On Nov 15, 9:17*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:4skth4ldo3l6kpgni2q9tkcnlcq82hf482@4ax .com...

Let GM die - fertilizer for smaller, leaner and better companies to
suceed.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Did I ever tell you about my hollow cathode plasma energy generator?

(seriously)

I stumbled across this many years ago purely by serendipity, doing some
experiments in a vacuum chamber.
It converted electrical energy into heat at about 100 times (or more) the
efficiency of conventional electric or fossil fueled heat generators.

I always wanted to go back and follow up on it. * For example, I think it
could be used to heat a house very economically. * Sorta like a mini nuclear
power generator without the nuclear reaction.

Eisboch

A precursor to the flux capacitor?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good God you are stupid.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


Be careful here. The laws of physics and mathematics preclude the
possibility of generating more than 3413 BTU/hr per kilowatt. The
only exception is if heat is moved from one place to another in the
process, for example, a heat pump.



That's why the results of the tests were so bizarre.
What I was doing was heating an object of a certain mass.
When heating it with conventional means (or those used for the
state-of-the-art at the time)
the time required to heat the object ..... in this case to 200 degrees C.
took many, many times longer when compared to the plasma configuration,
using roughly the same amount of input power. I'll have to review the notes
to get the actual numbers.

I don't profess to understand what is going on, except for the facts that
this occurs in a vacuum, under a partial pressure. Argon gas molecules are
energized to an ionized (plasma) state within a confined space and are used
to bombard the object, using a 400 - 500 volt DC potential difference. In
some cases, I actually was able to begin to melt (actually evaporate or
sublimate) the aluminum object in very short order, something that never
occurred with the other means of heating. It's not dis-similar to a
process called "sputtering", but you don't apply enough power to knock atoms
of material off of the object (target).

I am purposely leaving out a significant detail of the configuration, for
selfish reasons.

I read one scientific paper that talked about the same type of phenomena.
The patent attorney found it and gave it to me to read. If I recall
correctly, the author, in his summary (which is really all I could
understand) acknowledged that he didn't have a clue either, other than it
didn't appear to follow accepted thermodynamics laws and he (as others have
done) theorized on a new state of matter. Not a gas, not a solid, not a
liquid.

All this occurred in 1983 or thereabouts.

Eisboch

wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:00:46 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


My own feeling is that let 'em go. Do the pre-pack, restructure to a
smaller, leaner, less expensive operation, drop a number of lines that
make no sense (like Hummer) and start competing again as a more
efficient and cost effective company.

GM deserves to go down, but ... We are now spending $1 trillion to put
liquidity *and* confidence back in our markets. What does letting GM go
down do to that confidence? I don't see a choice. I don't like it, but
I think we have to do something to help GM.

And then Ford?
And Chrysler?
And Harley-Davidson
And American Express?
UPS?
Harry's General Store?

How and where do you draw the line?

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:00:46 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


My own feeling is that let 'em go. Do the pre-pack, restructure to a
smaller, leaner, less expensive operation, drop a number of lines that
make no sense (like Hummer) and start competing again as a more
efficient and cost effective company.
GM deserves to go down, but ... We are now spending $1 trillion to put
liquidity *and* confidence back in our markets. What does letting GM go
down do to that confidence? I don't see a choice. I don't like it, but
I think we have to do something to help GM.

And then Ford?
And Chrysler?
And Harley-Davidson
And American Express?
UPS?
Harry's General Store?

How and where do you draw the line?


I would draw the line at Harley-Davidson. Is there really a hyphen in
the name? I really hadn't noticed before.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


Be careful here. The laws of physics and mathematics preclude the
possibility of generating more than 3413 BTU/hr per kilowatt. The
only exception is if heat is moved from one place to another in the
process, for example, a heat pump.



That's why the results of the tests were so bizarre.
What I was doing was heating an object of a certain mass.
When heating it with conventional means (or those used for the
state-of-the-art at the time)
the time required to heat the object ..... in this case to 200 degrees C.
took many, many times longer when compared to the plasma configuration,
using roughly the same amount of input power. I'll have to review the
notes to get the actual numbers.

