# The Light Bulb Conspiracy



## cataclysm_child (Jun 18, 2011)

I find this kinda hard to believe, at the same time, it makes so much sense.



What do you guys think?


----------



## Sephael (Jun 18, 2011)

similar to the light bulb issue, car companies have been doing the same type of thing for years with their gas millage.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 18, 2011)

It's hardly a conspiracy if everyone knows its happening. It's like ipods. The battery normally dies and the life starts shortening more and more, until it's useless by which time it is out ofit's warranty period.

This shit is part of everyday life, but what can we do? Challenge the companies? We do that, they just lose people in a mess of different support technicians, emails, phone numbers and paperwork. It's easier to just buy a new product rather than try and challenge those who sold it to you.


----------



## steve1 (Jun 18, 2011)

theres no money in selling shit that works


----------



## yingmin (Jun 18, 2011)

This is not a conspiracy; it's a natural and obvious consequence of the public demanding cheaper goods. When your $100 printer breaks and you find out that it costs less to replace it than to fix it, there's one question you should ask, that almost nobody ever does: why was the printer only $100 to begin with? Two things are at play here. One is that you pay for quality. More expensive products, as a general rule, are less likely to break because they user higher quality components. The other is that integration makes things cheaper to produce, but much more difficult/expensive to repair. 

For an example that will make sense to this crowd, consider the cost difference of a Schecter Damien ($399) and Damien FR ($449). The only difference between those two is the Floyd Rose, and you pay only $50 to buy the one with a Floyd versus the one without. If you had a non-Floyd version, and wanted to add a Floyd to it, how much would it cost? The bridge itself is around $100 for a licensed Floyd, more for an OFR, and if you aren't skilled enough to install it yourself, it would probably cost at least that much again to get it installed, at which point you're almost up to the original value of your guitar. Obviously if you had a $2000 guitar, the mod would still be expensive, but would be a much smaller proportion of the guitar's value.

For another example, say you bought a $100 guitar. If one of the pickups die, how much would it cost to replace it? Even cheap pickups are at least $40-50, and again, if you don't know how to install pickups, you're paying $50-100 to have someone do it for you. Is that the result of some sinister shadow cabal plotting to take your money from you? No, it's the result of you buying something cheap.

People have such a screwed up conception of value, and it's really irritating. You see it a lot on this forum, but it exists everywhere, and you have nobody to blame for this sort of thing but yourselves.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 19, 2011)

^ I agree with you, but not in such a venomous way .


----------



## Explorer (Jun 19, 2011)

The thing which I don't believe the "documentary" touched on was the vast network of enforcement which prevents one individual with resources and motivation to create a better light bulb. As soon as someone steps forward who genuinely cares about preserving resources and getting things done in a better way, that person is killed, and all records are erased pertaining to their life.

Similarly, no patents for the better technology are ever issued, because patents would then become public record. Instead, all those submitting such patents are similarly killed, and all records erased. 

If there weren't such a draconian enforcement of the planned obsolescence, one would be free to take advantage of the better technologies which exist for such purposes. As it is, no one can fight the monster conspiracy, and what we consider to be democracy and capitalism is just a sham, with only certain products being allowed, and only certain kinds of companies being allowed to sell in that marketplace.

It's gotta be true. 

Because if that enforcement arm of that vast conspiracy doesn't exist, then the conspiracy theory in the film just fails. 

I'm not wearing one, but those tinfoil hats look a little tight. Is it hard to think with those things so snug?


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 19, 2011)

Explorer said:


> The thing which I don't believe the "documentary" touched on was the vast network of enforcement which prevents one individual with resources and motivation to create a better light bulb. As soon as someone steps forward who genuinely cares about preserving resources and getting things done in a better way, that person is killed, and all records are erased pertaining to their life.
> 
> Similarly, no patents for the better technology are ever issued, because patents would then become public record. Instead, all those submitting such patents are similarly killed, and all records erased.
> 
> ...



This is one of those rare occasions where I have to disagree with you, good sir. I think your post begs the question of who, having all those resources and such, would want to design a better lightbulb? If you're in the market to make money, creating a product that lasts a lifetime isn't a priority.

