked and tarred, or vilified. Maybe we could drop the name-calling or questionable attributions and just deal with the topic?
Mac PNWRR's remarks are typical of his nasty attacks on anyone who does not agree with his ultra-right ideology. For the record, climate change mitigation has nothing to do with socialism or any other political philosophy. The first insulting comment by Atlantic Central was directed at CandO, for reasons unknown. I think he misread the post.
Actually my political views are not socialist but I suppose when one is as far to the right, as so many posters on here are, a philosophy akin to Ike's seems like socialism.
schlimm selector PNWRMNM schlimm There is no place for ideologues here. Well, I am thrilled that our resident progressive professor ideologue has issued that decree. Consider yourselves chastised by THE superior being of this forum. Take that you plebes! Mac This type of situation arises when people start using labels that are meant to force square pegs into round holes. It isn't necessarily so that Schlimm is a socialist, and he may resent others trying to label him as such. Even so, the labels, right or wrong, lend a taint to an otherwise civil discussion that curtails any evolution other than dissolution. I don't presume to speak for Schlimm, but I think his statement reflects that problem...he can't participate here if he's attacked and tarred, or vilified. Maybe we could drop the name-calling or questionable attributions and just deal with the topic? Mac PNWRR's remarks are typical of his nasty attacks on anyone who does not agree with his ultra-right ideology. For the record, climate change mitigation has nothing to do with socialism or any other political philosophy. The first insulting comment by Atlantic Central was directed at CandO, for reasons unknown. I think he misread the post. Actually my political views are not socialist but I suppose when one is as far to the right, as so many posters on here are, a philosophy akin to Ike's seems like socialism.
When people make statements about where we should live and how we should commute, then yea, they do seem kinda twisted in a socialist kind of way.
It seems that when one leans so far to the left, and an opposing opinion is seen as a threat against them, they start using derogatory names towards the opposing opinion in hopes of branding a group as (fill in the blank)
Paul MilenkovicThe patent claims that this shaft coupling needs to be compliant (that is, springy), but it is remarkably coy on the mechanical arrangement of that coupling. A patent is supposed to disclose enough detail that "a person reasonably skilled in the art" can reproduce it, and as a matter of fact, I am reasonably skilled in the art of shaft couplings and I can't figure out what they are doing.
You're being too modest; part of what I find so interesting is that you're one of the experts in kinematics.
I have to think that there is indeed some sort of either self-locating or self-restoring guiding to the gears, and the compliance is between the external part of the planetary gearing and the driven spool of the fan. What immediately came to mind is those 'metamaterial' systems which are compliant but maintain constant dimensions when compressed or loaded along certain axes. This might be the ideal thing to accomplish the disparate design desiderata called for in the patent discussion - I had thought, reading the PM and Bloomberg accounts, that there were long S-shaped vanes doing the actual connection (so the gearcase could float relative to whatever axis the fan rotates relative to, but still transmit very high torque) but that did not (at least to me) satisfy the condition where the barrel of the engine deflects or distorts.
For the record: Climate change mitigation has nothing to do with socialism or any other "ism." It has to do with empirical science. But some people Atlantic Central, PNWRR) like to smear others with labels at every opportunity.
Some people believe that climate change mitigation is socialism masquerading as empirical science. At least it appears that way because manmade climate change theory just so happens to give the political left everything they have always wanted.
Perhaps some of the world’s most strident labelers are those who like to smear their opponents of the climate change science with the label of “climate change denier” and all of the intolerant baggage that goes with that label. The proponents’ inability to accept the questioning of their science strongly discredits that science.
You can believe whatever you wish, but there is no evidence to back up a causal relationship between climate scientists engaging in an international conspiracy and socialism or any other economic system. What you suggest is a conspiracy on a scale that is absurd. Since it resembles the thoughts of "flat earthers" in its view of science, the term deniers, though harsh, is accurate.
The overwhelming opinion of research scientists who examine climate is that warming is happening well beyond the normal range for thousands of years. Exactly what portion is anthropogenic is the only question, but the prevailing opinion is that it is the largest component. Most mitigation has been a function of the free market, such as the shift to natural gas and groth of solar and wond farms. It is ironic that the US invented most of the alternatives (solar and wind turbine) yet we trail China and Germany badly in their manufacture. I'm not going to speculate as to the reasons.
schlimm You can believe whatever you wish, but there is no evidence to back up a causal relationship between climate scientists engaging in an international conspiracy and socialism or any other economic system. What you suggest is a conspiracy on a scale that is absurd.
You can believe whatever you wish, but there is no evidence to back up a causal relationship between climate scientists engaging in an international conspiracy and socialism or any other economic system. What you suggest is a conspiracy on a scale that is absurd.
Of course the "Scientists" at East Anglia University were so committed to their fraud that they had to cook the data. Sounds like a conspiracy to me!
The "ism" the theory is being used to push is "statism", the ever expanding power of the state to control its own people. The American left is, and has been for decades, totaly committed to this whether they call it socialism, progressivism, or liberalism. Unfortunately even some on the right are drinking the global warming cool aid.
How is it that since the earth's climate has been growing more warm and dry for at least the last 20,000 years (the last round of continental glaciers peaked about 15,000 years ago, see any geology text book about Washington, Minnesota, or Wisconsin) anyone can claim that human beings are causing global warming?
Chicken little and the need to please the master is alive and well in acedemia. Power hungry bureaucrats pay for studies to "prove" global warming so the bureaucrats can convince the legislatures to impose ever more controls in the name of the new God of glabal warming. Of course the socialist/progressive/liberal politicians do not need the encouragement since they all know it is their bounden duty to control the despicable bitter clingers, to use their own words.
Amazing how many "realities" there are out there.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
If I may warp Paul's signature line somewhat:
"My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
The "facts" are made up. Don't confuse people with mind games.
On climate change, it would be hard to believe that all of the pollution we've dumped into the atmosphere over the last 150 years has had no effect on the climate. How many billions of tons of coal alone have been consumed in that time frame? Not to mention trillions of tons of other stuff. The atmosphere is roughly 300 miles thick, with about 90 % of it below 10 miles.
