Ban on small engines in California

[lohring]

Lets look at another example. I got an eletcric drill as a high school graduation present. It was a very high end Black & Decker with two speeds and an aluminum case. It survived decades of projects. A few years ago I bought a Sears battery powered drill. I never use the old plug in drill, even though I still have it. The battery operated drill is much easier to use.

The same thing is coming with more and more powered tools. They will be adapted because they're are a better all around product, not because they are green. The same will be true for cars and larger vehicles as the battery technology improves. Yesterday my car used a little less than 30 kilowatt hours per 100 miles That's equivalent to 122 miles per gallon. To get the EPA range of 310 miles it would need to only use around 25 watt hours per 100 miles or 146 miles per gallon. That's never going to happen with my driving style. At $0.115 per kilowatt hour that means it costs $0.00345 per mile. A 30 mile per gallon car will cost $0.12 per mile with $3.60 per gallon gasoline.

Lohring Miller

 

[Zeb]

Maybe we'll be winding our own coils someday. Here's a small 10 watt dynamo kit meant to be operated on the little steam engines they sell.
https://www.pmmodelengines.com/shop/steam/steam-accessories/dynamo-generator/

 

[Ken I]

I got an eletcric drill as a high school graduation present. It was a very high end Black & Decker with two speeds and an aluminum case.

Me too - in 1968 and apart from one rebuild and nearly shocking myself senseless on the aluminium case (and accidentally contacting a live wire with the other hand) - I still have it and it still works. In the meantime I've lost count of the number of cordless drills I've scrapped off - by the time the batteries die off, they no longer make that model or carry any spares.
Yes they are convenient and I currently have two but they are a lot more "disposable" than the old school stuff.
Regards, Ken

 

[SmithDoor]

Sounds like population control too.
The gasoline is more explosive that the LoPo batteries per pound.
But LoPo heats up first the electrolyte then explosives.
Propane is just as bad .

My self I store gasoline and Propaneo in building on fence line.

Dave

FYI The electrolyte in most LoPo batteries is same fluid used in oil foundry sand.

From the comments on here it would appear that CA already has an underpowered electrical supply network. So the idea of of banning the sale of small I.C. engines seems at the very least a doubtful and not well thought out idea.

It would have the effect of throwing the load of all those myriad, Generators, Lawn mowers, Small construction tools and too many other items to list, onto an already ailing electrical supply.

Until you consider why governments, be they local or national, make strange decisions like this. MONEY ! Someone, somewhere with "close connections" to the State's government is going to get "stinking rich" over this possibly the politicians themselves.

As for Electric cars I think all the previous doubts expressed are valid but we may be missing an important "Elephant in the room", that of safety, in particular fire risk.

Petroleum fuels are highly flammable in fact under the right conditions, explosive (good job they are) but petroleum fires can be extinguished far more easily than Lithium fires.

There have been some very serious fires with Electric cars already and there are not that many of them about yet. All Lithium batteries can be dangerous in this respect but the huge ones in Electric cars particularly so as they have the added potential of colliding at high speed.

I don't relish the idea of driving around strapped to a 1200 Lb mobile incendiary bomb !

The Charging points fiasco at COP26 sounds fairly typical of us Brits but it will all be O.K. as long as transport problems don't stop the tea supply. That really would be a national disaster !

Best Regards Mark

 

[timothysielbeck]

Instead of talking about freedom, how about responsibility? Social responsibility. Like not driving as fast as you want when/where you want. Not driving drunk. Not polluting. Not carrying a preventable disease. Usually complying with what you are told to do is best for society and in your best interest in order to avoid being segregated (read "jailed") from society.
Bill

How about your "social responsibility" to not infringe on the rights of others? This countries government was set up to protect the rights of individuals, not for the majority to impose its will on the minority. I have no responsibilities to "society." I am only responsible to myself and the commitments that I take upon myself, and any action I may take that directly harms another.

If you feel it is your responsibility to not "carry a preventable disease" may I respectfully request that you cease all contact with any other persons, places or things and move into a hermetically sealed bubble so that you have no possibility to acquire "a preventable disease," and hence, no way to spread any such that you may already have.

 

[vederstein]

How about your "social responsibility" to not infringe on the rights of others?

You state the point. I have the natural rights to do what I believe is right. Yet, my rights end where others' rights begin. This is no different than Jesus's 2nd commandment: Do unto others that you would want done to you.

The world is big. It's bigger than any individual. It's bigger than the impact that any individual can have on the world.

Although, If enough people blindly folllow the beliefs of one individual, then real havoc can happen and mess up the world. (Think WWII) .

Do not be led in the direction of an individual messiah. That messiah may lead you to ruin.

Trust yourself and what is best for your without directly screwing your fellow man.

