NationStates Jolt Archive

The combustion engine is a technology that has out lived it's usefulness. While hydrogen and solar cell technology still years away, Hybrid engines (gas-electric) is the only solution for conservation of Fusel fuels and reduction of Green house gas.

Be it hereby resolved that all combustion engines be banned by all UN member states and replace with the hybrid engine.

Furthermore, all diesel engines shall be replace by Biodiesel hybrids.

1. Due to possible supply shortages of vegetable based fuels.

2. To prevent over farming of staple crops.

To minimize the cost to the Auto Industry and the general consumer, all cost related to factory retrofitting, reconstruction, and design would not be considered a tariff if tax exempted.

Furthermore, any profit accumulated during that time would not be considered a tariff if tax exempted.

Not to mention the environmental impact.

It's impossible to ban combustion engines, unless you plan on grounding all air travel. Jet engines are combustion engines.

No, Jet engines are completely different than combustion engines...much like Diesel engines.

There's a reason they call them JET engines.

For starters, a jet engine has a turbine.

A combustion engine has a piston.

Huge difference. Scientific difference.

the C.E.B. will not ban jet engines..nor rocket engines...just to answer that question.

:fluffle:

Unless you plan on providing us all with equivalent hydrogen-cell power plants to replace those of our now engineless vehicles (and easy access to new hydrogen cells), I believe this resolution is repungnantly out-of-touch with reality.

For starters, a jet engine has a turbine.

A combustion engine has a piston.

Huge difference. Scientific difference.

the C.E.B. will not ban jet engines..nor rocket engines...just to answer that question.

:fluffle:
A combustion engine has a piston? A piston has nothing to do with the definition of a combustion engine.

I would also add then, by your standards (which aren't even scientific, it's pathetic for you to claim in ignorance for it to be so) would not effect a combustion engine like a wankel rotary, since it has no pistons.

A combustion engine uses combustion to produce locomotive power...

This includes:

the Otto, Atkinson, Gnome Rotary, Wankel Rotary, Two-stroke, and gas-turbine (aka JET engine in all its forms, turbojet, turbofan, turboprop), and ramjet.

Your use of "Combustion Engine" is general, since the term does not specify the plethora of types of "Combustion Engine"... the main two types being either EXTERNAL or INTERNAL combustion. (fire-boiled steam engines would also be banned by this resolution, including any still existing steam locomotives).

Also, the plethora of Diesel Engines are also Internal Combustion engines.... Their only difference is the combustion process is intiated by compressing a gas rather than the application of an ignition source.

Also, by extension, the CEB would ban all gas-electric and diesel-electric hybrid technologies... since they counterpart electric propulsion with an existing combustion engine technology.

No, Jet engines are completely different than combustion engines...much like Diesel engines.

There's a reason they call them JET engines.

Jet engines are combustion engines. They work by drawing in air and compressing it, then using combustion to heat it up, causing it to expand. The hot air is forced out the exhaust nozzle, producing thrust.

All UN nations are already developing or have developed Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=17), per UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #18. It's a moot point. Been done. It's already the law.

No, Jet engines are completely different than combustion engines...much like Diesel engines.

There's a reason they call them JET engines.

Explain how the process fuel undergoes in a jet engine or diesel engine is not combustion, then. If the fuel doesn't combust, what does it do?

Explain how the process fuel undergoes in a jet engine or diesel engine is not combustion, then. If the fuel doesn't combust, what does it do?

The hybrid engine "combust" too but it's not classified as a combustion engine.

Rocket and Jet engines do combust yes, but because of different design, different uses and different performances...

One has a turbine the other a piston...They're not classified as a combustion engine,

The C.E.B. would not in any way affect other classification of engine, even if they combust.

:headbang:

You see way too many bad environmental resolutions in the UN these days -_-

Jet engines are combustion engines. They work by drawing in air and compressing it, then using combustion to heat it up, causing it to expand. The hot air is forced out the exhaust nozzle, producing thrust.

again, the C.E.B. will not ban the combustion of fossil fuels.

It will only ban the combustion engine, an engine that cranks an axle not a propellant.

Turbine engines will not be affected.

All UN nations are already developing or have developed Hydrogen Powered Vehicles (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=17), per UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #18. It's a moot point. Been done. It's already the law.

HPV's are not were they need to be to make any significant impact on the environment.

Remember they were first proposed back in the 50s. Who knows if they will ever live up to the hype.

Hybrids are real. They meet or surpass standard power requirements, and light years ahead in efficiency.

:headbang:

You see way too many bad environmental resolutions in the UN these days -_-

You can say that about almost any issue. Still, that shouldn't stop you from supporting a good idea, if of course, one comes up :)

In any case, your resolution in reality would have no effect on my nation as all my vehicles are powered by fusion power cells. I'll vote against it because environmental resolutions always kill the economy of a nation.

I said your resolution is bad because it is bad. It is poorly worded and vague, and the effects will seriously damage the economies of younger nations who can't afford to buy this hybrid engine crap, as well as force us high-tech nations to use stuff worse than what we have.

In any case, your resolution in reality would have no effect on my nation as all my vehicles are powered by fusion power cells. I'll vote against it because environmental resolutions always kill the economy of a nation.

