EPA ignores the REAL inventor of the best Hybrid car

The EPA is quite happy with itself for its recent report but seems to ignore the inventor and patent holder of their "great " idea -- Hydraulic Energy Storage transmission patent # US3903696, yr. 1975, by Mr. Vincent Carman(that is really his name no joke LOL) . Now I for one will be happy if this invention can come to market and achieve the possible 45% -50% increase in gas efficiency.(Kids-That's about a 100 miles to the gallon!) No toxic chemical heavy batteries to carry around, it is light weight and off the shelf technology. The problem is they ignored, stone walled and manipulated the inventor for 30 years, then stole his idea. Was it so his patent will run out and now EPA can be the "heroes" and manufacture it? Or maybe the laws of physics have changed in 30 years?

Read the old Boston Herald American article from 1977:

Boston Herald American, Monday, April 25, 1977

Energy Saving Invention being Suppressed by Snafu
by

Scott Burns

While the Carter administration promotes its plan to turn a mountain of new taxes into a molehill of energy savings, the real solution to the energy crisis - new technology - may be languishing at our beloved Energy Research and Development Administration.

Testifying before the Senate Sub-Committee on Energy Research and Development on April 4, Vincent Carman, inventor of the Inertial Storage Transmission, recounted a mind-boggling tale of resistance and delay at ERDA, the agency charged with solving the energy crisis.

Here, in brief, is what he said :

"Over six months ago, the National Bureau of Standards completed an extensive evaluation of a revolutionary automobile transmission that they reported could reduce our nation's oil imports by 50 percent. This system can reduce vehicular air pollution in our cities by 75 percent.

This OPERATIONAL SYSTEM was publicly demonstrated 18 months ago. The system is simple, uses OFF-THE-SHELF, commercially available components.

In the two years that ERDA has been aware of the system they have given the concept no serious attention."

It now appears they are attempting to suppress it.

Unlike Dr. Ilok's solution to the energy crisis (reported here April 17-20), Carman's invention EXISTS, has been publicly demonstrated, and requires NO research and development investment from ERDA.

Carman merely wants ERDA to get OUT OF THE WAY and make it possible for him to install his invention on some U.S. Post Office trucks so that he might further demonstrate its utility and potential for energy savings.

But ERDA won't get out of the way. Instead, Carman says they have suppressed the National Bureau of Standards evaluation of his invention, refusing to release it to other agencies.

They've done this because the NBS report recommends Carman's invention for funding, a singular achievement since only 22 of some 4300 submissions have enjoyed positive recommendation from NBS.

ERDA's own, one-and-a-half page report, issued later, rejects the invention, saying that it is too expensive, won't achieve the savings the inventor had DEMONSTRATED AND DOCUMENTED, and won't be accepted by the automobile industry.

ERDA is circulating its own report and has not, to date, released the NBS report, damaging both Carman's credibility and his ability to attract the interest of other government agencies or private industry.

What is the IST System?

Carman's Inertial Storage Transmission works by storing oil under high pressure.





This means that all the power output from an engine can be used so that in city driving where car engines idle much of the time, a car could run USING the STORED POWER of its engine and the engine's power WOULD NEVER BE LOST IN WASTEFUL IDLING. (stored in the form of compressed oil)

As a consequence, the engine could be OFF 80 PERCENT OF THE TIME, REDUCING POLLUTION by 75 PERCENT and FUEL CONSUMPTION by 50 PERCENT!

Estimates indicate the IST could save some 35 BILLION GALLONS A YEAR, cutting our imported oil IN HALF.

Carman didn't hear from ERDA for six months after NBS's positive report was issued and then only after ERDA was pressured by Mark Hatfield and Congressman Robert Duncan. Clearly, ERDA would like the matter to quietly disappear.

Now let's consider the quality of the two reports :

ERDA's negative report was produced in 42 days BY ONE INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT BENEFIT OF ANY PHYSICAL TESTING.

The uncirculated NBS report was based on 10 months of work and contributions from a variety of sources, many of them here in Massachusetts.

The Department of Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, contributed to the evaluation as did the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Massachusetts, the Boston Police Department, the MBTA and Yellow Cab Corporation.

Nonetheless, ERDA continues to circulate its own report rather than the NBS report.

One possible reason is that ERDA is committed to another technology, the flywheel energy storage system. To date, they have spent some $200,000 on a feasibility study of such systems. The study determined it would take three years and 4.5 million to get a prototype on the road, something Carman ACHIEVED IN LESS THAN A YEAR WITH $4000.

The Department of Transportation also has an interest in flywheel systems and has spent five years and $300,000 trying to convert a Ford Pinto into a flywheel storage car. Together, the two agencies have a contract to supply flywheel vehicles to the city of New York. (Birds of a feather?)

