Why Not a 40-MPG SUV?

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
There are some tungsten lightbulbs the military uses which do last many years. Problem is brightness suffers when you increase the filament diameter giving you longevity. I think,

Design tradeoffs really take the fun out of conspiracy theorys

"Why don't they make tires that last 2x, 3x longer?"
Carrison hit the nail on the head, it's a design tradeoff again. We want cars to "hug" the road which requires a softer rubbber to do so. This softer rubber wears out quicker but is safer for everyone. Plus the harder compounds tears up the roads and offer a crapy ride. Think of tires as a second set of shock absorbers.

 

[klah]

You all do realize that there are engine manufacturers outside of the US. What reason do the French, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, etc. have for not using this technology if it is so readily available? Certainly you do not believe they are ignoring it out of courtesy to American oil companies.

 

[Moonbeam]

GM's new Baghdad is supposed to get some interesting mileage. I think Corn has the figures.

 

[Mani]

There exist bulbs that can be manufactured inexpensively if mass-produced, last incredibly long periods of time, and have plenty of brightness. But you will never see them brought to the market for the same reasn that we will never see a pharmaceutical company come out with a cure for AIDS (as opposed to a treatment).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Mani
There exist bulbs that can be manufactured inexpensively if mass-produced, last incredibly long periods of time, and have plenty of brightness. But you will never see them brought to the market for the same reasn that we will never see a pharmaceutical company come out with a cure for AIDS (as opposed to a treatment).

Something of limited use that lasts a long time cannot be inexpensively manufactured. A lightbuld that lasts a year costs $1.00. You might be able to make a 10 year light bulb and still sell it for $1.00, but you will go broke making them. A person can only buy so many lightbulbs. So they sell a 10 year light bulb for $10. This is simple economics.

And by your very same logic, pharaceuticals would never have cured polio, smallpox or numerous other diseases.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Mani
There exist bulbs that can be manufactured inexpensively if mass-produced, last incredibly long periods of time, and have plenty of brightness. But you will never see them brought to the market for the same reasn that we will never see a pharmaceutical company come out with a cure for AIDS (as opposed to a treatment).

Mani. I'm all about getting on the profits before poeple evil corperations, but this is crazy. Study some Virology (more specifically RNA virology) and learn the scientific method before making such statements.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Mani
There exist bulbs that can be manufactured inexpensively if mass-produced, last incredibly long periods of time, and have plenty of brightness. But you will never see them brought to the market for the same reasn that we will never see a pharmaceutical company come out with a cure for AIDS (as opposed to a treatment).

Something of limited use that lasts a long time cannot be inexpensively manufactured. A lightbuld that lasts a year costs $1.00. You might be able to make a 10 year light bulb and still sell it for $1.00, but you will go broke making them. A person can only buy so many lightbulbs. So they sell a 10 year light bulb for $10. This is simple economics.

Of course it can - you can't make an assumption like that without knowing something of the technology, which you obviously do not. I work for a projector company, and deal with bulb manufacturers that output thousands of lumens of brightness and have thousands of hours of bulb life. I know the costs of these companies to produce these bulbs - they are sold for hundreds but cost a fraction of their selling prices. It would be very easy to use less expensive materials in the bulbs for home use (which would also extend life significantly since they would not burn nearly as hot) and sell them for very low prices while still making a profit. The problem with this is that the bulbs would take so long to burn out that they are no longer as consumable (or profitable), and that is why no companies are doing it.

And by your very same logic, pharaceuticals would never have cured polio, smallpox or numerous other diseases.

The priorities of pharmaceutical companies have changed. How many pharmaceuticals were researching hair-loss and boner-providing medications when those cures were developed? It's simple economics that a company will produce what there is a demand for, and there will always be greater demand and greater money to be made from a treatment rather than a cure. Take a look at the largest-selling products sold by pharmaceuticals - medications to keep you feeling happy (as long as you constantly take their pills to release seratonin), a pill to give you a stiffy when taken, a pill that keeps and regrows your hair as long as you keep taking it, and various treatments for ilnesses and diseases that lessen the effects and delay their onset as long as the medication is taken.

Mani. I'm all about getting on the profits before poeple evil corperations, but this is crazy. Study some Virology (more specifically RNA virology) and learn the scientific method before making such statements.

