113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:02:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:57:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:14:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

The strength of hybrids comes from good acceleration with a relatively
small engine. That does not compute for constant speed/constant power
applications like a boat.

I'm not at all sure about that.

I read somewhere recently that the new diesel/electric hybrid freight
train engines are so damn efficient it's scary. I think, and I can't
remember the exact figures (maybe somebody who can make Google sing
can find it please?), it was 480 tons for 30 miles on one gallon of
diesel.

Again, that's the way I remember it - it was on Discovery one evening
and I was half paying attention, but I think that's pretty close to
what they said.

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://tinyurl.com/2p6p2t

or maybe this one:

http://tinyurl.com/jnuxz

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:11:29 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.




Let them complain.

And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess. The
Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is to be
paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to have
cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking is
declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as will
the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


Besides, the population with the greatest percent of smokers is the poor.
There is one political group which seems to forget that. Maybe the
rationale is to make them poorer, and then tax the rich even more to
redistribute the wealth. That would make good sense.

http://tinyurl.com/2pl7p9

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:11:22 -0500, BAR wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax
for boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be
sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than,
say, 40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close
to that. But there are others that would complain because offshore
fishing is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot
invested in it.



Let them complain.
And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to
excess. The Govenator's new universal health plan for children in
California is to be paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it
is a good thing to have cheap universal insurance, then let everyone
pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22.
Smoking is declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten
the decline as will the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I don't see the correlation between smoking and health costs? I quite
smoking when I was 40, after 29 years of two to three, packs a day. I
was sick usually two days a year, never saw a doctor unless a bone was
broken. Then after I quit smoking I fell apart. Back, neck, foot, and
many other things.

I am sure there are some who would prefer that all rec. boating be
outlawed as it is waste of limited resources. I guess we can all buy
sailboats w/o a iron gennie.

If they can penalize half of the boaters now it will be easier to
penalize all of the boaters later. Once the camel gets its nose under
the tent its body soon follows.

You were lucky as a smoker. After two bouts of pneumonia and a diagnosis of
emphysema, I finally got smart enough to quit. Haven't had pneumonia since,
and the emphysema hasn't gotten any worse. Of course, the cholesterol and
blood sugar are both higher, but there has to be some bad with the good.

Golf, if walking, is good for cholesterol and blood sugar problems, BTW.

Another BTW - I've a brother coming up from NC and another flying in from
Seattle this evening. We're planning five days of mid-November golf, and I
think we lucked out in the weather department!

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:25:42 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:27:20 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:02:43 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

If the setup allows the diesel engine to run at a constant, optimum RPM,
regardless of vehicle speed (as diesels are really designed to do) there
will be a gain in efficiency.

Yes, and that's important on a train, it's likely having a
continuously variable transmission that allows the engine to run at an
efficient speed regardless of the actual load. On a boat running at a
more or less constant cruising speed, running at the right RPM is a
function of reduction gear ratios and prop pitch. Once you get those
two factors set correctly they will stay that way in most cases. The
one exception that comes to mind is slowing down for rough seas but
real men in real boats don't do that do they? :-)

So why wouldn't it work on a larger boat?

Like Wayne pointed out, usually on large diesel boats you run them at a
constant speed most of the time anyway, hopefully at an optimum RPM for prop
pitch, cruising speed and fuel efficiency.

I was thinking more of hybrid cars and trucks that run at varying speeds. A
small, biofuel diesel would run at a constant RPM, turning an alternator
that charges a battery bank.

Yeah - It's slowly sinking in that it might not work.

I just hate giving up on the idea though. :)

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:54:35 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Nov 11, 11:26 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..





wrote:

You want to reform the tax codes? Exempt the poor, however that is
defined, and then tax *all* income from, say, $50,000 to $100,000 at 10%,
all income above that to $250,000 at 15%, all income above that to
$500,000 at 20%, all income above that to $1,000,000 at 25%, and any
income above $1,000,000 at 49%.