PNWRMNMChicken little and the need to please the master is alive and well in acedemia. Power hungry bureaucrats pay for studies to "prove" global warming so the bureaucrats can convince the legislatures to impose ever more controls in the name of the new God of glabal warming.
More conspiracies on a nearly intergalactic scale!! Impressive.
Thank you, but hardly intergalactic scale.
schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL CandOforprogress2 Well...I just took Amtrak from Buffalo NY to Syracuse NYfor 30.00 I dont think I could drive for less. and I got a nap. This is about behavoir modfication or social engineering. At what point do we make people move in closer to downtown and walk/bike/take the bus or train. Cheaper Oil makes that harder. Europe with its socialist model saw driving as a luxury to be taxed and Americans saw driving and the freedom of travel as there birthright. My work is not "downtown", where do you propose to "make" me live? Such a statement is either intended to bait responses, or shows the depth of the divide in this culture today. To even consider the idea that the government, or anyone, could tell people where to live goes against every principle this nation was founded on. Can I buy you a ticket to the Socialist country of your choice? "The universal misery of capitalism is the unequal distribution of the blessings..the universal blessing of socialism is the equal distribution of the misery" - Winston Churchill Sheldon So now, whenever someone says something you do not like or understand, you attack his character with your McCarthyite smear tactics. There is no place for ideologues here. Take it to one of the alt.right or Ayn Randian websites. CandO was not telling you where to live. You misread.
CandO can be directly quoted from the above as saying, "At what point do we make people move in closer to downtown and walk/bike/take the bus or train. Cheaper Oil makes that harder." What part of "make people" do all of those virtuous things suggests that CandO is against compulsion?
CandO also goes on to say "Europe with its socialist model saw driving as a luxury to be taxed." What part of "socialist model" is not calling our Western European trading partners with their better trains Socialist as in many of them have political parties called "Social Democratic" that advocated such taxes?
When Sheldon retorted "Can I buy you a ticket to the Socialist country of your choice?", how is that a McCarthyite smear, because by the definition offered by CandO in the original post, Socialist countries includes our Western European trading partners who tax cars and fund trains according to the program advocated by their Social Democratic political parties?
So Sheldon is asking CandO, "OK, if you think it is so great 'over there', can I help you move to England, France, or Germany where they have great trains while I can live here in the U.S. and drive my light-duty truck to run my non-downtown-located business?" Maybe it is uncalled for to ask someone to leave our country for one of our first-world trading partners, but Sheldon wasn't asking anyone to move to Cuba?
But let's talk about Cuba. A family member worked with someone at the U whose research encompasses making health care available to more people in our state, and that someone has made trips to Cuba. For all the shade thrown at Mr. Castro since his recent passing from this life, it is said that Socialist Cuba has a pretty good health care system, at least one where on average, long life expectancy and low infant mortality puts the U.S. healthcare system to shame. I hear that claim around the Web, and I also heard that claim through that someone at the U.
It is said that Cuba does a better job allocating resources within its health care system, and their system is much more affordable because doctors are paid a tenth of what they make here. And how do they accomplish all of that, and how do they get away paying doctors that much? Maybe they are not afraid of using the tools of compulsion to get everyone to go along? That they jail people or in many cases execute people who don't "go along"? Is it a McCarthyite smear to say that Casto's Cuba has not hesitated to bring the full punitive power of the state to compel people who have, for whatever personal or philosophical reasons, resisted?
What price compulsion? That someone at the U who has said that Cuba's healthcare system is really pretty good, and there are other people saying the same thing, that someone who has visited Cuba admitted, "But the people there are seriously calorie restricted." Calorie restricted, is that a polite way to say that people in Cuba don't get enough to eat? Maybe that is why they are so healthy because they can't eat whatever they want and get Type 2 Diabetes and heart disease and everything else? Their health care is great, but they don't get enough to eat? How does that work in a tropical country where fruit trees grow out of sidewalk cracks that they don't get enough to eat? A political system has to work hard to accomplish that outcome.
What price compulsion? I guess if we stifle dissent around here against the program of advocating for passenger trains "There is no place for ideologues here", we can get better passenger trains, sooner. They tell me "There is no place for ideologues here" had been enforced pretty vigorously in Cuba under Mr. Castro's leadership, and before you accuse me of McCarthyite "smearing", you reason to disagree that they do have a pretty good healthcare system in Cuba?
"CandO was not telling you were to live. You misread." I suppose I misread too, when I read, "At what point do we make people move in closer to downtown and walk/bike/take the bus or train. Cheaper Oil makes that harder."
What price compelling people to do things for the betterment of society (i.e., Socialism). How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
In my youth William F. Buckley (1925-2008) was the most famous conservative on TV. In 2006 he wrote this article for Townhall.com, which calls itself “the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.”
Stewards of Nature by William F. Buckley
http://townhall.com/columnists/williamfbuckley/2006/02/12/stewards_of_nature
We hear now (in full-page ads) from the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Their summons, signed by 80-odd evangelical leaders, is to address the global-warming crisis. The opening statement declares that "as evangelical Christians, we believe we're called to be stewards of God's creation."
That isn't an inflated claim; ministers of the Gospel are expected to address common concerns. This time we are advised that "global warming can and must be solved. It is no small problem. Pollution from vehicles, power plants and industry is having a dramatic effect on the Earth's climate. Left unchecked, global warming will lead to drier droughts, more intense hurricanes and more devastating floods, resulting in millions of deaths in this century."
The premise is that the planet is suffering from rising levels of greenhouse gasses, which are bringing on increasingly sharp climate changes. As Anthony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra has articulated the problem, climate change would lead to "an increase in death rates from heat waves, infectious diseases, allergies, cholera as well as starvation due to failing crops."