If we can live be that ideal, we'll be ok.

...Ved.

 

[Richard Hed]

How about your "social responsibility" to not infringe on the rights of others? This countries government was set up to protect the rights of individuals, not for the majority to impose its will on the minority. I have no responsibilities to "society." I am only responsible to myself and the commitments that I take upon myself, and any action I may take that directly harms another.

If you feel it is your responsibility to not "carry a preventable disease" may I respectfully request that you cease all contact with any other persons, places or things and move into a hermetically sealed bubble so that you have no possibility to acquire "a preventable disease," and hence, no way to spread any such that you may already have.

This is correct to a degree, but do you forget about the pollution of the 70's? Nixon's EPA was definitely a good thing. Rivers used to be white not blue and poison due to industries dumping ther toxins directly into the streams. The cities were so polluted you couldn't walk in them without choking. There is a balance that must be maintained. You DO indeed have certain responsibilites toward society. When you drive your vehicle, after all, you don't drive on the wrong side of the road just because it's "your rite" as an idividual. When you are out hunting, you don't shoot towards someone's buildings just because it's your right as an individual. You cannot forget that the other people have the same rights as yourself and if we all acted without any social concience, we would simply be at war with each other.

 

[ku4qb1]

It's a standard attitude of the liberal left to believe that they, and only they are right. All others must submit. I call it "social narcissism", with all the standard traits and behaviors you can expect from an individual narcissist.

 

[awake]

It's a standard attitude of the liberal left to believe that they, and only they are right. All others must submit. I call it "social narcissism", with all the standard traits and behaviors you can expect from an individual narcissist.

Oddly enough, I have seen that attitude on all sides of the spectrum, right, left, and center. Conversely, I have occasionally and refreshingly encountered folks on all sides of the spectrum who are secure enough to own their own beliefs without dismissing or denigrating others.

 

[lohring]

None of you get building permits, car licenses, drivers licenses, or all the government required things that infringe on your personal liberty but allow us to live safely in large communities. Now there are enough of us that we need to start thinking about the effects on the whole world. Most of the same kinds of arguments were made about seat belts. I never understood why my late father hated car seat belts but wore a full belt and shoulder harness as a pilot.

Lohring Miller

 

[Richard Hed]

It's a standard attitude of the liberal left to believe that they, and only they are right. All others must submit. I call it "social narcissism", with all the standard traits and behaviors you can expect from an individual narcissist.

I call it "pseudoliberal" because I am a liberal and what they are preaching doesn't seem to me to be anything near what I consider "liberal". Frankly the r-words make me very ill but the pseudos frighten the hell out of me. I consider them to be velvet gloved Stalinists. Yeah yeah, velvet gloved for the time being but under every velvet glove is a fist of hard rock just waiting for the time to strike. I mean when we are "required" to bow our heads to all the lgbtq or whatever, then that is when the gloves come off. right? I could care less if someone is lgbtq--I just don't want stuff like that shoved down my throat--get the point? and I don't want my children or my children's children to have it shoved up their a$$ in the schools either.

On the other hand, I have to mention that I believe this whole thing is a conspiracy of the banksters who control the whole world. (Should I get on this subject? Sheesh, I don't know.) And BOTH the left and the right are doing their bidding. lgbtq, the banksters realize (rockefeller foundation pushes this), is a very good birthcontrol in an overpopulated world.

 

[Richard Hed]

Me too - in 1968 and apart from one rebuild and nearly shocking myself senseless on the aluminium case (and accidentally contacting a live wire with the other hand) - I still have it and it still works. In the meantime I've lost count of the number of cordless drills I've scrapped off - by the time the batteries die off, they no longer make that model or carry any spares.
Yes they are convenient and I currently have two but they are a lot more "disposable" than the old school stuff.
Regards, Ken

My personal experience is that the batteries don't hold a charge long enough to do seriuos work.

 

[timothysielbeck]

This is correct to a degree, but do you forget about the pollution of the 70's? Nixon's EPA was definitely a good thing. Rivers used to be white not blue and poison due to industries dumping ther(sic) toxins directly into the streams. The cities were so polluted you couldn't walk in them without choking. There is a balance that must be maintained.

With rights comes responsibilities. While I have rights I still must not act in a way that infringes the rights of others. I have always used the pollution you mention as one of the most egregious abuses of other peoples' rights by a group exercising their rights with total disregard for how it would affect others.

You DO indeed have certain responsibilites(sic) toward society.

I have NO responsibilities towards society. "Society" is a legal fiction created by some in order to restrain the rights of individuals. "Society" is not mentioned in the constitution as having any rights at all.

When you drive your vehicle, after all, you don't drive on the wrong side of the road just because it's "your rite(sic)" as an idividual(sic). When you are out hunting, you don't shoot towards someone's buildings just because it's your right as an individual.