I don't really think there's a conspiracy here, I think what we're seeing, especially as the movie focuses on the Roaring '20s and onward, is the consumers' wants being echoed back by the producers. If we all "voted with our wallets" and decided that we wanted long lasting whatevers, that's what we'd get. Instead, we want cheaper, which means lesser quality components, which means lesser quality product. Businesses only exist to profit, mission statements be damned. It makes sense to me that in a system as greed-driven as capitalism, that businesses and the public would make decisions on both ends of the spectrum that benefit them. Consumers buy the cheapest product that meets their arbitrary standard of quality, and producers produce the cheapest product the public will buy. Anything else ultimately ends in either failure or massive TARP bailouts .


----------



## flo (Jun 19, 2011)

My math professor once told this anecdote:

"Sometimes a company comes to us and asks us to optimize their product. We take in account all the parameters they give us, and make a function. Then we search for the minimum or maximum of the function. So we tell the engineers how to adjust their product so it would be at this optimum point.

And then they are like "Are you mad? What are we going to introduce as new, improved product _next_ year????"

So they're closing in step by step to the optimal product."


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 19, 2011)

During the war my grandfather knew someone who had invented an everlasting match (not literally everlasting, but you know what I mean). Well the match companies didn't like this and bought the patent from him and buried it.


----------



## Demiurge (Jun 19, 2011)

This just seems like more microwaveable conspiracy theory.

1. Take a state of affairs. 
2. Who benefits from it? 
3. Argue that the beneficiary is obviously responsible for manufacturing said state of affairs.
4. Beneficiary made a campaign contribution to politician.
5. Government is in on it, too.

In the whole "good, fast, cheap- you can only pick two" dilemma, consumers have chosen fast and cheap for most things. There's no escaping it.

Like in the opening sketch in the doc- where's the surprise? Welcome to ownership of a $39.99 bubblejet printer. Does the printer break because some guy in a $10,000 suit sitting in a mahogany-lined office in Big Printer Company gave a directive to make the printers shoddily _just so_ people would buy more while lighting a cigar with a $100 bill OR because, well, that's what you get if you insist on paying very little money for something- a piece of crap. It's easier to claim that the former happened because accepting the latter means personally accepting the blame- herein lies the appeal of any conspiracy theory.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 19, 2011)

The real money in the printing industry is ink cartridges anyway. They cost fuckloads. Printers are actually programmed to tell you they have less ink left than they actually have, in the hope you'll go out and buy more early.


----------



## Deadnightshade (Jun 19, 2011)

*cough cough* selling axe fx to get axe fx II * cough cough* planned obsolescence *cough cough *


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 19, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> The real money in the printing industry is ink cartridges anyway. They cost fuckloads. Printers are actually programmed to tell you they have less ink left than they actually have, in the hope you'll go out and buy more early.



Or they write to the cartridge empty so even if you refill it it still reads empty and won't use.


----------



## White Cluster (Jun 19, 2011)

And this is why I just steal shit





J/K


----------



## Jakke (Jun 19, 2011)

If you guys want a conspiracy, check into the guy that invented a fuel cell that ran on WATER (That's 70:s Show reference, anyone?) for his car. He sadly suffered an "accident", helped by the major oil companies


----------



## Explorer (Jun 19, 2011)

I don't talk about the details of my current employment, given how scary some internet dwellers can get when butt-hurt, but there are many who work to improve the world, and who have money.

Look up the Gates Foundation. Bill's wife thought it was a good idea to change the world, and so things started rolling.

Look at the National Organics Standards Coalition.

Look at LEEDS construction.

Look at how sustainability isn't just a marketing scheme for many. Sure, there are those who want to green-wash their companies, but there are many companies which actually work to accomplish this, mine included. We're regularly recognized, and when we get to present in hearings about the claims of others that it's too expensive to implement certain solutions, and we have the hard facts and figures about how much it actually cost us to do, our having spent the money means we have more credibility than those who just want to shoot things down. 

For those who feel that no company will ever make something which is supposed to last longer than a short while, open up your eyes and your browswers, and look to see what is out there. You might be surprised.

Oh, incidentally? I haven't changed a light-bulb since I last moved five years ago and replaced everything with better technology. Neat, huh? Before that, I hadn't moved in 8 years, and I hadn't changed a bulb in longer. I paid a premium at the front end to pull down my trash and carbon footprint. I work for a company which does the same. 

Am I the only one on this planet who does this, and who works for such a company? II'm happy to hear the evidence for that viewpoint... as opposed to just doubts.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 19, 2011)

I feel like this is true, but part of the competition in technology such as cars and Ipods is which one lasts the longest or who has the best warranty for their products.