Two questions arise. The first, and most obvious, is: Is the information we are receiving reliable? There is a certain lure to apocalyptic renderings of modern existence. Some remember, not so long after the first atomic bomb was detonated, predictions that we were directly headed for nuclear devastation. After a bit, a Yankee skepticism came in and informed us that Dr. Strangelove was a creature unto himself -- that he could be isolated, and that nuclear armament could proceed, with high levels of caution. Today the problem on the nuclear front is proliferation. And the crisis is at our doorstep in the matter of North Korea and Iran. But even if they develop the bomb, we do not go straightaway to the end of the world with Strangelove.
The environmentalist alarum is strongly backed by evidence, but there are scientists who believe that the data of the last few years, indeed of the last century, attest to cyclical variations that make their way irrespective of the increase in fossil-fuel consumption. Professor Robert Jastrow, a distinguished astrophysicist, is skeptical in the matter. Yet recent reports of measurements done in the Antarctic have not been fully absorbed by the non-believers, and they aren't likely to ignore as simply inconsequential the increase in greenhouse gases, whatever dispute there may be about their exact effect.
There is no disputing that, over the recent period, temperature changes have been in an upward direction. The latest figure is one degree in the last generation. The nation's temperatures this January were the warmest on record, and NASA scientists have informed us that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded worldwide.
The issue of Kyoto divides the world. The protocols agreed upon there were affirmed by President Clinton, but were rejected by the Senate. The grounds for doing so were that unrealistic demands were being made on the developed nations, without realistic attention to what the less-developed countries were prepared to do in the way of reducing their dependence on fossil fuels. China, for instance, would simply refuse to abide by schedules that failed to take into account its spectacular demands as a country moving to western levels of consumption at singular speed.
Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have endorsed a bill that would set for the United States a goal, by the year 2010, of a reduction in emissions to the level of 2000. President Bush has refused to sign on to any schedule whatever that would mandate national goals, or would restrict normal impulses.
The pressure of the environmentalists has combined with a more direct pressure, which is the scarcity of those fuels that do the most damage. There are visions knocking on the door, of fuels without the heavy carbon-dioxide emissions. But mostly there is a recognition that economic and environmental concerns might combine to discourage profligate consumption of the toxic stuff.
One way to go would be a surtax on gasoline. Another, a heightening of federal requirements in the matter of energy-efficient automobiles; these began many decades back, when the impulse to formalize our concern for nature began to take concrete legislative form. Add now the moral concern. We are indeed stewards of nature, and calls to conjoin our concern with a sense of Christian mission are noteworthy.
schlimm You can believe whatever you wish, but there is no evidence to back up a causal relationship between climate scientists engaging in an international conspiracy and socialism or any other economic system. What you suggest is a conspiracy on a scale that is absurd. Since it resembles the thoughts of "flat earthers" in its view of science, the term deniers, though harsh, is accurate. The overwhelming opinion of research scientists who examine climate is that warming is happening well beyond the normal range for thousands of years. Exactly what portion is anthropomorphic is the only question, but the prevailing opinion is that it is the largest component.
The overwhelming opinion of research scientists who examine climate is that warming is happening well beyond the normal range for thousands of years. Exactly what portion is anthropomorphic is the only question, but the prevailing opinion is that it is the largest component.
It may seem like a conspiracy on a scale that is beyond absurd, if you insist on calling it a conspiracy. My point about calling people deniers is simply to illustrate that the proponents are perfectly willing to insult and smear those who disagree with them as you accuse the "deniers" of doing.
You refer to the term "denier" as being accurate. Yet the accuracy of the fact that they doubt the "overwhelming opinion" of scientists is beside the point. They have that right. Opinions can be wrong. The point is that the derogatory label of "denier" in this context is its intolerant.
It is that very intolerance that most causes people to associate the dogma of manmade global warming with socialism or other forms of totalitarian government rather than accepting it on the basis of science. True science welcomes skepticism.
Euclid True science welcomes skepticism.
Skepticism is fine. But when you have a bunch of politicians with fourth grade educations believing they know more than scientists, and leading the charge against said scienctists, then yes, denier fits just fine.
Euclid schlimm You can believe whatever you wish, but there is no evidence to back up a causal relationship between climate scientists engaging in an international conspiracy and socialism or any other economic system. What you suggest is a conspiracy on a scale that is absurd. Since it resembles the thoughts of "flat earthers" in its view of science, the term deniers, though harsh, is accurate. The overwhelming opinion of research scientists who examine climate is that warming is happening well beyond the normal range for thousands of years. Exactly what portion is anthropomorphic is the only question, but the prevailing opinion is that it is the largest component. It may seem like a conspiracy on a scale that is beyond absurd, if you insist on calling it a conspiracy. My point about calling people deniers is simply to illustrate that the proponents are perfectly willing to insult and smear those who disagree with them as you accuse the "deniers" of doing. You refer to the term "denier" as being accurate. Yet the accuracy of the fact that they doubt the "overwhelming opinion" of scientists is beside the point. They have that right. Opinions can be wrong. The point is that the derogatory label of "denier" in this context is its intolerant. It is that very intolerance that most causes people to associate the dogma of manmade global warming with socialism or other forms of totalitarian government rather than accepting it on the basis of science. True science welcomes skepticism.
The alt-left must label those who disagree. They will not tolerate opposing viewpoints.
Norm48327The alt-left must label those who disagree. They will not tolerate opposing viewpoints.
But didn't you just label those that disagree?
I mean... this whole labelling argument is silly. Both sides are labelling the other.
Paul MilenkovicWhat price compulsion? I guess if we stifle dissent around here against the program of advocating for passenger trains "There is no place for ideologues here", we can get better passenger trains, sooner. They tell me "There is no place for ideologues here" had been enforced pretty vigorously in Cuba under Mr. Castro's leadership, and before you accuse me of McCarthyite "smearing", you reason to disagree that they do have a pretty good healthcare system in Cuba?
Tangential rambling and a rather smarky attack on passenger train advocates as an aside. Great move! That must keep the kids in the cheap seats rolling in the aisles!
The Goverment tells people all the time where they can and cant live its called zoning. On a more rare occasions they have set up green belts around citys. The Cuyahoga Valley National Park is a green buffer park between Cleveland and Akron Ohio.