You are conflating a privilege with a constitutional right. Driving is a privilege. In order to avail myself of this privilege I agree, to the best of my ability, to conform to the expected standards of conduct in order to exercise that privilege without bringing upon myself the repercussions that come with violating those standards which are anything from fines, jail time, and loss of that privilege. When hunting I feel no compunction of shooting at a target that has a building behind it if I am confident that my shot has no chance of hitting said building even if I should miss my intended target (such as my target were 100yrds away and the building was a mile away and I was shooting with negative elevation).

You cannot forget that the other people have the same rights as yourself and if we all acted without any social concience(sic), we would simply be at war with each other.

I know other people have the same rights (in this country) that I do and I have enough respect for the Constitution, and them, that I do my best to not infringe upon their rights (I am a fallible human so sometimes I fail). I have no "social conscience." I do not believe it is necessary. If we had respect for one another there would be no wars. With a "social conscience" controlled by "society" people can be convinced to do heinous things in the name of that society.

 

[timothysielbeck]

None of you get building permits, car licenses, drivers licenses, or all the government required things that infringe on your personal liberty but allow us to live safely in large communities. Now there are enough of us that we need to start thinking about the effects on the whole world. Most of the same kinds of arguments were made about seat belts. I never understood why my late father hated car seat belts but wore a full belt and shoulder harness as a pilot.

Lohring Miller

Another example of misconstruing a right with a privilege. I can have a car without having either type of licenses and drive it all over my personal property all I want. If I want to have the "privilege" of using it on public roads then I must get it, and myself, licensed. I see no infringement of my liberties in doing so. As for safety in large communities? That depends more on the respect everyone has for everyone else. If your community requires many laws to ensure safety then nobody has enough respect for those around them. If everyone had absolute respect for everyone else there would be no need for laws.

Seat belts, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish. They are a prime example of government intrusion into a persons daily life by deciding how a person should behave to protect themselves. When I was stationed in Germany in late 1981 all newcomers were told of the German seatbelt law. Roughly, if you were in an accident that was another's fault the judge could reduce any monetary award you might receive in the case because you didn't take all precautions to mitigate your injuries. Money grubbing governments in the US have decided that it is an easy way to increase the non-tax revenue coming into the coffers by just making it a fine. They do this under the guise of making you safe from yourself despite the fact that safety belts really only help if your car is struck from almost directly in the front and can cause an otherwise nonfatal accident to be fatal if a car is T-boned and a person is held in the seat adjacent to the impact area (as almost happened to a childhood friend of mine and the investigating officer said he would have been killed if he had been wearing his seat belt because of the door intrusion into the drivers sitting place). Belts in an aircraft are meant to hold a person in their seat so that control can be maintained is situations such as strong turbulence or maneuvers that would otherwise remove the pilot from the pilot's seat. Situations like that rarely happen when driving a car in a rational manner.

 

[Richard Hed]

With rights comes responsibilities. While I have rights I still must not act in a way that infringes the rights of others. I have always used the pollution you mention as one of the most egregious abuses of other peoples' rights by a group exercising their rights with total disregard for how it would affect others.



I have NO responsibilities towards society. "Society" is a legal fiction created by some in order to restrain the rights of individuals. "Society" is not mentioned in the constitution as having any rights at all.



You are conflating a privilege with a constitutional right. Driving is a privilege. In order to avail myself of this privilege I agree, to the best of my ability, to conform to the expected standards of conduct in order to exercise that privilege without bringing upon myself the repercussions that come with violating those standards which are anything from fines, jail time, and loss of that privilege. When hunting I feel no compunction of shooting at a target that has a building behind it if I am confident that my shot has no chance of hitting said building even if I should miss my intended target (such as my target were 100yrds away and the building was a mile away and I was shooting with negative elevation).



I know other people have the same rights (in this country) that I do and I have enough respect for the Constitution, and them, that I do my best to not infringe upon their rights (I am a fallible human so sometimes I fail). I have no "social conscience." I do not believe it is necessary. If we had respect for one another there would be no wars. With a "social conscience" controlled by "society" people can be convinced to do heinous things in the name of that society.

We certainly agree on a lot of things, but I thimpfk you are splitting hairs on the subject of society. Regardless of the constitution (which it seems the pseudoliberals have forgotten and the far rightists wish would go away), we all live with other people. That is what society is: a group of people, probably large enough that we don't know all of them. I disagree with you on the 'privilege' of driving. Driving is a necessity, therefore it is a right unless taken away by legal means, such as DWI or what eaver. I pay taxes for those roads we drive on, so it certainly is more than a privelege. Society, indeed, needs those roads to make it possible and easy to travel for commerce, work, even for pleasure, which society agrees to build and maintain with tax money. What you call "respect for one another" is just another way of saying social conscience.

