|
End of the line?
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 |
End of the line?
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:58:49 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
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 company has been very poorly managed. Under normal circumstances, I would say let them go, but these aren't normal circumstances. With the overall precarious economy, can we afford to let GM go down now? I don't know, but just throwing money at them won't bail them out. |
End of the line?
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. The taxpayers have given AIG billions and billions, and all AIG does is push around paper. I favor bailing out the automakers if they can be restructured into companies that make what the market wants and needs, and if competent management can be found to replace the slackers that are there now. Management, labor, and suppliers are going to have to eat some of the weenie if they want the companies to survive. There are millions more jobs at stake here than just those at the auto plants. As for what Bush recommends, well, he ought to just leave town before he does any more damage. |
End of the line?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Management, labor, and suppliers are going to have to eat some of the weenie if they want the companies to survive. There are millions more jobs at stake here than just those at the auto plants. As for what Bush recommends, well, he ought to just leave town before he does any more damage. Hold on to your chair Harry. I don't want you to flop over. Mrs.E. and I were discussing the economic problems this morning while having coffee, trying to sort out what type of government led programs would serve to point towards an eventual recovery. I've come to realize that the current situation is unlike anything in the past. I know it's subject to great debate, but Reagan led the country out of Carter's mess by applying a "trickle down" philosophy that enabled big companies to expand and grow, carrying the smaller subcontractors along with them. For conditions at the time it worked. Those conditions don't exist anymore. Manufacturing is gone. I come around to recognizing that Obama is the right man for the job right now. McCain is too unimaginative and stuck in the past to solve the problems of 2008 and beyond. Like the current Time cover suggests, Obama is going to have to focus on internal infrastructure programs designed to produce jobs (even if the particular program isn't completely necessary). It will be a "trickle-up" approach rather than the other way around. A recovery is going to have to include the need and reason for a business to exist, not simply the issuance of a bunch of new contracts. In the case of the auto industry, every one involved is going to have to accept a new set of conditions and rewards, from management to the labor unions. New management *is* required with a fresh, blank sheet to develop the business model. There will still be layoffs, cuts and downsizing required. The market simply doesn't support the combined sizes of GM, Ford and Chrysler (although I doubt Chrysler will remain much longer). And the consumer .... the car buyer ... needs to have a job with a secure income in order to purchase the new car, house or other consumer related product. Herein is the big problem that makes this situation unique. Without manufacturing, there are no jobs. Everyone cannot be employed in the service or entertainment sectors. Consumer spending makes up 70% of our economy. This country has some very serious problems and they cannot be solved by simply turning back the clock. I wish I knew how to help. I don't mean helping by just supporting any particular leader or program. I mean actively *help*. Eisboch |
End of the line?
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Management, labor, and suppliers are going to have to eat some of the weenie if they want the companies to survive. There are millions more jobs at stake here than just those at the auto plants. As for what Bush recommends, well, he ought to just leave town before he does any more damage. Hold on to your chair Harry. I don't want you to flop over. Mrs.E. and I were discussing the economic problems this morning while having coffee, trying to sort out what type of government led programs would serve to point towards an eventual recovery. I've come to realize that the current situation is unlike anything in the past. I know it's subject to great debate, but Reagan led the country out of Carter's mess by applying a "trickle down" philosophy that enabled big companies to expand and grow, carrying the smaller subcontractors along with them. For conditions at the time it worked. Those conditions don't exist anymore. Manufacturing is gone. I come around to recognizing that Obama is the right man for the job right now. McCain is too unimaginative and stuck in the past to solve the problems of 2008 and beyond. Like the current Time cover suggests, Obama is going to have to focus on internal infrastructure programs designed to produce jobs (even if the particular program isn't completely necessary). It will be a "trickle-up" approach rather than the other way around. A recovery is going to have to include the need and reason for a business to exist, not simply the issuance of a bunch of new contracts. In the case of the auto industry, every one involved is going to have to accept a new set of conditions and rewards, from management to the labor unions. New management *is* required with a fresh, blank sheet to develop the business model. There will still be layoffs, cuts and downsizing required. The market simply doesn't support the combined sizes of GM, Ford and Chrysler (although I doubt Chrysler will remain much longer). And the