RME I have to think that there is indeed some sort of either self-locating or self-restoring guiding to the gears, and the compliance is between the external part of the planetary gearing and the driven spool of the fan. What immediately came to mind is those 'metamaterial' systems which are compliant but maintain constant dimensions when compressed or loaded along certain axes. This might be the ideal thing to accomplish the disparate design desiderata called for in the patent discussion - I had thought, reading the PM and Bloomberg accounts, that there were long S-shaped vanes doing the actual connection (so the gearcase could float relative to whatever axis the fan rotates relative to, but still transmit very high torque) but that did not (at least to me) satisfy the condition where the barrel of the engine deflects or distorts.
My point exactly -- there must be some deeper level of engineering to the compliant connection between rotating shafts than what is disclosed in the patent?
But then again, the quill drive on the GG-1 is that system of "cups and springs" between the hollow, concentric quill shaft and the wheels rigidly attached to the axle. Maybe the compliance is all you need and the "self-locating or self restoring guiding of the gears" you speak of and I think needs to be there isn't really necessary for this to work?
The S-shaped vanes into the gearcase that the PM and Bloomberg articles reference -- those must form the "gear spline" (label 66 from Fig. 2 and 2nd paragraph column 10)? "A person reasonably skilled in the art" can be expected to know what a "gear spline" is as a "term of art" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spline_(mechanical)
The only motion such a spline allows is the shaft telescoping in or out. So the deflection between rotating shafts has to be completely taken up by compliances, and there is no other guidance?
wanswheel In my youth William F. Buckley (1925-2008) was the most famous conservative on TV. In 2006 he wrote this article for Townhall.com, which calls itself “the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.” Stewards of Nature by William F. Buckley http://townhall.com/columnists/williamfbuckley/2006/02/12/stewards_of_nature We hear now (in full-page ads) from the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Their summons, signed by 80-odd evangelical leaders, is to address the global-warming crisis. The opening statement declares that "as evangelical Christians, we believe we're called to be stewards of God's creation." That isn't an inflated claim; ministers of the Gospel are expected to address common concerns. This time we are advised that "global warming can and must be solved. It is no small problem. Pollution from vehicles, power plants and industry is having a dramatic effect on the Earth's climate. Left unchecked, global warming will lead to drier droughts, more intense hurricanes and more devastating floods, resulting in millions of deaths in this century." The premise is that the planet is suffering from rising levels of greenhouse gasses, which are bringing on increasingly sharp climate changes. As Anthony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra has articulated the problem, climate change would lead to "an increase in death rates from heat waves, infectious diseases, allergies, cholera as well as starvation due to failing crops." Two questions arise. The first, and most obvious, is: Is the information we are receiving reliable? There is a certain lure to apocalyptic renderings of modern existence. Some remember, not so long after the first atomic bomb was detonated, predictions that we were directly headed for nuclear devastation. After a bit, a Yankee skepticism came in and informed us that Dr. Strangelove was a creature unto himself -- that he could be isolated, and that nuclear armament could proceed, with high levels of caution. Today the problem on the nuclear front is proliferation. And the crisis is at our doorstep in the matter of North Korea and Iran. But even if they develop the bomb, we do not go straightaway to the end of the world with Strangelove. The environmentalist alarum is strongly backed by evidence, but there are scientists who believe that the data of the last few years, indeed of the last century, attest to cyclical variations that make their way irrespective of the increase in fossil-fuel consumption. Professor Robert Jastrow, a distinguished astrophysicist, is skeptical in the matter. Yet recent reports of measurements done in the Antarctic have not been fully absorbed by the non-believers, and they aren't likely to ignore as simply inconsequential the increase in greenhouse gases, whatever dispute there may be about their exact effect. There is no disputing that, over the recent period, temperature changes have been in an upward direction. The latest figure is one degree in the last generation. The nation's temperatures this January were the warmest on record, and NASA scientists have informed us that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded worldwide. The issue of Kyoto divides the world. The protocols agreed upon there were affirmed by President Clinton, but were rejected by the Senate. The grounds for doing so were that unrealistic demands were being made on the developed nations, without realistic attention to what the less-developed countries were prepared to do in the way of reducing their dependence on fossil fuels. China, for instance, would simply refuse to abide by schedules that failed to take into account its spectacular demands as a country moving to western levels of consumption at singular speed. Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have endorsed a bill that would set for the United States a goal, by the year 2010, of a reduction in emissions to the level of 2000. President Bush has refused to sign on to any schedule whatever that would mandate national goals, or would restrict normal impulses. The pressure of the environmentalists has combined with a more direct pressure, which is the scarcity of those fuels that do the most damage. There are visions knocking on the door, of fuels without the heavy carbon-dioxide emissions. But mostly there is a recognition that economic and environmental concerns might combine to discourage profligate consumption of the toxic stuff. One way to go would be a surtax on gasoline. Another, a heightening of federal requirements in the matter of energy-efficient automobiles; these began many decades back, when the impulse to formalize our concern for nature began to take concrete legislative form. Add now the moral concern. We are indeed stewards of nature, and calls to conjoin our concern with a sense of Christian mission are noteworthy.
Paul MilenkovicMy point exactly -- there must be some deeper level of engineering to the compliant connection between rotating shafts than what is disclosed in the patent?
There is quite a bit of somewhat cagy language dancing around exactly what is implemented, but I have been studying this during the day, and have seen some things that may be interesting.
First, note that they are using special nomenclature and they go into some detail about it. "Lateral" means normal to the axis of the engine, which I'd expect, but "transverse" appears to describe an angular deflection (as of the fan assembly, inertially or nutationally, for example, about the effective 'pivot' point of the shaft assembly to the frame) - that's where the self-aligning 'greater stiffness' and the term-of-art use of "gear mesh stiffness" (not something I'm familiar with using as a structural term; is this something arising out of specialized tooth-profile grinding to give self-alignment under load?) come into discussion.