Carbonyl. This isn't a rant extolling the evils of profit-driven corporations, it's stating the obvious. Studying virology or the scientific method will not give you any more insight into what drives the CEO of Pfizer. And if you don't believe it, take a look at what drugs have been developed and what are in the pipeline. Or ask a friend at a pharmaceutical company what they are working on. I graduated with a number of chemical engineers as friends who went to J&J, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer among other places and not a single one is doing work directly or indirectly related to a cure.

 

[Zebo]

I graduated with a number of chemical engineers as friends who went to J&J, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer among other places and not a single one is doing work directly or indirectly related to a cure.

A cure for aids is akin to perpetual motion.

 

[ElFenix]

The model with automatic transmission, six cylinders, and four-wheel drive gets 18 miles per gallon (mpg), two miles less than a comparably equipped Blazer did in 1985.

loaded statement. the current one weighs quite a bit more (much of it increasing the safety), is a bit bigger (ever been in an '85 vintage s-blazer?), and the engine is a lot higher output.

The camshaft technology works well, but it wastes fuel. The traditional configuration provides no way to change patterns in order to deliver, for example, lots of power for accelerating onto a highway and to cut back on unneeded power?saving fuel?at highway cruising speeds. In recent years, though, engineers have added mechanical equipment to the camshaft, allowing some enhanced valve control. This control includes, for example, the ability to open valves only partway when little power is needed. Honda and BMW have developed and installed such ?variable valve? systems in many production cars, improving fuel economy by 5 to 10 percent.

doesn't sound like the author knows what hes talking about... variable cam profile engine have been around since the 30s or 40s, and just about every make has them, not just honda and BMW.

Improvements in fuel injection are also on the shelf, thanks to a recent advance known as ?gasoline direct injection.? By replacing the traditional indirect-injection engine with this technology, the 2002 Volkswagen Polo has improved fuel economy for city driving by 13 percent. The benefit comes from exploiting the dynamics of how fuel and air mix. In the traditional indirect injection setup, gas and air are mixed outside the cylinder and then injected. With direct injection, fuel and air begin mixing only when they are inside the cylinder, enabling the engine to use an ultralean fuel mixture during steady, low-power driving

i'd love to see this. diesel engines almost all operate this way. in japan they get 260 out of a VQ30 that way, instead of the 255 with the VQ35 in the US. it does require the gas companies to go along, since it requires low-sulphur gas. historically the car companies get their way over the gas companies.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

I graduated with a number of chemical engineers as friends who went to J&J, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer among other places and not a single one is doing work directly or indirectly related to a cure.

A cure for aids is akin to perpetual motion.

AIDs was an example, though if that were true, I doubt that there would be so much university and independent doctor-sanctioned research in the area.

Regardless, that's beside the point - substitute a common virus of your choice for AIDs if it makes you feel better.

 

[shifrbv]

But you will never see them brought to the market for the same reasn that we will never see a pharmaceutical company come out with a cure for AIDS (as opposed to a treatment).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mani. I'm all about getting on the profits before poeple evil corperations, but this is crazy. Study some Virology (more specifically RNA virology) and learn the scientific method before making such statements.

I think a better analogy would be the patent issue that so many pharmaceutical companies are pulling on the consumers. Why have women in Europe had so much success with taking natural supplements for many of their problems, yet in America, they are marketed the latest chemical compound. For instance, in Germany, women were taking black cohash (an herb) to alleviate menopausal systems. Yet, in the US, they have to take hormone replacement therapy and drugs like Lilly's Evista, etc. Natural medicines are never considered or even studied in the US because no one can make a profit on it because you can't patent a naturally occuring plant or herb.

There's probably a cure for cancer somewhere out in the jungles (just like in that Sean Connery film) but with the way medicine is going in the US, we'd never find it and the drug companies would have no desire to.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

I graduated with a number of chemical engineers as friends who went to J&J, Lilly, Merck, and Pfizer among other places and not a single one is doing work directly or indirectly related to a cure.

A cure for aids is akin to perpetual motion.

AIDs was an example, though if that were true, I doubt that there would be so much university and independent doctor-sanctioned research in the area.

Regardless, that's beside the point - substitute a common virus of your choice for AIDs if it makes you feel better.

Mani I'm no aids or virus expert but there has never been a cure for an RNA virus nor from what I remember from Virology professor would there be due to the mutagenic nature of the protien. The reason for continued research are several, money and emotions are two and mans need to discover.