Meanwhile, the Postal Service also reports it has contracts for flywheel vehicles and therefore can't put up funds for demonstration of the IST system.

ERDA, in other words, has neatly closed out a competing technology because the agency is in a position to exercise MONOPOLISTIC CONTROL over the flow of both money and ideas in new energy technologies.

In an eloquent close to his testimony before the Senate sub-committee, Carman said ;

"The energy problem has a solution and it is quite probable that a large part of that solution can come from the little guy.

Two men in an upstairs room gave us the telephone, and a couple of bicycle mechanics brought aviation to the world. It is sometimes said that the day of the individual inventor is over.

In the last few years, while the greatest scientific organizations in both the United States and Russia struggled with the problem of generating electric power from fusion, a young man in California in his own lab produced the first major breakthrough."

Now that we've seen Carter's energy plan, we know that Carter has chosen taxation, not technology, as the means of "solving" the energy crisis.

The money we all start paying in federal gasoline taxes will soon help ERDA expand its research efforts, - WHILE IT IGNORES SOLUTIONS.

There is no escaping the "banksters"

Eskimo housing crisis heats up

• 
  

• JUNE 17, 2009

The White House Fires a Watchdog

The curious case of the inspector general and a Presidential ally.

President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.

A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.

Associated Press

Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama.

Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.

At the end of May, Mr. Walpin's office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be "suspended" from receiving federal funds. The Corporation's official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin's office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California.

So far, so normal. But that all changed last fall, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson's suspension.

The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney's office, which since January has been headed by Lawrence Brown -- a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left -- had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson's suspension. Mr. Walpin agreed Mr. Johnson should pay back money but objected to lifting the suspension. He noted that Mr. Johnson has never officially responded to the Corporation's findings and that the entire point of suspension is to keep federal funds from individuals shown to have misused them.

Mr. Brown's office responded by cutting off contact with Mr. Walpin's office and began working directly with the Corporation, the board of which is now chaired by one of Mr. Obama's top campaign fundraisers, Alan Solomont. A few days later, Mr. Brown's office produced a settlement draft that significantly watered down any financial repayment and cleared Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walpin told us that in all his time working with U.S. Attorneys on cases he'd referred, he'd never been cut out in such fashion.

Mr. Walpin brought his concerns to the Corporation's board, but some board members were angry over a separate Walpin investigation into the wrongful disbursement of $80 million to the City University of New York. Concerned about the St. HOPE mess, Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. Last Wednesday, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.

We've long disliked the position of inspectors general, on grounds that they are creatures of Congress designed to torment the executive. Yet this case appears to be one in which an IG was fired because he criticized a favorite Congressional and executive project (AmeriCorps), and refused to bend to political pressure to let the Sacramento mayor have his stimulus dollars.

There's also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to "move on," and that it was "pure coincidence" he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.

That's because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he'd be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons.

White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wants to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a "senior adviser."

If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.

Future Privacy Pizza

Senior Democrat Says Obama's Czars Unconstitutional

I have often wondered why the USA would want to use Czar (Russian for king/emperor) as a name of the head of anything. I thought the USA was against the use of kings. Wasn't this why George Washington served only 2 terms to avoid a king mentality in the new republic? It may have sounded cute at one time but is governing supposed to be cute? The article below sheds some light on the matter. -ed.

Senior Democrat Says Obama's Czars Unconstitutional
Ken Klukowski
Monday, June 15, 2009

Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money (and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay until the czar is pleased.


Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter, Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president.

Ever since this practice of appointing czars began years ago, it has always been considered possible that they are all unconstitutional. But it never built to a critical mass to elicit a court fight. These czars were few and far between, and rarely did anything that seriously ruffled any feathers. But President Obama has taken this to an unprecedented level, to the point where these appointments are dangerous to our constitutional regime.

This has become too much for the longest-serving senator in U.S. history to stomach. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who has been serving in the Senate since before Barack Obama was even born.

Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)

And Senator Byrd is exactly correct. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries.

Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.

White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way. That was why during the Bush administration White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, Senior Advisor Karl Rove, and Counsel Harriet Miers could not be compelled to testify to Congress when President Bush invoked executive privilege (a battle they may well have won if they pressed their case all the way to the Supreme Court). Senior presidential aides advise the president alone, and the separation of powers forbids congressional interference in that relationship.

But that’s the problem with these czars. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.

The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person. That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress. The Founding Fathers were specifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.

Fortunately, there is a remedy. Any person on the receiving end of an order from any of these czars has standing to challenge their constitutionality in court. Any person whose pay is deemed excessive by Kenneth Feinberg, or affected by any other czar, could file a federal suit asserting that the order is an unconstitutional exercise of government power, and