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
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.
Sheldon
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
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.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
schlimmThe illegal residential use of a zoned-permitted-commercial building in Oakland was the likely cause of the deadly fire that killed 36 people.
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...
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.
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.
The illegal residential use of a zoned-permitted-commercial building in Oakland was the likely cause of the deadly fire that killed 36 people.
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.
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.
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
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 CENTRALBut no law prevents me from buying land or a building in a commercial area and living there, people do it all the time.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
schlimmI believe some Republicans of the Tea Party faction would regard Buckley as a liberal by their current standards.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Buckley founded the National Review. His son, Christopher, was pushed out a few years ago as "too liberal."
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!
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.
Johnny
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.