RE: [Texascavers] computer progress

[Stefan Creaser]

Read Ben Elton's book "Gridlock". It's been a while since i read it and
i can't remember everything in it, but i recall the plot line was
something like this...
 
Cheers,
Stefan



From: Louise Power [mailto:power_lou...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 2:24 PM
To: Nico Escamilla
Cc: John P. Brooks; Robert Tait; Don Cooper; Mixon Bill; Cavers, Texas
Subject: RE: [Texascavers] computer progress


Well
 
Looked for that story in Snopes, but didn't find it, but sounds like the
punchline to a shaggy dog story to me. Not to impune the honesty of your
neighbor, but...
 
Louise  <http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w2/ltr/../emoticons/snail.gif> 
 




List-Post: texascavers@texascavers.com
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:32:55 -0600
From: pitboun...@gmail.com
To: power_lou...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] computer progress
CC: jpbrook...@sbcglobal.net; tai...@gmail.com; wavyca...@gmail.com;
bmixon...@austin.rr.com; texascavers@texascavers.com

According to my neighbor which is a diesel mechanic with many decades of
experience, he met a
guy in Tampico that had made an engine that ran on saltwater, a couple
months later the guy 
was found mysteriously dead in his house. 




On Dec 10, 2007 11:03 AM, Louise Power
 wrote:


  Maybe we should be looking again for the one that runs
on water.
 
Louise 





-- 
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium.  Thank you.

RE: [Texascavers] computer progress

[Louise Power]

Well
 
Looked for that story in Snopes, but didn't find it, but sounds like the 
punchline to a shaggy dog story to me. Not to impune the honesty of your 
neighbor, but...
 
Louise 
 



List-Post: texascavers@texascavers.com
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:32:55 -0600From: pitbouncer@gmail.comTo: 
power_louise@hotmail.comSubject: Re: [Texascavers] computer progressCC: 
jpbrook...@sbcglobal.net; tai...@gmail.com; wavyca...@gmail.com; 
bmixon...@austin.rr.com; texascavers@texascavers.comAccording to my neighbor 
which is a diesel mechanic with many decades of experience, he met aguy in 
Tampico that had made an engine that ran on saltwater, a couple months later 
the guy was found mysteriously dead in his house. 

On Dec 10, 2007 11:03 AM, Louise Power  wrote:

  Maybe we should be looking again for the one that runs on water. Louise 


List-Post: texascavers@texascavers.com
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:00:41 -0600From: jpbrooks01@sbcglobal.netTo: 
tai...@gmail.com; wavyca...@gmail.com; bmixon...@austin.rr.comCC: 
Texascavers@texascavers.comSubject: Re: [Texascavers] computer progress 


Wasn't the "bat mobile" turbine powered? If Batman had a turbine back in the 
60's.it seems like the vigilante police industry would have created a 
consumer version by now. Seriously, they could create super-heroesque consumer 
vehicles and provide jobs and real job training for ex-themed psychotic 
villians that were seriously altered in radiation related accidents...and our 
streets would be safer as a result. On 12/7/07 11:46 PM, "Robert Tait" 
 wrote:
Turbine cars have been around since 1950, on and off.  They were all custom and 
impracticalmostly. Chrysler built 50 turbine cars and did customer trials 
in '65. 
http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtmlhttp://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/classic_concept_cars/chrysler_turbine_car.html
 GM made a few EV-1 electrics with turbine chargers.The cool thing about the 
old turbine engines is that they would burn about anything, gas, jp4, paraffin. 
I'm not sure about carbide. Makes getting fuel easier on those backwater cave 
trips.  (no longer off topic.. ) Turbines are getting very small. Hand held 
prototypes are being tested.  Microturbines are available from Honeywell, and 
GE (although in this case Micro the size of a small shed with generator and 
support gear)Exotic materials that can withstand high temperatures and high 
tolerances are factors in high cost.They may make a comeback yet!CheersRob, in 
upstate NYAt 04:57 PM 12/7/2007, Don Cooper wrote: 
Through the years I've crossed my fingers and held high hopes that the same 
thing would occur with the logical replacement for the internal combustion 
engine (IMO) : the small gas turbine. If large gas turbines can operate at 80% 
efficiency and piston combustion engines are limited to a maximum of 23% by the 
physics of the otto cycle - then what's achievable is better than what we got!  
And with composites, ceramics and the brains for real-time digital automation 
control becoming cheaper than a cup of coffee - I still am wondering why are 
such engines not available (well, except for $200,000 replacement turbine 
powerplants for when the six cylinder horizontally opposed, air-cooled 520 cu 
inch engine in your Cessna 185 wears out). Also there is a new alternate 
powerplant available for small aircraft which uses jet fuel, but is a 
two-stroke piston engine - it's more efficient than a Continental aircraft 
engine - it costs $75,000.Progress, sure.  A little. Digital control of the 
gasoline engine does a WHOLE lot to improve efficiency of the old standard 
truck or car motor.  But powerplant technology seems really pushed to the 
cutting edge in building humongous airliner-moving jet engines - not small 
affordable mass-produced engines.   I like to imagine a nice little car that is 
an absolutely true hybrid and runs on a small generator powered by a tiny fuel 
efficient gasoline/diesel/alcohol/LNG turbine.  It would cost millions to build 
one, but if millions were built - I'd bet they'd be affordable. -WaV.  
Boycotting the limited selection, and keeping alive the obsolete dinosaurs I 
already have.On Dec 7, 2007 1:33 PM, Mixon Bill < bmixon...@austin.rr.com 
<mailto:bmixon...@austin.rr.com> > wrote:I could bore everybody to tears with 
oldtime computer stories. When I started out as a programmer, memory cost a 
dollar (a 1960 dollar) a byte. Of course back then there was no such thing as a 
megabyte ofmemory. IBM mainframes had a quarter of a 
megabyte.- 
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: 
texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] computer progress