I said your resolution is bad because it is bad. It is poorly worded and vague, and the effects will seriously damage the economies of younger nations who can't afford to buy this hybrid engine crap, as well as force us high-tech nations to use stuff worse than what we have.

It wouldn't affect you or any Nation that uses alternative energy.

And the affect on the economy will be minimized through tax credits.

And younger nations will benefit from the savings of fuel efficiency.

When you use less money on fuel...you have more money to spend on...fill in the blank.

Let's also talk about supply and demand.

If all combustion engines were banned, then the demand for fossil fuels would decline...

Ergo, the price of fossil fuels would decline...

which would lead to lower inflation for the entire UN, thus the average consumer has more buying power...

This is a very very pro-business, Environmental proposal.

Am I to understand your initial post is the text to your actual proposal?

Les unite for this one thing and ban combustion engines for good

huurayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

hip-hop

hurayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

This resolution is vauge at best. It doesn't describe anything its more of an idea than a resolution. Until we see a more detailed resolution the Kingdom of Heiliger will be voting agaisnt this.

It wouldn't affect you or any Nation that uses alternative energy.

And the affect on the economy will be minimized through tax credits.

And younger nations will benefit from the savings of fuel efficiency.

When you use less money on fuel...you have more money to spend on...fill in the blank.

Wrong. All environmental resolutions passed by the UN lower a nation's economy, regardless of their actual text.

The hybrid engine "combust" too but it's not classified as a combustion engine.

Rocket and Jet engines do combust yes, but because of different design, different uses and different performances...

One has a turbine the other a piston...They're not classified as a combustion engine,

The C.E.B. would not in any way affect other classification of engine, even if they combust.

Umm.... New Hamilton, my classification of Diesel and gas-tubrine/jet engines as "combustion engines" was not an opinion, it is an established engineering fact. Whether an engine has a "piston" or not, has no bearing on it being a combustion engine. A combustion engine is any mechanical device that uses the chemical process of combustion to produce mechanical energy.

Your thinking appearantly is only on reciprocating internal combustion engines, at least to some degree. As your "definition" of CE fails to cover wankel rotary engines (like used in the earlier Mazda RX-7's)....

Here is a list, and operative specs of types of internal combustion engines...

Otto (4-stroke)
http://www.keveney.com/img/otto.gif

Two-Stroke
http://www.keveney.com/img/twostroke.gif

Gnome Rotary
http://www.keveney.com/img/gnome.gif

Wankel Rotary
http://www.keveney.com/img/wankel.gif

Gas-Turbine(aka Jet engine)
http://www.keveney.com/img/tjet.gif

Umm.... New Hamilton, my classification of Diesel and gas-tubrine/jet engines as "combustion engines" was not an opinion, it is an established engineering fact. Whether an engine has a "piston" or not, has no bearing on it being a combustion engine. A combustion engine is any mechanical device that uses the chemical process of combustion to produce mechanical energy.

Your thinking appearantly is only on reciprocating internal combustion engines, at least to some degree. As your "definition" of CE fails to cover wankel rotary engines (like used in the earlier Mazda RX-7's)....

Here is a list, and operative specs of types of internal combustion engines...

Otto (4-stroke)
http://www.keveney.com/img/otto.gif

Two-Stroke
http://www.keveney.com/img/twostroke.gif

Gnome Rotary
http://www.keveney.com/img/gnome.gif

Wankel Rotary
http://www.keveney.com/img/wankel.gif

Gas-Turbine(aka Jet engine)
http://www.keveney.com/img/tjet.gif

Thank you for the visuals, I believe these will help.


I absolutely understand that they all combust fuel. And again, the CEB will not outlaw the combustion of fossil fuels.

Remember the hybrid engine combust fuel but...it's not classified as a combustion engine. Go figure.

Second, as you pointed out above, Propellants (Jet and rocket) engines will not be included into the ban.

Why? because even though they do combust fossil fuels, they are not considered Internal Combustion engines...Why?

Because they vent the combustion through a turbine...you know that flame that shoots out of a F-16...

Yep that's the sign that it's not an internal combustion engine...

You do make a good point though...Mazada did make a crappie expensive, hard to fix engine.

The least we can do is...ban it.

And again, I don't understand this love affair with an archaic, inefficient, polluting out of date, technology.

It's amazing to see the influence over good judgment the Oil industry welds over it's masses.

Wrong. All environmental resolutions passed by the UN lower a nation's economy, regardless of their actual text.

Well then I would say that's an institutional bias and not because of the actual resolution.

The biggest lie in the world is that all environmental regulation is bad for the economy.

And frankly speaking, how would using less fossil fuels, getting more for you buck per mile, hurt the economy?

How does reducing the demand for fossil fuels hurt the worlds economy?

How does biodiesel do anything expect give the Agriculture Industry another revenue stream?

Could you please state what negatives that you foresee, outside the cost of doing something rather than doing nothing.

This resolution is vauge at best. It doesn't describe anything its more of an idea than a resolution. Until we see a more detailed resolution the Kingdom of Heiliger will be voting agaisnt this.

Fair enough.

My question then is, what could be modified or changed or added that would possible sway you to support it?

Fair enough.

My question then is, what could be modified or changed or added that would possible sway you to support it?

I will agree that after 7 years of grant writing at JPL, I may assume that the average Intellectual does know the classification of engines and technology better then they actually do.

