Do oil companies and car corpartions want alternatives

[revelarts]

The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) refers to the convictions in relation to a program by General Motors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors) (GM) and other companies who purchased and then dismantled streetcar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram) and electric train (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive) systems in many American cities.

Between 1936 to 1950, National City Lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines) and Pacific City Lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_City_Lines)—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_Tire), Standard Oil of California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_of_California), Phillips Petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Petroleum), Mack Trucks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_Trucks), and the Federal Engineering Corporation—bought over 100 electric surface-traction systems in 45 cities including Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore), Newark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark,_New_Jersey), Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles), New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City), Oakland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California) and San Diego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego) and converted them into bus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus) operation. Several of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29) to monopolize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) interstate commerce but were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Pacific-Electric-Red-Cars-Awaiting-Destruction.gif/375px-Pacific-Electric-Red-Cars-Awaiting-Destruction.gif
wiki
Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives

...Internal Combustion is the compelling tale of corruption and manipulation that subjected the United States and the world to an oil addiction that could have been avoided, that was never necessary, and that could be ended not in ten years, not in five years, but today.
Edwin Black, award-winning author of IBM and the Holocaust, has mined scores of corporate and governmental archives to assemble thousands of previously uncovered and long-forgotten documents and studies into this dramatic story. Black traces a continuum of rapacious energy cartels and special interests dating back nearly 5,000 years, from wood to coal to oil, and then to the bicycle and electric battery cartels of the 1890s, which created thousands of electric vehicles that plied American streets a century ago. But those noiseless and clean cars were scuttled by petroleum interests, despite the little-known efforts of Thomas Edison and Henry Ford to mass-produce electric cars powered by personal backyard energy stations. Black also documents how General Motors criminally conspired to undermine mass transit in dozens of cities and how Big Oil, Big Corn, and Big Coal have subverted synthetic fuels and other alternatives. He then brings the story full circle to the present-day oil crises, global warming, and beyond. Black showcases overlooked compressed-gas, electric, and hydrogen cars on the market today, as well as inexpensive all-function home energy units that could eliminate much oil usage. His eye-opening calls for a Manhattan Project and a new Green Fleet Initiative for immediate energy independence will help energize society to finally take action.
Internal Combustion, and its interactive Web site www.internalcombustionbook.com, have already generated a much-needed national debate. It should be read by every citizen who consumes oil—everyone. Internal Combustion can change everything, not by reinventing the wheel, but by excavating it from where it was buried a century ago...


http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Corporations-Governments-Alternatives/dp/B005SNNYVQ

who killed the electric car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENnSK8Q6nE

[Robert A Whit]

I have never read any argument that proves that the auto industry set out to destroy street cars.

I have read claims, but claims are not proof. Even telling a story is not proof.

The auto has a stupendous advantage. It can be kept at your home and immediately used. Should you need to go a mile in driving rain, you can just use the car. Streetcars are not found in front of all or many homes. Generally they ran down streets that were mostly for commerce. Most passengers, to get to a street car, must be taken there by car or they walk long distances.

The car was just a better idea. It seems logical that the auto industry purchases of streetcar lines was the auto industry wanting to diversy. Autos are machines. Streetcars are machines. The auto industry made airplanes and tanks and military trucks in ww 2 so making street cars would be another product. I think they discovered too late that people simply preferred autos and simply refused to use streetcars. Even today, current modern streetcars are sparsely used. Some areas are more suited to them, but in general one can see them operating and most of them are not very loaded with passengers.

Another thing, the public does not supply drivers with autos. But the public not only pays in taxes for streetcars, though they won't ever ride one, the passengers also pay fees that are simply too high.

[fj1200]

Do oil companies and car corpartions want alternatives

It doesn't matter as long as government is not in the position of creating a monopoly for one or restricting market entry to the other.

[revelarts]

It doesn't matter as long as government is not in the position of creating a monopoly for one or restricting market entry to the other.

I get the feeling that you don't consider the above events a "restriction".

[revelarts]

I have never read any argument that proves that the auto industry set out to destroy street cars.

I have read claims, but claims are not proof. Even telling a story is not proof.

The auto has a stupendous advantage. It can be kept at your home and immediately used. Should you need to go a mile in driving rain, you can just use the car. Streetcars are not found in front of all or many homes. Generally they ran down streets that were mostly for commerce. Most passengers, to get to a street car, must be taken there by car or they walk long distances.