[Nico Escamilla]

According to my neighbor which is a diesel mechanic with many decades of
experience, he met a
guy in Tampico that had made an engine that ran on saltwater, a couple
months later the guy
was found mysteriously dead in his house.

On Dec 10, 2007 11:03 AM, Louise Power  wrote:

>   Maybe we should be looking again for the one that runs on water.
>
> Louise
>
>
>  --
> Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:00:41 -0600
> From: jpbrook...@sbcglobal.net
> To: tai...@gmail.com; wavyca...@gmail.com; bmixon...@austin.rr.com
> CC: Texascavers@texascavers.com
> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] computer progress
>
>
> Wasn't the "bat mobile" turbine powered? If Batman had a turbine back in
> the 60's.it seems like the vigilante police industry would have created
> a consumer version by now. Seriously, they could create super-heroesque
> consumer vehicles and provide jobs and real job training for ex-themed
> psychotic villians that were seriously altered in radiation related
> accidents...and our streets would be safer as a result.
>
> On 12/7/07 11:46 PM, "Robert Tait"  wrote:
>
> Turbine cars have been around since 1950, on and off.  They were all
> custom and impracticalmostly. Chrysler built 50 turbine cars and did
> customer trials in '65.
>
> http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml
>
>
> http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/classic_concept_cars/chrysler_turbine_car.html
>
> GM made a few EV-1 electrics with turbine chargers.
>
> The cool thing about the old turbine engines is that they would burn about
> anything, gas, jp4, paraffin. I'm not sure about carbide. Makes getting fuel
> easier on those backwater cave trips.  (no longer off topic.. )
>
> Turbines are getting very small. Hand held prototypes are being tested.
>  Microturbines are available from Honeywell, and GE (although in this case
> Micro the size of a small shed with generator and support gear)
>
> Exotic materials that can withstand high temperatures and high tolerances
> are factors in high cost.
>
> They may make a comeback yet!
>
> Cheers
>
> Rob, in upstate NY
>
>
> At 04:57 PM 12/7/2007, Don Cooper wrote:
>
> Through the years I've crossed my fingers and held high hopes that the
> same thing would occur with the logical replacement for the internal
> combustion engine (IMO) : the small gas turbine.
> If large gas turbines can operate at 80% efficiency and piston combustion
> engines are limited to a maximum of 23% by the physics of the otto cycle -
> then what's achievable is better than what we got!  And with composites,
> ceramics and the brains for real-time digital automation control becoming
> cheaper than a cup of coffee - I still am wondering why are such engines not
> available (well, except for $200,000 replacement turbine powerplants for
> when the six cylinder horizontally opposed, air-cooled 520 cu inch engine in
> your Cessna 185 wears out).
> Also there is a new alternate powerplant available for small aircraft
> which uses jet fuel, but is a two-stroke piston engine - it's more efficient
> than a Continental aircraft engine - it costs $75,000.
> Progress, sure.  A little. Digital control of the gasoline engine does a
> WHOLE lot to improve efficiency of the old standard truck or car motor.  But
> powerplant technology seems really pushed to the cutting edge in building
> humongous airliner-moving jet engines - not small affordable mass-produced
> engines.
>
> I like to imagine a nice little car that is an absolutely true hybrid and
> runs on a small generator powered by a tiny fuel efficient
> gasoline/diesel/alcohol/LNG turbine.  It would cost millions to build one,
> but if millions were built - I'd bet they'd be affordable.
>
> -WaV.
> Boycotting the limited selection, and keeping alive the obsolete dinosaurs
> I already have.
>
> On Dec 7, 2007 1:33 PM, Mixon Bill < bmixon...@austin.rr.com
> <mailto:bmixon...@austin.rr.com>  > wrote:
> I could bore everybody to tears with oldtime computer stories. When I
> started out as a programmer, memory cost a dollar (a 1960 dollar) a
> byte. Of course back then there was no such thing as a megabyte of
> memory. IBM mainframes had a quarter of a megabyte.
>
> -
> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail:
> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
>
>
>

