atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#2269: Obama had a great summer!

This post by Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin's blog includes a mosaic of Obama's vacations over the past several months.

The post contains a link to this piece in Time with this headline: "What's Good About Rising Unemployment". And look at the URL: "".

...[T]he unemployment rate rose for the first time in four months to 9.6%, from a rate of 9.5% the month before.

So is this jobs report the latest sign that we are headed for a double dip? Probably not. Actually it's the opposite. Despite what it looks like, today's jobs numbers are good news for the economy.
It goes on to explain the usual twaddle about how it means more people are looking for work, there are fewer "discouraged workers", and that governemtn payroll declined while private payroll increased.

I might buy this idiot's explanation IF U6 were not also increasing. But since both U3 and U6 are both rising, it means there are fewer jobs out there and it means there are more people out of work.

Nice try spinning it in favor of your boy, Time, for the upcoming election.

* * *

(I'm gonna get called "racist" for that one. Well, you gotta give the liberals something; otherwise they bend their brains trying to make something up.)

* * *

But the media's monolithic support for the Democrats is beginning to come apart as things begin to get so bad that no one can gloss over it.

A Democrat who voted for TARP, Obamanomics (stimulus), ObamaCare, and all the other spending, has suddenly found religion and is complaining about the huge deficits. And apparently other Democrats are doing the same thing.

Well, the press lets 'em get away with being hypocrites, so why wouldn't they? Only every once in a long while does an article get published which is actually critical of Democrats this way; and not often enough at that.


* * *

Mom is watching 9 to 5 and good God! but Lily Tomlin yells a lot in that movie. Jesus.

* * *

Antique engines are fascinating to me. In the days before the butterfly throttle had been invented, old engines used a "hit or miss" system to control engine speed: you set the desired output by adjusting the governor and it would either disable the ignition system or hold the intake exhaust valve open. It was horribly inefficient, of course, since it wasted fuel.

So when you go to one of those shows, you'll see some massive old hunk of iron spinning away madly, puffing to itself; and then suddenly CHUFF! the piston will fire, and it'll begin coasting again until the speed falls too low.

A lot of them used an atmospheric intake valve: when the piston entered its intake cycle, the lowered pressure in the cylinder would pull the intake valve open as ambient pressure outside the cylinder was higher than the pressure inside. Once the intake cycle was complete, the valve spring would close the valve. Engines built like this are simpler but they can't run at very high speeds.

When I went to the Old Thresher's Reunion in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, in 2002, I saw one gas engine which was simply monstrous. It was a big two-cylinder farm engine, mounted on its own trailer, and it was about the size of my Cherokee. It was a "hit or miss" engine, and it was running; it would actually rock back and forth as the pistons thrashed; and then ka-CHUFF! one or other pistons would fire. Its flywheel was massive enough that it would spin for quite a while before a piston had to fire again.

This monster's peak output was 20 HP. Like I said: "inefficient". (But I have to wonder how herculean its torque peak was....)

(BTW, the guy who takes those pictures thinks too highly of his compositional skills. He's taking art photos when he should be taking journalism photos. I want to see the machines; I don't really care about a rusty fender or a company logo. No matter how artistic it may be.)

* * *

At that event, by the way, I saw the largest internal combustion engine I've ever seen in operation. It's a massive two-cylinder two-stroke diesel engine that powered a dragline (think "massive strip mining equipment") sometime in the 1920s. It was mounted to a concrete slab and it had two six-foot flywheels; bore and stroke were both gargantuan.

125 horsepower...but twenty-five thousand pound-feet of torque. It also weighed as much as a loaded semi and its redline was something like 100 RPM.

We make them bigger these days, and more efficient. Locomotive engines, for example, make thousands of horsepower despite being optimized for torque, in order to turn a generator. And that's not even as big as they get.

* * *

Well, it's nice today and it hasn't been raining, so I get to go cut the grass! Whee! I'm so lucky!

UPDATE Exhaust valve, not the intake valve. *sigh* /UPDATE

  • #7762: That's not what you want to see

    I rode the bike back to work after lunch again today--stunning weather--but when I got home, rather than put it away right after getting home I had a…

  • #7761: Not going tonight

    My ankle feels all right, but I don't want to mess it up by taking a half-mile walk. Kind of a shame, because it's a pleasant evening. I rode by…

  • #7760: Well, that's the weekend, I guess.

    I was sitting here doing a little WoW for the first time in several days. It was quiet and nothing much was happening and my eyelids were getting…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.