Sure they'll never actually design something that's self sustaining and will last forever (if such a thing exists), but it's not like things will start reverting to shorter life spans.

That's just bad for business.


----------



## Sephael (Jun 19, 2011)

Treeunit212 said:


> but it's not like things will start reverting to shorter life spans.
> 
> That's just bad for business.


Don't be so quick to say that, think about cell phones for example: The carriers have you on a contract usually for like 2 years and the warranties typically only cover a year. So after 14 months when your phone dies (or gets broken) you either have to buy one at full price or save a hundred bucks and renew your contract for another 2 years...or pay to opt out of your contract.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 19, 2011)

My current phone has worked for the past 4 years. It replaced my older phone, which had worked for about 6 years. 

I didn't go for anything which slid or had a hinge (too much chance for wear and tear), and was mainly looking for battery life for work (6 hours talk time, 7 days standby). I can get a camera if I need photos, so any camera beyond a rudimentary one is wasted. I use a wired headset, so I don't expose my head to any sort of radiation. and my battery life is better because I don't have to power wireless accessories. 

This disparity is just wackiness. I know that I looked for a phone which didn't look fragile, but are my choices so exceptional? Am I so far outside the mainstream that even my local cellphone store has choices which don't exist elsewhere?


----------



## -42- (Jun 19, 2011)

Sephael said:


> Don't be so quick to say that, think about cell phones for example: The carriers have you on a contract usually for like 2 years and the warranties typically only cover a year. So after 14 months when your phone dies (or gets broken) you either have to buy one at full price or save a hundred bucks and renew your contract for another 2 years...or pay to opt out of your contract.



I've been using the same phone for four years. 

As for light bulb longevity...my FIRST Robotics team is currently selling LED bulbs to raise funds. They last anywhere from 10 to 20 years of steady use.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 20, 2011)

-42- said:


> I've been using the same phone for four years.
> 
> As for light bulb longevity...my FIRST Robotics team is currently selling LED bulbs to raise funds. They last anywhere from 10 to 20 years of steady use.



What?!

You mean that the company's patents weren't buried? No one stopped them from producing the product? And the company is willing to make something which lasts for so long?

It's always interesting when rhetorical rubber hits the real-world road, don't you think?


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 20, 2011)

Slightly on topic anyone know of a good full spectrum light with at least the equivilant output of 100W incandescent. These types of bulbs (often blue when incandescent) help me stay awake reading academic crap . Incandescent while cheap is hardly my go to light source however, not to mention them being pulled off the market next year in Canada.


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jun 20, 2011)

I believe what they say about the ipod. Me, my father and my brother got one at the same time and all of them died within two years.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 20, 2011)

As far as these companies are concerned, as long as it lasts longer than the warranty period they have met their legal requirements in terms of delivering a functioning product.


----------



## maliciousteve (Jun 20, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> I believe what they say about the ipod. Me, my father and my brother got one at the same time and all of them died within two years.



I've had 2 and I'll never buy another. Both fucked up within 6 months. Where as the Sony MP3 player I had worked without fail and never broke in the whole 4 years I had it. I don't have it because I lost it.

Since being pretty much broke over the last few years I've grown to see that cheap or reasonable doesn't always mean the best. All the gear I have now and all my purchases recently were bought on sensible thinking so I've gotten the most out of my money.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 20, 2011)

maliciousteve said:


> I've had 2 and I'll never buy another. Both fucked up within 6 months. Where as the Sony MP3 player I had worked without fail and never broke in the whole 4 years I had it. I don't have it because I lost it.



And to make most people don't notice this as they buy the new model every 4 months as they need it


----------



## -42- (Jun 20, 2011)

cataclysm_child said:


> I believe what they say about the ipod. Me, my father and my brother got one at the same time and all of them died within two years.



I have one of the first gen iPod Nanos (it's about six years old) and it still works fine. I also have a second gen iPod Touch which is about three years old, it also works fine (after tons of abuse).

But hey, that's just me.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 20, 2011)

-42- said:


> I have one of the first gen iPod Nanos (it's about six years old) and it still works fine. I also have a second gen iPod Touch which is about three years old, it also works fine (after tons of abuse).
> 
> But hey, that's just me.



