Time article about Saudi Arabia

Post #47,330 by SpiceWare 7/29/02 11:20:02 AM Reply	Time article about Saudi Arabia [link\|http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,331980,00.html\|Do We Still Need the Saudis?] People in Saudi Arabia are sick of talking about Sept. 11. They have little interest in examining why 15 of their countrymen hijacked U.S. commercial planes and killed 3,000 civilians; many prefer to believe that the attacks were the work of the CIA or the Mossad, and that the 15 hijackers were unwitting players in someone else's plot. "They were just bodies," a senior government official says. ... But while Saudis remain uninterested\ufffdor perhaps they're in a state of denial\ufffdin the level of Saudi participation in Sept. 11, the country seethes with open loathing for the U.S. and sympathy for bin Laden's cause. ... But Saudi Arabia controls 30% of the world's known oil reserves. And so for years, in the interest of maintaining the world's supply of crude, Washington has ignored evidence that the ruling Sauds are allowing the country's powerful religious leaders to propagate anti-Western hate. "If the Saudis sold onions instead of oil," says Gregory Gause, a Saudi expert at the University of Vermont, "we would be talking about how to isolate them." ... Should the U.S. not be talking about that anyway? In the aftermath of Sept. 11, it's worth asking whether America truly still needs the Saudis. In economic and strategic terms, the U.S. can probably manage without them. Saudi Arabia today provides only 8% of the oil consumed by Americans. It accounts for 15% of the U.S.'s crude-oil imports, less than half the amount the U.S. imports from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. ... "If we sort out Iraq and Detroit develops a hydrogen engine," says a U.S. diplomat, "Saudi Arabia will go back to being a fascinating, benighted part of the world that people don't visit." ... Interesting article. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #47,394 by Ashton 7/29/02 5:25:27 PM Reply	Even prior to 9/11, have occasionally wondered if many Muricans ever became exasperated (?) with the frequent smarmy comments by our Presidents re ~ "our Arab friends, the Saudis" [absurd as That notion - also implying that: the ibn Saud ruling family represented anything like the ordinary sentiments of even the Saudi-Arabian % of the Arab population!] Could there be Any relations among nation-states without a 90% lie-content within every exchange? {Sheesh} no wonder bizness is like war is like 'diplomacy' is like ____: eternal lies. Our most predictable common Heritage\ufffd ? Newt shaking Clinton's hand re election finance reform! ('94 was it?) Arafat.. shaking (anyone's) hand! Pope apologizes for the Inquisition, sorta! Bush-I emissary tells Saddam: 'not to worry' about invading Kuwait! Ashton The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves that make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them that we are missing. --Gamel Abdel Nasser (Ric Locke)
Post #47,411 by dmarker2 7/29/02 8:54:45 PM Reply	Re: 'If we sort out Iraq ' What a cute way the article has of rephrasing the obvious... Rephrased: 'If we sieze control of Iraqi oil'. With Iraq's & Kuwait's reserves being as big as they are Cheers Doug
Post #47,412 by Ashton 7/29/02 9:16:32 PM Reply	Now Doug..__ we don't want it for ourselves! We just want to make sure that Evul Saddam (who after all - embarrassed a Resident's father! by not conveniently dying earlier) doesn't get to use it. I'm sure that when we have recaptured these fields "For All Mankind", we'll distribute the Corp profits everywhere from.. Albania to Zaire. Trust Us. Ashton
Post #47,425 by dmarker2 7/29/02 11:26:25 PM Reply	Re: Yup, I forgot - silly me - its the New World Order .. Bush to aides - "Place a new world order for me for 1 Afghanistan pipeline, 1 One East Timor oilfield 1 Iraq complete with oilfileds 1 Uzbekistan oil supplier Also prepare long term new world orders for 1 Iran complete with oil fields, & if y'all can pull it off ... 1 North Korea complete with oil fields Also please get back to me with that final report on the oil reserves off the coast of Taiwan, we may well need that for future new world orders" Cheers Doug (PS - one other thought re invasion of Iraq is that maybe US intelligence has pinpointed Saudi Arabia as a future crisis anti-US flash point & US needs to hedge its bets by grabbing Iraq so that when the OBL inspired Saudi revolution comes, the US has been able to swap the shortfall in stable oil suppy at Saddam's expense.)