With that said, I am more than willing to add any clarifications, even though it will not, in any way, change the nature of the proposal.

If such a resolution is considered for proposal, the government of P3X1299 will have no choice but to withdraw from the U.N. The economic impact of this alone would be...catastrophic.

The combustion engine is a technology that has out lived it's usefulness. Clearly you neglect to recognise that poorer nations would be crippled by a loss of this technology. Whilst wealthier nations would be able to absorb this development (and possibly be unaffected), the damage done on poor nations would be harsh.

Luckily, the DSH uses Nuclear power to run our cars, along with everything else. :)

I think you miss my point, gas-turbines are still internal combustion engines. (In fact Chrysler experimented with a Tubine car in the 60's). This isn't a point of debate, it's a fact which I am telling you... As long as the chemical process of combustion is occuring inside the engine to produce thermal expansion, and provide mechanical force, it's an internal combustion engine, regardless if it has pistons, turbines, weird bent our triangles, or nothing at all, or whether the ignition source is by electric spark, or by compression of the fuel-air mix.

An internal combustion engine, is any engine which burns its fuel inside the engine..... Which covers every engine except steam engines and Stirling engines, which are external combustion engines.

I think what you want to ban is the usage of reciprocating internal combustion engines....

I will however bring up some problems with your proposal.

First of all is bio-diesel.... BAD idea..... biodiesel is a worse pollutant than normal diesel. Especially if the issue is the principals behind global warming. While CO2 emitions are virtually null (95+% less as compared to petroleum diesel) there is on average 105 to 190% increase in NO2 emitions.... problem with this, is that NO2 is about 4 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.... so the potent effect of biodiesel in terms of green-house gas emitions is about 490% more potent in its effects on global warming than it's petroleum brother. It's an aspect that pisses me off about the bio-diesel researchers... They keep conveniently forgetting that point when they go out plugging their "enviroment friendly" fuel... There are some advantages in using the mix form concept of combing petroleum and biodiesel as a mixed fuel.

However, hybrid technologies have prooven to be fairly good. (course they had been around for quite some time in sea going vessels and industrial level equipment like earthmovers)...

I think you miss my point, gas-turbines are still internal combustion engines. (In fact Chrysler experimented with a Tubine car in the 60's). This isn't a point of debate, it's a fact which I am telling you... As long as the chemical process of combustion is occuring inside the engine to produce thermal expansion, and provide mechanical force, it's an internal combustion engine, regardless if it has pistons, turbines, weird bent our triangles, or nothing at all, or whether the ignition source is by electric spark, or by compression of the fuel-air mix.

An internal combustion engine, is any engine which burns its fuel inside the engine..... Which covers every engine except steam engines and Stirling engines, which are external combustion engines.

I think what you want to ban is the usage of reciprocating internal combustion engines....

I will however bring up some problems with your proposal.

First of all is bio-diesel.... BAD idea..... biodiesel is a worse pollutant than normal diesel. Especially if the issue is the principals behind global warming. While CO2 emitions are virtually null (95+% less as compared to petroleum diesel) there is on average 105 to 190% increase in NO2 emitions.... problem with this, is that NO2 is about 4 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.... so the potent effect of biodiesel in terms of green-house gas emitions is about 490% more potent in its effects on global warming than it's petroleum brother. It's an aspect that pisses me off about the bio-diesel researchers... They keep conveniently forgetting that point when they go out plugging their "enviroment friendly" fuel... There are some advantages in using the mix form concept of combing petroleum and biodiesel as a mixed fuel.

However, hybrid technologies have prooven to be fairly good. (course they had been around for quite some time in sea going vessels and industrial level equipment like earthmovers)...

First of all, which Bio-fuel are you speaking of?

There are 35 different types (more if you speak of mixtures)

Second, please google the history of the diesel engine.

The diesel engine was first invented to be alternative to the fossil fuel.

Yep back in the early 20th century, there was a fossil fuel shortage, and the diesel was designed to only run on vegetable based fuel...


BUT

The petroleum industry bought out Ralph and thusly changed his invention into the most polluting engine in the world.


I'm just curious, why are you so afraid to correct an environmental mistake?


Why are you spiting out OPEC propaganda?

Why are you so scared to let go of 100 year old technology?

I find that amazing. It's like that guy who wont upgrade from Window 95.

It does not matter how good you think the effects of this resolution will be-- the fact remains that any Environmental, Strength: Strong resolution will make our economies take a huge hit.

Also, it's blatantly obvious that the resolution itself is based on pseudoscience at best.

It does not matter how good you think the effects of this resolution will be-- the fact remains that any Environmental, Strength: Strong resolution will make our economies take a huge hit.

Also, it's blatantly obvious that the resolution itself is based on pseudoscience at best.

Before I ask my professors at Caltech for my money back...


Please explain your point...

Because at this point, you are only explaining a "George Bush" point.

I say it, so therefore it's right.

First of all, which Bio-fuel are you speaking of?

There are 35 different types (more if you speak of mixtures)

Second, please google the history of the diesel engine.

The diesel engine was first invented to be alternative to the fossil fuel.

Yep back in the early 20th century, there was a fossil fuel shortage, and the diesel was designed to only run on vegetable based fuel...


BUT

The petroleum industry bought out Ralph and thusly changed his invention into the most polluting engine in the world.