consumer .... the car buyer ... needs to have a job with a secure income in order to purchase the new car, house or other consumer related product. Herein is the big problem that makes this situation unique. Without manufacturing, there are no jobs. Everyone cannot be employed in the service or entertainment sectors. Consumer spending makes up 70% of our economy. This country has some very serious problems and they cannot be solved by simply turning back the clock. I wish I knew how to help. I don't mean helping by just supporting any particular leader or program. I mean actively *help*. Eisboch What would help is for those who hold white collar jobs to control their disdain for blue collar factory workers and their desire to earn a decent, middle-class income for themselves and their families, and along with that income, quality health care, a safe job, and a reasonable pension. The sad thing is that the "disdainful" are one generation from blue collars themselves. There's a lot of that here. I am not including you in that group. I'd also try to figure out a way to "cap" upper echelon executive pay and perks. It is just plain disgusting there are execs pulling down multiples of millions of dollars a year while they lay off their workforces. There is no need for those sorts of paychecks. I'm hoping for a huge investment in rebuilding our infrastructure...roads, bridges, airports, treatment plants, power generation plants, light rail, et cetera. Nothing puts Americans back to work faster and at better paying jobs than heavy construction and all the ancillary industries that support it, white and blue collar. ` |
End of the line?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: I wish I knew how to help. I don't mean helping by just supporting any particular leader or program. I mean actively *help*. Eisboch What would help is for those who hold white collar jobs to control their disdain for blue collar factory workers and their desire to earn a decent, middle-class income for themselves and their families, and along with that income, quality health care, a safe job, and a reasonable pension. The sad thing is that the "disdainful" are one generation from blue collars themselves. That's a subjective issue that means different things to different people. You are more tuned into it, most likely because of your involvement with labor unions. I've worked for about 5 companies before starting my own. Three were "blue collar" jobs. The ones that came later were management and/or engineering level jobs. I never experienced any "disdain" for anyone, blue or white collar, unless the person just happened to be a complete jerk. One employer had the over-all "haves" and "have-nots" attitude but he was universal in his contempt for anyone not as rich and powerful as he. (He was the prime modivation for me to start a similar business and guess what? I won. He went belly-up.) I'd also try to figure out a way to "cap" upper echelon executive pay and perks. It is just plain disgusting there are execs pulling down multiples of millions of dollars a year while they lay off their workforces. There is no need for those sorts of paychecks. The only way to influence that is to tax the crap out of income that exceeds a certain amount. Even then, I am not sure I agree with it, but not on a moral grounds. It's because I just don't think it's a good idea for government to control one's personal income opportunities. Too close to what I saw in China years ago. I'm hoping for a huge investment in rebuilding our infrastructure...roads, bridges, airports, treatment plants, power generation plants, light rail, et cetera. Nothing puts Americans back to work faster and at better paying jobs than heavy construction and all the ancillary industries that support it, white and blue collar. Yep, I agree. That's exactly what is needed. Now, how do we convince all the people who got their cookie-cutter computer science or finance degrees that they should put them in the closet and go learn how to build bridges and nuclear powerplants? Eisboch |
End of the line?
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:58:49 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
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. Well, there you have it. That's the problem. However, the problem is that that is the problem. They've had time to do this and refused. For various reasons, but simply, refused. There is another way to look at this. While certain companies are too big to fail, the opposite is also true - companies can be too big to succeed. GM is a case study in being too big to succeed. 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 going under will give Ford some breathing space and possibly Chrysler. You also have to look at something else - this represents a good opportunity for small businesses to pick up the slack. For other ideas about fueling transportation needs to come up for air and be seen and evaluated. It's not all going to be in the hands of GM - opportunities of a smaller world in terms of manufacturing actually make for a larger world if only because now the ogre is gone - other people, other ideas, other methods. You know, all you have to do is look back at the history of the heavy construction and farming equipment manufacturing business - hell, even the heavy machine tool business. Too big to fail? International? Allis Chalmers? McCormick? Heald Machine Tool? They all made lousy bets and they are all gone. Once the monsters were out of the way, the smaller companies like Deere and Cat and Case could innovate and take over. And they are still around. Again, too big to fail also equals too big to succeed. Let GM die - fertilizer for smaller, leaner and better companies to suceed. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. |
End of the line?