I have now very little doubt that my earlier idea, that the gear alignment was stiffer than the 'general' barrel/frame stiffness, but the lateral compliance between "gear assembly" (coyly noted as item 48 on the drawing, with disclaimer after disclaimer about the actual composition of the gears, carriers, spiders, etc. therein) and barrel is less stiff. What I have not been able to identify so far, and probably won't until I see better drawings or description, is whether there is the 'other half' -- the important half, really, in both the GG1 and S2 drives -- of the compliance: the elastic or sprung cushioning of rotating shock or force between the HP turbine/compressor spool and the driven fan assembly.
Note the interesting characteristic in this engine that the HP and LP turbines counterrotate, and the LP turbine turns very much faster than the HP (and, by extension, the geared fan driven from it) does. (I have to confess that this is the first time I've come across reference to lithium-aluminide circulation-cooled turbine blades in a commercial engine design!) Presumably (although I didn't see this stated in so many words) the low-pressure compressor (at the front of the compressor stage) also counterrotates relative to both the HP compressor and the fan blading, and there is an equivalent matching flow section (and perhaps some bleeds in that location) between them.
I'd like your informed opinion on the little force diagrams that make up the latter half of the drawing exhibits, as I think substantiation of much of the importance of the stiffness 'novelty' is expressed in them. Presumably the idea is to shift any bending moment away from the gears and their 'fit', use the decoupling of HP and faster LP to keep the rotational inertia of the fan relatively low (compared to a directly-driven equivalent), and allow the fan's drive mountings to deflect before the barrel of the engine does.
But then again, the quill drive on the GG-1 is that system of "cups and springs" between the hollow, concentric quill shaft and the wheels rigidly attached to the axle.
You need to shift the frame of reference up and out a bit, to encompass the pinions and bull gear driving the quill shaft and spiders. Note that the S2 implements the quill spider and cups internally (in the large bull gears on the inside driver axles) and this is the feature that keeps shock from being transmitted back from the driver rims and axles to the teeth and vanes of the turbine rotor. I do not recall how this arrangement accommodated both suspension motion and cross-level accommodation -- and would like to see an informed description.
The only thing that counted as unsprung mass in the GG1 drive was the comparatively light wheels and axle, plus some percentage of the cups keeping the springs located relative to the 'spokes'. The original GG1 of course used pedestals, so only vertical and cross-level accommodation was necessary, but the "improved" high-speed chassis was going to use composite chevron springing so the axle could move in any direction relative to the fixed alignment of the hollow quill shaft ... with no particular difficulty compared to vertical-only accommodation. Good three-axis location struts and damping on axle motion was relatively easily provided on such a design, too. But this is almost the antithesis of what is happening in the jet engine design under discussion, where it is the equivalent of the wheelset that has the enormous inertial mass, gyroscopic moments, etc. and preservation of the ability to transmit high driving power with good gear alignment is the critical perceived thing.
Maybe the compliance is all you need and the "self-locating or self restoring guiding of the gears" you speak of and I think needs to be there isn't really necessary for this to work?
If I am reading the patent language correctly -- and I may not be, so YMMV -- the self-location of the gears, or rather the additional 'stiffness of the gearcase' contributed in part by the fit of the gears, is one of the most critical things in the patent.
The S-shaped vanes into the gearcase that the PM and Bloomberg articles reference -- those must form the "gear spline" (label 66 from Fig. 2 and 2nd paragraph column 10)? "A person reasonably skilled in the art" can be expected to know what a "gear spline" is as a "term of art" ... The only motion such a spline allows is the shaft telescoping in or out. So the deflection between rotating shafts has to be completely taken up by compliances, and there is no other guidance?
I think the key to this is in the early discussion, where so much is made of the basically tin-can nature of large jet engines, and the relative absence of any kind of 'frame' stiffness that serves as a true datum for alignment of gear transmission components, particularly those where a planetary spider drive to a large, heavy fan asymmetrically loaded relative to its shaft's attach point to the engine has a ring gear fixed to the engine barrel with considerable torque reactions. If there are 'splines' in the traditional sense (which is as you note) they're primarily for temperature-differential accommodations, and not significant to the novelties expressed in the patent description. Unless they represent the actual method of 'less stiff compliance' between the gearwork and the engine structure. Which, as noted, is very carefully NOT set forth with scaled or representative structural drawings...
My understanding of the expression "a true conservative" is that a true conservative examines all things and holds fast to what is good. He does not go running after new things simply because they are new.
I believe some Republicans of the Tea Party faction would regard Buckley as a liberal by their current standards. Heck, the GOP was supportive of climate change mitigation until their oil donor class said about face!
Buckley founded the National Review. His son, Christopher, was pushed out a few years ago as "too liberal."