I'm just curious, why are you so afraid to correct an environmental mistake?


Why are you spiting out OPEC propaganda?

Why are you so scared to let go of 100 year old technology?

I find that amazing. It's like that guy who wont upgrade from Window 95.

OPEC propaganda? It's not propaganda.... and it's not from OPEC.... It's from the EPA's emitions studies between biodiesel, mix fuels, and petro-diesel

Ralph? who the hell is Ralph? unless you mean Rudolf..... Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel...

Secondly... why do you spout that myth? In fact, Dr. Diesel's only main contention was against the COAL industry.... the early initial Diesels were not automotive use, they were stationary use (trains, ships, factories), very large engines designed to compete against COAL burning steam engines. He died, most likely assasinated by German or British operatives, since the diesel had become a key component of Germany's advancing U-boat fleet, or committed suicide, which also seems likely, since he was broke due to his poor business practices, in 1913..... the engine did not come into mobile automotive use till 1920, when a new fuel pump and injection system was invented that allowed shrinking the engine down below the 2-3 ton size, for mobile rather than stationary use... and even then didn't see usage in production automobiles for another 3 years.

*bops you on the back of your head to get your neurons firing in the right direction*

Before I ask my professors at Caltech for my money back...


Please explain your point...

Because at this point, you are only explaining a "George Bush" point.

I say it, so therefore it's right.

After having listened to you for the past few days, I would most definitely say you need to ask your professors for their money back...

Either that or Caltech's standards have fallen to Yale levels... Because you sound about as deserving of a degree from CalTech as G.W. Bush having a Yale degree....

I also might point out, you are completely missing his point... I guess CalTech grads can't extrapolate very well.... he's saying that, by GAME MECHANICS, here on NationStates, "STRONG" resolutions catagorized "Enviromental" have negative economic impact... Irregardless of what impact you want it to have. The simple fact, you're going to have countless billions of people who have to sell their old cars for scrap, and buy new ones, and suffer a net loss.

This aspect also creates SEVERAL other problems.... there's not conversion time frame in the resolution..... in practical aspect, the resolution would take immediate effect... (imagine such a ban were to pop up next week in the USA...... you'ld have several hundred million people with no transportation untill they can purchase new vehicles).... the proposal should have a time frame and/or grandfather clause in it.

OPEC propaganda? It's not propaganda.... and it's not from OPEC.... It's from the EPA's emitions studies between biodiesel, mix fuels, and petro-diesel

Ralph? who the hell is Ralph? unless you mean Rudolf..... Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel...

Secondly... why do you spout that myth? In fact, Dr. Diesel's only main contention was against the COAL industry.... the early initial Diesels were not automotive use, they were stationary use (trains, ships, factories), very large engines designed to compete against COAL burning steam engines. He died, most likely assasinated by German or British operatives, since the diesel had become a key component of Germany's advancing U-boat fleet, or committed suicide, which also seems likely, since he was broke due to his poor business practices, in 1913..... the engine did not come into mobile automotive use till 1920, when a new fuel pump and injection system was invented that allowed shrinking the engine down below the 2-3 ton size, for mobile rather than stationary use... and even then didn't see usage in production automobiles for another 3 years.

*bops you on the back of your head to get your neurons firing in the right direction*


Wow, you're the first person in the entire world that thinks the diesel engine was invented for fossil fuels.


In fact, with your knowledge, you can get a doctrine degree...unless of course...

You are wrong...

I don't know...the internet is so tricky...


Just maybe...

Well, thank god for google.

After having listened to you for the past few days, I would most definitely say you need to ask your professors for their money back...

Either that or Caltech's standards have fallen to Yale levels... Because you sound about as deserving of a degree from CalTech as G.W. Bush having a Yale degree....

I also might point out, you are completely missing his point... I guess CalTech grads can't extrapolate very well.... he's saying that, by GAME MECHANICS, here on NationStates, "STRONG" resolutions catagorized "Enviromental" have negative economic impact... Irregardless of what impact you want it to have. The simple fact, you're going to have countless billions of people who have to sell their old cars for scrap, and buy new ones, and suffer a net loss.

This aspect also creates SEVERAL other problems.... there's not conversion time frame in the resolution..... in practical aspect, the resolution would take immediate effect... (imagine such a ban were to pop up next week in the USA...... you'ld have several hundred million people with no transportation untill they can purchase new vehicles).... the proposal should have a time frame and/or grandfather clause in it.

You are so talking outside of what you know, It's disgusting.

Is this what's it's about?

People, talking out of there...holes?


My only question is, before you use my background as a point...what's your background for comparison?

Is this a field that you know little yet you rather argue much?

Is this a field that you know much yet you rather argue little?

Or is this just a google for a day?


No one needs to hear rhetoric, lame rhetoric, just because...

Add something, add something that's important...

Not the same damn thing that you've been saying about EVERY environmental law that's ever be suggested.

Wow, you're the first person in the entire world that thinks the diesel engine was invented for fossil fuels.


In fact, with your knowledge, you can get a doctrine degree...unless of course...

You are wrong...

I don't know...the internet is so tricky...


Just maybe...

Well, thank god for google.

A doctrine degree?

A doctrine degree?

Yes, with what you're suggesting.

