End of the line?
 

"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.

They will suffer, but I suspect they will survive. Depends on their debt to
equity ratio.

The flip side of this recession is interest rates must go up. High debt
companies are going to have a hard time.

End of the line?
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:58:49 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

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.

So where is the problem? There really hasn't been a significant
difference between any of the GM lines for years. They all share
engines and body parts. I think they should just have Cadillac, a
truck company and an family car company covering the rest of the
range. I am still not sure this saves them but there should be some
savings there.

Some parts are even interchangeable with competitors.

End of the line?
 

End of the line?
 

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:08:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

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).

It's possible that you triggered an exothermic reaction of some sort
in one of the materials. That would be a one time event, and excess
heat production would stop once the reaction had run its course.

End of the line?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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

Agreed, diversify is key. But in this market I would slant it a bit
sticking with things people require near and long term. Cars for example,
optional luxury going forward for many or one car instead of two or maybe
keep old the old beast on the road longer. If I did invest in anything with
a discretionary product, strictly a short term play. Longer term, I like
commodities and liquid cash (not loaned out). I would do food but too much
is either union or not available to small investors (private equity).

Even if this bear market ended tomorrow, luxury items will be slow to come
back because of the wealth hit.

Limo and sound equipment, I would just right-click-sell and eat the loss.

End of the line?
 

"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

Quite correct, this did occur in the early 80's. But two differences exist.
This is much bigger and more depth to it. While I knew it was coming, the
depth has surprised me big time. But that means more profit when it ends.

The second difference, the wild card of this event, is the governments
reaction delivering ever larger bailouts. This is scary. Not being an
active investor in 1980 I am guessing, but did not interest rates go up
above inflation and up to the high teens to stem debt? Is your average
middle class Joe in North America so far in debt the government has screwed
up with interest rates below market to a point of a larger collapse?

Time will tell, but I suspect double digit borrowing rates before this
recession ends.

End of the line?
 

On Nov 15, 3:58*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
It sure looks like GM may go down the tubes.
Their burn rate of available cash may not last until Obama takes office.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Too much top-heavy wages and bonuses. What do you care anyway...go
back to counting your money.

End of the line?
 

Let GM die

Go **** yourself Tom. Rumour mongering asshole.

End of the line?
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...



Limo and sound equipment, I would just right-click-sell and eat the loss.



Nobody wants to rent a Hammond?

Bummer.

Oh, well.

Eisboch

End of the line?
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

"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

Quite correct, this did occur in the early 80's. But two differences
exist. This is much bigger and more depth to it. While I knew it was
coming, the depth has surprised me big time. But that means more profit
when it ends.

The second difference, the wild card of this event, is the governments
reaction delivering ever larger bailouts. This is scary. Not being an
active investor in 1980 I am guessing, but did not interest rates go up
above inflation and up to the high teens to stem debt? Is your average
middle class Joe in North America so far in debt the government has
screwed up with interest rates below market to a point of a larger
collapse?

Time will tell, but I suspect double digit borrowing rates before this
recession ends.


Gotta give you credit. You have a one track mind.

Eisboch