It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by john_bmth
During the industrial revolution, steam power was the Big Oil of it's day. It was ubiquitous and the key players were immensely wealthy and powerful. People often post on here that the oil industry suppress free energy ideas using their immense wealth and influence, including assassinating people who invent energy devices that could usurp oil as the energy source of the future.
However, if this was the case, then the Steam Cartel of it's day would have suppressed and assassinated those revolutionary experimenters who paved the way for the internal combustion engine. This didn't happen and so the ICB usurped the steam engine as the workhorse of industry. Did Big Steam suppress or assassinate the likes of Henry Ford's ICB car enterprise? No. Many of those Big Steam companies went bust and those who further developed and produced ICBs became wealthy and powerful.
So, how do the "suppression" conspiracy theorists explain the rise in wealth, power and ubiquity of the ICB and the fall into utter desolation and obscurity of steam? Why did Big Water not suppress the early oil pioneers? What about Big Coal? The coal industry was enormous and extremely lucrative during the industrial revolution. Why were the early oil prospectors not assassinated?
Edit: I should add that I am asking for answers supported by evidence, not baseless speculation.edit on 20-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by john_bmth
I would think the answers were obvious enough, but hear goes.
Replacing steam with oil was easy, it is the same thing only a different energy source.
Free energy, breaks the chain, and frees everyone from having to rely on them forever, thus destroying their choke hold on the populous. Not to mention, steam power was not controlled exclusively by a few, anyone could make a boiler at home, and feed it with wood. Too many people were doing this, which is why they wanted to switch to oil, as maing the extremely complex internal combustion engine is not easy, and requires extremes of machining tolerances that cannont be accomplished by 99.99999% of people at home. Thus they have their monopoly, and hold it tight.
Your summation isnt even apples to oranges, it is apples to rocks. In no way even comparable. I dont see anyone making an internal combustion engine in their garage from spare parts out of the junk pile, I have made a steam engine at home in the garage out of spare parts from the junk pile! it isnt even hard, the only safety you need is a check valve to keep the boiler from exploding from to much pressure.
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
Suppression would have been far, far easier as there were very few legal paths (if any) for challenging corporate power in those days. Corporations routinely got away with literally murder and corruption was all part of the political system. Wealthy industrialists wielded far more unaccountable power compared to today.
Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
reply to post by john_bmth
I think it should be considered that the economic climate during the era of transition from steam power to oil and the internal combustion engine was very different. In fact, the world was an entirely different place before and during the industrial revolution.
Suppression may or may not have been possible or even desired at that time.
Also, I don't think anyone will be able to give you the "proof" that you've requested.
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by john_bmth
I would think the answers were obvious enough, but hear goes.
Replacing steam with oil was easy, it is the same thing only a different energy source.
Free energy, breaks the chain, and frees everyone from having to rely on them forever, thus destroying their choke hold on the populous. Not to mention, steam power was not controlled exclusively by a few, anyone could make a boiler at home, and feed it with wood. Too many people were doing this, which is why they wanted to switch to oil, as maing the extremely complex internal combustion engine is not easy, and requires extremes of machining tolerances that cannont be accomplished by 99.99999% of people at home. Thus they have their monopoly, and hold it tight.
Your summation isnt even apples to oranges, it is apples to rocks. In no way even comparable. I dont see anyone making an internal combustion engine in their garage from spare parts out of the junk pile, I have made a steam engine at home in the garage out of spare parts from the junk pile! it isnt even hard, the only safety you need is a check valve to keep the boiler from exploding from to much pressure.
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ManFromEurope
I'm asking for evidence for any defence made. Comprendé?
Which option requires more corporate machinery?
Originally posted by john_bmth
During the industrial revolution, steam power was the Big Oil of it's day. It was ubiquitous and the key players were immensely wealthy and powerful. People often post on here that the oil industry suppress free energy ideas using their immense wealth and influence, including assassinating people who invent energy devices that could usurp oil as the energy source of the future.
However, if this was the case, then the Steam Cartel of it's day would have suppressed and assassinated those revolutionary experimenters who paved the way for the internal combustion engine.
This didn't happen and so the ICB usurped the steam engine as the workhorse of industry. Did Big Steam suppress or assassinate the likes of Henry Ford's ICB car enterprise? No. Many of those Big Steam companies went bust and those who further developed and produced ICBs became wealthy and powerful.
So, how do the "suppression" conspiracy theorists explain the rise in wealth, power and ubiquity of the ICB and the fall into utter desolation and obscurity of steam? Why did Big Water not suppress the early oil pioneers? What about Big Coal? The coal industry was enormous and extremely lucrative during the industrial revolution. Why were the early oil prospectors not assassinated?
Edit: I should add that I am asking for answers supported by evidence, not baseless speculation.edit on 20-9-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)
Man, you are stubborn, asking for evidence without presenting anything but your own logic loop. The point that I believe inverslyproportional touched on, is that both coal and oil are centralized energy, while free energy/renewable energies are decentralized technologies, thus the corporate monopoly on the production of energy is threatened. Evidence?
Originally posted by XL5
I think the missing part is that, on the one side we have energy industry and the other we have none to very little. The wood/steam industry workers could move into the oil industry, with free energy, you make the device once and the energy is there (some how) and the only consumable is any parts that break. Thats also the reason I think they are sitting on amazing battery technology, electric cars could be made that can outlast an engine and if it were not for expensive batteries, we would all be driving electric cars. Sure the powerplants would still be running, but a large chunk of the oil and car repair industry would not.
That said, tapes beat records (mostly), CD's beat tapes, mp3's beat CD's and yet the ability to copy music is being suppressed today when for the longest time, it was not or at least not anywhere near as much.
The largest volume products of the industry are fuel oil and gasoline (petrol). Petroleum (oil) is also the raw material for many chemical products, including pharmaceuticals, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics. The industry is usually divided into three major components: upstream, midstream and downstream. Midstream operations are usually included in the downstream category.