In short, your science is considered wrong. Google wrong to boot, and that's a sad place to be.

You are so talking outside of what you know, It's disgusting.

Is this what's it's about?

People, talking out of there...holes?


My only question is, before you use my background as a point...what's your background for comparison?

Is this a field that you know little yet you rather argue much?

Is this a field that you know much yet you rather argue little?

Or is this just a google for a day?


No one needs to hear rhetoric, lame rhetoric, just because...

Add something, add something that's important...

Not the same damn thing that you've been saying about EVERY environmental law that's ever be suggested.

Many people have made suggestions, just in your puny mind, everyone else is wrong... even though everyone else knows you're wrong....

My initial issue raised was it's impact accross the board because it was non-descriptive on "combustion engines" which would include gas-turbine (aka jet engines)... you responded that gas-turbine engines were not combustion engines because they didn't have pistons..... that was the first falicious statement you made..... of course that went for awhile, and you still seem to fail to realize they are in fact internal combustion engines.... as it seems, everyone else who has posted here, except you, seems to realize... Rather than answer our contentions with modification of the text, you choose to deny facts... But I'm not going to sit here and count off all the errors you've stated as fact along the way.

What I will say is that what you are asking for isn't a ban, but a limitation of reciprocating internal combustion engines used in automotive use, to electric hybrid configurations only.... and that what is needed for practical application as such, at this point (assuming a real world application), is either a time-frame based change over and/or a grandfather clause, to apply some limit to its economic impact...

And for the point, I was merely stating what he was talking about. Within the NationStates coding, strong enviromental resolution = negative economic impact.... he's not stating a theory... given that this is a game, more or less a web-based application, operating on server-side scripted XML and PHP... and that the code base does that.... you might as well consider that a fundamental universal fact.

You know, generally, when people post drafts and proposals in here, it is for constructive work on the proposal, and not merely to stomp around like an irate 4 year old, refusing to accept help from anyone else.

If such a resolution is considered for proposal, the government of P3X1299 will have no choice but to withdraw from the U.N. The economic impact of this alone would be...catastrophic.

How so?

Yes, with what you're suggesting.

In short, your science is considered wrong. Google wrong to boot, and that's a sad place to be.


Pfft.... hmhmm, sure.... deny everything..... of course, it doesn't matter, everyone in this thread knows you're a preteen. So you can take your proposal, and shove them up your teenage hind-end..... I can gurantee there is not a single person in here who believes your CalTech and JPL claims...

Many people have made suggestions, just in your puny mind, everyone else is wrong... even though everyone else knows you're wrong....

My initial issue raised was it's impact accross the board because it was non-descriptive on "combustion engines" which would include gas-turbine (aka jet engines)... you responded that gas-turbine engines were not combustion engines because they didn't have pistons..... that was the first falicious statement you made..... of course that went for awhile, and you still seem to fail to realize they are in fact internal combustion engines.... as it seems, everyone else who has posted here, except you, seems to realize... Rather than answer our contentions with modification of the text, you choose to deny facts... But I'm not going to sit here and count off all the errors you've stated as fact along the way.

What I will say is that what you are asking for isn't a ban, but a limitation of reciprocating internal combustion engines used in automotive use, to electric hybrid configurations only.... and that what is needed for practical application as such, at this point (assuming a real world application), is either a time-frame based change over and/or a grandfather clause, to apply some limit to its economic impact...

And for the point, I was merely stating what he was talking about. Within the NationStates coding, strong enviromental resolution = negative economic impact.... he's not stating a theory... given that this is a game, more or less a web-based application, operating on server-side scripted XML and PHP... and that the code base does that.... you might as well consider that a fundamental universal fact.

You know, generally, when people post drafts and proposals in here, it is for constructive work on the proposal, and not merely to stomp around like an irate 4 year old, refusing to accept help from anyone else.

Well if the game is designed to be anti-environmental.

Well then the game is broken.

Period.

And BTW, if you suggested any changes, Hell, I would love it...

But you haven't and you wont.

What what the heck do you expect form me? A better YOU?

Wow, that's pretty amazing. The last I check, you are the elder.

You expect better from me than yourself?

Amazing standard.

As I said before, just because some people do not know the classification of engines, does not mean the proposal is lacking in definition.

Just because the CD player and the MP3 player both play music....doesn't make them the same thing...

As I said before, just because some people do not know the classification of engines, does not mean the proposal is lacking in definition.

Yes it does.

To extend your comparison, it's like banning all music players because MP3/CD/Radio players are evil. You've made no distinction. I don't care if you know everything there is to know on engines, if you have not expressed it correctly in the proposal, then it's not expressed at all.

Dude X: I want to ban music players because people can play MP3's on them.

Dude Y: So you're going to ban record players, tape players and CD's as well?

Dude X: No, just Music players.... CD's and such aren't music players because you can't play MP3's on them.

Dude Y: Yes, but Music players is general.... By definition it would man all of them...

Dude X: No, Music players play MP3's, CD players, Record players and tape players aren't music players.

and so on and so on and so on...... You know, it's doubtful he'll ever get the point.

and so on and so on and so on...... You know, it's doubtful he'll ever get the point.

Probably not....it's a shame really. All that knowledge and no way to express it succesfully in a couple of paragraphs for the UN to have a serious discussion on....<sigh>

Well if the game is designed to be anti-environmental.
Well then the game is broken.
Period.