The car was just a better idea. It seems logical that the auto industry purchases of streetcar lines was the auto industry wanting to diversy. Autos are machines. Streetcars are machines. The auto industry made airplanes and tanks and military trucks in ww 2 so making street cars would be another product. I think they discovered too late that people simply preferred autos and simply refused to use streetcars. Even today, current modern streetcars are sparsely used. Some areas are more suited to them, but in general one can see them operating and most of them are not very loaded with passengers.

Another thing, the public does not supply drivers with autos. But the public not only pays in taxes for streetcars, though they won't ever ride one, the passengers also pay fees that are simply too high.

you ought to read Edwin Blacks book he somehow gets docs from the car companies and from the oil companies archives and various records from city gov'ts and newspapers of the day. Then you have the trial records that show they were in collusion.
I'm not sure what else people want other than signed confessions from the players.


i mean If my brother owns a coffe shop and i own a doughnut shop THEN a bagel and tea shop opens up down the street and my brother and i buy that shop then start to selling only doughnuts and coffee there,
We may not have done anything illegal but to say that we didn't mean to put the bagel place out of biz and that the only reason there's no bagel shop in town is because doughnuts and coffee are sweeter and better would be naive.

[fj1200]

I get the feeling that you don't consider the above events a "restriction".

As with anything conspiratorial there is always something that raises questions. GM at the time had a bustling monopoly in building interstate and intracity buses which would make sense that they would convert to gas operation. That they also got lucky in having the Federal government invest massive amounts of money in the highway system which contributed to the car culture and suburbanization seems to be overlooked in the equation.

[Robert A Whit]

you ought to read Edwin Blacks book he somehow gets docs from the car companies and from the oil companies archives and various records from city gov'ts and newspapers of the day. Then you have the trial records that show they were in collusion.
I'm not sure what else people want other than signed confessions from the players.


i mean If my brother owns a coffe shop and i own a doughnut shop THEN a bagel and tea shop opens up down the street and my brother and i buy that shop then start to selling only doughnuts and coffee there,
We may not have done anything illegal but to say that we didn't mean to put the bagel place out of biz and that the only reason there's no bagel shop in town is because doughnuts and coffee are sweeter and better would be naive.

For me, the auto was far too valuable for the story to make sense. I suspect there are also other books that debunk the claim that the oil and auto industry spent fortunes to eliminate streetcars.

Gosh, some of this could be due to experience in CA. I grew up with streetcars in the Bay Area. SF still has plenty of them.

Sheer logic if applied shows that they fail where they don't service most homes. I suppose my point is that they were a bad idea to begin with. They function best in downtown parts of large cities. Even though they are in San Francisco, much of San Francisco has none. Bus routes are more common, but a lot of SF has no busses. When Key System had them in the Bay Area, the route went way out, many miles to the end at Hayward, CA. Hayward had a population at the time of perhaps 8,000 and the streetcars seldom had enough passengers to even be needed.

Anyway, I watched them phase out and the auto can get to many places that streetcars simply can't get to. This is why people quit using them. Not because of the auto industry. We liked cars much better is why.

Even in more current times, where cities such as San Jose, CA installed them, they are running almost empty. So, even the public shuns them today.

[Robert A Whit]

As with anything conspiratorial there is always something that raises questions. GM at the time had a bustling monopoly in building interstate and intracity buses which would make sense that they would convert to gas operation. That they also got lucky in having the Federal government invest massive amounts of money in the highway system which contributed to the car culture and suburbanization seems to be overlooked in the equation.

In my area, Keystone is the name of the company that had the streetcars. Streetcars follow a fixed route. Buses can be a lot more versatile. While the streetcar was discarded, buses still were available. As areas developed, bus routes could and did expand.

The auto was far more versatile and available instantly.

[fj1200]

you ought to read Edwin Blacks book he somehow gets docs from the car companies and from the oil companies archives and various records from city gov'ts and newspapers of the day. Then you have the trial records that show they were in collusion.
I'm not sure what else people want other than signed confessions from the players.

The problem is taking some information and then making leaps of judgement from that point. From your link:


There is now general agreement that this conspiracy was not the only reason for the decline in street cars in the USA. Wrote one author "Clearly, GM waged a war on electric traction. It was indeed an all out assault, but by no means the single reason for the failure of rapid transit. Also, it is just as clear that actions and inactions by government contributed significantly to the elimination of electric traction."


i mean If my brother owns a coffe shop and i own a doughnut shop THEN a bagel and tea shop opens up down the street and my brother and i buy that shop then start to selling only doughnuts and coffee there,
We may not have done anything illegal but to say that we didn't mean to put the bagel place out of biz and that the only reason there's no bagel shop in town is because doughnuts and coffee are sweeter and better would be naive.