Post #47,429 by altmann 7/29/02 11:51:38 PM Reply	Interesting Idea. Invade Iraq from Saudi Arabia. Install a more compliant regime. Then when it hits the fan in SA turn the tanks around and do it again in the other direction. -- Chris Altmann
Post #47,434 by Ashton 7/30/02 1:10:49 AM Reply	"The Warfare State" - book title I recall - now lost on Google amidst a plethora of similarly titled sites, articles, etc. As we are indeed the largest armaments supplier to the world + all recent events: We be It. Loved title of Gore Vidal's latest, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace. I don't think we have the foggiest idea what 'peace' might be for, except seen as a negative: a great loss of income from war Corp sales, and of all those other ABM-like sources of Corp welfare at the expense of the masses. So far there's little sign of this scam ever being seen for the scam it is (except for those who deem it not a scam but - the price of our rise to Imperial Power #1, of course). Ashton Anyone wanna bet that above scenarios are Not already on paper, and part of a collection labelled, Pending - in gold-leaf on a leather binder?
Post #47,459 by boxley 7/30/02 10:45:45 AM Reply	just because some arabs breed on top of it doesnt mean its not our oil. Thats the same argument used against Alaska Natives, should work there also. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #47,458 by jb4 7/30/02 10:32:38 AM Reply	Yeah, and Pigs will fly on alternate Tuesdays... "If we sort out Iraq and Detroit develops a hydrogen engine," says a U.S. diplomat, "SaudiArabia will go back to being a fascinating, benighted part of the world that people don't visit." {emphasis mine] Fat fucking chance! so long as Harken and Halliburton are (putatively) running things... jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #47,460 by dmarker2 7/30/02 10:49:12 AM Reply	Re: Hmmm - 1/2 pig already flying then :-) Detroit & Japan & Germany all have proven hydrogen engines. Last year at Oshkosh Wisconsin I was shown a hydrogen cell based aero engine. They also had the prototype airplane there as well. The only thing needed is for Detroit etc: to put them into mass production but that will require hydrogen pumps along side gas pumps. - guess Bush & cronies want to use up a bit more oil first before flooding the world with fuel cell cars. Issue though is that oil will be required fuel for jets & military craft. Hmmmmm Cheers Doug
Post #47,462 by admin 7/30/02 11:09:14 AM Reply	If cars go hydrogen... ... we'll have more than enough left over from our own reserves for a few warplanes. Is hydrogen suitable for jet fuel? Or is there not enough chemical energy there? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #47,465 by wharris2 7/30/02 11:22:34 AM Reply	Re: If cars go hydrogen... Isn't hydrogen still (comparatively) expensive to make and store? Short term, the hybrids (whether using fuel cells or something else) seem to have the edge. Even then the electricity has to come from somewhere. Start back on those nuclear plants, dudes! The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #47,557 by dmarker2 7/31/02 1:31:13 AM Reply	Re: Fuel Cell Vehicles - recent links & activity One way to get around the hydrogen storage is to use methanol in the fuel cells which extracts the hydrogen from the methanol. Methanol can be produced from waste - one company showed that old sweets (sugar based lollies) could be turned into methanol. Waste of some types can also be used. Links [link\|http://www.methanol.org/fuelcell/special/promise.html\|Executive Summary of The Promise of Methanol Fuel Cell Vehicles] [link\|http://www.methanol.org/fuelcell/\|DamilerChrysler cross USA trip June 2002] [link\|http://www.methanol.org/fuelcell/fact/dmfc.html\|Direct Methanol vs Hydrogen] Methanol explosive power can be boosted by adding nitrates. Methanol is the standard fuel for model aircraft using glo-plug engines. up to 20% nitrate can be added but the engines run very hot. Some racing fuel has methanol blended with it.