Alas, it's the game you are playing. However, take a moment to read the explinations on these things. Environmental proposals clearly state that they are promoting the environment "at the expense of business". This would tend to imply that it will hurt a nation's economy, as when business takes a hit, so does the economy in general.

But, none of this matters. The fact remains that when environmental proposals are passed, the coding that controls your 'Economy' ranking is lowered. This may not provide a noticable effect, but it does inch (sorry, centimeter) your economy down. Call it "anti-enironmental" or "right-wing propaganda" or whatever you want to call it, but that's how the game is coded.

And, no, it's not going to be changed.

I just want to say that this sucker looks pretty damn funky:
Gnome Rotary
http://www.keveney.com/img/gnome.gif

What's it used in? Combine Harvesters?

The combustion engine is a technology that has out lived it's usefulness. While hydrogen and solar cell technology still years away, Hybrid engines (gas-electric) is the only solution for conservation of Fusel fuels and reduction of Green house gas.

Be it hereby resolved that all combustion engines be banned by all UN member states and replace with the hybrid engine.

Furthermore, all diesel engines shall be replace by Biodiesel hybrids.

1. Due to possible supply shortages of vegetable based fuels.

2. To prevent over farming of staple crops.

To minimize the cost to the Auto Industry and the general consumer, all cost related to factory retrofitting, reconstruction, and design would not be considered a tariff if tax exempted.

Furthermore, any profit accumulated during that time would not be considered a tariff if tax exempted.

Oh. Hell. No.

If this passes, the Great Dodgeball War is going to look like a kindergarten playground spat in comparison. I will not put up with the banning of an integral part of my nation. It's a good thing I left the U.N. with my HotRodia nation, or my storefront would be in violation of this if it passed.

Alas, it's the game you are playing. However, take a moment to read the explinations on these things. Environmental proposals clearly state that they are promoting the environment "at the expense of business". This would tend to imply that it will hurt a nation's economy, as when business takes a hit, so does the economy in general.

But, none of this matters. The fact remains that when environmental proposals are passed, the coding that controls your 'Economy' ranking is lowered. This may not provide a noticable effect, but it does inch (sorry, centimeter) your economy down. Call it "anti-enironmental" or "right-wing propaganda" or whatever you want to call it, but that's how the game is coded.

And, no, it's not going to be changed.

I understand that the code's the code and that's that.

Hopefully though, that this proposal (or others like it) will bring up the issue of Agricultural Industry (through Bio-fuel) and if possible buttress it much how when you join the UN, it buttress the Arms Manufacturing.

Which, btw, a very said state of the UN.

The only "upside" of joining the UN is Arms Manufacturing...So let me get this right...

Instead of raising the standards of living in the UN, they op for protecting the Status Quo...

Interesting to say the least.

Dude X: I want to ban music players because people can play MP3's on them.

Dude Y: So you're going to ban record players, tape players and CD's as well?

Dude X: No, just Music players.... CD's and such aren't music players because you can't play MP3's on them.

Dude Y: Yes, but Music players is general.... By definition it would man all of them...

Dude X: No, Music players play MP3's, CD players, Record players and tape players aren't music players.

and so on and so on and so on...... You know, it's doubtful he'll ever get the point.

A computer can play music yet it's not considered a music player.

A TV can play music yet it's not considered a music player.

A cell phone can play music yet it's not considered a music player.

Here's the answer to your question...

The hybrid engine, by your definition, is a combustion engine yet it's not classified a combustion engine. Why?

I believe the answer to this is the same answer to "Why is a Jet engine not considered a combustion engine" and "why a rocket engine is not considered a combustion engine."

Yes they do combust fossil fuel, much like the Hybrid, but, again, they fall under a different category.

And just if you are wondering, No the CEB will not ban the Batmobile (all hail Batman).

Because it uses a Jet engine.

It does not matter how good you think the effects of this resolution will be-- the fact remains that any Environmental, Strength: Strong resolution will make our economies take a huge hit.

Also, it's blatantly obvious that the resolution itself is based on pseudoscience at best.

Environmental proposals don't have "Strengths". Instead they have "Industry Affected", though you might argue an "All Businesses" proposal would be a "strong" reaching proposal.

Yes it does.

To extend your comparison, it's like banning all music players because MP3/CD/Radio players are evil. You've made no distinction. I don't care if you know everything there is to know on engines, if you have not expressed it correctly in the proposal, then it's not expressed at all.

I disagree, but also do understand your example ... which I feel suggests that there is in fact a middle ground.

A NationStates resolution can be defined later in the "annex" of the debate / discussion records. The reason I state that resolutions can be vague is that the UN Secretariat (game mods) have made a ruling that no real-life references, not even documents, should appear in UN resolutions.

Just to define something such as an engine or epidemic could take pages, and these longer proposals do alienate many nations.

My government feels there should be a half-way point. Definitions aren't required, but a resolution that at least has a simple definition for discussions to start from, will probably fair better than one that doesn't.

I disagree, but also do understand your example ... which I feel suggests that there is in fact a middle ground.

A NationStates resolution can be defined later in the "annex" of the debate / discussion records. The reason I state that resolutions can be vague is that the UN Secretariat (game mods) have made a ruling that no real-life references, not even documents, should appear in UN resolutions.