It suggests that you and your brother missed the market signs that suggested that you two were not meeting market demands and had to buy out a competitor.

[fj1200]

Anyway, I watched them phase out and the auto can get to many places that streetcars simply can't get to. This is why people quit using them. Not because of the auto industry. We liked cars much better is why.

Even in more current times, where cities such as San Jose, CA installed them, they are running almost empty. So, even the public shuns them today.

Not to mention government zoning that effectively prohibits the densities required to make mass transit a viable option. If I was running a mass transit organization I would lobby hard for maximum densities above and surrounding my stations.

[revelarts]

For me, the auto was far too valuable for the story to make sense. I suspect there are also other books that debunk the claim that the oil and auto industry spent fortunes to eliminate streetcars.

Gosh, some of this could be due to experience in CA. I grew up with streetcars in the Bay Area. SF still has plenty of them.

Sheer logic if applied shows that they fail where they don't service most homes. I suppose my point is that they were a bad idea to begin with. They function best in downtown parts of large cities. Even though they are in San Francisco, much of San Francisco has none. Bus routes are more common, but a lot of SF has no busses. When Key System had them in the Bay Area, the route went way out, many miles to the end at Hayward, CA. Hayward had a population at the time of perhaps 8,000 and the streetcars seldom had enough passengers to even be needed.

Anyway, I watched them phase out and the auto can get to many places that streetcars simply can't get to. This is why people quit using them. Not because of the auto industry. We liked cars much better is why.

Even in more current times, where cities such as San Jose, CA installed them, they are running almost empty. So, even the public shuns them today.

What your saying sounds like to me
'I don't believe it. what ever evidence, facts, documents, trial records there are it's probably all wrong, so i don't need to review it.
and my logic tells me it's wrong, And the the trollies didn't have enough routes anyway. case closed.'

OK

[revelarts]

The problem is taking some information and then making leaps of judgement from that point. From your link:





It suggests that you and your brother missed the market signs that suggested that you two were not meeting market demands and had to buy out a competitor.

I never suggested it was the only reason FJ. but that various companies did play a real part.
and my point is that TODAY the same even more powerful interset have reason to stifle alternative.

maybe because they missed the "market signs"

or maybe they are not really interesting in innovation because it hurts the bottom line.
Dollars are the driver in the capitalism not Innovation or markets.
If you can squash a market to keep your established biz viable at less cost than competing then... for the sake of the investors... and the dollars people will and have done it.

The mafia didn't invent running rival gangs out of town. Human nature doesn't change from doughnut shop level to multi national level. From Crime syndicates to wall st.
the bottom line is profits. And growing YOUR market. especially if you've got billions in hard infrastructure to maintain.

Textbook capitalism is a great story but often not the whole story either.

[Robert A Whit]

Imagine when you purchased an automobile, you had to live with the same problems rapid transit has.

First, to use the car, you are limited to times designated and are spaced at as frequent as every 15 minutes the car would start, and to use it, per passenger you paid a fee to drive the auto.

Then to use the car, you had to walk, in some cases, many blocks or perhaps a few miles, just to use the car. I doubt you would be as eager to own a car.

Following are statistics supplied by the VTA of Santa Clara County and services in General San Jose and cities very close to San Jose.

I wish I could cite the fee to ride this system, but don't happen to have fees.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> http://www.vta.org/services/light_rail_stats.html


<tbody>



<tbody>
Home (http://www.vta.org/index.html) > Rider's Links (http://www.vta.org/schedules/index.html) > Regional Services - Light Rail System Statistics



Light Rail System Statistics
<tbody>
Service Summary Number of Active Light Rail in Fleet: 99
Operating Lines and Hours of Operation
Weekdays:
Alum Rock to Santa Teresa: 4:30 am - 1:30 am
Mountain View to Winchester: 5:00 am - 12 midnight
Ohlone/Chynoweth to Almaden: 6:00 am - 10:30 pm

Saturdays:
Alum Rock to Santa Teresa: 5:00 am - 1:30 am
Mountain View to Winchester: 6:00 am - 12 midnight
Ohlone/Chynoweth to Almaden: 8:00 am - 10:00 pm