RE: [Texascavers] computer progress

[Louise Power]

I'm just waiting for the electric car with a battery that will last more than 
200 miles. Would make it more practical to drive to Texas. Maybe we should be 
looking again for the one that runs on water.
 
Louise 


List-Post: texascavers@texascavers.com
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 13:00:41 -0600From: jpbrooks01@sbcglobal.netTo: 
tai...@gmail.com; wavyca...@gmail.com; bmixon...@austin.rr.comCC: 
Texascavers@texascavers.comSubject: Re: [Texascavers] computer progress
Wasn’t the “bat mobile” turbine powered? If Batman had a turbine back in the 
60’s.it seems like the vigilante police industry would have created a 
consumer version by now. Seriously, they could create super-heroesque consumer 
vehicles and provide jobs and real job training for ex-themed psychotic 
villians that were seriously altered in radiation related accidents...and our 
streets would be safer as a result.On 12/7/07 11:46 PM, "Robert Tait" 
 wrote:
Turbine cars have been around since 1950, on and off.  They were all custom and 
impracticalmostly. Chrysler built 50 turbine cars and did customer trials 
in 
'65.http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtmlhttp://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/classic_concept_cars/chrysler_turbine_car.html
 GM made a few EV-1 electrics with turbine chargers.The cool thing about the 
old turbine engines is that they would burn about anything, gas, jp4, paraffin. 
I'm not sure about carbide. Makes getting fuel easier on those backwater cave 
trips.  (no longer off topic.. )Turbines are getting very small. Hand held 
prototypes are being tested.  Microturbines are available from Honeywell, and 
GE (although in this case Micro the size of a small shed with generator and 
support gear)Exotic materials that can withstand high temperatures and high 
tolerances are factors in high cost.They may make a comeback yet!CheersRob, in 
upstate NYAt 04:57 PM 12/7/2007, Don Cooper wrote:
Through the years I've crossed my fingers and held high hopes that the same 
thing would occur with the logical replacement for the internal combustion 
engine (IMO) : the small gas turbine.If large gas turbines can operate at 80% 
efficiency and piston combustion engines are limited to a maximum of 23% by the 
physics of the otto cycle - then what's achievable is better than what we got!  
And with composites, ceramics and the brains for real-time digital automation 
control becoming cheaper than a cup of coffee - I still am wondering why are 
such engines not available (well, except for $200,000 replacement turbine 
powerplants for when the six cylinder horizontally opposed, air-cooled 520 cu 
inch engine in your Cessna 185 wears out). Also there is a new alternate 
powerplant available for small aircraft which uses jet fuel, but is a 
two-stroke piston engine - it's more efficient than a Continental aircraft 
engine - it costs $75,000.Progress, sure.  A little. Digital control of the 
gasoline engine does a WHOLE lot to improve efficiency of the old standard 
truck or car motor.  But powerplant technology seems really pushed to the 
cutting edge in building humongous airliner-moving jet engines - not small 
affordable mass-produced engines.  I like to imagine a nice little car that is 
an absolutely true hybrid and runs on a small generator powered by a tiny fuel 
efficient gasoline/diesel/alcohol/LNG turbine.  It would cost millions to build 
one, but if millions were built - I'd bet they'd be affordable. -WaV.  
Boycotting the limited selection, and keeping alive the obsolete dinosaurs I 
already have.On Dec 7, 2007 1:33 PM, Mixon Bill < bmixon...@austin.rr.com 
<mailto:bmixon...@austin.rr.com> > wrote:I could bore everybody to tears with 
oldtime computer stories. When I started out as a programmer, memory cost a 
dollar (a 1960 dollar) abyte. Of course back then there was no such thing as a 
megabyte ofmemory. IBM mainframes had a quarter of a 
megabyte.- 
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: 
texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] computer progress