Looks like you got 2 duds lol


----------



## Mehnike (Jun 20, 2011)

I have had an iPod video for four years and just had its headphone jack give out (Only plays in the left ear). This was from a ton of heavy use so I think I got my money's worth.

Dudz all up in here.

Seems like Apple is more focused on cutting out the older generations crowd with the social shittiness that comes from not having an even higher quality camera and some random features that are totally necessary... This goes back to what the man said about the Axe II. Ramping up people's consciences sure is good business.


----------



## steve1 (Jun 20, 2011)

not stictly on topic, but Apple's biggest con is fucking itunes. I usually use Amazon to get mp3s. 9 out of 10 times its cheaper.


----------



## Waelstrum (Jun 20, 2011)

People can say what they want about apple, (I agree that bringing out a new product that is basically the old product plus a feature that I don't want is a confidence trick to play on the gullible) but they have treated me ok. For example, my laptop's screen screwed up two days before the warranty ran out. Unfortunately, I was unable to bring it in to the computer place that I bought it from, because the largest cyclone in Queensland history had filled the streets with trees and power lines, so they replaced it anyway, even though it was technically out of warranty at that point.


----------



## yingmin (Jun 21, 2011)

-42- said:


> I have one of the first gen iPod Nanos (it's about six years old) and it still works fine. I also have a second gen iPod Touch which is about three years old, it also works fine (after tons of abuse).
> 
> But hey, that's just me.



I have an old iPod video 32GB, and I owned it for two or three years and never had any problems with it until it fell out of my car and spent four days in the snow. I finally found it after the snow thawed, threw it in a drawer and forgot about it, then randomly tried turning it on several months later, and it actually worked, albeit a little buggy and wouldn't reliably hold a charge, which wasn't a major problem, since I only ever used it in my car and left it plugged in all the time. I got another solid year and a half of use out of it before it died completely. Now all it does is flash rapidly when I plug it in, and doesn't respond to hard reboots or anything.

So all told, I got somewhere between 3-5 years of use out of an iPod, roughly a third of which after it spent several days buried in snow.

Total scam.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 21, 2011)

So the thousands of people complaining about unnaturally short battery life were lying, right?  Clearly SSO has proved that the original iPod is a sturdy piece of electronic wizardry.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 21, 2011)

Apple has done what all companies do as they grow, make shittier products. Everyone who has had long lasting apple stuff on here seems to have 1st-3rd gen. When stuff gains popularity companies look to cut costs/corners and make as many as possible leading to errors. That is what I find funny about apple, as it gains steam it will make worse and worse products and from the computer side viruses will become more prominent. At that time apple will be what PC is today except as an apple user you won't have as many options on what product you want or be able to replace as many parts. (Apples warranties are pretty great though) but I'm still not a huge fan...


----------



## yingmin (Jun 21, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> So the thousands of people complaining about unnaturally short battery life were lying, right?  Clearly SSO has proved that the original iPod is a sturdy piece of electronic wizardry.



Thousands of complaints out of how many millions of iPods sold? I'm not saying some people didn't own faulty iPods, but when you consider how many of the damn things there are, a few thousand duds are hardly shocking. Outside of what should be acceptable from a company like Apple, a company that redefines the monocle? Sure, but these are small, cheap, portable devices that get a lot of abuse.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 22, 2011)

Sephael said:


> Don't be so quick to say that, think about cell phones for example: The carriers have you on a contract usually for like 2 years and the warranties typically only cover a year. So after 14 months when your phone dies (or gets broken) you either have to buy one at full price or save a hundred bucks and renew your contract for another 2 years...or pay to opt out of your contract.



This is true, but I also have insurance for that. Only like $90 bucks a year for my Droid 2.

That's definitely a much more relatable example though, especially being a long time Verizon customer...


----------



## Explorer (Jun 23, 2011)

Some observations:

Normally companies will set their warranty periods to last as long as they believe a product will be in working order. If the design specs predict that something should last two years, then two years it is. That's backwards from what was asserted, that products are only designed to last as long as the warranty period.

It's also obvious that manufacturers want to make a product which is a capable as possible. That's why many companies will add features to a product line as the technology to implement such becomes available at a profitable price point. 