I don't profess to understand what is going on, except for the facts that
this occurs in a vacuum, under a partial pressure. Argon gas molecules
are energized to an ionized (plasma) state within a confined space and are
used to bombard the object, using a 400 - 500 volt DC potential
difference. In some cases, I actually was able to begin to melt
(actually evaporate or sublimate) the aluminum object in very short order,
something that never occurred with the other means of heating. It's not
dis-similar to a process called "sputtering", but you don't apply enough
power to knock atoms of material off of the object (target).

I am purposely leaving out a significant detail of the configuration, for
selfish reasons.

I read one scientific paper that talked about the same type of phenomena.
The patent attorney found it and gave it to me to read. If I recall
correctly, the author, in his summary (which is really all I could
understand) acknowledged that he didn't have a clue either, other than it
didn't appear to follow accepted thermodynamics laws and he (as others
have done) theorized on a new state of matter. Not a gas, not a solid,
not a liquid.

All this occurred in 1983 or thereabouts.

Eisboch


Does this mean you'll be giving up the limo and sound equipment rental
business? 8)

Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

Be careful here. The laws of physics and mathematics preclude the
possibility of generating more than 3413 BTU/hr per kilowatt. The
only exception is if heat is moved from one place to another in the
process, for example, a heat pump.



That's why the results of the tests were so bizarre.
What I was doing was heating an object of a certain mass.
When heating it with conventional means (or those used for the
state-of-the-art at the time)
the time required to heat the object ..... in this case to 200 degrees C.
took many, many times longer when compared to the plasma configuration,
using roughly the same amount of input power. I'll have to review the notes
to get the actual numbers.

I don't profess to understand what is going on, except for the facts that
this occurs in a vacuum, under a partial pressure. Argon gas molecules are
energized to an ionized (plasma) state within a confined space and are used
to bombard the object, using a 400 - 500 volt DC potential difference. In
some cases, I actually was able to begin to melt (actually evaporate or
sublimate) the aluminum object in very short order, something that never
occurred with the other means of heating. It's not dis-similar to a
process called "sputtering", but you don't apply enough power to knock atoms
of material off of the object (target).

I am purposely leaving out a significant detail of the configuration, for
selfish reasons.

I read one scientific paper that talked about the same type of phenomena.
The patent attorney found it and gave it to me to read. If I recall
correctly, the author, in his summary (which is really all I could
understand) acknowledged that he didn't have a clue either, other than it
didn't appear to follow accepted thermodynamics laws and he (as others have
done) theorized on a new state of matter. Not a gas, not a solid, not a
liquid.

All this occurred in 1983 or thereabouts.

Eisboch





It is all magic to me. X rays, laser, even those space heaters that heat
people but not air. But you already knew that.

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

All this occurred in 1983 or thereabouts.

Eisboch



Does this mean you'll be giving up the limo and sound equipment rental
business? 8)


The secret to success is diversification, my man, diversification.

Eisboch

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:00:46 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


My own feeling is that let 'em go. Do the pre-pack, restructure to a
smaller, leaner, less expensive operation, drop a number of lines that
make no sense (like Hummer) and start competing again as a more
efficient and cost effective company.
GM deserves to go down, but ... We are now spending $1 trillion to put
liquidity *and* confidence back in our markets. What does letting GM go
down do to that confidence? I don't see a choice. I don't like it, but
I think we have to do something to help GM.

And then Ford?
And Chrysler?
And Harley-Davidson
And American Express?
UPS?
Harry's General Store?

How and where do you draw the line?
I would draw the line at Harley-Davidson. Is there really a hyphen in the
name? I really hadn't noticed before.

There is the way I typed it.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

It sure looks like GM may go down the tubes.
Their burn rate of available cash may not last until Obama takes office.

Sure does. Depends if the suppliers will wait on the hope to be paid or
not. Many business now have pay now terms which will accelerate the draw.

According to some analysts, Chapter 11, which keeps the creditors and
suppliers off their backs while they reorganize really isn't an option.
Who would buy a car from a company in bankruptcy? Furthermore, consumers
have pulled in their horns in terms of buying big ticket items in general
with concern of continued employment.

No one is buying them now. Lets assume a person would want a GM (Government
Motors) car. What with? Money the moddle class does not have? With credit
they are maxed out and can't get more? And that is assuming they can't get
a better deal with a different manufacturer.