Just to define something such as an engine or epidemic could take pages, and these longer proposals do alienate many nations.

My government feels there should be a half-way point. Definitions aren't required, but a resolution that at least has a simple definition for discussions to start from, will probably fair better than one that doesn't.

Absolutely, I agree but the problem is...

In order to define something, you must have a set of fixed parameters.

And as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, no such parameters exist here regarding engine classification.

So an author can either use "real world" definitions or they can...well...come up with a "NationState" definition.

Remember that in NationStates some country have cold fusion...A technology that, for all purposes, does not exist in the "real world"

So instead of trying to add a definition that may or may not be relevant in NationStates...

I kept it lean and mean.

With that said, I would be more than happy, more than willing to add any clarification to the proposal.

But like I said before, I would need to have a set of fixed parameters in order to do this.

My suggestion is that you add a clause reaffirming the right for other types of engines, such as the diesel engine I believe you suggested would still be legal, to exist. For example, many of our nations use diesel powered engines to pull frieght and passengers between countries. While engines could be switched, a tremendous amount of money has been dedicated to the construction and operation of diesel powered general purpose and road switcher engines (in fact, many of these engines have been exported to other nations and remain extremely popular worldwide).

On a more presonal note, have you considered rewriting your proposal in the format suggested in Sophista's guide (see the stickied thread at the top of this forum)? I find that numbered clauses (separate from the general justification) make it easier for people to discussion the proposal / resolution.

I just want to say that this sucker looks pretty damn funky:


What's it used in? Combine Harvesters?

I think it's used in prop-powered aircraft.

You cannot impose such a major burden on all member states.

All your pathetic enviromentalist resolutions are doomed.
:gundge:

My suggestion is that you add a clause reaffirming the right for other types of engines, such as the diesel engine I believe you suggested would still be legal, to exist. For example, many of our nations use diesel powered engines to pull frieght and passengers between countries. While engines could be switched, a tremendous amount of money has been dedicated to the construction and operation of diesel powered general purpose and road switcher engines (in fact, many of these engines have been exported to other nations and remain extremely popular worldwide).

On a more presonal note, have you considered rewriting your proposal in the format suggested in Sophista's guide (see the stickied thread at the top of this forum)? I find that numbered clauses (separate from the general justification) make it easier for people to discussion the proposal / resolution.

Yes I have (discovering Sophista's later). I got a lot of fantastic thoughtful suggestions (how awesome is that, very cool people) that got my brain a churning.

I still believe that given the category (automobile manufacturing), the proposal still functions properly.

But rewrites are always good.

You cannot impose such a major burden on all member states.

All your pathetic enviromentalist resolutions are doomed.
:gundge:

LOL.

One day...soon...

Hopefully though, that this proposal (or others like it) will bring up the issue of Agricultural Industry (through Bio-fuel) and if possible buttress it much how when you join the UN, it buttress the Arms Manufacturing.

What are you talking about? Joining the UN doesn't boost anything.

What are you talking about? Joining the UN doesn't boost anything.

Yes it does, it buttress arms manufacturing. It moved my to third industry.

Do to the Axis of evil.

Yes it does, it buttress arms manufacturing. It moved my to third industry.

Do to the Axis of evil.

OOC: I think that is a good way to roleplay, but the reality is the impact of joining the UN does not technically change your game stats until a resolution is passed. It is coded that way.

In a sense both you and the Most Glorious Hack are right, but for different reasons. I think you both can smile and claim victory here. :)

OOC: I think that is a good way to roleplay, but the reality is the impact of joining the UN does not technically change your game stats until a resolution is passed. It is coded that way.

In a sense both you and the Most Glorious Hack are right, but for different reasons. I think you both can smile and claim victory here. :)

Really? Because i didn't have Arms manufacturing as a top three before i joined and the day I joined it pop up with that days update.

So new members (especially if they're young nations) would be effected by all the resolutions passed prior to joining...

Right?

Or was the AM just a random occurrence?

LOL there's a lot to learn here...

Really? Because i didn't have Arms manufacturing as a top three before i joined and the day I joined it pop up with that days update.

So new members (especially if they're young nations) would be effected by all the resolutions passed prior to joining...

Right?

Or was the AM just a random occurrence?

LOL there's a lot to learn here...
You are not affected by resolutions passed while you are not a UN member. In fact there are some nations that will actually leave the UN temporarily in order to avoid the effect of a resolution. (I did that once myself)

You are not affected by resolutions passed while you are not a UN member. In fact there are some nations that will actually leave the UN temporarily in order to avoid the effect of a resolution. (I did that once myself)

So wait, when you join the UN, you don't have to comply to any of the prior resolutions?

So wait, when you join the UN, you don't have to comply to any of the prior resolutions?
Technically, yes, but they don't affect your nation's stats.

I didn't read most of the rest of the argument but here's my two cents worth

Main Entry: internal combustion engine
Function: noun
: a heat engine in which the combustion that generates the heat takes place inside the engine proper instead of in a furnace

by this defenition, nearly all engines except steam turbine engines could be defined as an 'Internal combustion' engine. and unless you can provide an acceptable substitue, and the funding for such a drastic overhaul of world transportation, you really can't suggest banning them... :rolleyes:

"-Bah, this is all a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap.

