You have a piston and you have an explosion on top of the piston, and you send the piston this direction. It has a connecting rod, and the connecting rod goes to the crankshaft. The crankshaft immediately contra you send it this way by putting, introducing energy, and the crankshaft contradicts you and sends it back. So you've lost all your momentum in this direction. This is one reason why it isn't very efficient. There is a little bit of momentum, because the crankshaft itself has a circular motion, so there is a little momentum, angular momentum it is called, the bottom of the crankshaft going around, so it sends it...

Now, we have another kind of an engine, we call it a turbine, where we have then a connecting rod, and it impels surface, and instead of having an explosion on top here, we have an explosion on the side. And the explosion being on the side, it sends it around like this, but it is restrained by a shaft. It's not a crankshaft it's just a plain shaft, and the impelled goes around at what you call a 90 degree restraint going on, so it does not contradict itself, it comes back again to be pushed a little more, and so your turbine is inherently about 30% efficient about twice as efficient as the reciprocating engine. Then we have something like the jet engines, with no connecting rods at all, and you have your explosion, and you have the thrust, and you're working against inertia and displacement in this matter. We find, then, the thrust effectiveness of a jet engine without any connecting rods at all gets up to 60 or 65% efficient. Then we have ways of converting energy today that have been brought into place by the space programs. We get into the energy cells it is a chemical and electrical energy transformation where you bring oxygen and hydrogen together and it releases energy. And we get up to about 85% efficiency with this cell. And so there are, very high efficiencies that can be realized by humans by using the right technology.

I found that taking the overall energy uses in the United States, I did these figures for Fortune Magazine in 1938 to 1940, and I was Science and Technology Consultant on the staff at the time; and I found, taking the amount of energies being used in America, the ones where the energy is going thru, being used by the reciprocating engine versus the turbines and so forth and then getting down to the efficiency as rated not just to the particular engine itself, but the way we use the engine.

For instance, the reciprocating engine in an automobile, you have the drive shaft. Then it has to go, the energy has to be changed at 90 degrees to go out thru the differential to the wheels. Every time you go round a 90 degree turn and so forth, you lose a great deal of energy. The energy of that automobile engine, then, is greatly reduced from the 15% as it gets transferred mechanically to the wheels, having to go through quite a lot of gears, and the transmission box, so that takes up some more energy. As you drive your car there is enormous tire distortion. That has to be paid for out of that energy, and so forth. And you get to where, automobiles as used, get down to a very low order of efficiency. And at all times in America now, North America, this includes Canada and Mexico, there are over 2 million cars standing in front of red lights with their engines going. Then we have over 2 million times approximately 100 horsepower being generated as they are idling there, so that we have something like 200 million horses jumping up and down and going nowhere. Now, we have to count that in our economy when we begin to get down to what is the efficiency of the economy.

As I got into a very comprehensive inventory of all the energies being used in America, I found that you could not accredit the whole economy with more than 5%, we are only realizing 5% out of all the energies we are consuming. This figure still holds. That is, today, out of every 100 barrels of petroleum we import we put 95 down the flush. Just out of pure, many times, as I say, really poor and quite avoidable design decisions. Decisions where to use the reciprocating engine on the part of automobile companies simply because that's the way they make money. They did not want to change their dies, their toolings. They've had the gas turbine for a number of years with very high perfection, some of them get used in trucks and so forth, but they do not get used in automobiles because they lose a lot of money that they could make, just because the people don't know this. So there is a great exploitation of the ignorance of humanity.

There is also the limit of the distance which you could transmit energy by electric wire. There is no way in which you can get energy from here to there to do work in any ways or quantities and such speeds as by electrical conduction. So that pipelines and oil lines and trucks and tank cars and so forth are all relatively slow. So I find our economy really dependent on the electrical energy networks how far you can transmit and 350 miles is all we could transmit up to the time of World War II, in a practical manner. You could send it further, but it involved so many materials and metals into it that you wouldn't have enough metals left over for other industries. So, the operating choice has been the 350 mile range which is brought about by certain to get more range you have to go higher and higher in your voltage. And the higher your voltage the more insulating problems you're going to have and so forth.