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... 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 |
End of the line?
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... 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? |
End of the line?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... 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? Beats me. It works though and I have test measurements to back it up. A "plasma" is not completely understood by the scientific community, although it happens all around us. The visible flash of a lightning bolt or the light emitted from a fluorescent bulb are plasmas. Many consider it a completely unique state of matter and when applied in certain hardware configurations can do some strange things. Anyway, I have to think about this some more. Eisboch |
End of the line?
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... 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? Beats me. It works though and I have test measurements to back it up. A "plasma" is not completely understood by the scientific community, although it happens all around us. The visible flash of a lightning bolt or the light emitted from a fluorescent bulb are plasmas. Many consider it a completely unique state of matter and when applied in certain hardware configurations can do some strange things. Anyway, I have to think about this some more. Eisboch Well, you are way, way over my head on this one. I did build a working cloud chamber in the 7th grade and can tell you precisely how to build one now. But a plasma energy generator? My first thought would be a device vampires could use to regenerate energy in tired blood. :) |
End of the line?
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:58:49 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. Well, there you have it. That's the problem. However, the problem is that that is the problem. They've had time to do this and refused. For various reasons, but simply, refused. There is another way to look at this. While certain companies are too big to fail, the opposite is also true - companies can be too big to succeed. GM is a case study in being too big to succeed. 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 going under will give Ford some breathing space and possibly Chrysler. You also have to look at something else - this represents a good opportunity for small businesses to pick up the slack. For other ideas about fueling transportation needs to come up for air and be seen and evaluated. It's not all going to be in the hands of GM - opportunities of a smaller world in terms of manufacturing actually make for a larger world if only because now the ogre is gone - other people, other ideas, other methods. You know, all you have to do is look back at the history of the heavy construction and farming equipment manufacturing business - hell, even the heavy machine tool business. Too big to fail? International? Allis Chalmers? McCormick? Heald Machine Tool? They all made lousy bets and they are all gone. Once the monsters were out of the way, the smaller companies like Deere and Cat and Case could innovate and take over. And they are still around. Again, too big to fail also equals too big to succeed. Let GM die - fertilizer for smaller, leaner and better companies to suceed. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Very nicely put. Now we need a progressive leader to lead us out of this free falling downward spiral. We need some honest innovative government. The last thing we need is an idealistic, self centered, ruler. Wake up America. |
End of the line?
"Boater" wrote in message ... Well, you are way, way over my head on this one. I did build a working cloud chamber in the 7th grade and can tell you precisely how to build one now. But a plasma energy generator? My first thought would be a device vampires could use to regenerate energy in tired blood. :) Ahem .... ummmm..... not to toot my horn, but I actually have a couple of patents on the device, used for another application. It works. Problem is ... I don't. Eisboch |
End of the line?
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message ... Well, you are way, way over my head on this one. I did build a working cloud chamber in the 7th grade and can tell you precisely how to build one now. But a plasma energy generator? My first thought would be a device vampires could use to regenerate energy in tired blood. :) Ahem .... ummmm..... not to toot my horn, but I actually have a couple of patents on the device, used for another application. It works. Problem is ... I don't. Eisboch addendum... I had forgotten about this thing for years. Although I had sorta day dreamed about other applications, like home heating, I was too busy trying to make a living to pursue it. Plus, the time wasn't right. Energy was cheap and even if I had the financial where-with-all at the time to develop it, it probably wouldn't catch anybody's attention. But ... things have changed. I'll have to go dig out the old notebooks and re-visit it. Eisboch |
End of the line?