There's a 25 billion dollar government "loan" available to the auto
industry in general that is intended to help them finance the development
of new, high efficiency vehicles. Bush has recommended expediting the
release of funds associated with this loan, but is against a further
"bailout" using funds from the recent 700 billion TARP plan.

At their burn rate, that will not last 6 months. Keep in mind they are
defering spending as much as they can.

GM's burn rate is 3.1 million per *hour* and as of the end of September,
they had about 16 billion in cash.

Yep.

Personally, I have very mixed feelings about this. A while back GM
dropped the Oldsmobile line due to poor sales and to cut costs. They also
hinted that another line .... either Buick or Pontiac .... would be on
the chopping block in the future if their financial situation didn't
change. That was a couple of years ago and nothing has been done.

I don't. There isn't room in the market for GM any more. Poor quality,
high cost, wrong product. If 3 are in the market for a shrinking demand,
one going down might actually help the other two.

Although it would be disastrous for the employees and suppliers for GM to
fold, I also can't see why the taxpayers should spend good money after
bad. The only way I personally could support a general bailout would be if
it were tied to a very specific and aggressive business plan laid out by
GM that would cut costs, simplify operations and overhead and otherwise
provide believable proof that the bailout money would not simply extend
their existence for a while longer while business goes on as usual. GM
had the opportunity to address their problems and have done very little to
save themselves. Their problems did not originate with September's market
meltdown.

GM isn't going to address the problems until they are forced to. GM has
been bleeding cash for a generation, if GM had kept it's promises to
customers, shareholders and other investors they wouldn't be discussed in
this light today.

And money sent to GM from the government is money wasted. Worse yet, you
are going to have every failing business model in the world looking for free
cash to continue their denial of incompetance and stave off the need for
change. A list of some others, Chrysler, Ford, (have to be fair now),
Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, JCI, Magna, NorTel, Sun Microsystems, and an
enless list of losers.

What should happen is like Luecent, let the competition buy them out after
chapter 11. The market will correct if given a chance.

The other problem with bailing GM out is that it sets a precedent to
justify the bailout of any company experiencing financial problems. How
do you save a job here, but let an equally important job to someone else
in another company dissolve?

Eisboch

The precident should scare the iving Jesus out of any taxpayer. Every
company in the world is going to extort the US government, jobs go or give
me money. And with bank bailouts, the horse is already out of the barn.

What we are seeing in reality is debtors don't want to pay their bills and
it is undermining the currency and society. It is that simple. GM needs to
go down on principle at this point. There needs to be a message sent that
this is what going to happen to you if you are over your head in debt and
doing nothing about it for too long.

I would not loan others money in North America right now unless I had health
kidneys on deposit. As for 4%, the risk, inflation and taxes, it makes no
sense at all. That is why the governments have to fund banks somehow, no
one else will. But they can't do it without killing the capital markets as
the currency isn't worth jack crap if people don't promptly pay their debts.

2009 the currencies in Canada and the US are going to be squashed as
inflation digs in hard. In fact, it has already started.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:00:46 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


My own feeling is that let 'em go. Do the pre-pack, restructure to a
smaller, leaner, less expensive operation, drop a number of lines that
make no sense (like Hummer) and start competing again as a more
efficient and cost effective company.

GM deserves to go down, but ... We are now spending $1 trillion to put
liquidity *and* confidence back in our markets. What does letting GM go
down do to that confidence? I don't see a choice. I don't like it, but
I think we have to do something to help GM.

And then Ford?
And Chrysler?
And Harley-Davidson
And American Express?
UPS?
Harry's General Store?

How and where do you draw the line?

You don't. You don't even go there. If there is no need for the services
they disappear. If a services gap is left, more profitable companies will
take their place. I expect Harley, Amex and UPS wills survive and perhaps
one Detroit auto maker.

Middle class is broke and the most effective solution has yet to be
explored.

Massively reduce government spending and size at all levels. Reduce taxes
leaving more money for middle class. Let interest rates float to market
rates to encourage solvency and debt reduction. Slowly remove interest
deductibility to encourage real wealth accumulation. Get states involved in
this too. But it also means smaller and lean government.

Fiat debt life styles need to end. The US and now Canada, the credit is
bouncing. No cash, to bad so sad. The seller of services wants to be paid
honey.