CandOforprogress2 wanswheel In my youth William F. Buckley (1925-2008) was the most famous conservative on TV. In 2006 he wrote this article for Townhall.com, which calls itself “the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.” Stewards of Nature by William F. Buckley http://townhall.com/columnists/williamfbuckley/2006/02/12/stewards_of_nature We hear now (in full-page ads) from the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Their summons, signed by 80-odd evangelical leaders, is to address the global-warming crisis. The opening statement declares that "as evangelical Christians, we believe we're called to be stewards of God's creation." That isn't an inflated claim; ministers of the Gospel are expected to address common concerns. This time we are advised that "global warming can and must be solved. It is no small problem. Pollution from vehicles, power plants and industry is having a dramatic effect on the Earth's climate. Left unchecked, global warming will lead to drier droughts, more intense hurricanes and more devastating floods, resulting in millions of deaths in this century." The premise is that the planet is suffering from rising levels of greenhouse gasses, which are bringing on increasingly sharp climate changes. As Anthony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra has articulated the problem, climate change would lead to "an increase in death rates from heat waves, infectious diseases, allergies, cholera as well as starvation due to failing crops." Two questions arise. The first, and most obvious, is: Is the information we are receiving reliable? There is a certain lure to apocalyptic renderings of modern existence. Some remember, not so long after the first atomic bomb was detonated, predictions that we were directly headed for nuclear devastation. After a bit, a Yankee skepticism came in and informed us that Dr. Strangelove was a creature unto himself -- that he could be isolated, and that nuclear armament could proceed, with high levels of caution. Today the problem on the nuclear front is proliferation. And the crisis is at our doorstep in the matter of North Korea and Iran. But even if they develop the bomb, we do not go straightaway to the end of the world with Strangelove. The environmentalist alarum is strongly backed by evidence, but there are scientists who believe that the data of the last few years, indeed of the last century, attest to cyclical variations that make their way irrespective of the increase in fossil-fuel consumption. Professor Robert Jastrow, a distinguished astrophysicist, is skeptical in the matter. Yet recent reports of measurements done in the Antarctic have not been fully absorbed by the non-believers, and they aren't likely to ignore as simply inconsequential the increase in greenhouse gases, whatever dispute there may be about their exact effect. There is no disputing that, over the recent period, temperature changes have been in an upward direction. The latest figure is one degree in the last generation. The nation's temperatures this January were the warmest on record, and NASA scientists have informed us that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded worldwide. The issue of Kyoto divides the world. The protocols agreed upon there were affirmed by President Clinton, but were rejected by the Senate. The grounds for doing so were that unrealistic demands were being made on the developed nations, without realistic attention to what the less-developed countries were prepared to do in the way of reducing their dependence on fossil fuels. China, for instance, would simply refuse to abide by schedules that failed to take into account its spectacular demands as a country moving to western levels of consumption at singular speed. Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have endorsed a bill that would set for the United States a goal, by the year 2010, of a reduction in emissions to the level of 2000. President Bush has refused to sign on to any schedule whatever that would mandate national goals, or would restrict normal impulses. The pressure of the environmentalists has combined with a more direct pressure, which is the scarcity of those fuels that do the most damage. There are visions knocking on the door, of fuels without the heavy carbon-dioxide emissions. But mostly there is a recognition that economic and environmental concerns might combine to discourage profligate consumption of the toxic stuff. One way to go would be a surtax on gasoline. Another, a heightening of federal requirements in the matter of energy-efficient automobiles; these began many decades back, when the impulse to formalize our concern for nature began to take concrete legislative form. Add now the moral concern. We are indeed stewards of nature, and calls to conjoin our concern with a sense of Christian mission are noteworthy. William F Buckley needs to be dug up so we can ask him what a "true conservitve is because in 2016 I have no idea what it is as opposed to 1976.
William F Buckley needs to be dug up so we can ask him what a "true conservitve is because in 2016 I have no idea what it is as opposed to 1976.
schlimmI believe some Republicans of the Tea Party faction would regard Buckley as a liberal by their current standards.
tree68 schlimm I believe some Republicans of the Tea Party faction would regard Buckley as a liberal by their current standards. And I've heard it said that by today's standards, JFK would have been a Republican...
schlimm I believe some Republicans of the Tea Party faction would regard Buckley as a liberal by their current standards.
And I've heard it said that by today's standards, JFK would have been a Republican...
Maybe candidate Kennedy. By 1963, he had become much more liberal.
CandOforprogress2 The Goverment tells people all the time where they can and cant live its called zoning. On a more rare occasions they have set up green belts around citys. The Cuyahoga Valley National Park is a green buffer park between Cleveland and Akron Ohio.
Actually no, the government tells people where they can and cannot keep live stock, conduct farming or mining, run various types of businesses, engage in various types of commercial activity.
But no law prevents me from buying land or a building in a commercial area and living there, people do it all the time. The tax situation may discourage it, but I can do it.
Parks are parks, they are public land, set aside for various reasons and uses.
That has nothing to do with compelling people to live near their workplace or near available mass transit.
Still waiting for that mass transit system that can take me and my tools to my job sites - but only some of my time is spent on job sites, the rest of my workdays are spent in my office, eight feet from my bedroom. So I guess that is a pretty "eco friendly" commute, from one room of my 4000 sq ft house to aother. A house that in 115 years has never put a roof shingle in a landfill, it has its original slate roof.
Save the planet - stop building disposable housing, ban vinyl siding and asphalt roofing, stop building things that cannot be repaired, bring back returnable glass bottles, stop wasting diesel fuel collecting post consumer recycling, get the ethanol out of motor fuel which will boost fuel economy of exisiting cars, tear down all the traffic jam causing toll plazas, put all the long haul trucks on trains, go back to running businesses with standing inventories and stop wasting fuel with "just in time" deliveries, go back to stuff like GRAVELY TRACTORS that last a lifetime rather than "throw away" yard equipment from the front of the big box stores.....want some more planet saving ideas?
Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Save the planet - stop building disposable housing, ban vinyl siding and asphalt roofing, stop building things that cannot be repaired, bring back returnable glass bottles, stop wasting diesel fuel collecting post consumer recycling, get the ethanol out of motor fuel which will boost fuel economy of exisiting cars, tear down all the traffic jam causing toll plazas, put all the long haul trucks on trains, go back to running businesses with standing inventories and stop wasting fuel with "just in time" deliveries, go back to stuff like GRAVELY TRACTORS that last a lifetime rather than "throw away" yard equipment from the front of the big box stores.....want some more planet saving ideas? Sheldon
Miningman Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism.
Spoken as an anti-science, fact-devoid denialist with a self-serving agenda.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut no law prevents me from buying land or a building in a commercial area and living there, people do it all the time.
The illegal residential use of a zoned-permitted-commercial building in Oakland was the likely cause of the deadly fire that killed 36 people.
schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL But no law prevents me from buying land or a building in a commercial area and living there, people do it all the time. The illegal residential use of a zoned-permitted-commercial building in Oakland was the likely cause of the deadly fire that killed 36 people.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But no law prevents me from buying land or a building in a commercial area and living there, people do it all the time.
Just another reason why I don't live in the peoples republic of california. It is likely that their living conditions were unacceptable regardless of zoning. But of course none of us are smart enough to take care of ourselves are we?