A question:

Is the idea of a conspiracy to enforce product obsolescence now off the table? Sometimes I can't tell in these discussions if those things have been laid to rest.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 23, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Some observations:
> 
> Normally companies will set their warranty periods to last as long as they believe a product will be in working order. If the design specs predict that something should last two years, then two years it is. That's backwards from what was asserted, that products are only designed to last as long as the warranty period.
> 
> ...



I don't think the conspiracy angle was ever seriously defended, so I'd say it's dead . 

My mom works for HP, and without giving away too much, she's intimately involved with the price of certain products. I asked her about this tonight, to see if she knows anything about the Man designing products to fail. She loves being overly vague, so her response?

Not designed to fail. "Our products last exactly as long as we want them too." That makes complete sense. I don't really think it would be THAT hard to design an mp3 player that can withstand the test of time. Considering the R&D budgets some of these huge corporations have, and the sheer brain power they have working on these projects, it's just fucking stupid to think that making products that will work as intended for 5, or 10, or even 20 years is some ridiculous ideas.

Why don't they, though? That's the question I think everyone's avoiding.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 23, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I don't think the conspiracy angle was ever seriously defended, so I'd say it's dead .
> 
> My mom works for HP, and without giving away too much, she's intimately involved with the price of certain products. I asked her about this tonight, to see if she knows anything about the Man designing products to fail. She loves being overly vague, so her response?
> 
> ...



Simple....money. It breaks you buy another


----------



## SirMyghin (Jun 23, 2011)

@ Rev: Because if you only ever need to sell one to anyone, you aren't going to make much money. There is nothing more to it.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 24, 2011)

I've loved a lot of HP products. One of the first keyboards I used at work from HP was completely sealed, with metal springs and magnets, and small magnetic switches inside. It was completely spillproof. It also cost an arm and a leg. 

My Rockboxed iPod with a solid state drive is less vulnerable than it was when it had a spinning drive. The silicon case preserves it against most things, so I'd say the only part likely to fail at this point is the battery. That battery is the best one available at the moment.

If Apple had put out a solid state iPod at the time this was originally sold, I doubt anyone would have bought it. 

But some people *do* have the money to buy things which last far longer. There is a better tier of products which goes far beyond the consumer grade products. Most people don't want to spend that kind of money, but that's not the fault of the manufacturers. 

----

Sorry, it's way late, but my point is that most consumers, when faced with buying, say, a light bulb which is a dollar or less, or a light bulb which will last a decade for 10 times the price, will go for the short term solution. They don't think in the long term.

And that cheapness is why there is such a huge market for shoddy products.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 24, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I've loved a lot of HP products. One of the first keyboards I used at work from HP was completely sealed, with metal springs and magnets, and small magnetic switches inside. It was completely spillproof. It also cost an arm and a leg.
> 
> My Rockboxed iPod with a solid state drive is less vulnerable than it was when it had a spinning drive. The silicon case preserves it against most things, so I'd say the only part likely to fail at this point is the battery. That battery is the best one available at the moment.
> 
> ...



Your right consumers have a choice and they choose cheap. All Manufacturers do is look at trends so it really isn't their fault. Nice cars even last forever as long as you take care of it. I have to say most things can be fixed too and people just decide to buy new instead, like when a tv breaks it is probably the backlight which is a fairly easy fix in most tv's.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 25, 2011)

To reiterate what I said in the beginning of this thread, corporations make cheap products because that's what we as the consumers want. Like Explorer said, we choose the cheaper product that won't last as long, and since big business is in the business of making money, they make cheap products that they can sell...cheaply.

I wouldn't mind if everything was just made to last, though. There's quite a few things I use infrequently that just seem to go to shit of their own volition, and they're things that I don't use enough to justify buying the top-of-the-line models on.


----------



## leandroab (Jun 26, 2011)

yingmin said:


> This is not a conspiracy; it's a natural and obvious consequence of the public demanding cheaper goods. When your $100 printer breaks and you find out that it costs less to replace it than to fix it, there's one question you should ask, that almost nobody ever does: why was the printer only $100 to begin with? Two things are at play here. One is that you pay for quality. More expensive products, as a general rule, are less likely to break because they user higher quality components. The other is that integration makes things cheaper to produce, but much more difficult/expensive to repair.
> 
> For an example that will make sense to this crowd, consider the cost difference of a Schecter Damien ($399) and Damien FR ($449). The only difference between those two is the Floyd Rose, and you pay only $50 to buy the one with a Floyd versus the one without. If you had a non-Floyd version, and wanted to add a Floyd to it, how much would it cost? The bridge itself is around $100 for a licensed Floyd, more for an OFR, and if you aren't skilled enough to install it yourself, it would probably cost at least that much again to get it installed, at which point you're almost up to the original value of your guitar. Obviously if you had a $2000 guitar, the mod would still be expensive, but would be a much smaller proportion of the guitar's value.
> 
> ...