Post #47,467 by Andrew Grygus 7/30/02 11:46:39 AM Reply	Fortunately, oil can be manufactured I recall reading years ago of an experimental plant, around San Diego I think, that demonstrated that oil could be produced from garbage suprisingly rapidly at suitable temperature and pressure. As the world's largest producer of garbage, the U.S. would have a significant andvantage in production of jet fuel, maintaining our military superiority. Also, with the bulk of the world's mineral resources concentrated in American landfills, ready for convenient mining, we'll be sitting pretty. I can see it now - the battle between evil capitalist mining companies and preservationists as to whether landfills are valuable industrial resources or priceless depositories of human history. Of course those landfills are already environmentally imporant. Since the bulk of fill is paper and wood, they are taking vast amounts of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in the fight against global warming. Hmmm . . why are those GreenPeace vans pulling up out front . . . [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #47,480 by jb4 7/30/02 1:34:52 PM Reply	We've also got proven 100mpg carbs, too. Those suckers were demonstrated in middle '70s. How many of 'em do YOU see in production today? Me neither! QED jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #47,491 by wharris2 7/30/02 2:15:53 PM Reply	Right. There's only so much energy you can get out of a gallon of various fuels. I've read about those so-called 100 mpg carburators - and am skeptical of the veracity of the claims. The auto industry has no more desire to throw away money than any other industry. I remember some of their first efforts at higher-mileage cars, and they sucked dead bunnies. It wasn't just engine performance, it was total quality and general crap. It's going to take me quite a bit of convincing that they pushed that suckage out the door if a carburator would have given them 100 mpg. At least they'd have had high-mileage suckage. And it's hard for me to believe that Toyota and Honda and BMW and even the Yugo wouldn't have cleaned their clock in any way and every way they could have. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #47,502 by Ashton 7/30/02 3:03:33 PM Reply	~14.5:1 air / fuel ratio for gasoline. Period. ie No Such Thing\ufffd as "the 100 mpg carb." Old husband's tale(s). Your oxygen sensor closes the loop on Optimum fuel/air mix every 20-100 mSec. No crude 'carburetor' could come more than sorta close. Sorry but: all the auto conspiracies are in the same arena as all the Other$ - Corporate manipulation designed to... (Well - just examine the Profits on UAVs - biggest markup on a commodity in History? Certainly close-to.) We can have >35 mpg whenever Joe Sixpack ceases being Walter Mitty / Harrison Ford on alligators: and buying Dreams, not transport. Ashton
Post #47,512 by Simon_Jester 7/30/02 4:06:49 PM Reply	Well...we've had several cars that got 50+ mpg (iirc). They had lousy acceleration, were small and people didn't buy them, but they do exist. Getting 100+ mpg isn't impossible, as I suspect some [link\|http://www.spacecoastmotorcycle.com/tomos.shtml\|motorcycles] get close to that. [link\|http://www.rqriley.com/t-car.html\|(100 mpg+ cars exist too)] Of course, motorcycles aren't nearly as safe as cars either.
Post #47,514 by boxley 7/30/02 4:39:01 PM Reply	Steam works also [link\|http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/3589/efficiency.html\|steam engines] "Of course this is not an exact comparison. The differences, however, favor the steam car. Popular Science recently ran a chart showing that typical coefficients of aerodynamic drag of car bodies of the 1920s are about twice as high as those of modern cars. This means that for the same frontal area, a modern car has only half the air drag of a car of the 1920s. So the 1920s Stanley gets the same fuel mileage as a modern vehicle of the same weight and frontal area, while its engine is overcoming twice the air drag! Plus, for a given vehicle weight, the old-fashioned bias ply tires on a Stanley have higher rolling resistance than modern radial ply tires. This suggests that the 1920s Stanley powerplant is more efficient than its modern gas car equivalent. If a 1920s Stanley powerplant were installed in a modern SUV, truck, or van, it would have less rolling resistance and air drag to overcome than in the original Stanley body of the same weight and frontal area. That means it would use less horsepower and therefore get better fuel mileage than the 10-14 mpg it got in its original (1920s) vehicle. Since the gas engine gets 10-14 mpg in the modern vehicle, and the Stanley powerplant would get better than 10-14 mpg in the modern vehicle, that means the Stanley powerplant would give better fuel mileage than the modern gas powerplant, with both powerplants installed in identical vehicles!" Also burns almost anything from cow chips to kerosene. thanx, bill ."Once, in the wilds of Afghanistan, I had to subsist on food and water for several weeks." W.C. Fields