[John P. Brooks]

Wasn¹t the ³bat mobile² turbine powered? If Batman had a turbine back in the
60¹s.it seems like the vigilante police industry would have created a
consumer version by now. Seriously, they could create super-heroesque
consumer vehicles and provide jobs and real job training for ex-themed
psychotic villians that were seriously altered in radiation related
accidents...and our streets would be safer as a result.

On 12/7/07 11:46 PM, "Robert Tait"  wrote:

> Turbine cars have been around since 1950, on and off.  They were all custom
> and impracticalmostly. Chrysler built 50 turbine cars and did customer
> trials in '65.
> 
> http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml
> 
> http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/classic_concept_cars/chrysler_turbine_c
> ar.html 
> 
> GM made a few EV-1 electrics with turbine chargers.
> 
> The cool thing about the old turbine engines is that they would burn about
> anything, gas, jp4, paraffin. I'm not sure about carbide. Makes getting fuel
> easier on those backwater cave trips.  (no longer off topic.. )
> 
> Turbines are getting very small. Hand held prototypes are being tested.
> Microturbines are available from Honeywell, and GE (although in this case
> Micro the size of a small shed with generator and support gear)
> 
> Exotic materials that can withstand high temperatures and high tolerances are
> factors in high cost.
> 
> They may make a comeback yet!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Rob, in upstate NY
> 
> 
> At 04:57 PM 12/7/2007, Don Cooper wrote:
>> Through the years I've crossed my fingers and held high hopes that the same
>> thing would occur with the logical replacement for the internal combustion
>> engine (IMO) : the small gas turbine.
>> If large gas turbines can operate at 80% efficiency and piston combustion
>> engines are limited to a maximum of 23% by the physics of the otto cycle -
>> then what's achievable is better than what we got!  And with composites,
>> ceramics and the brains for real-time digital automation control becoming
>> cheaper than a cup of coffee - I still am wondering why are such engines not
>> available (well, except for $200,000 replacement turbine powerplants for when
>> the six cylinder horizontally opposed, air-cooled 520 cu inch engine in your
>> Cessna 185 wears out).
>> Also there is a new alternate powerplant available for small aircraft which
>> uses jet fuel, but is a two-stroke piston engine - it's more efficient than a
>> Continental aircraft engine - it costs $75,000.
>> Progress, sure.  A little. Digital control of the gasoline engine does a
>> WHOLE lot to improve efficiency of the old standard truck or car motor.  But
>> powerplant technology seems really pushed to the cutting edge in building
>> humongous airliner-moving jet engines - not small affordable mass-produced
>> engines.  
>> 
>> I like to imagine a nice little car that is an absolutely true hybrid and
>> runs on a small generator powered by a tiny fuel efficient
>> gasoline/diesel/alcohol/LNG turbine.  It would cost millions to build one,
>> but if millions were built - I'd bet they'd be affordable.
>> 
>> -WaV.  
>> Boycotting the limited selection, and keeping alive the obsolete dinosaurs I
>> already have.
>> 
>> On Dec 7, 2007 1:33 PM, Mixon Bill < bmixon...@austin.rr.com
>>  > wrote:
>> I could bore everybody to tears with oldtime computer stories. When I
>> started out as a programmer, memory cost a dollar (a 1960 dollar) a
>> byte. Of course back then there was no such thing as a megabyte of
>> memory. IBM mainframes had a quarter of a megabyte.
>> 
>> - Visit
>> our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail:
>> texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] computer progress

[Nancy Weaver]

so how do you know someone 'didnt' go back with a contemporary computer?

hmmm

Nance

-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] computer progress

[Robert Tait]

Turbine cars have been around since 1950, on and off.  They were all
custom and impracticalmostly. Chrysler built 50 turbine cars and did
customer trials in '65.