Sad but true.

Unfortunately, many great technologies in the energy business suffer from obvious cartels.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 26, 2011)

The conspiracy/ecology/common sense argument to all this:

If all products were made to a high standard, would the cost of manufacture be viable due to scale.

Instead of building 90% junk, 10% quality (for the discerning customer), if everything was made to a high standard would the cost come down sufficiently to justify the expense. when you factor in marketing strategies,logistics, storage whatever required to sell the lower cost goods, would it not make sense to only provide quality goods?


I was at a car boot sale today, where people turn up to a sports field and sell their unwanted possesions from the backs of their cars. The junk people brought with them.... :nutz: It's amazing to literally see in front of you all the crap that people buy.


Yes, in a moral world, manufacturers would reduce waste by not providing inferior goods destined for landfill... But seeing the buying choices people make laid out in front of them provides the answer;

Why commit the expenditure on a quality item when the transient nature of human interest would commit it to waste long before it mechanically expired.

(people would get bored of the things long before they broke)



A friend of mine set up a company installing LED lighting in bars, clubs and venues. He really did some great work on strip joints especially (really!) as they offer a broad ~D) scope for creative interpretation and have specialist lighting concerns and a strong budget for effects. He sold them with quality, longevity, great designs and energy saving over a period. There is also the possibility of tax incentives for energy saving businesses.

It's a shame that domestic downlighters (LEDS) are simply so feeble and require so many to produce the same light as a 100 watt tungsten bulb, which are now hard to find.  So many transformers hidden in cupboards in dingy, dark rooms now a days.


Nice to see the hydrogen cars get a mention. The conspiracy angle is most compelling when it discusses technologies that have a dubious history. If no one knows or it can't be proved to work, who knows what really happened? Most likely nothing. 

Try "Who Killed The Electric Car" for possible "conspiracy" evidence.



There was a Japanese company with a different implementation, but I hear they were closed down. There was also an Indonesian man who offered the technology to the world, provided there was a charitable fund setup to support the poor. He said that many car makers visited him but decided not to make an investment. Here is the Mayer news clip if you'd like to find out more:



I looked into hydrogen as a way of saving the fuel costs of the last century of desert warfare rofl and found the only industrial application to be, yes, not manufacturing... but.... Sewage disposal! There is a company using the same technology Mayer claimed existed to turn sewage into hydrogen and clean water. I have the link somewhere... Sorry, it will be hard to find.

If you want to see more "conspiracy" talk, check out Brian O'Leary, free energy researcher;


If you listen to these people (internet linked) you will find that they are all ex US government employees who sought to end war for oil with cheaper, ecologically sound antique technologies.


I don't think there is a conspiracy, only a lack of support for sensible purchasing. If consumers as a group demanded better they would get it; a capitalist society would have to meet their demands to continue to profit.

Still, as has been said here before, people buy junk so junk continues to be made. No conspiracy there!!!


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 26, 2011)

I also know a venue manager who sought to make his company the first to have ecological venues, with solar panels and high tech solutions. When he looked for funding for the first venue, his test project so to speak, the bureaucracy became too much trouble to deal with. 

All his funding sources wanted to appease their interests and the project became to complex. He was asked to have his designer build a demonstration centre for the public, alongside the original project as well as complete advertising and other public relations events. All the stress of this, combined with doing his job caused the project to be dropped.

When he was describing these events, which happened 10 years ago, it seemed as if there was almost TOO MUCH interest in "sensible" technology which added too many layers of complexity for pioneers seeking funding. Everyone wanted to parade around in the expected glory of the green success story, rather than simply making it happen...

Just my interpretation. I don't know anymore about it. So , it seems, no conspiracy, just confusion.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jun 30, 2011)

*correction and added links to previous post*

There was also an Phillepino man who offered the technology to the world, provided there was a charitable fund setup to support the poor of the Phillipines. He said that many car makers visited him but decided not to make an investment. 