So that the I took the energy networks, that is we found that the energy networks were not close enough to each other at more than 350 miles between major ones, so there were eastern seaboard energy networks at the time I was doing these figures for FORTUNE MAGAZINE. took the amount of energies being consumed in that energy network economy, from all sources from the water power, from the fossil fuels, the coals, the oil the food being consumed by the people. And taking that total amount of energy being consumed, I then had to divide it by 20 to get it down to the 5% overall efficiency. That's all you're realizing, so taking the total consumed, because I knew you could only get 5% out, so we subtract then the 95%, and what is left I then divided that amount of energy, converted it into manpower per year, because we had that figure. So I could then see what was the equivalent of man powers effectiveness actually operating in our economy.

It is a very sad fact that in the United States, this sad fact is very real, that if you go back in the record, with the Revolution of 1776, and so forth, the first census of the population of the United States was taken in 1790 just after the war was over. And in 1810 the United States Congress decided we ought to have a census of the wealth of America, and so the Treasury Department had a very large survey made with the people to determine that wealth. In 1810 there were a million families in America. In 1810 there were a million human slaves in America. I said this was a very sad, and very dramatic fact to be revealed as you go back in those records. It looked like an average, every family having a human slave, but that was not correct. Very few families owned the slaves, comparatively. But the point is, there was that kind of a figure. So I found that in 1940, in contradistinction to that kind of condition, that there were a number then of energy slaves working in the economy rather than human slaves. And, I found that you can go back and look at that FORTUNE MAGAZINE 10th anniversary issue in 1940, and you'll find the numbers of energy slaves operating per each person, or per family, the number of energy slaves per person in the United States was 39 energy slaves per person, as every individual, if we have families of 5, we then get up into pretty close to 200 slaves working for each family but energy slaves, really inanimate in contradistinction to a million one slave per family of the human slaves. We suddenly have 200 non-human slaves doing the work. You get an enormous step up in the advances of living that it represented as well as doing away with the inhumane idea of the human being being the muscle machine to be commanded. That change had taken place in so short a time, really, I'm talking about a 130 year change, I felt that I was discovering something very, very dramatic.

And now, I took then, the criteria I went into the figures in 1940 even more deeply, because by then World War II was thoroughly looming, and a great deal of the energy being generated in the United States was going towards war production. So I deducted from the total energy that I would be considering any energy that could be identified as going towards anything to do with war, to see how much energy then was actually benefiting the family the human beings. The energies producing a highway for them to go on, I made that primarily for then and not for the war, whatever it might be. I made it as strict an accounting as I could to see what was really benefiting the family. So then I found how many net energy slaves were really supporting a peaceful life of human beings in America, and when I found 100 energy slaves per family, approximately, I gave you 200 at the time, about 100, one-half of them, then were really working for the human family itself, and the other half of them were working towards getting ready for war. So taking, I took the criteria of 100 energy slaves per family, as being the criteria of what I call a "have" family. And this representative of people really enjoying a very comfortable standard of living. So my criteria of a "have" family, 100 energy slaves per family.

Now, in 1900, taking the total of human population, far less than one percent were what I call "industrial have" families I use the words "industrial haves." Incidentally, I use the word "industry" in connection with the technology, and I've also found myself being mistaken or misunderstood with the word "industry" a great deal over the years, because I'm going to give you a good definition of "industry" in a few minutes to follow thru on this. But I find the word "industry" being identified also with the exploitives people trying to make money, rather than having the world work. So that a I use the word "industry" and I'll show you later on, in a very distinct way to, really it is an anthropological way, it is a biological way, to explain it. But I use then the words "industrial have family" one hundred inanimate energy slaves working for it specifically for its comfort and life support and increase in degrees of freedom it's inquiry and movement and so forth.

So less than 1% of humanity in 1900. As a consequence of World War II and the technology I spoke about that was introduced with world War II, as we came out, 4% of all humanity was suddenly "industrial haves," which was a very big jump from nothing.

In 1951, I was taking a new point on the curve, and I found that we had gotten up to 28% of humanity. I have now enough points on my curve, I have three points to be able to discover what a radius, there is a radius of change so I made it a constant radius of change, and I extended that radius, and I found that the curve is increasing