ATLANTIC CENTRALJust another reason why I don't live in the peoples republic of california. It is likely that their living conditions were unacceptable regardless of zoning. But of course none of us are smart enough to take care of ourselves are we? Sheldon
Yes, but zoning gives it the teeth to make something illegal and accountable vs. just "unacceptable". And I'm pretty sure there are zoning laws in Maryland. Maryland isn't known as being a libertarian's paradise.
I am not sure about AC's point above. Within certain limits, you cannot run a business in a residential zone, but I believe you are allowed to have a residence in a commercial zone. However, the property taxes for a residence in a commercial zone will probably be much higher because it is zoned commercial.
The fire in Oakland will raise many questions related to the use of the building, but I would not conclude that residing in the building was illegal if all the safety regulations had been met and the owner was willing to pay commercial taxes for the residential use.
The main issues about the Oakland fire will be the violations of the code such as insufficient exits, too much clutter of flamable materials, illegal wiring, insufficient stairways, lack of fire extinguishers, lack of sprinklers, and too many occupants for the space.
Apparently all of these issues had been known about for some time by city officials, inspectors, and law enforcement; and yet no action was taken to mitigate the problem. This was a disaster that could clearly be seen coming.
EuclidWithin certain limits, you cannot run a business in a residential zone, but I believe you are allowed to have a residence in a commercial zone.
You can certainly have a residence in a commercial zone; I see them all the time here when a residential area close to what has become a major route or intersection becomes zoned commercial, and the houses sprout signs prominently advertising that the property is now "zoned commercial"
On the other hand you're not allowed to establish a residence in a commercial BUILDING, and many commercial property leases clearly establish that not even overnight 'occupancy' of office space is permissible - in some cases there are actual requirements that lights and HVAC not be kept on at night.
I had to chuckle at that quip about 'would you like a large multifamily dwelling next to you'. I lived in a neighborhood in Sherman Oaks where this happened: the 'first best use' of a single-family lot became a multistory zero-lot-line apartment structure, and as soon as you had one or two on your block, your desire to stay in that neighborhood began to decline... even as your assessed value and taxes went through the roof.
schlimmThe illegal residential use of a zoned-permitted-commercial building in Oakland was the likely cause of the deadly fire that killed 36 people.
The residents weren't home (they were staying in a hotel). The fire victims were attending a large party on the premises.
That there were numerous code issues was definitely a factor. No sprinklers, insufficient exits, a stairway made of wood pallets, the list goes on. One fellow is being hailed as a hero because he guided countless people out one of two doors by calling out and guiding them out with his voice.
In many areas, it's possible to run a business and a residence in the same building - I live in a "hamlet," which allows it. Granted, these aren't industrial facilities, but they legally co-exist nonetheless. Even in cities, there are often mixed occupancy zones. How many people live in apartments over a ground floor mercantile establishment?
As I understand it, the owner of the building and his wife were staying at a hotel and not at the building at the time of the fire. But in addition to the owner being a normal resident of the warehouse, there were several (i.e. 15-30) residents who lived in the building with the owner. Many, if not all of those residents were in the warehouse when the fire broke out. In addition to those residents being in the building, there was also a large number of people who were attending a party in the building at the time the fire started.
schlimm Miningman Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism. Spoken as an anti-science, fact-devoid denialist with a self-serving agenda.
So a geologist cannot predict the future without hyperbole. I bet his current and former students happily disprove the notion of self-serving agenda.
tree68 schlimm The illegal residential use of a zoned-permitted-commercial building in Oakland was the likely cause of the deadly fire that killed 36 people. The residents weren't home (they were staying in a hotel). The fire victims were attending a large party on the premises. That there were numerous code issues was definitely a factor. No sprinklers, insufficient exits, a stairway made of wood pallets, the list goes on. One fellow is being hailed as a hero because he guided countless people out one of two doors by calling out and guiding them out with his voice. In many areas, it's possible to run a business and a residence in the same building - I live in a "hamlet," which allows it. Granted, these aren't industrial facilities, but they legally co-exist nonetheless. Even in cities, there are often mixed occupancy zones. How many people live in apartments over a ground floor mercantile establishment?
schlimm The illegal residential use of a zoned-permitted-commercial building in Oakland was the likely cause of the deadly fire that killed 36 people.
Thanks go out to Wanswheel. My students are majority aboriginal comprising 96% of the student body. Every one of them have strong family structure, have and go out on centuries old family traplines regularly and have secluded family cabins in the wilderness that have zero amenities whatsoever, many of those located yet far from this frontier area. They all have and bring with them in class a deep abiding respect for this planet. Many of their family work in our base metal, gold and uranium mines and have for at least 2 generations now. The diploma is in Mining Engineering. Heavy in science and math. It is demanding and challenging. Heck, it is demanding and challenging living up here with a sub polar climate. Not a place for whiners, it just doesn't happen. I can't think of a better balanced group of young men and women that are fully capable of dispelling the myths and misconceptions facing not only the Mining Industry but also the junk science that is passed off these days. They know better. A combination of disciplined science, engineering and economics with a full rich spiritual life is a strong force...simply because they know...as in gnosis..the simple act of knowing. No agenda. Something sorely missing from so much of society today.
Since leaning of the initial details of the Oakland, CA fire, the story seems to be unfolding in a predictable way. It seems to me that both the owner (or proprietor by leasing) of the building and the City authorities are responsible for the disaster. The owner is already blaming the party he bought or leased the building from because he claims he was told that the building was up to code.
It may have been up to code for its use as a warehouse, but there appear to be many violations related to the conversion to a mulit-family residence. Furthermore, the city officials were well aware of these safety violations and did nothing to enforce them for a considerable amount of time leading up to the fire.
I would like to see the Today Show interview someone from the City codes division. It seems to me that they belong on the hot seat along with the building proprietor.
The current blaming of the disaster on the a lack of affordable housing is not going to fly. This latest news has quite an interesting interview with the building proprietor:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oakland-warehouse-owner-refuses-questions-interview-fire-article-1.2900279
Another issue that was brought up is that nobody was going to report the various violations to the authorities. Building inspectors may not be able to enter a building to conduct an inspection without a complaint.