Sundays:
Alum Rock to Santa Teresa: 5:00 am - 1:00 am
Mountain View to Winchester: 6:00 am - 12 midnight
Ohlone/Chynoweth to Almaden: 8:00 am - 10:00 pm
Frequency of Service
Weekdays: daytime every 15/30 minutes, nights every 15/60 minutes
Weekends: daytime every 15/30 minutes, nights every 15/30 minutes
Ridership in Fiscal Year 2010: 9.7 million Average Weekday Riders: 31,355
Riders per Total Train Hour: 69.1


</tbody>


</tbody>



</tbody>

[fj1200]

I never suggested it was the only reason FJ. but that various companies did play a real part.
and my point is that TODAY the same even more powerful interset have reason to stifle alternative.

maybe because they missed the "market signs"

or maybe they are not really interesting in innovation because it hurts the bottom line.
Dollars are the driver in the capitalism not Innovation or markets.
If you can squash a market to keep your established biz viable at less cost than competing then... for the sake of the investors... and the dollars people will and have done it.

The mafia didn't invent running rival gangs out of town. Human nature doesn't change from doughnut shop level to multi national level. From Crime syndicates to wall st.
the bottom line is profits. And growing YOUR market. especially if you've got billions in hard infrastructure to maintain.

Textbook capitalism is a great story but often not the whole story either.

The problem is you are not arguing textbook capitalism, you're arguing something completely different. I'm not sure why you're expecting innovation will come from entities who do not necessarily have a vested interested IN innovating away from their core competency. The beauty of capitalism is that innovation can come from anywhere; I don't need GM to create an electric car when Tesla/Fisker/whoever can do it and completely sidestep the traditional automakers (assuming they can develop a better product).

Now if you want to make the case that they have used the levers of government to stifle alternatives then that is a different story. Do they use regulations to raise barriers to entry? Do they use patent laws to stifle viable options? Has a whole host of government regulations/zoning/highway spending/etc. contributed to making a favorable environment for their product? Each of those may have an impact but if there is money to be made by a competitor to Big Whatever then it will happen as long as the environment is there to engender it.

And I think you did suggest it was the only reason by way of your OP. :poke:

[revelarts]

....

Now if you want to make the case that they have used the levers of government to stifle alternatives then that is a different story. Do they use regulations to raise barriers to entry? Do they use patent laws to stifle viable options? Has a whole host of government regulations/zoning/highway spending/etc. contributed to making a favorable environment for their product? Each of those may have an impact but if there is money to be made by a competitor to Big Whatever then it will happen as long as the environment is there to engender it....

All that you mentioned are "restrictive" impacts. and those impacts can be fatal or deformative, despite the market. I suppose one of the last stifling efforts is the buyout. the markets cannot buy what's not available.
the market has power but it's not all powerful it seems to me.
Planned obsolesce is not desired by the by the market for example.

[Robert A Whit]

All that you mentioned are "restrictive" impacts. and those impacts can be fatal or deformative, despite the market. I suppose one of the last stifling efforts is the buyout. the markets cannot buy what's not available.
the market has power but it's not all powerful it seems to me.
Planned obsolesce is not desired by the by the market for example.

If you get catalogs, say on bearings, some of the books have expected life of said products.

Thus if you make a product, using said bearings, you have a fair idea how long the product lasts.

But maybe those you use are the best available at a price the public will pay for.

Engineering books contain tables showing the expected life of components. But that is no conspiracy.

[logroller]

Not to mention government zoning that effectively prohibits the densities required to make mass transit a viable option. If I was running a mass transit organization I would lobby hard for maximum densities above and surrounding my stations.
maximum densities, sustainable development...
Cough...Agenda 21...did I mention the rats in a cage eating each other? There's been studies...:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

If you get catalogs, say on bearings, some of the books have expected life of said products.
Thus if you make a product, using said bearings, you have a fair idea how long the product lasts.
But maybe those you use are the best available at a price the public will pay for.
Engineering books contain tables showing the expected life of components. But that is no conspiracy.
yes there some of that but there's also...
World's oldest lightbulb still burning bright after 109 years
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243138/Still-glowing-strong-109-years-worlds-oldest-lightbulb.html#ixzz2RE5pBxWV



http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/28990

"they" do know how to make some things last longer that wouldn't price it out of the market.