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml

http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/classic_concept_cars/chrysler_turbine_car.html

GM made a few EV-1 electrics with turbine chargers.
The cool thing about the old turbine engines is that they would burn
about anything, gas, jp4, paraffin. I'm not sure about carbide. 
Makes getting fuel easier on those backwater cave trips.  (no longer
off topic.. )
Turbines are getting very small. Hand held prototypes are being
tested.  Microturbines are available from Honeywell, and GE
(although in this case Micro the size of a small shed with generator and
support gear)
Exotic materials that can withstand high temperatures and high tolerances
are factors in high cost.
They may make a comeback yet!
Cheers
Rob, in upstate NY

At 04:57 PM 12/7/2007, Don Cooper wrote:
Through the years I've crossed
my fingers and held high hopes that the same thing would occur with the
logical replacement for the internal combustion engine (IMO) : the small
gas turbine.
If large gas turbines can operate at 80% efficiency and piston combustion
engines are limited to a maximum of 23% by the physics of the otto cycle
- then what's achievable is better than what we got!  And with
composites, ceramics and the brains for real-time digital automation
control becoming cheaper than a cup of coffee - I still am wondering why
are such engines not available (well, except for $200,000 replacement
turbine powerplants for when the six cylinder horizontally opposed,
air-cooled 520 cu inch engine in your Cessna 185 wears out). 
Also there is a new alternate powerplant available for small aircraft
which uses jet fuel, but is a two-stroke piston engine - it's more
efficient than a Continental aircraft engine - it costs $75,000.
Progress, sure.  A little. Digital control of the gasoline engine
does a WHOLE lot to improve efficiency of the old standard truck or car
motor.  But powerplant technology seems really pushed to the cutting
edge in building humongous airliner-moving jet engines - not small
affordable mass-produced engines.  
I like to imagine a nice little car that is an absolutely true hybrid and
runs on a small generator powered by a tiny fuel efficient
gasoline/diesel/alcohol/LNG turbine.  It would cost millions to
build one, but if millions were built - I'd bet they'd be affordable.

-WaV.  
Boycotting the limited selection, and keeping alive the obsolete
dinosaurs I already have.
On Dec 7, 2007 1:33 PM, Mixon Bill
<
bmixon...@austin.rr.com> wrote:


I could bore everybody to tears with oldtime computer stories. When I


started out as a programmer, memory cost a dollar (a 1960 dollar)
a

byte. Of course back then there was no such thing as a megabyte
of

memory. IBM mainframes had a quarter of a megabyte.





-
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com
For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com

Re: [Texascavers] computer progress

[Don Cooper]

Through the years I've crossed my fingers and held high hopes that the same
thing would occur with the logical replacement for the internal combustion
engine (IMO) : the small gas turbine.
If large gas turbines can operate at 80% efficiency and piston combustion
engines are limited to a maximum of 23% by the physics of the otto cycle -
then what's achievable is better than what we got!  And with composites,
ceramics and the brains for real-time digital automation control becoming
cheaper than a cup of coffee - I still am wondering why are such engines not
available (well, except for $200,000 replacement turbine powerplants for
when the six cylinder horizontally opposed, air-cooled 520 cu inch engine in
your Cessna 185 wears out).
Also there is a new alternate powerplant available for small aircraft which
uses jet fuel, but is a two-stroke piston engine - it's more efficient than
a Continental aircraft engine - it costs $75,000.
Progress, sure.  A little. Digital control of the gasoline engine does a
WHOLE lot to improve efficiency of the old standard truck or car motor.  But
powerplant technology seems really pushed to the cutting edge in building
humongous airliner-moving jet engines - not small affordable mass-produced
engines.

I like to imagine a nice little car that is an absolutely true hybrid and
runs on a small generator powered by a tiny fuel efficient
gasoline/diesel/alcohol/LNG turbine.  It would cost millions to build one,
but if millions were built - I'd bet they'd be affordable.

-WaV.
Boycotting the limited selection, and keeping alive the obsolete dinosaurs I
already have.

On Dec 7, 2007 1:33 PM, Mixon Bill  wrote:

> I could bore everybody to tears with oldtime computer stories. When I
> started out as a programmer, memory cost a dollar (a 1960 dollar) a
> byte. Of course back then there was no such thing as a megabyte of
> memory. IBM mainframes had a quarter of a megabyte.
>