CSSHEGEWISCH Another issue that was brought up is that nobody was going to report the various violations to the authorities. Building inspectors may not be able to enter a building to conduct an inspection without a complaint.
According to this article, there had been several complaints, and inspectors knew about an incredible list of safety violations for 2-1/2 years prior to the fire.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-oakland-inspections-fire-20161205-story.html
News reports are the cause was likely electrical. The building was not zoned for residential, yet there was a rabbits' warren of dwellings on 1st floor, constructed of wood. Electrical was open wires, not meeting code. Owner or some agency is guilty of gross negligence.
Well, it just so happens I have some expertise on this topic. By trade and training I am a construction design professional in the following areas:
Historic restoration consultant
Residential designer (one step below architect, doing only residential work)
Master historic restoration carpenter
Semi retired journeyman electrician/electrical design draftsman (the guy who designs the wiring for the building)
And have experiance in HVAC design and plumbing.
I restore stuff like this for a living:
So it is fun to listen to you all talk about zoning and building codes.......
First off, zoning, and the exact details of building codes are local laws that vary in every local jurisdiction.
Second, when people lease buildings, sometimes there are limitations beyond law as to how they can use the property. But generally speaking, in most places, the owner of a commercial property can build a code compliant residence within it and live there. They may or maynot be allowed by local law to create rental units, that is a separate issue. Did I mention I am a landlord as well?
So to somehow imply that the fire in Oakland, or zoning laws somehow have anything to do with the earlier conversation about telling people where to live is total nonsense, a strawman......
Clearly good common sense laws were broken and ignored by authorities, that has nothing to do with the earlier conversation.
It is interesting to see the narrow scope in which so many of you think, assuming that anyone wanting to live in a commercial building would be leasing it, or that it is automaticly located in an urban area.
We have commercial zoning out in the "country" too. In fact, the zoning for my own home, pictured above, is a special residential zoning which protects historic integrity, while allowing low inpact commercial use. I leagally run my design and construction business from my home.
Other properties in our village have a commercial version of that zoning which would not prevent a store owner from living above or adjacent to his business.
There was a comment earlier about here in Maryland being liberal like the left coast - yes much of it is. I live in the county that produced the current Republican Governor of Maryland, yes Maryland has a Republican Governor.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, it just so happens I have some expertise on this topic. By trade and training I am a construction design professional in the following areas: Historic restoration consultant Residential designer (one step below architect, doing only residential work) Master historic restoration carpenter Semi retired journeyman electrician/electrical design draftsman (the guy who designs the wiring for the building) And have experiance in HVAC design and plumbing. I restore stuff like this for a living: So it is fun to listen to you all talk about zoning and building codes....... First off, zoning, and the exact details of building codes are local laws that vary in every local jurisdiction. Second, when people lease buildings, sometimes there are limitations beyond law as to how they can use the property. But generally speaking, in most places, the owner of a commercial property can build a code compliant residence within it and live there. They may or maynot be allowed by local law to create rental units, that is a separate issue. Did I mention I am a landlord as well? So to somehow imply that the fire in Oakland, or zoning laws somehow have anything to do with the earlier conversation about telling people where to live is total nonsense, a strawman...... Clearly good common sense laws were broken and ignored by authorities, that has nothing to do with the earlier conversation. It is interesting to see the narrow scope in which so many of you think, assuming that anyone wanting to live in a commercial building would be leasing it, or that it is automaticly located in an urban area. We have commercial zoning out in the "country" too. In fact, the zoning for my own home, pictured above, is a special residential zoning which protects historic integrity, while allowing low inpact commercial use. I leagally run my design and construction business from my home. Other properties in our village have a commercial version of that zoning which would not prevent a store owner from living above or adjacent to his business. There was a comment earlier about here in Maryland being liberal like the left coast - yes much of it is. I live in the county that produced the current Republican Governor of Maryland, yes Maryland has a Republican Governor. Sheldon
I have posted here about details of the Oakland fire and its relation to building safety violations that may or may not have involved zoning. However, it was not my intent to have my comments interpreted as proving that zoning amounts to telling people where to live in the context of your earlier objection to being told where to live in relation to New Urbanism, political disdain for the suburbs, etc.
I realize that that linkage was introduced by someone initially commenting on the Oakland fire, apparently to say that zoning is a good thing because it prevents people from dying in fires, and when you say you don't want to be told where to live, that means you are against zoning and all the good it does. I thought it was a rather convoluted linkage that the forum is famous for.
So when you say, "So to somehow imply that the fire in Oakland, or zoning laws somehow have anything to do with the earlier conversation about telling people where to live is total nonsense, a strawman......" , I want to clarify that I did not intend to imply that.
Euclid, thank you, and yes, completely understood.
Zoning is generally good, not always perfect, but generally good. So are building codes. Some building code details are a little out of control these days, but that is a topic for a different forum.....
Again, that has nothing to do with compelling people to live close to their jobs or mass transit.
CandOforprogress2 A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart.......
A new oil discovery in the Permian Basin may upset the apple cart.......
Undoubtedly swings in the price of fuel have an impact on the support for and use of public transit, but it probably is a minor factor. And likely to be more so as science and technology develop alternatives to how today's vehicles are powered and controlled.
The percentage of Americans using public transit for work ranged from 4.6 per cent in 1989 to 5.2 percent in 2014, according to Table 1-41 of National Transportation Statistics. It dipped slightly between 2001 and 2003 and again between 2008 and 2010, probably due in part to recessions.
In most parts of the country public transit is not a good option because of housing patterns, distributed employment centers, inconvenience, etc. Personal vehicles are more comfortable, flexible, and private than public transit. Most of the people who use public transit (buses) where I live are poor, elderly or handicapped.
A solution for relieving congestion in big cities appears to be the biggest push for better public transport. In most areas of Texas, while congestion is getting worse, it is manageable. In south and west Texas most people want better roads; they don’t want public transit.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.