Water Car ... Daniel Dingel


----------



## Explorer (Jun 30, 2011)

Brian O'Leary is a nut. I think I posted about Kermit on Mars, but O'Leary was one of those who was arguing that the Face on Mars was the product of intelligence, instead of bad photography as it turned out to be. 

His energy research often goes to claims of extraterrestrial technology in order to make it work. 

----

Ultimately, the only thing needed to get this technology out there would be... a working demonstration. 

That's it. 

There have been demonstrations where someone had built something which was fake, which had a hidden power source. There have been *no* demonstrations of a device which demonstrated free energy yet. 

What's always interesting is that people claim to have developed this kind of thing, but they claim they've been suppressed, that patent records have been suppressed even after the 17 years it would take for them to be come public domain, and so on. People who claim that patents are bought up and suppressed gloss over the vast and omnipotent conspiracy needed to suppress patent applications and granted patents. 

All it would take to release these amazing "free energy" ideas and to develop them... is to release them. All these people keep putting themselves forward as downtrodden saviors, but if they really meant all their bullshit, all they'd have to do is give the information on how to build the stuff to the Third World. You know why they don't? Because their shit don't work.

At their core, why do most (if not all) modern conspiracy proposals require that everyone be in on it but the suppressed genius or lone voice in the wilderness? As Emile notes in the movie "Ratatouille," "Oh, I'm detecting nuttiness, all right!" *laugh*


----------



## leandroab (Jun 30, 2011)

The first cars were electric


----------



## Explorer (Jun 30, 2011)

Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot's vehicle from 1769 was powered by steam, and all the sources agree on that. Do you have documentation to the contrary?


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Jul 4, 2011)

Just curious; why does no one take into the account the effect of applied pain?

We all take into account the existing of the mafia etc. so why would that type of activity not extend to protecting investment in other areas?

It's very easy to convince people of the error of their ways with some simple home power tools... 

In common with this concept of violence O'Leary published a book on the disappearances of energy researchers and he now lives in isolation at a remote location.

As Explorer requests, demonstration!

As I stated earlier hydrogen released from water via electricity is a proven technology in the sewage/waste processing sector. There are people offering kits for cars but I haven't purchased one, so can't comment. The words charlatan and snake oil come to mind and without a personal recommendation and demonstration my money would not be spent.

Some of O'Leary's more rational topics include treatises on why the world is not ready for cheap energy. But his ilk are merely a salve for humanities ego; survival dependency on fossil fuels and it's apparent lack of ability to solve it's obsolescence.

It's a shame that O'Leary and the large band of common thinkers are, at present, merely entertainment.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (Jul 4, 2011)

Manufacturers have to find a balance between longevity, features, and cost efficiency in order to create profitable products. Americans (and most westerners) want cheap shit, so that's what they get. It's that simple. It's the consumers demand for cheap, replaceable, disposable goods which is the main reason they are being produced at such rates. These items wouldn't be made if our dumbasses didn't keep buying them because of convenience. No brainwashing required.

Technology has to become cheaper and easier to mass produce before it gets to the mass consumer level. People always want to place the blame outside if themselves. It's all of our faults that we waste so much shit. Look in the mirror. People say they want more efficient power, products and services. Yet they continue without hesitation to drive their SUVs, buy more vehicles, buy paper plates, incandescent bulbs, cigarrettes, etc. Along with general laziness.

The framing of that video is absolutely ridiculous. "1000 hour rule". Jesus Christ, at the time that was a brand new standard. We had just reached a technological milestone in order create such bulbs at a sustained production rate. And these morons spin it as some huge conspiracy. Sigh. I probably sound like a broken record... but it's people own ignorance which drive these paranoid and conspiracy/fantasy oriented ideas. It's people's unwillingness to even question their own choices maybe realize there is no one person, entity or even government at fault.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 15, 2011)

And now, it appears that, in opposition to even light bulb manufacturers, the only group which wants bad light bulbs is some Republicans.

Burgess Amendment Keeps Light Bulb Law Repeal Alive | Reuters

It's almost as if I'm living in that movie "The Arrival," and that the hidden conspiracy is in favor of driving up the Earth's temperature. Phil Gordian (played by Ron Silver) talks about how we humnas have already started, and they're just going to finish the job. 

"If you can't tend to your own planet, you don't deserve to live here." 

*laugh*


----------