Your feeble attempt to ban the combustion engine will miserably fail, and such idiocy that you have willingly displayed should be punished with painful torture until death.

The internal combustion engine, regardless of its type and construction may be an old idea, but as with all technology it evolves. The internal combustion engines of ages past may be inefficient, but with the current level of technology they are not.

The first MBT in The armed republic of Walther Brandl had a petrol engine which produced about 150 HP, and it was a V12 21 litres big. This was a thousand years ago; with our current technology we can make a 150 HP engine small enough to fit in your backpack, along with the controls necessary to control the backpack when you use it for what it was built, to fly."

The only thing that has bested your stupidity in this discussion, New Hamilton, is your naivety
"Right up to this sentence, your post was reasoned and reasonable. With the ad hominem attack, you crossed the line."

"Ambassador from Walther Brandl, feel free to attack the idea, but leave the personal attacks elsewhere. This is a civilized chamber, and we do not think well of flamers here."

-- M.J. Donovan, CEO (ret.), Frisbeeteria

You are right, I got a bit hot headed.

I hereby formally withdraw my former statement regarding the delegates intelligence.

Technically, yes, but they don't affect your nation's stats.

So repealing the Axis of Evil resolution wont change anyones Nation stats pre se, correct?

"-Bah, this is all a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap.

Your feeble attempt to ban the combustion engine will miserably fail, and such idiocy that you have willingly displayed should be punished with painful torture until death.

let me guess, you're one of those Capitalist Police States.

Right on.

The internal combustion engine, regardless of its type and construction may be an old idea, but as with all technology it evolves. The internal combustion engines of ages past may be inefficient, but with the current level of technology they are not.

Yes, absolutely, for example, the Hybrid engine.

The first MBT in The armed republic of Walther Brandl had a petrol engine which produced about 150 HP, and it was a V12 21 litres big. This was a thousand years ago; with our current technology we can make a 150 HP engine small enough to fit in your backpack, along with the controls necessary to control the backpack when you use it for what it was built, to fly."


It's getting rewritten and we'll see what happens next. I think that things can be added to garner support, maybe not your support, but Nations "you-like".

Military exemptions, several options for compliance...

We'll see...

I didn't read most of the rest of the argument but here's my two cents worth

Main Entry: internal combustion engine
Function: noun
: a heat engine in which the combustion that generates the heat takes place inside the engine proper instead of in a furnace

by this defenition, nearly all engines except steam turbine engines could be defined as an 'Internal combustion' engine. and unless you can provide an acceptable substitue, and the funding for such a drastic overhaul of world transportation, you really can't suggest banning them... :rolleyes:

Well, yes, all engines that use fossil fuels can be considered Combustion engines.

But the proposal was categorized "Automobile Manufacturing" and not "All Business".

True a car could use a turbine engine (although I can't think of any street legal ones), I guess and there is some historic relationship with Automobile Manufacturing and Jet Engines manufacturing (BMW, RR).

So unless there's a Industry tree chart showing under which each Industry is categorized...

Now with that said...

Let me clear something up:

The hybrid engine not a "new" engine as it is a new transmission.

The electric engine is as old as the combustion engine.

If a Nation has an escalator or elevator it has the manufacturing technology and ability to build a hybrid engine powerful enough to push 408 HP ( http://www.honda-acura.net/forums/printthread.php?t=126178 ) that can reach 250 KPH.


All they would have to design (not really, sharing could be part of the proposal) is a dual transmission.

That's it.


So I'm sorry, I just don't see a transmission crippling a Nations economy.

So repealing the Axis of Evil resolution wont change anyones Nation stats pre se, correct?
That's a good question, I would suggest asking a mod or an admin that because I have no idea.

That's a good question, I would suggest asking a mod or an admin that because I have no idea.

Well... you could just read the News page...

Ever felt sure that a particular UN resolution must have sneaked through when nobody was looking? (Although, now I think about it, with regard to the first one this is actually true.) Well, now you can do something about it! You can attempt to have a UN resolution repealed.

If you visit the page of Past UN Resolutions, you'll see they now have little "Repeal this Resolution" links. These take you to a page where you can propose that resolution be repealed (i.e. rolled back). Like any other proposal, your nation can only do this if it's a UN member and has at least two endorsements.

The process is then much like any other kind of proposal: it goes into the general pool for UN Delegates to consider, and will only reach the UN floor and be voted on by all member nations if it gains enough Delegate approvals.

If a repeal is passed by the full UN, the original resolution is stricken from the record and no longer binding on UN member nations. In practical terms, this has an effect on UN member nations similar to the original resolution, but in reverse and milder.

All current UN member nations will be affected by the repealing of a resolution, whether they were members when the original was passed or not. This may change in the future, if people seem outraged enough by it, but for practical reasons--we have no record of which nation was in the UN when any given resolution was passed--this it how it works for now. Enjoy!

Well... you could just read the News page...
Actually I did read that it was just back when it was first posted and I didn't remember it.

I just want to say that this sucker looks pretty damn funky:


What's it used in? Combine Harvesters?

Actually the Gnome rotary was used heavily in aircraft engines, pre-ww2. Cooling was fairly easy since the entire engine block spun. The shaft would be grounded and the prop bolted to the engine block.