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Well, you are way, way over my head on this one. I did build a working cloud chamber in the 7th grade and can tell you precisely how to build one now. But a plasma energy generator? My first thought would be a device vampires could use to regenerate energy in tired blood. :) Ahem .... ummmm..... not to toot my horn, but I actually have a couple of patents on the device, used for another application. It works. Problem is ... I don't. Eisboch Well, get to work. We don't need any more software pussies or guys who develop weirdo financial instruments. We need product that requires people to build it. About two months ago, I met with the CEO of a client and he was being buried alive in resumes from $600,000 to multi-million dollar guys who had lost their financial sector jobs and wanted to come work for him, at salaries resembling those they had lost. This is a guy who runs a very profitable $10 billion closed trust that is, in fact, having its most profitable year. "We don't pay anyone here, including me, that kind of money," he said. Right on. |
End of the line?
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:00:46 GMT, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:58:49 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. Well, there you have it. That's the problem. However, the problem is that that is the problem. They've had time to do this and refused. For various reasons, but simply, refused. There is another way to look at this. While certain companies are too big to fail, the opposite is also true - companies can be too big to succeed. GM is a case study in being too big to succeed. 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 going under will give Ford some breathing space and possibly Chrysler. You also have to look at something else - this represents a good opportunity for small businesses to pick up the slack. For other ideas about fueling transportation needs to come up for air and be seen and evaluated. It's not all going to be in the hands of GM - opportunities of a smaller world in terms of manufacturing actually make for a larger world if only because now the ogre is gone - other people, other ideas, other methods. You know, all you have to do is look back at the history of the heavy construction and farming equipment manufacturing business - hell, even the heavy machine tool business. Too big to fail? International? Allis Chalmers? McCormick? Heald Machine Tool? They all made lousy bets and they are all gone. Once the monsters were out of the way, the smaller companies like Deere and Cat and Case could innovate and take over. And they are still around. Again, too big to fail also equals too big to succeed. Let GM die - fertilizer for smaller, leaner and better companies to suceed. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I've heard nothing of any attempts by the UAW to help GM with the problems. Do the members not care what happens to their jobs? Hell, I'd be doing some heavy talking, unless I knew GM was faking it. I liked your story. -- A Harry Krause truism: "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" |
End of the line?
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:24:42 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
Beats me. It works though and I have test measurements to back it up. A "plasma" is not completely understood by the scientific community, although it happens all around us. The visible flash of a lightning bolt or the light emitted from a fluorescent bulb are plasmas. Many consider it a completely unique state of matter and when applied in certain hardware configurations can do some strange things. Anyway, I have to think about this some more. 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. |
End of the line?
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in message ... 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 Now you need to work on converting heat into electrical energy with a resultant gain. I know you can do it. ;-) |
End of the line?
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Boater" wrote in message ... Well, you are way, way over my head on this one. I did build a working cloud chamber in the 7th grade and can tell you precisely how to build one now. But a plasma energy generator? My first thought would be a device vampires could use to regenerate energy in tired blood. :) Ahem .... ummmm..... not to toot my horn, but I actually have a couple of patents on the device, used for another application. It works. Problem is ... I don't. Eisboch addendum... I had forgotten about this thing for years. Although I had sorta day dreamed about other applications, like home heating, I was too busy trying to make a living to pursue it. Plus, the time wasn't right. Energy was cheap and even if I had the financial where-with-all at the time to develop it, it probably wouldn't catch anybody's attention. But ... things have changed. I'll have to go dig out the old notebooks and re-visit it. Eisboch If you can come up with a way to heat homes more efficiently, come on up here. I'm sure the different Federal and Provincial development agencies would have money to invest if you do the work in Canada. |
End of the line?
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. |
End of the line?
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. |
End of the line?
"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 |
End of the line?
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? |
End of 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. |
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 Does this mean you'll be giving up the limo and sound equipment rental business? 8) |
End of the line?
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. |
End of the line?
"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 |
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. There is the way I typed it. Eisboch |
End of the line?
"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. |
End of the line?
"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. |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com