No deductions. No shifting of money coming in to other categories so it
isn't considered income.

Oh, and supervised bookkeeping for corporations. No funny business with
the books. And income tax on corporate profits, too.

Every entity pays.

Churches, too.

Not bad. I'd probably support that.

I have a general question though. Why the stepped increases for higher
incomes?
The person/family making 100k in your plan pays 10k in taxes. A
person/family making 250k pays over three times the taxes (32.5k) but only
earned 2.5 times as much. Just curious as to your reasoning.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Richard, I'd say it's probably like having a boat with 4 300 hp.
outboards, fuel consumption at half throttle is a set standard, and
full throttle, consumption is well over double that standard.

go figure.

My wife got a raise which i thought was substantial, now she takes
home less than she did, because she's now in a higher bracket.

go figure.

I look at it like this, the more you make the higher percentage you
are taxed, which I think gives less of an incintive to suceed. What's
the point of working harder if you are going to enjoy less of the
financial benefits.


The French finally figured that out.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:37:31 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

It will work but there is little or nothing to gain unless the boat
runs at a variety of different speeds and/or the engines exceed the
ability of reasonably sized mechanical transmissions. Diesel-Electric
is considerably more expensive than a mechanical transmission and is
not cost effective in boats with less than locomotive sized engines.

Ok - so if Navistar can make this work for utility lift trucks with
that kind of efficiency, would they work in boats?

I don't think so. Utlity lift trucks are constantly changing speeds,
most boats do not.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Don White wrote:



The thing I find crazy...every year the outboard manufacturers bring out a
bigger & more powerful engine.
When will it ever stop?



Those larger OB's often replace twins that are heavier and burn more fuel.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:11:29 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

snippity-snip

And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess. The
Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is to be
paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to have
cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking is
declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as will
the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


Kansas decided to ride the tobacco tax windfall and raised the taxes
by a huge amount. Missouri next door left the tobacco taxes alone.
Kansas lost their asses while Missouri gained a huge tax proffit
because the eastern half of Kansas was going to Missouri to buy
cigaretts. Greed? LOL
Kansas even tried laws and border checks until they got their asses
sued over it.
Mark E. Williams

113 gallons per hour...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:54:35 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Nov 11, 11:26 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..





wrote:

You want to reform the tax codes? Exempt the poor, however that is
defined, and then tax *all* income from, say, $50,000 to $100,000 at
10%,
all income above that to $250,000 at 15%, all income above that to
$500,000 at 20%, all income above that to $1,000,000 at 25%, and any
income above $1,000,000 at 49%.

No deductions. No shifting of money coming in to other categories so
it
isn't considered income.

Oh, and supervised bookkeeping for corporations. No funny business
with
the books. And income tax on corporate profits, too.

Every entity pays.

Churches, too.

Not bad. I'd probably support that.

I have a general question though. Why the stepped increases for higher
incomes?
The person/family making 100k in your plan pays 10k in taxes. A
person/family making 250k pays over three times the taxes (32.5k) but
only
earned 2.5 times as much. Just curious as to your reasoning.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Richard, I'd say it's probably like having a boat with 4 300 hp.
outboards, fuel consumption at half throttle is a set standard, and
full throttle, consumption is well over double that standard.

go figure.

My wife got a raise which i thought was substantial, now she takes
home less than she did, because she's now in a higher bracket.
go figure.



Something doesn't compute. Even though a raise in salary can put you in a
higher tax bracket I just can't think of how your net, after tax income can
be lower than before the salary increase.

The tax rate for the new bracket would have to be 100%.




I look at it like this, the more you make the higher percentage you
are taxed, which I think gives less of an incintive to suceed. What's
the point of working harder if you are going to enjoy less of the
financial benefits.


The French finally figured that out.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
..

I just hate giving up on the idea though. :)

I am sure you won't.