 

[Zeb]

I never understood why my late father hated car seat belts but wore a full belt and shoulder harness as a pilot.

For aerobatics purposes! I was happy to have mine on during a loop in a Stearman. My friend knew a guy that would open the canopy on his ercoupe and stand in t-pose using his arms to fly the plane.

I'm still not seeing anything substantive to how this specific law affects the home model engine hobby.

 

[Dan]

I’m sure glad our hobby forum has turned into another political b-fest. The international members of HMM can certainly see American exceptionalism at its best.

I think not the place, enough already.

 

[Richard Carlstedt]

Instead of talking about freedom, how about responsibility? Social responsibility. Like not driving as fast as you want when/where you want. Not driving drunk. Not polluting. Not carrying a preventable disease. Usually complying with what you are told to do is best for society and in your best interest in order to avoid being segregated (read "jailed") from society.
Bill

Our Country was founded on the Basis of Freedom of the individual as a retort to 'Social Responsibility" (SR)
"Social Responsibility" is a political concept. You gave your earnings to the King- That was a social responsibility. And in modern day times you see " You can only have one child" - WHo determines SR ? Certainly not you, so that allows for the loss of Freedom and from history we know eventually results in serfdom- The impetus for 1776.
For example , take an African Village where Lions eat people . Some villagers want to kill the Lions so they don't eat people and other villagers say "You are killing the environment" if they do ? Whose is right ?
In either case , both parties feel the other is wrong.
Rich

 

[GreenTwin]

I find it rather alarming when states or whoever begin to outlaw one thing in favor of another.
It doesn't necessarily mean that one thing is better than another, but just means that some politician probably got paid to say/support something.

I find it further alarming when an open discussion is not allowed to take place, like is happening across much of the internet.
The only way to come up with solutions is to have an open discussion, let all opinions be heard, and then make a decision based on something rational and realistic, and something that does not bankrupt half of the country overnight.

Now days, anyone with an opinion that does not follow the "narrative" is simply beat up online and elsewhere by the most vocal and agressive types.
Respectful discussions are dead.
Its all ad-hominen attacks now, to win the day, regardless of any rational facts or evidence.

We need to regain some sort of civility in discussions, and re-learn that we can agree to disagree.

The truth and reality is never found on the far left or the far right, but rather somewhere towards the center.
Having people carry ID cards concerning your supposed private health information is Orwellian to say the least.
Your health choices are not for other's to make, because where would that end?
What if someone else's choice for your health resulted in your death?
Who would be responsible? The answer is "Nobody". They make your health choices, and you suffer the consequences.

It would not stop with a health ID card.
You would (and maybe will be) required to carry a card to do anything/everthing. It is not a farfetched idea.
Very much a slippery slope when you start turning over your individual decisions to groupthink.
Groupthink changes, and what is accepted today may be an abomination in years later, and we have many examples of this in the last 100 years.

.

 

[Richard Hed]

I find it rather alarming when states or whoever begin to outlaw one thing in favor of another.
It doesn't necessarily mean that one thing is better than another, but just means that some politician probably got paid to say/support something.

I find it further alarming when an open discussion is not allowed to take place, like is happening across much of the internet.
The only way to come up with solutions is to have an open discussion, let all opinions be heard, and then make a decision based on something rational and realistic, and something that does not bankrupt half of the country overnight.

Now days, anyone with an opinion that does not follow the "narrative" is simply beat up online and elsewhere by the most vocal and agressive types.
Respectful discussions are dead.
Its all ad-hominen attacks now, to win the day, regardless of any rational facts or evidence.

We need to regain some sort of civility in discussions, and re-learn that we can agree to disagree.

The truth and reality is never found on the far left or the far right, but rather somewhere towards the center.
Having people carry ID cards concerning your supposed private health information is Orwellian to say the least.
Your health choices are not for other's to make, because where would that end?
What if someone else's choice for your health resulted in your death?
Who would be responsible? The answer is "Nobody". They make your health choices, and you suffer the consequences.

It would not stop with a health ID card.
You would (and maybe will be) required to carry a card to do anything/everthing. It is not a farfetched idea.
Very much a slippery slope when you start turning over your individual decisions to groupthink.
Groupthink changes, and what is accepted today may be an abomination in years later, and we have many examples of this in the last 100 years.

.

Whatever do you mean? In my not so humble opinion, it's already like that. have you read "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"? It says things that have indeed already happened. A great deal of people say it is a hoax, but the things it says 'will' happen have already taken place. Plus the Kennedy conspiracy, the 1987 savings and loan scandal and 9/11 and many others that we nevfer hear about have all been nicely covered up. The present covid affair very well may be another hoax to control the majority.