[fj1200]

All that you mentioned are "restrictive" impacts. and those impacts can be fatal or deformative, despite the market. I suppose one of the last stifling efforts is the buyout. the markets cannot buy what's not available.
the market has power but it's not all powerful it seems to me.
Planned obsolesce is not desired by the by the market for example.

Government creating a favorable environment is not a restrictive impact but yes, the others are. I might even argue that planned obsolescence is desired but that's a different story. The argument that the autos and the oil companies were able to wield their influence over alternatives is by no means definitive:


A number of analyses have suggested that the eventual replacement of electric-powered street cars with buses was inevitable and indeed occurred within the same timeframe in several other cities where NCL was not involved.[n 17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-even_earlier-39) It has been suggested that the ultimate reach of GM's conspiracy extended to approximately 10% of all transit systems,[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-40) but the areas affected by GM's interference include 7 of the currently largest 9 metropolitan areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Statistical_Area) in the country.Other significant factors included:


Difficult labor relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations), and tight regulation of fares, routes, and schedules took their toll on city streetcar systems in the first third of the 20th century. By 1916, street railroads nationwide were wearing out their equipment faster than they were replacing it. While operating expenses were generally recovered, money for long-term investment was generally diverted elsewhere.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-41)
The Dual Contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Contracts) signed by operators in New York City restricted their ability to increase fares at a time of high inflation; however, these contracts also allowed the city to operate them.
The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Holding_Company_Act_of_1935) (an antitrust law) prohibited regulated electric utilities from operating unregulated businesses, which included most streetcar lines. The act also placed restrictions on services operating across state lines. Many holding companies operated both streetcars and electric utilities across several states; those that owned both types of businesses were forced to sell off one.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-dcmuseum-42) Declining streetcar business was often somewhat less valuable than the growing consumer electric business, resulting in many streetcar systems being put up for sale.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-43) The independent lines, no longer associated with an electric utility holding company, had to purchase electricity at full price from their former parents, further shaving their already thin margins.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-44)
The Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression) left many streetcar systems short of funds for maintenance and capital improvements with local governments reluctant to contribute to their upkeep.
Streetcar lines were built using funds from private investors and were required to pay numerous taxes as well as dividends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividends). By contrast new roads were constructed and maintained by the government from tax income. The U.S. Government responded to the Great Depression with massive subsidies for road construction.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-45) Later construction of the Interstate Highway System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System) was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956)with approved the expenditure of $25 billion of public money for the creation of a new 41,000 miles (66,000 km) interstate road network.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-economist-46) Federal Fuel taxes, introduced in 1956 was paid into a new Highway Trust Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund) which could only fund highway construction (until 1983 when some 10% was diverted into a new Mass Transit Account). Streetcar operators were also at times required to pay for the reinstatement of their lines following the construction of the freeways system (see Transportation in metropolitan Detroit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_metropolitan_Detroit)).[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-dth5-47)
Urban sprawl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl), white flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight) and suburbanization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization) created land-use patterns which could not be easily served by streetcars, or indeed by any public transport.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Every first time purchaser of an automobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile) deprived the streetcars operator of income whilst simultaneously created additional traffic congestion which often reduced service speeds and thereby increased their operational costs and making the services less attractive to the remaining users.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Free parking facilities were generally provided at business and leisure destinations with the costs often being paid by all client, regardless of mode of transport.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Others have suggested that streetcars were naturally replaced by the private automobile and the bus following the development of reliable internal combustion engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine). These include Cliff Slater[n 18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy#cite_note-48) and also by Randal O'Toole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_O%27Toole).



There is plenty in the above that suggests the auto advantages were built in or government granted.

[fj1200]

maximum densities, sustainable development...
Cough...Agenda 21...did I mention the rats in a cage eating each other? There's been studies...:rolleyes:

Shh.


World's oldest lightbulb still burning bright after 109 years

Try reading a book by that light not to mention it's likely (in)efficiency.

[Robert A Whit]

yes there some of that but there's also...
World's oldest lightbulb still burning bright after 109 years


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243138/Still-glowing-strong-109-years-worlds-oldest-lightbulb.html#ixzz2RE5pBxWV



http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/28990

"they" do know how to make some things last longer that wouldn't price it out of the market.

I can be standing looking at that light bulb in half an hour. I have been to Livermore so many times I can't guess at the count. Sold homes there as well. The bulb, I believe, gets a lower electric current than others in the same building get. Been years since I read up on it again. I understand people come from all over the world just to see it.