Post #47,523 by Simon_Jester 7/30/02 6:38:33 PM Reply	Well, if you want to go external combustion... you really should go with a [link\|http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/~amit/courses/371/abhishe/main.html\| Sterling Engine ] rather than steam. Live steam is fairly dangerous and the Sterling was developed in part to answer those dangers. Of course, Sterlings (like Steam Engines) do suffer from some problems. They're not instanteous (they have to heat up first), and they don't have the power curve that gasoline engines have. However, during the 1970's, Ford and other manufacturers did look at the [link\|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/CuttingEdge/cuttingedge011130.html\| sterling engines. ] [link\|http://www.motorshow.or.jp/eng/show/history/history_23.html\| Note the Nissan ]
Post #47,559 by dmarker2 7/31/02 2:17:06 AM Reply	Re: Stirling Engines - Still on the boil (links) Many years ago (1976) Ford had a 'Philips-Stirling' engine fitted to one of their standard Torino chassis models (see GM link below re engine), was 20% more fuel efficient than a standard engine of similar weight. Had fewer parts etc:. Started almost straight away (20 secs), but there was not enough advantage to change cars also they still require fuel although the range and types of fuel can vary significantly. [link\|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/Geek/geek000320.html\|Stirling & Miller Engines] This link below highlights the potential of HYBRID DRIVE vehicles where there is more than one type of engine. This may prove the direction the industry goes in. Here is a link based on research done by the big US vehicle mfgs. The article goes back to 1997 but shows how long the industry has been experimenting behind the scenes. [link\|http://www.uscar.org/techno/ng_power.htm\|USCAR ORG - HYBRID CARS] [link\|http://www.uscar.org/techno/hyb_gm.htm\|GM's Stirling Engine] Cheers Doug
Post #47,628 by Simon_Jester 7/31/02 2:08:10 PM Reply	Damn, I was LOOKING for that link! grrr....couldn't find it when I wanted it.
Post #47,690 by ben_tilly 7/31/02 10:30:19 PM Reply	Since this topic came up in another thread... The Innovator's Dilemma predicted that car makers would explore hybrids. But they would never really be popular, and would come to be looked at like today we look at the period where sailing ship builders put steam engines in their ships. The problem is that the technology still cannot meet the minimum needs for the existing market (for cars they lack range, acceleration, for ships lacked range) and won't for years. So you have to invent some alternate market to serve between now and then... Cheers, Ben "Perl is like vice grips. You can do anything with it, and it's the wrong tool for every job." --Unknown
Post #47,707 by Ashton 8/1/02 2:46:46 AM Reply	Boffo sig________fer a Perlmonk_________Aauuuummmmm
Post #47,526 by Andrew Grygus 7/30/02 6:56:22 PM Reply	Steam is unusable . . . . for the very simple reason that there is no replacement for water, and water freezes. Size of heat exchangers to condense spent steam is also a problem (the Stanley stopped for water). [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #47,513 by jb4 7/30/02 4:30:54 PM Reply	~14.5:1 air / fuel ratio for gasoline, semicolon... ...at what compression? In the 70's, we had a doohikus that would inject some small amount of water vapor into the mixture. Supposed to increase compression. Increased mileage about 10-15% if memory serves. jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #47,548 by Another Scott 7/30/02 11:45:07 PM Reply	Are you serious? :-) The [link\|http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_150.html\|Pogue carburetor] and water injectors and the like aren't magic. The Pogue carburator was a fraud. It's easy to get 30+ MPG out of a 330 HP 428 CID Mustang Mach I. It's easy to get 40+ MPG out of a Ford Expedition. You simply have to restrict the fuel available to the engine and you have to accelerate very slowly. E.g. in the Mach I the owner wired the secondaries of the 4 barrel carburator shut and soldered up the jets in the primary circuit then drilled it out with a smaller orifice. It ran like a turtle, but got much better mileage. It also blew a head gasket shortly thereafter (probably due to detonation). The best air/fuel ratio is set by the chemistry of gasoline combustion. It has nothing to do with the compression ratio. Emissions are lowest and efficiency is highest at [link\|http://www.forparts.com/emission.htm\|14.7 to 1] (by mass). Power in a gasoline engine is limited by the amount of oxygen in the cylinders, so for more power lower ratios (e.g. 12.5 to 1) are used to make sure all of the oxygen is used. Water injectors work in engines that suffer from premature buring of the fuel (pinging, detonation, etc.). It cools the input charge and makes the fuel more likely to be ignited at the proper time by the spark plug. It doesn't increase the compression (increasing compression make premature buring more likely). Water injection isn't terribly effective in engines that don't suffer from pinging. And water injection introduces various corrosion issues, possibly increased emissions, worries about oil dillution and increased wear, etc., etc. TANSTAAFL. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!