I am sorry, I am so familar with that bulb i posted before reading your links. I shall post and read yours right now.

By the way, I doubt you want to read a book using that bulb for light.

One of your links says the bulb has a separate power supply and is 4 watts.

No matter, it is famous.

[revelarts]

lol,

you guys limit the that remarkable tech to what was possible 100 years ago.
"well i'd like to see you read a book by that... it's only 4 watts dats no good..seee.

c'mon you guys

There are brigdes 1000 plus years old, any modern bridges large or small built today going to last 1000 years?
i'm sure each of you could think of 3 things that could be made better but isn't just to make a buck on repairs or resale.
I'm not say Aaallll things are made that way but some are.
And a lot is made just good enough to sell an no better. the market doesn't always delivery the best or best made products, just what the market will accept or desires.

[Robert A Whit]

lol,

you guys limit the that remarkable tech to what was possible 100 years ago.
"well i'd like to see you read a book by that... it's only 4 watts dats no good..seee.

c'mon you guys

There are brigdes 1000 plus years old, any modern bridges large or small built today going to last 1000 years?
i'm sure each of you could think of 3 things that could be made better but isn't just to make a buck on repairs or resale.
I'm not say Aaallll things are made that way but some are.
And a lot is made just good enough to sell an no better. the market doesn't always delivery the best or best made products, just what the market will accept or desires.

Don't you find it remarkable that the Fire department does not even use that light bulb to light things up but keeps it as a curiousity and due to its old age, a novelty?

If you favor 4 watt bulbs, fine with me. I happen to go more for the 150 watt variety. Naturally those don't last 100 years. I don't expect I will either.

[fj1200]

the market doesn't always delivery the best or best made products, just what the market will accept or desires.

Isn't that the point?

[revelarts]

Isn't that the point?

Would you like to buy a nice tie that you like, that last 2 years or one that lasted a lifetime?
Whats the best?
The market wants just a nice tie.

[fj1200]

Would you like to buy a nice tie that you like, that last 2 years or one that lasted a lifetime?
Whats the best?
The market wants just a nice tie.

Rev, have you been wearing the same tie since 1982? :poke:

[logroller]

lol,

you guys limit the that remarkable tech to what was possible 100 years ago.
"well i'd like to see you read a book by that... it's only 4 watts dats no good..seee.

c'mon you guys

There are brigdes 1000 plus years old, any modern bridges large or small built today going to last 1000 years?
i'm sure each of you could think of 3 things that could be made better but isn't just to make a buck on repairs or resale.
I'm not say Aaallll things are made that way but some are.
And a lot is made just good enough to sell an no better. the market doesn't always delivery the best or best made products, just what the market will accept or desires.
I see your point, but how many bulbs didn't last? How many bridges? You seem to be basing you analogies on the anomalies, not the mode. I don't mean to imply that commercial interests played no part in an outcome that favored profits over social benefit--it did-- but understand this is a market failure, not a conspiracy. Markets, capitalism et al, isn't perfect. Its just better than any other economic system yet devised. That's why we have government, to balance the benefits of market capitalism with society's interests. The government should represent the social interests that the market fails to consider (ie pollution). Now what I find curious is your reproach of commercial interests, as in the assertion that electrified/ rail transit etc has been undermined by crony capitalism, in tandem with your reproach of "green interests", like agenda 21 typified sustainable development that is a necessary to deliver the conditions whereby such transit becomes economically feasible. I see both arguments' merits: capitalism is extremely productive/ regulation is extremely protective-- both can coexist in competition to one another-- but I fail to see how you can reject both. Its a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

[revelarts]

I see your point, but how many bulbs didn't last? How many bridges? You seem to be basing you analogies on the anomalies, not the mode. I don't mean to imply that commercial interests played no part in an outcome that favored profits over social benefit--it did-- but understand this is a market failure, not a conspiracy. Markets, capitalism et al, isn't perfect. Its just better than any other economic system yet devised. That's why we have government, to balance the benefits of market capitalism with society's interests. The government should represent the social interests that the market fails to consider (ie pollution). Now what I find curious is your reproach of commercial interests, as in the assertion that electrified/ rail transit etc has been undermined by crony capitalism, in tandem with your reproach of "green interests", like agenda 21 typified sustainable development that is a necessary to deliver the conditions whereby such transit becomes economically feasible. I see both arguments' merits: capitalism is extremely productive/ regulation is extremely protective-- both can coexist in competition to one another-- but I fail to see how you can reject both. Its a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

that's an almost benign way of describing the choices.

But agenda 21 is draconian gov't control of human life and freedom. And crony capitalism has stifled the green free market options.

in the extreme the choice is between a green dictatorship of the elite who will ration our food, water, energy, living space and travel health and family from birth to death.
or Robber baron corporations who like feudal lords want everyone to buy everything for living at the company store and work in the company towns and be grateful for the security, even if your dying from the poison from the plant, 'that's what the company hospital is for, don't question your Doctor's company meds".

are those the only choices? I hope not.
And I do reject both options. I'd like to think most people would.

[Robert A Whit]

I see your point, but how many bulbs didn't last? How many bridges? You seem to be basing you analogies on the anomalies, not the mode. I don't mean to imply that commercial interests played no part in an outcome that favored profits over social benefit--it did-- but understand this is a market failure, not a conspiracy. Markets, capitalism et al, isn't perfect. Its just better than any other economic system yet devised. That's why we have government, to balance the benefits of market capitalism with society's interests. The government should represent the social interests that the market fails to consider (ie pollution). Now what I find curious is your reproach of commercial interests, as in the assertion that electrified/ rail transit etc has been undermined by crony capitalism, in tandem with your reproach of "green interests", like agenda 21 typified sustainable development that is a necessary to deliver the conditions whereby such transit becomes economically feasible. I see both arguments' merits: capitalism is extremely productive/ regulation is extremely protective-- both can coexist in competition to one another-- but I fail to see how you can reject both. Its a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

The bulb in Livermore, CA, where one presumes the company that made it also made others, which have not lasted over 100 years, is preserved on purpose. To keep it lasting, it only produces 4 watts. This means if you use the formula for watts, and observe it is too dim to even use to read a book, clearly something is going on, to preserve the bulb. VxA = W
100V x 1 A = 100 W.

If the V to the lamp is normal, then some resistance has been put in to lower the A. It has a separate power supply and my hunch is the V is cut way down. Given the thickness of the filament, it may last another 100 years or more.

[logroller]

The bulb in Livermore, CA, where one presumes the company that made it also made others, which have not lasted over 100 years, is preserved on purpose. To keep it lasting, it only produces 4 watts. This means if you use the formula for watts, and observe it is too dim to even use to read a book, clearly something is going on, to preserve the bulb. VxA = W
100V x 1 A = 100 W.

If the V to the lamp is normal, then some resistance has been put in to lower the A. It has a separate power supply and my hunch is the V is cut way down. Given the thickness of the filament, it may last another 100 years or more.
A light bulb is a resistor, just not an ohmic one. As the current increases through the filament it heats up, as well as emitting light, and as the heat increases the resistance increases and more energy is expelled as light and heat. Since a light bulb is not an ohmic resistor, meaning it does not have constant resistance across a range of current (its resistance increases), to mitigate the potential for oxidation the current is decreased by way of reduced voltage. If a lightbulb is operated with alternating current, the standard device used to reduce the current/voltage, effectively dimming the bulb, is a triode-- not a resistor. A triode clips the sine wave of alternating current effectively reducing the voltage supply. It actually turns on and off 240 times per second. (In the us since we have 60Hz)
as for the bulb in question, it likely has a transforming power supply that provides a lesser voltage rather than toggling the current on and off as this has detrimental effect on filament life as well-- as demonstated by bulbs typically burning out when current is first introduced after you flick the switch.

[Robert A Whit]

A light bulb is a resistor, just not an ohmic one. As the current increases through the filament it heats up, as well as emitting light, and as the heat increases the resistance increases and more energy is expelled as light and heat. Since a light bulb is not an ohmic resistor, meaning it does not have constant resistance across a range of current (its resistance increases), to mitigate the potential for oxidation the current is decreased by way of reduced voltage. If a lightbulb is operated with alternating current, the standard device used to reduce the current/voltage, effectively dimming the bulb, is a triode-- not a resistor. A triode clips the sine wave of alternating current effectively reducing the voltage supply. It actually turns on and off 240 times per second. (In the us since we have 60Hz)
as for the bulb in question, it likely has a transforming power supply that provides a lesser voltage rather than toggling the current on and off as this has detrimental effect on filament life as well-- as demonstrated by bulbs typically burning out when current is first introduced after you flick the switch.

Yes and I also mentioned a power supply to that particular bulb. As dim as it is, the power to the bulb is low.